Factual error: In almost every movie from the introduction of sound on to present day, lightning and thunder happen simultaneously, while in reality there's always a delay between the former and the latter.
lionhead
8th Apr 2020
Common mistakes
27th Aug 2001
Gladiator (2000)
Corrected entry: Although many like to quote it, few have apparently read "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by British historian Edward Gibbons. For it clearly describes a Roman general named Maximus Quintillian. He may or may not be the person portrayed in the movie, but there was a Roman general named Maximus who defeated the Germanians and was a favourite of Marcus Aurelius. He was killed by Commodus.
Correction: Actually, if you watch the documentary on the VHS called 'Blood, Sand and Celuloid', it clearly states that Maximus was the only fictitious character in the film. If you read 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' and other related texts properly, it is quite clear that Maximus Quintillian was a favourite of Marcus Antonius Aurelius, not Marcus Aurelius. It is true that Quintillian was killed by Marcus Antonius Aurelius' son, but he was called Antonius Commodus. As such, this was an entirely different father and son, though the names are similar. There is no record of a general called Maximus at the time of the early Aurelians, the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.
Do you mean Marcus Aurelius Antoninus? The Gibbons reference about Maximus Quintilian doesn't say anything about him being a general.
There are about 14 Emperors named Marcus Aurelius. Including Commodus, being of that line.The First Marcus Aurelius full title was Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus. Commonly refered to as Marcus Aurelius. There is only one the first and that was the one portrayed in the movie. Commodus became Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Augustus. Also portrayed in the movie.
11th May 2006
Scream (1996)
Question: Why did Billy and Stu want to kill Tatum? I've read that she said Stu was bad in bed, but when does she say this in the movie?
Answer: They didn't have anything against Tatum specifically, her death was just necessary for their scary movie plan against Sidney. They also said that anyone who isn't a virgin dies in a scary movie, and we know Tatum wasn't a virgin.
Did they say "anyone who isn't a virgin"? I thought it was anyone who has sex *during* the horror movie events - not including people who were *already* not virgins.
Typically, the cliche is "sex or promiscuity = death." I don't think it necessarily has to be during the events of the movie. Debating the minutiae is probably just gonna make us run in circles.
Answer: I don't understand why people are getting hung up on the virgin thing. Sure, there are some movies where someone who isn't a virgin survives. But the common cliche in horror that everyone knows is that sex typically equals death. Doesn't matter if some movies don't follow the cliche... it's still the cliche, and Stu and Billy are operating by the cliches.
In addition to this, Stu and Billy were planning to be the two survivors and make "the sequel." They probably viewed themselves as the main characters. Tatum was one of the "side characters" who would typically be killed.
Except even in this movie, Sidney should be dead by that logic. While Randy is explaining that rule, Sid is upstairs breaking said rule with Billy.
Answer: But Amy Steel's Ginny in Friday the 13th Part 2 wasn't a virgin and she survived. Yet these guys claim to know horror movies.
It's just a TV trope used in the movie.
2nd Apr 2004
Resident Evil (2002)
Corrected entry: Surely in rooms where lethal viruses are handled and stored, even in outer rooms, you wouldn't have a ventilation system connected to the rest of the facility? (00:02:45)
Correction: The entire facility is under the control of the "Red Queen" computer program, who is the one responsible for killing everyone to prevent the infection from leaving. It's very likely she was able to shut down/manipulate the ventilation system to send the air flow to other parts of the Hive.
No, the original submitter is saying that a room handling that kind of stuff wouldn't have a vent full stop. It's actually pointed out when one of the scientists says its a sealed room.
The point is that Spence released the virus outside of that chamber, in a chamber that had vents whilst he was walking towards the exit. It's not specifically seen where he releases it. Even so, a secured chamber can still have a vent system, but one that has special filters and a closed circuit. Probably wouldn't have mattered to the Queen though.
27th Aug 2001
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Corrected entry: In the scene where there is a camera on the bomb falling on the ship, it is clearly visible that the bomb in falling down vertically. It is well known that when bombs are released from bombers, they have a horizontal speed, which is the same of the bomber. Thus the trajectory is, as every high school student should know, a parabola.
Correction: A *dive bomber* released this bomb. As the name suggests, they dive towards their target before they release the bomb, therefore the bomb falls towards the target vertically.
Correction: When the bomb is released, it drops straight down relative to the aircraft. This has nothing to do with dive bombing.
The bomb that blew apart the Arizona was historically a bomb from a dive-bomber and they dropped down vertically. So there is nothing wrong with the angle of the bomb. That the bomber doesn't dive is a different matter.
That may be true, but the aircraft that dropped it in the film was not diving. Dive bombers release the bomb from an almost vertical dive then pull out of the dive. The bomb continues towards the target.
I mentioned that. I say that's a different problem.
25th Aug 2008
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
Character mistake: Sarah is a trained expert with predatory animals. But when her jacket is covered with blood (and not just any blood, the blood of the infant T-rex), and they're in a forest surrounded with carnivorous dinosaurs, and she knows that they need to pass through Velociraptor territory, and she thinks that the T-rex might follow them, she doesn't think to take the jacket off. And the others, who also happen to be hunters who would surely know that the blood would attract predators, don't say anything about it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While you are right, it's still not that much of a mistake because not only does it tie into the Butterfly Effect from the first movie, but also maybe Roland used it to his advantage, meaning an opportunity to shoot the Buck Rex since using its baby didn't work.
You're really grasping at straws on this one. The top priority for everyone at this point is to find safe shelter. A bunch of dinosaur experts aren't going to jeopardize that by allowing someone in their group to walk through dangerous territory with blood-soaked clothing, and Roland isn't going to risk the lives of other people to hunt the T-rex. This is just bad writing by the filmmakers, plain and simple.
What butterfly effect?
He's talking about when Ian Malcolm was explaining chaos theory and used the term "butterfly effect." But like Phaneron said, the person was really grasping as straws and this scene has nothing to do with what Malcom was talking about.
Suggested correction: I don't think this is actually a mistake. Yes Sarah's jacket is covered in blood from the baby T-Rex, but as you say they've got to pass through Velociraptor territory. In JP3 it was noted that the T-Rex pee keeps smaller dinosaurs away but actually attracts the Spinosaurus. The scent of the T-Rex blood could actually also have the same effect as the pee at keeping the smaller dinosaurs away.
12th May 2010
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Corrected entry: At the end of the movie, Tony stark sits at a desk with the Initiative preliminary report before him. Before he picks up the report in the foreground for a few moments you can see a news report with an Asian female reporter. However, this report has been looped as you see the same people walk past the reporter twice and her making the same facial expressions.
Correction: Of course it's looped. This isn't live - it would be a bit too much of a coincidence for the Hulk's battle at Culver University to be being reported live at that very moment. This is an earlier report on that battle that SHIELD have recorded; as such, hardly unreasonable for it to be displayed in a looped format.
It's an extremely short loop, is my point. Like, 3 seconds.
14th Jan 2005
Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)
Continuity mistake: In the POW camp, Co Bao is discovered by a guard who points a handgun at her. Rambo shoots an arrow into the guard's forehead, who then falls back against a tree with his cap down low over his eyes. In the next shot his cap is much higher on his head, and the arrow is pointing at a different angle. How could his cap have moved up that far with the arrow holding it to his forehead? For that matter, how could the arrow have moved when it was firmly embedded in the guard's skull? (00:33:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The arrow was able to move because upon piercing the skull, the arrow penetrated the brain, a soft matter that would not hold the arrow in place. The brain matter is much softer than flesh. Imagine shooting an arrow into a watermelon. It is not fixed, but moveable.
But the point of the arrow is sticking in the tree. If it wasn't the guard would have fallen to the ground. So it shouldn't have moved.
8th Apr 2020
Twelve Monkeys (1995)
Corrected entry: Why do the scientists, whom are older than Cole, not remember that the army of 12 monkeys let out the animals? It was on the radio the same morning when Cole and Reilly were in the taxi on their way to the airport. It must have been a pretty significant thing in your memory especially if the death of the human race starts almost immediately after this event. They do not realise this until Cole calls the voicemail and explain the situation 5 minutes before hell brakes loose in the airport. Where were these scientists during this quite spectacular incident? Even Cole must have remembered something about this since he just went home with his parents after the shooting in the airport. The story about the fleeing animals must have been on most of the news networks that day, so why would the grown up Cole not remember this rather important piece of information from his childhood?
Correction: Who's to say that the scientists don't remember it? Why couldn't they have released the animals from the zoo as well as releasing a devastating virus? They sent Cole back to investigate and find out more specific details.
To add to that: Cole doesn't remember these events himself nor anybody else does because right after the animals were released and the incident at the airport the virus starts to spread, taking up all the time on the news and media several days later and starting a really desperate time for all people, trying to survive it all. It's not unlikely people will not remember the time before the virus.
6th Apr 2020
Hancock (2008)
Corrected entry: Hancock stops the train ramming John's car, but he's a superhero with super-strength and the ability to fly. Why not just lift the car off the tracks and out of danger?
16th Sep 2017
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Question: How does Sauron know Frodo has the ring? He doesn't even know who Frodo is.
Answer: He doesn't. He only knows that someone named "Baggins" from the Shire has the ring. He learns this from torturing Gollum. He sends the ringwraiths to the Shire to search for it, and they sense it enough to figure out who has it.
25th Jun 2010
The Book of Eli (2010)
Question: If he is blind how do you explain the accurate shots with the arrow?
Answer: A large study was done after the atomic blasts in Japan in WW2 after the surrender on the effects to victims' eyesight. Over 70% of the people that indirectly looked at the light were not completely blind. They suffered from cataracts, and out of those studied over 50% could see during the day - mostly shades of black and shadows / silhouettes of people and objects. Those that survived became very keen to see movement as long as they were in bright light, also heightened since of smell and feeling vibrations. This would explain why Eli never traveled at night and was not totally blinded by a nuclear flash, if he was completely blind - night would give him a much larger advantage. You notice he always travels when the sun comes up so he can see silhouettes of people and objects moving. Also when Solara interred his room at Carnegie's hall she said "it's bright in here" Eli had all the lights on so he could see anyone entering the room / cell. Also he wears sunglasses because obviously he does not want his cataracts to get worse. If you watch the movie again there are many tells to support that he is only partially blind and had mild to moderate cataracts. You can also see his eyes on the boat to Alcatraz, showing his cataracts.
He was born blind, at the start he smells the hijackers and moves into the dark to level the playing field.
How would he know where the dark is?
He was not born blind. He was blinded during armageddon, but after finding the Bible was given his sight back in order to complete the task given to him by God. Once his task was completed he once again lost his sight.
Nope! He was given his sight back by God in order to complete the task he was given, only to lose it once again after it was completed.
Answer: Believe he is partially blind. You don't need to be completely blind to need to learn braille.
He is not blind. He sees cars coming runs into the house and immediately checks the windows.
Answer: He was blind before the flash. That's how he could read braille, and had a braille bible. Remember, he asked Solaris' mother when she lost her sight - she said before the flash. That's why she also could read braille. He was totally blind. God gave him the ability to do what he did.
Answer: I think everyone missed something that is completely obvious. He is absolutely 100% blind. He always reacts. He never starts at first. During the gunfight he never once fired upon someone unless he was shot at first. During the bridge fight, he did not attack anyone until they screamed or were close enough to where he was feeling them. When he found the body hanging in the closet and he felt it with his hands from head to foot and felt the boots. Same thing with the car with the skeleton. He felt all the way down and realised it did not have boots. Every fight scene and everything he did in this movie was a reaction to somebody else doing something first.
Answer: He is 100% blind and if you pay close attention to the movie, it is proven and shown. He only reacts to his senses, the scene where the man is hanging, Eli smells him; he does not see him. The scene with the hijackers, he goes under the bridge, soo he can hear their movement using echolocation. The shootout scene if you listen very closely when Carnegie is speaking to him, Eli clicks his tongue using echolocation again. The scene with the couple as he is walking up to their home, he makes the clicking noises again and bangs of the door with the gun to listen to the sound. In the shootout scene, Eli only shoots at those who were firing at him; which was in the direction of the gunshot sounds. The scene where he gives up the book and is shot, he stands up and looks around with confusion because he does not know who else is there, and he blindly swings his knife around to try to fight back. He was able to do what he did due to God's protection and guidance.Hence "Walk by Faith not by Sight".
Answer: It's clear from examining his eyes in various shots throughout the film that he is not blind for most of it. He was almost certainly blind before his journey began, then is sight was restored so he could complete the task. There are several scenes where his eyes can be seen. They are brown and when he talks to people, he looks them in the eye. At the end of the film, his eyes go gray, showing he is blind again.
Um...no...sorry good theory, but he just has heightened senses, and I believe isn't 100% blind but is mostly like 80-90%.
If you disagree, then please present evidence to refute my theory, rather than simply stating an opinion. Do you disagree that his eyes are brown throughout the film, then go gray at the end? Do you disagree that he looks people directly in the eye? Do you disagree that he is able to aim and shoot at distances a blind person wouldn't be able to?
The idea is that he was blind to begin with. The fact they didn't show his eyes grey is that it would reveal that fact and make the movie look stupid. The way they approach it is the surprise at the end that it turns out he is blind, not that he had gone blind again. If wasn't blind during the movie there would have been no point in showing him blind at the end, nor would it be logical he has a braille bible that he knows by heart.
We'll just have to disagree. My take was that he was blind previously (hence his ability to read braille and his use of his other senses) but was given sight to complete his task, then lost his sight just before death.
Answer: He can hear their wings flapping, and he is guided from above. His other senses are extraordinarily sensitive and honed.
17th Feb 2004
Minority Report (2002)
Question: OK, let's see: Lamar Burgess set Anderton up; he Hired Leo Crow and sent him to be killed in a hotel. But How did exactly Burgess plan the meeting of Anderton with Crow? Anderton arrived at the crime scene by a chain of events that began with the pre-vision of his destiny. It was clear that Lamar did not fake the pre-vision, because this became true just like it was predicted; besides, when Anderton was being chased, he arrived to crime scene by a coincidence; so what did Burguess have to do to make sure the existence of the pre-vision and this possible future? I don't see a simple solution.
Answer: Well, there isn't really a simple solution, but here goes. For a pre-vision to form, there have be two things present within the range of the precog ability (which appears to be limited to the Washington area - regardless of the stated plan to take the programme countrywide, there's never any indication that the precogs can sense beyond that range). Firstly, someone with the intent to kill. Secondly, there has to be a target for that intent within the range of the precogs. Anderton is present, and has the intent within him to kill the man who took his son, but has no target - the real kidnapper is presumably either dead or beyond the precog ability. Burgess, by bribing Crow to pretend to be that man, has provided a viable target for Anderton's intent within the range of the precog ability, thus triggering the prevision, and beginning the chain of events.
The above answers the question, but there do appear to be some time travel issues with this plot point in the movie. Burgess set things up for Crow to fake being the kidnapper and thus triggering Jon's desire to kill that person, everything starts by the pre-cogs seeing the future. If the pre-cogs did not exist or did not have the vision, Jon would have never known that Leo Crow existed and would have continued on without having killed anyone. This is unique within the movie, as the other murders would have been commited regardless of whether or not the pre-cogs saw it. In this case, the ONLY reason this murder occurred is because the pre-cogs saw it.
Thinking about this a little more, it could be conceivable that Burgess had planned a different option for Jon finding Crow. We just never saw that on screen, because the precogs changed everything to an alternative future timeline once they saw the original murder. Originally, Jon could have been triggered by Burgess himself, stating that they got a lead on his son's murder and pointing him to Crow.
No I think Burgess set it up so that Anderton would find Crow because of the precogs, not have a different plan set up before or else it could be possible Burgess himself would be visible in the prevision. He manipulated the system perfectly, he has done it before after all. He knows exactly how the precogs work so he is able to set it up so that it's untraceable. Except, except for the fact there is always a choice. Only then did it go wrong for him. This proves both true for Anderton and Burgess in the end.
30th Dec 2019
The Truman Show (1998)
Question: How did Truman get out of his basement without anyone seeing him?
Answer: He deceived them into thinking he was still downstairs sleeping, but he snuck out through a hole he had made. The cameras aren't on everywhere, just where Truman is.
I have a problem with the fact that Truman dug a hole to escape because wouldn't the camera watching him crew have heard the sound of him digging the hole?
Well their focus is on him, I think it's one of the major mistakes they made to keep all audio focussed on him sleeping instead of the entire room. That's why he was able to sneak around and then dig the hole without being noticed. They do switch cameras around but the audio stays on him.
"He deceived them into thinking he was still downstairs sleeping," by placing a large inflatable snowman under the blanket?
Yes, exactly.
29th Nov 2010
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Corrected entry: In the scene after Ron destroys the locket, he tells Harry "Only three Horcruxes left". There are seven horcruxes and only three have been destroyed, so there would really be four left.
Correction: Spoiler alert: This is a bit confusing. Yes, there are seven Horcruxes, but Voldemort only meant to create six: Tom Riddle's diary, the Peverell ring, Slytherin's locket, Hufflepuff's cup, Ravenclaw's diadem (tiara), and Voldemort's snake, Nagini. Voldemort always intended to have seven soul pieces (seven being the most magical number), the six Horcruxes mentioned above, and the one remaining in his body. When Voldemort cast the killing curse at baby Harry, a piece of Voldemort's soul was unintentionally sheared off and embedded into Harry (possibly in his scar), and leaving him with certain abilities, such as speaking Parseltongue. The curse then rebounded, destroying Voldemort's body. Technically, Harry is the seventh (and accidental) Horcrux, though only Dumbledore and Snape realized this, and Harry will learn this later when he views Snape's memory in the penseive. From everyone else's perspective (including Voldemort), there are only six Horcruxes, three have been destroyed (diary, ring, and locket), and three more (cup, diadem, and Nagini) must be found. In total, there are eight soul pieces. If the soul shard within Harry is not destroyed, then Voldemort cannot be killed.
However, in The half blood Prince, Tom Riddle asks Slughorn, could someone split their souls 7 times, meaning he was planning on making 7 Horcruxes all along, not 6.
No, he said "can you split your soul only once? For instance into 7?", the memory is not fully whole I'd say but Slughorn does confirm it, he was considering to split it into 7 pieces, not 7 times.
Exactly as you said, Tom Riddle told about parting the soul into seven pieces, not making 7 Horcruxes! That being said, Voldermort split his soul into 7 pieces, one inside his own and the rests (6) into Horcruxes, which implies having 3 other Horcruxes left to be destroyed (Cup, Diadem, Nagini).
17th Mar 2020
Watchmen (2009)
Question: Did this movie have some sort of point? That genocide of several million to prevent war was a good idea? That and how did they avoid being sued considering Batman's got an Owl Man, a Spider Woman was in existence before this spider super heroine and the white masked guy seems to be a take on The Question.
Answer: Why would they be sued? DC own both the DC comics properties and the Watchmen characters.
Answer: You forgot where DC ended up owning Captain Marvel claiming he was a Super Man ripoff and how Marvel sued the name away from the character.
Answer: There is no "spider super heroine" in this movie. Silk Spectre has no superpowers, so I'm not sure where you're getting the connection to Spider-Woman from. Watchmen is a DC property, as are Batman and The Question, who was acquired by DC several years before the Watchmen graphic novel was published, so there would be no plagiarism lawsuits in response. The point of the movie, much like the graphic novel it is based on, is to illustrate the dangers of nuclear tension and war, and how regular people pay the price of the actions of contentious governments.
And to show that someone who is supposedly super-smart is also usually super-insane.
Answer: I mean as in Bob Kane suing since Owl Man's sort of like Batman.
Bob Kane undoubtedly received royalties for creating Batman, but the character is owned by DC. It's not as if he had the right to start his own comic book company and take Batman away from DC, so even if he felt slighted by Nite Owl II having some similarities to Batman, he would have no legal grounds to sue for it. Furthermore, characters would have to be blatant ripoffs in many ways in order for comic book companies to be able to sue over. Marvel and DC have many characters that are similar in powers, appearance, etc, but those similarities are usually so superficial that they can be dismissed as homages or parodies and it would prove difficult for one company to sue the other over it. A really good example would be Deadpool who was practically created as a parody of Deathstroke. The only case I can think of where a lawsuit had enough merit to go to court was Marvel suing Awesome Entertainment for redesigning Fighting American into a shameless ripoff Captain America.
Question: Jack Sparrow comes to Port Royal to commandeer a ship, but gets stopped by two marines, who tell him the dock is off limits to civilians. Why is the dock off limits to civilians?
Answer: Because it's a navy dock, not a public one and there are naval ships moored there.
Jack would have been able to get one the of ships if he had permission.
Ok. But my question is are naval docks off limits to keep civilians from stealing or sabotaging their ships?
One of those civilians could be a pirate you know.
13th Mar 2020
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: I heard there was a scene where Ron and Hermione hug but it was cut. Does anyone know at what point in the movie this hug would have taken place?
Answer: Other than when Hermione turns to Ron and puts her arms around his shoulders after the Trio thinks they've just witnessed Buckbeak's execution, there does not appear to be any other time when she hugs or embraces Ron. All of the Azkaban deleted scenes are online or were included with the DVD and none contain this.
My understanding is that the specific scene where she put her arm around Ron was actually supposed to be a real hug but Emma Watson didn't feel comfortable doing it so they changed it to only an arm.
It was more than just her arms, she had her face buried in his neck.
23rd Aug 2005
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Corrected entry: Why does Hogwarts have modern (muggle) toilets? I know that it is a main focal point for the plot, but if the school is really as old as they say, it surely wasn't built with them. They must have had some magical method of waste disposal (the 'scurgify' spell), and surely a way to create water, so why resort to installing plumbing and a (supposedly inefficient) muggle technology. They don't use electricity, Television, Internet, etc., so why plumbing?
Correction: Even if they don't use Muggle technology, not having indoor plumbing would be a hassle. They also use Muggle sinks. It's also a major plot point that the Basilisk travels through the school using the plumbing.
Not to mention wizards have been shown to use other muggle tech from triple decker buses to brooms to cameras to trains. Even the castle itself is an example (if you can have a massive room in a briefcase, why bother building a huge fortress unless it's because of the personal taste of the wizards involve). It's stated in the books that electricity doesn't work well around magic, hence no internet, but the wizarding community does use mechanical or chemical muggle tech that's often modified by magic.
Yep, I feel they are only a few steps behind on the muggle world in terms of technology, like early 20th century whilst it's the end of the 20th century. They obviously look at the muggle world and see what they can adapt to their world if it's useful. I'd say plumbing must have been introduced somewhere in the late 19th century for wizards. It's just that most aren't interested in the muggle world. It probably has to be a muggle-born wizard that tries to adapt muggle tech into the wizarding world. I mean Arthur is pretty interested in the muggle world so it's logical he owns a car.
Question: After Elizabeth is brought to the Pearl, she threatens to drop the medallion overboard. Barbossa feigns disinterest but when Elizabeth pretends to drop it, the pirates gasp in panic. Why? So she drops it, big deal. They can't drown, the gold "calls to them" so what does it matter if she were to drop it?
Chosen answer: Because they'd have to find it. The gold may "call to them", but it obviously doesn't function as a millimetre perfect homing beacon or they'd never have missed the medallion years earlier when they attacked the ship carrying the young Will. Elizabeth drops it into the sea and they're going to have to spend what could be months trying to locate it - currents could take it well away from the dropping point. They've found the final missing piece; they're potentially just hours away from finally being cured. The last thing they want is to see it thrown into the sea.
Well, if the crew was anxious to get the medallion then why did they act like they weren't interested in it before Elizabeth pretended to drop it?
What do you mean by reverse psychology?
By showing they are not interested in the medallion they are hoping Elizabeth will just drop it on the floor or chuck it to them as it's of no real value. However when she releases a bit of chain and the medallion drops, and the pirates lurch forward revealing that they really want the medallion and as such Elizabeth now has the upper hand in negotiations.
I'm guessing Elizabeth wasn't fooled when the pirates showed disinterest in the medallion.
That's not called reverse psychology, which is used to encourage someone to change his or her mind. Doesn't work with a threat. They are feigning indifference to hide the importance of the object.
They didn't want to give her an advantage over them. Pretending to not care about the coin would make Elizabeth think that the coin is worthless and cannot use it to barter a deal.
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.
Suggested correction: Hardly always, if the lightning hits right in front of you you hear the thunder immediately. I'd say from about 100 meters you perceive it as instantly, as it's only 0.3 seconds between flash and thunder.
lionhead
This is a mistake about in almost all movies, not in all thunderstorms. The common mistake in the movies is when lightning isn't hitting 100m away from the character, but the sound is still instantaneous.
Bishop73
I assume it's about thunderstorms in movies. Name an example.
lionhead
Instant thunder (even at a considerable distance of miles from the lightning or explosion source) is, indeed, a common and probably deliberate error in most films. The reasoning for it is simple: a prolonged and realistic delay between lightning and thunder could change a 1-second shot into a 6-second shot, for example, compromising the director's intended pace and mood for the scene. Steven Spielberg films have utilized both instant and delayed thunder. In "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," for example, when the UFOs zoom out into the distant background (certainly miles away) in a wide landscape shot, they produce a lightning effect in the clouds that is simultaneously heard as thunder. But in "Poltergeist" (a Spielberg film directed by Tobe Hooper), there is a very deliberate scene of characters realistically counting the seconds between distant lightning and resulting thunder. Choosing to obey physics or not is a matter of the director's artistic license.
Charles Austin Miller
I posted this while I was watching Death in Paradise, episode 7 of the third season, but really, you have never seen in pretty much any horror or cheap slasher movie whenever there's a storm, the flash of a lightning coming at the *same* time as a thunder jumpscare sound? It's vastly spoofed, even, when some ugly/creepy/terrifying character makes its appearance. One example randomly picked? Dracula by Coppola, in the first 10 minutes, carriage, lightning in the distance, not even a split second after, rumble. In RL it would reach you a couple seconds later. But really, it's such a movie archetype, I am sure you can find it in any Dracula movie.
Sammo ★
The Dracula example doesn't really show how far away the lightning is, it could right above them. It's fake as hell, I agree with that, but the fact there is lightning and thunder at the same time without actually seeing the distance is not a mistake to me. It's also highly unnatural lightning as it only happens twice and then nothing, it's not even raining. It's obviously meant to be caused by the evil surrounding the place. The idea is there is constant lightning right on top of them.
lionhead
There's a scene in Judge Dredd where every few seconds, there is a flash of lightning instantly accompanied by the sound of thunder. It happens frequently in Sleepy Hollow as well.
Phaneron ★
I know the scenes you are referring to. In both those instances you have no idea about the distance of this lightning. It could be (and probably is) right on top of them. You can hear that from the typical high sharpness of the sound, only heard when the flash is very close. Thunderclouds are never very high in the air so even the rumbling within the cloud itself can be heard, sometimes you don't even see lightning when it rumbles (yet there is). It's a bit far fetched but you could hear a rumbling or the thunder from a previous flash and mistake it for the flash you see at the same time. Can happen when there are continuous flashes.
lionhead