Question: Did Professor Hulk bring back the original Infinity Stones with the Blip?
lionhead
11th Jul 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
17th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Stupidity: The entire plot revolves around the First Order chasing the ships, waiting for the Resistance to run out of fuel. They could have easily destroyed the Resistance's fleet by sending a Star Destroyer or two around to cut them off from the other side and blast them into oblivion.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Maybe. But if the First Order does this the entire plot of the movie as it is is ruined. So, maybe both?
Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't change a character stupidity into a plot hole.
What prevents a character's stupidity from being a plot hole? Is it wrong to want competent villains? If a character is supposed to be intelligent (let's say, a naval commander or military leader) and has the capability to achieve his or her objective with an obvious decision a character of his or her stature should make but does not and it is the only reason the plot of the movie still exist, is it not both a plot hole and character stupidity? Not just Hux, Snoke, Kylo, and every other First Order officer failed to realise this. How? It does not make any sense. At the very least try to explain in the movie how the FO let the Resistance get away because they refused to let Star Destroyer make a few hyperspace jumps and cut the Resistance off.
Hux is an idiot, Snoke is a fraud and Kylo doesn't really strike me as a strategic mastermind.
Hux only really becomes an idiot because of this movie. In TFA, he is an established military officer who does come across as more feared and respected. The change in this movie is then character stupidity and/or a character mistake that creates a big plot hole from the start.
Well the new movie puts a whole new light into that. Changes the whole discussion.
So they retconned to correct this mistake? Still makes it a mistake in my opinion. Especially since it is not just Hux who could have been a better leader. Any FO military officer could have brought it up and executed that idea.
In the time it takes to switch the hyperdrive on and off again, travelling at light speed you would travel so far ahead of them you would take days to get back to them. In a quarter of a second at lightspeed you travel much farther than the length of the planet Earth.
To answer the question: a plot hole is something that contradicts something already established in the film that's done to move the plot along or resolve an issue. A stupidity is a minor plot hole, but can also be character acting contradictory to what's been established, usually to keep the plot going. A character mistake is a character making a mistake or error they shouldn't have (usually because the writers don't know the right answer). Characters acting stupid or irrationally or making human errors is not a valid movie mistake.
So by this, it is a plot hole because the Star Destroyers can jump in and out of hyperspace and could make that jump to cut the Resistance off. It is character stupidity because Hux is established as a high ranking military officer in TFA and thus should know basic military strategy along with all of his fellow officers. I think if a character acts stupid which goes against their established personality and traits without a good reason, it is very much a mistake. Hux was not pressured into an irrational decision. In fact, it is the most calming battle to ever take place in Star Wars. There is no reason for him to be this incompetent. He is only this way because Rian wrote him this way, which on your list is a character mistake too. When the general audience is a better military tactician than the FO Commander in the movie, it is a bad sign.
The problem is that we as the audience know the Resistance will find a way out of this situation. General Hux believes he has the Resistance trapped and they have no escape. In his mind, the plan was working perfectly well. There's no reason to alter the plan. It's not like they are under a time crunch and need to destroy the ships as quickly as possible. By moving the cruisers out of range and crawling away, it was clear to Hux that the Resistance had run out of options. Hux doesn't need to do anything differently in his mind, so he doesn't. It only seems stupid to us because we know the heroes will find a way out because heroes always do.
I am sure the First Order is well aware that the Resistance is doing all they can to find an escape, however unlikely it is. However, contrary to the audience, they do not know how they plan on doing so. All the more reason for the First Order to blow the Resistance to bits while they still can. What is the benefit of just waiting for the Resistance to run out of fuel in the first place? Wouldn't it just be better to end them swiftly? Also, it is not just Hux. There are other military officers and you would think there would be a few of them who would want to destroy the Resistance while the opportunity was present. Its decisions like these that make you wonder how the First Order gained so much power in the first place.
It is just Hux. The captain of the Dreadnaught makes it clear that Hux is in general command, as he is irritated that Hux did not scramble fighters as soon as Poe's X-Wing showed up. Overconfidence has been a staple of Star Wars villains from the very beginning, and if it's a movie mistake here then it's also a mistake that Tarkin doesn't evacuate the Death Star; or that Vader doesn't force choke Luke on Bespin instead of trying to trap him in carbonite; or that Jaba doesn't shoot Luke Skywalker instead of taking him to the Sarlaac pit; etc.
Comparing Tarkin's overconfidence to Hux's actions is practically insulting. The Empire believed the Death Star was indestructible until the flaw was discovered during the Rebels' attack run. Even with this flaw, the chances of the Rebels' success was incredibly slim. The Rebels have already failed multiple times and the Empire was mere seconds away from ending the Rebellion for good. The probability of the Empire ending the Rebels once and for all was almost a certainty and it was logical to take the chance. Tarkin may have been overconfident, but he had a right to be. The Vader example is dumb too. The Emperor ordered Luke to be taken to him alive. To do that, they were going to entrap him in carbonite. That was Vader's goal, not to kill him with a Force choke. Jabba is a sadistic showman, as seen when he fed Oola to the Rancor. When Luke is captured, he created a show in which he can enjoy. How Luke died was just as important to him as Luke dying.
Tarkin said he wanted to destroy the Rebellion with one swift stroke. Key word here being swift, not lazily waiting for some gas just to run out. If Tarkin was in charge of the First Order instead of Hux, the Resistance would have easily been destroyed, no questions asked. Having Hux betray what he was supposed to be from TFA by being a passive, ignorant, and incompetent leader causes the FO to be nonthreatening, terrible villains, and defeats any suspense in the plot. It's illogical for the audience to believe that a military commander could be this stupid.
Completely and entirely disagree with your assessment. Tarkin's overconfidence and Hux's overconfidence both come from the same belief: that their enemies have no means of victory. Both men believe they have already won and it is only a matter of time before they win. Tarkin is flat out told that there is a chance that the rebels will destroy them and he chooses not to evacuate. This overconfidence is a staple of every movie in this series because the major theme of an underdog triumphing over the odds demands this. I did not mean that Vader should force choke Luke to death, but once the plan to freeze him fails he certainly could have tried harder to incapacitate Luke. By not doing so he allows Luke to escape. This isn't dumb, it's just overconfident. Jabba choosing to put on a show rather than just shooting his enemies is the very definition of overconfidence, and it's honestly strange that you seem to be arguing that it isn't.
I was arguing against your assessment of Vader and Tarkin and explaining Jabba's view and how it differs from how Tarkin and Hux should go about things. Jabba is an overconfident crimelord and thus has different traits then a military leader so it is unjust to compare him to Tarkin and Hux. Tarkin was given that information mid battle a mere minute away from wiping out of the Rebellion. Here it is believable of him to assess the situation, see the Rebels have already failed multiple attempts, and that the Rebels chance for success was minuscule and waiting was the best option. Hux's ability to end the war is literally right there. Not minutes away, seconds away if he would have just commanded a ship to cut them off. There is no benefit in waiting, whereas Tarkin is operating a Death Star and must wait as it moves differently (slower, less maneuverable) than a Star Destroyer. Even if they have the same belief, Tarkin acts competently and Hux acts unbelievably moronic.
I think that's where I'm having a problem with your statements. I don't believe that Hux acted "unbelievably moronic." His plan was working perfectly fine. Just because he didn't wipe out of the ships as fast as he possibly could doesn't make him a moron, or a bad military leader. Hux had just lost Starkiller Base and his Dreadnaught, so it is perfectly reasonable for him to take a safe approach with destroying the remaining Rebel ships; picking them off one-by-one at no risk to his fleet whatsoever. His plan works absolutely fine and the few Rebels that do survive only do because Luke Skywalker projects his image across space to stall Kylo Ren. "Military leader" doesn't mean "infallable" and it certainly isn't a gap in the film's logic, especially in the Star Wars series, to have a leader make questionable decisions in hindsight.
You just said Hux was an extremely risk adverse military leader, whereas good military leaders must deliberately accept tactical risks. However, there is no risk here. Destroying the Resistance fleet would have been easy since all of their fighters and bombers were already destroyed fighting the Dreadnaught. Regular sight should have been able to see that waiting for the Resistance to think up an escape plan was a bad idea. Especially since the First Order knows the Resistance has a map to Luke Skywalker and his arrival could completely turn the tide of the battle. Logically, the First Order should destroy the Resistance fleet before Luke could arrive. The only explanation, which makes for a bad movie, is that Hux is unlike what he was represented in TFA and is an incompetent leader. From the beginning, he was never meant to be like is TFA self. He did fall for a "your mama" joke to start the movie and let a Dreadnaught die from the slowest bombers in the galaxy.
I did not say that Hux was "extremely risk averse." I said that Hux took a safe approach. Having Hux plan to defeat the Rebels before Luke Skywalker could show up would have also been out of character. The villains in the Star Wars stories consistently believe that not even a powerful Jedi could stop their plans when they have convinced themselves they've already won. Snoke says as much during this very film.
You said Hux likes playing it safe, that means he is a risk adverse military leader, or at least made a risk adverse decision when there didn't need to be one. So it is now out of character for Hux to defeat the Resistance until Luke shows up? At this point, the only reason it makes sense for Hux to act this way is what was revealed in TRoS, which would be a retcon to cover the mistake in this movie. I find your villain statement more of opinion then truth. It may only make sense in this trilogy. Palpatine is the true villain of Star Wars and his big plan to rule the galaxy found it necessary to kill all the powerful Jedi, so he obviously was not convinced he could win with them alive. As Emperor, discovering a potential Jedi in Luke was treated like an actual threat, maybe the only true threat. The Emperor wants Luke dead/capture in ESB. The Emperor tries to turn Luke in RotJ. The Emperor does believe he can turn/defeat Luke, and he would have defeated him if Vader hadn't intervened.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that Hux "likes playing it safe." I said that he took a safe approach in this particular situation.
I'm gonna say it here too, the new movie puts it all in a whole new light. So just wait till you see it. (not that it's particularly good though).
We do not know exactly when this character decided to do that. Could have been before or after these events. Most likely it occurred after Snoke died and Kylo took power. So that is just speculation. If this character's decision does occur before the events of this movie, then it is a retcon to cover this mistake, meaning the mistake exists.
Exactly. This movie's plot is very flawed and it lacks logic to the big extent. Hux was much more competent in TFA, so his behavior in TLJ was both stupidity and a plothole.
Then they should have written a better plot. Complaining that rational act ruins the plot is a writing issue with the plot. They shouldn't have written this problem in the first place. You can't hide behind the "but it will ruin the film" excuse when the writers could have written literally anything else.
Suggested correction: In the time it takes to switch the hyperdrive on and off they would have travelled so far in front of the rebels that they would be worse off than before. Even switching the drive in for .25 of a second would carry them around 400,000 kilometers if my memory serves. This is still a plot hole. The first order ships are bigger, therefore they should be faster due to larger/ more engines and the "fuel" issue is wrong because all you have to do is switch off your engine and you will not stop.
Suggested correction: Why would they need to? They easily outgun what remains of the Resistance, and they're patient enough to wait for the ships to run out of fuel. The First Order was overconfident, but they were not wrong about their plan working.
What is the benefit of the First Order waiting? It would be better to take out your enemy swiftly when given the chance. Especially since we are told this is the last of the Resistance. Destroying these few ships would then end the war and give the First Order control of the galaxy.
9th May 2009
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
Corrected entry: It is stated that the only thing which will penetrate Logan's adamantium skeleton is an adamantium bullet. Following this logic, Logan's adamantium claws should cut through Deadpool's arm blades, or vice versa.
Correction: A bullet traveling at high speeds would behave very differently than a blade, even of the same material.
Quite correct. A lead (soft) bullet will penetrate a steel (hard) plate due to its velocity. The same applies here.
Actually it's not about something softer vs something hard. Adamantium is quite indestructible even when matched against each other. But an adamantium bullet can dent an adamantium plate at least. Of course the true nature of the adamantium in the movies is not as elaborate as the comics (certainly not the origins), but I think the basic features still apply, that it is steel with an extremely high density and thus indestructible even when it's adamantium versus adamantium. This can even include Silver Samurai's adamantium in the later movie which is obviously of higher quality.
I was trying to make the point that a bullet can penetrate something as hard or harder than itself due to its velocity.
Correction: We can assume that as Weapon X has the same healing abilities as Logan, his blades are adamantium too.
9th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Plot hole: By having Admiral Holdo perform her infamous hyperspace ramming stunt, Rian Johnson created a continuity problem with the rest of the Star Wars universe. Since this maneuver was successful, every space battle before and since should only include a droid piloting spacecraft ramming enemy bases through hyperspace. This tactic would have been more cost effective and less risky than full on space battles seen in previous films. This tactic would no doubt have been tried in a universe filled with space battles often with disposable troops on both sides, such as in the Clone Wars. The Death Star did not need a successful trench run to be destroyed, just an X-wing with a droid ramming it at hyperspeed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think it's a one in a million shot. The damaged caused crippled the large ship but didn't fully destroy it and the other ships destroyed were caused by the debris from the bigger ship and ramming ship. That's just bad tactics. But in the case of for example the death star I doubt highly that ramming it with hyperspace jumps will cause significant damage. It's not like you are firing an armor piercing round and I'm pretty sure ships are equipped with all sorts of anti-debris protection. Plus I think it's bloody difficult even at that range to aim correctly at an enemy ship with a hyperjump.
NASA engineers have to be aware of space debris orbiting the Earth that is the size of small particles because when they are orbiting at 18,000 mph around the Earth, they can cause significant damage to spacecraft. Turn that speed up to near or past the speed of light as in hyperspace and an X-wing should be enough to significantly cripple a Death Star sized object, if not completely destroy it. Yes, ships have shields, but these are ray shields meant for cannon fire. Both RotJ and TFA show that a ship can penetrate these shields (TFA displayed it at hyperspace speeds no less). Aiming should be as easy as punching the location into a navicomputer as done for traveling. It is also easier to hit and less difficult to aim at large or close objects, like Star Destroyers, Death Stars, or planets and moons.
"The damage caused crippled the large ship but didn't fully destroy it" This is what was introduced to the fiction by the director. You can dislike that if you'd like but it is not a "mistake."
This was the outcome. Hyperspace ramming was what was introduced. The outcome was also grander than simply crippling a ship. It split the ship in two and the entire fleet or a large portion of it ended up being destroyed. Without a worthwhile explanation as to how this is possible now but not previously, it also introduces plot wholes in the previous movies.
You are talking about a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. You simply don't know. Hypespace is not as simple as going faster than the speed of light. They hardly have shields, I'm talking about armor protection, bulkheads, bulges, space armor, netting. Whatever.
Hyperspace as defined by Wookiepedia is an alternate dimension that could only be reached by traveling at or faster than the speed of light. So at this stage in the ramming stunt, it is as simple as traveling at or past light speeds as the ship has not yet entered the hyperspace lanes in the parallel dimension. So now the force the FO ship faces is the mass times acceleration and since it is traveling past lightspeed, the force would be extraordinary regardless of the mass. It would be even harder to believe an armor or anything else that could withstand that force, even on a Death Star sized space station.
To clarify, this is the hyperspace that Rian Johnson created. Before it was less clear, but the standard that has been followed since the beginning was one could not ram opposing ships with it while entering hyperspace lanes. Han Solo talks about this in A New Hope. Rogue One even has ships just entering hyperspace killing themselves on incoming Star Destroyers. This is the more faithful representation of what hyperspace travel was. Rian Johnson has completely rewritten what occurs in hyperspace which breaks Star Wars canon.
The official explanation is that the Raddus had special experimental deflector shields and that is why it worked. With normal shields it would not have worked.
Source? Is it said in the movie somewhere? So one should expect the Resistance to use these "special experimental deflector shields" and hyperspace ramming to combat the hundreds of Star Destroyers in The Rise of Skywalker, correct? Should be pretty effective. Weird that all the promos have the Resistance fighting them the old-fashioned way.
It is in the novelization of the movie.
Using a novel to correct a mistake a movie makes still makes it a movie mistake. Movies should not need books, comics, or videos games to explain their obvious flaws.
All I was saying is that it was a one in a million shot and that doing it requires a lot more than simply pointing towards the enemy and activating hyperjump. If anyone can do it and it can destroy entire fleets, then everybody would do it. But they don't, so it's not that simple. Since that is a fact, it's not a plot hole.
That is why it creates a plot hole because the movie never presents it in a way that only this ship at this time in this way can do it. It comes across as anyone can do it so why didn't anyone else do it in the thousands of years that this universe has existed through the countless wars that have taken place? Saying it is not that simple is not a fact, its an opinion. I watched it and it looked pretty simple. It comes across as anyone can do it, so everyone should have been doing it, thus the plot hole.
This scene doesn't create a plot hole since, in the film, nothing was established to show this wouldn't work. Nor would it create a plot hole unless it was previously shown that unmanned ships were used as a regular tactic to destroy bigger ships. Plot holes are when something occurs that contradicts what the story itself (usually as a plot device to further the plot along or conclude the plot).
It coming across as simple doesn't make it simple. The simple fact of the matter is that this fictional universe works that way, in the other movies it hasn't happened so it's not simple. It's as simple as that. In any case it would be a plot hole in those movies, not this one. Look, if you want everything to be logical then these movies will be nothing but automated ships ramming into each other left and right and you still want the story to be told? I don't think so. So, you want to explain why they don't ram everything and you got it. Deal with it. Otherwise the fact they use hyperdrives is a plothole then as well.
In this fictional universe, hyperspace did not work as weapons until Rian Johnson changed hyperspace for this movie's plot convenience. In doing so, Rian broke the standard canon that each previous movie followed. This is why its a plot hole in this movie and creates a discontinuity for the entire saga. Everything does not have to be understood or compared to our real world, but each fictional universe has its own set of physical laws and rules that each form of media in that universe needs to follow. Hyperdrives are not plot holes because they existed since the beginning of Star Wars and have a certain set of standards they follow that are understood. Changing these laws without a logical or worthwhile explanation in the film is ultimately disrespectful to the source material. The very idea that you brought up in that this creates plot holes in all the previous films proves that this scene is a terrible addition to the saga.
Seems to me like you just dislike the scene. Thats fine and I can understand you feel its a continuity. But it is not a plot hole for the movie.
It is more of a continuity error that creates plot holes in the previous movies, so it could be labeled better. However, if we view Star Wars as one story like George Lucas did, then it would be a plot hole for Star Wars as a whole. If it was successful in explaining how they could do it now, but not a few years ago, then it would have been fine, more or less. It failed to do so making it a mistake, no matter how visually pleasing it was.
Hyperspace always worked as a weapon. Han explained years ago that is why they had to plot a course through hyperspace. So they would not hit anything. She meant to use it as a weapon, and succeeded. This is nothing new.
If it were a one in a million shot, then Hux would not have panicked and ordered the cruiser shot down immediately. Furthermore, the Resistance could have used their two escort ships, which were going to run out of fuel and be destroyed anyway, to try the same thing.
Doesn't the one in a million argument make Holdo a traitor that attempted to flee at the rebellion's darkest hour then? Your argument is nonsense.
It was a suicide run. It was a one in a million shot to take out the main vessel, but whatever she was going to do, she was going to die.
Suggested correction: Just because it worked on this occasion, doesn't mean it would always work. It also hadn't been attempted before. It's not a plot hole that they didn't destroy the Death Star like this, since nobody in the rebellion considered it.
But why did no-one in the Rebellion consider it? It was their most desperate hour. They were in similar desperation as the Resistance in The Last Jedi, if not more so. Their were similar desperate times in the Clone Wars when both sides had troops of disposable clones and droids. They did not consider trying it then? They were wars occurring before that and no-one thought about using hyperspace as a weapon? It is illogical to think that there was no-one in the history of that universe that would never even consider using hyperspace as a weapon. The reason it was not considered was before Rian Johnson rewrote it, hyperspace did not operate like that. Plain and simple. Rian Johnson rewrote how hyperspace works, creating a plot holes and discontinuities for the entire saga.
No one rewrote Hyperspace. It has always been like that.
9th Dec 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: A human being cannot survive inside a closed refrigerator for even one hour, let alone overnight. They would suffer from a lack of oxygen and die. "Refrigerator death" is a rare occurrence but has happened on several occasions when children accidentally lock themselves in a fridge or if someone purposefully traps an individual in one.
Correction: Clearly it didn't work for him as he tried to commit suicide but was alive the next day. Maybe he got cold feet and exited quite quickly. Since the scene cuts after he closes the door you can't know what happened.
Incorrect. We see the refrigerator fully closing. When he closes it, it's night and when it cuts to the next scene it's morning, therefore he was in overnight.
Sure it closed, but you can't see he was in it all night. You can force yourself out of such types of fridge, if you have to.
So long as there is no scene specifically showing him crawl out of said refrigerator at dawn, there is no proof - implied or otherwise - he was in there overnight. As the previous entry corrected earlier, there is no way of knowing exactly how long he was inside for, and he obviously survived up until the end credits so the entire point or duration is moot.
Correction: It is possible the fridge just simply didn't seal fully. They are a poor family and likely have broken down old appliances. The airtight seals around the door could have been damaged thus letting air get inside, albeit even if just a little.
The fridge did close. Watch the scene, we here and see the fridge closing fully, it was night when he entered and the scene cuts to morning of the next day where it's daytime, so he was in the fridge overnight.
A refrigerator that is on, like the Joker's, has a fan that circulates cold air. The air comes from somewhere. A running refrigerator is not a vacuum.
There is so much wrong with this statement. First, that's not how refrigerators work. Second, asphyxiation doesn't occur in a vacuum. The mistake isn't claiming the Joker was in a vacuum.
2nd Feb 2017
Alien Resurrection (1997)
Corrected entry: When climbing above the nesting grounds, one of the guys gets a dead, very heavy alien on his shoe. To save the crippled guys life and keep him climbing, he unhooks from the crippled guy and falls to his death. He didn't have to die, though. He could have just pushed it off with his other foot.
Correction: Christie was very badly injured from the acid that hit him. He was barely conscious and simply couldn't move his foot to get rid of the alien. It wasn't a certainty it would work either, Christie simply thought of the fastest and surest way for Vriess to be saved.
I always got the impression Christie was paralyzed from the waist down after he gets hit with the acid. It's a fitting way for him to die, because he saves Vriess who is also paralyzed in the same way.
How would he get paralyzed from the acid? It hit his face.
Went into his brain. I can't see him being too tired to move his leg but not too tired to un-snap his harness. Either way, it's a very poorly explained scene. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong, it's just the way I always read the scene when I watched the movie.
Right, right. I get where you are coming from. But let's be realistic, if the acid had gone in his brain he'd be dead. He just didn't have the strength left, not tired, just in and out of conscious. And again, it would have taken too long to try and get the alien off.
He won't necessarily be dead. Brain injuries are not all fatal, but can result in loss of different body functions.
Plot hole: In the shot where two of the pirates find Jack Sparrow in the prison, you see the moon shine out over Port Royal and the pirate's hand around Jack's neck is skeletal. While this is happening we know that Elizabeth is being led onto the Black Pearl by two pirates. If the pirate in the prison turns skeletal, why don't the pirates with Elizabeth turn skeletal? It's clear that they don't as Elizabeth only discovers the curse later on aboard the Black Pearl.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This can be explained that on the route from Elizabeth's house to the ship there is a lot of fog, smoke from fires and gunpowder explosions, so the moon doesn't get through. The moon only get through once they are underway again and the fog is cleared. The prison is much further and higher than the town and so the moon does get through (only sometimes) there.
You're very much mistaken. In later scene pirates turn skeletal when marching underwater, at the bottom of the ocean. Moon is easily able to get through water and this smoke isn't thick enough to block the moon.
How does water compare to fog? Of course the moonlight comes through the water, its transparent. Fog isn't transparent. You can go technical and question how much the moonlight is reflected away before the effect wears off, but obviously the effect wears off when there is no direct moonlight hitting them, as is the case with fog and smoke.
5th Jul 2005
Toy Story (1995)
Trivia: The carpet design used in Sid's house is the same design used in the hotel featured in The Shining (1980). (00:48:55 - 00:50:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
The design is spot on. The color is just different.
So it is identical, except for how it is different?
No one said it was identical. The trivia is the pattern is the same. Color has no bearing on the trivial fact. The fact that they animated the carpet means the design was intentional. Although, it's possible they copied the design from a 70's carpet pattern that "The Shining" also used, rather than copy the design in "The Shining."
11th Oct 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: Joker's left eye make up changes shape (blue messy cry smear) and size before going on the show, then is very neat on the show, and then jumps back to being smaller with the left eye crying look in the police car.
Correction: The changes are shown in between takes with a large time gap. Before going on the show he had redone his makeup and after the show he cried again smearing the makeup again when he is in the cop car.
There is a scene he is lying at the car engine, next scene he stand up, between these two scene the blue paint is dry and different.
Well firstly, no, he bleeds so that's different but the blue paint stays the same. Can't blame him for sweating either. And secondly, the original mistake doesn't talk about the scene on top of the car but in it.
24th Nov 2019
Star Wars (1977)
Question: Has there ever been any sort of canonical discussion about the morality of droid treatment in any Star Wars titles? They're intelligent/sentient, are treated well by most people, even like friends/pets by some. And yet they also seem to casually get their minds wiped, or if they're destroyed many people shrug rather than mourn. Tools to some, valued comrades to others, it's just a bit all over the place. Idle thought really.
Answer: Lucas has gone on record as to the treatment of droids in Star Wars being a thought-provoking allegory for the way people treat minorities. I've never heard him specifically talk about how it's almost never commented-upon in-universe, but intentionally or not, I'm of the opinion that it's more compelling this way. Why doesn't anybody do anything about the way droids are treated? Well, go around asking people why they don't do anything about the way other people are treated and you'll quickly find out.
Answer: Not in the films, but several of the books removed from canon by Disney mentioned a "droids' rights movement" that decried memory wipes and other dismissals of sentience. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Droid_rights_ (movement).
Solo, which is canon, features a subplot about droid's rights. So not everything has been scrubbed regarding this topic.
Chosen answer: Nobody in the Star Wars universe, except on rare occasions, has shown sympathy towards a droid or any AI. Even though these robots learn, they don't really evolve beyond their programming so they aren't considered "alive" (unlike in other fiction like Wall-E), not even by the most sentimental of people. Organic beings develop attachments to droids, but mostly towards their usefulness, not because they like their personality, not even Luke Skywalker towards R2 or Poe towards BB-8. If they are destroyed, too bad. Memory wiping doesn't remove the droid's original programming either, and their way of talking and manners stay.
In Episode 2, Obi-Wan makes the offhanded comment "Well, if droids could think there'd be none of us here", implying that droids do not actually possess artificial intelligence. R2-D2 seems to be a particularly unusual droid in that he is uncommonly resilient and steadfast, which makes his allies quite fond of him. Poe and BB-8 appear to have a bond that goes beyond simply being attached to the droid's usefulness, but like you say that appears to be a unique case.
Just because he said that doesn't mean they didn't have AI. They think for themselves, so they have AI. Just not as advanced as in other fiction.
The point is raised again later in the film when the cloners state that unlike droids, clones can think for themselves.
12th Nov 2019
The Incredibles (2004)
Question: A few questions about this movie. Firstly, Syndrome's ultimate plan was first testing his prototypes on other supers, using the next had the last been defeated, and all leading up to the final face off with Mr. Incredible. What would Syndrome had done had Mr. Incredible denied the opportunity from Mirage of coming to the island to do the hero work as devised and everything he planned had been spoiled? Secondly, when Mr. Incredible was captured and held hostage in the round electric type of cell, did Syndrome plan for him to just hang there until he died? Thirdly, what made Mirage suddenly have a change of heart after all the working she's done with Syndrome and killing off supers in the past?
Answer: Syndrome's plan worked because even though the superheroes were retired a lot of them missed the old days and wanted to do real superhero work. This opportunity lured a lot of them to the island, including Mr. Incredible. If he hadn't gone there Syndrome would have found others. He kept Mr. Incredible locked up there until his plans of sending the robot were executed. Afterwards he probably would have killed him, perhaps by turning the robot loose on him again but this time in public. Mirage got second doubts when she realised Syndrome didn't care about her or the lives of innocents, I'm guessing a lot of information was kept from her and she simply thought Syndrome was after power and not petty revenge on superheroes.
I'm a little confused about the second and third answers. We saw that Syndrome was trying to destroy the robot while mimicking it (really, using his remote) while he meanwhile had the Incredibles held hostage at his island. How would he have sent Mr. Incredible to the public to be killed by the robot if it were destroyed? Also, if Mirage thought the superhero revenge on Mr. Incredible was minor and the other supers he was killing were innocent, why did she decide to be his assistant and help him in the first place?
I'm sure his first encounter with the robot was just for show, letting the people think he beat it, without actually damaging it. The point was that the robot could not be defeated by any superhero and then everybody would flock to him and he could sell his inventions to make everybody "super" so superheroes will not be necessary anymore. It's somewhere along the lines of that anyway, I've never actually known what his actual plan was. The point was to make an unbeatable robot that only he could defeat by cheating, then sell his inventions to everybody. That I'm sure of. How he was going to take his revenge on supes to the next stage I don't know. Mirage wasn't innocent, she knew supes were being killed by the robot but she thought he did it for power. She also started to like Mr. Incredible I think. Once she realised he didn't care about her or literally anyone else she decided to betray him. Maybe she found out what real power is, and he didn't have it.
13th Nov 2019
Mortal Kombat (1995)
Revealing mistake: When Scorpion explodes, if you pay attention, the explosion doesn't really make "sense." The first "burst" looks fine, but then, midway through the shot, some of the debris in the air suddenly vanishes or fades out a few frames before the second "burst" occurs. Additionally, the way the second "burst" happens gives it away as an added effect, as it doesn't really overlap the background properly. (It looks like an explosion that was filmed on a blue-screen and then just added over top of the footage, as it doesn't interact with the environment properly).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Scorpion is an undead being fighting in another realm of existence. He doesn't necessarily have to explode in a way that "makes sense."
The mistake pertains to issues with the somewhat shoddy execution of the effects, which are a result of the film's production. I don't think him being an undead fighter from another realm of existence is really a valid way to explain this away.
15th Nov 2019
Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Corrected entry: Spider-man and Mysterio fight the first Elemental. On the bridge, the elemental beats Peter Parker and he is wet. This could not be, because the water elemental is a hologram. Spider-man couldn't get wet from a hologram. (00:21:35)
Correction: In addition to holograms, Mysterio uses drones to cause real damage. Otherwise, his con would be figured out very easily. In this case, the hologram obscures drones that blast water from the canal (or possibly even collect water and spray it) which then get Peter wet.
I don't think drones are capable of doing that, as we've seen they're only capable of firing guns.
We saw them traveling underwater toward Tower Bridge and firing causing water to spray up.
I think Spider-Man being wet is sufficient evidence that the drones are capable of more than shooting guns. Why call it a mistake when it's perfectly reasonable for it to be drones even if not explicitly shown?
But their firepower could splash water up and make Peter wet though. So he got wet from splashing water from all the firepower upon the water and bridge.
11th Nov 2019
Ender's Game (2013)
Question: Maybe this is explained better in the book, or maybe I just wasn't paying attention. But at the end, when Ender killed all the Formics, did he kill any innocents, or were they all involved in the first invasion? Because Ender never mentions innocents being killed, that would be a pretty good argument as to why it was wrong. If they were all involved in the first invasion, I don't see anything wrong with killing aliens that murdered millions of humans.
Answer: In the book, Ender had grown disillusioned with military school and was depressed. Destroying the entire Formic homeworld was his attempt to force the school to expel him, by enacting a suicidal plan of action so ruthless his superiors would believe him unfit for leadership. In the film it appears that Ender is simply trying to win the game as best he can. As for the Formics themselves, they operate with a hive mind so in a sense, yes they were all "involved" in the invasion of earth. However, wiping out of the entire civilization in retribution, especially once the audience hears the Formic queen express her dismay over the Formic's actions, is evil. The film somewhat glosses over this fact, but in the books it is clear the Formics did not understand that humans were sentient at all because they could not comprehend an intelligent species lacking a shared consciousness.
Yeah misunderstanding is the constant of the book series.
20th Jan 2019
Mortal Kombat (1995)
Question: When Lui Kang fights Reptile, what was Johnny Cage doing this entire time? (01:12:15 - 01:15:50)
Answer: Since the entire fight is focused on Liu Kang and Reptile, he could have possibly waited to see what the outcome of the fight was.
Answer: Wouldn't Johnny Cage want to go in to help his "mate", rather than stand their and watch? The question here (because Reptile is a secret character in MK1 and Raiden saying "In Outworld, you will find another guy") is that can Johnny Cage interfere with the fight, or is that against the rules in this tournament?
Not only is it against the rules, but Raiden never said they'd find another guy. What he said was, "You'll find another guide." The guide being Kitana.
That is indeed against the rules.
4th Nov 2019
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: This question might be more for the book, but Mad Eye said they would have to transport in ways the trace can't detect. But the trace would only detect magic used near an underage person. Harry is the only one who is underage. So they could have used a portkey. I understand that they need to cast a spell to make a portkey but they could have cast the spell before they were near Harry and then transported to the burrow. Or have I made a mistake?
Answer: The trace detects when an underaged wizard casts a magic spell whenever they are away from Hogwarts. It doesn't detect adult wizards using magic near a minor. If a portkey was used to transport Harry, it could have been detected when he touched it because he would be using magic. The safest and least detectable way to move him from point A to B, was to fly him there.
Answer: Two things. 1. You are not allowed to create an unauthorized portkey. The ministry must be aware of it. I think the incantation (portus) is traced. 2. Using a portkey is magical use, so the moment Harry touches it, the ministry would be alerted and possibly know where the portkey transported to.
Then how did Dumbledore get away with it in Order of the Phoenix when he made a portkey to get the children to Grimmauld Place?
Well he is an extremely powerful wizard and the headmaster of Hogwarts. I think he made it at Hogwarts yes? He could have had a trick up his sleeve to do it. Might be a bit more tricky for Mad-Eye and the rest whilst the Ministry is under control of deatheaters. Just too risky.
Also, using magic near an underage wizard isn't traced. Just when it is used by an underage wizard.
No, the trace is meant to detect magic used near an underaged wizard.
The wiki specifically says it's a trace of magic in the vicinity of an underage wizard, not the underage wizard him/herself. It's mentioned working like that by Alastair Moody in the books too.
When Harry used magic to repel the dementors that attacked him and Dudley in Order of the Phoenix, the Ministry of Magic instantly detected that he cast a patronus spell. He was immediately "charged" for using underage magic. What would happen when a young wizard was at home for the summer and holidays and is around adult wizards using magic all the time? The trace would be going off continually for every underaged magic person. It was mentioned in the books that if an underaged wizard did use magic at home, it could be confused with the adults who were casting spells.
Harry once got a warning from the "improper use of magic office" for casting a hover charm, even though it was Dobby who did it. I don't know where you get your information from, but it is wrong. The trace can only detect magic has been used, not who used it. This is explained by Alastair Moody in Deathly Hallows Chapter 4.
3rd Nov 2019
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Corrected entry: In Transfiguration class when professor McGonagall is explaining the lesson you can see that the instructions are mirrored on the blackboard. (00:54:18)
Correction: There are two chalkboards in Professor McGonagall's classroom, both with the same chalk drawings and instructional writing, though the chalkboard on the right has everything backwards on the board. However, none of the actual shots during this scene are flipped, not the closeups, medium shots, or the long shots. Note the part in McGonagall's hair, etc., stays consistent throughout. For whatever their reasons, the filmmakers decided to have identical chalkboards at both sides of the desk, and one with the reverse writing and images as its twin.
And since it's a class about casting spells it's not unlikely McGonagall wrote it in mirror on purpose. Perhaps they need to learn to read mirror since a lot of spells and spellbooks are written like that, a common myth surrounding spells.
17th Jun 2015
Friends (1994)
The One with Mrs. Bing - S1-E11
Question: When we first see Mrs Bing on TV, Jay Leno mentions that she recently got arrested and asks how it came about. Her response is "occasionally, after being intimate with a man, I just get a craving for Kung Pao chicken" This gets a lot of cheers and laughter from the audience and Chandler shouts "that's too much information!" at the TV. What was happening here? Why does what Mrs Bing said get so much of a reaction from everyone and not answer the question she was asked? Am I missing something?
Answer: This is a story about how Chandler's mom got arrested. So she is saying "after being intimate with a man I get a craving for Kung Pao Chicken." So what she is implying is that she is intimate with whomever, and immediately afterwards when orders Kung Pao Chicken. By this she is saying she got arrested at the place where they sell Kung Poa Chicken, because she was being intimate with the individual there. Conclusion she was openly having sex at a Chinese Restaurant.
Answer: I've seen a few answers that are similar to this. It's really unclear to me what the relation to being arrested is and/or why it's too much information. I feel like I'm missing a connection here.
Chosen answer: Nora Bing's remarks got a huge response by her being funny and making the incident about sex. Audiences tend react to titillating anecdotes. Chandler, of course, is always mortified by his mother for not acting her age and being sexually uninhibited.
This answers nothing really.
Answer: I honestly think part of it has been deleted since the original broadcast. I remember her saying something extra that carried on the joke, but watching it on streaming services, it isn't there.
26th Nov 2002
Hocus Pocus (1993)
Corrected entry: The legend is that the Sandersen sisters will be brought back from the grave if a virgin lights the black flamed candle. In fact, that's what happens 300 years after they are burned at Salem. If the citizens of Salem believed in the witches' curse, then why did they leave the candle intact? Why didn't they have a non-virgin destroy it immediately?
Correction: The witches are magic. They probably made it so only a virgin could light or touch the candle.
But the candle and wick already seemed to be previously lit.
It was probably lit before the witches were burned.
Even if it has been previously lit; it's a pretty moot point unless we know it was another virgin on Halloween night who lit it as this was a very specific thing that had to happen for them to come back from the grave. So if it was somebody who tried lighting it on Christmas, wouldn't have worked for the prophecy. As to why no-one tried to destroy it; I'm sure they did but as we can see from the book the witches know magical protections spells so it's a safe bet there's one on the candle too where the flame might simply go out if someone not prophesied to light it try.
22nd Oct 2019
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Corrected entry: When Indiana Jones is told about the tablet discovery by Donovan, Indiana says the three knights who find the grail during the first Crusade are French. When Indiana meets the last knight at the end of the movie, he speaks perfect English, and with an English accent.
Correction: He's also almost 900 years old and imbued with power by God Himself. I think a simple language would be no big deal at all.
How is he imbued by power from God?
How else do you explain him being almost a thousand years old?
Drinking from the cup. How does that make him speak English?
The Grail is imbued with the power of God because it held the blood of Christ. One would think that since he is essentially the God-appointed guardian of the Grail, he would have any knowledge needed to guard it.
Thats a lot of assumptions. The cup grants immortality, that's it. It doesn't make you a polyglot.
He's the appointed guardian of the Holy Grail, an artifact that grants eternal life and is protected by miraculous and physically impossible traps. The guardian is given whatever power needed to keep the Grail in the chamber.
He doesn't have to do anything to keep the cup in the chamber. The seal does that.
I suppose you can make the case about God giving the knight the ability to speak English, but why in an English accent? I would think he'd speak in a French or American accent.
Why? An American dialect is no more neutral than an English one. People who speak with a French accent do so because they are still using rules and habits learned speaking French when trying to speak another language.
Because languages and the people who speak them change over time, especially that long of a period, by the immigration and emigration of people, influence of other languages, etc... What he would have spoken then would have been Old French, not modern French. While they do share a modicum of similarity, they are not mutually intelligible due to changes in grammar, syntax, and word use. Old French, for instance, contains far more influence from the Germanic Frankish language and Celtic Gaulish than modern French.
A French accent from 900 years ago would sound nothing like a modern French accent. In the same way, what we consider to be a modern proper English accent is actually a fairly modern phenomenon designed to distinguish upper from lower class people.
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.
Answer: No, his snap simply restored all the people Thanos' snap eliminated. They discuss it before he snaps. Tony reminds him to not try to do anything other than bring the people back.
We don't know that's all he did. Considering the Ancient One's warning that removing a stone for one's universe could have disastrous affects on that universe. One would think he would return the stones.
DetectiveGadget85
She was talking about removing them from the timeline, nothing about destroying them. According to the comics when the stones are destroyed the powers they represent will be made physical again in a different way. This does not happen when they are removed completely, since the power inside (the energy) cannot be reassembled again.
lionhead
Destroying the stones almost killed Thanos. Hulk would not have been able to bring back half the universe and the stones with no further impact.
We do know. As stated in the answer, Tony and Hulk specifically discuss ONLY bringing the people back. Since it's stated in the film, we can say with certainty that's all he did.
As stated in the film, he also tried to bring Natasha back who wasn't one of the half Thanos snapped away, so while unlikely, perhaps he did try more.
jimba