Slashdot Mirror


Spider-Man 2 Has Over 30 Mistakes

Jon Sandys writes "Spider-Man 2 may have won over the critics, but the hard-nosed bastards at moviemistakes.com are listing 31 mistakes already - and no, not nitpicky stuff that's different from the comics. A scar swaps sides on Peter Parker's face and dummies are visible in hurled cars, not to mention the numerous errors involving tritium which I'm sure Slashdot readers will enjoy refuting. Read the complete listing on the Spider-Man 2 page." Also, people bitten by spiders don't generally become ultra-powerful.

164 of 750 comments (clear)

  1. 32 already by mcgroarty · · Score: 5, Funny
    I'm surprised that nobody noticed this biggie:

    In one scene, Spiderman is leaping and twirling like he's a male gymnast. Then in the next, he has a heterosexual love interest.

    1. Re:32 already by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Meebe she's a patron of the arts - a plot twist to be explored further in #3 with the diabolical Ballet Man

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    2. Re:32 already by mcgroarty · · Score: 5, Funny

      Edit: Of course. (Flash required)

    3. Re:32 already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      In one scene, Spiderman is leaping and twirling like he's a male gymnast. Then in the next, he has a heterosexual love interest.

      As someone who got First Post in a Slashdot Spider-Man article, I highly doubt you are qualified to make such a differential assertion.

    4. Re:32 already by mcgroarty · · Score: 2, Funny

      It doesn't surprise me that so many geeks collect action figures into adulthood, then show such a profound interest in the booth babes later... in both cases, all the interesting parts are plastic.

    5. Re:32 already by mcgroarty · · Score: 5, Funny
      Brilliant :)

      So... what are you doing this evening?

    6. Re:32 already by DrMrLordX · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's no error. He's a metrosexual.

  2. IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by black88 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Also, people bitten by spiders don't generally become ultra-powerful." Unless those people get bitten by RADIOACTIVE spiders. Why do you people even bother going to the Cinema, if you are that goddamned critical? Why were there explosions in space in Star Wars? Because, they fucking looked cool exploding in space.

    1. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by noewun · · Score: 5, Insightful
      But this would remove the ability of those who wish to make movies but never to feel superior by pointing out the mistakes of others.

      A harsh opinion? Perhaps. But sometimes it is the only way I can explain this middle school "neener neener neener" stuff. I would like to see these people work on a major motion picture and see how they feel afterwards.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    2. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by Xeth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Indeed, but radioactive spiders and super powers are forgivable stuff. Stupid stuff (like the Eigenvalue thing, which particularly bugged me) is what really riles the nerds. As Orson Scott Card said, you can ask your audience to believe the impossible, but not the improbable. Writing your own rules are fine, as long as you're up front about it, but doing silly things without an apparent reason will tick some) people off.

      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
    3. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by Engineer+Andy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure these were the same people who objected to the ents in LOTR as trees seldom pick up roots and walk, or pointed out the time travel anomalies in Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban (sp?) with respect to special relativity.

      It's called suspending disbelief, and some people, it would appear, are incapable of doing it.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World" 1 John 4:14
    4. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by Blastercorps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You act as though you think the people on that site do nothing but critique and criticise the movies they see. Is it so hard to believe that some people can watch a movie, enjoy it, and then at a later date enjoy poking fun at the obvious mistakes the movie makers let slip? You act as if these people NOT having orgasms in their seats over every movie ever made is the worst thing to ever happen. As you said: "It's a movie, for christ's sake!"

    5. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by MikeXpop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean genetically altered spider. Radiation was cool/hip in the 50's and 60's when the comics were written, and passe when SP1 came out. In the movie, genetics was the new hotness mutation.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    6. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Go watch the 80's cartoon "SilverHawks". Between people "falling" through space (and needing saving!), hair being "whipped" in the wind, the SilverHawks "flying" around, and that damn theme song "Partly metal, partly real", you'll be screaming for just a LITTLE bit of realism.

    7. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by GarfBond · · Score: 3, Funny

      I got bit by a radioactive spider once. Didn't get any special powers, but I did lose a lot of hair.

      (note to mods: this is a haha-funny attempt)

    8. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by NEW22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People like movies for different reasons. While to you, all of this nitpicking is annoying, I think that for some people it is part of the fun. In any case, I had fun watching the movie tonight just straight up for the themes it addressed, and the story, but I am not annoyed that people do this nit picking. To each his own, you know?

    9. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by dvdeug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called suspending disbelief, and some people, it would appear, are incapable of doing it.

      I'll happily suspend belief for the ground rules of the universe. Neither Middle Earth or Harry Potter's world work on plain old science. But those worlds, and more so the world of Spider-Man, share something in common with our world. Completely abstract media isn't popular. The only way we can understand what's going on in the movie is if we have some contact with the real world; there may be elves and humans, but you can kill them all with swords or arrows. There may be radioactive spiders giving people superhuman powers, but water should still boil if you toss superheated stuff into it.

    10. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by rorymoon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Since the first movie I've been wondering why the webs come of out his wrists. What aspect of the mutation brought about this particularly useful super power? If he was really taking on the properties/abilities of a spider, would they not shoot out of his arse? Or somewhere thereabouts ...

    11. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since the first movie I've been wondering why the webs come of out his wrists.

      In a more general sense, why would a spider's bite transfer it's attributes to the bitee? I mean, a spider bites to either kill food, or kill a threat (or at least drive it off). How would passing on 'spider powers' help either of those goals??

      Once you get past that hurdle, you have to deal with the 'web' issue. The Comic book Spiderman had Peter Parker be a genius who created WebShooters he strapped onto his wrist. While this solves the 'Why-the-hell-would-web-shoot-out-his-wrists-and-n ot-his-ass' problem, it is not perfect, either.

      You see, someone actually calculated how much webbing SpiderMan must go thru when he swings around. If I recall correctly, he would use something like 1/7 of his own body mass of webbing to swing 10 or so miles. (Google for it if you care about the details). That's a lot of webbing canisters to be slapping on your wrists.

      Of course, with the movie, that issue remains- where does his body get the material and energy to make the web? Is he scarfing down huge plates of food 8, 9, 10 times a day? Eating buckets of sugar? But the movie scenario (his body makes the webbing) at least helps one problem- the lack of 'Spider-ness' to the comic book's SpiderMan.

      I mean, what do you think of when you think "spider"? Crawling on walls? Nope- any fly, ant or roach can do that.
      Having a 'sixth sense'? Nope- ever try to swat a fly with just your hand? See how it takes off before you can hit it? Almost like it has 'spider sense'. :-)
      How about great strength? Again, no- most insects can lift many times their body weight- it's a function of being so small to begin with. Square/cube law, etc.

      Face it- when you think 'spider', you think spider web. And a spider/man character that doesn't have the ability to shoot webs is NOT a SpiderMan. A BugMan, maybe. But not SpiderMan.

      SO, in short, I forgive them the 'why-his-wrists' issue, because they actually gave SpiderMan the attribute that only Spiders have.

    12. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Radiation was cool/hip in the 50's and 60's when the comics were written, and passe when SP1 came out.


      When SP2 comes out, automatic firewalls will be the the new hotness mutation.

      Seriously though, in the days of Shelley's "Frankenstein", electricity was the "new hotness mutation". The effects are the same, but we change the causes to take advantage of the latest buzzwords. I'm sure when they remake "Spiderman" in 3D Holovid in 2050, the spider will have been altered with tachyons or (insert your favorite Star Trek-like technobable that becomes reality here).

      (p.s. IANAP... tachyons are still considered only theoretical, right?)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    13. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by Mister+Skippy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The best I could say is that in the short lived Spider-Man 2099 comic book, spinnerettes grew as part of the mutation for that particular Spider-Man.

      According to IMDB: James Cameron wrote a treatment for this film, over the years, as the rights to the character jumped between companies, nearly all his ideas were scrapped except for the biological web-shooters.

      Also from IMDB: In the comics, Peter Parker designed and made Spider-Man's synthetic spider web and the mechanical wrist guns that fire it. In the movie he shoots the web from his own body. Director Sam Raimi answered the protests of comic book fans saying that it was more credible to have Peter shoot web this way than for a high school boy to be able to produce a wonder adhesive in his spare time that 3M could not make.

      --
      ----- Oooh, Shiny!
    14. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by gtada · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe this is silly, but isn't it possible that sometimes the mistakes add to the replay value?

      Just a thought... it makes me want to go back and see it again.

    15. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 5, Funny

      (p.s. IANAP... tachyons are still considered only theoretical, right?)

      Certainly not! How else could I be writing to you ... FROM THE YEAR 3004 AD!!!!!

      Oh and btw, don't take the bus on Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012. Seriously. You don't affect history, but your son was captain of the first Earth-Saturn probe.

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    16. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Funny

      (p.s. IANAP... tachyons are still considered only theoretical, right?)

      No, they are a proven fact. In fact, you can buy a tachyon collector here.

      You know, once it hits the mass market, it's a done deal...

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    17. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by doorbot.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There may be radioactive spiders giving people superhuman powers, but water should still boil if you toss superheated stuff into it.

      I always assumed that the mentality for movies was "this is the same word as you... except..."

      And then you filled in the blank, with the one or two "impossible" or "unbelievable" premises required for the movie. Anything that the movie does not attempt to explain, or that I can't understand on my own, I have to assume functions the same way as it does in real life.

    18. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by noewun · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Maybe this is silly, but isn't it possible that sometimes the mistakes add to the replay value?

      I can only answer from my experience: having a friend who's a director, having been on the sets of two, big Hollywood movies and having had a girlfriend who was an editor;

      No. Sometimes small mistakes have to be left in because there isn't enough coverage an a particular shot to find another angle which is usable, but most mistakes are just that: mistakes. A movie like Spiderman is an immense undertaking. At a minimum you're talking several years of effort, over a thousand people employed in various roles, coordinating several units shooting simultaneously and cutting down millions of feet of film into a two hour final project. In an undertaking that large, mistakes are inevitable.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    19. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Funny


      there's also the salient point that Spiders don't go round catching petty criminals and saving girls.

      The ones round my house pretty much stick in one spot eating whatever comes along, not exactly benevolent.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    20. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the old cartoon I remember the webbing wasn't a part of the mutation. He actually had web shooting devices. I know in an episode or two he actually ran out. Didn't see the movies yet though, one of the few doing that whole not supporting the MPAA thing.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    21. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by NeoThermic · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>water should still boil if you toss superheated stuff into it.

      Depends...

      In theory it should, but remember, the specific heat capacity of water is (approximately) 4200 J kg^-1 K^-1 (as in 4200 joules of energy to raise 1kg of water by 1 degree Kelvin)

      So, if there was a sufficient amount of water, then the net effect of a heated material being dropped in there would be low. It does also rely on the specific heat capacity and temperature of our super heated objects. (The one could work out how much energy is in our super heated objects, and then work out what rise in temperature the water will experience)...

      For those who still might be missing something, here is an example:

      1kg of water gets an object with 8400 joules of energy dropped into it. Thus, the temperature of that 1kg of water should only go up 2 degrees Kelvin.

      NeoThermic

      --
      Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
    22. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by Pxtl · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's assuming a lumped capacitance model, which is false. In reality we're dealing with a convection system in a semi-infinite medium. The heat will not be convected away fast enough from a fusion system before it vapourises the liquid.

    23. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by mad_ian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simple, and no, as others repond, it's not ben dumbed down:

      In the comics, Peter Parker isn't a high school student, he's a University level graduate student.

      It's beleiveable that someone that works in a research facility available in a university could build the devices, given time, and some of the insight they'd have learned from being in Parker's condition.

      It's NOT beleiveable to have a high school student do all that.

      ~Mad_Ian

      --
      ~Donald / Just RTFM
    24. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would like to see these people work on a major motion picture and see how they feel afterwards.

      BAH! I'd have them work on a very short documentary or even a simple 30 minute short.

      working on a major motion picture with a obscene amount of money set aside for it does NOT show you the work needed to go into a movle.

      try carrying a 30 pound tripod 3 miles in a rainstorm treying to capture maybe 5-10 minutes of footage of a waterfall that will be destroyed because of a development project a few miles upstream.

      or how about spending a 48 hour weekend as a DP trying to get the last few shots for a indie short you started shooting at 5:00am saturday and it's now 8PM sunday, you are trying to beat the sunlight to a last shooting location that you do NOT have authorization to shoot at and you have not slept yet.... Oh and those 3 volunteers you had helping at 5:00 am saturday are nowhere to be found, so you are the DP, the sound recordist and person riggin all lighting or bounce reflectors as well as setting up the scene so when the director and actors show up about 20 minutes behind you the shot can get in the can and you out of there before being arrested.

      THEN tell me how they feel afterwards.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    25. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, I liked that show as a kid.

      Actually, as a kid I thought it was great stuff too. It wasn't until I managed to watch some episodes later in life that I realized just how painful the show was to watch. The fact that they had a "science" segment at the end of the show only added insult to injury.

      Amazing how childhood memories alter things to make them "good", eh? ;-)

    26. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by Matey-O · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, there was no sound in space on Firefly...and it got canned.

      (Yeah, it's OT, but not VERY OT)

      --
      "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
    27. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by FauxPasIII · · Score: 2, Funny

      > The heat will not be convected away fast enough from a fusion system before it vapourises the liquid ...which is good news if you're a fish.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    28. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by schon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its called "dumbing it down" Sam, fess up.

      Exactly. It's not 'realistic' for Peter to invent web shooters, but it is realistic for one or two guys at Oscorp to invent a battlesuit, personal harrier jet the size of a skateboard, and a super-soldier potion?

      Peter went from genius to normal high-school boy.

      This is the biggest problem that I have with the movies..

      Peter being a genius, and actually inventing the webbing, spider-bugs, etc. are a critical not only to his character, but to the stories themselves.

      Most of Spiderman's foes are either scientists, or people modified by scientists for evil purposes.

      It's important for Peter Parker to be a scientist, because it balances the perception of science. In the comics, science is a neutral force that can be harnessed for good or evil.

      The movies change that, so that science is a tool that is only used for evil purposes - and it's up to the 'pure' non-scientist to defeat it.

      I think Raimi tried to address this in the first movie (Peter is 'good' at science, and is offered a job at Oscorp), but this failed miserably, as you still never know if he was offered the job just because he was the best friend of the president's son, and "you like science, here's a science job" just isn't the same as actually inventing and creating the tools.

      Raimi's excuse is just that, an excuse. And it's a pretty poor one at that.

    29. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by gregger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, however when you have lots and LOTS of money, you hire a team of people before and after the shoot that do "consistency" editing and checking.

      Good movies that seem to have everything covered have a team of people dedicated to ensuring that between shots costumes, hair, make-up, injuries, sets etc. are all continuous for the audience.

      SoapBox Mode On:
      This is one of the drawbacks of shooting things out of order. Another drawback is that because so much emphasis is placed on the "shot" that the "acting" goes out the window. Directors spend very little time (I am speaking on average here) with the "talent" and leave most actors to their own devices. Without clear direction, only the strongest actors can pull off a great performance, and to me, that makes or breaks a film. Even a crappy story can be made better with great acting. Writing is also out the window these days, but I digress...

      Consistency errors are inexcusible. This is why I watch plays more than movies. Movies, like software in many ways, are rushed to market to capitalize on money and sacrifice quality. This is my opinion.

      That said, I've seen a lot of crap plays as well. However, I would rather see a questionable play where actors are with me, in the room, baring their hearts to the audience, than a movie with all the budget in the world and little concern for the actors on screen or the audience in the seats.

      If you watch most press tours about a movie, most of the statements are plattitudes about the cast and a focus on how they "pulled it off" just in time. This sort of thing is OK for indie films and small-house theatre, but big-budget productions have no excuse for this.

      Critics let them get away with it. Maybe not the internet based critics, but people published in magazines and newspapers give you plot summary, some acting notes, and little else. It's like a book report for 3rd grade. This is true in theatre too. My suggestion to anyone going to theatre is to learn about the production, if the story interests you, go! The critic most likely saw it on opening night and the show has evolved since then.

      With movies you get what you pay for - check your brain at the door and go.

      With theatre, bring your brain, turn off your cell phone, and unwrap your hard candy before curtain. Be prepared to be transformed.

      With both, you don't always get what you pay for... big ticket prices for theatre do no automatically mean you should give them a Standing Ovation. Movies are generally the same price, but if you compare production budgets, I think the same holds true.

      Sure, I'm biased... I've acted for many years, am married to an up-and-coming actor/actress (depending on the role), and many friends are actors on both stage and screen. I value the contribution of a well-made movie, but seldom see one. I think that plays build a community because each audience is together for one moment in history that can't be repeated. The drama is both on stage and in the story, and that story is shared with an audience every night.

      Support your local theatre and put the humanity back in humans.

      SoapBox Mode Off
      TTFN

    30. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by Gallowglass · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Harlan Ellison said it well (and I'm depending on my memory here. Be kind.) when he wrote:
      There are rules to science fiction. And the basic one is internal consistency. You can invent a way to negate gravity, you can have ESP, you can have whatever you like, as long as it is internally consistent.
      The problem is, if you break that internal consistency, you make it more difficult to engage in the pleasurable exercise of suspending disbelief. I think people are complaining of that more than that something is improbable/impossible. (Except for those anal-rententives, of course.)
    31. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by japhmi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ever try to swat a fly with just your hand? See how it takes off before you can hit it?

      Because the wind of your hand coming down creats lift in the fly's wings. It couldn't be hit if it wanted to (suicidal flies...)

      That's why fly-swatters have the grid-pattern, so they don't make as much wind.

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    32. Re:IT"S A MOVIE, FOR CHRIST"S SAKE! by gregger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, there are errors in plays - the text and the staging - all the time. That's why actors and directors have "text work" where they examine the script in detail and find problems. That's why dramaturgs exist. It's ultimately up to a director to fix them. Actors can't possibly cover everything up, but they are a part of the solution.

      What I'm saying is that if you have $20 to $150 million dollars, you might be able to pay a couple people to watch for consistency. Sort of like QA for software. Or is that a bad analogy!

      However, it is an interesting dichotomy that you construct when you accuse a community that tries to support an activity as elitist.

      The problem today is that people are becoming more disconnected. They guy you cut off on the freeway because you're late to Starbucks, the guy with the lame bumper stickers that make you angry are all easier to pick on when you don't have to interact with them. Movies, the Internet, and technology like iPods all help us disconnect from one another and make perpetuating self-centered behavior easy and regret-free.

      I think that our worship of commerce has caused theatre to become "elite" by driving up the price. This is sad. I see better theatre for $10 to $25 than most any movie I can think of (indie or not). I also find that expensive theatre doesn't equal quality.

      As for acting and writing... well, we've rewarded bad writing with patronizing reality TV. Great acting is possible, but it has to have direction. Like you said, 95% of movies and other media are crap. The problem is that a lot more crap gets to the box office and a large number of remarkable theatre and books goes unnoticed by the public.

      It all comes to attention for detail. Film is in love with the technology... special effects, cameras, lighting, sound effects etc. They don't tell the story.

      My point is that they can afford to, and they piss away the opportunity and produce more crap because we're all so cowed into accepting substandard production.

      Thanks for the debate though!
      TTFN

  3. Rushed through post-production? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Getting a feature film to be internally consistant with itself is not as easy as it seems, and it only gets harder the more shoots and scenes there are.

    But there's always a chance to catch these things in editing... in fact, that scar mistake was most likely introduced when somebody took a mirror image of a shot for some reason or another, and forgot that it'd end up reversing the side of the face the scar appears. Sure, that could be fixed in editing, but if they forgot to do it... well, it ends up on that site.

    Seems like the bigger the film, the more of these glitches surface as they rush to the box office.

    1. Re:Rushed through post-production? by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Seems like the bigger the film, the more of these glitches surface as they rush to the box office.

      Nah, the bigger the film, the more nitpicky people get. If a movie sucks, then noone's going to point out that the dead guy's Michigan license plate is post-1998, when the movie was supposedly set in 1997.

      --
      Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    2. Re:Rushed through post-production? by Shky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another point could be that they really aren't terribly concerned. Most people won't notice these mistakes the first time through, some not even ever, so it really isn't worth the time or effort (equally $) to fix them.

      As well, who is going to avoid watching a movie just because they know a scar switches sides in one scene? Probably no one, so if it isn't going to affect ticket sales, why bother changing it?

      --
      CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
    3. Re:Rushed through post-production? by PrvtBurrito · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So true, there is a scene in Gladiator (from the DVD) toward the beginning where the Romans clash with the barbarians (?) and you can clearly see extras laughing and walking back to their lines after they collide. Obvious enough to easily see while watching on an airplane...

      --
      Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
    4. Re:Rushed through post-production? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Informative

      The bigger the film, the more it costs to fix nitpicky mistakes. Maybe the artistic people notice it and want it fixed, but the bean counters won't let them.

      James Cameron delayed the release of Titanic from summer to Christmas in order to fix nitpicky things. IIRC, there was a CG shot of the boat sinking where the prop was turning even though the engine room was underwater. In order to get the release delayed, Cameron gave up his entire director's fee. Luckily, he still got a percentage of the box office and ended up just fine.

      -B

    5. Re:Rushed through post-production? by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An important concept that comes into play from the bean counters is "time value of money"... that is, the investors in the film want their millions back ASAP because even if the film gives them more money back, that has to be compared to how much their capital would have made had it been invested in something else or just sitting in a bank.

      In short, giving up that director's fee had to equate to the interest the investor's money would have made over the six-month delay, or the bean counters woulda vetoed it.

    6. Re:Rushed through post-production? by Soulslayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, that sort of left to right switch is usually an intentional error created when the editor and/or director decides that the framing works better in a particular shot if the image is reversed. Sometimes the "errors" are corrected digitally, but most often they are left in as the cost of re-touching the footage outweighs what is arguably a minor detail that most people will miss.

      What I find annoying is the number of nitpicky "film flubs" that get posted on sites like the one linked to in the news post that have more to do with the lack of imagination/suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer than anything else. There are generally a few interesting real errors listed in such places, but they get lost amongst all the chaffe.

      --


      Once more unto the breach dear friends...
    7. Re:Rushed through post-production? by lawpoop · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's interesting. I heard an interview on NPR with an astronomer who criticizes night skies in movies. He said that for all the detail that Cameron claims to have gone through (some of which is difficult to verify, such as what plates they were using, the wallpaper in the hallways), there was one large verifiable mistake. The night sky that Winslet looks up into after the ship sank is totally fabricated, with no constellations -- in fact, it's a symmetrical image of stars! (as I remember the interviewee claiming -- never saw it myself.) By contrast, the most realistic night sky was from Lawrence of Arabia, with no recognizable constellations, but still very realistic.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    8. Re:Rushed through post-production? by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > In order to get the release delayed, Cameron gave up his entire director's fee.
      > Luckily, he still got a percentage of the box office and ended up just fine.

      Shame they didn't notice the smoke coming out of all 4 funnels. When I first saw it I though there was a fire in the engine room.

  4. not a surprised by Nyder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I noticed a lot of things in the movie, like how he kept running into stuff at school, before they were going with him back to being a nerd. I just thought that maybe it was 'cause his powers weren't working, but I don't know...

    plus were is the great spider-man chatter during fights? He's a smart-ass yet he's was quiet.

    Like in the train, when the people were helping him. I thought I was watching power rangers for a sec, because he didn't say anything, just kept nodding, and looking at people.

    but it was a great movie, regardless...

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:not a surprised by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 2, Informative

      plus were is the great spider-man chatter during fights? He's a smart-ass yet he's was quiet.

      "Here's your change!"

  5. Randall. by EvilJohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What was it he said?

    "There's nothing more exhilarating than pointing out the shortcomings of others."

    --

    Less Talk, More Beer.
  6. 3.141 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I beg to differ, I did indeed become ultra powerful after being bitten by a spider...

    Or perhaps that was after I licked that toad...

    Either way, definately ultra powerful.

    1. Re:3.141 by fiftyfly · · Score: 4, Funny
      Or perhaps that was after I licked that toad...

      Dude - you do toad? That's like soooooooo gross!. If You Lick A Toad... You're Licking Every Toad That Toad Has Ever Been With

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
    2. Re:3.141 by shumway · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's a lot of toads.

      --
  7. I wouldn't say they're being hard-nosed by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Alot of the errors they mentioned are typical for Friday the 13th films, where blood and guts reign and only the hardcore fans devote time to find the bloopers. One would expect better from a major action film.

  8. My only gripe by Grave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My only real technical complaint was the tritium stuff. The quantity shown being used was impossible to obtain. No one, including the US or former Soviet government, has ever had that much tritium in one place like that. A few hundred milligrams is probably the most anyone has ever had. Let alone a sphere that probably had a mass of around 1-2kg. And for damn sure, if anyone did have it, the price would be so high as to be somewhere around the collective budget of the US government.

    But then, what good is a microscopic amount of tritium going to be as a plot device?

    1. Re:My only gripe by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In real life, tritium's a gas. It's not a metal at anything anywhere close to room temperature and one atmosphere.

      Which brings me to my point. Would you be more satisfied if the substance had just been referred to as bolognium, or less satisfied? In other words, are you giving them points for putting the ideas "tritium" and "fusion" in proximity to one another, or taking off points for getting the amount of tritium wrong?

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:My only gripe by istewart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I get the impression that both Spider-Man movies take place in the near (but not immediate) future. For instance, in the first one, they're celebrating a "World Unity Day" (some kind of PC World's Fair) and the military is testing advanced exosuits. (Not to mention that weird neutron grenade that the Goblin uses to disintegrate the Oscorp board.) In the second one, Jameson's son is an astronaut who has already been to the moon. Little background details like that make it easier to assume, for the purposes of the story, that somebody (maybe even Octavius) has perfected a more efficient means of harvesting tritium.

    3. Re:My only gripe by stienman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually the technicality here is that they never mentioned how pure the tritium was.

      In this case they only needed 0.001% pure tritium, so the size of the ball was entirely plausable.

      -Adam

    4. Re:My only gripe by rjh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tritium is bought and sold on the open market like any other commodity. One major use is for night sights for weapons. Tritium runs for around $1000 per gram, if memory serves--at that rate, it's nowhere near impossible to accumulate a few kilos of it for a wealthy entrepreneur.

      I'm far more irritated at the form the tritium took. Tritium isn't a solid (at least, not under any terrestrial environment). Tritium is a gas.

    5. Re:My only gripe by C10H14N2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the US requires a constant inventory of about 30 kilos of the stuff, which must be completely recycled roughly every decade, to maintain the nuclear arsenal. Over forty years, the cost is between $1B-6B depending on how it is produced. So say 120kilos for $3B, or about $25M per kilo, which is still pretty freaking expensive, but nothing that couldn't be attributed to a rounding error in the $2 Trillion federal budget.

      http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=831&sequenc e= 0

    6. Re:My only gripe by geomon · · Score: 5, Informative

      No one, including the US or former Soviet government, has ever had that much tritium in one place like that.

      Bullshit.

      The Hanford Reservation has several square MILES contaiminated with tritium.

      It was in the last process stream before discharging it to the ground - over the course of 40 years.

      Here's a list of figures showing the groundwater contamination at the Hanford Site. Keep in mind that the area in the boundary is 540 SQUARE MILES. Check out map S-7.

      That contamination doesn't include what is trapped in the vadose, the waste streams that have been treated in treatment facilities, and the tritium produced at Savannah River, Pocatello, and New York.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    7. Re:My only gripe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you can get "insightful" for that copy-paste job, then surely I can nab a "funny" for saying "LINEBREAKS!".

    8. Re:My only gripe by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative
      The quantity shown being used was impossible to obtain. No one, including the US or former Soviet government, has ever had that much tritium in one place like that. A few hundred milligrams is probably the most anyone has ever had. Let alone a sphere that probably had a mass of around 1-2kg. And for damn sure, if anyone did have it, the price would be so high as to be somewhere around the collective budget of the US government.

      Let's see...

      If we assume that the tritium was present as tritium oxide (heavy heavy water)--which is not an unreasonable way to store the stuff, really--then a 2 kg mass of the stuff would contain about 500 g of pure tritium; that's about (I'm going to work in round figures here) 100 moles of tritium.

      Tritium has a specific activity of 28.8 curies per millimole; so we're looking at a total activity of 28800 Ci per mole by 100 moles: about 3 million curies total activity.

      Market price for bulk tritium seems to be about $2 per curie, so that sphere contains about six million dollars' worth of tritium. Expensive (call it about two thousand times the price of gold, by weight) but not untenable.

      On the other hand, the peaceful commercial use of tritium runs to a half kilogram or so per year. The rest of the usage is in weapons programs, and accounts for a few kilograms.

      Canada is the world's major commercial supplier, as tritium is generated as a waste product in its heavy-water moderated and cooled nuclear reactors. More than three kilograms are produced each year, and much of that is presumably stockpiled since Canadian law forbids the export of Canadian tritium for use in weapons programs.

      To conclude...two kilograms of fully tritiated water would be expensive, dangerously radioactive, and hard to acquire--but it's not outside the realm of the possible. Actually, you can reduce the tritium requirement a bit by assuming that some of the weight of that sphere is shielding. I also haven't done the calculations for heating due to radioactive decay; you might need to use something that boils at a higher temperature than water, or dilute the stuff a bit. Still, I'd say an upper limit of 500 grams of tritium is a reasonable guess.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    9. Re:My only gripe by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that most people don't know what tritium is doesn't make them "dumb shits." And the fact that you and I do doesn't make us smart.

      And you need to relax a little, and remember that it's not a personal affront to you.

      --

      I write in my journal
    10. Re:My only gripe by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In real life, tritium's a gas. It's not a metal at anything anywhere close to room temperature and one atmosphere.

      Gee, I must have missed the pressure gauge on the side of the container.

      Personally, I like the idea of trying to stabilize a fusion reaction by just poking it back every time it starts to go unstable...

      Just to be fair, the physics of Doc Oc's arms seems to have been fairly well thought out. Whenever he's lifting something heavy with two arms, he's always got the other two providing him a reasonable base. This is fairly unusual--I often see "strong" characters in movies lifting things in a physically impossible manner. They also, in this movie and the previous one, manage to make Spidey's swinging look quite plausible, which is quite an accomplishment (although making that much web is another matter, as has been pointed out before)

    11. Re:My only gripe by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Funny


      But then, what good is a microscopic amount of tritium going to be as a plot device?


      About the same amount of good as having your main character get a small welt and mild itching after being bitten by a genetically-engineered spider. ;-)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    12. Re:My only gripe by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Spidey's swinging isn't plausable, actually. The scenes where he turns corners are done well, and the scenes where he dangles from sticking-out-things are good, but the basic mode of transport doesn't make any sense. The way he's depicted as going down the straight streets, swinging from lines connected to the buildings on the sides, he should be smacking into the side walls at the bottoms of his swings. There is a way to make it with with alternating arcs weaving back and forth, but the way he's depicted as moving, he's not curving side-to-side enough to be doing that. I think this is why the camera often doesn't show what he's attaching his webs to when he goes straight down the street. If it showed what he was attaching to, it would make it obvious that the swing was happening on the wrong arc and it would look fake in that cgi-graphics-with-bad-physics kind of way that the Hulk movie looked fake.

      This is something I first noticed as a child watching the old cartoon show, and it's still a problem now. But now I'm more able to accept that it doesn't matter because everything else about the show is so implausable too, just forget about it and go with the flow. As a small child it bothered me more than it does now.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    13. Re:My only gripe by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
      Personally, I like the idea of trying to stabilize a fusion reaction by just poking it back every time it starts to go unstable...

      I think a fusion reaction is going to be rather too fast for that, but that's how the original fission reactors worked, pushing rods into the pile to absorb excess neutrons. And in the Manhattan Project, they did some hair-raising (or losing) experiments with two masses of plutonium, slowly pushing them towards each other just to see if the chain reaction proceeded as predicted. "Tickling the dragon's tail", it was called. One scientist, Louis Slotin, got a lethal dose of radiation when the hemispheres accidentally touched.

    14. Re:My only gripe by tedrlord · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heh, I always noticed that too. The other thing that confused me is how he would be able to swing to the top of a building like he often does. The web is pretty much always attached to something higher but not actually visible. My hypothesis is that he is actually swinging from carefully placed blimps that are conveniently located around the city.

      Anyway, you gotta give it to the guy, it's way cooler than flying.

      --
      [insert witty quote here]
    15. Re:My only gripe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      He sticks his web to the inside top of your tv set.

  9. My Favorite Mistake by Guitar+Wizard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "During the train scene, Spider-man's mask had gone partially black. We also see it when Spidey puts his mask back on. Yet when Doc brings him to Harry, we don't even see a patch of darkness on his mask." Isn't this obviously because Spider Man is well organized and prioritizes his laundry very highly on his daily to-do list? I mean, I can picture him in need of money and getting a Tide endorsement or something -- he'll sew a little logo on the side of his mask.

    --
    Two freaks, no foes. It takes absolutely nothing to make some people angry.
    1. Re:My Favorite Mistake by D+iz+a+n+k+Meister · · Score: 5, Funny

      Deliberate "mistake": When Mary Jane is being pulled toward the tritium when Doc Ock has her, the shot is taken from her feet up to her head. If you look where her dress ends, you can just barely see that instead of having the regular open dress, it is switched with shorts of the same type so you can't see under her dress. Submitted by Guy Strad

      I hate it when I can't see up an open dress. . .especially if it's Kirsten's dress.

      --

      He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
    2. Re:My Favorite Mistake by stuffman64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Was it just me, or was there a continuity error involving MJ's nipples? In the scene near the end where spidey holds up the wall to prevent it from falling on her, I thought I saw MJ nippin' pretty bad just before the wall fell. Then, as spidey is standing over her holding the wall, her nipples are no longer showing through.

      Of course, I may have just have been wishing her hardcore nippage from earlier in the movie was still there. Anyone else notice this?

      --
      --- At my sig, unleash hell.
    3. Re:My Favorite Mistake by Dwarfgoat · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know about you, but having a big-ass section of wall falling towards me would make my nipples go soft pretty fast! Probably also cause some retreating further south.

      Glad to see other folks noticed the nippin' going on there. The slight under-my-breath invuluntary "ooh" that escaped was enough to earn me a punch in the arm and a dirty look from my girlfriend.

      --
      That? That was a pigeon.
  10. Pretty Thin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some of these are pretty thin:

    "Plot hole: Harry tells Doc Ock that in order to find Spider-Man he must find Peter first. Doc Ock finds Peter with Mary Jane in the cafe and throws a car through the window straight at them. Any normal man would've been killed instantly, and Doc Ock doesn't know that Peter is Spider-Man. Given that Peter is his only lead on Spider-Man, it makes no sense that Doc Ock would effectively try to kill him."

    I can just see some pimply faced teenager sitting in his mom's basement thinking.... "It'd only make sense that he'd act this way. if i were Doc ock, thats what I'd do. Then re-enacting the whole thing with his spiderman action figures to prove himself right." Give it a rest. It's a fictional movie about fictional characters that's incredibly entertaining. Make your lists about the gaffer screwing up, but when it comes to how a character that's got some metalic arms fused to his back would respond after throwing a car through a window at a cafe ... leave it to the screenwriters.

    1. Re:Pretty Thin... by Babbster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That one made me laugh, too, though not because it was nitpicky but because it was based on the premise that Otto was in his right mind. It was made very clear that the interface with the arms screwed with his head. Flavin!

  11. More mistakes and trivia by rfernand79 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh yes, and the soundtrack also has mistakes. Two canons are horrendously overlapped, the motif is altered by two notes in several reprisals and if you listen to it backwards it says "Jay and Silent Bob are better than Spidey".

  12. Hurting people, with science by sam_handelman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Factual Error: When real scientists cybernetically attach themselves to an artificial intelligence, we use two, seperate, completely redundant systems to prevent ourselves from being turned evil.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    1. Re:Hurting people, with science by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And point two: These systems will be at least as armoured as the AI's are, as well as being set up so that a burn-out will result in a non-functional system, rather than a short bypassing the system.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  13. One more mistake by yoshi1013 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Also, Tobey Maguire isn't Spider-Man in real life, he's just an actor.

  14. well apparently its been slashdotted by falcon5768 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cause hes telling people to stop looking at the site.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  15. Lone Taxidriver by CptChipJew · · Score: 5, Funny

    At the end of the "I've changed" conversation with Mary Jane, the taxi is right next to her (you can see its roof next to her face), yet in the next shot, she has to cross the street to get to it.

    Because as we all know, there is only one working taxi in New York City.

    --
    Vonal Declosion
  16. Lots of No-Prizes will be awarded... by tomRakewell · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't you guys get it? You're not supposed to just point out the mistakes, you're supposed to *explain how they are not really mistakes at all.* Then, you write into the letter page of your favorite Marvel comic book and claim your No Prize!

  17. Spider-Man 2 Has Over 30 Mistakes by telstar · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Spider-Man 2 Has Over 30 Mistakes"
    • ...somebody's got to give Slashdot some competition.

  18. The biggest problem with spiderman by earthforce_1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Spiders don't spin web from their wrists.

    But I suppose a bit of realism here would give the movie (and comic book) an "X" rating. Would have been funny to see him net bad guys that way though...

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  19. The physics of those arms by Mia'cova · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only thing that really caught my eye was how the character with the mechanical arms moved. He walked as if they weren't there, turning around easily with them spread wide. They didn't seem light enough to just spin like that.

    It was just a conflicting feel to them that threw me. On one hand they seem like big strong arms slamming through stone without any sign of slowing down. On the other hand they're being carried around without a care in the odd scene.

    But while it did stand out, I was very happy with how they handled the arms overall. I think they went to noticable efforts to obey the laws of physics as much as possible without sacrificing other aspects of the film. Often one arm braces while another pushes out, for example.

    I also liked the arcing on some of their heavy high-powered wiring when it was being pulled out. I don't think it'd look like that, arcing outwards but they're still trying to visualise real-world effects.

    So they get my full support for putting in much more thought and detail into their physics than I expected going in. I'm willing to look past any physics-related errors at this point.

    1. Re:The physics of those arms by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the arms have NO power source, not even a fictional one. Kinda disappointing there...

      --
      -insert a witty something-
  20. I haven't seen the movie ... but by BelugaParty · · Score: 4, Funny

    Peter Parkers physiology is more man than spider. Therefore, he should be called: Man-Spider.

    1. Re:I haven't seen the movie ... but by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2, Informative

      In English, the ajective typically preceeds the noun. Thus, Clinton was an American President, not a President American, even though he was president for only 8 years and an American his whole life.

      I have a red car, even though only the paint is red and the entire thing is a car.

      Parker is a man. Spider is a modifier like 'typical', 'super', or 'bat.'

      Perhaps in South America they would be interested in your suggestion.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  21. Re:IT'S A MOVIE. MOVIE = FICTION. FICTION = FAKE. by dmh20002 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That was Star Wars episode 4, Han Solo claimed he did the Kessel run in less than 10 parsecs.

  22. What no superpowers!!!! by jterry94 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn, I just got bit by a spider as I was out walking last night. I can't believe that I wasted the last 24 hours building a webshooter for nothing.

  23. Re:Thank God Raimi makes all these mistakes! by general_re · · Score: 4, Funny
    Would you want Stanley Kubrick to make a Spider Man movie?

    Well, now that you mention it, it would be kind of interesting to see Spidey trade in his suit for a bowler hat and codpiece, and belt out "Singin' in the Rain" while stomping on some bad guy. The cinematography would be beautiful, a la "2001" or "Barry Lyndon", which is good, 'cause you'd get about five minutes between each line of dialog to study it...

    --
    ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  24. Already being hit hard - copy of the site by DiveX · · Score: 4, Informative

    Plot hole: Harry tells Doc Ock that in order to find Spider-Man he must find Peter first. Doc Ock finds Peter with Mary Jane in the cafe and throws a car through the window straight at them. Any normal man would've been killed instantly, and Doc Ock doesn't know that Peter is Spider-Man. Given that Peter is his only lead on Spider-Man, it makes no sense that Doc Ock would effectively try to kill him.

    Continuity: When Peter arrives at his aunt's home at the beginning of the movie, it's night. He talks to Harry in the kitchen a few minutes later, and look at the purple balloon by Peter's head, it reflects a window with lots of light coming through it.

    Continuity: During the final conversation between Spider-Man and Doc Ock, the rips in Spider-Man's suit keep changing. For instance, there is a tear on his right shoulder; for most of the scene, there is a single piece of black webbing left holding the rip together, but when Doc Ock grabs Spider-Man's arm, the rip now has two pieces of black webbing. Then it goes back to one.

    Continuity: When Peter and Mary Jane are together in his apartment at the end of the film, the collar of Peter's t-shirt keeps changing positions underneath his sweater. Sometimes it is fully visible all the way around, sometimes it's higher on the left or right side, and during the closer shots it isn't visible at all.

    Factual error: In the scene where Peter is saving the children from the burning building, there is no smoke from the fire. Black smoke would be bellowing out the windows. He wouldn't be able to just stand up and walk through the building.

    Visible crew/equipment: On the way to the theater Peter Parker intercepts policeman chasing a couple of bad guys. At the end of that scene one of the police cars has a tremendous wreck that swings the car sideways. There is a clear shot of the driver with a black helmet on.

    Continuity: During the train scene, Spider-man's mask had gone partially black. We also see it when Spidey puts his mask back on. Yet when Doc brings him to Harry, we don't even see a patch of darkness on his mask.

    Continuity: Doc Ock pulls the giant sun ball and its support down onto himself, so he should be under it as they descend, yet in the final shot of him sinking into the ocean, the ball is below him and he is falling after it.

    Audio problem: It's clear that due to the tentacles' heaviness, they have to made some kind of sound when moving. But yet when Doc Ock takes the tritium from Harry in his house, he leaves without making any sound at all.

    Factual error: Nobody would dare to cut a metal piece with a saw without eye protection, much less in a surgical room, like the surgeon that wanted to remove Doc Ock's tentacles.

    Revealing: In the scene where Doc Ock comes out of the hospital and throws a car onto another one, you can tell the man in there is just a dummy. He has no reaction what so ever. He just sits there as if nothing happened.

    Revealing: In the scene at the end where Spider-Man and Mary Jane are in the big web, there is a close-up which shows the webbing behind them. We can blatantly see that it's wire wrapped in plastic of some kind to make it look like web.

    Factual error: Dr. Octavius says his fusion relies on tritium and that there is only 25 pounds of the substance in the world. In reality, tritium is merely an isotope of hydrogen and is a good deal more common than that. For example, there is a large region of the North Pacific that contains tritium-rich salt water. Submitted by Phoenix

    Continuity: Peter has a small horseshoe-shaped scar on his right cheek. In Dr. Octopus's lab, as Octopus is destroying the fusion reactor, they share a meaningful look and the scar has switched cheeks.

    Factual error: Considering the brightness of the fusion process, Dr. Octavius has to wear special goggles to be able to see it. Yet no one else in the room is wearing such goggles or seem hurt by watching the whole process, just as at the en

    --
    Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
    1. Re:Already being hit hard - copy of the site by Peyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like mostly nitpicking to me; unless it really disrupts the flow of the movie or is so obvious that is distracting, it is irrelevant.

      --
      What?
  25. Mirror image isn't always a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fact: Movie stills contain timestamp information. If you "accidentally" created a mirror image by reversing the film, the timestamp would be backwards and the timestamp reader would complain. Somebody would notice. Therefore, mirror image shots are not accidental.

    Most of the time a director selects a mirror image shot because he was unable to get the real shot he wanted (it happens in nearly every movie, but it's most noticeable when a main character has a lopsided image). In some cases, the director chooses the mirror image shot to cover up an actual mistake (e.g. the main character went left and he was supposed to go right). Sometimes it's more important to the director for a film to maintain spacial consistency than to keep scars/tatoos/whatever on the right side of the screen. However, you won't always know whether it was a coverup or if the shot was reversed on purpose. In either case, you can be assured that director knows and obviously doesn't care which side the scar is on.

  26. Three things that got me... by TheAntiCrust · · Score: 2, Informative

    OK, a lot of stuff bugged me in Spiderman2, but a few things stand in in my mind, none of which were adressed in this list.

    1. How are you going to tell me a fusion reaction, what was supposedly a small sun, was drowned by water???

    2. OK, so the fusion thing didn't work out, you're telling me that the technology going into those robotic arms that could instantly send wires capable of interacting with the human brain and be powered by no easily identifiable power source werent worth anything? As well as the biggest break-through in fusion energy ever? Yeah right.

    3. OK, this one is a bit more nit picky... helicopters do not just go flying in between the buildings of New York like that, especially not so close to one another.

    The movie was good as a whole, but a lot of the plot just didnt make sense. It doesnt seem like it would take that much thinking power to get rid of those few anomolies. Oh, and the one woman reporter asks about the super intellegent AI and Doc Ock had never even mentioned anything about the arms being intellegent!!! Why did the arms have to be intellegent at all??? Gah! Oh, and Doc Ock didn't tell whats his face how much of that gold junk he needed. He just said he wanted some. There were soooooo many technical errors in that movie and I wasnt even looking for them!

    1. Re:Three things that got me... by jCaT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One thing is bugging me about your comment....

      Did you ever read the comic books? Really. You're wondering how robotic arms could attach to someone's spine, but you're OK with the fact that there's a guy that can shoot webs out of his wrists?

      I think some people actually go out of their way to NOT enjoy a movie at times. Just sit back, relax, and ignore the stupid shit. It's a fantasy movie, for chrissakes.

    2. Re:Three things that got me... by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not so worried about the fusion reaction being drowned, as I am about some other things.
      1. It looks like a toned down sun. That close it should be blinding unless blocked by some sort of filter
      2. It's not stopped by all the iron that gets sucked in. From what I remember, Iron is the heaviest element you can make by fusion and still get energy. So it's a kind of lowest energy thing, you can't make energy fusing or fissioning it.
      3. No steam when drowned by water. The first one was generating "megawatts". The second was even larger. Where's the steam?
      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  27. I prefer the IMDB's trivia by jfengel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Continuity errors bore me, and I try to ignore the plot holes, but The IMDB's trivia page is often fascinating.

  28. Pointless comment and so, I bring you... by Justin205 · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    "Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
  29. The car wasn't going to hit Peter by Ghoser777 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you pay attention to the angle of the car, it wasn't aimed at him - it was going to fly over his head. The car was going to hit Mary Jane, which makes Peter lunge at her to save her and causing Peter to be put into harms way.

    Yes, I just saw the movie one hour ago, and I enjoyed it regardless of the mistakes.

    Matt Fahrenbacher

    --
    James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
    1. Re:The car wasn't going to hit Peter by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Still, if I was a super-villian looking at questioning a normal for information, throwing a car in their general direction wouldn't be the first thing I'd do.

      Also-Doc Oc throws Peter into a brick wall hard enough to shatter it. This is after threatening Peter with a 'You'll find Spider-man and have him meet me'. Unless in the Spider-man universe humans are tougher or brick is weaker, this is a bad idea for the Doc to do. Putting your gopher into the hospital or morgue wouldn't generally help their passing a message to somebody. Now I'll admit Doc wasn't firing on all cylinders at the time, but still....

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:The car wasn't going to hit Peter by JClark-IdleME · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, it's pretty obvious, at least I think so, that Doc Ock didn't throw that car.

      When Peter and MJ get up and look back out the window, he's not even in sight yet, he's still coming up a side street. Given that there was a building between him and the diner, it's unlikely that he threw that car. Also, the angle was fairly shallow, so it wasn't thrown over a building, and it came straight through the window, so it came from right out front, not from either side. Unless Doc Ock threw the car, then retreated up that side street and approached again, he didn't throw it.

      I figure it was probably someone trying to get away from the approaching menace, or was a side effect of something else Ock did and not a direct action.

  30. i didn't like the demonization of fusion by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i liked the movie, but i did not like the demonization of fusion in spider man ii

    in a world of smog and wars fought over oil prices (pro-iraq war people: read why iraq invaded kuwait, anti-iraq war people: read why us invaded iraq) we do not need an ultra-pop movie demonizing one of the few technologies which could save us from the petroleum age

    in spider man ii, fusion can go "chernobyl", this is a fallacy

    if something goes wrong with a fusion reaction, it just fizzles out, it can NEVER start a chain reaction

    in spiderman ii, fusion is the megalomaniacal goal of the evil mastermind, and his obsession threatens to blow up half of manhattan... but much like that old '90s film "chain reaction", with keanu reeves, you can't blow up half of wisconsin or manhattan with a fusion reaction, noways, nohow, never

    so we don't need hollywood spreading flat out wrong and fearmongering ideas about a promising technology

    there is no runaway chain reaction component to fusion, please get it right hollywood... or do you like the global warming, choking on diesel exhaust, war-for-oil world we live in?

    ps: fusion reactions are not super-magnets either: in the movie, anything metal got sucked towards them

    pps: it WAS funny and harmless how the fusion reaction is portrayed as a miniature sun in the movie, complete with coronal mass ejections threatening doc ock's control of the reaction...
    perhaps that is vaguely educational too, fusion's connection with the sun shown as a visual parable, to portray it that way

    but hollywood, PLEASE: fusion is not fission, do not let forth the hounds of ignorance and fearmongering onto a promising technology, please!

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i didn't like the demonization of fusion by Tojosan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lot of good comments in your post!

      I'd have to disagree though with the conclusion that the audience is now going to think anything new about fusion than they thought before. I saw the movie in a packed house and with several family members. Just a guess, not one of the folks sitting near me, mostly teens, my family included, had a clue what fusion is and/or how it differs from fission. And after the movie, I'm going to wager, from conversations I heard and had, that not a whole lot of them took any good/bad knowledge of fusion away with them.

      I honestly believe most peeps were too caught up in the movie to worry about it. This isn't to say you aren't correct in saying the movie took a lot of liberties and that could have an effect, but that is probably minimal.

      Mostly us geek boys who know something about the sciences are the only ones who cared and as everyone can see, we are certainly speeking our minds about it. :)

      Besides, it is comic book science! I'm willing myself to ignore some science fallicies in a superhero movie, because I've ignored them for years in the comic books themselves.

      And just what fun would it be if the fusion reaction was taking place in a full blown fusion reactor in a facility miles from nowwhere, with only those closely involved withit even getting within 10 miles. How would Doc Ock have been able to get to the hospital so quick! :)

      Anyway, as I said, good points you have one and all, just in my view, the whole fusion thing along with other science anomolies are worth ignoring for the fun of the ride.

      Be well,
      Tojosan

    2. Re:i didn't like the demonization of fusion by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 3, Insightful
      if something goes wrong with a fusion reaction, it just fizzles out, it can NEVER start a chain reaction

      More than 2,000 observed supernovae disagree with you.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    3. Re:i didn't like the demonization of fusion by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have to admit it was nice eye candy, but its quite possible for a fusion reaction to destroy an entire city. Ever seen a test detenation of an Hydrogen Bomb (Fusion) compared to a standard Atomic Bomb (fission) bomb? Its true the Hydrogen (or thermonuclear) bomb uses the explosion of a standard atomic bomb to start the fusion process, but the result is an uncontained fusion reaction and the release of the resulting energy is pretty devistating. At least until the fuel is expended. And there isn't a lot of fuel inside one of those things...a few kilos at best and that's the resulting energy release. Example II: Stars, in particular those that go bang or supernova. The elments get too heavy after most of the lighter fuel burns up and boom...you either have one less solar system in the galactic neighborhood or a new blackhole, or both. When fusion gets out of control or is uncontrolled, it ads a whole other catagory to the word boom. The whole idea of a commerical fusion reactor has not the problem of creating a fusion reaction (we can do that, look at previous example of nuclear weapons) but sustaining the reaction to the point where it produces rather than consumes energy (I've read before researchers are getting close to the 1 to 1 threashold and probably will by 2015), and lastly controlling the reaction where can be useful for heating water and turning turbines to produce electricity. We don't get power from the current fission methods directly, we do so by passing water through reaction generating steam to turn turbines for power. I am assuming we'd do the same with fusion. My big question is what happens if the reaction not only becomes sustainable, but producing energy (and presuming a lot of it) and containment (ie the magnetic bubble around it) is breached, what happens to the access energy? Unless the laws of thermodynamics have changed, it has to go somewhere. Its true that the reaction itself would fizzle once its fuel supply is exhausted (like in a Hydrogen bomb), but what about the resulting energy release? Now the one glaring thing I didn't quite understand is if it was a feeding chain reaction, wouldn't submersing it in water not be such a good idea since water is a good source of hydrogen? Not only that, but wouldn't the heat produced by the reaction cause the water to steam around it at least for a while? I am more familar with the Tamamak fusion designs with magnetic bubbles and stuff, guess they are looking into other methods with lasers and stuff too. But my $.02

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    4. Re:i didn't like the demonization of fusion by bigt_littleodd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Looking back over some movies of the past, I think that you and other respondents to your post are somewhat correct and should rightfully be a little (but usually only a little) worried about what scientific "facts" the general public gleans from Hollywood productions.

      For example, Hollywood has depicted the following:

      Guns that don't show any recoil effect when fired

      Ice ages that occur in a few hours' time

      Explosions that are heard through the vacuum of space

      When a parachute deploys, the wearer is gently lofted upward. (I actually had an ex-girlfriend tell me this, but she only "knew" this from watching movies and TV. Swore it was true, too! Not the only, but one of the many reasons I refer to her as "ex-girlfriend") ;-)

      The China Syndrome came out coindidentally around the same time as the Three Mile Island event. Anti-nuke activists had a field day with that one, but the furor died almost as quickly as it started.

      BOTOH, I think that most people don't put too much stock in what happens on-screen, particularly when the main subject is pretty fantastical to begin with, such as movies like Spiderman 2. Most viewers treat it as escapist material. And that is conceding the fact that they even notice the physics in the first place, anyway.

      Except for the really ignorant segments of the populace, no one really believes in Hollywood's ability to portray the realities of physics accurately. When you think about it, Hollywood has always been about non-reality. (Mr. Stanley Kubrick is the only exception to that rule that I can think of right now.)

      I think you are worrying unnecessarily. But I could be wrong....

      --
      Let's play Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I'll be Pestilence.
    5. Re:i didn't like the demonization of fusion by Stalyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      whatever you damn terrorist i'm copying your commie antiamerican slander and sending it to john ashcroft.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    6. Re:i didn't like the demonization of fusion by mpaque · · Score: 4, Funny
      More than 2,000 observed supernovae disagree with you.


      Good point. We should pass a law prohibiting the construction of fusion reactors containing more than two solar masses of fuel (just to leave a good safety margin) on the Earth.

  31. Errors, you say? by dema · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have found a few errors on their website (:

    Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/www/users/jsandys/includes/phpconfig1.php on line 2 Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/www/users/jsandys/includes/phpconfig1.php on line 3 Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /usr/www/users/jsandys/includes/randomtitle.php4 on line 4 Warning: mysql_query(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /usr/www/users/jsandys/includes/randomtitle.php4 on line 16 Warning: mysql_fetch_row(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /usr/www/users/jsandys/includes/randomtitle.php4 on line 20

  32. What about the mistakes in real-life?!? by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 2, Funny

    While we bicker over a movie, what about the mistakes in real life?

    1. You are free.
    2. You read slashdot because you're an 'intellectual'
    3. That +5 Karma you have was hard earned.
    4. You don't like Britney Spears and don't use windows at all.

    --
    Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
  33. The webpage author, and article author ... by dcarey · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Anyone notice the slashdot user name of the article submittor was named Jon Sandys, and due to slashdotting this is what we got on the page: Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/www/users/jsandys/includes/phpconfig.php on line 4

    I bring this up because in the article he refers to the webpage authors (um, aka Jon Sandys) as "hard-nosed bastards". Dude, don't be so, um, hard on yourself there ... you're just, um, doing your job ...

    --

    -- (Score:i , Imaginary)

  34. So, where you the guy... by Kenja · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, where you the guy in the front row of Wizard of Oz shouting at the screen "Thats BULLSHIT man, monkeys dont fly!".

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  35. Re:The 1st had a ton of errors too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Those white dots might have been the "Weaving the Web" pop-up factoids that are part of the special features of the first movie.

    While watching with the pop-ups turned on through the Special Features menu, it allows you to push enter and go to short featurettes of behind-the-scenes stuff. However, at least in my DVD player (a no-name cheapy), even with it turned off, and trying to watch the movie normally, they would flash up for a split-second.

    Could be, they were popping up for you too?

  36. Re:Evil Dead - Army of Darkness by MrPoopyPants · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought the chainsaw in the operating room was an obvious homage to the Evil Dead movies. I've never heard of a medical chainsaw... but I'm not a doctor.

  37. They've forgotten to list all the location mishaps by sinergy · · Score: 4, Informative

    1. There is no elevated trains in downtown/midtown Manhattan 2. Shots are frequently switching between a background of midtown, brooklyn, queens, and the village. 3. There is no D'Agostinos on St. Marks 4. etc, etc, etc

    --
    ...
  38. Re:Most mistake-free sci-fi/action movies? by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is a "perfect films" section at moviemistakes.com. Perhaps you could start your research there.

  39. Just be glad!!!! by spineboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    That Peter Parker wasn't bit by a radioactive dung-beetle. Just imagine what his super powers would be then..

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Just be glad!!!! by The+Meeper · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nothing but a wicked urge to enter politics.

      --
      -Meeper
  40. The webbing... by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am not, nor have ever been, a comic book guy.

    That said, I've watched various incarnations of comic books on TV an movies, and I've watched Spiderman since I was a kid.. From the old campy 70s show to the movies..... hey, this movie has the same problem.. WHAT THE FUCK IS HE SWINGING FROM? Conveniently located blimps?

    I digress.. Hey, anyone remember Spidey on "the electric company?"

    I digress again..

    In some show, somewhere, I saw Peter Parker making up little canisters of the webbing, and stocking his suit up.. It was something he cooked up in his lab (being a genious scientist) to keep with the Spider theme.. Kind of like Batman keeps his Bat theme going..

    Anyhow, in the movie, it's apparent that creating webbing is one of his powers.

    So my question.. In the original comic, does the webbing actually come from his body, or is it an invention of Peter Parkers?

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:The webbing... by jgs · · Score: 2, Informative

      So my question.. In the original comic, does the webbing actually come from his body, or is it an invention of Peter Parkers?

      It's an invention. He carries extra cans of web fluid on his belt (under his outfit) and swaps them into his wrist-mounted web shooters as needed. To be honest, I think the "it's just a super power" explanation is less implausible.

      As I recall, the original comic also makes a big deal about him inventing the white lenses in his mask.

    2. Re:The webbing... by Piquan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Conveniently located blimps?

      No, conveniently located New York City buildings. You know, those tall things that are all over Manhattan?

      You'll notice that he generally will traverse the street. In other words, to go forwards, he first shoots a web to the top of a building that's in front of him and to the left. Before he smacks into a building, he shoots a web to the top of a building that's in front of him and to the right. Then left, then right. Some artists are more careless about this than others, but the movies seem to be good about that. (The video game that came out along with the first movie was careful to not let you swing as you neared the height of the tallest buildings, but in the interests of fun wasn't too picky about the precise geometry.)

      The trick to this is, you need some variations to keep it up. (The rest of this web-slinging description is my own speculation.) If you start at rest, then you can only go down in the above-described manner; by the time you start an upswing, you've smacked into a building. While it's not as precise of a problem once you have a little forward momentum, it's still something to think about. You can get around this a little bit by starting a web pretty close to you in the forward direction (but still across the street and high). This lets you trade momentum to get back some height. But it's still not an easy game; you need one or two more tricks.

      One handy trick is to swing on convenient out-jutting overhangings: gargoyles, horizontal flagpoles, etc. This lets you start an upswing without bleeding off as much momentum as you would if you used the across-the-street web trick.

      Now, everybody who got through HS physics learned that an unpowered body can't keep this up indefinately, no matter how many geometry tricks you play. You're constantly exchanging kinetic and potential energy, but also bleeding some of that energy off as friction. You occassionally need a boost of energy. Fortunately, Spidey isn't an unpowered body. A quick yank upwards, timed right, and you can introduce a little energy into the system. If you need to stop and look around, you can also climb a nearby skyscraper to give yourself a nice big potential energy bank. Spidey traditionally can do this in a hurry by shooting a webline high and yanking hard on it (proportional strength of a spider, remember) to propel himself upwards. Or, if he's not in a hurry, good ol' wall-crawling works too.

      In the original comic, does the webbing actually come from his body, or is it an invention of Peter Parkers?

      Yup. Peter was a science whiz, and developed his own webbing material. It's strong, initially adhesive but quick-setting, and breaks down in a couple of hours. This is how it's been in every Spider-Man medium I've seen (lots of them), except the movies.

      In the movies, they use organic web shooters. This is mostly to avoid explaining how a high school kid comes up with an adhesive that DuPont Chemicals would kill for. In the comics, it's addressed only vaguely: Peter suspects that he gained some sort of innate understanding of a spider's web when he was bitten. Even this was only discussed years after the comic began.

      Spidey normally kept some extra web fluid cartridges on his belt, and sometimes would come up with specialty fluids for defeating particular foes (conductive fluid, geletainizing fluid, etc). But, being the hard-luck superhero, Spidey would inevitably run out of web fluid at the worst possible times. The "out of fluid" moments are almost a cliche of Spidey stories.

      In the comics, most people-- heros, civilians, and villians-- assume that the webbing is an innate ability. I believe that he used that to fool villians once into thinking he had his powers when he didn't, but I could be wrong about that.

  41. The Mistakes - (Think of their poor webserver) by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Informative
    The site was getting overloaded when i visited so i kept at it till i got the goods:

    Spider-Man 2 (2004) - 31 mistakes

    • Harry tells Doc Ock that in order to find Spider-Man he must find Peter first. Doc Ock finds Peter with Mary Jane in the cafe and throws a car through the window straight at them. Any normal man would've been killed instantly, and Doc Ock doesn't know that Peter is Spider-Man. Given that Peter is his only lead on Spider-Man, it makes no sense that Doc Ock would effectively try to kill him.
    • When Peter arrives at his aunt's home at the beginning of the movie, it's night. He talks to Harry in the kitchen a few minutes later, and look at the purple balloon by Peter's head, it reflects a window with lots of light coming through it.
    • During the final conversation between Spider-Man and Doc Ock, the rips in Spider-Man's suit keep changing. For instance, there is a tear on his right shoulder; for most of the scene, there is a single piece of black webbing left holding the rip together, but when Doc Ock grabs Spider-Man's arm, the rip now has two pieces of black webbing. Then it goes back to one.
    • In the scene where Peter is saving the children from the burning building, there is no smoke from the fire. Black smoke would be bellowing out the windows. He wouldn't be able to just stand up and walk through the building.
    • When Peter and Mary Jane are together in his apartment at the end of the film, the collar of Peter's t-shirt keeps changing positions underneath his sweater. Sometimes it is fully visible all the way around, sometimes it's higher on the left or right side, and during the closer shots it isn't visible at all.
    • During the train scene, Spider-man's mask had gone partially black. We also see it when Spidey puts his mask back on. Yet when Doc brings him to Harry, we don't even see a patch of darkness on his mask.
    • Doc Ock pulls the giant sun ball and its support down onto himself, so he should be under it as they descend, yet in the final shot of him sinking into the ocean, the ball is below him and he is falling after it.
    • Nobody would dare to cut a metal piece with a saw without eye protection, much less in a surgical room, like the surgeon that wanted to remove Doc Ock's tentacles.
    • On the way to the theater Peter Parker intercepts policeman chasing a couple of bad guys. At the end of that scene one of the police cars has a tremendous wreck that swings the car sideways. There is a clear shot of the driver with a black helmet on.
    • In the scene where Doc Ock comes out of the hospital and throws a car onto another one, you can tell the man in there is just a dummy. He has no reaction what so ever. He just sits there as if nothing happened.
    • It's clear that due to the tentacles' heaviness, they have to made some kind of sound when moving. But yet when Doc Ock takes the tritium from Harry in his house, he leaves without making any sound at all.
    • In the scene at the end where Spider-Man and Mary Jane are in the big web, there is a close-up which shows the webbing behind them. We can blatantly see that it's wire wrapped in plastic of some kind to make it look like web.
    • Dr. Octavius says his fusion relies on tritium and that there is only 25 pounds of the substance in the world. In reality, tritium is merely an isotope of hydrogen and is a good deal more common than that. For example, there is a large region of the North Pacific that contains tritium-rich salt water.
    • When Harry walks into the Goblin room, he is startled by the mask his father wore. We are made to believe the mask is at the level of Harry's face, but when it pans out a bit later, it's waist high.
    • Considering the brightness of the fusion process, Dr. Octavius has to wear special goggles to be able to see it. Yet no one else in the room is wearing such g
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  42. You know your a nerd when you: by ITR81 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Don't watch a movie for entertainment but to find mistakes in it and then make note of it on your PDA.

  43. Sort of off topic... by A+Boy+and+His+Blob · · Score: 2, Funny

    But still funny

    A teenager was arrested early Wednesday in a California theater showing "Spider-Man 2" after a projectionist using night vision goggles saw him using a camcorder to make an illegal copy of the superhero sequel.

  44. Re:Evil Dead - Army of Darkness by Ianing · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Me and my friends almost died from laughing at the Evil Dead chainsaw refrence. And the best thing was we were the only people in the theater laughing.

  45. Ugh... by Valkyre · · Score: 2, Funny

    I told myself about 5 minutes in, if applied so much as a 5-year-old's grasp of science to this movie, I'd be getting dragged away by security for creating a disturbance. Stop a self-sustaining fusion reaction by dumping it in a river indeed.

    --
    What the heck is a 'sig'?
  46. My only problem with the movie: by Tony · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay, if you drop a super-hot mass of incandescent gas into the Hudson, you're going to get one big fuck-off jet of super-heated steam gushing out, like a mini-explosion. Spidey and MJ should have had the flesh boiled from their bones in a matter of seconds.

    But, otherwise I really enjoyed the movie.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  47. I noticed alot of those errors by FS1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The main thing that annoyed me about spiderman was the way he webbed in and out of certain scenes. The clock tower had no buildings taller than it surrounding it (as you can see as the scene plays out). Yet Spiderman was able to shoot a web onto a nearby imaginary building taller than the clock tower and swing in.

    Also the scene where he saves mary jane has several inconsistencies. When he is thrown out of the building he is launched maybe 100ft from the building, yet when he swings back he is maybe 20ft from where his web is attached to when he enters the window. Then we he leaves and picks up mary jane he jumps straight up, webs then is somehow built up enough momentum to be on the upstroke of a swing, yet again attached to another imaginary building. Also as a correction to a submitted mistake, when Doc Ock is underwater, he is still where he was when he entered the water. The fusion rig is obviously upside down people. Man people need to get their eyes examined.

    --
    A Fatal OE Exception has occurred, Sig will now reboot.
  48. newsflash by blue_adept · · Score: 5, Funny

    Also, people bitten by spiders don't generally become ultra-powerful

    of course not! the spider has to be radioactive, silly.

    --

    "Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
  49. Movie != Reality by Hello+Spaceman · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't think people should try to hold movies to any kind of "reality standard". Even the most grounded movie story is told by men wearing makeup that techies spent an hour carefully lighting. People stand on boxes to look taller, directors tell actors to step farther apart so that their distance will reflect their relationship, and no one ever has to go to the bathroom.

    No one ever points it out as a "mistake" in movies, but Spider-Man 2 took a step closer to reality by choosing to not have every car that was overturned explode in a huge ball of flames.

    FWIW, Sam Raimi directed the Evil Dead movies, which are cult classics despite having some of the largest movie mistakes to ever slip by audiences. (For ex: in Evil Dead 2 there is no ceiling in the house, and during some of the fast shots you can see techies heads poking over the tops of the walls. People never seem to notice this until someone tells them to look for it!)

  50. slashdotted by ElliotLee · · Score: 2, Informative
  51. Re:I use a tritium nightlight. really. by jpu8086 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually tritium has a half life of 12.3 years, so **they** lied. You'll need to get it replaced or refilled in 10 years, just like all other tritium-based devices (like gun sights).

    --
    now supporting:
    cmdrTaco for president '04
    michael for oval office intern summer '05
  52. In Related News by suwain_2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Articles posted to Slashdot this month already have over 30 mistakes! Critics claims that some articles posted on the popular technology news site are even duplicates of articles already posted. And those that aren't duplicates, one reader claims, are often riddled with typos.

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  53. My favorite... (minor spoiler) ... by crashnbur · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...is when Doc Oc throws spidey *forward*, then Spidey utilizes his cat-like reflexes (they weren't exactly "spider-like" in this instance) to fit through some weird bridge before slamming into Doc Oc... from *behind* the direction in which he had been thrown in the first place.

    Now that you know, you're going to be made at me every time you watch this scene. Ha ha.

  54. Re:Well, in principle... by LauraScudder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they were in a quantum class and talking about energy eigenvalues, it's possible he meant 0.23 eV. There's a few energy eigenvalues you're supposed to know (like the ground state of Hydrogen, -13.6 eV), and from there you can get to a whole bunch more for that system knowing the general form. The energy eigenvalues, E_n, for Hydrogen-like two-body systems go like m/n^2, where m is the reduced mass of the system and n is the energy level. And since all of them are negative, a lot of people don't bother to say it explicitly.

    I'm just saying there are possible reasonable explanations that aren't too far fetched. All of this is stuff I learned in sophomore quantum physics. Now if it was a math class instead of physics, solving for an eigenvalue of 0.23 in your head would usually be rediculous.

  55. Re:IT'S A MOVIE. MOVIE = FICTION. FICTION = FAKE. by GFLPraxis · · Score: 2, Informative

    Which makes sense. Read the books. The Kessel Run is a special course around a cluster of hundreds of black holes...the closer you get to the black holes, the less amount of space you have to cross, but the more dangerous it gets.

    (BTW I think it was 12 parsecs)

    By going in less than 12 parsecs, Han went dangerously close to the black holes, closer than most other ships ever go.

  56. Spiderman, Spiderman, Does Whatever A Spider Can by CristalShandaLear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am so glad I am an every day movie goer.

    Movies are made for people like me. We laugh in the right places, cry for no apparent reason, and we know that Mary Jane constantly has a bad hair day in this movie because she's no longer a high school student being supported by mom and dad, but a struggling actress moving on up, finally making ends meet and who's also suffering from a bad case of Spidey-love.

    I don't notice when Spidey's rips and tears move from shoulder to shoulder. I turn a blind eye when the CGI gets cheesey and pretend I'm watching a live action comic book (uh, I am right?).

    I think this movie is a chick flick. We'll explain away everything, even the obvious flaws, and we're the ones who leave with hollow feeling in our bellies in sympathy with the emotional and physical ass-kicking Peter Parker takes in this movie.

    I loved it, plain and simple. For the most part, they suspended my disbelief. A few CGI blips and the fact that Spidey's identity is now the worst kept secret in the universe, notwithstanding, I felt I got a pretty good bang for my buck(s).

    My advice: save the criticism for movies that really, really suck. This movie rocks.

  57. Train Scene by good_magician · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did anyone notice a physics problem with the train scene? Spiderman was thrown forward at the elevated sidewalk and after he twisted through the slot he was diving forward at Doc Ock who hadn't moved on the train.

  58. Quotes from Amazing Fantasy issue 15. by aixou · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have a reprinting of the first spider man comic (Amazing Fantasy issue 15). He uses little gadgets attached to his arms. Here are some quotes of him talking to himself (in sequential order, omitting a few for context).

    "Now let's see -- a spider needs a web! This little device should just do the trick"

    "I'll fasten one to each arm -- it'll operate by the slightest pressure of any finger!"

    "I'll need a name -- well, guess SPIDER-MAN is as good as any! Looks pretty good, if I do say so myself!"

    "With some strong liquid cement at the end, I can pull myself up anywhere with my little web! And my costume is thin enough to wear, unseen, under my street clothes!"

    btw, the outfit spidey wears when fighting the wrestler for the money, is a white sweatshirt, bluejeans, brown shoes, and what appears to be fishnet stockings over his head.

    1. Re:Quotes from Amazing Fantasy issue 15. by Babbster · · Score: 3, Insightful
      btw, the outfit spidey wears when fighting the wrestler for the money, is a white sweatshirt, bluejeans, brown shoes, and what appears to be fishnet stockings over his head.

      Fishnet stockings? That would put a whole different spin on why Mr. Parker was a social outcast.

  59. Re:Well, in principle... by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is 0.23 eV in the film.

  60. Tritium complain by el_oso · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Isn't the weird substance needed for the fusion machine "TriLium" instead of "triTium" ?

    I know, I know! Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen and trilium doesn't exist. But that could be an undeserved mistake.

  61. One word: Oscorp by IoN_PuLse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If a company has enough money to develop super-goblin equipment plus spheres that can turn people into skeletons that fall into dust, then of course they can afford tritium!

  62. Blah blah blah... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm so sick of reading these nitpicker lists where 98% of the so-called errors are trivial continuity errors. Real issues are fun to read and discuss, but I don't really give a crap that George Castanza didn't have the ketchup in his hand when they cut to Jerry, but Jerry's witty rejoinder makes him squirt ketchup across the table when he jump cuts back. Big deal. On the other hand, real plot holes or complete inconsistencies can be fun to talk about. For instance when Michael Moore claims Bush let the Saudis out of the U.S. when all the planes were grounded, pointing out the fact that it was actually Richard Clarke (the _terrorism_ guy) and the flight ban had been lifted, so nothing wrong was done is useful and instructive. That's an error worth pointing out. Unfortunately, these lists are usually just exercises in people's powers of observing insignificant minutia, and the fact that directors often flip the film (or even run it backwards like they did in helicopter shot in The Two Towers) seems to provide the majority of the issues.

    Here's one for free: In "This Island Earth" Dr. Meacham and his lady friend duck under the water to escape the explosion of the car driven by Russell Johnson's character. The next scene shows them stepping onto land and they are clearly dry. Woo hoo! I'm a GENIUS!

    The reward for such powers of perceptiveness were skillfully and cleverly satirized by the infamous Marvel No-Prize, until the dolt readers became incensed that they never got anything and Marvel actually had to start sending something out.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  63. They forgot the biggest mistake... by CmdrGordita · · Score: 2, Funny

    making the movie in the first place. :)

    I'm still waiting for a CGI Transformers movie.

    --

    Windows2000: Where do you think you're going today?
  64. you don't understand the fusion reactor by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Informative

    if anything goes wrong with the containment field, there is no sudden outburst of energy, the thing just fizzles

    to create fusion, you must maintain exceedingly accurate and high levels of energy and pressure

    if you fail to do that in the slightest way, everything falls apart rapidly

    there is no explosion

    as for your hydrogen bomb, what you say about it is not instructive or relevant as to what we are talking about: a fusion reactor

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  65. Jurassic park sounds by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does anyone else think that the 'booom booom' doc ock is coming sound seems like it was stolen from the T Rex in Jurrasic park and doesn't fit Doc Ock at all?

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  66. Re:Ahem... by martinX · · Score: 2, Funny

    ad anonymem attack?

    --
    When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
  67. Bad criticisms: by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 3, Funny

    The problem with these kind of cricisms at this site is that once you set up a site to try very hard to find problems, people tend to find problems that aren't problems, just to get their entry on the page: Here's some examples:

    Audio problem: It's clear that due to the tentacles' heaviness, they have to made some kind of sound when moving. But yet when Doc Ock takes the tritium from Harry in his house, he leaves without making any sound at all.

    Doc Ock's normal limbs were also there, in addition to his mechanical ones (He's not called Doc Quad, after all), and therefore he could still walk normally, just holding his mechanical limbs in the air and not doing anything with them (except holding onto the loot, of course). That could still be silent. Thus the implied sneaky getaway he allegedly made while off-camera is possible.

    Continuity: Doc Ock pulls the giant sun ball and its support down onto himself, so he should be under it as they descend, yet in the final shot of him sinking into the ocean, the ball is below him and he is falling after it.

    No. From the shot, we see Ock in the foreground, and the ball behind him, and they are getting smaller. The critic probably interpreted this to mean that they were falling away from the camera. But when I viewed it I interpreted this as the camera's vantage point was underneath them both, and the camera was sinking faster than they were, into the depths. The way the shot looked, either interpretation works. (But I think a much larger problem is that the river is only about 60 feet deep, and that final shot makes it look like it just goes down and down and down at least several hundred feet.)

    Besides, it's entirely possible, even if the critic's interpretation of the camara angles is right, that the two got turned around at some point when they were both off camera. The movie does imply that quite a few seconds have passed between the scene where Ock pulled the thing down and the underwater scene.


    Continuity: After Doc Ock drops Spider-Man off at Harry's house, Spider-Man's legs, wrists and arms are bound. When he sits up after Harry unmasks him, he never breaks his legs free of the ties yet he no longer has anything holding his legs together


    Things are often implied to happen off-camera in a movie. There were shots during which only the top half of spiderman is shown during that 'breaking out' scene, and so breaking out the legs could happen anywhere in there. The problem with finding errors of ommission is that they don't necessarily mean anything when there are moments that are implied to occur off camera. Otherwise everyone in the movie must be horrendously constipated since the movie is implied to take place over a period of several days, and nobody ever goes to the bathroom.


    Continuity: After Peter changes into Spider-Man to deliver the pizzas and throws them onto the ledge to save the two children, the camera goes back to show the pizzas and the man living there finding them. There are only seven pizza boxes, without any damage done to them. When he actually delivers them, there are eight and a couple of them are now flattened or banged-up as they should be.

    The fact that there are 8 instead of 7 - that's a problem, yes. The fact that they are now damaged when they weren't before - no that's not a problem in the slightest. Nowhere does it imply that zero time has passed between the pizza on the ledge scene and the delivering scene. Presumably the damage could have happened after the ledge scene.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  68. Better site for errors by chamblah · · Score: 2, Informative
  69. Re:Well, in principle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    eV are electronvolts. The amount of energy requires to move one electron across one volt potential difference.

    Eigenvalues are properties of a matrix. A matrix will have a few vectors that they multiply against and create a new vector that is just a multiple of the original vector. The factors are the eigenvalues, the vectors the eigenvectors.

    You can solve them with the following equation:
    det ( (matrix) - lamba * identity ) = 0

    Where lamba will solve for the eigenvalues. From there you can use

    (matrix)(r) = lamba * (r)

    Where r is an arbitrary vector, (x,y,z)

  70. Re:Funny to see that here... by rarity · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess you get to keep on secretly dreaming about Spidey coming out of the closet to declare his interest in you



    Hmmm...

  71. Too bad Spidey's not anitomically correct... by IOOOOOI · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... or he'd shoot web from his ass.

  72. Godzilla by mhifoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Indeed, some of the 'faults' are absurdly pedantic.
    In my opinion an interesting movie mistake is one that almost everyone sees the first time they watch the movie.

    Godzilla is the best example.
    The speed of Godzilla is inversely proportional to the importance of the character. At the beginning of the film she can catch a helicopter because it contains an extra. At the end of the film she is unable to catch a reversing taxi because it contains key actors.

    Not to mention the wildly varying size of the monster throughout the film.

  73. The Biggest by Handpaper · · Score: 2, Informative
    Dr Oct 'putting out' a self-sustaining fusion reaction by immersing it in.....water! H20. Does anyone else see the problem with this?
    Hint - Hydrogen is a very good fusion 'fuel'.
    Actually, in both reactor scenes, lots of Iron (plating from walls, structural girders) is shown being drawn in to the fireball. Solution? Let it be. Nothing poisons a fusion reaction better than Iron. Why?
    Fusion liberates energy from combining small atomic nuclei to make larger ones, H+H=>He or even hotter, He+He=>Be. This works until you get to Iron. Fusing Iron nuclei together to form even bigger ones uses energy, which is why you won't find spectrographic evidence of Iron or heavier elements in 1st-generation stars. These heavy elements are only formed in novae or supernovae (it took a conscious effort to spell that word correctly!)

  74. did anyone notice by DeusExMalex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    did anyone else notice that when that fusion reaction (see: star) was dropped into the river that a. there was no steam and b. the river was still there after having a star inserted into it.

    1. Re:did anyone notice by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 2

      There would not be a reaction because of protection provided by the magnetic field.

      --
      This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    2. Re:did anyone notice by DeusExMalex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      oh, of course. the magnetic field keeps the water at bay. /me raises eyebrow
      and how in the blue flaming hell is water going to stop a sulf-sustaining fusion reaction? wouldn't the tiny star just say "hm. more food. yum!"?

  75. Re:Seeing stars in Manhattan by sinergy · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's stars in the sky?

    --
    ...
  76. what mistakes? by aggieben · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The list of "mistakes" at that website are 90% utterly stupid, and the ones that aren't are mistakes like "in one scene a rip in spiderman's costume is spanned by 1 thread, and by 2 in another". For nearly every "mistake/error" listed a reasonable explanation can be made.

    For example, there were 2 or 3 that made bones about chairs being out of place after a scene change. Come on, people! There are other people in the world besides Peter Parker, Octavius, MJ, and Aunt May. Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe there's an underpaid custodial worker moving chairs around?

    That's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back, thanks to all the idiots who submitted "bloopers" so they could see their own names on the web.

    --
    Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard