Corrected entry: When Connor decapitates the guy in the parking lot of the wrestling arena, you can notice it's a dummy.
TedStixon
10th Aug 2020
Highlander (1986)
28th Dec 2016
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
Corrected entry: In the scene when Raphael crashes through the window, as April and Leo converse on his well being, you can see Donatello mishandling his bow staff on the left.
Correction: You're going to have to define "mishandling" and explain how it's a mistake, because I watched the movie last night, and then just looked up the scene again on YouTube, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with what he's doing at the moment in question. Certainly nothing that would qualify it as a "mistake." He's just fumbling with his staff as he pulls it out and gets ready for potential combat, since, you know, his brother was just thrown in through a window. At best, he sort-of loses grip on his staff for a half-second before grabbing it again... but that's not really a "mistake." Fumbling with objects (especially in a high-stress situation) is something that happens to people in real-life literally all the time.
2nd Jun 2022
War of the Worlds (2005)
Corrected entry: It becomes quite obvious as the movie progresses that the aliens want to capture and use (or digest) humans, so it defies logic that the first one to appear immediately starts vaporizing every human in sight. Since the people posed no threat, the only reason to vaporize them would be if the aliens simply wanted to be rid of them - which they obviously didn't. So this initial vaporization was simply a manufactured plot device by the movie makers.
Correction: There are plenty of humans to go around. They don't need all of them. What they first wanted to do is collapse human society. That usually works if you start killing indiscriminately.
Maybe they needed 20 billion people. So we don't know that there "are plenty to go around." And again, the people they vaporized were no threat. And they didn't need to "collapse human society" (and you have no way of knowing what they "wanted" to do); they merely needed to remove threats. So, again, it defies logic to unnecessarily vaporize what's later shown to be desirable to them, if not required by them.
You don't know what the wanted to do either. Seeing them kill so many people, logically shows that they don't need all those people.
Maybe they didn't need 20 billion people. Maybe they didn't have the "human harvesting" equipment ready. Maybe they just felt like it. Who knows. Either way, I'm not sure we can't apply our concepts of logic to an alien race.
You might try reading the original novel. While I don't disagree that it defies logic, the fact is that the only person that could address the why of this was H.G. Wells. While the filmmakers changed a number of details to base the story in the present (2005), in the U.S., from a family's point of view, the tripods being buried...the basic story itself, on the aliens illogically torching lots of humans before they began harvesting them, is pretty much the same as in the novel.
Correction: Doesn't defy logic in the slightest. It seemed pretty obvious to me that the initial "invasion" (vaporizing every human in sight and starting battles) was to disrupt and take control of the human population. Thus making it easier to harvest human blood/tissue from the remaining population. (Which, from my memory at least, were implied to basically be used to fertilize their terraforming efforts/the red weed.) If you wanna take somewhere over, you can't just wander in and say "Ok, this is MINE now!" That's not how war works. You have to show force, assert dominance and then get rid of any possible opposition.
Correction: "So this initial vaporization was simply a manufactured plot device by the movie makers." This 'manufactured plot device' was written by Herbert George Wells, 110 years before the 2005 movie. While there are differences between the original novel and the 2005 movie, there are a number of similarities. One identical plot detail being that the aliens' tripods started by incinerating countless humans before harvesting them to fertilize the red weed. I can't recall if the novel explained why.
14th Oct 2021
A Quiet Place Part II (2020)
Revealing mistake: The "baby" looked quite "rubbery" at times and its limited movements (even motionless) and lack of sound are indicative of a "fake" baby (doll) most of the time. The baby was mostly kept covered in some kind of box and did not even cry when the mother was running with it (while in her arms or in the box). (00:14:35 - 00:20:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is not really a "revealing mistake." Fake babies are used in movies all the time. Due to the complexities of filmmaking, it is simply impractical and impossible to use real infants for most scenes. Child safety and labor laws strictly limits how long a baby can be on set. A fake baby may or may not look "rubbery" but that is what they had to work with.
Your correction is precisely what makes it a revealing mistake. Explaining why a mistake occurs doesn't invalidate the mistake. You could only argue that it doesn't look fake or a real baby was used, but since that's not the case, the mistake stands.
A "mistake" is an unplanned and/or unwanted circumstance. Obviously using a fake baby was an intentional decision. At best, this should be classified as a "Deliberate Mistake."
This very website defines "revealing" mistakes as: "Anything which gives away filming techniques, such as stunt wires being visible, or glass smashing before anyone goes through it." (And I could be wrong, but I believe the definition used to be even broader.) An obviously fake baby falls under that umbrella, and always has. You simply can't argue that it's not a revealing mistake by the rules of this site just because it was a deliberate choice by the filmmakers. Heck, even under your strict definition of mistake (which is very problematic, because it doesn't really account for plenty of things that 99.9% of people would commonly consider "movie mistakes"), it's still a mistake, since the filmmakers wanted people to think it's real, and we obviously don't - ergo an unplanned circumstance.
23rd Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Plot hole: Strange says he can't turn back time any more since he does not have the Time stone, so he'll resort to "a standard spell of forgetting." The statement is already quite odd since even with the stone he never showed anything close to the ability to revert time on a global scale for the WEEKS it would take to get back to that moment. But no worries; the "standard spell" is in fact more powerful than the Time stone; for it to work, it can't just make the people forget, or else people would learn back about Peter from the gigabytes of pictures and stories published, the Daily Bugle's archives, Flash's published book, T-shirts etc.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He didn't understand the workings of the time stone as well as he did other spells. The time stone is definitely more powerful, able to trap an omnipotent cosmic being in a time loop. The spell focusses on 1 person's secret identity being forgotten from memory, hardly more powerful than what the time stone can do. In any case, the difference in power is not important to the plot.
The Time Stone in movies always focuses around limited areas, including Dormammu, with Strange concentrating during the activation. It's also a unique artifact and the most powerful in the universe. This is a "forgetfulness spell", but it needs to alter reality (physical evidence) to work, or it's useless, and it's a "standard spell" according to Strange. Was he downplaying it? Let's say he was; it's still a 'fire and forget' sort of deal that alters reality years back.
Suggested correction: I wouldn't say that a spell making everyone in the world forget about Peter is more powerful than the time stone. Memory loss is something that happens regularly (and pretty easily, T.B.H.) to people as a result of anything from illness to a bad bonk on the head. Therefore, it doesn't seem like it'd be something that'd be hard for a wizard to do. He's just applying that to a global scale, which doesn't seem like it'd be impossible if it is indeed a basic spell. As for evidence of Peter, it's really not hard to use conjecture to assume he also made evidence of Peter vanish from existence as part of the spell... making things disappear is a very basic wizardry/magician trick. Heck, it's basically a cliche.
I don't get the logic, sorry. It is easy to do it with a person, therefore it's also doable on a global scale? It's easy for a wizard to move a rock, then by that logic it'd be not that hard to move every rock? Instantly? And since it does that but also makes every physical evidence of it vanish, it is not a spell of forgetting. It has to restructure time and space on a massive scale in a very precise way, and here it is trivalized because the movie does not address the consequences (you will see proposed corrections of this entry that assume it changed nothing physical and it's just no biggie). For instance in the latest Strange movie, there's a magic item that is more powerful than any Infinity stone, but it's not something any wizard can access. The fact that a clichè exists (it's not like I haven't read One More Day, for instance) doesn't mean it fits every context (it's not quite the same doing it in the Tooth Fairy movie and here).
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that making people forget about something and making some stuff disappear restructures time and space. The film explicitly states that it doesn't - Strange says the spell "won't turn back time." It just makes people forget. (And presumably makes evidence disappear.) There's even a joke in the movie where Strange implies he uses the spell regularly, including an instance where he used it to make Wong forget about a party. Doesn't mean the party didn't happen. Just means Wong doesn't remember it. It seems like you're really over-reading and over-complicating the spell in your head. Forgetting about something (or making some books and computer files vanish) does not necessitate the rewriting of space and time... it just means people forgot and things disappeared. If I forgot about something, and the only piece of evidence vanished, to me, it basically never happened. Doesn't mean history was necessarily re-written.
The boundaries of what constitutes "over-reading" and "over-complicating" are subjective; to me saying "it's a basic spell of forgetting", castable on a whim, for something that necessarily has also to act globally if not universally (Nick Fury is not on this planet and he would forget, most likely) and does not 'merely' affect minds but a plurality of records and physical items dating back over a decade (remember we talk about the whole life of Peter Parker here, not just his association with Spider-man), is over-simplifying on top of misrepresenting. One of the writers answered on the subject by saying they have an answer to that they are not at liberty to reveal currently. We'll see if that is true, (or will just be ignored and dumped on the Sony writers who already spectacularly got it wrong in Morbius); the MCU is not just one movie, and Strange in the previous movies never showed the ability to change the universe deleting selectively parts of it with a 'standard spell'.
I think I can get where you're coming from with this. I just personally didn't see it as that big an issue. I think it's probably just an agree to disagree situation. Sorry if I came across as rude.
Suggested correction: Even if we assume the video footage of people saying that Peter is Spidey still exist, this wouldn't matter much. If anybody saw a video of themselves recorded a week ago saying something that they never remembered saying, they would laugh it off and assume it was some "Deepfake" or something.
Besides the fact that I would sue whatever media outlet published my deepfake and most certainly not laugh it off, if there's no magical alteration of reality/space/time to make that spell work, it would be entirely useless. Anyone could just type "Who is Spider-Man" on google and find out from a million sources.
26th Aug 2003
Batman Returns (1992)
Plot hole: When The Penguin is controlling the Batmobile, Batman punches through the floor to take off the transmitter. We still see a video feed of The Penguin. Why? Batman pulled off the transmitter, so there is no reason for there to still be a video feed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: We see the Red Triangle gang spends a while fiddling with the Batmobile's workings before installing the transmitter. It's likely they made multiple 'modifications', thus the transmitter was for controlling the car's engine and steering, and the video feed was made possible by another, separate means.
Suggested correction: I concur with the other correction. There are multiple shots showing the gang working on the car and doing other things to it beyond just putting on the transmitter. (You see them playing with wires, moving parts around, etc.) Hacking into the computer/video-feed so Oswald could taunt Batman is likely among the other things they are doing. There's nothing into the movie that suggests taking off the transmitter should (or even could) interrupt the video-feed. The fact that Batman has to punch the screen to get rid of the Penguin's image is another point to the fact that the transmitter itself had nothing to do with the video feed.
21st Apr 2014
The Avengers (2012)
Factual error: During the scene on the Helicarrier where Bruce Banner "Hulks out" and jumps at the F-35B hovering just outside, we see the F-35B fire its guns, one inside each of its intakes. The F-35B has only one gun, externally mounted to underside of the fuselage. It would be impossible to mount a gun inside an aircraft's intakes.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: We can only assume it's a F35B but it's never stated at being one. It's a universe with a flying aircraft carrier. That could have similar looking planes with far different technology and specs.
I dunno... I feel that's a very weak correction. It's too nebulous and opens up too many holes. What's to stop people from applying that to every other mistake? (Ex. "Oh, well this movie's universe, blah-blah-blah, therefore nothing could be considered a mistake.").
13th Jul 2017
Deep Rising (1998)
Continuity mistake: When the woman is "sucked" into the floor of the bathroom, at one point she accidentally pulls a faucet from a sink next to her, causing water to begin spraying upwards and raining down. Problem is, less than two seconds later, she's already completely soaked and we see a closeup shot of her kicking her feet, and there's already a large volume of water on the floor. Far too much water for how short a period of time it's been coming out of the faucet.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: 1st of all, she's sucked through the toilet, not the floor. 2nd of all, a creature coming through the toilet will produce a lot of toilet water all over the place.
The first point is debatable - we never see where she gets sucked through, so it's unclear. As for the second point, I just watched the scene to check, and she is literally soaked instantly between shots, and the water on the floor also appears almost instantly. The argument that the water came from the toilet doesn't explain how she is suddenly soaked between cuts or how so much water is already on the floor in the literal 1/24th of a second between cuts. They obviously cut the scene quickly and frantically to make it intense, and it created a minor continuity mistake where there is suddenly a lot more water, and she's much wetter. The original mistake is correct.
She sitting on the toilet. She hears the creature and looks directly beneath her. She stands half an inch before she's grabbed. Therefore, it easily stands she got pulled into the toilet. As for the water, I know a plumber who says something big that shoots up from the toilet like that can cause serious water damage. Therefore, the original correction is correct.
Whether she gets sucked through the toilet or floor frankly doesn't matter for the mistake, which is that she's instantly soaked. And I've done plumbing before too. It's literally impossible for that much water to appear in 1/24th of a second. (Which is the time between cuts, since film is 24fps.) Lemme explain it this way - it takes 1/3 of a second to blink your eye. (Equal to roughly 8 fames of film.) You're telling me that that much water could instantly appear in 1/8 the time it takes to blink your eye? That is literally impossible. If your plumber tries to tell you that your bathroom can suddenly be full of water in 1/24 of a second... you need a new plumber.
You may have done plumbing, but I doubt you ever had a giant sea creature come up from beneath the toilet either. Without knowing the situation of these creatures who caused a giant hole in tons of steel that the ship is, then all our answers are just speculation.
The fundamental problem is, it's literally impossible for that much water to have appeared that quickly and for someone to instantly be soaked in 1/24 of a second. It has nothing to do with giant sea creatures... water still has to obey the basic laws of physics. It can't just magically appear in the 1/24 of a second between frames.
23rd Mar 2022
The Batman (2022)
Corrected entry: The famous shot of the question mark in the coffee makes no sense in the film. When the Riddler is caught in the diner, he's made a mark out of froth - but he's made the mark face to the right of himself. He's in front of it, the dining staff behind the cup, and the cops and Batman are to his left. Who did he make the mark for? Likely it was made to the right so the camera would have room to pan over it in the empty bar. So Riddler made it for...the audience?
Correction: How is this a mistake? He can orient a question mark any way he wants, it doesn't have to be specially lined up for anyone to "see." It is perfectly in character for him to draw a question mark in the coffee askew from his own perspective. There are literally thousands of question marks the Riddler has drawn throughout the character's history and many of them are not lined up with anything in particular, and would be askew from where he must have been standing to draw.
Correction: The fact is, it has nothing to do with the Riddler making the "?" at any angle he wants. When we first see him, he's facing the mug and the handle is to his left, parallel with the counter's edge. During the scene, the mug moves because they slam him to the counter so that the handle is now perpendicular almost to the counter's edge. When the "?" is revealed, you see the handle to the left meaning he actually made the mark in front of him, not to the right of him. So the mistake is simply wrong.
Correction: This is not a mistake or "stupidity" in any way, shape or form. He's allowed to make a question mark any darned way he wants.
8th Apr 2022
The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)
Trivia: Alec Baldwin has an uncredited role as the gangster Michael Zoroaster Marucci. Baldwin wanted his role to be uncredited as he hated this movie so much.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Yes, that's what the person who posted this on IMDb said, too.
That's not a valid correction. If the trivia was simply plagiarized word-for-word from IMDb, then it might be a problem... but it's not. It's worded differently. (Although to be fair, I've seen people plagiarize trivia from MovieMistakes on IMDb. I've submitted trivia on here, only to see it copy/pasted word-for-word on IMDb a few days/weeks later. At a certain point, it becomes a chicken/egg situation where you can't tell which came first.) But the fact that both trivia sections mention the same basic thing isn't an issue.
3rd Mar 2022
Batman and Robin (1997)
Corrected entry: Poison Ivy's hair is red most of the movie. Yet once she's a patient in Arkham Asylum her hair suddenly looks like a shade of pink.
Correction: She became part-plant when she was "killed" and resurrected. That's how it's usually depicted in the comics and other media, and she even describes this process in a speech when she comes back to life in this film and kills the evil doctor who created her. She's stuck in a dark, dank prison cell without much sunlight (there seems to be only one small window and minimal light in her cell)... thus her body is becoming weaker, and her color (like her hair) is fading. Just like a flower would without enough sunlight for photosynthesis. Notice how she also looks overly frail and frazzled, unlike how energetic and vibrant she was earlier.
1st Dec 2016
Tarzan (1999)
Factual error: The weight of an elephant is nowhere near that of a large cargo ship so even if Tantor was able to climb up the side of the ship the ship shouldn't have moved.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Is there different rules in the cartoon world and live action? Animals getting smashed flat then getting up like nothing happened.
It would entirely depend on the specific cartoon. Not all cartoons have a consistent logic. Ex. Sure, a character might get flattened then get back up in a Looney Tunes cartoon... but you'd never see that happen in "Akira," which is also a cartoon. If memory serves, "Tarzan" follows a loose realism when it comes to things like logic and physics, so a mistake like this would be valid.
3rd Feb 2022
Species (1995)
Other mistake: It's impossible for Sil to wear the conductor's clothes. She's tall and slim around maybe 5'9" while the conductor looks to be 5'5"or so and a little chubby.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's not "impossible" in the slightest. Both women were roughly the same height. Natasha Henstridge is about 5'10" and Esther Williams was usually listed around 5'9" or 5'10" before she passed away. And the weight difference also makes sense, as the clothes look baggy and ill-fitting on Sil. (Ex. The jacket is very loose and hanging around her shoulders and arms, and the shirt isn't nearly as form-fitting as it was on the conductor.) It's pretty much perfectly portrayed in the film.
26th Feb 2022
The Amityville Horror (1979)
Corrected entry: When Kathy goes to her daughter's window to shut it, the red eyes that appear outside during the dramatic horror effects are too wide apart to be a small child's eyes.
Correction: It's the demonic pig-like entity outside (you even lightly hear the sound of a boar snorting), not a little girl's ghost. Hence, the eyes are further apart. But even beyond that, given it's a supernatural, potentially demonic being, real-world logic (such as having a consistent head shape) doesn't necessarily apply anyway.
Correction: What Kathy saw in the window was Jody the pig. (I know it's stupid).
19th Feb 2022
Scream (1996)
Stupidity: Dewey and Sidney jumpscare each other at the front door. There's just no possible logical reason for a deputy (or ANYONE) to be holding the mask the way Dewey is in the scene. If he were leaning against the door, he would have lost his balance or reacted in any way to the door shifting. (00:30:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Perhaps he was going to knock on the door with the mask. And Dewey didn't call out for Sidney.
I am not sure who would almost-but-not-quite knock with his hand wrapped in a mask and holding perfectly still keeping the pose, facing the opposite direction. It's a pose completely unnatural especially looking frozen and not in the middle of something else. (I amended the part about calling out, it was wrongly phrased since I wanted to say the exact opposite, thanks!).
He was about to knock on the door and was then looking behind him, probably heard a noise. He ain't the most solid type either.
I personally think this is a good stupidity entry. The stupidity section exists for stuff that isn't technically mistakes, but is still irksome or just silly. And this fits that. It's good for a quick jump scare, but doesn't really add up. It's a piece of evidence, so he probably wouldn't be touching it anyways, the way he's holding it is completely unnatural (nobody holds a mask they just picked up off the ground like that), and it's conveniently held at exactly the right height and position to be in Sidney's face when she opens the door. The movie was flying in the face of basic logic to manufacture a quick scare. And it's effective in context... but it doesn't really make sense if you dissect the scene.
18th Feb 2022
Scream 2 (1997)
Character mistake: Mrs. Loomis is crazy and does not really think things through (she finishes her speech saying "who gives a f..." and that she's untraceable anyway), however it's worth noting that when she tells Sidney the official version that the police will believe, she is wrong; she says it wiping the gun clean from prints and throwing it away, which means that the police would find the supposed murder weapon with neither Mickey nor Sidney's prints on it, and neither wears gloves. Moreover, she plans to disappear and she was prominently featured in the media coverage, so people would certainly investigate her at least as victim.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't think that a psychopathic character acting irrationally and jumping to unlikely conclusions really constitutes a character mistake. But I do think it's also worth pointing out though that cops usually don't rely on fingerprints on guns anyway - the likelihood of finding a usable print on a gun is minuscule (only about 5%), and there's going to be traces of things like skin-oil and whatnot on it from being handled, so the cops will likely just assume it was used by someone in the room - the most likely candidate being either Sidney and Mickey. Mrs. Loomis is also using a false identity and has got surgery to change her face before, so she could likely disappear pretty easily. Real-life killers get away with disappearing all the time.
I am no expert in true crimes and forensics, I am just challenging the movie logic here (which is why I talk about the behaviour of a crazy character who is running exposition). What I get from your objection though is that the cops wouldn't be able to tell that she wiped the gun clean from prints and so that wouldn't stick out as suspicious? She didn't really change her face, since Sidney recognizes her when she gets a good look at her. Rewatching the scene anyway it's very evident that she does not really care because she simply puts her faith in the cops not being able to track the fictitious Debbie Salt, so I would be happy with a correction here, I was interested in pointing out that the whole first part about wiping the prints and throwing the gun aside does not seem to logically follow up, I take note that according to your objection using 'real science' and forensics practice it might not even be that.
8th Jul 2004
The Mummy (1999)
Visible crew/equipment: In the scene where Rick is beating up Beni in the Egyptologist's office, as Rick throws him on the desk, there is a flash of light that has no visible source, and a metallic clink can be heard off to the right. (01:17:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If you look closely, Rick actually knocked a lamp off the table when he throws Beni on it, and it hit the ground and popped... hence the flash of light and "clink" sound. You can briefly see it in this video at about 34 seconds in, right as Beni hits the table. It's a sort-of gold color and it's right behind Rick and Beni. Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL3zacTLLJQ.
13th Aug 2008
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)
Plot hole: Zi Juan tells the rest of the group when they are in Shangri La that she will take the first watch at the entrance and guard against the emperor getting in. A few shots later, she then decides to have a conversation with her daughter nowhere near the entrance, and now with no-one guarding, means he gets in unchallenged.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: A character briefly leaving their watch to deliver important information as Zi Juan was doing isn't a mistake, and it's definitely not a plot hole, since it in no way contradicts the movie's logic or creates a hole in the narrative. At best, Zi Juan was being a little foolish leaving her watch, but a character being a little foolish isn't a "movie mistake." After all, people make foolish choices all the time in real life. Plus, as demonstrated by the movie, it doesn't really matter anyways - the Emperor's powers are back, so she wouldn't have been able to stop him even if she had kept watch.
9th Feb 2022
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Stupidity: Harry Osborn quite literally inherited the company his father founded. Presumably he owns or controls a majority of the stocks, because he was appointed CEO by his father and nobody questioned him. However, one of his employees can just instantaneously fire him from his position. We don't know the precise rules and internal regulations of Oscorp, but it's safe to say that this is not how company hierarchy works, especially considered that no charges are pressed on Harry and everyone would be out of a job (including Menken) if the circumstances were public - like having created a monster and waterboarding a guy in their basement.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Traditionally, CEO's can be fired if the company board votes them out of their position. (Something similar actually happens to Norman in the 2002 film.) While Menken doesn't specifically say this is what happened, he did frame Harry for covering up Dillon's "death," so we can safely assume that there was some sort-of emergency vote to remove Harry in the meantime as part of his power-play. (It'd honestly just be a waste of screen-time to show it.) Additionally, given the allegations against Harry (covering up a death), who would believe him if he came forward, anyways? Also, Electro is being waterboarded in a different location (Ravencroft Institute), not the Oscorp basement.
The thing is, the Raimi movie set the situation up properly. Norman was dealing with the board members in the meeting with the military already, and the business situation was addressed in a short scene that made clear a power play for profit. He was the boss, but not a monarch, and they don't "fire" him showing up with the guards anyway. The 'board' scene in TAS2? Harry treats everyone like lackeys and mentions that everyone will 'work' for Felicia; he bosses everyone around appearing to have inherited the position. It is mentioned that to depose the already ill and scandal-ridden Normal from his post would have needed legal action. Extra emphasis is given by Menken about any scandal going to hurt the company. Even if he had in mind to use Harry as scapegoat from the getgo, as I said, it would hurt the company terribly (going by the logic of the movie first and foremost), and he pulled off an amazing powerplay using incriminating evidence against Harry recorded an hour earlier and that he couldn't realistically share without destoying the company. It was damaged so heavily by an employee going rogue, what about the new CEO going nuts to the point of being kicked out, whatever the reason was? Lastly yes, Ravencroft appears to be part of Oscorp, so I simplified there. Of course yes, the throwaway "you're fired' line saves time, but the situation struck me as contradictory.
I can definitely understand where you're coming from, so I'll just say I think this is probably an agree to disagree situation. I feel like it's easy enough to explain away any contradictions or holes with some conjecture (I think like it ultimately comes down to the movie just not wanting to bog itself down explaining every detail), but the way the movie presents it is indeed a little over-simplified and janky. So I totally understand your take.
2nd Mar 2018
Scream (1996)
Trivia: After the release of this film, Caller ID sales shot up by over 300% for a period of time. This was a pretty big deal, too, as it was the mid-90's and Caller ID was not a standard feature on phones as it is now. The spike in sales is sometimes attributed to young adults seeing this film and becoming frightened by the idea of receiving a phonecall and not knowing who was on the other side, although it's never been 100% confirmed that this was the case. Either way, it's an interesting correlation.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's one of those rumors I'd really love to be able to get a quotable, reliable source for. The figure "300% up" is referred to the US market, from what I understand, but again, color me surprised if it's an actual, legitimate figure and not just one random number.
Submitted a word change saying that's it's never been 100% confirmed because it is indeed hard to verify. But given it's also one of those "cool factoids" that people have thrown around for decades, I do think this rumor has a place in the trivia.
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: In all honesty, I wouldn't consider this a mistake because the effect is VERY good, and there's nothing giving away the fact it's a dummy. (Other than the fact they wouldn't decapitate a real actor, of course.) It's appropriately gory, the dummy's movement is fluid and lifelike, and the dummy is very detailed and realistic. Even watching the scene frame-by-frame, it looks quite real. Like I said... nothing really gives away the fact it's a dummy, so I wouldn't call this a mistake.
TedStixon