Question: This movie shows Jason Voorhees didn't drown in Crystal Lake in the first movie because he's shown to be alive in this movie. It's a known fact that the kid Jason Voorhees can't swim, so how exactly did he avoid drowning in Crystal Lake?
Athletic Jason
16th Jul 2019
Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)
Answer: That is indeed a plot hole, and up to speculation. The best guess is that Jason somehow made his way ashore, and chose to hide in the woods rather than face further bullying from the rest of the kids.
10th Oct 2019
Die Hard (1988)
Question: John is heard running and moves into a room, and he locks the door. After Karl and the other bad guys run, they see the door is locked. The logical conclusion is that the guy they heard running locked the door, so why not shoot the door open?
Answer: Karl might have done that, but Hans calls them off before he can. In any event, it would be easy enough to rationalize that the door was simply locked...plenty of people lock their offices when they leave.
The movie only showed the 1 way to get in that room is with an elevator, and since John wouldn't be able to use the elevator before they ran in it's a huge oversight that none of them shoot the door.
28th Jul 2019
Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004)
Question: Early in this movie while still in the USA, Gail says she can't support the research that the blood orchid flower can be used to renew youth for humans, which would make that flower the fountain of youth. Why can she not support the valid scientific research?
Answer: I interpreted it as "I can't support this claim the chemical will extend cell life" because she already said it was impossible. However, the way the line sounded when delivered off screen makes it seem like it was dubbed over different dialog. So someone may not have like what was initially said and had this in as a foreshadowing of her objections later in the film, or it was just a throw away line.
Nothing was stopping her from saying that before they left the United States so that is awful writing. She had no valid reason to think or expect that saying "I can't support this" would change the President and other persons minds after they saw a great presentation with images along with science research to substantiate the claim that the blood orchid flower could renew human youth like a fountain of youth. I assume by objections you mean she didn't want to continue to go through with the expedition after Ben was killed by a giant anaconda, also she gave some answer about evidence not being valid.
14th Nov 2019
A Few Good Men (1992)
Corrected entry: Throughout the movie, Caffey is constantly being warned not to accuse Col. Jessup because he could get into trouble. This is totally wrong and the opposite of the aim of the military justice system. Any and all personnel are subject to the law and their rank or connections never come before that. Unless Danny is in contempt in court, he has every right to question and even accuse a ranking officer, especially considering a young man under Jessop's command is dead.
Correction: They weren't telling him not to accuse Jessop because it's illegal, they were doing it to protect him. Col. Jessop is an extremely powerful man with deep connections and if Caffey went after him in court and failed then Jessop would ruin his career. They were telling him not to go after him unless he was sure he could get him.
Correction: He's not being told not to accuse Jessup. He's being told not to accuse Jessup without any basis in fact. He's basically being told not to make unreasonable accusations just to try and get his clients off.
They didn't say don't accuse Jessup. Joanne Galloway told him to only accuse Jessup of ordering the code red if he feels that Colonel Jessup would admit to ordering the code red. In other words he's being told don't accuse Colonel Jessup with a baseless accusation that he ordered the code red, only accuse him if he has facts that substantiate the accusation. No reason Santiago should be transferred off the base if Jessup's orders are always followed and he ordered that Santiago wasn't to be touched, so Santiago being in grave danger doesn't make sense. Colonel Jessup contradicted himself.
3rd Aug 2019
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
Plot hole: Superman dropping Nuclear Man in the area of a nuclear plant would have made him much stronger, since that is giving him a lot of nuclear energy. Instead he is killed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Dropping nuclear man in to a nuclear power plant isn't as silly as it seems, assuming that the nuclear power is far greater than nuclear man he would simply be absorbed by it rather than growing stronger.
That never got shown and the fact that he was able to make a volcano erupt speaks volumes.
30th Jul 2019
Die Hard (1988)
Question: Karl was hanging more than 5 yards off the ground for more than 6 seconds, and nothing indicated he was alive. So who removed him from the chain to the ground, and how did he not die?
Answer: Well the obvious answer to the first question is he simply unhooked himself from the chain. And the second, his neck simply didn't snap. So he was hanging in such a way that he was still able to breathe.
That I find hard to believe because with what was shown he was not moving and had the appearance that he's dead.
Answer: Don't forget, Hans blew the roof up so the chain mechanism probably got blown up as well, meaning Karl would have plummeted back down to the floor.
Question: How did Shredder escape the back of a garbage truck after it was turned on by Casey Jones?
Answer: He didn't escape. He just managed to survive somehow. Hence, we see him escaping at the dump after the truck drops off the garbage.
Then how exactly was he not crushed while inside a garbage truck?
People have survived (badly injured) in real life. Being crushed in a garbage truck is very dangerous but can be survivable depending on how much and what sort of garbage is in there, when the victim gets rescued and what medical care they get afterward. Also Shredder is a movie supervillain in armour so he is stronger and better protected than the average person.
16th Jul 2019
The Karate Kid (2010)
Corrected entry: No kid ever uses karate in this movie. Kung Fu is used, which is a different martial art.
Correction: This isn't a film mistake and would be more suited to a forum discussion to address the question "why isn't it called The Kung Fu Kid?" Since this is a remake, they decided to keep the original name. Plus, karate, which means "Chinese" "Hand", later changed to "Empty" "Hand", can be used to describe kung fu, and some people use the terms interchangeably. Questions or comments like "Why is it called Karate Kid III when Daniel's not a kid?" or "Why is it called Home Alone 2 when Kevin isn't at home?" are not considered mistakes and neither is this film's title.
When a movie title is inaccurate including getting a martial art wrong it is a movie mistake. An alligator even though it has similarities to a crocodile is not the same animal.
Kung Fu is not interchangeable with Karate if that were true most persons would be saying Bruce Lee created Karate.
And these are all good points to make in a forum discussion. Perhaps Jon can weigh in on if film names constitute a movie mistake (perhaps mis-titling films/shows can be listed in the common mistake section or trivia for the film). There are already "mistakes" that are not valid, like mistakes needing slow-motion to see, so I think it should be an invalid mistake.
Yeah, I'm with you. Sometimes a title can be a mistake, like Krakatoa, East of Java, which is actually west of Java. But there has to be some leeway, and especially if something's a remake or sequel the understanding of the title is what matters more than the literal meaning. I mean Reservoir Dogs or A Clockwork Orange or The Haunting In Connecticut 2: Ghosts Of Georgia. Sometimes you've got to give some leeway. But as ever it's a grey area and there's not always a one size fits all approach.
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: This particular film does not address this, and seems to imply that Jason didn't drown and grew up living in the woods as a psychopath. Later sequels heavily imply (or outright state) that Jason was brought back as an un-dead creature by unknown supernatural means and cannot be killed in a conventional sense. As it stands it is best to view Jason in this film as un-dead, as the number of films that show him as supernatural far outweigh those that show him as a normal man. The character is generally remembered in popular culture as un-dead.
BaconIsMyBFF
I think that the whole franchise didn't take much care of continuity (for example, in part 2 Jason is a woods-boy full of beard and hair, in the third he is taller and bald), but it's explainable to the fact that Jason managed to survive somehow, never told his mother he was alive (even because the camp was closed many times and Pamela never showed up frequently), watched her die and took her place for revenge. We always have the feeling that there's something supernatural in Jason, since he never dies he can be hit with axe, machete, fire and even hanged up, and he is still alive, but he definitely becomes something supernatural only from part 6 further. Yes, seeing as the story starts, it could be simpler to think Jason somehow returned as a ghost, as an Un-dead man, but in the first half of the franchise they gave a bit of reality to the thing.
What information in this sequel gives any indication that the kid Jason didn't drown in Crystal Lake?
Athletic Jason
The fact that he's a full-grown man instead of a young boy. The fan consensus, and the original intent of the filmmakers, is that Jason is a human being, albeit extremely tough and completely insane, in parts 2-4, and comes back as an undead being in part 6.
Jukka Nurmi
That's valid along with the small house in the woods, except that doesn't explain how a kid that can't swim didn't drown in Crystal Lake.
Athletic Jason
Luck, misinformation, etc. Yes it's vague, but a lack of explanation doesn't entirely constitute a mistake.