Factual error: From the continuity of the movie it appears that the response from LIMA came within a few minutes of the transmission from Mars. This would be impossible. Even if Mars and Neptune were on the same side of the Solar System, in a straight line, they would be 4 light-hours apart, meaning the replay could not be received less than 8 hours after transmission. There's no implication that they kept Brad Pitt sitting in a room for 8 hours waiting for a reply.
Charles Austin Miller
30th Sep 2019
Ad Astra (2019)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: IIRC, there was a communication sent from earlier. It's very possible they resumed 8 hours later, even if it was the next day. And, judging by the auditors sentiment to LIMAs response (discretion), there is a chance that LIMA did not respond favorably, nor ever would have a chance hear the "emotional" version of the communication sent that day.
Suggested correction: The objective of sending McBride to Mars was for him to transmit a number of appeals to his father on a familial level. Although McBride didn't know it, his messages were intended to catch his father off-guard, making him believe his son was en route to Neptune, but actually clearing the way for a nuclear strike against the LIMA. Unfortunately, the movie fails to make it clear that the younger McBride is transmitting several sequential messages over an extended period of time before his father finally responds. This is more a matter of bad pacing and editing than it is a factual error.
It was shown that the message the father answered was exactly the one in which the son rejected the script and began to speak from the heart. And this was the same message after which the father immediately answered, while the son was still in the room.
No, Roy McBride sent more than one message, and it even shows time pass between messages. His father's reply to an earlier message only arrived coincidentally as Roy went off-script on a subsequent message.
27th Aug 2001
Jurassic Park (1993)
Corrected entry: When the doctor is showing off the piece of amber that they have gotten the DNA from, there is a problem. The mosquito in the amber is a male, as one can tell by the antennae. Because it is only the female mosquito that feeds on blood, the male should only have nectar in its stomach. To make it worse, in that species of mosquito, Toxirhynchites, both the males AND females are flower feeders, and would therefore have no blood, or dinosaur DNA in their stomachs. (00:25:00)
Correction: Can we not just assume that the mosquito in Amber in the cane is just symbolic and doesn't necessarily have to be the exact species and gender of the mosquitoes that yielded the dino blood and DNA?
Using the actual mosquito will have more meaning to Hammond than a random one. John is also shown to want only the best.
I don't know. I would think that a mosquito preserved in Amber containing dinosaur blood would be exceptionally rare and probably not the kind of thing you'd waste on a cane.
Correction: Hammond's company, InGen, did not deal exclusively with dinosaurs. Dr. Ellie Sattler, the paleo-botanist, observed and mentioned that Jurassic Park was also full of ancient and extinct plant life. InGen used the same process to procure vegetable DNA from ancient insects (such as the Toxirhynchites mosquitoes) that fed on vegetable matter. It's the same process.
Plant sap is composed mostly of water and dissolved sugars, hormones and carbohydrates. It does not contain any DNA.
Incorrect. Plant genomics research shows that plant fluids do, indeed, contain plant DNA. Moreover, a single mosquito could yield the DNA of several different plants, as well as the mosquito's own DNA and the DNA of microbes consumed along with the plant fluids.
Correction: The mosquito in the amber is not one that supplied the DNA for the dinosaurs. We know this because there is no drill hole for the extraction. When the extraction process is shown, a hole several millimetres across is drilled into the amber.
Correction: Plant sap consists of water, some simple sugars, more complex carbohydrates and plant hormones. It does not contain any DNA at all.
It's about the mosquito inside the amber, not the amber itself. Anyway, plant sap most definitely contains DNA, just plant DNA. All living organisms have DNA.
Plant sap does not contain DNA. Phloem sap consists primarily of sugars, hormones, and mineral elements dissolved in water. DNA is polar due to its highly charged phosphate groups and dissolves easily in water. Transporting dissolved DNA would be utterly pointless.
Fine, the amber doesn't contain DNA (it's fossilized anyway). It's still a bad correction.
27th Dec 2019
Watchmen (2009)
Plot hole: Although this film is a virtual jigsaw puzzle of flashbacks, the dynamic between Dan, Laurie and Rorschach pretty much defines the movie's continuity in the present. However, when Rorschach is framed for murder and arrested, he goes directly to a maximum-security prison, apparently without trial, conviction or sentencing (all of which would require months of due-process, at least). Even if this lapse of time is some sort of artistic device to rapidly advance Rorschach's story, there is no corresponding lapse of months in the relationship between Dan and Laurie, which runs parallel with Rorschach's story. Either there is no due process for Rorschach in this story, or there is a glaring plot hole.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Rorschach was a famous and dangerous outlaw. We are talking about an alternate 80's here with Nixon as president and a nation-wide ban on masks (the Keene Act). Rorschach probably faced the death penalty for his long list of crimes, besides the murder he was finally captured for (not to mention to handful of cops he seriously injured whilst trying to evade capture). I don't think it's strange that his trial was quick or not fully by the book. They made sure he was locked away fast and quietly. The justice system probably works a lot faster in a world of masked vigilantes.
Yes, Rorschach was a vigilante; but, before masked superheroes were outlawed, Rorschach was also responsible for sending dozens (if not scores) of far worse criminals to prison, thus benefitting society. This much is stated in the film. His contributions to justice would certainly carry weight, and testimony in his favor would have to be considered in any legal proceedings against him. Also, after his capture, authorities were still trying to assess his mental state, which implies that some sort of due-process was still in place. Rorschach should have received a months-long trial, at the very least.
To be fair, the original, Hugo Award-winning "Watchmen" graphic novel makes the same continuity leap when it comes to Rorschach's fate. Rorschach keeps a secret diary that dates everything, but it egregiously skips over his trial and sentencing, even though the relationship between Dan and Laurie remains consistent. So, we can say that the movie is faithful to the novel, but the novel itself is flawed with a gaping plot hole.
The cops of that city don't care about his past deeds, which includes dropping the body of a criminal in front of the police station with the message "Never." They don't like him. Not even his colleagues liked him. That was a long time ago too, he's been the sole masked vigilante for a long time and I bet the cops just started disliking him more and more for his antics. Thus, a quick trial.
6th Aug 2019
General questions
This has been annoying the hell out of me for years. I'm thinking of an early 1960s (?) black and white American movie that features numerous cameos by A-List Hollywood actors who are so heavily made-up (with wigs and latex facial prosthetics) that they are all thoroughly unrecognizable. At the end of the film, as a complete surprise, there is a sequence of each of these otherwise unremarkable cameo characters removing their makeup for a big reveal. For example, a plain, middle-aged woman who only appeared for a few seconds onscreen grandly removes her latex face to reveal none other than Burt Lancaster. I believe Robert Mitchum and Tony Curtis were also among the reveals. What is this film?
Answer: "The List of Adrian Messenger" (1963). Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum, and Tony Curtis, along with Kirk Douglas and Frank Sinatra, remove their heavy makeup during the epilogue to reveal who they are. Although Lancaster and Sinatra didn't actual portray the characters they claimed to have been.
Thank you. The name of this movie has been on the tip of my tongue for many years.
Incidentally, director John Huston (who also made a cameo appearance in the film) tried to convince Elizabeth Taylor to play a disguised part in this movie; but, when Taylor learned that her lovely face would be completely hidden under heavy latex, she turned down the role.
2nd Aug 2019
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Yesterday's Enterprise - S3-E15
Question: The ever-popular gag in this episode is that Worf consumes prune juice for the first time and declares that it is a "warrior's drink," to Guinan's amusement. However, Worf was adopted as a child by human parents, he grew up on Earth, he was highly educated and graduated Star Fleet Academy on Earth. Given the reputation of prune juice as a natural laxative throughout human history, how could Worf not know what prune juice is, having lived most of his life on Earth?
Answer: There's nothing to indicate that Worf had never heard of prune juice before, just that he had never tried it before. He doesn't recognize the smell or taste of the drink as prune juice because he's never had it before. But that doesn't mean he has no idea what prune juice is, or that it is used as a natural laxative. In a later episode Guinan directly asks Worf's parents why he never had prune juice prior to her serving him the drink. They answer that as a child Worf refused to eat human food of any kind, everything he consumed had to be Klingon. Other episodes show that Klingons tend to despise human food in general for being bland. It stands to reason that someone who shows no outward interest in human food might not know what prune juice is usually used for. But then again, maybe he does know and he doesn't care because prune juice is delicious to him.
Thanks for reminding me about that later episode, although I think the later prune juice explanation from Worf's adoptive parents was scripted to address many fan questions along the same lines as my own.
8th Jul 2019
Gorgo (1961)
Revealing mistake: The sea creature Gorgo is paraded through the streets of London on a flatbed tractor trailer, and an off-screen American newsman announces the monster's arrival at Battersea Park, where it will be exhibited at Dorkin's Circus. The announcer introduces the creature's owners as they step from their motorcade, saying, "And our own Mr. Dorkin, of Dorkin's Circus, in the checkered suit." Problem is, Mr. Dorkin is wearing a plain gray flannel suit. Closeup shots of Mr. Dorkin over the next 40 seconds reveal that the suit is not checkered, not plaid, not striped, not patterned in any way at all. It's simply a plain gray suit. Apparently, the announcer's pre-recorded lines were never modified after changes were made in costuming. (00:34:05 - 00:35:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You must have been watching a poor-quality copy of the movie. In the HD version available on Amazon, the checkered pattern is visible, although it is subtle. Frankly, it probably would not be visible on a television broadcast of the time.
I watched it in HD purchased from Amazon Prime on a large high-definition screen. No checkered suit.
You may need to adjust your settings. It is especially visible in the interview scene. The suit definitely has a checkered pattern of various shades of gray. Again, it is subtle, but definitely visible.
You may need to check your imagination.
27th Apr 2005
Brainstorm (1983)
Continuity mistake: When Christopher Walken gives his wife a tape of his best memories, many of the shots are 3rd-person, of the two of them, and not 1st-person, from his perspective, like everyone else's recordings. (00:44:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The device that records experience, esp. memory, is sometimes viewed in a non-logical way. This is because memories and emotions are not usually recalled exactly as they occurred. The brain is not a camera. There are complex mechanisms at work. I assume the filmmaker had this in mind.
Producer/director Douglas Trumbull knew that the montage of romantic memories was vital to establishing a backstory for the relationship between Christopher Walken and Natalie Wood. This montage was the first time we see the love they actually had for one another, so it was necessary to show them interacting on the screen. If Trumbull had stayed strictly with the movie's premise of first-person brain-recording technology, the montage of romantic memories would be nothing but closeup shots of Natalie Wood (from Walken's perspective), with no visual interaction between the couple. So, Trumbull violated the first-person technological premise of the film in order to more firmly establish the depth of their relationship. Trumbull did the same thing for Louise Fletcher's memory sequence. It was a matter of artistic license.
24th Jun 2019
Aquaman (2018)
Question: Did Aquaman kill all Black Manta's crew at the start? As far as I can see he just knocks them out, but they don't seem to leave. If they die, why is he so upset about the guy's dad, when he left a half dozen to drown?
Answer: As far as I can see, Aquaman didn't care if the pirates died, including Kane's father. When Kane begs Aquaman to help save his father, Aquaman just glares at Kane and says, "You killed innocent people" and abruptly leaves without helping. Aquaman then saves the Russian crew but leaves the sub and pirates to sink. All of this explains why Kane becomes Black Manta (because he hates Aquaman for leaving Kane's father to die). But, as far as Aquaman was concerned, the pirates got what they deserved.
Answer: It was an accident, while trying to stop Black Manta's crew, Aquaman's battle caused a lot of damage. Which made one of the bulk heads blow and pinned his father down. He believes if Aquaman had let them siege the submarine and not interfere, his father would be alive.
Little correction to the answer: Kane's father fired two mortar rounds in the sub's torpedo magazine (which somehow, amazingly, did not detonate the the whole sub). The first mortar struck Aquaman dead center without killing him and everyone else in the room. The second mortar damaged the torpedo rack, dislodging a torpedo that pinned Kane's father against the bulkhead.
8th Jun 2019
Iron Man (2008)
Factual error: A tank's main gun could not blast Iron Man out of the sky, as depicted in this film, and the "lucky shot" theory holds no water. In military history, there are only a couple of instances of tanks using their main guns to shoot down aircraft by chance, and those involved tanks repeatedly firing their main guns on known flight paths until an aircraft literally ran into a tank round. However, in this movie, Iron Man comes out of nowhere on no known flight path, he's not recognizable as an aircraft, he's traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, and he's only airborne for about 4 seconds before he's hit with a tank round. The tank gunner could not possibly identify Iron Man as a new target, elevate the main gun, track him and fire in 4 seconds. Modern tanks do not have the ability to acquire and track fast-moving targets with the main gun, nevermind fast-moving aerial targets.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: All that might be true in the real world but in this movie we know that the forces of the Ten Rings have been supplied with advanced weapons from Stark Industries. A retrofitted tank weapon that can engage a superhero in a flying suit is no more fanciful than a hand held paralyzing noise device or an arc reactor.
Yes, it's a fantasy film. You could even fairly say that no fantasy film can be in error by virtue of its fantastical premise. That does not negate a factual error.
Tony Stark is an extremely intelligent inventor that makes advanced weapons for the military. A targeting system for made for tanks lies entirely within the realm of possibility presented within the world of this franchise.
And, yet, it is established in this first movie that the Ten Rings terrorists only possess as much Stark technology as Obediah Stane allows them (which isn't much). Obviously, the tank is not very advanced technology, as Tony merely sidesteps the second tank round and he utterly destroys the tank with a wrist-rocket. There is no indication in the film that the Tank is advanced Stark technology.
No one is saying that the tank itself is Stark technology, only that it's weapon can be retrofitted with a targeting system. It wouldn't be much different than retrofitting an older model car with a GPS system. The reason Iron Man is able to sidestep the second shot is because he's expecting it, and even then, he barely dodges it.
No way the single-shot main gun of ANY style tank would be "retrofitted" to track and fire on high-speed aerial targets. Any refit would require rebuilding and automating the tank and turret and replacing the main gun (which fires only single rounds) with an automatic repeating cannon, essentially turning it into an advanced mobile anti-aircraft platform. The tank in the movie is recognizable as a standard, slow, single-shot British Chieftain MK10, so it's not Stark industries.
Well you definitely know a hell of a lot more about tanks than I do, so I concede my previous points.
It takes a man to admit he's wrong. I doff my cap to your courage.
6th Aug 2018
Hannibal (2001)
Question: When the pickpocketer, on the request of Pazzi, had gotten Lecter's fingerprint he was also stabbed. He collapses and Pazzi takes a look at the wound which he was covering with his hand. It appears that Pazzi intentionally prevented him from covering the wound so he would bleed out faster. Why?
Answer: Lecter stabs the pickpocket in the abdomen and gives the knife a quick twist, expertly severing the aorta, which was a fatal wound. Nothing could prevent the pickpocket's death, as he only had moments to live. Pazzi realises this when he inspects the wound. There was nothing Pazzi could do, either way.
I don't think Hannibal severed his aorta. The wound was in the groin where the femoral artery runs relatively close to the surface. You will still bleed to death from this artery in around 1 min.
No, the aorta runs from the heart down through the thoracic cavity and the abdominal cavity before it branches into the femoral arteries at the pelvis. Lecter plainly stabbed the pickpocket deep in the abdomen, in the area of his navel, and twisted the knife to sever the aorta. The pickpocket would only have moments to live (or minutes, at most). When Pazzi inspects the wound, the pickpocket's hands are covering his abdomen, which is bleeding profusely.
Being a seasoned police officer, he knew this wound was fatal. We don't know exactly where the injury occurred, but most likely the upper femoral artery or the lower descending aortic artery. Sadly, as an E.R. nurse, I have seen many of these and death occurs rapidly and most don't even make it to the E.R.
Answer: I, myself, wondered this, too. I think that it's because the guy was a criminal and Pazzi didn't want himself to be linked to the pick pocket by either the cops or Hannibal, himself. Remember Pazzi was up to no good - he wanted the reward and so, would stop at nothing to get the money, even if it meant letting another person die. The pick pocket was a loose end that Pazzi had to tie up. The pick pocket's death would also prevent Pazzi from being blackmailed later on down the line.
Exactly, he didn't want any witnesses. It was convenient for Pazzi to have the pickpocket bleed out.
Answer: After their run-in, the pickpocket says, "he tried to hit me in the balls, but he missed." Hannibal must've went for the femoral artery. I thought maybe, the way Gnocco was bleeding, the direction the blood was gushing, Hannibal had separated Gnocco from his "manhood."
15th May 2019
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: Are we ever given any suggestion as to what offence Lorraine's brother was incarcerated for?
Answer: Not in any official, canon source. In the Back to the Future comic books published by IDW he is an aspiring member of Biff's gang and gets arrested breaking into the home of Doc Brown's mother in an attempt to steal a large sum of money. It must be reiterated that the comics are non-canon and this should be taken with a grain of salt.
The comic books are so skewed from the movie events, they cannot be considered canon. "Jailbird Joey" was only a baby in a playpen when Biff and his gang were seniors in highschool. Unless Biff and his highschool buddies were still recruiting gang members into their mid-30s, there is no way Jailbird Joey would be trying to join their gang.
While the answer does state the comics aren't cannon, it's the only place that really delves into Uncle Joey's criminal history since the film's didn't need to spend time discussing the exact nature of his crimes. However, it would not be unreasonable (or even unheard of) for Biff to be recruiting members for his "gang" at 35. Plus, Joey wanting to be part of Biff's gang wouldn't necessarily require Biff or his high school buddies to be personally involved in recruiting young Joey.
23rd Jan 2017
Ash vs Evil Dead (2015)
Home Again - S2-E9
Plot hole: Old Ash travels back in time to 1982 to snatch the Necronomicon before Young Ash ever finds it (which should, presumably, erase all of the evil events from the original Evil Dead film right up to the present). Upon escaping the cabin, Old Ash finds that the timeline has self-corrected, and his amputated right hand has reappeared on his arm. But he is still in the 1980s. If the timeline had truly self-corrected, then Old Ash's car, his friends, and he himself would have vanished instantly from the 1980s, because the purpose of their mission never existed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Time travel is not real. The rules of it are dependent on what the writers deem fit. Ergo, this isn't a plot-hole.
By that rationale, plot holes don't exist in any films, because the screenwriters are making all the rules. But, of course, plot holes do exist because screenwriters forget their own rules. In this case, the screenwriters chose to go down the path of correcting the Evil Dead timeline, but then they forgot to correct the timeline.
Baal was messing with time.
3rd Feb 2016
Jaws (1975)
Character mistake: Chief Brody and Hooper go to the wharf to dissect a large tiger shark and examine the contents of its stomach. Finding nothing unusual, Hooper recommends they go offshore that night to search for the real killer shark because "he's a night feeder." Coming from a marine biologist, that remark really makes no sense. Hooper knew that, in addition to eating Chrissie the midnight swimmer, the shark also ate Pippin (the black Labrador retriever) and the Kintner boy in the middle of the day at a public beach. Based on all available evidence, the shark was no more likely to feed at night than in broad daylight.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The statement is correct, the shark was a night feeder, as opposed to just being a day feeder, meaning the shark will likely be hunting at night.
Again, given all the evidence (including the daytime attacks), Hooper had no more reason to suspect the shark was a night feeder than a day feeder.
Except that's not what the conversation was about, he wasn't speculating on whether the shark was more likely to attack during the day or the night. He simply states they should go out at night to find the real shark responsible for the attacks because that shark will be feeding at night as well (and by going out at night they wouldn't have to face the daytime crowd). If he made an statement such as "the shark isn't a day feeder" or "the shark is strictly a night feeder", those statements could be considered mistakes.
Even when Chrissie was killed at night and two men later on in the movie tried to catch the shark for the reward...at night?
14th Jul 2017
Dark Shadows (1966)
Question: Which 1967 episode or what specific story line has Louis Edmonds in close-up because he didn't have time to put his pants back on?
Answer: It's probably episode 193 (even though the slate at the beginning says 58). It's the episode with Sam demanding that Roger return his paintings. Three clues from the Dark Shadows Companion and from the comments of Kathryn Leigh Scott and Louis Edmonds all agree that 1) Scott is in the episode and is done for the day prior to Edmonds without his pants; 2) Edmonds is wearing a smoking jacket, and 3) Edmonds is leaning on the mantle (which is actually the cabinet where the liquor is, because the fireplace mantle is too high to lean on and the bench in front of it prevents getting too close to). There are several "breaks" in the lengthy scene where commercial were probably inserted, and all of the shots are above the waist. The previously mentioned episode 54 has Edmonds in a suit and Scott isn't in the episode; episode 54 doesn't have Edmonds or Scott; and episode 86 only has Edmonds in a suit.
Lou Edmonds was a consummate actor and would not forget that he had a lengthy scene to perform. Rather, in Episode 86, Edmonds more understandably forgot that he had to perform one last 15-second scene (a simple toast). He had removed his shoes and pants before he was reminded of the final, brief shot, and he hurried back to complete it.
Answer: There seems to be some confusion among Dark Shadows fans as to the episode: Some claim it was Episode 54, while others claim it was Episode 85. However, the scene actually appeared in Episode 86. Louis Edmonds (as Roger Collins) thought he had completed all his shots for the day and was removing his costume when he was reminded that he had one more shot. With only seconds to spare, Edmonds hurried back to the set without his pants or shoes (some whispering and shuffling is heard in the background just before the camera goes live). Whereupon, with an amused expression, Edmonds pours himself a brandy and strolls across the study before delivering his last line, a toast: "Miss Victoria Winters, no matter where you are." The shot was slightly adjusted to only cover Edmonds from the elbows-up.
Thank you so much! I had it narrowed down to 3 episodes and the actual one was among them. Thank you again.
Answer: Yes...episode 193 is the only episode to include all three clues (character Maggie appears earlier, character Roger is in a smoking jacket, and lastly, he has brandy in hand and elbows are atop the liquor cabinet. It the last scene in the black and whit episode where Sam Evans is demanding that his paintings back from Roger. And if you keep your eyes on Sam, you will see him glance downward twice at Roger. This eoisode is in Collection 6, disk 2 and even though it's listed in the Dark Shadows Companion as episode 193, the slate at the very beginning says episode 58.
13th Nov 2018
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: Is there anything to suggest that someone couldn't leave the grail in the cave and come back every 50 years or so to "top off" their immortality?
Answer: It doesn't appear to work that way. The power of the grail heals Henry's gunshot wound instantly and it keeps the knight looking about 80 years old. However, there is nothing in the film to suggest that simply drinking from the grail and leaving the cave actually extends your life. In fact, Henry drank from the grail and died a natural death a relatively short time later in between this film and the next.
Actually it is stated that Henry Jones Sr. died either in 1951 or 1956. So either at the age of 79 or 85 and at least 13 years after the events of the Last Crusade movie. Whilst this is not an extremely old age, there is no reason to think his life wasn't extended by the grail. Indiana himself got to a high age himself, having drunk from the grail.
I don't think the series is implying that either Jones man lived a long life due to the grail. In fact it would seem to go against the irony of the grail as presented: that it does give you eternal life but you are confined to that cave to enjoy the benefits. Maybe if they had said Henry Jones died at the age of 120 or something out of the ordinary, but they specifically state he dies at a perfectly normal, non magical age.
Well it's never stated that it gives eternal life only to the person staying in the cave either. That's what the question is about. If the healing properties of the grail work on someone who leaves the cave, there is no reason to think their life isn't extended (technically it already was in the case of Henry Jones Sr.) as well. It is possible though, since the knight looked pretty old, that the grail only heals, and that healing extends life but one has to drink from the cup frequently (like every day) in order to stay alive, whilst still getting older.
The knight does say that the grail cannot leave the seal, which is the price of immortality. He is implying that in order to reap the benefits of eternal life you must stay in the cave. The way it seems to work is that in order to extend your life in any meaningful way, you must drink from the grail often. Just leaving and coming back whenever you need a jolt would effectively make the rule about not taking the grail out of the cave meaningless. How often you need to drink is of course not specified. In order for the film's ironic message about the grail to make any kind of sense, you would need to drink from the grail so often you would effectively be stuck in the cave. Possibly drinking from it every day. In which case, like the knight you would just live at the cave and never leave. The knight's brothers both left 150 years after finding the grail, but one of them died shortly after leaving, never making it out of the desert. So with regards to the original question: "can you just come back every 50 years or so?"; it would make the most sense based on what we see in the movie, what we know about how long Henry Jones Sr. Lived, what we know about the knights and how long they lived, and the message the movie is saying about the irony of the grail that the answer to that particular question is "No."
I wonder if someone were to bring a large storage vessel to the cave, and fill it using the Grail, if they could then take that water with them and drink it later... Man, the scientist in me really wants to resolve this.
Drinking from the grail is not the same as pouring water out of it into another vessel. Drinking from the grail is symbolic and there is no real power that it bestows upon the water in it. However, if the grail was able to pass the properties to another vessel, one would have to assume the temple would collapse on itself when attempting to take the secondary vessel out.
Answer: It's stated by the ancient knight that the Grail's powers do not extend into the outside world. He himself was immortal only because he remained at the site, drinking the water, for hundreds of years. Henry Senior was instantly healed on-site, but he and Indy continued to age normally once they left the site.
Then why didn't Henry's wound return when he left? Their healing extended their lives. It got rid of any bad cells, to go scientific.
Because cell deterioration due to aging happens spontaneously, i.e. you've got to keep removing the bad cells. Bullet wounds are not spontaneous...once it's gone, it's gone.
Why would his wound return? He was instantly healed. From that point forward he was in normal health, even after crossing the seal. Indy actually drank from the Grail, which meant he was immortal for a few minutes, but his immortality did not follow him beyond the seal.
It's the difference between believing the power of immortality comes from the cup or staying in the cave. The knight was immortal because he kept drinking from the cup, not because he stayed in the cave. The cup has healing powers, and simply growing old is not the reason for death, regenerating cells will keep you alive, so if the cup regenerates cells, you are immortal from drinking from it, as long as you do it regularly. That's how the knight has done it and why he looks old and is frail. Going outside doesn't negate the powers of the cup, or Henry's wound would have returned. Therefor, going back often to drink from the cup will extend your life. It will cure you from any ailments that accompany old age like heart disease, cancer and brain degeneration.
The Grail Knight plainly says: "You have chosen...wisely. But, beware: the Grail cannot pass beyond the Great Seal, for that is the boundary, and the price, of immortality." Therefore, you remain immortal as long as you don't cross the seal. If you are healed instantly inside the boundary of the Great Seal, then you are healed. Period. It's not just a magic bandaid that disappears if you cross the seal.
13th Jul 2017
Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995)
Stupidity: In the scene with the water-jug puzzle, both Zeus Carver and John McClane initially suspect that the small carrying case contains a bomb. McClane goes ahead and opens the case, which confirms that it is a bomb (the electronic readout in the case even says: "I AM A BOMB. YOU HAVE JUST ARMED ME"). If they suspected it was a bomb in the first place, why didn't Carver and McClane immediately try to warn the dozens of pedestrians all around them to evacuate the area before McClane opened it? That would be a seasoned police officer's first instinct. Instead, McClane and Carver banter and bicker and never attempt to warn the public, even as the timer is ticking down.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This carries over from the very first time McClane and Zeus talk to Simon on the phone (the "As I was going to St. Ives" scene). Simon tells the two not to run and McClane assures him they won't but that there are at least 100 people on the street, to which Simon responds "That's the point." McClane takes this to mean he can't just warn everyone or Simon will set the bomb off. They open the case because they don't know that doing so will arm the bomb. They wanted to know if there was a riddle or more instructions. Having the bomb be armed by being opened, complete with the pithy text "you have just armed me" was just a way for Simon to torment McClane. The bantering and bickering is of course, still pretty stupid but is consistent with how the characters behave for the entire movie.
Still, McClane's whole motivation in this movie is to save innocent people from death, which goes above and beyond his motivation in the first movie (which was to save his wife). What is the whole point of disarming the briefcase-bomb in the park if not to save the public? As stated in the original post, no seasoned and dedicated officer of the law would proceed without warning the public.
Except he was told specifically earlier not to do that. If he warned people of the bomb, it was implied that Simon would remotely detonate it. It can't be "stupid" of McClane to not warn people if he thinks doing so will get them killed. I agree that it is a trite movie cliche that a cop doesn't act like a cop would in the real world, but in the context of this film McClane's actions are consistent with the instructions Simon gives him.
8th Apr 2015
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Deliberate mistake: Both in the first scene and last scene of the movie, we see Yolanda and Ringo starting the robbery by jumping from their seat and start threatening the costumers. In the first scene, Yolanda says "And I'll execute every motherfucking last one of you." But in the last scene the line changes to "and I'll execute every one of you motherfuckers". (00:04:40 - 02:18:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Tarantino has explained that this is not an error, rather, he did this on purpose. When we first examine the scene, we are seeing Ringo and Yolanda's conversation from their perspective. Obviously, because this is their conversation, what we hear first is probably what was actually said. However, at the end of the film, what is said is different because we are no longer viewing the situation from Ringo and Yolanda's perspective, but rather everyone else in the diner, most specifically Jules.
Sounds like a typical Tarantino excuse for a stupid blunder.
18th Jul 2017
Deepwater Horizon (2016)
Corrected entry: The British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon accident was erroneously characterized by environmental activists, by some U.S. politicians, by the press and by this film as the "worst" manmade oil spill in history. It was not. The Pemex Ixtoc 1 disaster off the Yucatan peninsula in 1979 was far worse, lasted much longer, and received almost zero press in the United States, even though it impacted virtually every coastline in the Gulf of Mexico for over a year. The Deepwater Horizon spill was hyped far above and beyond its comparatively minor environmental impact for purely political reasons (i.e., it was used to fuel opposition to offshore drilling).
Correction: It's hard to analyze "worst oil spill" because there's so many factors involved beyond how long it lasted, including death and injuries that occurred. However, the 1979 event resulted in 140 million gallons spilt and the Deepwater Horizon spilt an estimated 206 million gallons and resulted in 11 deaths.
The Ixtoc 1 is still considered the worst accidental oil spill in history. Ixtoc 1 remained uncapped and freely flowing for 9 months, releasing over 3.5 Million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. That's barrels, not gallons. The only larger spill was in Kuwait, when Iraqi forces deliberately destroyed oil wells in that country, releasing 8 Million barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf. However, Kuwait is considered an "intentional" oil spill, not accidental.
Ixtoc 1 is only considered one of the worst spills, but not the number 1 worst spill. Deepwater Horizon released 4.9 Million Barrels (which is 40% more oil) and resulted in 11 deaths. Yes, Ixtoc 1 took 9 months to cap where Deepwater Horizon took only 5 months to cap, but the amount split was still less than Deepwater Horizon.
But Ixtoc was not a deep well, and its spillage was carried across the entire surface of the Gulf of Mexico for 9 months. The Deepwater Horizon was an extremely deep well, and much of its spillage remained in vast pools on the ocean floor, where it gradually degraded (yes, under extreme pressure and low temperature, crude oil will sink rather than rise to the surface). That fact also makes it impossible to estimate the total spillage of Deepwater Horizon. Nonetheless, some Deepwater Horizon spillage did rise to the surface, but not even nearly as much as the Ixtoc 1. Deepwater Horizon's environmental impact was negligible compared to Ixtoc 1; but, as stated in the original post, Deepwater Horizon was hyped and sensationalized in the press for political purposes.
27th Aug 2001
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Corrected entry: At the end of BTTF, Doc, Marty and Jennifer take off for the future. In BTTF2, they arrive 30 years later and see themselves. Impossible! They would have been inside the time machine (as far as those left behind are concerned) for 30 years. Marty and Jennifer were gone from 1985 to 2015 as far as he and everyone else knows. I can prove this by using the first movie. When Einstein goes into the future one minute, he was gone for a minute as far as Doc and Marty were concerned, even though the trip was instantaneous to Einstein.
Correction: Wrong - the reason Einstein is completely gone for that minute is because he never goes back to the time he left. While Marty, etc. go 30 years into the future, they will eventually go back to 1985 and live the rest of their lives, therefore he can exist in the future.
The whole point and premise of BTTF is that Time is very surely linear, such that altering the past changes the future in such a way that time travellers can even erase themselves from existence. The BTTF story is not about alternate timelines, it's about the pitfalls of travelling in linear Time.
The way time travel works in the BTTF trilogy is that time jumps don't happen until we actually see them happen. Marty and Jennifer have not yet returned to 1985, so they obviously could not yet have lived out their lives to 2015. Also, the Marty we see in 2015 had his accident with the Rolls Royce, and when Marty finally does return to 1985 he avoids that accident, meaning that the Marty we see in 2015 can't possibly be from the timeline where Marty returned to 1985.
The original correction is correct. Everything happens simultaneously, for the time machine time doesn't matter whether it's the past of future. So the fact that Marty and Jen go back is important. Because going back makes it likes the travel to the future never happened. Because, and I want to make this absolutely clear, them returning means they travelled back in time again and that has more impact than only going to the future (which is what we are all doing all the time).
20th Jan 2019
Deep Impact (1998)
Question: Referring to Leo and Sarah: What parent would let their young daughter not go to the Ark when given the chance?
Answer: It was Sarah who decided she would not go to the Ark. She chose to stay with her parents.
Leo then decided not to go to the ark, either, went back and got Sarah and the baby.
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.