Corrected entry: When Fletcher goes to pick his Mercedes Benz up after it is towed, he screams about a scratch being on the car. There is no scratch visible throughout the rest of the movie.
lionhead
27th Aug 2001
Liar Liar (1997)
3rd Apr 2017
The Mummy (1999)
Question: Anyone know what Beni said to Rick? I'm referring to what he said (I'm assuming Hebrew) before Rick said "What did you say?!" followed by "I'm not gonna tell you" by Beni.
Answer: Beni: As long as I serve him, I am immune. Rick: Immune from what? Beni: Piszkos állat [this is Hungarian for "filthy animal," an insult directed at Rick]. Rick: What did you say? Beni: I don't want to tell you. You'll just hurt me some more.
But how come he speaks Hungarian throughout the movie? Is he portrayed as a Hungarian in the film?
Beni is shown to speak many languages, as evident when he is confronted by the mummy and tries to pray to different religions.
Beni was a native Hungarian, but he was multilingual.
9th Oct 2022
Hocus Pocus 2 (2022)
Factual error: In one scene, Winifred asks Gilbert who Trask is and Gilbert replies that Trask is the "mayor", to which Winifred just acknowledges. However, the office of mayor was not created in Massachusetts until 1823, which is 130 years after they were hanged, so given the witch's lack of knowledge of the modern day, she would have likely not known what Gilbert meant.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
15th Nov 2024
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Question: To create a horcrux, a witch or wizard must first split their soul by intentionally and deliberately murdering someone without any guilt or remorse for their actions. Since Tom Riddle murdered countless people, shouldn't his soul have been split into more fragments rather than just seven?
Answer: The other answer is spot on, but I would add that it requires casting a specific spell while simultaneously killing someone to make horcrux and split one's soul. (The movie downplayed this and the spell name is never revealed in the book.) Professor Slughorn had told the young Tom Riddle that the act involved dark magic, though he did not provide details. Riddle apparently discovered what that dark spell was to make horcrux.
Answer: Next to the act of murder, one also has to purposefully turn an object into a horcrux in order to make a horcrux. Your soul splitting doesn't automatically send that piece of soul into an object; your soul will be split but still connected to your body. As for when Voldemort's killing curse rebounded onto Harry, his real body was destroyed, and his fragmented soul shattered because it was frail and unstable, causing a piece to detach and lodge onto Harry.
The question wasn't about how to make a Horcrux. It was about why each murder Tom committed didn't shatter his soul more. For example, if Tom killed 11,000 people, then shouldn't his soul have shattered into 11,000 pieces?
I think your soul splits when you kill someone, but doesn't split again when murdering someone else (which part would?). Once you murder, your soul is split and will stay split until you detach a part of your soul. It's not like Tom could have saved up on fragments of soul by killing and then put pieces of his soul into objects one after the other. He had to murder and then purposefully put that split part into an object, and only then be able to split his soul again with another murder.
To further clarify, according to J.K. Rowling, random killing damages a wizard's soul, but does not split it. That requires using Dark magic and deliberately storing the soul shard into a vessel, making it a horcrux. Riddle chose six significant objects for the horcruxes and left one soul piece in his body. When Riddle cast the Killing Curse at baby Harry, it rebounded and simultaneously destroyed Riddle's body and sheared off another soul piece. Harry's forehead scar was an accidental seventh horcrux that Riddle never knew existed. It was Lily Potter's love and sacrificing her life to save Harry that protected him from the killing curse.
12th Nov 2024
Agatha All Along (2024)
Circle Sewn With Fate / Unlock Thy Hidden Gate - S1-E2
Plot hole: Spoiler - considering what emerges at the ending of the series, Agatha's behaviour in this episode hardly makes sense. She had no trust in the Witches' road; in fact, she knew it did not exist at all, and her only aim was to steal the powers of the other four witches during a fake ritual. However, one of them is a normal human with no powers, one is a witch with her powers sealed and thus impossible to steal, and she literally tells the third one how her very specific energy-stealing power works - which, of course, is entirely absurd considering she had no purpose for her, given the lack of a real ritual.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The whole point was to just get a witch to do the ritual. Agatha's earthly ability is to read people. Knowing it's a rouse, she tells Lillia what she needs to hear to participate in the ritual (the road will make Lillia more powerful) and that at the end of the road, Agatha cannot just steal her power. She knew she needed to show a bit of her hand and had no doubt a witch would blast her out of anger (and show no restraint) when the song was over and no door appeared (human nature).
Suggested correction: She made do with what she could find. Two of the witches had powers she could steal. Since she was totally powerless at that time, it would be enough for her. After taking the power of just one or two, she could have killed the others just as easily. It didn't matter to her that one of them was not a witch at all; she needed four to make them believe they were walking the witches' road.
"I can't steal your magic unless you blast me with it. So if you show a little self-restraint, which, let's be honest, you're gonna need to, all that power is yours to keep." This is not me paraphrasing her for humour or to be concise; it's the actual dialogue to the person she plans to rob of their power. And it is 100% accurate; there is no "spark" she can steal without being hit directly. This level of candour makes sense only if there is an actual point to the ritual, and her subsequent attempt at taunting them is desperation because the ritual does not work, so then, at that point, she has to make do with what she has. Not if the whole thing was a sham to begin with.
I agree it's strange she would warn her about her ability if she planned to have them attack her, but Alice did in fact use her powers on her later without thinking about those consequences. So maybe Agatha hoped she would forget or not show restraint once she angered them enough. The witches in the past all seemed very eager to attack her after being taunted, and seemed to have been working for her for centuries too, so why not now?
22nd Aug 2024
Alien: Romulus (2024)
Plot hole: The facehuggers "see" by reading body heat, but this contradicts nearly every other film in which the creatures appear. In the original film they can see Kane's face through a space suit and helmet, so it must be tracking more than just body heat. The creatures also routinely leap directly at their victim's faces. This suggests that they "see" facial detail in some way that goes beyond simply reading body heat. The protagonists should not be completely invisible just by hiding their body heat.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The thorax and chest cavity is the warmest part of the body. It's tracking the heat from your breath and see's it as an opening down to the chest cavity. Which is why it always latches onto the face. It helps when the victim screams too. More heat.
It can't read Kane's body heat through a space suit, and his breath isn't escaping from his helmet at his mouth. It leaps directly at his face and melts through the helmet to get where it needs to go. The intent in the original film is that the creatures can see, not just read body heat. Additionally, we see from the xenomorph perspective in Alien 3 and Alien Covenant and their vision is not based on body heat. The heroes are invisible here just by raising room temperature.
Where has it ever been stated that they can't read Kane's body heat through a space suit? They're literally showing you it can. That's not a mistake of the movie. Alien 3 happened after this movie. Alien Covenant's praetomorph was created by David. So not the same situation as this. This is also someone speculating based off observation and study vs. A camera trick of showing their actual vision in events that haven't happened yet or on another planet. So they could be wrong.
It's a space suit, they are insulated. That's why when you wear a space suit the lack of atmosphere doesn't kill you. There's no possible way creatures that only see heat could see a human through a space suit. That's a mistake for THIS movie and this movie alone because this is the only instance where heat vision is suggested. The fact that earlier released films take place later in the mythos doesn't really change anything, this film makes a claim unsupported by the other films.
There was wind and ice on that planet. That constitutes an atmosphere. Kane is in a giant helmet, leaning fully over the egg opening as it hatched. That was pretty much the only place it could go. Just because the suit is insulated from the cold atmosphere on the outside, doesn't mean the suit itself can't get hot from the heat inside. Also, these are aliens, I never get trying to apply human logic to a fictional being from another planet, in the future, that survives in an atmosphere we can't.
There is some atmosphere on LV-426, but that is entirely missing the point. The space suit is designed to be worn in no atmosphere, so it is insulated. Space is incredibly cold; if your body heat could be drawn to the surface of a space suit, you would freeze to death in minutes while wearing one in space. You can't read someone's body heat through a space suit. I am not trying to apply "human logic" to an alien; I am saying this film contradicts the others. Thus, it is a plot hole.
You're missing the point. Kane leaned over the opening in a giant helmet, inches from the creature. Where else was the facehugger going to jump to? You keep saying, "you can't read someone's body heat"; that's based off current human knowledge and our abilities, not the abilities of a fictional alien creature who lives in the cold reaches of space. You can't say what it can or cannot do when it is showing you that it can.
We can absolutely say what the creature can and can't do based on what has been shown countless times throughout 40-plus years of canon media. This film makes a claim to create a tense scene. That scene contradicts what we know about the creatures. There has never been any indication that they see based on heat, and implying that they do does not follow how we see them behaving in basically every other appearance. Them "showing us that it can" is the mistake; that's, by definition, a plot hole.
Why do you refuse to answer my question? Kane leaned over the opening in a giant helmet, inches from the creature. Where else was the facehugger going to jump to?
To answer your question: How does it know anything is even there? They see by heat, and the characters in this film are invisible just by raising room temperature. It shouldn't know that Kane is even in the room. So where else should it have jumped? Nowhere; he should be invisible according to this film. It shouldn't have jumped at all.
Suggested correction: Someone in a spacesuit has the problem of excess body heat; the suit needs to dissipate the excess heat from the body, as it insulates the body against the vacuum of space. In real life, space suits are attached with tubes that dissipate the body heat when the astronaut is on a spacewalk; the suit has a cooling system for this. But Kane didn't have tubes to dissipate his body heat with, so where does his body heat go? Why not the helmet?
That's speculation, not really a correction. It's a space suit; that much is clear. It doesn't have a visible cooling system like a real-life space suit, but this series takes place in the distant future. We're getting a little hung up on this one example, but honestly, these films are 40-plus years apart. There are dozens of other instances where it is clear the facehuggers and the xenomorphs can see more than just body heat.
The xenomorphs can definitely see more than just heat, but that's not the statement in the movie. I can think of no examples that show facehuggers can see anything more than just heat/infrared.
13th Mar 2005
Total Recall (1990)
Corrected entry: Never mind the absolute ridiculousness of having machine guns in a vacuum environment with many glass windows (and huge glass domes), why for safety's sake didn't the Mars colony have bullet proof glass?
Correction: Simply, money. Cohagen simply doesn't care. Bullet-proof glass is an expense he would rather not have.
I don't know about this, since there was apparently enough money to build the safety shields that came down. My question would be, if we could have the safety shields, why would they install glass at all?
The glass gives the ability to look outside; for the tourists, the safety shields do not.
14th Aug 2024
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)
But his surname sounds German. It might suggest that he is an American Neo-Nazi of German descent.
Yes, of German origin. "American" is not a race or ethnicity, is made up of many cultures, and is only a nationality. Klaber is an American citizen likely with German ancestry. American Neo-Nazis are of many different racial backgrounds. They adopt Nazi ideologies.
German is also a nationality, not a race. To be clear.
German is a nationality, referring to citizens of the country of Germany, and also an ethnicity, traditionally characterized by certain genetic traits, certain facial features, light-coloured eyes, blond hair, etc. "American" is only a designation of citizenship, not any particular racial or ethnic makeup.
That's not true. People with those genetic traits (like me) are not "German" or "Germanic." Maybe Aryan or Caucasian. Those are ethnicities. Not German. Germans are only distinguished by their use of the Germanic language, not their appearance. Also, certain Germanic tribes were very far from blond and light-colored eyes.
Factual error: During Jack's sliding down the rope scene, it is very noticeable that each one of the English soldiers fire their weapons more than once, which is impossible for that time, knowing that repetition weapons weren't invented until the mid 1800s. (00:20:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The first repeating firearm was invented in 1718.
I think you are talking about the Puckle gun from 1718, which was a crewed gun, not a rifle. The earliest repeating rifle is from 1630, with more variants made till the era the movie takes place in (early 18th century). However, these had all what you call single-action triggers (manual repeating), meaning they need a large lever to reload after firing. The guns in the movie obviously don't have such a lever. What the poster probably meant by repetition weapons is double-action trigger rifles.
1st Aug 2024
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
Other mistake: During their first confrontation with Cassandra Nova, the dynamic duo seem to score a point when Wolverine backstabs her in a very literal sense. While it makes for a cool moment, it also is pure nonsense; they are in an open space surrounded by her goons and none of them has the slightest reaction nor you can see any cover Wolverine could have used to sneak upon her. Even the soft ground is intact.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Cassandra uses her powers to phase shift (ghosting, selective intangibility) Wolverine into the ground and behind her. After her quite long time inside Deadpool's head, Wolverine manages to get himself out, phasing himself back behind her and stabs her. Since he was phasing, the ground won't be disturbed.
But he DOES disturb the ground when she phases him into it. He sinks in a hole, he leaves a trail. And that is with her controlling the process. Since he doesn't control the phasing and how to emerge from it, I don't get how he can just casually pop up (with no particular speed) without any trace, and again, unseen surrounded by goons watching from every angle, to nobody's reaction.
Look at the scene closely (if you can). There is far less disturbance than would have happened if someone was dragged through the ground. The only disturbance you see is from his claws still sticking out of the ground as he is being dragged; his body has zero effect on the ground. I think it also has to do with the amount of force Cassandra uses to pull him. Coming up slowly would hardly disturb it. The goons won't interfere; they know what she is capable of and has nothing to fear from these two.
Will of course check out the Disney+ release in the future, but the movie doesn't show the action going on this way; if they wanted to show him being phased, then they shouldn't have depicted him as being sucked into the ground with his body looking very much solid, nor his claws leaving claw-shaped trails. The fact that it causes much less of a disturbance than it could have is because well, her powers are not something we have a real life comparison with; the way she "skinned" Johnny wasn't physically accurate either but there's no lack of consistency with anything else. As for the on-screen portrayal of the ground pull, all I am pointing out is that he very much leaves physical and permanent trails on the ground that the movie shows, at no point his body shows to be immaterial, and then a minute later he just pops up, with no particular haste, and there are no traces of him going through the same medium. As for the lack of reaction, it's a lack of timely reaction; they do react to him when he stabs her, you can see some of them raising their guns, so it's not as if all of them have such trust in their boss' abilities that they are nonchalant about whatever is directed at her. It's just that they react to it when the audience does. There's no reason why they wouldn't do it earlier. Other than the fact that it's a movie, but's not like Deadpool makes a joke about their terrible reaction times.
31st Jul 2024
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
Plot hole: In the opening scene, Wade applies to be an Avenger, and does it in the Sacred Timeline, the main MCU timeline, on Earth-616. Not his own, which the movie classifies in the next scene as Earth-10005. Assuming he can just do that (at the end of his second movie he certainly did stranger things than that with Cable's device), one fails to see the purpose of it. Let's assume he aced the interview and got hired; it's not his timeline. He does it to have a good relationship with his girlfriend. Who...is in a different universe. Whatever Wade does in the vastly different universe is not altering anything in his own. It was never going to work.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He goes back to his universe. Think Thor...or the Guardians or Captain Marvel or whomever isn't Earth based. They "Assemble" then go back to protecting their little corner of the Marvel Universe.
Suggested correction: But it's Deadpool. When does anything he ever does make sense? He wanted to be an Avenger, he went out to be one, no matter what that meant in the literal sense. As long as he can say it, it's enough for him. Even if it is in a different universe/timeline, he can still say he's an Avenger. He is also a rule breaker, so maybe he can figure out how to make it work.
I knew this was going to be the objection to it; it's Deadpool, he can do whatever, etc. There are multiple times during the movie when he mentions things that he is not supposed to know because they are meant to be fourth-wall-breaking jokes. He references real-life actors, he interacted with them in previous movies. So they are absurdities with a purpose, and it's pointless to argue with comedy. But him being rejected by the Avengers is part of his motivations and of the 'serious' part of the plot, which is focused on his own universe and his girlfriend. Earth-616's Avengers though? The namedropping for nerds is an absurd choice when you think about it, which the movie does not want you to do, since it makes zero jokes about it. Without that caption it was not even going to raise any objection or paradox; he could have met with the Avengers of his universe, any universe - later in the movie Wolverine says "F*** the Avengers" as if he knows them.
Two things: 1. Even if he is able to join the Avengers on Earth-616, being part of a team might give him a sense of belonging and change his whole attitude. It wasn't to impress Vanessa about being an Avenger, it was to change his attitude which had soured after the events of the second movie. 2. It cleverly explains that the Marvel characters from the Fox universe were in their own universe and, to this point, have likely not been a part of the MCU.
Maybe his universe doesn't have Avengers and he found out about them through the MCU. That's what I'm saying. It's just a gimmick in the movie and actually doesn't affect the plot that much as he was given a task by the TVA (or whatever lone wolf from the TVA) and teams up with Wolverine. Him trying to be an Avenger and talking about it is just a running gag.
23rd Jun 2024
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Factual error: Although Dieter Hellstrom is a Gestapo Major, he has the SS runes on his uniform instead of a blank square.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Nowhere in the movie is he said to be a Gestapo Major. He is SS. Even if he was part of the Gestapo, he could still be an SS officer, as the Gestapo fell under the SS and RSHA.
18th Jun 2024
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: Why not take over this planet's cloning process instead of shutting it down and recruiting others to be Stormtroopers, when the clones were 100% obedient and loyal to the Emperor?
Answer: I think recruiting people is one of the sneaky ways of controlling the galaxy. Many Stormtroopers might have spouses and children back home. They could be receiving a tiny salary. Maybe some younger adults are eager to get away from their home planets, as Luke and Anakin both were. Still, others could be criminals who agreed to serve as Stormtroopers instead of another sentence (in "Game of Thrones", some convicted criminals can choose to join the Night's Watch order). These would all be ways to convince more citizens to support the Empire, instead of just training clones.
I'd like to add besides these points that it's possible the cloning process is just too slow and cumbersome for the Emperor. They were useful as shock troops, to fight droid armies. But their numbers were not great enough to cover the entire galaxy as a security force. This especially once the Rebel Alliance shows up. I'd say recruiting people gives him a much-needed manpower boost in a shorter time.
Answer: There would be serious moral and ethical issues about cloning sentient beings just to become mindless, obedient servants/slaves/killers to achieve your cause, regardless of its good intent.
But the Empire clearly doesn't really have moral/ethical issues about most stuff, so that's not really an argument.
Ray West mentions "mindless, obedient" servants, which is a good point. I think an army of "mindless" clones would actually be less effective. Instead, the Emperor claims that the Jedi wanted to overthrow the Senate. If he can persuade a decent number of people to support him, and spread his way of thinking, he can slowly gain more influence around the galaxy.
9th Jun 2024
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Other mistake: The Angel of Death attacks the altar and Toht and Dietrich scream because of its revelation, but Belloq, for some reason, doesn't seem to see it. Just before the fire column rises, he's still calm. (01:47:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If you don't know the reason, perhaps you should ask a question instead of assuming it is a mistake. Belloq studied the ark and probably better predicted what might come out of the ark. He is also looking directly into the ark and is mesmerized by what he is seeing, until eventually he does scream before his head explodes. The other two are terrified at seeing the apparitions.
Actually, it's pretty impossible that Belloq studied the Ark. If he knew what would come out of it, he literally committed suicide by opening and watching the Ark open, which doesn't make sense. He believed during the whole movie that the Ark contained the Ten Commandments tablets, not some kind of ghastly things.
He didn't know what would come out, but it doesn't mean that he, like Indy, expected just 2 stone tablets. He expected power, for him mostly.
21st Mar 2005
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Corrected entry: In the tank scene, a German fires a bullet which hits the tank driver and he falls on to the controls, turning the tank. As almost everyone in the tank is dead/unconscious nobody would move the body so the tank should go round in circles.
Correction: Henry Jones Sr and Marcus Brody were in the tank when this happened and they weren't killed nor knocked out. It is likely that they moved the body.
Senior and Marcus are consistently depicted as totally useless in practical situations. They get out and there's no indication that they contributed anything like that off camera. The original mistake should stand?
Yes. They had no reason to move the body.
The body could just as easily have slid off.
Yeah, in THIS case I can see that happening. I've never driven a WWII tank, but car steering rights itself. (Although I still think that some of the other rebuttals for this movie's mistakes are way beyond generous.)
7th Jan 2022
World War Z (2013)
Factual error: When flying from Korea to Israel, a nuclear explosion happens in the distance, the plane is hit by a shockwave, and then the phones go dead. The EMP from the nuke would have taken out all electronics first, not last. And they certainly wouldn't work again, especially a sat phone designed to receive radio waves. It would have probably also taken down the plane.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There's no evidence this was a nuclear explosion. The mushroom cloud effect is most commonly associated with a nuclear explosion, but any sufficiently energetic detonation or deflagration will produce the same effect.
Except in this case, the explosion shown is a copy of a real nuclear detonation (Operation Crossroads, underwater), so it's obviously meant to be a nuclear explosion.
2nd Jun 2005
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Revealing mistake: When Luke is being fed to the Rancor, in Jabba the Hutt's dungeon, there are black outlines around the beast's legs, from the composite's blue screen special effect. This was edited out in the special edition rerelease.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This was not a "mistake". The outlines showing around the beast's leg were due to the limited CGI technology at the time the film was made. With advances in special effects in the following decades, the filmmakers were able to enhance the CGI quality in later releases.
But it is a mistake to show that the Rancor is not real, and the outlines show that. It's certainly not intentional.
Not sure what you mean that the rancor is not real. Of course it's not real. The issue is, at that time, it was not technically possible to show the beastie without the lines showing. I classify a mistake as something that was not intentional. In this case, it was, due to the limitations of CGI in the 1980s.
18th Jun 2014
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Question: At the beginning of the movie, Peter asks Voldemort if they can perform the ritual without Harry. Why? Does he now feel bad for betraying Harry's parents?
Answer: There are several reasons here. Peter Pettigrew regretted betraying the Potters and knows he is a lowly coward for having done so and for obeying Voldemort out of fear. He also knows that Harry spared his life during the confrontation in the Shrieking Shack (in Prisoner of Azkaban) when Lupin and Sirius were about to kill him. Because of Harry's mercy, Pettigrew is now magically bound to Harry with a life debt. In the books, this will later cost Pettigrew his life when he hesitates to kill Harry (in Deathly Hallows) and his silver hand instead fatally strangles him for defying Lord Voldemort.
In the movies, Pettigrew NEVER regretted betraying Harry's parents and, on the contrary, was actually proud of doing so.
Where did you get that idea from? He is a coward and cowardice controls him. Not pride.
It is mentioned on the internet sites like TV Tropes, Villains Wiki, and Pure Evil Wiki. These sites mention that movie version of Pettigrew is far more evil than his book version.
None of those sites indicate he was proud of what he had done or does. They just mention the movies don't show Peter having regrets like he does in the books. Doesn't mean he doesn't have it. We see very little of him in any of the movies anyway. He is still only known as a coward and nothing more of him is shown than that.
In the books, he betrayed James and Lily out of cowardice, while in the films, he betrayed them willingly.
20th Nov 2014
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Question: With Peter being such a coward, why did he actually go and find Voldemort?
Answer: Because he is far more afraid of what would happen to him if Voldemort returned and Peter hadn't assisted in it.
In the movies, Peter Pettigrew is less cowardly than in the books. In this movie, he never shows any sign of cowardice and is depicted as a ruthless, cold-blooded character.
He cowers away when Voldemort accuses him of returning out of fear, not loyalty. He is Voldemort's pet, and does as he says without question because he is afraid of him. That does make him cold-blooded though.
30th Mar 2024
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
Corrected entry: It makes absolutely no sense why the Terminator, who is a programmed killer, chooses not to kill anyone in this film. In Terminator 2, he didn't kill because John, who was his master, ordered him not to. In this film, we learn that John is not his master. Kate Brewster is. And she spends most of her time complaining and trying to escape from John and the Terminator. She certainly wasn't gonna bother giving the Terminator a pep talk on no killing. So it just remains a plot hole.
Correction: Kate Brewster told the Terminator not to kill when she reprogrammed him in the future. It's a logical order to give since its mission is to protect. It's likely John gave her that idea in the future when telling her about the terminator from T-2 (before he died of course) who he gave the same order to.
I agree, but it is also possible that Kate programmed him not to kill anyone.
That's what I said.
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.
Correction: The Mercedes got scratched at the towyard, and you don't see Fletcher's car again for the rest of the movie.
You do see his car again before the end of the movie - he drives to the airport in it when he goes there to get Audrey and Max back before they leave for Boston.
Heather Benton ★
Yeah, but we don't see the side that was scratched.
lionhead