Continuity mistake: When the woman is "sucked" into the floor of the bathroom, at one point she accidentally pulls a faucet from a sink next to her, causing water to begin spraying upwards and raining down. Problem is, less than two seconds later, she's already completely soaked and we see a closeup shot of her kicking her feet, and there's already a large volume of water on the floor. Far too much water for how short a period of time it's been coming out of the faucet.
TedStixon
13th Jul 2017
Deep Rising (1998)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: 1st of all, she's sucked through the toilet, not the floor. 2nd of all, a creature coming through the toilet will produce a lot of toilet water all over the place.
The first point is debatable - we never see where she gets sucked through, so it's unclear. As for the second point, I just watched the scene to check, and she is literally soaked instantly between shots, and the water on the floor also appears almost instantly. The argument that the water came from the toilet doesn't explain how she is suddenly soaked between cuts or how so much water is already on the floor in the literal 1/24th of a second between cuts. They obviously cut the scene quickly and frantically to make it intense, and it created a minor continuity mistake where there is suddenly a lot more water, and she's much wetter. The original mistake is correct.
She sitting on the toilet. She hears the creature and looks directly beneath her. She stands half an inch before she's grabbed. Therefore, it easily stands she got pulled into the toilet. As for the water, I know a plumber who says something big that shoots up from the toilet like that can cause serious water damage. Therefore, the original correction is correct.
Whether she gets sucked through the toilet or floor frankly doesn't matter for the mistake, which is that she's instantly soaked. And I've done plumbing before too. It's literally impossible for that much water to appear in 1/24th of a second. (Which is the time between cuts, since film is 24fps.) Lemme explain it this way - it takes 1/3 of a second to blink your eye. (Equal to roughly 8 fames of film.) You're telling me that that much water could instantly appear in 1/8 the time it takes to blink your eye? That is literally impossible. If your plumber tries to tell you that your bathroom can suddenly be full of water in 1/24 of a second... you need a new plumber.
You may have done plumbing, but I doubt you ever had a giant sea creature come up from beneath the toilet either. Without knowing the situation of these creatures who caused a giant hole in tons of steel that the ship is, then all our answers are just speculation.
The fundamental problem is, it's literally impossible for that much water to have appeared that quickly and for someone to instantly be soaked in 1/24 of a second. It has nothing to do with giant sea creatures... water still has to obey the basic laws of physics. It can't just magically appear in the 1/24 of a second between frames.
23rd Mar 2022
The Batman (2022)
Corrected entry: The famous shot of the question mark in the coffee makes no sense in the film. When the Riddler is caught in the diner, he's made a mark out of froth - but he's made the mark face to the right of himself. He's in front of it, the dining staff behind the cup, and the cops and Batman are to his left. Who did he make the mark for? Likely it was made to the right so the camera would have room to pan over it in the empty bar. So Riddler made it for...the audience?
Correction: How is this a mistake? He can orient a question mark any way he wants, it doesn't have to be specially lined up for anyone to "see." It is perfectly in character for him to draw a question mark in the coffee askew from his own perspective. There are literally thousands of question marks the Riddler has drawn throughout the character's history and many of them are not lined up with anything in particular, and would be askew from where he must have been standing to draw.
Correction: The fact is, it has nothing to do with the Riddler making the "?" at any angle he wants. When we first see him, he's facing the mug and the handle is to his left, parallel with the counter's edge. During the scene, the mug moves because they slam him to the counter so that the handle is now perpendicular almost to the counter's edge. When the "?" is revealed, you see the handle to the left meaning he actually made the mark in front of him, not to the right of him. So the mistake is simply wrong.
Correction: This is not a mistake or "stupidity" in any way, shape or form. He's allowed to make a question mark any darned way he wants.
8th Apr 2022
The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)
Trivia: Alec Baldwin has an uncredited role as the gangster Michael Zoroaster Marucci. Baldwin wanted his role to be uncredited as he hated this movie so much.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Yes, that's what the person who posted this on IMDb said, too.
That's not a valid correction. If the trivia was simply plagiarized word-for-word from IMDb, then it might be a problem... but it's not. It's worded differently. (Although to be fair, I've seen people plagiarize trivia from MovieMistakes on IMDb. I've submitted trivia on here, only to see it copy/pasted word-for-word on IMDb a few days/weeks later. At a certain point, it becomes a chicken/egg situation where you can't tell which came first.) But the fact that both trivia sections mention the same basic thing isn't an issue.
3rd Mar 2022
Batman and Robin (1997)
Corrected entry: Poison Ivy's hair is red most of the movie. Yet once she's a patient in Arkham Asylum her hair suddenly looks like a shade of pink.
Correction: She became part-plant when she was "killed" and resurrected. That's how it's usually depicted in the comics and other media, and she even describes this process in a speech when she comes back to life in this film and kills the evil doctor who created her. She's stuck in a dark, dank prison cell without much sunlight (there seems to be only one small window and minimal light in her cell)... thus her body is becoming weaker, and her color (like her hair) is fading. Just like a flower would without enough sunlight for photosynthesis. Notice how she also looks overly frail and frazzled, unlike how energetic and vibrant she was earlier.
1st Dec 2016
Tarzan (1999)
Factual error: The weight of an elephant is nowhere near that of a large cargo ship so even if Tantor was able to climb up the side of the ship the ship shouldn't have moved.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Is there different rules in the cartoon world and live action? Animals getting smashed flat then getting up like nothing happened.
It would entirely depend on the specific cartoon. Not all cartoons have a consistent logic. Ex. Sure, a character might get flattened then get back up in a Looney Tunes cartoon... but you'd never see that happen in "Akira," which is also a cartoon. If memory serves, "Tarzan" follows a loose realism when it comes to things like logic and physics, so a mistake like this would be valid.
3rd Feb 2022
Species (1995)
Corrected entry: It's impossible for Sil to wear the conductor's clothes. She's tall and slim around maybe 5'9" while the conductor looks to be 5'5"or so and a little chubby.
Correction: It's not "impossible" in the slightest. Both women were roughly the same height. Natasha Henstridge is about 5'10" and Esther Williams was usually listed around 5'9" or 5'10" before she passed away. And the weight difference also makes sense, as the clothes look baggy and ill-fitting on Sil. (Ex. The jacket is very loose and hanging around her shoulders and arms, and the shirt isn't nearly as form-fitting as it was on the conductor.) It's pretty much perfectly portrayed in the film.
26th Feb 2022
The Amityville Horror (1979)
Corrected entry: When Kathy goes to her daughter's window to shut it, the red eyes that appear outside during the dramatic horror effects are too wide apart to be a small child's eyes.
Correction: It's the demonic pig-like entity outside (you even lightly hear the sound of a boar snorting), not a little girl's ghost. Hence, the eyes are further apart. But even beyond that, given it's a supernatural, potentially demonic being, real-world logic (such as having a consistent head shape) doesn't necessarily apply anyway.
Correction: What Kathy saw in the window was Jody the pig. (I know it's stupid).
19th Feb 2022
Scream (1996)
Stupidity: Dewey and Sidney jumpscare each other at the front door. There's just no possible logical reason for a deputy (or ANYONE) to be holding the mask the way Dewey is in the scene. If he were leaning against the door, he would have lost his balance or reacted in any way to the door shifting. (00:30:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Perhaps he was going to knock on the door with the mask. And Dewey didn't call out for Sidney.
I am not sure who would almost-but-not-quite knock with his hand wrapped in a mask and holding perfectly still keeping the pose, facing the opposite direction. It's a pose completely unnatural especially looking frozen and not in the middle of something else. (I amended the part about calling out, it was wrongly phrased since I wanted to say the exact opposite, thanks!).
He was about to knock on the door and was then looking behind him, probably heard a noise. He ain't the most solid type either.
I personally think this is a good stupidity entry. The stupidity section exists for stuff that isn't technically mistakes, but is still irksome or just silly. And this fits that. It's good for a quick jump scare, but doesn't really add up. It's a piece of evidence, so he probably wouldn't be touching it anyways, the way he's holding it is completely unnatural (nobody holds a mask they just picked up off the ground like that), and it's conveniently held at exactly the right height and position to be in Sidney's face when she opens the door. The movie was flying in the face of basic logic to manufacture a quick scare. And it's effective in context... but it doesn't really make sense if you dissect the scene.
18th Feb 2022
Scream 2 (1997)
Character mistake: Mrs. Loomis is crazy and does not really think things through (she finishes her speech saying "who gives a f..." and that she's untraceable anyway), however it's worth noting that when she tells Sidney the official version that the police will believe, she is wrong; she says it wiping the gun clean from prints and throwing it away, which means that the police would find the supposed murder weapon with neither Mickey nor Sidney's prints on it, and neither wears gloves. Moreover, she plans to disappear and she was prominently featured in the media coverage, so people would certainly investigate her at least as victim.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't think that a psychopathic character acting irrationally and jumping to unlikely conclusions really constitutes a character mistake. But I do think it's also worth pointing out though that cops usually don't rely on fingerprints on guns anyway - the likelihood of finding a usable print on a gun is minuscule (only about 5%), and there's going to be traces of things like skin-oil and whatnot on it from being handled, so the cops will likely just assume it was used by someone in the room - the most likely candidate being either Sidney and Mickey. Mrs. Loomis is also using a false identity and has got surgery to change her face before, so she could likely disappear pretty easily. Real-life killers get away with disappearing all the time.
I am no expert in true crimes and forensics, I am just challenging the movie logic here (which is why I talk about the behaviour of a crazy character who is running exposition). What I get from your objection though is that the cops wouldn't be able to tell that she wiped the gun clean from prints and so that wouldn't stick out as suspicious? She didn't really change her face, since Sidney recognizes her when she gets a good look at her. Rewatching the scene anyway it's very evident that she does not really care because she simply puts her faith in the cops not being able to track the fictitious Debbie Salt, so I would be happy with a correction here, I was interested in pointing out that the whole first part about wiping the prints and throwing the gun aside does not seem to logically follow up, I take note that according to your objection using 'real science' and forensics practice it might not even be that.
8th Jul 2004
The Mummy (1999)
Visible crew/equipment: In the scene where Rick is beating up Beni in the Egyptologist's office, as Rick throws him on the desk, there is a flash of light that has no visible source, and a metallic clink can be heard off to the right. (01:17:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If you look closely, Rick actually knocked a lamp off the table when he throws Beni on it, and it hit the ground and popped... hence the flash of light and "clink" sound. You can briefly see it in this video at about 34 seconds in, right as Beni hits the table. It's a sort-of gold color and it's right behind Rick and Beni. Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL3zacTLLJQ.
13th Aug 2008
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)
Plot hole: Zi Juan tells the rest of the group when they are in Shangri La that she will take the first watch at the entrance and guard against the emperor getting in. A few shots later, she then decides to have a conversation with her daughter nowhere near the entrance, and now with no-one guarding, means he gets in unchallenged.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: A character briefly leaving their watch to deliver important information as Zi Juan was doing isn't a mistake, and it's definitely not a plot hole, since it in no way contradicts the movie's logic or creates a hole in the narrative. At best, Zi Juan was being a little foolish leaving her watch, but a character being a little foolish isn't a "movie mistake." After all, people make foolish choices all the time in real life. Plus, as demonstrated by the movie, it doesn't really matter anyways - the Emperor's powers are back, so she wouldn't have been able to stop him even if she had kept watch.
9th Feb 2022
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Stupidity: Harry Osborn quite literally inherited the company his father founded. Presumably he owns or controls a majority of the stocks, because he was appointed CEO by his father and nobody questioned him. However, one of his employees can just instantaneously fire him from his position. We don't know the precise rules and internal regulations of Oscorp, but it's safe to say that this is not how company hierarchy works, especially considered that no charges are pressed on Harry and everyone would be out of a job (including Menken) if the circumstances were public - like having created a monster and waterboarding a guy in their basement.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Traditionally, CEO's can be fired if the company board votes them out of their position. (Something similar actually happens to Norman in the 2002 film.) While Menken doesn't specifically say this is what happened, he did frame Harry for covering up Dillon's "death," so we can safely assume that there was some sort-of emergency vote to remove Harry in the meantime as part of his power-play. (It'd honestly just be a waste of screen-time to show it.) Additionally, given the allegations against Harry (covering up a death), who would believe him if he came forward, anyways? Also, Electro is being waterboarded in a different location (Ravencroft Institute), not the Oscorp basement.
The thing is, the Raimi movie set the situation up properly. Norman was dealing with the board members in the meeting with the military already, and the business situation was addressed in a short scene that made clear a power play for profit. He was the boss, but not a monarch, and they don't "fire" him showing up with the guards anyway. The 'board' scene in TAS2? Harry treats everyone like lackeys and mentions that everyone will 'work' for Felicia; he bosses everyone around appearing to have inherited the position. It is mentioned that to depose the already ill and scandal-ridden Normal from his post would have needed legal action. Extra emphasis is given by Menken about any scandal going to hurt the company. Even if he had in mind to use Harry as scapegoat from the getgo, as I said, it would hurt the company terribly (going by the logic of the movie first and foremost), and he pulled off an amazing powerplay using incriminating evidence against Harry recorded an hour earlier and that he couldn't realistically share without destoying the company. It was damaged so heavily by an employee going rogue, what about the new CEO going nuts to the point of being kicked out, whatever the reason was? Lastly yes, Ravencroft appears to be part of Oscorp, so I simplified there. Of course yes, the throwaway "you're fired' line saves time, but the situation struck me as contradictory.
I can definitely understand where you're coming from, so I'll just say I think this is probably an agree to disagree situation. I feel like it's easy enough to explain away any contradictions or holes with some conjecture (I think like it ultimately comes down to the movie just not wanting to bog itself down explaining every detail), but the way the movie presents it is indeed a little over-simplified and janky. So I totally understand your take.
2nd Mar 2018
Scream (1996)
Trivia: After the release of this film, Caller ID sales shot up by over 300% for a period of time. This was a pretty big deal, too, as it was the mid-90's and Caller ID was not a standard feature on phones as it is now. The spike in sales is sometimes attributed to young adults seeing this film and becoming frightened by the idea of receiving a phonecall and not knowing who was on the other side, although it's never been 100% confirmed that this was the case. Either way, it's an interesting correlation.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's one of those rumors I'd really love to be able to get a quotable, reliable source for. The figure "300% up" is referred to the US market, from what I understand, but again, color me surprised if it's an actual, legitimate figure and not just one random number.
Submitted a word change saying that's it's never been 100% confirmed because it is indeed hard to verify. But given it's also one of those "cool factoids" that people have thrown around for decades, I do think this rumor has a place in the trivia.
15th Dec 2021
Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021)
Plot hole: A core plot point (lifted by the comics) is that Venom needs phenethylamine, and the only way to get it is from brains and from chocolate. Let's just go with it and forget the fact that phenethylamine can be legally purchased as dietary supplement, which would solve every problem. So, Venom gets incredibly angry because Mrs. Chen's shop ran out of chocolates, and *therefore* they need to go raid a chicken plant to eat some chicken brain. Uh, Venom lives in San Francisco. Chocolate is sold everywhere. If Mrs. Chen ran out of it, there are hundreds of stores and vending machines that have it in abundance. The escalation does not make sense.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The point is he needs to steal it. At Mrs. Chen's shop he gets it for free because he protects her from robbers. Eddie doesn't have the money to buy all the chocolate Venom needs all the time. Stealing some chickens as an alternative is better than trying to shoplift at a different store.
In the rest of the movie Eddie lives in his old apartment constantly in need of repairs, but shows zero serious money problems. He has lavish breakfasts, and he replaces the $2,000 TV the same day. Raiding the chicken place appears riskier than slipping his symbiote in a vending machine or shoplift, especially if it's just temporary - again assuming he's so poor that he literally has no money to eat, which is something the movie should have let us know, instead of pointing to the contrary and making him talk angrily about the need for them to not draw attention.
Not only are the original mistake and Sammo 100% correct, but chocolate isn't exactly expensive. You can get 5 pound bulk orders of melting chocolate on Amazon for like... $25. And that's just a quick 2-second Amazon search. You could probably get it even cheaper elsewhere online. Even if Eddie hypothetically has little money (which doesn't seem to be the case - he has a nicely sized apartment in a major city, new TV, etc.), it's still ridiculous that he couldn't get his hands on chocolate. This is definitely a case of the movie ignoring practicality and reason to manufacture a funny situation.
I agree. There are many other stores that sell candy so all Eddie had to do was to go to one of those instead. Plus, at the end of the first movie, Eddie told Ann that he was going to become an investigative journalist, so he has a new job.
Suggested correction: Which would you rather have phenethylamine, chicken, or chocolate for dinner? That's like saying just because we need food to survive...we should just eat anything or buy our base vitamins and minerals over the counter and from the store.
Sure. How does that have anything to do with the entry? Venom wanted chocolate for dinner and not chicken, supplements to a diet don't mean that you can't eat actual food and the main point was and is that if a store in a metropolis is sold out of chocolate of any kind, there are a dozen other stores in a few blocks' radius who sell it without you having to resort to crime to eat it.
4th Aug 2008
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)
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.
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.
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.
6th Nov 2008
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)
Other mistake: When the avalanche is over and the Yeti are digging out our heroes, they are conveniently less than four feet from the surface of the snow, despite the fact that millions of tons of snow has just landed on them.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: First of all, they're not buried in "less than four feet" of snow. Judging by how far they have to be lifted, they all seem to be about 4-6 feet from the surface. And second, according to the Baker Mountain Guides website (they specialize in mountaineering, rock-climbing and skiing, so they're a good source), this is pretty much 100% accurate. The average burial depth of an avalanche is around 1.3 meters... that's about 4 feet. Sure, you could get buried in more (or less)... but the fact is, the movie is within an objectively, factually accurate range, so this cannot logically be considered a valid mistake.
27th Jun 2009
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)
Revealing mistake: As the emperor raises his army, you see the holes form into the ground and the armies march. After a close up and the camera pans to get a larger view, watch closely and you can see the army take a totally different formation, caused by a computer generator. (01:19:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: After rewatching, I'm going to correct this a second time just to clarify. I think the OP is referring to the fact that there's a fade in the middle of the shot where suddenly the camera moves out more and we see more soldiers. That's not an "error caused by a computer generator." That's the filmmakers using a fade to imply a slight passage of time, which is not a mistake in any way, shape, or form. Additionally, as I said in my initial correction, the scene is subtly cut in a montage-like style to show the army rising quickly without having to see every single second of it, since it would take way too long and would kill the movie's pace.
Suggested correction: The scene is edited using montage-style editing. (Including obvious fades and time-jumps.) It would take far too long to show the scene start-to-finish in real-time. The fact that the formation changes between shots is acceptable within the context of a montage because a montage implies passage of time between edits.
3rd Dec 2021
Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2020)
Plot hole: The whole premise of the movie is that history would write off the existence of the Ghostbusters after the events of the first movie. In that movie there was prolonged large scale destruction in the heart of a city with millions of inhabitants. It's simply impossible that people would forget or dismiss it. And that's if we do not even begin to assume that the second one happened, even if the director said it did; nothing in his movie shows that, and for a good reason (Statue of Liberty, anyone?).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There's nothing in the movie to indicate that people in general have "forgotten" or "dismissed" the existence of the Ghostbusters, nor is that the "whole premise" of the movie. The fact the teacher is a fanboy and that the characters literally watch old news-clips and commercials for the Ghostbusters kind of goes against this. People simply just stopped talking about them because they did their jobs too well and went out of business 30 years prior... they were no longer relevant. I mean, if you want a real-world-analogue, just look at 9/11. It was a massive, generation-defining event, and yet outside of brief memorials once a year (which honestly, fewer and fewer people seem to pay attention to every year), people basically don't talk about it at all anymore. The only characters in the movie that don't believe in ghosts/the Ghostbusters at first are the kids. And their mother has been purposely sheltering them because she hates their grandfather-a Ghostbuster. So it makes sense they wouldn't necessarily know about them.
9/11 was a different kind of event; it didn't have 4 easy to remember heroes who already were on magazines covers all over the world and while it certainly dropped off the radar in many ways, some consequences in the long term have been permanent and it is in the history books. Here the world had proof that there are other dimensions, the dead, etc, and years later the Ghostbusters are relegated to a few youtube videos with a few thousand views (that with Peter supposedly teaching advertising and promotion, even). I didn't mention the kids, although the movie itself knows it's absurd that Podcast does not know anything about it and there's a joke about it. I understand if someone makes a point about the movie taking an ample creative license for the sake of not having to deal with 'realistic' implications of its comedic prequels since it wouldn't service the kind of story it wants to tell here, but I am surprised you say that the Ghostbusters here are not forgotten or dismissed. Somehow they are so fringe that not even the conspiracy theory guy knows about them, and the teacher knows because they are a childhood memory.
Like Ray tells a young Jason Reitman in Ghostbusters II, "Well some people have trouble believing in the paranormal." The public would have even less of a reason to believe in or think about the Ghostbusters since there were no Ghost sightings in thirty years. Not to mention the fact that men walked on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972 and astronauts were viewed as heroes, but we haven't visited the moon in fifty years, and astronauts are no longer regarded as heroes.
We keep conducting research in the field sending people in space when and where necessary and people are well aware that astronauts exist, even if they declined in popularity. It's not random obscure knowledge you can get only if you are looking specifically for it on some Youtube channel that a science nut and a conspiration theorist never heard of before. And we are again comparing something that does not have the same impact it would have to learn that dead people still walk (so to speak) the Earth. BTW, I am not sure (but I could be wrong here and please correct me) that the movie says that there have been 'no' ghost sightings at all; Ray said that they received less calls, not enough to pay their bills, not that ghosts disappeared entirely. It's just that in the Ghostbusters universe, people are kinda jaded about everything, which worked when the movies were comedies and you could say it was obvious paradox and satire that they would save the planet and still get sued once they weren't relevant anymore.
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.
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.