Factual error: Following Zazie Beetz, Arthur arrives in front of the bank. The crossing is using red colored tactile paving. While technically already invented, truncated domes paving was not adopted in the US in the early 80s, but began appearing in the early 1990s at public transportation stations, and it was not until 2001 that they were used in curb cuts. (00:24:35)
Sammo
27th Feb 2020
Joker (2019)
25th Aug 2014
Rust and Bone (2012)
Revealing mistake: In the first scene at the beach, where Ali carries Stephanie to the water, you can see the shadow of her legs, despite her legs being amputated. (00:41:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Can you? You can see his shadow for sure, but I don't see her shadow cast on anything. I was looking for this mistake on Prime - I added the timecode for the scene too (41:25) in case someone wants to check out and maybe submit a screenshot, too - but I personally can't see it.
27th Feb 2020
Joker (2019)
Stupidity: After one of the policemen decides to jump over the railing and right into the angry mob (!), Arthur just easily sneaks by ducking under it and takes a nice stroll that will lead him through an unlocked door. Nobody in the mob he is part of decides to do the same, and you can also see that one of the policemen is turned towards him, but does not even yell at him or move. And of course, with the theater packed with the Gotham elite basically under siege by a mob and guarded by the police, the door is unlocked and unchecked. Why not. (01:02:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The point is they were all too distracted by the tussle to notice Arthur ducking behind the barrier. No cop sees him. The angry mob is controlled by the barrier and not all that large so they haven't taken extra precautions to keep the mob at bay, yet. The door Arthur gets in is probably a fire escape and can't be locked for safety reasons.
I think that with an angry mob worth putting barriers and a big police dispatch, they'd tend to lock the door that is like a 20 feet of walk in a straight line. I mean, they have barriers in front of the stairs, but at the base of the stairs there's an unguarded, unprotected, unlocked door. It's just funny. Not even something in the back or around the corner, no; literally one step to the right of the blockade.
25th Feb 2020
Seinfeld (1990)
Corrected entry: It's just a parody/absurd sequence, but it's odd that with over two dozen bullets shot from barely a dozen feet of distance, just a couple entry wounds appear on the body of the runaway Seinfeld. Of course no blood either, but that's a necessity given the type of show. (00:08:55)
Correction: It's a dream sequence. It doesn't have to follow the rules of reality. I frequently have dreams that logically make no sense.
I know, I know, but never been a big fan of giving a free pass to dream sequences for things like continuity, poor stunts etc. If anything, it'd get a pass because it's a comedy and violence and realism are toned down by default.
The very nature of dreams give them a free pass for just about anything. I will have dreams where I'm talking to a certain person or holding a certain object, and in the next moment the person will be someone else or the object will be something else. I have dreams where I am back in high school and the layout of the building will frequently change, or the class I go into will change subjects. If you put that to film, it would be a change in continuity.
What you say is true for dream sequences played specifically with the purpose to give the viewer a sense of disorientation, experience something obviously 'off', a deliberately disjointed and creative scenario that breaks reality. As I said, I am not a fan of being unable to nitpick scenes or even movies who happen all in someone's head for trivial mistakes that are not something as amazingly obvious as the ones you explained. Your examples are something the viewer would notice and would register as deliberate choice and part of the plot, but Seinfeld wearing earbuds or 2 gunshot wounds instead of a dozen are not really something I can put in the same category. If the dream scene is played 'straight', as that one has been, I don't believe we have to just assume that any take can be edited together since continuity is not an issue, props and tricks can be visible or act weird because who knows what can happen in a dream, etc.
You make a fair point (which is also why I didn't submit a correction for your separate entry of Jerry wearing ear protection). However, the basis of this submission is that Jerry only has a couple entry wounds and no bleeding after being shot numerous times. That can just be chalked up to how his mind dreamed the scenario. I don't think a sense of disorientation or something being off needs to be established (especially when the sequence is played for laughs) for viewers to accept details like that can suddenly change within a dream since we all dream and understand that those things happen.
Not necessarily "established" but "with purpose", which can be seen in hindsight. Anything can happen in a dream, but if he imagined to be shot in such a dramatic fashion so many times and die, the fact that he dies with a cheap effect is hardly serving any narrative purpose. Again, I could see why ultimately the mistake could be seen as stating the obvious since "the scene is played for laughs", which was my first caveat posting the scene, the last being the lack of blood for censorship purposes. They didn't thoroughly cover Jerry Seinfeld with squibs and things like that just for a gag - explanation of the 'mistake' rather than justification, but fair. But as far as the dream goes, the point of that dream scene is to do something more 'violent' and unexpected than you'd see in the 'real life' scenes, not tone it down through a marginal detail that has a clear explanation.
9th Nov 2012
Obsessed (2009)
Continuity mistake: Sharon's shoes change from the time her and Derek walk into the house looking around to when they are in the attic.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
30th Aug 2006
Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties (2006)
Continuity mistake: After Jon tells Garfield that he is going to ask Liz to marry him, Garfield knocks Liz's picture to the ground and we hear glass break. When Jon comes back into the room to turn off the stereo, the picture is suddenly back up on the table without him replacing it.
6th Apr 2017
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Continuity mistake: Lecter asks for a lamb chop dinner, rare, and when they arrive, they are rare. When we see them later, they look well done. (01:15:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They don't look different in any of the shots. It's the same lambchops, same temperature. They are cooked as is, so they have a dark outside but inside they are probably rare. They do look darker in the last scene but that's probably because they have gone cold and dried out.
Suggested correction: How would a mistake like that come to be? Someone cooked them in between shots? Too much time elapsed and the substance oxidized? The potato and everything else on the plate look the same, and so do the chops, shape-wise. They might be of a slightly darker color in the very last shot with Boyle on the floor, but the plate has also been sprayed with blood, so that could account for this - mostly perceived - change.
A mistake like this would come to be if they're using real food and not props and had to do a cut, change camera position, do a reshoot, etc and had to set the scene again and redo the cooking of the food, or remake the props for some reason, but now the food looks different. What we see as a continuous scene in a movie or TV show is not always done in one take, which is why the site is filled with countless continuity mistakes.
27th Aug 2001
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: When Dr. Lecter was introduced to the police in Tenn., their names were Sgts. Boyle and Petrie. When he's escaped from his cell, he said, " Ready when you are Sgt. Pembry". That name is repeated later when Sgt. Tate says "It's Jim Pembry, now talk to him". Someone should zoom in on his name tag, to see what his name really is.
Correction: Sgt. Patrick (not "Petrie") and Sgt. Pembry are two entirely different persons. Pembry is much younger than Patrick. Further evidence can be found in the end credits, which lists the actors in order of appearance: Sgt. Boyle is listed way before than Sgt. Pembry.
The original poster had it right when he said "Someone should zoom in on his name tag." With the remastered edition it is possible, and the name tag in the airport says "Pembry." The original post is correct, as definitely Boyle does not call him "Pembry" but something else that most people understand as "Petrie" or as close captions say "Patrick." It's a mistake.
24th Mar 2016
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Plot hole: When Clarice visits Lecter in his new makeshift cell, she brings his drawings, which were left behind in Baltimore. She tells him how she saw the lambs being killed and heard them screaming, taking one lamb with her when she ran away. As the guards approached his cell after she leaves, the camera pans across the cell, taking in the drawings Clarice had brought, and the top one is a very detailed drawing of Clarice holding a spring lamb. She only told just told Lecter about the lamb, not enough time for him to have done that drawing.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: First; I do agree and support the mistake. But playing devil's advocate for a moment; she told him back in Baltimore about the ranch and how they had sheep and horses, so in theory he could have already started drawing back then and figure that a memory about the place was linked to those animals, adding the exact detail afterwards. Should also be noted that the guards approach the cell 'after she leaves', yes, but it's an 'after' that happens after she already flew back all the way from Memphis, so a few hours later.
Your last sentence corrects the mistake, the top drawing is new and wasn't brought by Clarice. You can see chalk on top of the drawing indicating he had just made it. Several hours passed between her delivering her story and him receiving his dinner.
8th May 2005
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: How the heck did Hannibal get ahold of the pen during his release from the mental hospital ? It was at least 4 feet away from him; he was bound and had a face plate over his mouth. Not only did he get the pen but somehow he got the internal portion of it which would have required freedom of movement to remove. This must be a mistake because aside from telekinesis, it should have been impossible.
Correction: We see Chilton leave the pen on the bed, then head for the exit to the cell, forgetting to pick it up, which is hardly implausible, given that he's rather agitated at the time. Barney then releases Hannibal, who simply picks the pen up and conceals it once his restraints have been removed.
11th Apr 2005
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: Author Thomas Harris has never watched the film because he's afraid that it'll influence his writing.
Correction: This is not true. Harris stated that he saw it when it was released and was very pleased with the movie.
Correction: As it happens with stories "too good to be true" probably some details changed throughout the years; the idea is that he refused to watch the movie and told director Demme so citing the example of LeCarre and his experience with the adaptation of his books, sparking this 'myth', which was tough based on actual statements. But in the 1991 New York Magazine feature by Phoebe Hoban, Harris is reported to have watched the movie, indeed (even if I don't find the 'when it was released' claim of the correction), and in recent interviews his story has been that he refused to watch it but after the Oscars he just happened to stumble upon it flipping channels on TV.
12th Feb 2003
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Clarice has arrived at the hospital for the second time, it is raining. She runs to Barney, who is already waiting for her. She was in the rain for a total of about 3 seconds, so how is her hair so wet in the next scene, where she is sitting on the floor talking to Dr. Lecter? (00:27:03)
Correction: We don't know how long she had to drive, if she stopped somewhere before arriving at the hospital or how long it had been raining. Her hair could be already wet when she came out of her car. We don't see this because of the rain.
I disagree with the correction. It's true that the visual is not perfect due to the rain and darkness, but I believe the perception of the original post to be correct; her hair appears bouncy and vaporous when she is sprinting from the car to the mental hospital, it really appears much wetter indoors after time expired and she was given even chances to dry rather than getting soaked.
27th Aug 2003
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: When Clarice leaves the asylum after first talking to Dr. Lecter, her hair is a different color than when she went in; it is much darker and looks freshly dyed. (00:19:40)
Correction: And her nails too look different, pinker, while they were darker in the corridor. Honestly, I think it's just a matter of photography, the light of the scenes indoors and the one outside are different. Easier to imagine than Jodie Foster going to the hairdresser in the middle of the shoot or the makeup department flubbing the cosmetics used.
14th Dec 2001
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Clarice Starling has to turn over her gun and ammo, before visiting the caged Dr. Lecter, it is clearly visible that one of the bullets in the speedloader has been dropped: the nose is completely disformed. I wouldn't advise anyone to shoot such a bullet... (01:05:50)
Correction: Character mistake. Clarice should have checked her ammunition better, but she didn't. Everyone, no matter how good they are, has little slip-ups now and again.
8th Jul 2005
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: The "Memphis" airport, where Lector meets the Senator, is not Memphis, it is actually Lambert airport in St. Louis. The giveaway is the large neon "McDonnell Douglas" sign visible as the plane lands.
Correction: Why is this a giveaway? I have no idea of the significance of a "McDonnell Douglas" sign, and why there would not be one in Memphis as opposed to St. Louis. A typical moviegoer would never realize this as a mistake, as it seems gto rely on encyclopedic knowledge of the signage for a US Airports.
Because the sign mentioned is the McDonnell Douglas headquarters', which is by the St. Louis airport and not Memphis'? I don't think you can refute a mistake based on average moviegoer knowledge, otherwise anything that is not strikingly obvious (judged on what basis?) for a worldwide audience would not qualify.
1st Feb 2020
Joker (2019)
Trivia: The social worker who talks with Arthur has the last name Kane as a reference to Bob Kane creator of Batman and the Joker.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
1st Feb 2020
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: Every clock through the film is always showing 10:11.
Correction: Most of the clocks in the movie actually show 11:11 not 10:11 with the exception being the clock on "Live With Murray Franklin" towards the end which shows another time altogether (10:40).
15th Jul 2008
Toy Story (1995)
Corrected entry: Seeing as Buzz is unaware he is a toy, what exactly does he do when Andy plays with him? Would he not interact with him entirely the same way he does with his other toys when he first meets them.
22nd Oct 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: Dirt poor Arthur owns a VCR and answering machine, both of which were relatively new in the early 80s and too expensive for someone of his limited means.
Correction: This is assuming way too much. He could have gotten these in any number of ways from theft to gifts, to poor spending habits from him or his mother.
In the day the movie was made, VCRs, answering machines, two big television sets (his mom has a TV in her room too) are as little more than junk and don't disturb the narrative. But if the movie were set in 2020 and they'd watch Murray on their 82" screen in their living room and he'd doodle his thoughts on the latest iPhone, I kinda think that most people would raise an eyebrow about the tale of this family so down on their luck. Sure we don't have access to their bank statements and can't technically rule out that Arthur tripped over a big bag of cash some day on his way back from his beyond-minimal-wage job, but I think there's far more assumption in *denying* that this is strange, compared to just observing that it is entirely incoherent (given the time frame of the movie) with the premise of Arthur living a life without a single moment of happiness.
Correction: His mother did work for the Wayne's, maybe she saved up and bought it.
She worked for him in the 1950s and had drug habits and abusive boyfriends - no way she'd have saved that much money. That stuff was expensive at the time; a VCR was well over $1000 which for inflation at the time was like 3000 bucks today, and an answering machine was around $250, so about $750 today. That is without counting blank tapes, the expensive movie tapes and this is a very conservative estimation anyway, the equipment alone could have cost 50% more.
Even that guy who gave him a gun could have stolen a VCR and sold it cheap to Arthur.
10th Oct 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: In the subway Joker fires more than 6 bullets from his revolver.
Correction: He fires the gun. It then cuts away to show the third Wayne employee running through the train before cutting back to Arthur. He could have at least partially reloaded during that time.
Really? He's breathing heavily, stumbling. I understand that it is technically possible, but they show him getting up, hyperventilating, pointing the gun at the corpses and then at himself, and then picking up in a rush his bag; at no point he is shown collected enough to lead you to believe that he could have looked for the bullets and put them in the revolver.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Suggested correction: By the directors own admission, the date the movie is set in is never mentioned, nor is there any mention of a real city it is set in. This movie is set in Gotham City, a city that exists only in the Joker universe, where this paving could have been invented years earlier than the corresponding year in our (real) universe. This is more of a trivia than a mistake.
By the director's own movie, everything about the setting is specific to the early 80s. It's a marginal part of the urban scenery that they didn't find important (or did not think of, it's not exactly obvious) to fix for consistency. I don't see why we have to think that a movie that deliberately puts real life advertising, technology, aesthetics specific to the 1980s (Philips even mentioned specifically in interviews that he had in mind New York City of the year 1981) and flaunts the marginalization and cruelty of society would encourage leaving in deliberately something that improves quality of life for the handicapped. It's the classic mistake of something not supposed to be there that needed to be covered but was not.
Sammo ★