Plot hole: It is highly unlikely that the murderer knew Phil was going to put his ear to the stall when he heard the babbling. It is even more unlikely that the murderer is going to get him on the first stab through the stall. (Which also requires a lot of strength). We also have to assume that he spent time hanging out in the bathroom knowing Phil would go there to begin with, and that other two men with weak bladders were doing the same simultaneously forcing the victim to go to the stall to begin with. (00:07:45)
TonyPH
12th May 2004
Scream 2 (1997)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The killer is incoherently whispering in a strange way in the adjacent stall to lure Phil to press his ear up against it. After stabbing him through it, the killer inspects the knife inquisitively, as if checking to see if he actually got him. While it's still not a terribly plausible scene, the killer's demeanor suggests that he encountered Phil in the restroom by coincidence and improvised the kill, rather than anticipating all of Phil's actions as part of a perfectly executed plan.
The general logistics and planning of the murder are a separate issue - because no, the murder was planned. The entry just says that it's "highly unlikely", putting it mildly, that the killer could guess the exact position Phil would pick to listen to the noise. Just a few inches up or down, left or right, make a huge difference. The killer looks at the knife admiring the results, because if he had any doubts that he got his victim, he'd be trapped in a bathroom with a screaming, wounded, angry Phil and plenty people who could come and help.
To be more clear, the correction here is that Phil had heard strange talking/whispering rather than music, which makes it at least a little more plausible the killer would think he might put his head up against the wall at a certain spot. Unlikely for sure, but unlikely isn't a mistake, it's just what movies do. Phil's death was planned yes, though it stands to reason the plan was more "surveil and strike when vulnerable" and less "wait for him in this particular stall we know he'll be next to."
27th Aug 2001
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: Just after the curfew has been set, Tatum and Sidney go to the store, you can see a reflection of Ghostface but, surely the shopkeeper or anyone would notice a man walk in dressed head to toe like a serial killer with a ghost mask?
Correction: It is possible that the killer brought the costume into the store with him in a bag and changed in the back or something, therefore no one would have seen him come in wearing the costume.
Correction: Someone may well have noticed, but depending on how big the store is and who happened to be up front, the costumed loiterer may not have been confronted as quickly as we might imagine. A customer or store clerk may have taken the time to inform management or security rather than handle it themselves.
16th Dec 2004
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: Right after curfew is in effect, when Tatum and Sydney are sitting on Sydney's front porch, you see the killer in the bushes in the background. The very next scene is of the video store where both killers, Stu and Billy, are speaking to Randy. The next scene that follows directly is Sydney and Tatum in the grocery store where you see the killer's reflection on the cooler glass. How can the killer(s) be in more than one place if this is all going on at the same time?
Correction: We see two students at the school dressed up as the killer. It is plausible that other students do it too and follow Sidney around as a joke.
One thing is prancing around at school screaming in the corridors in an obvious joke (that got both students suspended, by the way), another thing entirely is stalking someone to their home or in the streets with the police looking out for the suspect. Both scenes don't make sense other than to give cheap scares and throw red herrings.
These moments come off silly (the one in the supermarket especially), but it's no mistake. These costumed figures being imposters wanting to harass Sidney for kicks is really the only plausible explanation, and the jaded cynicism and callousness of 90s youth culture is a major recurring theme of the film, so it fits.
I agree that it's the only explanation you have to give to make sense of it, but in this movie and in the next movies in the saga, when they wanna show imposters, they show prancing idiots who do want to harass and be goofs (such as the guy in the hallway in this movie). Sidney never notices those people who do absolutely nothing to be noticed, so they are there to harass the audience, not her.
8th Jun 2005
Scream (1996)
Deliberate mistake: When Sidney is typing the message to the police, you can see that there are red lights flashing, which must mean the police are there, 5 seconds after she types. Obviously deliberately done for the humor. (00:29:30 - 00:30:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Contrary to what the entry says, I don't see police lights flashing as she types, nor when she talks to Billy. I do agree that still it's barely a minute before the police arrive in full force on the scene and it's pretty ridiculous (although I am not sure it's deliberate humour).
There's a time skip between Sidney encountering Dewey at the front door and Billy being arrested. It's plausible Tatum had sent Dewey to check on Sidney knowing she was going to be late, and so he arrived before the rest of the authorities. Billy did not chase after Sidney and likely reacted calmly to Dewey to look as innocent as he could, he wouldn't necessarily have been arrested right away.
29th May 2007
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: Sidney is talking with Stu and Tatum at the lockers when someone runs by wearing the Ghostface mask. She runs down the hall, bumping into Billy, then goes into the bathroom and meets the killer. We know it isn't Billy because we just saw him, but how would Stu get into the bathroom without passing by Billy and Sidney?
Correction: It was made pretty clear that it was two other kids that ran through the hall. There is a scene with Henry Winkler (principal) who is expelling the two students due to the prank.
Yes, and that scene happens before the killer shows up in the bathroom, so it can't be them. Sidney also says that she knew it was really "him", the real killer, and not a prankster, and there's no indication that the movie wants her to be wrong at that time.
The "tell" is that the shot of Sidney running out of the restroom has a voiceover from a news reporter talking about pranksters dressed as the killer. Sidney is far from infallible (she even misidentified her mother's killer) and is vulnerable and being psychologically manipulated by Billy and Stu.
The biggest tell would be that he has no knife, but there's nothing prankster-like in that assault, if he tackled her like that he would have hurt her (and he's in the girls' bathroom too?). The newscast about the pranksters establishes that it's the authorities' version, but the dialogue I mentioned happens later, addresses exactly that, and she negates it. I agree that Sidney is not infallible, but the fact that she was wrong (by deliberate misdirection from the real culprit) about Cotton is a specific plot point, she was supposed to be wrong and Gale even picks up on the fact that she deep inside isn't sure about it anymore. Overall the bathroom scene is one of those scenes that don't quite add up but people enjoy making theories about them ("it was all in Sidney's mind", "it was Roman", etc).
I agree this is one of the film's weaker moments, but I don't think it's just an accident. The high school section was rearranged from the script and a couple moments dropped, and I believe it was decided during editing to make the restroom scene more ambiguous (adding the "killer's" grunts that sound younger than any of the characters; moving the reporter's monologue to the end of this scene) to make up for an unfilmed scene where Sidney encountered two more masked impostors in the school.
2nd Jul 2003
Scream (1996)
Corrected entry: During the final scene in the house after Billy and Stu are revealed as the killers, Billy and Stu showed that they put a great deal of effort in planning the murders and the cover ups. But they seemed to forget their fingerprints. Their prints were on the cell phone and voice distorter they put in Mr. Prescott's coat pocket.
Correction: There are many ways to conceal fingerprints. One common way is to smear Elmer's glue on the tips of your fingers and let it dry. It is not easy to notice and effectively eliminates your fingerprints. Since they had to touch many things while committing the murders, but still had to appear as themselves, they very likely used a similar method.
Correction: It is also possible Billy and Stu forgot about it. They were obsessed with their plan they just didn't think it through.
Correction: They may well have planned to wipe the prints off after killing Sidney.
20th Feb 2013
Blade Runner (1982)
Trivia: Whenever Deckard occupies his room there is a low/high hum if you listen very carefully! This sound is very like or if not the very same low hum that can be heard on the Nostromo in the first Alien movie (1979). (00:31:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I'd always assumed it was from Alien, too, but years later I discovered that sound effect actually came from The Empire Strikes Back! Specifically when Luke is searching for Darth Vader in the dark corridors underneath Cloud City near the climax.
26th May 2009
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Other mistake: During the inquiry at the start of the movie, the Klingon Ambassador is going over the footage of the destruction of the Enterprise from all the exterior views. This is very nice, but how would they have access to all of these different viewpoints of the destruction? Bearing in mind no-one was there to film it. It couldn't have been the Klingon Bird of Prey that filmed it, because in most of the destruction scenes, the Bird of Prey would have been no-where near or in a position to film it, and was of course captured and still being commanded by Kirk during the course of the inquiry. (00:04:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Most of the visuals we see on view screens in Star Trek are created from sensors rather than cameras, so what we see doesn't necessarily have to be from the visual perspective of the ship taking it. Though yes, it is quite an amusing coincidence that it all looks exactly like they're watching a copy of Star Trek III on home video.
Suggested correction: It's possible the Grissom and/or the Bird of Prey launched drones into orbit to aid in the scanning of the planet or for communications or sensor relays, and this is where the footage could have come from. This isn't unlike the beginning of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, in which crewmembers of the space station mentioned such drones as the reason images of the aftermath of the V'ger destruction were able to be seen despite no ships being left.
5th Sep 2021
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Corrected entry: Nothing in space could communicate with whales in the ocean without radios. It wouldn't matter if it was generating the loudest sound in the universe, or had the most sensitive mike and most powerful amplifier - sound can't travel through a vacuum. The probe couldn't "hear" the whales, and the whales couldn't hear the probe.
Correction: This assumes that the probe, which does not appear to be a 'mechanical' device, uses a communications technology that we are familiar with, and there's no reason to assume that it does. It's a fictional, alien probe, which is likely using a fictional, alien technology to communicate with the whales.
You're describing fantasy fiction and not science fiction. The whales are not equipped with alien technology to send and receive, so it doesn't matter what technology the probe contains The movie makes a point of "playing" the sounds of whales and the sounds of the probe. Sounds, by definition, are vibrations of a medium - there is no medium here to carry the vibrations, and even if there were, they would have to be so powerful as to cause worldwide, catastrophic shock waves in order to reach.
Star Trek does often dabble in fantasy under the guise of "too advanced for our puny minds." The probe's signal is not itself a sound but some kind of energy (or something) that can inexplicably drain power from starships, cause giant hurricanes, and produce a sound when it hits a medium. The probe presumably has sensors that can detect the effects of a whale call and extrapolate/ "hear" it much the way the Enterprise bridge screen can "see" across vast distances using sensor data.
12th Oct 2019
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
Corrected entry: The Excelsior detects the incoming shockwave from the exploded Klingon moon Praxis and is hit seconds later. Assuming that the Excelsior in these times isn't operating within Klingon borders (or even the Klingon solar system) and is monitoring the neutral zone light years away, the Excelsior cannot be hit or even be surprised by a shockwave coming from so far away. Gravitational shockwaves or explosions (even huge ones) are not faster than light. It would take years to reach the Excelsior.
27th Jan 2006
Alien (1979)
Corrected entry: Ripley's nosebleed: from 1:17:16 (chapter 14: 'A Confrontation with Ash' on the '99 DVD), Ripley's nose starts bleeding, eventually very noticeably. This is almost a full minute before Ash begins attacking her by throwing her twice, which might actually make it bleed. (01:17:15)
Correction: It's just an incidental nosebleed that can occur for any number of reasons like dehydration, blood pressure, etc. In addition to the other answers, it seems the film's purpose with the nosebleed is to contrast a sweaty, bleeding Ripley against Ash, who is totally dry aside from a strange drop of white fluid trickling down his face. The juxtaposition is a signal that yes, Ash is indeed "bleeding/ sweating" this white substance as a body fluid and it hasn't just dripped or spilled on him.
Correction: Actually, Ripley's nosebleed was from when they opened the airlock on the Alien and she and Parker were caught in the decompression. That scene obviously was never filmed but the nosebleed was in reference to it. Also, in a cut scene you see Ripley and Lambert talking with Parker over the intercom where he says the Alien is right next to the airlock, apparently somewhat fascinated with a blinking light on in the door.
Correction: This would only be an error if a later scene were intended to show the moment the bleeding is caused by some physical strike, but there's no such moment (and there is the chance that her first shoving match with Ash may have had her head striking his, but it's not a certainty). Still, nosebleeds are commonly triggered by stress in people prone to them. Ripley's nosebleed begins after she learns of the special order (crew expendable) and becomes extremely distraught- and after her physically tossing Ash around (causing his head cut that later drips). She marches off, and in the passageways she can then be seen with the nosebleed.
You're really rationalizing this. Ridley Scott did not make Ridley's nose bleed to show that she's stressed out. It's inexplicable, and was the result of something cut from the film. The presence of it in the film constitutes it as a mistake.
Accidents and unintended effects are not necessarily mistakes. The nosebleed may have been intended as one thing - a reference to another scene - but became something else by that other scene's absence: a detail that helps sell the realism of the moment precisely because it does not feel contrived. Because a random nosebleed that occurs at an inconvenient time whose cause is not immediately obvious is something most people have experienced at one time or another.
18th Feb 2020
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Factual error: It is long-established in Star Trek canon that onboard diagnostics can detect any animate intruders on Federation vessels. Any living thing that exists upon a Federation vessel can be identified, and its location specifically noted on Federation property. How is it, then, that there are rats aboard the Regula I space station (as observed by Doctor McCoy) that haven't been eradicated?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is not established that Regula 1 has the same internal sensors that a starship has.
It is definitely established, however, that the Regula 1 space station is conducting the most highly-classified technological research and development in the entire Federation: The Genesis Project, which entailed re-engineering whole worlds to create new ecosystems where no life existed before. If anything, Regula 1 should be equipped with even more sensitive and discriminating biological sensors than any starship in the Federation, for the express purpose of preventing biological contamination of their experiments. So, Regula 1 must have necessarily possessed the most sophisticated biological sensors available. As Dr. Carol Marcus emphasized, the Genesis Project couldn't risk contamination by so much as a microbe, nevermind foot-long rats creeping around the space station.
None of the scanning shown in the film was done by the Regula 1 station. The Reliant is what scanned the planet where Khan was found. Even if Regula 1 did have highly advanced sensors there is nothing to suggest anyone has the time or need to regularly scan for pests on the station itself. The presence of a pest in the Genesis cave itself would have been an error, but not on the station. A pest on the station has no bearing on the Genesis project itself. There are too many assumptions for this to be considered a movie mistake.
The rat was not shown in the Genesis Cave, it was shown aboard the Regula space station, where the Genesis Device itself was constructed before it was beamed inside the planetoid for a test run. The point you're missing is that the space station had rats crawling around inside, but a rat infestation wouldn't be tolerated at an ultra-top-secret research and development facility for a project that was highly sensitive to biological contamination.
Regulus One was a scientific research laboratory, the rats seen roaming the passageways were lab rats that had escaped in the earlier confusion. Genesis was their current project, but I'm certain there were many other experiments going on. Bear in mind, Carol Marcus retorted that "they waited until everyone was on leave to do this." They only had a skeleton crew aboard at the time Khan boarded the station and killed those still present who were not transporting equipment to the cavern.
Suggested correction: It was most likely a lab rat that was inadvertently freed when Khan and his followers ransacked the station. The sensors probably pick it up just fine, everyone on the station is just too busy being dead to do anything about the stray rat scurrying about.
It's the 24th Century. After all the "animal cruelty" activism of the 20th and 21st Centuries, I very seriously doubt they are still experimenting on lab rats in the 24th Century. That practice would be deemed medieval, at best, and barbaric, at worst.
Suggested correction: When was this established? There are a number of episodes of the original series where the plot depends on them not being able to detect intruders. "Court Martial" for example.
"Court Martial" is probably the worst example you could use for your argument. In that episode, the vengeful Lieutenant Commander Benjamin Finney repeatedly sabotaged the Enterprise main computer (changing ship's chronological data records in order to fake his own "death" and frame Captain Kirk for a murder that never happened). Finney also sabotaged the computer and caused the Enterprise to fall out of orbit. Indeed, Spock discovered that the ship's computer was malfunctioning due to sabotage. So, Finney was more than capable of sabotaging the ship's bio-scanners, as well, to conceal himself from a whole-ship scan. In fact, they had to resort to a very sensitive audio-scan of the Enterprise, selectively eliminating the audible heartbeats of every known person aboard the ship. When all known heartbeats were eliminated, just one unknown heartbeat remained, and its owner couldn't be identified. Therefore, Finney had certainly tampered with the bio-scanner to conceal his whereabouts. It's very doubtful, however, that foot-long rats hacked the bio-scanners aboard the Regula research station to conceal their whereabouts.
Every time the Enterprise computer system reported an "intruder alert," and every time they asked the computer for the location of specific individuals and lifeforms anywhere aboard the ship. This was all well-established in the Original Series.
It's a big leap to go from that to they can detect any living being. It is explicitly established that under many circumstances they can't even detect a full grown man if they are in hiding. This is the whole basis of the plot of "Court Martial." Even as late as The Next Generation it is established that it is difficult to find someone if they're not wearing their communicator badge.
Yet they can detect single-celled organisms on a planet's surface from thousands of miles away. The technology certainly exists in the Star Trek universe, and especially for the highly-classified Genesis Experiment. In "The Wrath of Khan," Dr. Carol Marcus stipulates that the Genesis Experiment cannot be contaminated by so much as a microbe, and complete sterility is a condition for selecting a test planet. Yet they have foot-long rats scurrying around the Genesis research facility? That is a plot hole, a continuity problem and a factual error all rolled into one.
Reliant scanned the planet to search for any life forms. That scan was inaccurate and it read Khan's entire group (and presumably the Ceti eels) as non-specific, potential life matter. Reliant's crew speculates that it could just be some speck of matter and they are completely shocked to find multiple living humans there. If they were using these highly advanced sensors you claim they were using they would not have been surprised by the presence of humans at all. And even if they could, there is nothing to suggest they should also use those sensors for pest control on their space station.
Suggested correction: Obviously the first thing the rats did was chew through the cables to the lifeform scanners.
Which would set off alarms like crazy aboard the station because preventing biological contamination of the Genesis Experiment was a No.1 priority for Dr. Carol Marcus. Undoubtedly, the station was bristling with redundant bio-scanners.
All of which had been also chewed through! No, you make a good point.
Suggested correction: Someone on the Reliant had a pet rat and one of Khan's henchmen brought it aboard Regula I to torment the lab techs. (Yes, this sounds silly, but the point is that strange and unlikely things actually happen quite often and it's exactly what makes stories interesting. As long as an event can be rationalized, unlikelihood alone isn't enough to qualify as a mistake. If it really bothers you, you might get more mileage putting it under "stupidity" since it's obviously just a lazy horror cliche).
12th Apr 2005
Blade Runner (1982)
Corrected entry: File footage descriptions provided to police on escaped replicates Zora (snake lady) and Pris are reversed. Zora was an inefficient killer and Pris was. Also, a basic pleasure model (Zora, not Pris) would take a job as a sexual entertainer.
Correction: There is no mistake there. Zhora was smart enough to try and strangle Deckard with his tie, so as not to leave any physical evidence before dumping the body. Anyone could have strangled him, no one would suspect an exotic dancer/replicant. And Pris "A Basic Pleasure Model" was quite obvioulsy dressed as a prostitue and her idea of attacking Deckard is to do a cartwheel and gymnastic display.
Yep. To add, the only reason Zhora doesn't succeed in killing Deckard is because other people walk into the room. She is much more efficient in her attack than Pris. She's also very serious and cynical while Pris plays innocent and flirty. Zhora is also more of a Vegas showgirl or burlesque dancer which is quite a different job and skill set from being a prostitute, which to me is what "pleasure model" implies.
27th Aug 2001
Blade Runner (1982)
Corrected entry: As Deckard (Harrison Ford) stalks Batty (Rutger Hauer) in the building at the end, you see him walk through a room and briefly the shadow of two crew members (one is the director Ridley Scott) skims across the wall.
Correction: Sebastian's toys had the run of the place. Why couldn't it have been one of them?
It looks like one of them is holding a camera.
1st Nov 2007
Blade Runner (1982)
Corrected entry: When Batty is in the phone booth shaking his hand, the nail stuck in his hand at the end of the movie is seen as he turns his hand. Also, someone's hand is visible on his right sholder.
Correction: This is not a mistake, but rather an artistic choice. Both of these short images repeat later in the film (Tyrell's apt and the final fight.) Scott was trying to portray some sort of android premonition or something.
They went so far as to alter these shots in the Final Cut to remove the thumb on Roy's shoulder and have the backgrounds better blend in with the phone booth. It really doesn't seem like these shots were ever meant to be a flash forward at all.
28th Mar 2021
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Corrected entry: The aliens provide coordinates for a place to make a rendezvous with humans but do not specify a time. It's possible they're monitoring and will arrive when they see enough humans gathering at Devil's Tower, but the humans seem to expect the aliens to come more or less exactly when they actually do, somehow.
Correction: Scientists were prepared for the aliens and knew when and where they would arrive, as seen by the extensive complex built at Devil's Tower. However, as Claude Lacombe, the French scientist, speculates towards the end, hundreds of humans may have had the Devil's Tower image recently implanted in their minds, saying they were "invited" but never made the connection. Neery figured it out and was compelled to go there at that time. Neery was then allowed to join a group of trained volunteers that were already prepared to go on the ship, while the previous "abductees" were being returned to Earth.
The aliens had not given a time to meet. The scientists may be taking it on faith that the aliens will know that they've arrived at Devil's Tower and are ready, but the way the subject of timing is left unaddressed on screen feels like an oversight.
We don't know for certain if the scientists were given a specific time, but it appears they were, or at least a general window. The long-lost objects, like the ship and the military aircraft, suddenly showing up in the desert, is an indication the process has started. If humans were given the precise location where the alien ship would arrive (Devil's Tower), then, logically, the aliens would also communicate when. The scientists were communicating with the aliens using tonal sounds. Early on, the scientists received map coordinates through dish satellites as repeating pulses. They would likely receive time information the same way. As often happens in movies, this info may be something that got edited out of the film, causing an inconsistency.
This might be one of those edge cases. Under most circumstances I'd agree we could assume arrangements were made off-screen by virtue of the fact that the rendezvous occurs successfully in the first place; but in the context of this movie, in which any and all forms of contact with the aliens is treated as profound and significant, leaving it unaddressed (not even with a line of dialogue) comes off like a plot hole. I suppose we'll just have to let our fellow website readers decide.
12th May 2017
Halloween: H20 (1998)
Continuity mistake: Although I understand the fact that H20 didn't want to include the Halloween 4, 5 and 6 timeline, Michael was burnt to a crisp by Dr. Loomis in the epilogue of Halloween 2, so he should have a fully burnt body. Also Michael was shot twice by Laurie in Halloween 2... He would have at least had scars/damage to his face in H20.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is addressed and left unexplained in the film, as Laurie's son doesn't believe Myers could have possibly survived the events of 'Halloween II' but apparently has anyway. We are left to speculate whether 'Halloween II' had truly ended the way we had seen, or if the recent killings were not actually by Myers but a copycat stalker, or if Myers is supernatural, etc. Viewers are free to consider this a bad or stupid choice if they wish, but strictly speaking it isn't a mistake.
Suggested correction: Michael's vision is also fine despite losing his eyes to gunfire at the end of Halloween 2. He can regenerate far better than most people.
7th Jun 2017
Halloween 4 (1988)
Plot hole: At the end of Halloween 2 Michael is completely engulfed in fire for several minutes. Even if somehow he was to survive he would be covered in scars. When we see him at the beginning of part 4 he has a few small scars on his arms. Same with Loomis, he has a few small scars on his arms and one on his cheek despite being in a gigantic explosion and fire. Obviously this was done so they could bring the 2 characters back but it still makes no logical sense.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Michael has the supernatural ability to heal as shown when he's shot in the eyes at the end of Halloween 2 because in this one he can see, as for Loomis it's possible he was blown into another room or into an area into the room where the flames couldn't reach him, no mistake.
Michael does have some scars though. If the excuse that he heals is the reason he doesn't have more than all of them would be healed after 10 years. Also Loomis was in the same room with Michael, even if Loomis was blown into another room he would have been engulfed in flames and would have been either dead from the shock wave or still burned worse than he is in part 4.
Suggested correction: This one's tough. On the one hand, this is intentional and if it were released today I'd chalk it up to being a (very) soft continuity reboot and that in this film the explosion was simply not as severe as it was in Halloween II. On the other hand, in the context of its release era, and just by watching you can sort of tell they were hoping viewers either had a fuzzy memory of Halloween II or were willing to just go with it. I think I'll err on the side of the former, but it's interesting.
The original script contained an opening scene which showed how Dr Loomis was blown out of the hospital. They had no enough money, so that scene was never shot.
19th Sep 2002
Halloween II (1981)
Corrected entry: In the end credits of the film, it says NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is copyright 1978, when in fact, the movie was made in 1968. It can't be the copyright for Halloween 2 itself, as that was made in 1981.
Correction: The copyright is 1978. Copyrights are renewed, so although the film was made in 1968, it can be copyrighted in 1978.
Correction: Night of the Living Dead (1968) has a very complicated history with regard to its legal copyright status. For the longest time the film was in the public domain.
3rd Jun 2003
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
Corrected entry: The character of Valeris was originally slated to be Lt. Saavik. The filmmakers tried to get Kirstie Alley back, but found out that her stardom in "Cheers" now made her too expensive. It was then decided that Saavik as she was known would never betray the Federation, so Valeris was created. This explains Valeris' infatuation with whether Spock is lying, as her words were originally Saavik's, mirrored in "The Wrath of Khan" (when Spock tells her, "I exaggerated," after she accuses him, "You lied.").
Correction: First, Saavik was already recast with Robin Curtis for Star Trek III and IV, so Alley was barely an issue for this film. Second, the exchange you mention is not a reference to the earlier film, but to the long-standing stipulation that Vulcans, as a rule, do not lie, established early in the original 1960s TV series.
There's nothing incorrect about the entry. Valeris was indeed originally written to be Saavik and Nicholas Meyer did try to get Kirstie Alley back (he did not care for Robin Curtis' interpretation of the character). The dialogue about Spock's apparent lies works with Valeris, too, but as originally written they would have been references to their earlier conversation in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.