MovieChat Forums > Haunted (1996) Discussion > Mistakes in the movi [SPOILERS]

Mistakes in the movi [SPOILERS]

posted 17 years ago by lslusa
11 replies | jump to latest

Hi, Ive watched this movie yesterday, and and after seeing the ending, i feel i found some countinuity goofs. So, all three siblings are ghosts, and their house is a burned ruin. Then I suppose, since coming there, all David seen is an illusion. I understand, he may live for several days being like hypnotized by the ghosts all the time, but what about his physiological needs? What did he eat and drink there? was this food an illusion too? If yes, he should be pretty exhausted at the end of film. And how the hell could he phone his secretary from the house?

[–] samrac 17 years ago

Good thoughts. I spotted a couple. When David is drowning they have another actor in the water. Some times it is Quinn but other times it is a filler. Also, when David and Christine are in bed together she is making it with another actor not Quinn.

[–] dmford 17 years ago

Yes, I wish it hadn't been so obvious that some other actor was doubling for Quinn. It kind of takes away from an otherwise entertaining movie. One gets the feeling that those involved with the film didn't even care about such glaring errors. Did they think the audience would be too stupid to notice? How insulting.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] novelle 17 years ago

Only part of the house was burned as shown at the end. The nanny lived in the part that was untouched by the fire which had a working phone and she did the cooking so the food was real.

Oh sweet mystery of life at last I have found yuuuuuu

[–] mwilson-13 17 years ago

I just can't get past the whole "driving ghost" thing.

[–] rageinblack 17 years ago

exactly... but what about he imagined everything including the phone call, maybe he actually spent less time in the house that it appeared, that would explain how he survived without food or something, but he did seemed quite exhausted at the end.

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 16 years ago

Yeah, even if you could explain the living illusion of beds/furniture/etc as part of David's hypnotic state. & the phone & food coming from the main part of the house that wasn't destroyed (where the Nanny lived), we still can't account for the car. Let's say it was David driving (remember Fight Club?) but who brought the car from the house to the train station?

Whenever I get the urge to exercise, I lie down until it passes.

[–] FeelGoodHit-OfTheSummer 16 years ago

There are no rules saying what ghosts can and cant do. Maybe in the directors mind, ghosts can touch living things. If she can bang David, surely she can drive a car.

"Flatly My Dear, I Don't Riverdance"

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 16 years ago

Everything has rules my friend, reality or fiction, we all have to abide by them. If ghosts really do exist, then by nature, they have to abide by certain rules as everything else does. As fictional beings (ghosts), rules are also created in the mythos of any story embodying them or anything w/in its context for that matter.

Whenever I get the urge to exercise, I lie down until it passes.

[–] FeelGoodHit-OfTheSummer 16 years ago

Bust since ''The Ghost Rule Book'' hasnt been found, you can't decide what the rules are.

Its a film. Theres no point arguing over the plausability of what a ghost can or cannot do.

"Flatly My Dear, I Don't Riverdance"

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 16 years ago

I think everyone knows it's a film, there's no doubting that. But as a mythological or fictional creature (I'm not talking about reality here), there are certain rules established for ghosts. If new rules are implemented/introduced, they're usually explained w/in a medium's (film/novel/story/etc) context - like LOTR, we see creatures there like elves, previously seen as little green pointy eared creatures, but Tolkien explained or gave these people as well as Middle Earth a history & a background to stand on. Movies, as well as any written fiction need such standards, w/o standards, we have mediocrity. & w/ standards we have an improvement or the sophistication of the arts & sciences. Also, I hold films, as well as any fiction in high regard, no need to undervalue them as 'just a film', they are useful tools for our imagination & the expression of our ideas/thoughts. & w/o imagination, civilization, as well as culture & humans become nothing more but non-sentient lifeforms like centipedes, raccoons, etc. As the film made no clear depiction of these rules w/in its context, we are discussing them; if they were indeed excised or merely missed by the viewer/s.

Whenever I get the urge to exercise, I lie down until it passes.