Revealing mistake: Watch Andy Garcia's decapitation scene. His head starts to come off before the sword makes contact with his neck. Slow motion helps but is not required.
TedStixon
12th Nov 2008
Black Rain (1989)
14th Jan 2020
Men in Black 3 (2012)
Factual error: When Boris jumps out of Lunar-Max, you can see a complete Apollo Lunar-Module (LM). The LM consists of a Descent Stage and an Ascent Stage. We can see both, obviously the Ascent Stage was never used. That doesn't make any sense, because the Apollo Astronauts need to use/"consume" (climb in and "fly" away) the Ascent Stage to leave the moon.
4th Jun 2004
The Mummy (1999)
Question: The answer for another question made me wonder. If Imothep was alive when put in his sarcophagus, how can there be jars with his internal organs elsewhere? Wouldn't they still be in his body in order for him to be alive?
Answer: If you're referring to the only jars that are used in the movie, those are Anck Su Namun's organs. Not his. Near as I can tell, his organs were not taken, hence him being alive.
They are his body parts; remember that he had to get the body parts from each of the adventurers to complete his resurrection (he left one guy without eyes or a tongue and sucked the life out of him).
No, they are Anck Su Namun's. The mummy steals the man's eyes and tongue because he's been decomposing and his own have rotted off. It's part of his regeneration process. He simply didn't have time to fully "suck him dry," as the movie puts it before Evie stumbles onto him.
Answer: He was buried alive as part of his punishment so they can't be his. They are Anck su Namun's. He needs them for when he resurrects her. He gets organs when he fulfills the curse by taking them from the men that opened the chest.
His organs were probably eaten by the bugs, if they weren't they probably decayed, hence why he needs to replace them with the organs of others.
The priests cut off his tongue as he was being linen wrapped, but I doubt it was placed in a canopic jar. But it kept him from doing invocations or screaming even though a wordless scream is possible with no tongue.
15th Apr 2019
Bumblebee (2018)
Question: Why didn't Frank Welker reprise his role as the voice of Soundwave for this film?
Answer: I couldn't find any other information, but honestly... Soundwave is barely in the movie. Probably just wasn't worth it for the production to pay Welker to come in just to record a few throwaway lines.
I considered that possibility as well, but since Peter Cullen reprised his role as the voice of Optimus Prime yet again for this film despite Prime's minimal involvement, it doesn't quite wash. Also, given Frank Welker's highly prolific voice acting career, it's unlikely he would have declined on the basis of pay or importance of his involvement.
Soundwave was barely in the movie (he's literally only in a few shots) and only had one or two lines. As the other answer suggested, it probably just wasn't worth it for the studio to pay Welker to come in, or they just didn't feel it was necessary given that Soundwave was essentially just a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo. Optimus has a much larger presence, and Peter Cullen's voice is pretty synonymous with the character in the film series. Hence, it was worth it to have him return.
19th Jul 2019
Spaceballs (1987)
Corrected entry: When President Scroob is beamed to the next room, his head is on backwards. When he pulls away the back of his coat and says, "Why didn't somebody tell me my ass was so big?", his hands are angled like they are backwards as well. His palms are pointing towards his back. They should be facing the other way, as well as his thumbs being reversed.
Correction: The crew remarks that his head is on backwards. It doesn't mean his entire torso can't also be backwards.
To be fair, they even admit this was a mistake on the Blu-Ray edition of the film. (There's a special feature that points out various flubs.) It was really only meant to only be his head that was reversed.
Well, I think you could argue that it may have been a mistake as far as the filmmakers' intent was concerned, but it doesn't necessarily translate to mistake with respect to the scene itself. Technically, Skroob's head was on backwards. Nothing any of the characters said contradicted that.
13th Nov 2019
Mortal Kombat (1995)
Revealing mistake: When Scorpion explodes, if you pay attention, the explosion doesn't really make "sense." The first "burst" looks fine, but then, midway through the shot, some of the debris in the air suddenly vanishes or fades out a few frames before the second "burst" occurs. Additionally, the way the second "burst" happens gives it away as an added effect, as it doesn't really overlap the background properly. (It looks like an explosion that was filmed on a blue-screen and then just added over top of the footage, as it doesn't interact with the environment properly).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Scorpion is an undead being fighting in another realm of existence. He doesn't necessarily have to explode in a way that "makes sense."
The mistake pertains to issues with the somewhat shoddy execution of the effects, which are a result of the film's production. I don't think him being an undead fighter from another realm of existence is really a valid way to explain this away.
26th Jun 2019
Child's Play (2019)
Other mistake: Andy and his friends are watching "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" in one scene. However, the scenes they watch are completely out of order compared to the actual film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually this is simply a movie convention. When kids watch films onscreen, they deliberately only show the best bits of the film as oppose to just playing the film normally. Otherwise it would look dull and pointless.
Explaining why a mistake exists doesn't invalidate them. Skipping time or jump cuts is one thing, showing scenes from a movie kids are watching out of order, without a valid in-film reason, is still a mistake.
Technically no.
The issue isn't that they aren't showing the whole movie. They did the right thing by just showing clips, since it illustrates a passage of time. The issue is that the clips they show are all out of order. (You'll see one from the ending of the movie, then one from the beginning, then another from the ending, then one from the middle, etc.) They could have just as easily shown a couple clips in order from throughout the film, and it would have worked, but they chose not to for some bizarre reason.
23rd Aug 2019
The Mummy (1999)
Question: What's the significance of the tattoo on the hands of the medjai? Not the medjai symbol but the 3 lines?
Answer: The tattoos they have are various symbols that mark them as Medjai. The sequel, "The Mummy Returns" confirms this.
Yes, I know, but the tattoos on the top of the hands are different from the one on the forehead and the cheeks. It makes me think of pyramids.
I believe it's just that seal of the Medjai. I don't think there's much significance beyond that.
14th Jul 2019
Tremors (1990)
Question: When Val and Earl first come into Perfection the sign says population 14. If you add up all the characters in the movie excluding Rhonda, there's 14 people. The question is who is taking care of Melvin?
Answer: According to one of the writers, his parents were both immature ne'er-do-wells who would often abandon him for long stretches of time. So he's pretty much on his own. Hence, his parents are not counted on the population sign, since they're barely there for him. It's also mentioned in the original script (which can be found online) that they spend a lot of their time in Las Vegas, presumably gambling. (Val says the line "Why don't his parents ever take him to Vegas with them?" in regards to Melvin in scene 13).
Answer: His Uncle Nestor.
To my knowledge, nothing in the film indicates Nestor is related to Melvin.
When Nester dies, Melvin lets the audience know that was his dad.
Um... no. No he doesn't. All he does when Nester dies is shout "No way, man! You guys have gotta do something!" to Val and Earl. He definitely never says Nester was his dad. As I said above, the writers have specifically said his parents were immature ne'er-do-wells who just aren't around most of the time. In fact, it's even mentioned in the original script that his parents were often away in Las Vegas rather than taking care of him.
12th May 2011
Silent Hill (2006)
Question: Anyone have any idea why Rose decided to try and outrun the police officer? It didn't appear Rose did anything illegal, so it seems she could have just waited to see why she was pulled over and then continue on her way.
Answer: It's illegal to enter Silent Hill and Rose knew the officer would try to stop her.
Why is it illegal to enter Silent Hill?
The air is toxic from the coal fires. Too much of a potential for people to get hurt or die by going in for too long.
29th Sep 2003
The Mummy Returns (2001)
Corrected entry: When the Medjai face the final onslaught of the Anubis' warriors, they keep their swords in a ready stance, but they don't move them even when the army hits them. That would be a perfect way to fight if they want their heads chopped off, since the swords would have no hitting power if swung from that stance. (01:54:45)
Correction: They WANT to get their heads chopped off. The entire army of Medjai barely fought off the first wave. The survivors give up and crave a quick death.
No, they don't want their heads to be chopped off. They literally say they're going to fight to the death right before. They just picked an odd battle stance. It'd be completely out of character and nonsensical for them to randomly just want to die suddenly out of nowhere.
25th Oct 2018
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
Question: After finishing the game, did Spencer, Fridge, Bethany, and Martha still have detention or did changing the timeline prevent them from their punishment?
Answer: They still had detention. The only thing that changed was Alex. But since they had become such close friends, detention would hardly be a punishment for them anymore.
It seemed like they just simply walked out of detention. I mean, did they finish their detention or did they have to continue on a Saturday?
The movie doesn't explain. But regardless, it also really doesn't matter.
They probably didn't go back on Saturday. When they go back to school, Spencer acts like he hasn't spoken to Martha since their adventure, while Bethany says she's been texting Martha 'all weekend'.
9th Oct 2018
Venom (2018)
Plot hole: The Riot symbiote inhabits the body of the paramedic immediately after the crash at the beginning, then goes into the body of an old woman who goes to the airport and proceeds to take control of a little girl who's going on a flight to San Fransisco. Riot then takes over Carlton Drake's body. The entirety of these events would need to have taken six months, for it to be consistent with the timeline of the rest of the film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Riot only arrives at the airport as the old woman after 6 months. There is no reason given why Riot decides to stay in the body of the woman for so long, but not giving a reason doesn't make it a plot hole. It stayed in the old woman for 6 months maybe because it needed to gather strength or devise a plan.
The director has even admitted it's a plot hole. Regardless, the film does nothing to suggest it was doing anything other than traveling towards its destination, so this does constitute a plot hole.
Why does it constitute as a plot hole if it's traveling towards its destination? Why does one thing imply the other?
It's a plot hole because it's absolutely ridiculous that it would take six full months to do that. That's a few days worth of activity... maybe a week. As I said, the director even admitted it was a plot-hole.
18th Aug 2018
The Shape of Water (2017)
Corrected entry: In the film it is advised that the creature be maintained at 5 - 8% salinity. The sea is only around 3.5%. It seems odd that he should need so much salt.
Correction: The film states he's not from the ocean. He's from a specific, presumably fictional, area of the Amazon where he was worshiped as a god. We can simply assume the area has water with a higher salinity level than ocean water. (As there are places around the world that have water with significantly higher salinity levels than ocean water).
Those bodies of water on the earth's surface with much higher salt content are invariably isolated lakes and inland seas that were formerly connected to the oceans in the distant past. Such high-salt lakes are the result of many millennia (even millions of years) of evaporation and reduction, which results in the nearby terrain becoming almost devoid of vegetation (due to the increasingly high alkalinity of the surrounding water table). So, you would expect to see near-desert-like conditions in the vicinity of isolated salt lakes and inland seas and virtually no large wildlife (except maybe migrating flamingos at certain times of the year). Point is, while there is evidence of "marine incursion" across the northern half of South America as far back as 14 million years ago (which did, in fact, produce the largest salt flats in the world at Uyuni, Bolivia), these salt lakes are very hostile and even toxic to complex life. Large animals, such as gill-people, simply couldn't have evolved there, with a saline content more than twice that of the ocean and virtually no food chain.
He's meant to be a river god, as confirmed by the director, who wrote: "It is a river God. It's not an animal. It's a river God in the Amazon. There was never another one." Therefore, it's entirely possible he survived in such a harsh environment and thrived.
18th Jul 2018
Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
Corrected entry: Throughout the movie the cars and building are shrunk down to size and carried by people. Though the size has changed, their mass hasn't. In this and the original film it is specified that the Pym Particle works by reducing the distance between atoms. That's absurd, but in the context of the film that is what happens. This means that a human reduced to the size of an ant would have an unimaginable density, and thus his mass and weight would stay the same. There's no way the characters could carry those things with little or no effort, they would weigh as much as they did before they were shrunk.
Correction: While it's easy to miss, there actually is some brief dialogue in the first film when Scott is learning about the suit that establishes the rules. In addition to shrinking and growing, things like mass, energy and weight are also affected by the Pym-Particles. Sure, perhaps it's not 100% realistic, but the films do address these issues and offer explanation. Hence people can carry around shrunken buildings, tanks, cars, etc.
In this, and the previous film, it is specified that the Pym particles work by reducing the distance between atoms. That is utterly impossible, of course, but in the context of the film that is what happens. This means that shrunken or expanded articles or people retain their mass and weight. This is an inescapable mistake for both films, and the original posting is correct.
Here's the problem with this reply - the first film specifically states that it's not just the distance between particles that's being altered - other properties change along with them as a result of the Pym particle. The fact of the matter is yes, you can try to apply real-world logic to it and pick it apart, but the films do an adequate job explaining why it's possible to do things like carry buildings or tanks around so long as they are shrunken down, or for a plastic children's toy to become a destructive object when enlarged, as they are effected by the mysterious properties of the Pym particle. Hence, it shouldn't be considered a mistake unless a specific scene contradicts something else shown earlier in the film.
The shrinking works differently on inanimate objects. It's the suits that let the person being shrunk to maintain its mass, anything else being shrunk loses its mass. Blowing stuff up works differently though, the technology to do that is just different. The way Pym particles work is one thing, but how all of the technology involved works is a totally different thing.
Correction: This isn't a mistake so to speak. The abilities of Ant-Man and the whole shrinking and growing thing is very much a comic book thing. And the only way these movies even work at all is through the suspension of disbelief.
Maybe, but in the first film they explicitly state that even though the shrinking technology makes objects sizes' smaller, it doesn't change their mass.
15th Jul 2003
Robocop 2 (1990)
Continuity mistake: When RoboCop is being scraped up against the wall creating a shower of sparks, we cut to views of Cain. In one of these shots of Cain, the background suddenly changes - the wall he's scraping up against is nowhere to be seen and the sparks vanish. In the other shots of Cain, the background is correct. For some reason, a shot was taken from another part in the sequence and added in here, creating an odd continuity gaffe in the background. (01:02:02)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is not correct. When they show the interior shots, you can see the red brick wall out of the window.
This correction is untrue. You can find the scene on YouTube (look up the video "Robocop 2 (6/11) Movie Clip - Demolition Ride" and pay attention from about 0:55 - 0:58), and the background is definitely totally different - different type of brick, graffiti is missing, there's no sparks and it's in the distance. The original mistake is correct.
31st Jul 2018
Men in Black (1997)
Question: I loaded the film up on Netflix, and it seems that the dialogue in one scene was edited. In the standard cut of the film, Jeebs says "You insensitive prick!" to K, but in the version I saw on Netflix, Jeebs says "You insensitive jerk!" What's the deal with the Netflix version changing this one single line? The original "prick" line appears to be on both the VHS and Blu-Ray edition I own.
Answer: After a little research, I discovered that the line was changed in the UK release from "prick" to "jerk." So the most likely explanation I can find is that the Netflix version is taken from a UK master of the film. As mentioned in other comments, Netflix doesn't censor their films, so the other answer regarding the film being edited like movies shown on airplanes isn't accurate. (Not to mention, it'd make no sense for Netflix to edit this one profanity while leaving all the others intact if they were editing it for content).
I agree it's the UK version. I don't know if it's a licensing thing or cheaper, but I've notice Netflix will use the UK release version on a number of films. I'm not familiar with "prick" as a UK slang but I believe it's more graphic than US slang, similar to the word "fanny", and edited for the UK release.
Answer: In fact, it's done twice. When talking about Frank the pug, the standard edit has K saying "I just hope the little prick hasn't skipped town." The streaming version doesn't. I say streaming version because I just discovered that the Amazon version of this film edited out the word "prick," and I didn't realise the Netflix version had too. I'm in the US, so what's going on here?
Generally the changes people notice in films when watching Netflix or other services come from the fact that they're airing the UK release version (for whatever reason). I remember the first time people really noticed this was when Scooby-Doo 2 changed the product placement from Burger King to KFC (which I commented on).
Answer: As more films become available online and are accessible to a wider audience, the studios edit mature content that is unacceptable to under-aged viewers. It's the same as movies that are shown on airplanes where the adult content is edited or removed altogether.
Netflix doesn't censor their movies, though... So this explanation makes no sense.
It just seems odd, as Netflix basically never censors content in other films they host (since they're supposed to be hosting the officially released versions anyways), and the rest of the profanity/violence in this particular film is unedited.
31st May 2017
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Corrected entry: After freeing himself from the symbiote, the symbiote begins to fall into the area where Eddie is. In an overhead view, the symbiote is seen rapidly attaching itself to Eddie's arms and covering them. The very next shot shows the symbiote rapidly enveloping his arms again.
Correction: Just watched the scene to check and this is incorrect. The first shot (the overhead shot) merely shows the symbiote grabbing onto his shoulders. We never see it covering/enveloping his arms until the second shot.
I have seen the scene to and the overhead shot does indeed showing the symbiote covering his arms and then covering his arms again when a close up of his transformation is happening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqdiN5cFgZs&app=desktop.
I just watched the link you sent. While it's true that his right arm (mainly the hand and forearm) is starting to be covered in the overhead shot, there's no inconsistency. The amount of symbiote on him is the same at the end of the overhead shot and the start of the next shot where we see him. So it's still not a mistake.
27th Oct 2013
Curse of Chucky (2013)
Plot hole: When Chucky is decapitated, no blood comes out. He still has the scars from Bride/Seed of Chucky so that means he's still in the same doll's body. The longer he remains inside the doll the more human he becomes, so he should definitely bleed by this point in time.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There's no telling exactly how his Voodoo works.
1st Nov 2013
Curse of Chucky (2013)
Factual error: Chucky is not tall enough to rev the engine of the car in the garage when trying to suffocate Nica.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I watched the scene and it's clear Chucky wasn't using a brick on the accelerator to rev the engine. However, Nica is paralyzed and there are devices you can install on a car that allows a paralyzed person to operate the gas and brake from the steering wheel, so Chucky could rev the engine without touching the gas pedal.
Suggested correction: All he would have to do is stand on the gas pedal.
He's standing at the wheel the entire scene. He's not tall enough to be doing that and pressing the gas pedal.
He could have used a brick or something to keep the gas pedal down and then climbed up to the wheel.
Except if you watch the scene, the engine revs up and down, not something putting a brick on the gas pedal would do.
Suggested correction: It could just be a copy of the original. For all we know the lunar landing was staged in this world.
lionhead
This is far too much of a stretch to be a valid correction. What reason would there be to put a copy there? Also, the Apollo 11 mission to the moon absolutely having to happen is literally a plot point.
TedStixon
The men in black have shown to use alien technology for many of the things they do. This could include the Lunar-Max prison. I agree the lunar landing is a plot point and thus probably true, but why not make a replica in front of the prison as a monument? It doesn't have to be built right next to the site of the first lunar landing. Seems a bit silly to me.
lionhead
Remember, one of the site's rules is "don't just try to think of an excuse" when correcting entries. Nothing in the film suggests it's a monument, therefore suggesting it's one to try and correct the entry is not valid.
TedStixon
I look at if it's plausible. I guessed since in this universe humans have access to advanced technology the moon landing seems to be more of a coverup for something secret or simply a staged thing. I think this because in MIB 1 they show the world expo observatory towers were in fact real spaceships and they had been there since 1964, so they already had spaceships before ever going to the moon. Again, though, its not relevant to the mistake. It's also obvious with the prison on the moon that they have been there multiple times and thus changed a lot. Building the prison in front of the landing site is again a bit strange so therefor I think it's just a replica, to show visitors. It's not impossible so it can hardly be called a mistake, just something that isn't explained. I'm not making excuses, there may not be actual evidence that it is a replica, but there is no evidence it is the real landing module either.
lionhead
I don't understand how the Men in Black using alien technology has anything to do with this entry. Regardless, nothing in the film suggests that the capsule is a monument. It's even roped off, much like museums often rope off actual artifacts.
TedStixon