Factual error: The motorcycle is not right for the period. It looks like a 1970's Kawasaki stripped down. Look at the rear wheel (too big), motor is 2 stroke (not one), and the exhaust has a muffler.
KeyZOid
18th Aug 2014
Bite the Bullet (1975)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is no such thing as a one stroke engine.
I don't really follow the technology, but I happen to know there were at least one-stroke prototypes years ago. That aside, a "single-stroke" is possible, but may depend on how it is defined. That is, there will be an accompanying reverse "stroke" ["to" and "fro"], perhaps categorizing it as two-strokes? The "factual error" and your correction may both be correct, using different perspectives or definitions.
7th Dec 2023
The Conners (2018)
Corrected entry: Ben says "we may be honing in on the problem." You hone a knife and you hone an argument. "Homing" means getting closer, either in distance or in understanding. They were HOMING in on the problem.
Correction: Either phrase is acceptable. "Honing in" means to move towards an objective or to focus attention on that objective.
It is a common usage, but still incorrect. https://grammarist.com/eggcorns/home-in-hone-in/.
It is an acceptable usage, even if it is not the best or most grammatically correct word to use. After all, the Conners are not the most sophisticated or educated family. Something that is not technically correct can be situationally right.
And I can't remember the last time (if ever) I heard anyone say "homing" instead of using "honing."
Correction: Merriam-Webster gives this as an example: The missile was honing in on its target. Researchers are honing in on the cause of the disease. Ben uses it in this manner. It is a colloquialism that we all understand. You can use either phrasing (and in the US it tends to be more common to use "honing in"). It is not a mistake.
5th Dec 2023
General questions
For a period of time starting in the mid-2000s, it became common for most major DVD releases to have both 1- and 2-disc editions. Typically, the 2-disc edition just had more bonus content and cost a few dollars more, while the 1-disc edition had less content and was cheaper. I never understood this. This was before streaming became huge, so it didn't incentivize buying the DVD, nor did the 2-disc edition cost much more, so it couldn't have had much impact on profit. So why was this even a thing?
Answer: OP here. From everything I've been able to find, it pretty much just looks like it was just a bit of a gimmick. Put some extra bonus content on a second disc, call it a "Special Edition" or "Collector's Edition" or "Limited Edition," and charge an extra $5 for it. People who wanted just the movie could buy the single disc for the standard price, and people who wanted more special features paid a slightly more expensive "premium price." And it would subtly boost profits.
I think you're right - the extra content largely existed already, there was no significant cost to produce it, and mastering a second version of the DVD wouldn't cost much in the grand scheme of things either, so any extra amount would have been pure profit. Showgirls (first example I found) apparently made $37m in cinemas and $100m in DVD sales. A couple of extra dollars per unit would add up. It might also serve as "anchoring" if that's the right term - having a more expensive 2 disc version makes the single disc version look like better value to the casual buyer (while also appealing more to the movie buff). There are certainly some films I splashed out on for the fancier version because I was a fan (and then of course never really watched the extras much!), but going back a while there was literally no other way to see this extra content unless you bought the special edition.
From the perspective of why they were simultaneously released (and with a relatively small difference in price), I'd agree. But this is different from why two-disc versions were released some time after the one-disc version (and with a substantial difference in price). That is, the reasons why this initially happened are different from why it continued to happen.
I was trying to refer to concurrent releases in my question. Unfortunately, the character limit meant I could not give any examples. I was referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Transformers." I used to go to the store at midnight to buy new DVD releases around the time those movies came out, and there would almost always be a single disc DVD with just the movie and a few features, and a 2-Disc set with more special features released on the same day. (A 2-disc special/anniversary edition being released a few years later for an older title makes sense, and is a different matter entirely. I'm referring to when multiple editions of the same new release were put out at the same time.)
Yes, I finally figured this out! You are asking about a specific time period and looking for a straightforward answer, without putting things in historical perspective (the developing technology and decreasing costs of mass-producing DVD movies). The extras (plus a little more) that used to be included on the standard editions were now on a second disc with the package costing about $5 more. It probably came down to "will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?"
It probably came down to 'will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?' "and unfortunately when I was a teenager, I was, hahahaha. But yeah, the more I look into it, the more it does just seem like a total gimmick. (I feel like a good modern comparison might be steelbooks... cool packaging, but usually sold for a very high markup even though it's the same exact discs.)
My "victimization" came much earlier. I had the standard release versions of movies and, later, when I started to see much more expensive two-disc versions, I thought, "Who would buy these now?" Well, I think I ended up buying 3 versions of "Terminator 2." [Why?]
Answer: From my experience, the 2-disc versions provided two different formats. Typically, the 1-disc version was Fullscreen and, depending on its release, did have additional content like commentaries and deleted scenes. The 2-disc version included a Widescreen version as well as extra materials, extended cuts, remastered versions, or special edition, etc. Later, when Blu-Ray came out, the 2-disc set usually included a standard DVD version. Some DVDs were sold as 2-sided without a lot of extra content but having a Fullscreen and Widescreen version.
This doesn't really answer the question. I'm not referring to those. I'm more so referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Super 8". Their DVDs only came in widescreen, but had two versions. A single-disc edition with just the movie and a few special features, and a 2-disc edition that had more special features. I'm curious as to WHY many titles had single and two-disc editions with the only difference being the amount of special features. It just seems more logical to release just the 2-disc edition. This answer basically just explains that 2-disc existed.
I apologise for misunderstanding the question, because what you described in my experience was atypical. And in my opinion, it makes sense to release two versions, but I'm afraid to answer why if I turn out to still not understand the question.
No problem. It's a very weird, specific question, hahaha. Wouldn't surprise me if there isn't even really an answer beyond just "they decided to try it for some reason."
Answer: Simply put MONEY.
Profits are almost always, if not always, a factor. The two-disc versions with "extras" might have been enough to get certain movie buffs to buy them, even though they already had the single-disc version - but I doubt very many people actually did so.
3rd Mar 2022
The Invisible Man (2020)
Question: Why are Cecilia and her sister Emily so distant?
Answer: From what I could see, it was never specified what caused their strained relationship. Many sisters just don't get along for a variety of reasons-jealousy, resentment, rivalry, personality clashes, etc. Of course, it serves the plot and is a common movie trope that Cecilia has little family support to help with her situation, adding to the suspense as she tries to escape Adrian on her own.
Answer: Controlling husbands like Adrian severely restrict who their wives can see and talk to, so Adrian most likely interfered with Cecilia maintaining a positive relationship with her sister. Cecilia's sister probably did not know how controlling and manipulative Adrian was, so assumed it was Cecilia who did not want to be close to her. Adrian made it appear as though it was Cecilia's choice, but it was actually the restrictions he placed on Cecilia that caused the strain between the sisters.
Answer: Because an email was sent from Cecilia but really from Adrian (the invisible man) saying that her sister was suffocating her. And that Cecilia didn't want to see her anymore.
And these were the types of stunts Adrian had been doing for years, creating tension and causing spite between the sisters.
20th May 2023
Ghosted (2023)
Factual error: A large part of the film takes place in Pakistan, but all the cars there have steering wheels on the left as in the US. Pakistan drives on the left and the cars have steering wheels on the right side of the car. (00:57:21)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There's an article on huffpost.com by Jeanette Khan entitled, "Driving In Pakistan: Can You Handle It?" (12/18/08 updated 5/25/11) wherein it is stated, "Driving in Pakistan is like purposely courting death... Sometimes, people prefer to drive on the right-side of the road... The drivers really don't care they're going the wrong way. There really are no rules for driving here. People often do as they please." In fact, then, the actual driving practices do not conform to the written law.
Or, are you just asserting that the cars should not have steering wheels on the left? The cars could be from anywhere, even if being driven in Pakistan. U.S.P.S. mail trucks have steering wheels on the right – this doesn't mean that they don't belong in the U.S.
21st Aug 2023
Identity (2003)
Character mistake: There's no way that using a regular needle and thread to sew up that wound would work the way it's shown. Anybody who knew what they were doing - which John Cusack is portrayed as knowing - would also know that using unsterilized materials and instruments without a sterile field from an uncleaned massive open wound is a great way to kill your patient.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The main plot of this film takes place inside the head of a murderer with dissociative identity disorder. The fact that stitching up a wound in that matter wouldn't work is irrelevant to the fact that it is how Malcolm is playing out the scenario in his head.
You're making a good point to invalidate a "character mistake", but couldn't the entry be reclassified as a "factual mistake" and stand as written?
25th Mar 2023
A Royal in Paradise (2023)
Continuity mistake: In the front view of Olivia when she sits at her desk and opens her laptop, the clear LED globe lightbulb to her right is illuminated with a visible filament, but the bulb looks solid white when the camera shifts to a rear view. (01:22:22)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's still a clear bulb in the rear view, you're just seeing the white curtains behind the clear bulb.
Filaments should still be visible because they are darker and in front of the paler background.
The filament is still visible.
Didn't look illuminated on my screen.
It definitely is illuminated. It might be hard to tell with so much lighting already present in the scene, especially coming through the window.
I seriously doubt there's enough background light to make what is supposed to be a clear illuminated LED bulb several feet in front of it to fade away. (This will be my last response).
Then you're talking about two completely different lamps altogether because the bulb is in front of a giant window with light coming through the thin curtain and it's inches away from the window, not feet. And it's not faded away at all.
13th Dec 2022
Bullet Train (2022)
Factual error: In one scene a phone call states that boomslang venom was used to kill a person. The caller states that the venom congeals the blood, makes a person exude blood from every orifice, and if an antidote is not administered in 30 seconds you are dead. A lot of this is wrong. The venom does make you eventually bleed profusely, but you have a 24-48 hour window to administer antivenom, and if it congealed the blood, it means it would make the blood clot, not make the person bleed. (00:54:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Although I agree that "A lot of this is wrong", I don't entirely agree with your rationale and/or wording. It can take 24-48 hours (or even up to 5 days) to succumb to the Boonslang's bite, so I don't believe you have a 24-48 hour window to administer antivenom"; it would be too late to prevent death. "If it congealed the blood, it means it would make the blood clot, not make the person bleed" - yes and no. Venom causes both coagulation and hemorrhaging but in different areas of the body.
I used the information on the National Institutes of Health, nih.gov. I quote: "Traditionally, it has been taught that there is a window period of 24-48 h after a Boomslang bite to administer antivenom."
Antivenom is at least worth a try.
"Coagulation" is the preferred term when referring to blood. Although "congealed" is used, congealed typically refers to food substances that gel or harden.
I used the quotes given by the actors in the program. Congealed is what they said. Yet they also said the victim would bleed out. Confusing. Thanks for the info.
I was clarifying my substitution of the word "coagulation" for "congealed", not criticizing your usage of "congealed" (the word that was used in the movie). Yes, it is confusing! (You're welcome).
19th Mar 2023
The Whale (2022)
Corrected entry: Mary may have "fought hard" to gain full custody of Ellie, but - even if Charlie did "leave them" to be with his "lover" - Charlie should have still gotten at least court-ordered regular supervised visits with his daughter over the years, not shut off from maintaining a relationship with his biological daughter.
Correction: Fathers often get the 'short end of the stick' in custody battles. It is entirely possible that Charlie was denied even supervised visitation. Especially if the judge was extremely conservative.
Especially if the judge was conservative and anti-gay. Plenty of them around.
Charlie was not physically or sexually abusive toward his daughter Ellie (two major reasons to deny any visitation), so I have to disagree.
I'm not sure how you could disagree. Women are 4X more likely to get primary custody than men, and it's really not unheard of for a parent to get little-to-no custody/visitation even if they weren't abusive to the child. Ex. My father was not abusive towards me, but I only saw him for a few hours every other week because that's just how the arrangement worked out. (Which in retrospect was good because he had other issues and I shouldn't have been around him more than that. But at the time it hurt.)
19th May 2022
Still Alice (2014)
Corrected entry: When Alice is making the video with instructions about how to commit suicide, we see her typewritten notes, and she has misspelled "labeled", something a linguistics professor wouldn't do.
Correction: Both "labeled" and "labelled" are correct spellings of the word. Labeled is chiefly the American spelling whereas labelled is chiefly the British spelling. It should be noted, co-writer Wash Westmoreland is British.
However, Alice has the disease! She was already deep into it when diagnosed. By the time she is making the video she may not have had the ability to proofread.
Alice spoke and wrote American English, regardless of the cowriter.
Alice was an English (American) linguistics professor. She would have correctly written the American version.
There is no "correct" American version. Both are acceptable in America.
The "American version" would only be a "preferred" or predominant spelling but, as already pointed out, either spelling is acceptable. [It is still an interesting "catch", perhaps worthy of turning into a "trivia" entry.].
11th Jun 2018
Zookeeper (2011)
Question: What does the Lion mean that "humans can't handle it" if they do break the code to talk to them?
Answer: Most likely that learning that animals could always talk would be a big shock to them and they wouldn't know how to handle it.
What they're (Humans) gonna do if they can't?
When a "reality that has always been true" (animals can't talk) turns out to be false, the world as adults knew it is suddenly turned upside-down, which causes stress. The things adults said in the presence of animals were actually understood by them when adults presumed they were not. This could cause anxiety, embarrassment, regret, and other "difficult to handle" emotions. Cruel words directed toward animals ("You're so ugly; "You're stupid") can't be taken back, which would be disturbing.
The new reality would require a period of adjustment wherein adults would have to deal with and overcome their emotions and any past transgressions toward animals while learning to communicate more effectively and appropriately with them.
4th Jan 2023
The Amityville Horror (2005)
Stupidity: Considering the movie takes place in the winter of '75, it seems unlikely that the babysitter would arrive in a halter top and barefeet.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I agree that this is a "stupidity", but think your use of the words "it seems unlikely" allows for the suggested corrections already given. Perhaps replace "it seems unlikely" to "it isn't rational." Even if the daytime temperature was mild for winter, the temperature would probably drop by around 30° overnight.
Suggested correction: Actually, January of 1975 was very mild, much like the winter in the northeast this year, so it would not be impossible for the babysitter to wear unseasonable clothing.
Suggested correction: Ordinarily I would agree with this observation, however, I believe the girls outfit matches her carefree attitude. She did bong hits in the family bathroom, laid on the boys bed seductively and asked him if he French kissed so dressing comfortably to babysit isn't out of context.
Adding to this, almost every babysitter I had growing up went barefoot or at least shoeless. Even this past new years eve, the young lady who came to watch my kids took her shoes off as soon as she came in the house.
It is a common courtesy to remove shoes when entering someone's home to protect the carpeting (or other flooring) from getting soiled by whatever might be on the bottom of shoes after walking outdoors.
Maybe I'm wrong, but after watching this movie last night, it sounded like the girl was wearing flip-flops when she walked across the bathroom to open the door. Would it be rational for her to have worn sandals too?
Considering she was barefoot for most of the night, yes, she may have worn them for comfort.
27th Aug 2001
Major League (1989)
Corrected entry: When Cerano hits the home run to tie the game versus the Yankees at the end of the movie he carries his bat with him around the bases - an automatic out.
Correction: Nowhere in the rulebook of baseball does it say that carrying a bat around the bases is an automatic out. As such, he would only be called out if he were to use that bat to his advantage. But since the ball was out of play (over the fence), no advantage would be gained and he would NOT be called out.
Correction: It absolutely is an out.
Absolutely incorrect. There is no rule that prohibits a batter from carrying his bat around the bases as long as he does not use the bat to interfere with the play. In fact, Alex Bregman carried his bat passed first base in game 6 of the 2019 World Series, and Juan Soto carried his almost to first later in the game. Neither suffered any out, penalty, or ejection.
There is no penalty for violating an "unwritten" or informal rule, so this would not be an automatic "out" according to the "official" rules. Cerano may have gone against the status quo by not conforming to what is considered appropriate or good sportsmanship, so might be viewed negatively by his peers or opposing teammates. Cerano was not "out", but his show-offish behavior was more along the lines of an "outcast."
25th Jun 2014
Predator (1987)
Question: This bugged me for years, when Billy said there is something in the trees to Dutch and in the next shot it shows the trees, is the Predator there, as in visible onscreen?
Chosen answer: Yes. The predator can be seen not in the immediate shot after, but the one a few seconds later as they are seen walking away.
Before or after Ramirez gets hit in the face with the branch?
About 3 seconds before. If you look VERY closely (probably needing to pause the screen around 00:40:55 - about a minute after Billy said, "There's something in the trees"), there appears to be a transparent image of The Predator in the background above the major's (Arnold's) right shoulder. If this is meant to be The Predator, its body is curved around a tree trunk and its arms are extended toward the right of the screen (near Arnold's right ear), camouflaged as green leaves.
The Predator - in a recognizable form - really wasn't visible until another minute later @ 00:41:55 when it was on the ground approaching Hawkins and the woman.
22nd Aug 2019
Child's Play (2019)
Question: Just after Chucky kills Shane, why did he say that it was for Tupac? Since he wanted Andy to be happy, shouldn't he have said that it was for Andy?
Answer: I wouldn't read into it much more than just a joke: Chucky heard that joke earlier when the kids in the street were trying to make him do things for their cell phone cameras. So he just re-used it later as he often does in the movie.
It was a joke that some kid said when he had the Chucky doll.
Answer: Yeah the kid said that so Chuckie said it too.
Answer: Chucky's A.I. enabled him to learn from others and through experience. Chucky was repeating what the neighborhood boy told him to say ("This is for Tupac"), but Andy's reaction to Chucky stabbing the stuffed unicorn was obviously negative - Chucky would have learned that stabbing someone would not make Andy happy. Hence, Chucky was demonstrating what he learned from Andy's friend/acquaintance and said, "This is for Tupac" (not "This is for Andy").
Chucky might have also thought that some kids view "This is for Tupac" as funny and an appropriate thing to say, but Andy did not because he stopped him when he was stabbing the stuffed unicorn. Also, Chucky didn't know what "Tupac" was or meant. That is, Tupac would not have been recognized as a person's name, so he would not know that he could substitute another person's name, such as by saying "Andy" instead.
10th Jul 2018
Crossroads (1986)
Other mistake: When Eugene discovers that it really is Blind Dog Fulton, he (Fulton) says that he needs to get out to help Eugene find that lost song. Eugene says that he will be here at "5:00 a.m." When they breakout - which took all of about maybe 10 minutes, it's very light for the morning time. Looks to be maybe 6:30 by daylight savings time.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Aside from the fact that daylight continuity is seldom strictly observed in any film, you should be aware that dawn on the East Coast visibly begins breaking over the Atlantic at around 4:30 to 5:00 AM during Daylight Savings Time. The sun may not have cleared the horizon, but the sky is really quite bright in New York City (and the whole East Coast) by 5:00 AM.
The time of sunrise varies and, although it isn't pointed out what month they left the nursing home, it is suggested that it was during the academic year - not a summer month when sunrise would be within the earliest time frame. Astronomical, nautical and civil twilight (all 6° or more below the horizon) do not radiate the amount of light shown in the movie. Moreover, it did not appear to get lighter out as they traveled, suggesting they departed after daylight, which would be well after 5 AM.
6th Dec 2009
Fred Claus (2007)
Corrected entry: In the early part of Fred Claus, the story teller explains that when you become a saint, you become "eternally ageless." However, when you get to the first scene with Santa Claus, he is complaining about the rest of his hair turning white. If he was eternally ageless, his hair would not still be turning white.
Correction: Just because his hair is turning white does not mean that he is ageing.
He would nonetheless be showing signs of ageing and no longer be appearing as someone who is ageless. Even if the white hair is due to something like stress, white hair is typically associated with getting older or being old. The key to supporting the plot hole lies in the use of the words "eternally ageless." Ageless can mean eternal, but "eternally ageless" suggests he will appear "forever young." If he is ageless, he should never look "older."
And if there is the power of eternal agelessness, there should be an accompanying ability to counteract any possible causes of growing white hair (such as stress, heredity, and dying pigment cells in his hair follicles).
27th Aug 2001
True Lies (1994)
Revealing mistake: During the hotel scene where Arnold is on the horse chasing the bad guy on the motorcycle, keep your eye on the carpet. As the bike clears a path through the lobby, you can see tyre marks all over the carpet where this shot has been practised many times. (00:36:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I watched a few times but I'm not convinced. I did see "tracks", but they were not the same (or as obvious) as the fresh tracks. I also saw lines running perpendicular in spots. Some of the lines may not have been "practice tracks", but indentations from the food service carts on wheels and others appeared to be from foot traffic. Still others could have been left from vacuuming. At times, I could not see any tracks that might/should have been left. Another opinion would be nice.
I see the tracks the poster is referring to. Right before the band gets interrupted, and again in the lobby of the other building (with the elevator) when the bike is turning. This is right before Tasker's team shoots a single shot at him. There are definite practice marks on the floor. The tracks in the first hotel are harder to see but far more obvious in the second building.
Thanks.
24th Nov 2022
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Corrected entry: When Andy and Red are discussing the cost of the rock hammer, Andy says between $6-7, and Red closes the deal at $10. In reality, $10 in 1947 would be the equivalent of $130 in today's money (2022).
Correction: Andy was a successful accountant. He could have access to his money, which was likely substantial.
I'm suggesting that Andy (Robbins) and Red (Freeman) got the pricing and value wrong. The value of the American dollar was different compared to the year of the film's production and the present year. Example: one American Dollar ($1) in 1947, the year of the scene, would equal to $6.65 in 1994, the year of the film. All due to inflation.
The price for the rock hammer is deliberately "inflated" because it costs "extra" to acquire contraband in a prison. The person agreeing to "sneak" a prohibited item into prison is taking a risk of getting caught and therefore is the one who gets to set the price - take it or leave it! Realizing he was seeking contraband and would have "to pay" to get it, Andy suggested $6-7; Red wanted - and got - more. The relative value of $1 in 1947 versus the equivalent value in 1994 is not relevant. Hypothetically, Red - realizing that Andy had the means to pay even more - could have requested much more than $10.
Using a different example, today's price for a pack of cigarettes might be $8.00. Cigarettes may no longer be permitted in a prison, thereby classifying cigarettes as "contraband." Inmate A might be seeking to buy a pack of cigarettes and offers $10 to anyone providing the same. Inmate B tells Inmate A that he can get him a pack of cigarettes, but it will cost him $20. If Inmate A says $20 is too much, he simply will not be able to buy the cigarettes.
You're misunderstanding inflation. The value of the dollar can be different then the value of a product. For example, a McDonald's hamburger cost $0.15 in 1947, which is $2.00 in today's money, even though a McDonald's hamburger today is only $1.49 (which is to say your "$130" is only "$96.85"). Plus, you can find cheap rock hammers or rock hammers that go for $100 or more.
I agree that the price of a particular product may not be related to (or proportionate with) inflation rates, but I think "Matdan97" made a decent analogy. What "Matdan97" failed to realise is that the rock hammer was contraband, which changes (greatly increases) the "asking price."
5th Nov 2022
Columbo (1971)
Any Old Port in a Storm - S3-E2
Question: As a homicide detective, why would Columbo have been present at an apparent drowning incident?
Answer: "Apparent" drowning answers your question - things are not always as they seem. Drowning could be accidental, but it could also be a murder in disguise. Moreover, the actual cause of death has not yet been determined - accident, suicide, murder, or natural cause (e.g, heart attack while swimming). Columbo would be there to investigate if anything looks unusual for it to be a mere drowning or if there is evidence or suspicion of something else.
This was just on TMZ.com's "Aaron Carter Dead at 34" (11/05/2022): "Law enforcement sources tell TMZ... homicide detectives have been dispatched to the scene but we have no information or evidence of foul play. It's standard operating procedure for homicide detectives to investigate such [drowning] death scenes."
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.