Corrected entry: Although Alex is now a college student, Rick (his father) has hardly aged since the last film. They look more like brothers than father and son.
TedStixon
4th Aug 2008
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)
29th Aug 2010
Scream 3 (2000)
Continuity mistake: The knife that was thrown at Dewey left the killers hand with blood all over the blade, but was perfectly clean when the butt of it hit his head to knock him out at the top of the stairs. (01:26:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Watch in slo-motion the sequence when he gets hit and you'll see the blade is bloody even during that. He then pulls out of his sleeve (literally!) a clean knife, but it's not supposed to be the original one, since he never retrieved it.
4th Feb 2022
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: The movie takes place in the fall of 1984, but when Dana visits the Ghostbusters for the first time, Janine to kill time is intently reading her copy of People Magazine with Cher on the cover. It's the January 23 issue; it's not an absolute impossibility, but it's obviously a magazine they picked up the day of the shooting (which happened late 1983 to early 1984). (00:21:15)
Correction: I'm sorry, but this is highly far-fetched. No mistake is sight in any way. There is absolutely nothing wrong about someone reading a magazine, new or old.
To add to what the others said, I'll also add that most businesses, doctor's offices, etc. don't usually have new magazines on the magazine rack. They tend to keep old ones around for people to read instead. Weirdly enough, there's actually a reason for it - studies/polls show that places that put out new magazines tend to get most of them stolen. So they purposely just put out whatever old magazines they have lying around. Chances are, that's one of the only magazines they had sitting around the Ghostbusters HQ.
Oh absolutely, as anyone who's been to the doctor's or even the barber shop has experienced (newspapers are usually the daily ones instead, it's cheap and makes sense), but it's not as if there is a waiting room or magazine rack there, and their business freshly opened so it's not a leftover. Again, I personally find the justification of the magazine clashing with the fictional timeline but matching perfectly the one of the shooting less straightforward than the explanation, but of course it's my own view and as I said with full disclosure and honesty in the entry, it's not a complete impossibility. We don't see the whole place so there can be a waiting table somewhere with magazines from 9 months prior that one of the Ghostbusters picked up somewhere and I don't deny it.
So why post it?
This is getting a little redundant but again; simple, it's her desk, there are no other magazines or magazines rack nor a waiting room in a place that just opened for business, and I find more believable by a very good margin that they used whatever magazine they had handy when filming, which happens to be the time when that magazine is from, than thinking that it was a deliberate choice coherent with the fictional world to have her read at her desk a random old thing. I respect the objections I have read so far, but I already weighed them before posting and anyone can make their own judgement on that weighing them differently.
I think you need to look up the word mistake before posting something new. Because it makes completely no sense to post this.
Ah, well, I explained more than abundantly why I thought it relevant to post the objectively verifiable detail with a caveat and I wouldn't randomly do it whenever characters happen to read a magazines in movies - the 'meta' explanation is by far more linear, and I say it as someone who had months-old mags in their backpack when I was a teenager. I respect other people's evaluations and I don't mind if the entry is downvoted based on a disagreement about its relevancy on grounds of not being sufficiently incongruous to be a mistake. I think we can leave it at that and refrain from suggestions on what other people need to do.;).
Sure, I said it all in the entry already. There's no law of nature or man-made that forbids a secretary from bringing at work a 9 months old weekly magazine. I think the real (or less far-fetched, if you will) reason is more than apparent, but do what you want with the information.;).
The fundamental problem is that you yourself said it's not necessarily a mistake... ergo, it's not a mistake. Sure, in a meta context, it probably was just a magazine they picked up before filming... but that doesn't make it a mistake in-movie. There're many reasons why someone might be reading an old magazine, which invalidates the mistake. Case in point, we keep old newspapers and magazines at my house to re-read, because sometimes they have good articles, recipes, etc. It's totally possible and even likely she might be reading an old magazine.
27th Aug 2001
Scream 3 (2000)
Revealing mistake: When the house blows up and Dewey, Gale and Jennifer jump off the balcony, we find that Gale is near the car, the killer jumps up behind her. Dewy takes a shot at him with a gun and it is obvious that the killer awkwardly slams himself against the car window, rather than being caused by the impact of the bullet.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually he would have to fake it because it is obvious, and later found out that he has a bulletproof vest on. if he wouldn't have faked it, everybody would've known that he had one on.
He faked really badly that being shot sent him smashing against a car, to avoid being suspected of wearing a bulletproof vest? How does that work? Dewey in the dialogue thinks he didn't even hit him.
Yeah, I'm with Sammo here. I don't really get the logic of the correction. I think it is just really awkward blocking/choreography/camera placement, and I do think the original mistake probably stands as-is.
27th Aug 2001
Scream 2 (1997)
Corrected entry: When Sid is moving the theatre blocks they are knocking people over, but theatre blocks are made of Styrofoam and so they would weigh next to nothing.
Correction: The killer, Debbie Salt/Mrs. Loomis, was only collapsing from the shock. You can tell by her expression and her gasp for air. The shock came from the moment of complete silence, then the crashing of the styrofoam theatre blocks.
While I do agree that the mistake should be corrected, I do think it also should be pointed out that a solid cubic foot of foam can weigh 1-2 pounds. Judging from their size, I think it's reasonable to say each of those blocks weights at LEAST 5 pounds. From the height they are being dropped, 5 pounds of weight can cause some real damage/pain. I once dropped a 5 pound weight on my head from just a few feet up, and it HURT. Dozens of 5+ pound blocks hitting from that height at once could be REALLY bad news.
I see no moment of complete silence (on the contrary, Sidney turned on the fake thunders and is banging stuff like a blacksmith in the back); If it's more the 'surprise' than the weight to knock her off the wall, the stuntwoman takes the blocks on her back, hunched over, so she was waiting for them, negating the effect of the actress that was looking up and screaming.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The whole plan of the Ghostbusters relies on the fact that the Statue of Liberty, being the symbol that it is, will rally the population of New York drawing their positive energies out. Forgetting the fact that a giant statue trampling things in the middle of the city is quite likely to inspire negativity, let's go with the movie's theory; it's not what it is shown. The people start singing, disturbing Vigo, at a random moment that has nothing to do with the statue showing up and in fact happens when it is already just lying on the ground.
Correction: Did you somehow miss all the shots of the people cheering as the statue walks through the streets? Watch this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpyvDWfK9qs They literally show the crowds cheering as the statue walks through the streets, thus supplying the positive energy the Ghostbusters need. The moment you're referring to where they start singing does indeed happen later, but it's a different scene entirely. Maybe you watched an edited version of the movie or something? Because they definitely show the statue bringing out the positivity in the crowds in every version I've ever seen.
Oh dear, no, I don't watch edited down versions if possible, especially when I submit the timecodes. If you watch the video you yourself posted -but I hope you didn't, since it's edited down and misses the one moment when you actually see the slime move from a single spot-, you'll see that not the statue nor the crowd cause the slime mass to move or do anything. So the statue brings the positivity out in the crowd at its best only when it's limp on the ground, just as I said.
After the slime starts to retract, it cuts to a wide-shot showing crowds outside cheering. It makes perfect sense that the closer the statue gets to the slime (therefore bringing the positive energy closer), and the more the crowd cheers them on, the weaker the slime shell gets. Hence, it starts to retract. I don't understand what the issue you're having is. No offense, but it just seems like you're trying to manufacture a mistake where there is none.
Manufacturing mistakes would be a terribly inefficient way to spend time when in the same time you can spot dozens others. We simply get a different vibe from the scene, and the representation works better for you (and other commentators) than for me. It's a fictitious shell and if you tell me that the fact that it parts from that one skylight makes sense because it's weakened, I honestly at this point I don't mind, I wrote "I stand corrected" to the main issue like 4-5 comments ago.;).
Correction: They brought the statue with them to break the slime around the museum, not to rally the people. It was covered in positive slime, which caused it to come to life, like the toaster. It's presence, and the positive slime, had a positive effect on the people around it. It lying on the street helps the positive slime affect the people around it. Just like the negative slime affecting the guys when they come out of the sewer. Apparently it doesn't need to be physically touched.
If the statue lying lifeless in the street were meant to influence people, there'd be any visual representation of it, my main problem with all of this is that they show nothing about the statue 'charging' or 'focusing' the power of positivity. However, you do have a point; the main goal was to break into the museum, after all, and the people chanting to save the day were not part of the plan, so I shouldn't nitpick that. The plan still makes no sense because it's scary as hell to have a metal giant roam the street crushing cars, and we have to fill a lot of blanks, but we can embrace the cheesy spirit of it. I stand corrected.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The Ghostbusters 'frost' the inside of the Statue of Liberty and are shown dousing it in a rather wasteful, abundant way - with just two backpacks of slime. That's just a comically small amount of produce for such a huge monument. And they even have plenty left for the battle with Vigo. (01:27:30)
Correction: 1. You have no idea how much positive slime they have made 2. You have no idea how much slime is needed to make the statue of liberty come to life. It is only fiction after all, made up by the movie makers, so they are allowed to make the rules. It's not a mistake in the movie, at all.
It is indeed fiction! I am merely saying that with two backpack tanks they 'frost' the inside of a 151 feet tall monument, and they have plenty more to spare. I do admit to not having the technical specs of psychoactive slime and what the recommended usage in public monuments engineering is. On a macroscopic scale, it feels a little off.
Correction: As shown with the toaster, you don't need to completely cover something in slime to animate it. Remember, a small drizzle made the toaster dance. They seem to spray a comparatively scaled-up amount inside of the statue. You also have to factor in the fact that emotions are shown to have an effect on the volume of slime - strong emotions cause more slime to generate. (Which is why there's so much in the first place. We also see this happen during the courtroom scene.) Chances are, the backpacks are constantly being "refueled" by their emotions or the positivity they are generating.
For the 'small drizzle', Ray made sure to pour the thing back and forth through the whole length of the slit, effectively coating its interiors, and they splooge that thing all over the place in, a randomic and wasteful way, which we see before any of it expands because of the goodwill of people - which by the way never happens, at least it's never represented in the shots of the Statue; if at any point they showed the statue bubbling with power, charging because of the positivity or something, we'd never have had the conversation about the museum either. It's not that I missed what the film said, it's just that it's more often than not contradicted by what it is shown.
I literally just loaded up the scene - it was a small drizzle, in no way do they "effectively coat the interior" of the teaser. And how precisely can you say it's a "random and wasteful way"? Do you have personal experience bringing statues to life with slime? At no point does the film contradict itself. It shows early on that a certain volume of slime can bring a small object (the toaster) to life, and then pays it off later with a larger object. (The statue). Also, they do indeed show energy flowing through the slime in the statue when the music starts... you literally see like bolts/electricity/energy moving through it.
The 'energy' part was referred to the properties of the slime to increase in volume and such, you don't see that going on even in the scene when it flashes activating because of the music. I haven't had experience bringing statues to life with slime (at most applying gels in cove joints), but I had experience talking with other people about the movie, and we all laughed at the fact that they had a seemingly unlimited amount of slime, but hey, you can always meet other people with a different view and it was just my little bubble.
TedSixton makes an excellent point that I forgot, the slime increases in volume when more positive energy is added. You can go many ways with this theory, even so philosophical as to say the statue of liberty is such a positive symbol that the slime that was sprayed on it started to grow immediately simply because of what the statue of liberty represents or perhaps in a way has already gathered all positive energy of the city into itself, which is why it came to life. Not a mistake in any case.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The Ghostbusters can get inside the museum when the Statue of Liberty breaks the museum's ceiling light. Good, but the whole museum was surrounded by a shell of slime that extended above it too. The Ghostbusters do nothing to open a hole in the slime, nor they could know it would open, and the Statue has nothing to do with it. (01:31:45)
Correction: I think you somehow completely missed the point of them bringing in the statue in the first place. They animate the statue and walk it through the streets to act as a symbol to bring out the positive emotions/good vibes of the people. The positivity weakens the negatively-fueled slime shell enough for them to get inside. They quite literally show people cheering in the streets and the slime "retreating" from the ceiling windows as a result. Watch this clip, it explains their plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2wtteHUGjg.
Correction: The positive slime caused the negative slime to retreat. You can see this happening when the statue bends over the museum.
As I said, they do nothing to open a hole, it just happens; the Statue is close to a whole side of the museum that is covered in goop, but does not distance itself from it. Does it react to the music speakers? To the torch's warmth? It's just random stuff that happens. Which is totally fine in a movie like this, but does not prevent from noting it. However, since the whole idea of using the statue comes to them because they need to 'crack' the barrier, I'd say you are right there; they didn't know how and if it would work perhaps, but the idea IS set up. I still think the visual representation of it is inconsistent, since I don't get why the hole would open in that area of all areas.
I didn't think it had anything to do with touching the negative slime first. The negative slime was weakened by the positive emotions of the crowd, and their positive emotions came from seeing the Statue and Ghostbusters coming down the street, and the statue came to life with the positive slime and music. In the weakened state, the negative slime started to retract without the Ghostbusters needing to do anything else. They would have seen the ceiling being uncovered and then broke in that way.
Yup, Bishop73 got it 100% correct. They state in the movie that they need a symbol to bring out the positivity to get through the slime, and the movie shows the slime retreating after the crowds outside cheer for them in the statue. (Not sure where lionhead got the idea that it was the positive slime that did it, since the movie does not indicate that at all).
Positive feedback here. It shows the positive slime is more powerful than the negative slime. That's why they hose Janosz, Ray and Vigo in the end with the positive slime. It thinks all together the positive energy of the crowd caused the positive slime to grow and become even more powerful and the negative slime to retreat. That's how I always interpreted it at least. But you can go several ways here. In any case, it's not random.
Ah I see! You see sufficient visual correlation between the crowd cheering and the slime retracting, I don't see that, so the fact that the slime opens up freeing the skylight doesn't feel visually correlated with the 'mobilization of positive energy' thingy. Later it 'weakens' reacting in a different manner.
18th Jan 2022
General questions
I saw a movie or TV show back in the early 90's when I was a kid. I only remember one scene because it scared the crap out of me. I believe in the scene, an older man (probably 60's?) was fed feet-first into a shredding machine or large wood-chipper and killed. It was outside. The camera was inside it looking up. And I think there was a woman behind him who either pushed him in, or was trying to get him out. He was awake, shouting and struggling. Ring anyone's bell? (And it was not "Fargo.").
Answer: This might be from the TV series Friday the 13th. The episode is called "Root Of All Evil." The plot of the episode deals with a cursed mulcher. Anybody that gets thrown into it is killed and money is expelled from the other side. The richer the person is, the more money that comes out. Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD9XnWh5Mx4.
Holy crap! I think that's it! Quickly scanned through the episode, and it seems to (mostly) match up with what I remember. Not exactly, but considering how young I was, I could just be misremembering it. Additionally, since I was born in '88 and probably saw it when I was 3-4 years old (so '91-'92ish), it would also line up because the show ran until 1990 and was likely still on the air in re-runs.
In fact, I'm 90% sure the death at 31:13 in the video is the exact scene I'm remembering. The only difference is that it's a man and not a woman who pushed him in, but that just could be my memory being dodgy since I only saw it once about 30 years ago. Thank you! I think you got it.
You're welcome.
Answer: I know there're several films where someone has died in a wood-chipper or similar device. License to Kill (1989), Bond is dangling over a shredder and Dario is standing over him. Pam shoots Dario and Bond pulls him into the shredder.
That's a good example, but it's not the scene I'm looking for. It's hard to give details due to the 500 character limit. But the scene seemed to be outside during the daytime (I think there were trees in the background), I think the old man who died was wearing a flannel shirt (that could be wrong), and I seem to recall him having like gray or white hair. I think the woman was trying to save him.
I don't know the film you're talking about, but have you tried looking up "woodchipper" or "body in a woodchipper" in IMDB's plot keywords? The latter has 13 movies listed.
Yeah, I've scoured IMDB for it, but the problem is almost everything I run into is either from the year 2000 or after (like I said, I saw this in the early 90's on TV), or just not the movie/show I'm looking for. I'm assuming it might have been like an obscure episode of a TV show or movie that might not necessarily have a plot keyword attached.
19th May 2014
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Continuity mistake: During the battle with Green Goblin, when Gwen Stacy is falling through the clock tower, there are dozens of gears and other pieces of various sizes falling with her. However, when she lands, only a few small gears and pieces land alongside her - all the other debris that were falling have seemingly vanished. (02:01:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That part of the scene is SO dark that it's really hard to tell; they do show some gears and pieces land after she does and there are some gears and pieces next to her when he walks to her. I wouldn't say there's none, but I'd say it does seem a disproportionately low amount considering how many giant gears were falling.
Given that even you admit in your correction that the number of gears seems disproportionately low (which it is - we only see a few small pieces landing when there were dozens and dozens of pieces in different sizes falling), I think amending the wording through a word-change is a better option than trying to correct the mistake itself. Because there is still a mistake here. Going to go ahead and do that after I post this response. (Might take a few days to change, though).
Question: Any reason why the new 2021 MVD Blu-ray is so heavily edited? Bought it online, and was extremely disappointed to see that virtually all the gore was edited out. Why bother doing a new restoration if it's going to be of the edited-for-TV version and not the full uncut version?
Answer: MVD posted on their Facebook page that they're looking into what happened. The master copy they were supplied was the Abridged Version. It may take them a couple weeks after the holidays to get an answer and see if they can get the original master copy and issue replacements.
Thanks! Honestly wasn't even expecting a response. But it's cool that they're looking into it, because the disc was otherwise really fantastic, and they did a good job with it.
26th Jun 2019
Child's Play (2019)
Stupidity: The climax takes place during the launch of the "Buddi 2," a hotly anticipated tech gadget. The entire film has been leading up this point, and it's a big deal that it's being launched. And yet, there are no more than maybe 20 people waiting. Not a mistake per se, but totally unrealistic compared to the huge crowds these sort-of launches typically bring in.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Bear in mind, this is just a cheap retail store in downtown Chicago; presumably, every major department and toy store across the country is having a similar event, so this opening would logically only draw people in the neighborhood with children the right age and willing to pay the opening-day price. Plus, we hear a voice on a radio warning of upcoming rain. The report is proven wrong since there's no rain for the rest of the scene, but even a warning of rain would ward some off.
I'll agree to disagree. I live in a relatively small, quiet town in upstate, New York, and events like new tech-launches (new iPhones, video games, etc.), movie premieres, anticipated book releases, etc. still regularly bring in pretty huge crowds at virtually every participating store. (Ex. Lines going out the doors and wrapping around the building.) Heck, I know someone who tried to get the last "Harry Potter" book opening night and couldn't because every local book store was packed completely full. So I have a hard time believing the crowd would be so small. The fact this movie also takes place in a pretty major city like Chicago is another strike against it.
19th Jun 2020
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)
Trivia: Jason actor Ted White reportedly hated young Corey Feldman, and purposely frightened him during the filming of some stunts just to amuse himself.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He didn't hate Feldman but strongly disliked him.
I don't really think that's a valid correction. That's basically just arguing over semantics. White has made his (very) negative feelings about Feldman known publicly on multiple occasions including the documentary "Crystal Lake Memories," (going so far as to say Feldman was a "mean little devil," that he "couldn't stand him" and that he "wanted to kill him desperately") so I think the trivia still stands as is.
9th Jul 2021
General questions
I remember seeing part of the premiere of a show about 10 years ago. I don't know how long the show went on, but the scene always stuck with me. I think it was a show about court judges (maybe supreme court) and their associates. And there was a scene where an older judge said a cute rhyme about justice/court to a new person. There were also a group of judges in the scene, and they kept referring to each other as "Justice so-and-so." The scene was also set outside if IIRC. Ring anyone's bell?
Answer: There was a movie titled, "The First Monday in October," about the Supreme Court. It shows what happens behind the scenes. If it's a TV series, there are two, "First Monday," a spin-off series. The second is "The Court," also about the Supreme Court. Both premiered in 2002. They were dramas and both were cancelled after half a season.
It very well could be one of those. Unfortunately, I can only find a few clips from "First Monday" and can't find any clips from "The Court," so it's hard to tell if it's either of them.
6th May 2021
General questions
I remember seeing a "Star Wars" knockoff on TV years ago. I believe it was from the late 70's or early 80's. I don't remember much about it other than a scene that was copying the Death Star trench-run scene, where a couple spaceships were flying down this sort-of mechanical tunnel with really iffy special effects. I seem to remember the scene being overly red/orange tinted. I also think this may have been a foreign film (like Japanese), but I'm not 100% sure. Ring anyone's bell?
Answer: There is a Japanese one called Message from Space.
I looked it up on YouTube. This is the closest answer at this point because there is a somewhat similar scene, but I'm still pretty sure that's not it... it doesn't really match up perfectly with what I remember.
Answer: In 1978 there was a short film parody titled, "Hardware Wars," made on a very low budget and used carpenter tools as space ships.
Answer: OP here. Another detail of the scene that I remember is that the scene looked kinda like it was done with cut-outs. Like pictures of the spaceships instead of models, if that makes any sense. Like the ships all looked "flat." And most of the camera angles seemed to be either POV's of the "hero" ship, or shots from behind. If memory serves, there were also some enemy ships. The tunnel was more of a cylinder than a trench. Like it went completely around all the ships. And like I said, the entire scene had kind of a red/orange tint.
Answer: If it was blue light instead of red/orange, you may be thinking of Starcrash. Although I would think you would have remembered Caroline Munro wearing what the Mystery Science Theater crew described as "vampire lingerie."
I don't believe it was "Star Crash." I scanned through a couple movies looking for the scene in question before posting this and couldn't find it in that movie.
Answer: This could be "Spaceballs," the 1987 Mel Brooks film that parodies "Star Wars."
Definitely not "Spaceballs." This movie was probably made before it and wasn't a parody from what I can remember.
17th Apr 2021
Galaxy Quest (1999)
Audio problem: Right after the Thermians become sad over the mention of Gilligan's Island, Alexander rolls his eyes and starts to turn away, while you can hear him saying "Oh brother." However his lips are not moving for this indicating the line was dubbed in.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's quite obviously Laredo/Tommy's voice saying "Oh, brother" off camera. Not Alan Rickman. Their voices don't sound anything alike. You can see for yourself at this clip at about 1:03: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26tWWopd_3g.
Suggested correction: It is not Alexander who says it, but most likely Guy.
No it's Alan Rickman's voice.
It's definitely not Alan Rickman's voice. It's Tommy/Laredo's voice off camera saying the line.
11th Jan 2021
General questions
I remember a cartoon we used to have on VHS back when I was a kid. So the cartoon would have been from sometime in the 80's or at very latest the early 90's. I think it might have been Japanese, but I'm not sure. I just remember there was either a light pink or baby-blue creature that I wanna say was a dragon (I can't remember what color it was)... but it would float on the water. The only comparison I can make is that it kind of looked like a "Lapras" from "Pokemon." I wanna say it was a movie, but it honestly could have just been a few back-to-back episodes of a series on the tape we had. Does this ring anyone's bell? I've been curious about it for years, because I have memories of watching it, but can't remember what it's called.
Answer: Just a suggestion for you to review. "Serendipity the Pink Dragon." It's a Japanese anime show from 1983 and only lasted 1 season. An English dubbed version was released on VHS in 1989. Here's the intro scene. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PbSIsDRiuTw.
Yeah, I stumbled onto a rip of the movie on YouTube not long after I submitted the question. I also looked at the cover art online, and it seemed a little familiar. I'm a solid 75% sure that's it.
Answer: Just an update: While visiting my mother, I was able to confirm 100% that it was "Serendipity: The Pink Dragon." Showed her a picture of the cover and she said she definitely remembered us having it based on the cover image.
Answer: I'm about 75% sure it was "Serendipity: The Pink Dragon." But there's a small chance it could be something else, so if there's any other answers that fit the bill, please let me know.
11th Dec 2020
Beetlejuice (1988)
Corrected entry: When Adam and Barbara first arrive in the waiting room with all the dead people, one of them looks like Edward Scissorhands. Seems like Tim Burton was giving a little hint on his future project.
Correction: I just loaded up the scene and cannot find this person no matter where I look. The closest I could find is that someone is sitting in a dark suit and another person with kind of a pale face, but they don't really resemble Edward. Where exactly should we be looking?
After the secretary talked to Adam and Barbara and she named the next number and next scene shown the victims and the one I think looks like Edward Scissorhands is the last on the left.
The one in the sleeping bag with a rattlesnake does have the spiky black hair and black around the eyes. I get what you mean but I think it's just a coincidence. Has to be confirmed.
I said it looks like Edward Scissorhands. If Tim Burton was giving a little hint, he certainly wouldn't have the person have scissors for hands, would he? It would have been giving too much info right there for his next project.
I honestly think it's just a coincidence, too. Tim Burton has a very specific style, and a lot of his characters look similar with wild hair, dark circles around the eyes, etc.
15th Nov 2020
Cult of Chucky (2017)
Question: Multi part question:1. Does this one ignore Seed Of Chucky? 2. Why did Tiffany change her appearance from Seed Of Chucky once human? 3. Why not have Brad Dourif's voice come out of the Nica character's mouth?
Answer: Well in Bride Of Chucky, unless that was a dye job, she had black hair. Here she's blonde.
She simply decided to dye her hair back to blonde. Human Tiffany was originally blonde in "Bride of Chucky," and she also dyed her doll-hair blonde when she turned into a doll. The only time she has dark hair is at the end of "Seed of Chucky" when she possesses Jennifer Tilly. But like I said... she simply decided to dye her hair blonde again in the meantime. She was also blonde in "Curse of Chucky." There's no real significance to it... she probably just wanted to have hair like she used to have.
Thank you, my bad. You're one of the sharpest people on this site. You should work for them.
Answer: 1) No, this film does not ignore "Seed of Chucky." While references to it are minimal, it is still considered official canon with the series. 2) I don't really understand how she changed her appearance. She still looks like Jennifer Tilly. You may need to elaborate on that. 3) In the context of the film, it's because he's taken over her Nica's body and is currently using her vocal cords to speak.
18th Sep 2019
Serenity (2005)
Question: How did the reavers attack the front of the ship, killing Walsh, when they would have been behind the ship, after Walsh glided in?
Answer: Serenity spins around as it skids across the ground...so the front of the ship is now facing the Reaver ship.
I disagree I've watched this recently and agree with the questioner. Maybe a final spin DOES occur but off-camera.
Watch the scene again (You can find it on YouTube under the title "Serenity (6/10) Movie CLIP - A Leaf on the Wind (2006) HD"), and you will see that Serenity does indeed spin around 180° and lands facing the front of the building, and thus allowing the Reavers to take the shot that kills Wash. First it bounces off a column that takes off one of its thrusters, then it bounces off another object, causing it to start to spin in the opposite direction. When the camera cuts back to the exterior a few shots later, you see it finishing a 180 degree spin and thus facing the front of the hanger. (You can even see the light from the hangar door in one of the shots).
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: True, they look like brothers (and in real life Brendan Fraser is only 13 years older than Luke Ford), but the way two characters look is not a movie mistake - only poor casting if it distracts from the story. And, as you mentioned, Brendan Fraser looks like he has hardly aged in the past seven years. Some people just hold onto their youthful appearance longer.
BocaDavie ★
It should also be noted that this movie only takes place 13 years after the last one, and they were made 7 years apart. That's only a 5-year difference - not a tremendous amount of time at all. And in fact, in 2014 (13 years after "The Mummy Returns"), Brendan Fraser still looked pretty much identical to how he looked in this movie. He hasn't really started to show his age until the last few years and even then, he still looks quite good for his age. Some people really do just age very well.
TedStixon