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)
TedStixon
8th Jul 2004
The Mummy (1999)
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: 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.
3rd Feb 2022
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Deliberate mistake: Perhaps to avoid getting an R rating or parental complaints notice how in the operating room massacre none of the doctors appear to bleed nor do Doc Ock's tentacles have blood on them.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The problem is in both versions of the film, basically all of the deaths either happen off-camera, or are things like people being shocked to death or killed by being tossed around and presumably having their backs/necks broken. Most of the deaths would be bloodless or near-bloodless anyways, and the camera simply doesn't linger on the bodies enough to show any blood. This is also why the tentacles aren't really bloody. Sure, it was probably ratings-related, but it isn't technically a mistake.
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 Jul 2021
Spiral: From the Book of Saw (2020)
Factual error: It is later revealed that Detective Banks partner faked his death by killing a meth-head junkie with the same tattoo as him. He included the junky's filleted skin with the same tattoo in a box with his badge to make it look like the other kills. Police, firefighters, first responders all provide DNA into a data bank to be identified in case something tragic happens and their remains are recovered. William Schenk's DNA would not have matched that of what was in the box.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: William knows that the cops will find out that he's not really dead one way or another. After all, he literally confronts Zeke and reveals he's still alive, knowing there's a good chance Zeke wouldn't take his offer to join him. All he's really doing is throwing off the cops and buying himself a few days when they think he's dead. (Since it can take a few days for DNA analysis to happen.) By the time they figure out he's not dead, he'll have already finished his game and disappeared. Which is ultimately what happens... he finishes his final game with Zeke and Marcus, then gets away.
12th Jan 2022
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Trivia: Not sure if it was done on purpose, but when Tony and Happy are sparring and "Natalie" (Natasha) walks in, the song playing is "Magnificent Seven" by The Clash. It just so happens the Avengers (or the Avengers Initiative) are made up of Iron Man, Black Widow, Hulk, Thor, Captain America,, Hawkeye, and Black Panther.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't really think this constitutes trivia. I don't see the connection. Is there some significance to the lyrics I'm not realizing? Or are you suggesting that there are only seven Avengers in the MCU? Because if so, that's not really true at all. (It's not even true in the Avengers comics, which frequently shifts characters around.) Especially as when this film came out, Black Panther wouldn't be introduced for another six years. Plus that completely ignores characters like Ant-Man, Wasp, Doctor Strange, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Scarlet Witch, War Machine, Falcon, Vision, Captain Marvel and Spider-Man, who join the team at various points during the franchise. I think this trivia is stretching at best, and trying to create significance where there is none.
Which is why I wasn't sure if it was done one purpose, or if it seems significant. However, when Fury and Tony are talking at the end and you see markers on the map, there's one in Africa where Wakanda is, suggesting Black Panther was part of the Avengers Initiative, whereas the others weren't.
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).
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.