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.
TedStixon
3rd Feb 2022
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
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).
22nd Dec 2021
What If...? (2021)
Other mistake: Supposedly the one difference between this universe and the movie canon is that Janet was infected by a zombie virus before she was saved by Hank and Scott. However, in the original movie Janet actively led them to her by 'possessing' Scott and while intelligent, these Marvel zombies can't communicate. Also, Vision is settled in Camp Leigh, which appears to be in perfect shape despite being hit by a missile powerful enough to penetrate in the bunker in Winter Soldier.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As I said in my other correction, differences between the MCU movies and this show cannot count as mistakes, since they are showing us different universes with different outcomes. Just because Janet lead Scott to them in the movie doesn't mean that's what happened in the show's universe. Same with the "Winter Soldier" discrepancy.
Without Janet leading them, they wouldn't have even learned about her existence based on what was shown in Antman and The Wasp, and they show the laboratory scene pan out as it did in the movie. Althought technically she could have been infected by the zombie virus in the minutes it took them to get to her inside the Quantum Realm. You realise that it's flimsy and it relies on people essentially not remembering the movie, though.
20th Aug 2020
Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013)
Character mistake: The Sheriff calls for Drayton Sawyer to bring out his son Jed (Leather Face) in the movie's opening scene. But it's long been established that they're brothers.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is meant to be a direct sequel to the original film, and ignores the other sequels. And if memory serves correctly, the first movie never made any mention of them being brothers. (I just checked and the Texas Chainsaw fandom Wiki backs this up - the original film makes no reference to them being brothers.) So therefore, it is not a mistake if this movie re-writes him as being Leatherface's father.
26th Jun 2019
Child's Play (2019)
Stupidity: The climax takes place during the launch of the "Buddi 2," a hotly anticipated tech gadget. The entire film has been leading up this point, and it's a big deal that it's being launched. And yet, there are no more than maybe 20 people waiting. Not a mistake per se, but totally unrealistic compared to the huge crowds these sort-of launches typically bring in.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Bear in mind, this is just a cheap retail store in downtown Chicago; presumably, every major department and toy store across the country is having a similar event, so this opening would logically only draw people in the neighborhood with children the right age and willing to pay the opening-day price. Plus, we hear a voice on a radio warning of upcoming rain. The report is proven wrong since there's no rain for the rest of the scene, but even a warning of rain would ward some off.
I'll agree to disagree. I live in a relatively small, quiet town in upstate, New York, and events like new tech-launches (new iPhones, video games, etc.), movie premieres, anticipated book releases, etc. still regularly bring in pretty huge crowds at virtually every participating store. (Ex. Lines going out the doors and wrapping around the building.) Heck, I know someone who tried to get the last "Harry Potter" book opening night and couldn't because every local book store was packed completely full. So I have a hard time believing the crowd would be so small. The fact this movie also takes place in a pretty major city like Chicago is another strike against it.
27th Oct 2021
Halloween II (1981)
Factual error: At the end when Loomis lights the lighter, the room explodes and is engulfed in flames. Loomis would've burned to death quickly yet shows up in part 4 with burns on his face and arm.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: First, surviving an explosion is unlikely, but not impossible - there are plenty of real-life stories of people surviving fiery blasts. Second, I would argue that it definitely falls firmly under suspension of disbelief, and therefore I don't believe it's a valid mistake. And third, even if it was a valid mistake, this should be a mistake under the "Halloween 4" page, not the "Halloween 2" page.
19th Jun 2020
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)
Trivia: Jason actor Ted White reportedly hated young Corey Feldman, and purposely frightened him during the filming of some stunts just to amuse himself.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He didn't hate Feldman but strongly disliked him.
I don't really think that's a valid correction. That's basically just arguing over semantics. White has made his (very) negative feelings about Feldman known publicly on multiple occasions including the documentary "Crystal Lake Memories," (going so far as to say Feldman was a "mean little devil," that he "couldn't stand him" and that he "wanted to kill him desperately") so I think the trivia still stands as is.
19th May 2021
Edward Scissorhands (1990)
Continuity mistake: Jim fires at the ceiling and rubble falls on Ed's head. A shot later he is standing tall unharmed and clean and the roof falls on him again.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Incorrect. The roof doesn't collapse all at once - a small piece first falls and hits Edward on the head in the first shot, then the rest of the roof falls down a few seconds later in the second shot. You can even see the small piece that hit Edward in the second shot if you look at the ground. He also isn't "standing tall unharmed and clean" in the second shot. Look it up on YouTube (search for "Edward Scissorhands (1990) - Jim Attacks Edward (4/5) " on the Movieclips channel), and pay attention around 0:54.
17th Apr 2021
Galaxy Quest (1999)
Audio problem: Right after the Thermians become sad over the mention of Gilligan's Island, Alexander rolls his eyes and starts to turn away, while you can hear him saying "Oh brother." However his lips are not moving for this indicating the line was dubbed in.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's quite obviously Laredo/Tommy's voice saying "Oh, brother" off camera. Not Alan Rickman. Their voices don't sound anything alike. You can see for yourself at this clip at about 1:03: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26tWWopd_3g.
Suggested correction: It is not Alexander who says it, but most likely Guy.
No it's Alan Rickman's voice.
It's definitely not Alan Rickman's voice. It's Tommy/Laredo's voice off camera saying the line.
27th Feb 2020
Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984)
Plot hole: Billy's not tall enough to impale Linnea Quigley on deer antlers.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The movie blatantly shows Billy lifting her high enough above his head to impale her. It's literally right there in the scene. Additionally Linnea Quigley talks about the making of the scene in the documentary "In Search of Darkness Part II," and talks about the actor living her high above his head over and over while making the scene.
12th Sep 2019
Kiss the Girls (1997)
Plot hole: Given that police departments, the FBI, and the CIA do intense screening of potential candidates how did Casanova slip between the cracks? He's clever but surely somebody would've noticed something.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: In truth, there have been plenty of real life corrupt cops, and even cops that were secretly serial killers. If they managed to slip through the cracks, then it's not outside of the realm of possibility that Casanova was able to, too. So this is definitely not a mistake.
28th Nov 2020
Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990)
Character mistake: Given Billy still remembered and recognized him it seems strange Kate doesn't when she mistakes Daffy for Gizmo.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Billy spent significantly more time bonding with Gizmo in the first movie - days and days. By contrast Kate had very little actual time with him.
15th Dec 2020
Die Hard (1988)
Corrected entry: On the box for the VHS and DVD, it says, "Armed with only a service revolver and his cunning, McClane launches his own one-man war." His gun was a semi-automatic, not a revolver.
Correction: I don't think a mistake on the box-cover counts as a movie mistake. It would probably be better as trivia if anything.
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.