Revealing mistake: As soon as the three survivors are coming out of the lab through the hatch underwater, they all signal each other to rise to the top. Look at Saffron Burrows, her cheeks are full of air and you can almost see the surface above her head. You can also see the exact same shot when she is about to be eaten by the last shark. And what's with that hand gesture - to cut or for the shark to stop? (01:26:30 - 01:33:10)
Phaneron
22nd Oct 2002
Deep Blue Sea (1999)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Her cheeks are like that because when we all take in a big breath of air and hold it so not to breathe, that's what happens. The hand gestures when she goes in the water is so the blood can mix with the water so the shark can smell it.
The hand gesture the entry is referring to is just before she is eaten by the shark, the actress waves her hand across her neck area, allegedly to indicate to the director that she was running out of air.
I think she is giving the shark a sign... like stop or don't attack or something like that. So I think she is giving the shark a sign because right after she does that the shark stops swimming towards her.
Maybe in the context of the film you could argue that, but for scenes in which actors are performing underwater, they use that gesture to let the director know they are running out of air.
If you look EXTREMELY closely in one shot with the girl at a close distance and the shark far away you can tell the girl is actually computer animated. So I think she is giving the shark a sign cuz right after she does that the shark stops swimming towards her. But I could be wrong... that's just what I think.
Yes, Saffron Burrows' character, Dr. Susan McAlester, used the hand gesture to lure the shark by mixing her blood in the water, rather than signalling that she was out of air. While she was holding her breath with puffy cheeks, this action demonstrated her intelligence and scientific understanding of shark behaviour. Her strategy aimed to draw the shark closer, allowing her colleagues a chance to kill it, even though it ultimately led to her tragic fate of being eaten.
20th Jun 2006
Boy Meets World (1993)
She Loves Me, She Loves Me Not - S1-E13
Corrected entry: Topanga acts like she didn't know Eric was Cory's brother, but in later episodes, Topanga and Cory had known each other for practically their whole lives. How could Topanga have not known about Eric?
Correction: She didn't say "I don't know who Eric is" she probably just didn't recognize him. People can change a lot within a few years.
This correction isn't consistent with the way the scene and episode both play out. When Eric first shows up to talk to Cory and his classmates, Cory and Mr. Feeny both loudly announce his arrival by saying "Eric?" and "Mr. Matthews?" respectively, which elicits no immediate reaction from Topanga. Moments later when Mr. Feeny says "Please class, give Mr. Matthews your attention," a wide-eyed Topanga incredulously responds with "Matthews?", as if she didn't know Cory had a brother, despite Cory and Feeny both addressing Eric when he first arrived. This is further substantiated by Eric, who instead of responding with "Yeah Topanga, it's me Eric. Don't you recognize me?" says "Oh yeah, I'm Cory's older brother. I got the good hair." When Topanga shows up at their house the next day, Eric greets her with "Topanga, right?" and later says she's known him "for like 5 minutes," suggesting they had never met until the day before.
23rd Feb 2016
The Simpsons (1989)
Other mistake: When The Town is singing the Christmas carol you can see Sideshow Bob, who was arrested and jailed in series 1. We know he hasn't been released, as that's a plot point over the show. (00:18:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Maybe he was allowed to participate due to good behavior. That's a possibility.
Good behavior or not, a prison wouldn't furlough an inmate just so they could participate in a snow day.
I'm not sure if it's been discussed here or listed as a mistake. Part of the problem with "The Simpsons" and the Sideshow Bob character is that time both moves forward and doesn't move. In "A Brother From Another Series," Krusty visits the prison and tells Bob he hasn't seen him in years because Bob had been in prison all those years for his crimes. Yet Bart and Lisa are still the same age and in the same grade. Bob is also let out of prison on a work-release program in the episode.
30th Sep 2010
Boy Meets World (1993)
Corrected entry: When Cory's ball bounces into Feeny's yard, he climbs over it and is surprised to see Feeny when he flashes a light on him. Cory would literally have to be blind to not notice Mr. Feeny in his lawn chair.
Correction: Things like that happen in real life all the time. Especially in the dark. It's not at all unrealistic for Cory to have missed Mr. Feeny due to the fact that he wasn't looking for him. I recently walked right past a friend I was on my way to visit, purely because she wasn't where I was expecting her to be.
Feeny was sitting less than 5 feet away from where the ball landed and also would have been in Cory's field of view based on where the ball ended up and Feeny's position relative to it. The mistake is valid.
As the previous user mentioned above; ridiculous as it may appear to an audience watching, this happens a lot in real life. I myself missed my cousin who walked right past me only a foot in front of me and that was in broad daylight when I was actively looking for her. If this kind of thing happens in real life, it can easily happen with the character. Especially since it was night-time and Cory was not expecting Feeny to be there.
8th Jan 2020
King of the Hill (1997)
Question: Hank bears no resemblance to his father, but strongly resembles his mother. Bobby bears no resemblance to Hank (or seemingly Peggy), but bears a strong resemblance to Hank's father. Is it actually possible for a person to bear such a strong resemblance to one of their Grandparents if they are only getting half their genes from that Grandparent's child and that child bears no resemblance to that particular parent?
Answer: It's also said genetics plays a part here. You can look like an ancestor more than a parent. I myself look nothing like either of mine nor do any of my 3 siblings: older brother, older sister, younger sister.
Chosen answer: The short answer is "yes", it is possible to resemble your Grandparent even if your parent doesn't resemble your Grandparent. The old adage is "it's not like mixing paint", meaning combining genes doesn't always get the same result. It's why full siblings don't always look exactly alike even though they have the same genetic makeup. I look next to nothing like my paternal grandmother but I have a child that greatly resembles her.
Is it a mistake then that Hank's Japanese half-brother strongly resembles him, and by extension Hank's mother, or is that still a small possibility?
Sort of. These are animated characters, and the style of animation isn't particularly detailed. The resemblance between the two is played up for laughs. But there are plenty of real life examples of people that aren't related at all but greatly resemble one another. Famous examples are Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Javier Bardem, or Will Ferrell and Chad Smith.
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 Jul 2014
Final Destination 2 (2003)
Question: How did Thomas and Kimberly die?
Chosen answer: In the alternate ending of Final Destination 3, a newspaper blows by, revealing Kimberly and Burke ran into each other at a hardware store and a Camaro (belonging to Evan) ran through the store, knocking them into a nearby woodchipper. Kimberly's coat was tangled and was snatched into the machine. Burke attempted to save her, and both were dismembered.
Answer: No, Thomas wouldn't have died first because it was explained that Death was going backwards since everyone that died in the first movie made some people miss their death date, so he had to tie up the loose ends.
8th Jan 2020
Common mistakes
Corrected entry: Characters that are supposed to be blood relatives, but have no familial resemblance.
Correction: Blood relatives do not always resemble each other.
That's not really a "common mistake", though since it's never a mistake to have blood relatives that do not resemble each other.
I mostly agree. Family members often look too different to be biologically related. Even if an effort is made, for example, to have a son look like his father, some things don't sync - like a different face shape/bone structure or skin tone (not due to tanning). One example of father/son dissimilarities are in The War of the Worlds - the boy playing Tom Cruise's son has a completely different facial shape/structure. Regarding skin tone, in Boyhood the sister of Mason has a different skin tone than the rest of the family - and it stands out.
I'm probably a bit sensitive to this since my family members don't all have a strong resemblance to each other, but it's absolutely possible, especially if your family tree is diverse in genetics/ appearance. It happens more often than not in movies, but it's not a mistake. (And who's to say that in many of these cases people weren't adopted?).
27th Jan 2020
General questions
When I was a little kid I checked out a Batman graphic novel from the library. It had a lot of his rogues gallery in it, most if not all of whom were killed in it. I specifically remember Catwoman being shot and her dying words were along the lines of "Batman, I'm so cold." Batman then kissed her before she died. Does anyone know what the name of this graphic novel/storyline is?
Answer: All Stars #17?
Based on my Google search results, "All-Star Batman" is a more recent publication. The year I read the book in question was probably 1993, so it was probably published in the late 80s or early 90s.
I believe the answer should have been DC Super-Stars #17. That issue features the death of the Earth Two Selina Kyle as part of the origin story of her daughter, Helena Kyle (The Huntress).
That's not it either, unfortunately. I specifically remember Killer Croc being in this, because it was the first time I ever heard of him, and he didn't debut until 1983, six years after DC Superstars #17. I think Batman killed Joker at the end out of revenge for Catwoman. With so many other characters being killed in it, I'm pretty certain it was an Elseworld story and not connected to whatever the main DC universe is or was at the time.
8th Oct 2018
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Question: How did Venom know about The Sandman trying to save his daughter?
Answer: Sandman is a fugitive who is on the run. It is more than likely that his name has appeared in the news at some point. His daughter and her illness would likely have also been mentioned as well. Seeing as how Eddie worked at the Daily Bugle, it shouldn't have took long for him to put two and two together.
25th Jan 2020
Star Wars (1977)
Question: Are lightsabers capable of cutting through any substance, or are there objects in the franchise (even if the examples are no longer canon) that have been specifically mentioned as being resistant?
Answer: There are several substances in canon and non-canon that are resistant to lightsabers. Beskar, also known as Mandalorian iron or Mandalorian steel was used to make armor and weapons by the Mandalorian people. Cortosis was an ore that, when heavily refined, stopped lightsaber blades and blaster bolts. Phrik was another metal, used in Darth Sidious' lightsabers and the electrostaffs used by Grievous' robot guards. Neuranium was a very, very dense and heavy metal that was partially resistant to lightsabers, but was more often used to shield from scanners. The species orbalisk and vonduun crab had carapaces that could withstand the blow of a lightsaber.
Answer: The Force Awakens features stormtroopers using the "Z6 riot control baton", which they use to block the lightsaber when Finn uses it.
Is it the baton itself that is resistant, or the energy surge around it? Because I know Snoke's guards were able to block lightsabers with energized weapons as well.
Yes you see them in Episode III as well when fighting on the bridge of the chancellor's ship. My guess is the energy blocks the lightsaber. It's logical they would come up with some sort of technology to block lightsabers if materials that can block them are that rare.
Answer: There are a handful of items, but I don't believe any have been mentioned or shown in the film series (other than another lightsaber itself). Mandalorian Iron (also known as Beskar) and Phrix are resistant to lightsaber attacks and have been mentioned in the TV show "Star Wars: The Clone Wars", but I don't recall if their resistance is specifically mentioned in the show.
8th Oct 2019
National Treasure (2004)
Question: Ben surrenders the Declaration of Independence, and the treasure's location, in exchange for not going prison. In real life, would surrendering the Declaration and the treasure's location be enough to convince the FBI to let him off the hook, or would he still go to prison?
Answer: It's doubtful anyone would be completely "off the hook" for stealing the Declaration of Independence and also receive a percentage of the treasure's worth, even if they revealed the location.
11th Sep 2017
It (2017)
Factual error: Nivea Soft Cream is on the shelves at the chemist - this did not exist in 1989, when the film is set.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think the date is subject to debate. The only thing we really have to go on is it's 2019 in chapter 2, and It comes back every 27 years which would be 1992.
The date is not subject to debate. The marquee on the movie theater is advertising both "Batman" and "Lethal Weapon 2," placing the movie in the summer of 1989.
There is no debate about the date. After the title card it says "June 1989." The opening scene took place "October 1988."
5th Sep 2011
Batman and Robin (1997)
Corrected entry: Batman couldn't possibly have his own credit card. Obtaining a credit card requires proof of identification and a billing address, neither of which Batman would submit for obvious reasons. Nor would it be a credit card that he issued himself through Wayne Enterprises because the credit card company would see that a Wayne Enterprises Corporate credit card was used at a charity event that was attended by Batman and would subsequently reveal his secret identity (not to mention that Batman intends on using the card for a $7 million purchase, which is not a price anyone is going to turn a blind eye to), which is not something Batman would risk. And although the Bat-credit card may be a jokey reference to the 60s TV series, Batman still demonstrates his intent on using the card to secure his bid for a date with Poison Ivy, which means that in the context of the film, the credit card is functional.
Correction: Granted that the movie takes place in the real-time calendar year 1997; keep in mind that major federal banking laws were not enforced too seriously at the time, plus this was the time way before the USA Patriot Act was created and strictly enforced after the September 11 terrorist attacks. I can understand that even if Bruce Wayne did manage to have his own bank and provided a line of credit to Batman still like everyone else he had to submit to US federal banking laws (FCRA, ECOA and the like.) Let alone the general public will find it too suspicious why a private citizen would give a line of credit to a superhero in the first place. Either way, it's all within the DC World fantasy.
I would be too young to remember, but prior to online shopping, weren't people usually required to present their ID when making a credit card purchase? When I had my first job, if someone was making a purchase with the credit card, our boss required us to check their ID. I mean, if I was holding a fundraiser and someone pledged $1 million, I would want them to provide valid ID in case they decided to welch on the payment.
7th Jan 2013
Lockout (2012)
Plot hole: Hock sneaks a gun into the prisoner interrogation area because he is told that guns are not allowed there. If the prison was so strict about keeping guns out of that area then they would surely have metal detectors to prevent such a thing from happening. (00:15:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not a plot hole at all. Most of the people who are allowed in those areas will be government employees, who will be deemed trusted enough to follow the rules.
13th Jan 2020
Dark Phoenix (2019)
Question: Some valid reason Mystique dies early? Did Jennifer Lawrence get tired of playing her and wanted out?
Answer: Your guess is correct. Lawrence stated she was done with the franchise after "X-Men: Apocalypse." She jokingly told Simon Kinberg she would return for this film if he directed it, and to her surprise, he was serious about it and held her to it. Fans weren't very keen on her appearances either, because she was definitely phoning it in for the third film, so that may have factored into killing her off early as well.
More than one actress had played Mystique. Just because Jennifer Lawrence did not want to continue playing that role is not a reason the character would be killed off. They could easily recast another notable actress in the part. I would not be surprised if Mystique is miraculously "resurrected" in a future X-Men film with a new actress.
Aside from Deadpool, any new X-Men film would be a complete overhaul of the franchise since the characters will be part of the MCU now. You're not wrong about an actor wanting out to not really be a reason to kill off a character, but it doesn't preclude them from doing so either. They might have decided it wouldn't be worth the hassle of recasting the role with all the negative baggage that would come with it.
Here are some candidates I think could do it: Amanda Seyfried, Shailene Woodley, Chloe Grace Moretz. Heck maybe even Milla Jovovich-Anderson should be given an audition, what say you guys?
8th Jan 2020
Star Wars (1977)
Question: Why is Han so skeptical of the Force? I get that he himself has never witnessed anyone use it, but he would have been alive during the Jedi purge, and surely he knows that Chewbacca fought alongside the Jedi on Kashyyyk. Additionally, is there any reason Obi-Wan wouldn't have demonstrated Force powers to Han on the way to Alderaan other than he didn't feel the need to prove it?
Answer: Han describes force powers as "simple tricks and nonsense." He has never seen any Jedi doing anything particularly super-powered. Even if Chewy did and told Han it is still reasonable for him to be skeptical and to think his friend is exaggerating. Han simply thinks the stories about Jedi are overblown. A good way to think about it would be to examine how ninja are presented in popular culture versus how they were in reality. The stories surrounding ninja are greatly exaggerated to the point of absurdity, applying immense fighting ability and oftentimes magical powers to normal men. The difference is jedi actually had magical abilities while ninja did not.
Answer: To answer the second part of your question, Obi-Wan has Luke demonstrate the Force in front of Han by putting a blinder on and fighting the remote. Believing he has made his point, Obi-Wan comments "You see!", to which Han replies that Luke's success was against a remote, and that fighting a living person was completely different. So even after being shown something that is completely impossible without the use of the force, Han still chooses not to believe.
Well Han also dismissed Luke's success with the remote as luck. If Obi-Wan used the Force to steal Han's blaster right from its holster, would Han just dismiss it as magic? Is there such thing as magical powers in the Star Wars universe independent from the Force?
Oh, I absolutely agree with your point. But I always took this scene to mean that Obi-Wan isn't trying to win an argument with Han or prove anything to him. He's trying to teach Luke about the force. He doesn't really care what Han believes and is dismissive of his comments. Luke believes he felt the force using the remote and that's what is important.
There actually is, or so I believe. The nightsisters, also called the witches of Dathomir, that appear in The Clone Wars-series. They used dark magic.
5th Jun 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: How did Steve return the soul stone?
Answer: As the guardian of the Soul Stone, the Red Skull presumably just showed Steve the spot where he needed to return it. As for how Steve got to Vormir in the first place, he could have either borrowed a spaceship from Asgard or had Heimdall teleport him there via the Bifrost after returning the Reality Stone.
Asgard doesn't exist at the time Steve would return the stone.
It did when they took it so its still there when he brings it back. It's shortly before the dark elves attack.
Yes it does. Clint, Natasha, Rhodey and Nebula all traveled to Morag in 2014 when Quill took the Power Stone, at which point Clint and Natasha took the Guardians' ship and traveled to Vormir to retrieve the Soul Stone. Steve can travel to Asgard in 2014 and ask Heimdall to teleport him to both of those planets. Asgard wasn't destroyed until just before the events of Infinity War.
2nd Sep 2011
X-Men: First Class (2011)
Corrected entry: During the scene with the SR-71 Blackbird, while Erik is on the wheel assembly, Professor X yells 'Hank take my hand' several times. Hank is flying the plane. Erik is the one he is trying to save from falling.
Correction: He says Erik. Xavier's accent and the noise surrounding the scene just make it sound like he is saying Hank.
Phaneron is correct. Xavier does say "Erik." You can hear the difference, especially in the end sound where you can hear the "ik" sound instead of "ŋk" sound he makes when saying Hank's name (like he did a few minutes earlier in the scene).
He definitely says Hank. It's not even close to Erik, he's been saying Erik the whole movie and it has never sounded different due to his accent.
19th Jul 2019
Spaceballs (1987)
Corrected entry: When President Scroob is beamed to the next room, his head is on backwards. When he pulls away the back of his coat and says, "Why didn't somebody tell me my ass was so big?", his hands are angled like they are backwards as well. His palms are pointing towards his back. They should be facing the other way, as well as his thumbs being reversed.
Correction: The crew remarks that his head is on backwards. It doesn't mean his entire torso can't also be backwards.
To be fair, they even admit this was a mistake on the Blu-Ray edition of the film. (There's a special feature that points out various flubs.) It was really only meant to only be his head that was reversed.
Well, I think you could argue that it may have been a mistake as far as the filmmakers' intent was concerned, but it doesn't necessarily translate to mistake with respect to the scene itself. Technically, Skroob's head was on backwards. Nothing any of the characters said contradicted that.
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.