Corrected entry: There is no way that the SS Venture could plow into the dock as depicted. Easily pulling a 30-foot draft, the Venture would have grounded out a mile away from the shoreline, unless the ocean was 30 feet deep right off the beach.
lionhead
14th Jul 2018
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
16th Mar 2015
The Truman Show (1998)
Question: How does Christof talk to the actors? They don't look like they have earpieces, and if they do, why didn't that make Truman suspicious earlier?
Answer: They do have earpieces, just minuscule ones that can't be seen unless you are looking directly into a persons ear. As shown in the scene with Marlon on the beach, he is being fed his lines by such an earpiece. They are also present when Truman is in his car and he picks up the signal they are using to show where he is at the given time. Also, even though you can hear what someone is saying, you can't talk back to them which is why Meryl and Marlon had to talk to a camera when requesting help/confirming Truman wasn't there.
Yep, that's it. Also, the earpieces might not even be that small but Truman isn't looking for them and thus doesn't see them.
Chosen answer: It appears that Christof and the control team in the moon did not, in fact, have contact with the actors very often. It is more likely he had contact with people on the ground who could make things happen per his instructions. But there were inconsistencies. For example, how could he create instantaneous traffic jams at a moment's notice, and set up a hazardous spill scene on the outskirts of town to prevent Truman from leaving Seahaven, but he couldn't get anyone to interrupt or vary the cycle of movements by extras that Truman watched in his rear view mirror when he was trying to convince his wife something in their town was amiss - even when he was talking aloud, anticipating the next extra's move before it happened? Christof could arrange for a road race to happen by and to have people almost instantaneously hustle Truman's father onto a bus when he showed up in town as a homeless man, but it took quite some time to get Sylvia's father onto the beach to whisk her away to Fiji, even though Christof knew exactly where they were headed. And when Truman and Meryl were having their major argument in their kitchen, Christof could engineer Marlon to show up with a six pack of beer, but he couldn't communicate with Meryl to provide her advice on how to handle the situation, and she ended up screaming for help into a camera. I think Christof did place some sort of communication/listening device on some actors at critical times. We saw that in a couple of instances (e.g. When Marlon went into Truman's basement looking for an already disappeared Truman, Christof was feeding him direct instructions). But I don't think it was routinely done. And when it was, Christof's surely would have had the technical know-how to create a supremely inconspicuous piece of equipment.
8th Jul 2018
Grease (1978)
Question: At the drive-in, Kenickie confronts Rizzo about being pregnant, but she tells him not to worry because "it was someone else's mistake." What does she mean?
Answer: She says it to hurt him.
Absolutely, she said it, like she said a lot of things - out of malice. Kenickie is genuinely distressed, genuinely meant he would stick by her, even if the baby wasn't his.
Answer: The whole meaning behind it is that Rizzo really is pregnant with Kenickie's kid but Rizzo says it's someone else's: "someone else's problem," pretty much giving a chance for Kenickie to be off the hook as not being the father. But Kenickie obviously knows she is lying. And he's upset and says "thanks a lot kid" sarcastically.
Answer: Rizzo doesn't actually mean someone else got her pregnant. She is just letting Kenickie "off the hook," probably because she figures he wouldn't want to take responsibility, anyway, and she was probably going to have to handle this on her own. Kenickie is hurt by this, however, as we can tell by his expression when he replies, "thanks a lot, kid."
I always read it as an expression of relief when he says "Thanks a lot, kid".
It was not meant as an expression of off the hook. It was meant as in, "that's really a messed up thing to say!" He was hurt by her saying that he was someone else's mistake.
She didn't say he was someone else's mistake. I already said that in a different correction. She says "it was someone else's mistake." Meaning the baby isn't his.
Answer: Both Kenickie and Rizzo are upset and being sarcastic. The interpretations of his and her words are debatable, especially since there is no way of knowing if Rizzo did, in fact, sleep with someone else. However, there's no indication that Rizzo was with another boy/man, so it can be assumed Kenickie is the father and both know this is true. My interpretation was that Rizzo, by saying "it's someone else's mistake", was referring to herself - that she was stupid enough to even have sex with someone like Kenickie in the first place. (The second inferred meaning is that she will not hold him responsible because she knows he isn't interested in being a father/paying.) Kenickie's response, "thanks a lot, kid" was returning an insult - the "thanks a lot" part being sarcastic and "kid" meaning immature and not old enough to have even been given the chance or "be lucky enough" for him to (lower himself and) sleep with her, given all the other "better" girls - WOMEN - around from which to choose.
Answer: It's been a while, but I thought the quote was: Kenickie: I don't run away from my mistakes Rizzo: Don't worry, you're someone else's mistake. I would agree with others that she's essentially letting him off the hook in the storyline (everybody knows it's his), but this particular quote is basically just a joke implying HE was HIS parents' mistake...as a way to lighten the mood.
She didn't say "you're someone else's mistake." She says "it was somebody else's mistake."
7th Jun 2018
Highlander (1986)
Corrected entry: When the marine is driving around all four headlights are on, but when he pulls up in the darkened alley only two headlights are on.
Correction: He just switched to two headlights when he went into the alley. Could have done it at any time.
No need for him to drive down a well lit street with all the headlights on but when he turns into a darkened ally he turns two off, this is stupidly or a continuity mistake.
Why he does it is totally irrelevant. Its not a continuity mistake when the sequence of actions is consequential. He turns the headlights down, period.
13th Sep 2011
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
Corrected entry: Caesar the Chimpanzee spoke human words. However Great Apes' vocal chords make them unsuitable for speech as they are higher in their throats. Since the virus only affects the brain and doesn't physically change the location of the apes' vocal chords, it's impossible for Caesar to speak, no matter how smart he is.
Correction: Caesar spoke after he was exposed to the updated ALZ-113 drug. It is shown that this drug causes a physical side effect in humans when we see the exposed doctor sneezes blood, though no specifics were stated. Since this drug causes physical changes in humans, it is not unlikely that it could also cause a physical change in apes as well, allowing Caesar and other exposed apes to speak.
The exposed doctor has disease symptoms. That's not the same as changing the location of the vocal chords.
6th Jul 2018
Incredibles 2 (2018)
Corrected entry: The whole plot of the movie is premised on the fact that it has been 14 years since the last release with the movie "catching us up" on what has happened the last 14 years. The big problem is that none of the Incredibles have aged. "Dash" and Violet Parr (the kids) should be 20-something adults possibly with their own kids and Bob and Helen Parr (The parents) would be middle-aged grandparents.
Correction: "Incredibles 2" is not set 14 years later. It takes place 3 months after the first film. In fact, it's still 1962, the same year "The Incredibles" is set.
Yeah, pretty funny entry as I think odelphi is referring to the start of the first movie, with the interviews. Whilst this movie starts with showing exactly where the last movie ended.
18th Jul 2017
Preacher (2016)
Revealing mistake: The Amazing Ganesh gets sawed in half (for real) by a chainsaw but the blades separating the 2 halves and thus his body are already in place as seen when he pushes the two halves towards the audience. So the saw wasn't really cutting through anything. (00:11:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That is exactly how magicians perform the trick. Once inside the box the victim folds up into 1 of the 2 boxes and the blades inserted. Then cut and shown to the audience to show they have been cut in half.
Except the great Ganesh actually saws himself in half. He never learns the trick normally, he just actually saws himself in half and kills himself, then respawns. That's the idea of the scenes.
9th Oct 2017
Seven (1995)
Question: How did Doe manage to kill Mills' wife? He says "this morning" in the last scene, but that morning he was already in jail.
Answer: He had a busy morning. It is a bit far-fetched, but Somerset did express appreciation for how "methodical, exacting" John Doe was. So it's not totally unbelievable that, 1) Mills leaves for work - maybe even earlier bc he picks up Somerset, 2) John Doe arrives at Mills', maybe he even bought a box the night before to save time, 3) He finds a delivery guy, gives him the box plus $500 - good chunk of $ in 1995 (even more in 1986), 4) Hails a cab, to the police station. My question is...what was the cabbie thinking? Guy is covered in blood and asks for a ride to the police station.
Well, the guy wanted to go to the police station. He probably told the cabbie he'd been the victim of or witnessed a crime he needed to report immediately.
Answer: The events of John Doe arriving at the police station and the last scene where Mills kills him takes place on the same day.
What about the 7:01 am time?
When? where do you see that? What is the significance? Would be nice if you could give that info so I won't have to search myself.
It was 07.01pm. You will remember at the end of the film Mills was in the police car at night. If it was 07.01am more than 12 hours would elapse before Mills was picked up. Highly unlikely.
25th Jun 2018
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Since the Jedi already knew that Count Dooku is a Sith Lord, did the Jedi ever find out that he is also Darth Tyranus?
Answer: Unlikely as Obi-Wan knew from Jango Fett that he was recruited by a man named Tyranus and with that information they could have known the clone army was ordered by the sith. Its possible after the betrayal that Yoda and Obi-Wan figured it out, but by then it was not much use.
It is eventually revealed in the Clone Wars series to Kenobi and Skywalker that Tyranus and Dooku are one and the same. Prior to this, the Jedi had no idea who Tyranus was.
But like I said that would mean they knew the clone army was connected to the sith.
It most certainly should. That Kenobi never connects the dots is an astounding oversight. I've always felt like it was a writing mistake to have Jango Fett reveal the name Tyranus to Kenobi, as it makes the Jedi, and Kenobi especially, seem incredibly stupid for not putting everything together. The fact that the Clone Wars series makes it clear that Kenobi knows exactly who Tyranus is but the Jedi still trust the clones afterwards is insane. It would have made much more sense to keep the identity of Tyranus a secret to the Jedi.
Yep, the Clone Wars series tends to do that a lot.
Then why did Obi Wan didn't do anything? Like telling the Jedi order that the Clone army is is a part of the Sith Plan.
I think that's a mistake in the clone wars series, which was made after Episode III was released. In the movies they didn't know.
Good point. But I wonder if the Jedi ever wondered about Dooku's Sith name.
Hm I see what you mean. Maybe they didn't think he had one? I think Dooku preferred his real name over his moniker. Since he had power with his name, he still called himself Dooku. Also, his identity as a Sith was a secret for a long time, but even as he was revealed as a Sith he still introduced himself as Dooku.
Among the three apprentices of Darth Sidious, Tyranus is the one who ressembles Palpatine the most. They're both mature, noble, political leader who has a secret sith agenda.Both of them hide their Sith Identity.
25th Jun 2018
The Avengers (2012)
Question: In the helicarrier, Loki tricks Thor into the plastic cell; Loki then ejects the pod. If Thor is pretty much a god, meaning immortal, how could the fall kill him?
Answer: So it should first be stated that in the film, Thor's strength and power are considerable reduced compared to the comics (along with others like the Hulk and Loki). Presumably so there can be some suspense. In the comics Thor survived a blast from a nuke designed to destroy an entire planet and he fought a guy on the Sun. In the movies, neither Thor or Loki should be considered immortal, or even invulnerable (Loki even tells Thor "The humans think us immortal"). Asgardians were shown to die in battle, giving the viewer the thought that Thor could also die. However, even in the film, it's unlikely that the fall would have killed him but that he would have been crushed by the concrete and steel of the cage crashing down on him when it landed. Of course, Thor didn't really want to find out if that would happen. And Loki basically implied he didn't really know what would happen to Thor after the fall.
Yep, in the movies the asgardians are simply a very powerful alien species, like Kryptonians. They are tough and hardly age but they are not immortal.
Answer: In the comics, Asgard is a different dimension. Asgardians are immortal on Earth, however, they CAN be killed on Asgard. Since the Cinematic continuity is different from the comics, this probably hasn't been put to the test yet, and one can see why Thor wouldn't want to be the first to do so.
15th Jun 2018
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Factual error: When Zephram Cochrane, Riker and LaForge activate the warp drive of the prototype starship Phoenix, the prismatic starscape is seen streaking past (same effect as in the Star Trek: TNG series). However, the Phoenix never leaves the solar system or even the vicinity of Earth, achieving only Warp One (the max velocity of the Phoenix) for a few seconds. Even at lightspeed, the Phoenix did not enter interstellar space nor pass any other stars; therefore, the starscape should have remained almost motionless.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: What happens when a ship goes to warp it essentially creates a subspace distortion. This causes the starscape to change and move, as they exit regular space and enter subspace.
At Warp One, there should be zero prismatic distortions. It takes a full 24-hour DAY for light to cross the solar system. In a few seconds, a vessel traveling at Warp One, within a solar system, would see no distortions.
A ship slips out of regular space when going to warp, it creates a bubble around the ship, that bubble causes the starscape for the people inside it to appear moving or at least distort. That's what you see. That's what you always see when a ship goes to warp.
The prismatic effect was created for the TNG series to depict the ship passing stars at hundreds of times the speed of light. The Phoenix only achieved Warp One, one time the speed of light (lightspeed). As fast as that sounds, it wouldn't be fast enough to create any visual distortion.
Even at hundreds of times the speed of light you would only pass a star every few seconds, they didn't make that effect for TNG as in TOS they were going that fast too (as high as warp 9) and the same distortion is seen. You also keep saying its the speed that causes the visual distortion whilst I specifically mention its the fact the ship exiting regular space and into subspace is whats causing the distortion.
10th Jun 2018
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Plot hole: At the very end, when Leo Davidson crash-lands in Washington, DC, on the very steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the modified Lincoln statue depicts General Thade (the founder of the ape civilization on Earth) as wearing mid-19th Century clothing. This suggests that Thade escaped from his home planet Ashlar (aboard the recovered single-passenger Delta Pod, no doubt), entered the time-rift, and arrived on Earth in the early-to-mid 19th Century to begin taking over the human population. So, Thade by himself (with no advanced scientific knowledge) completely conquered human civilization on Earth in only about 150 years, which is absurd even for space fantasy.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is based on a lot of assumptions. Firstly, it's a perfect duplicate of the Lincoln memorial even though it's a different past, where humanity isn't the dominant species so it's obviously fantastical. Secondly, nobody says it's an historical accurate sculpture, in the middle ages and Renaissance they often depicted historical figures with modern clothes on. Just the sculpture doesn't give you the story behind it.
Judging from the closing shots of Washington, DC, Thade's ape civilization is a virtual duplicate of human civilization, right down to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, The Mall, the city itself, the makes and models of automobiles, and even the police uniforms. It's identical social evolution, except with apes in charge. The real Lincoln Memorial was constructed decades after Lincoln died (when fashions had dramatically changed) to memorialize a fallen president, realistically depicting him wearing his own 19th-Century clothing. If the apes followed an exact duplicate of human development (which is obviously the case in this film), then the Thade Memorial was constructed to realistically memorialize Thade, wearing his own 19th-Century clothing. This attempted correction makes no sense at all.
The idea alone that the apes evolved and build a society identical to our own makes it clear that the fact that they have a memorial of General Thade in 19th century clothes completely irrelevant to anything about any historical accuracy you might be referring to, as it isn't there. You can make an entire list of all the hundreds of things that don't make any sense in that scene, if that pleases you. But the clothing on a spoof of the Lincoln memorial doesn't make it a plot hole that Thade couldn't have taken power over such a short period. It's not supposed to make sense. Hell, Leo could be having a nightmare for all we know.
It's called a "plot hole," a poorly-reasoned concept with equally bad writing and production that does nothing to bring the plot full circle.
It's called a "plot hole," a poorly-reasoned concept with equally bad writing and production that does nothing to bring the plot full circle.
Additionally, the original mistake is making the assumption that the statue is of Thade. It could very well be (more likely in fact) that Thade made it to Earth in the distant past, causing the switch from human to ape evolution, and the statue is simply an ape who resembles Thade, possibly a descendant.
10th Jun 2018
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Plot hole: We know that Pericles the chimp (in Alpha Pod), then Leo Davidson (in Delta Pod), and then the entire Oberon space station are all pulled into the time rift and end up on planet Ashlar, each arriving at (drastically) different times. Apparently, just before the Oberon crashed on Ashlar, Commander Vasich sent a mayday transmission ("We're going down!") which is actually received by the Oberon itself before it entered the time rift. Commander Vasich and the Oberon crew are startled to see a very elderly Commander Vasich in the mayday transmission. This implies that Vasich and the Oberon crew instantly aged by decades while going through the time rift; yet, Leo Davidson and Pericles the chimp didn't age at all.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The mayday was broadcast years after Leo and Pericles had disappeared into the future, whilst still orbiting the planet, Vasich isn't as old as the later video recording Leo watches at the end of the movie, possibly a decade older. Eventually, after years of orbiting they crashed onto the planet, probably because they attempted to get closer. Then decades pass after the crash until finally the apes on the crashed ship take control. It's possible the Oberon never went into the time portal itself. It crashed in the past after all.
According to the backstory, Alpha Pod, Delta Pod and the Oberon were pulled into the time-rift in quick succession, and they almost instantly arrived at their respective destinations in time (in the case of the Oberon, it travelled back thousands of years to a time when Ashlar was uninhabited). If the Oberon then orbited Ashlar for decades before crashing, then the Oberon crew and Commander Vasich certainly knew that there was nobody to respond to their radio transmissions. but after decades of silence, the elderly Vasich suddenly transmits a mayday signal just before "going down"? No, this is a plot hole, just like the ending in which General Thade (the founder of the ape civilization on Earth) is depicted in statuary as wearing mid-19th Century clothing.
No, they didn't broadcast, they made a video log. They decided to record what happened.
Or, the went through the time-rift, stayed in orbit for as long as they could and got a signal from the rift coming from the past station and send a distress signal to them. Not knowing they were sending a signal to themselves.
22nd Oct 2017
Stargate SG-1 (1997)
Question: When SG-1 travels to alien planets they always experience earth like gravity. Shouldn't they be experiencing different gravity on different planets?
Answer: Basically, if a planet has the same mass and size, it will have the same gravity. Since the Stargates were placed on habitable planets, it's likely they placed them on planets with the same gravity. Even if the planet's varied in mass or size, a planet's gravity in relations to Earth can be calculated as m/r^2where m is the planet's mass compared to Earth's mass and r2 is the planet's radius (compared to Earth's) squared. So if a planet had 50% the mass and 70% radius of Earth, gravity would be 0.5/0.7^2 which would be 1.02 times the gravity of Earth (or roughly the same).
Answer: Goldilock zone.
What does this answer have to do with the question?
Nothing, just someone trying to be clever.
15th Dec 2002
Godzilla (1998)
Corrected entry: When the attack helicopters go after Godzilla they use heat seeking missiles. Surely they wouldn't even notice a cold blooded lizard? Also when Godzilla chases them why don't they just go up out of reach, rather than running away below the rooftops?
Correction: Cold-blooded doesn't mean cold. A reptile is as warm as his environment. A little added exertion would make Godzilla warm enough for the missiles to work. What's more, the iguana she once was has turned dinosaurian, with legs under the body. As such, she could easily be warm-blooded now like dinosaurs are thought to be.
It's mentioned by the helicopter pilot in the movie that the lizard is colder than the buildings around it. She isn't warm blooded, she isn't expelling any heat at all.
Correction: The force of habit, most of the things they usually fight have warm components (soldiers, attack dogs, running engines, even mere campfires), and they don't have the time or know-how to custom make the missiles. Arctic researchers have made a similar mistake when tracking seals, they tried tracking them via infrared, which works in warmer climates perfectly well, but since it's obviously urgent that Polar warm-blooded creatures not lose heat, it was of limited to no use, and the scientists had to use other methods; which they, unlike the soldiers, had the time to find.
They should have immediately noticed the thing is too cold to use heat seekers on. They should have switched to cannons.
27th Aug 2001
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Plot hole: The "video history" of the crashed USAF ship makes it very clear that the planet is uninhabited when they "landed". I can understand how a race of apes develops - they had a bunch of them on board. I can understand how a race of humans develops - they are descendants of the original crew. What I don't understand is...where the heck did all the horses come from?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Humans refer to parts of their own planet as uninhabited even though they are crawling with animals - vast areas of the Arctic are "uninhabited" even though polar bears and seals are found there. Were we to find a planet with nothing but primitive horses on it, we would label it as uninhabited. Apes and humans came from the crashed spaceship, horses were always there.
Which still makes no sense whatsoever.
I agree with you Charles. Horses are native to Earth but, the Oberon lands on a planet light years from Earth so it's a big plot hole how horses from one planet could end up on another when the planet was not only uninhabited but, the Oberon was believed to be lost.
Again, the Oberon was a massive space station, genetically experimenting with many earthly lifeforms, including horses, apparently. The time/space-rift was very near Earth (Mark Wahlberg made the journey in about 25 seconds at the end of the film. Not years but seconds). The implication is that the Oberon passed through the rift, and much of the crew survived to continue their genetic research on what later became the Ape Planet. So, the Oberon initially arrived on a barren planet and introduced all of the biological and botanical species, including apes, horses, and everything else.
Suggested correction: According to the backstory, the space station Oberon was dedicated to genetic modification sciences. They were actually experimenting with animal genes in the safety of space (which kind of makes sense). Given that the Oberon was a truly gigantic space station, it's not too much of a speculation that they were experimenting on many different types of animals (not just apes). When the Oberon crashed on Ashlar, half its crew was killed, but half survived with a number of ship's systems still functional, and they continued their genetic research, possibly producing a number of Earthly species on the otherwise uninhabited planet.
I think this should've been posted as a question, rather than a plot hole.
That's just a wild guess. There hasn't been a single mention of horses on board the Oberon. Even if there were, why only horses?
Wild guess? The Oberon was experimenting in genetic modification, which implies a broad range of research...and not just on great apes. The Oberon was gigantic enough to be an Ark.
So where are all the other animals?
Exactly. Where are the birds, lions, lizards, etc?
8th Jun 2018
Stargate (1994)
Corrected entry: The premise for Jackson going on the mission is that once on the other side someone would need to be able to re-open the gate using new symbols, but in reality it would just be a matter for earth to re-open the gate from their end at a predetermined time or times.
Correction: The gateway is a one way trip, you can't go back through the wormhole when the gate has been opened from the other side.
Pure assumption. We don't know exactly how the stargate works. It may actually be possible to go back through the stargate, even if you just came through and it was still open. We just don't know.
It has been well established that Stargate travel is one-way.
Since when?
After Jackson says he doesn't know how to dial back, when they are setting up camp, Brown says "if we're not back soon, they'll just turn on the gate from the other side", and Ferretti tells him "no, it doesn't work that way, you see, if you don't turn it on from here, we're screwed." The one way travel is also stated in the later TV series.
Since always.
6th Jun 2018
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: When Anakin reports to Mace Windu that Palpatine is a Sith Lord, Why didn't Windu consult Yoda and the other Jedi such as Obi-Wan before facing Palpatine? It would've been a backup or reinforcements kind of thing.
Answer: Yoda was on Kashyyyk helping the Wookies and Obi-Wan was on Utapau engaging General Grievous. Mace Windu did bring three other jedi with him, he thought he had enough backup. Obviously he misjudged but the Jedi were spread thin throughout the galaxy and Windu had limited choices.
This is true. You could even argue that he didn't misjudge Anakin, he told Anakin to stay behind knowing his feelings would be conflicted but Anakin disobeyed.
Well he knew there was conflict inside Anakin but he misjudged the level of conflict, or the fact Anakin was basically already a Sith.This new information meant too much for Windu in such a short time, his duty got in the way, he felt it absolutely necessary to do it quickly. If only he had waited and taken his time to connect the dots. So many dots.
The idea that Sidious was beaten by Windu is up for debate. Sidious needed Anakin to do something big to fully succumb to the dark side. He knew Anakin was coming and in my opinion, was acting defeated to force Anakin to choose. Mace was naive and arrogant and assumed Sidious was beaten, when in reality, it was a show.
Windu is supposed to be the best lightsaber duellist around, even better than Yoda. I don't believe for a second Sidious was allowing Windu to beat him. Anakin showing up was his gamble, if he hadn't then Sidious would be dead.
Sidious would have sensed the conflict in Anakin and knew that the temptation would force him (no pun intended) to go and intervene.
I think it's worth mentioning that almost everyone on the Jedi Council and most of the Jedi masters were on the front lines when Mace Windu confronts Palpatine, so Kit Fisto and co. were probably the only help he could get? Palpatine may have even orchestrated events so most of the strongest Jedi were away from Coruscant in the first place (so they could more easily be dispatched by Order 66).
The entire war was Palpatine's way of spreading the Jedi thin.
Answer: Possibly the Jedi have the dark side of the force clouding their judgements.
6th Jun 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Question: Why doesn't anyone ever destroy the stones? What purpose do they serve other than no one person should have them?
Answer: "Doctor Strange" demonstrates that the Infinity Stones are useful in the most dire of situations, when Strange used the Time Stone to prevent Dormammu from taking over the Earth. It's also possible that some of the stones are indestructible. Wanda is able to temporarily destroy the Mind Stone by using her own powers, but the Power Stone will destroy any being that doesn't possess the strength to wield it, and the Reality Stone is shown to have a will of its own and defended itself when it bonded with Jane Foster.
Also, in the comics, if the stones are destroyed they will simply be replaced by something else or even stones again. They represent the existence of the universe and cannot be destroyed for real. Always only temporarily.
28th Sep 2005
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Factual error: The Junkers 88 bombers are flying far, far too low for a bombing run. They are barely clearing the buildings they are bombing. Low level bombing on an urban target would mean the bomber would be flying at between 600 and 700 feet whereas these bombers are flying at something like 30 or 40 feet above the rooftops of the buildings they are attacking. Even banking steeply would be a ridiculously dangerous manoeuvre, and at that height they would be sitting ducks for small arms fire and would be damaged by the explosions and debris from their own bombs. (00:40:15)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The JU 88 was a diver bomber used for low level bombing for precision. Because of the lack of sufficient JU-87's (Stukas), the JU-88 was used for ground support. It was normal for them to fly that low, despite being more vulnerable to small arms fire.
That isn't "low level" bombing - it's suicide. Low level bombing on an urban target would mean the bomber would be flying at between 600 and 700 feet. These bombers are flying at something like 30 or 40 feet above the rooftops of the buildings they are attacking. Even banking steeply would be a ridiculously dangerous manoeuvre. The original posting is correct.
Low level bombing is most definitely not 600 feet. They could easily operate at altitude below 100 meters. I've seen footage of low level bombing at exactly the altitude of the planes in the movie (by B-25s). Planes that fly that low won't be using bombs that explode right under them, they would use whats called "retarded-fall" bombs that have increase air resistance so there is a delay of their fall and won't explode right under the plane. They may even fly lower in Stalingrad to avoid AA fire, which have a harder time targeting low flying aircraft. They might also be flying as low as possible to get visual confirmation of their targets, to avoid hitting friendlies.
Ju88s had a climb rate between 700-800 feet per minute. Given that the primary German airfield was less than 15mi away at Pitomnik, their maximum altitude for a less-than-3-minute flight was a meager 2340 feet (~700m). Lower altitudes are within the realm of reason. Due to the Soviet strategy of keeping their front lines as close to the Germans as possible, it's almost necessary to fly low and get as accurate bombing runs as possible.
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: Of course it wouldn't have grounded, it was meant to dock at the pier. They had everything ready at the shore for unloading the ship once it was docked. The bay and dock is thus deeper than 30 feet.
lionhead
Which does not negate the fact that a super-freighter-sized vessel cannot dock at a beach pier. The ocean floor would have to be at least 40 feet deep right off the beach.
Charles Austin Miller
It's not a super-freighter sized vessel, its a medium sized cargo ship, probably around 250 or 300 meters long with a draft of 30 feet at max, if it was full. The scene is shot on a fictional location outside of San Diego on a small dock, you have no idea how deep it is there. I don't see any beaches either so I don't know where you get the idea that its a beach pier.
lionhead
The scene is post-production CGI, it wasn't shot at any location.
Charles Austin Miller
Have you ever seen a pier constructed elsewhere than on a shallow beach? No. Piers are not constructed in deep water.
Charles Austin Miller
A pier can be build at any type of location including a full fledged constructed harbor where cruise-ships or even aircraft carriers can dock at them, like in San Diego itself like the USS Midway Museum (called the navy pier). Piers can be constructed in very deep water, have to be in order for big ships to moor at them.
lionhead
Btw, USS Midway has a draft of 34.5 feet.
lionhead
A dock is different from a pier, in case you didn't know. The construction in this movie is a wooden pier, not a dock. There is no way that a cargo ship (or a super freighter in this case) could pull up to a pier.
Charles Austin Miller
Doesn't matter what you call it, it's a place ships moor at. It's a fictional location and the fact it's wooden is totally irrelevant. If this ship is supposed to moor at it, then the water is deep enough for it to get there. Even if it had a 60 foot draft. Ingen built the dock, the pier, the harbor, everything, for loading and unloading supplies onto big ships.
lionhead
Umm, yeah, it makes a difference what you call it. A dock is where ships moor (deep water). A pier is where people fish (shallow water). The SS Venture crashes into a wooden pier.
Charles Austin Miller
In American English the word is synonymous to dock. Doesn't matter, like I said, the place is meant to have a ship moored at it, it's not a fishing pier.
lionhead