Corrected entry: When Holmes and Watson enter the lab of the 'midget chemist' that aided Lord Blackwood with his illusions, Holmes declares the room "smells of sodium phosphate, among other aromas." Sodium phosphate is neither an aromatic compound, nor does it have a smell.
Noman
20th May 2010
Sherlock Holmes (2009)
Correction: Ammonium sulfate has no odor; at least I never smelled any odor from any bottle of ammonium sulfate I ever opened (which is what another chemist would expect). Even if it did have an odor, it would smell like most of the ammonium compounds that do have an odor; thus, ammonium carbonate and ammonium phosphate smell identical (you cannot differentiate most ammonium compounds on the basis of odor alone).
Was this meant as a reply to the other correction? It seems to have nothing to do with the entry.
It is a combination considering the entry about the odour of ammonium phosphate and the correction saying that Sherlock Holmes really said ammonium sulfate instead of ammonium phosphate.
3rd Dec 2023
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Factual error: The movie's title is factually inaccurate. The bride isn't "of Frankenstein" (the doctor), she's the bride of Frankenstein's monster.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: First, that's not what constitutes a factual error. At this point in time, "Frankenstein" was commonly used as the creature's name. Even today, it's understood. And in the novel, Frankenstein was never a doctor or held a doctorate of any kind. So, based on your faulty logic, it's a factual error to call him "doctor."
Suggested correction: In addition to the other corrections, the word "of" in the title can also be interpreted as meaning "from." This interpretation would allow the title to mean "The Bride from Frankenstein" or "The Bride Made by Frankenstein."
10th Mar 2009
Species (1995)
Character mistake: Fitch, who professes qualifications in biology, genetics and biochemistry, says that they made Sil female because she's a natural predator and so she'd be more docile. In almost every species of predator on earth the females are the hunters, aggressors and killers. The males may be socially dominant but they are the 'docile' ones. There are exceptions but Fitch speaks as if female and docile are the same thing - and they definitely are not.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This entry is so wrong, I don't quite know where to begin. The idea that all species, without exception, have the females as the aggressors and the males as docile is absolutely one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. It is not backed up by fact in the slightest. They also did use human DNA; they added the sample of alien DNA to it to create Sil.
The posting states that there are exceptions to the rule and specifically states "almost every species." The mistake is not that a female must be "docile". It is that a scientist professing qualifications in biology, genetics, and biochemistry would make such a stupid statement, believing it to be invariably true.
Suggested correction: They never said Sil was a natural predator when they created her. She was half human and half alien and it was their belief that human females are more docile (i.e. more motherly, more gentle, more empathetic, and less aggressive than human males). Although the reply to "more docile and controllable" was "you guys don't get out much", meaning that girls aren't that docile and controllable.
16th Sep 2014
Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
Continuity mistake: When Bond arrives at Tiffany's home in Amsterdam, he rings her doorbell. It's shown that she's living on the 4th floor (T. Case), but through the speaker-system she tells Bond to come upstairs to the 3rd floor.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Although her outside indicator does say "4", it's possible that unit 4 could be located on the 3rd floor.
What we in the US call the second floor is the first floor in Europe. So a US fourth floor is a European third floor.
Definitely not everywhere in Europe. In the Nordic countries, for example, the first floor's the first floor.
True, but this scene takes place in the Netherlands where floors are numbered Ground, First, Second etc. So, not a Nordic country.
6th Sep 2007
The Core (2003)
Factual error: In a few shots through the movie the gauges or screens displaying information, they use "PPI" for pounds per sq. inch instead of PSI. PPI is wrong it's always PSI. The first time you see it is in the scene when they just launch the ship right before they pierce the crust with Braz and Serge for sure.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They are measuring pounds per linear inch which is PPI.
10th Oct 2017
Good Times (1974)
Question: Neck Bone and Sweet Pea are referred to by Florida as their real names, Tyrone and Sylvester. Do we know which name goes to which guy? (I've always wondered this).
Answer: Neck Bone is Sylvester and Sweet Pea is Tyrone.
For some reason, I always thought it was the other way around but really no way of knowing. I'm assuming your answer is based on how Florida looks their directions near the end of the episode while saying their names.
They are listed as such on IMDb.com. So it is possible to check. Doug Grant played Sweet Pea and Michael D. Roberts played Neck Bone.
17th Jul 2004
Jurassic Park (1993)
Corrected entry: When the T-Rex moves to Dr. Grant and the boy they hold still because it can't see things that don't move. Unfortunately though, T-Rex's have a highly developed sense of smell and would certainly have known they were there.
Correction: Considering the fact T-Rex's have been extinct for 65 million years, its quite difficult to tell what their sense of smell was like. Also, Grant says quite clearly in the film that sight was the Rex's most powerful sense and if you stayed still, it confuses him.
There is actually evidence that T-Rex had visual clarity 13 times better than a human, and could see objects up to 6 kilometres away. So, T-Rex would have been able to see Dr. Grant and the boy regardless of whether they moved or not.
If a T-Rex is unable to see something when something is standing still, it's not its most powerful sense. Smell makes more sense, but not provable.
30th Dec 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Question: Something that's bugged me ever since becoming a Star Trek fan: Why do none of the ships featured in this or any other Star Trek series have seat-belts or some futuristic equivalent for their bridge crews? Practically every time, for example, the Enterprise comes under heavy attack, consoles and panels start exploding and crew members are thrown from their chairs and shown flying through the air. To me this seems a very obvious oversight.
Answer: The ships have inertial dampeners, they don't really need seatbelts. And consoles aren't really supposed to be exploding. When the do, would you really want to be lashed in place so your face and torso take the full force of it?
There is a deleted scene in Star Trek nemesis where Captain Picard captain's chair get a seat belt and he makes a comment about them.
26th Apr 2020
Goldfinger (1964)
Corrected entry: After Pussy Gallore's airplanes spray "Delta-9" onto Fort Knox and the soldiers fake the effects, why does the army let Goldfinger and his nuclear device so far into Fort Knox? Wouldn't it be much safer to intercept him somewhere at the fence? He would be surrounded by thousand of soldiers either way, but without having the opportunity to plant his nuclear device in the building. The army even awaits the signals that the device is armed.
Correction: It was only when the atomic bomb was armed that it could be detected. If the trap was sprung too soon, the bomb might not be captured. It was mentioned in the movie that if the bomb was not captured, it could be used elsewhere in the US. In addition, the bomb was not brought in by ground, but flown in after Fort Knox was captured.
Doesn't make sense too. Pussy Gallore was spraying useless "steam" over Fort Knox, she could've taken the bomb for Bond or the government pretty easily then.
Nope. Not that easy. The bomb was with so many other guards.
22nd Nov 2019
Agatha Christie's Poirot (1989)
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd - S7-E1
Factual error: A few drops of acid are dropped on a penny and the liquid bubbles (colorless liquid) as the acid eats its way through the penny. The penny is mostly copper. Any acid that can react with a copper will also produce a bright green to bright blue solution of dissolved copper, which is not the color seen. (00:05:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not necessarily. It depends on the acid and its strength. A weak acid may only oxidise copper to a monovalent state (Copper (I)) (which is colourless) rather than its divalent (Copper (II)) state which produces the blue solution.
19th Apr 2004
The Shining (1980)
Corrected entry: When Jack is at the bar and asks for bourbon, Lloyd pours him what is obviously Jack Daniels. Although a whiskey, Jack Daniels is not bourbon.
Correction: Federal regulators and bartenders (and presumably a layperson like Jack) do classify it as bourbon. Although JD is not produced in Bourbon County, Kentucky and therefore not authentic bourbon (it is technically Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey), it is otherwise identical.
Federal regulations define what bourbon is. According to these regulations, bourbon must be made a certain way. Such as containing a minimum of 51% corn. Geography is not a factor. Currently there is one distillery in Bourbon County, Kentucky. Most bourbon is made in other parts of Kentucky and some is made in other states, as long as it conforms to the Federal regulations, it is bourbon.
Correction: The previous correction is correct, so I'm just adding to it. I am a bourbon drinker, but a lot of people (myself included), only distinguish whisky under two categories: rye (like Crown Royal) or bourbon (like Jim Beam). While there are other types (like sour mash), the two most recognizable are the two I just mentioned. So to say bourbon wouldn't be unusual for Jack since he most likely just wanted whiskey and would call it by the name he felt most comfortable with one the bartender would be more likely to recognize.
10th Jan 2002
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Corrected entry: After Marion supposedly dies in the truck explosion and Indy is drinking outside at the bar, watch to the left of him. You can see a man wearing a modern t-shirt and jeans walking through the crowd. (00:42:20)
Correction: Nobody in that scene isn't wearing traditional Arab dress? What about the man in the dark leather jacket, tan trousers and fedora? What about the man in the pale beige suit, white shirt, white hat and black tie? The one in the pale brown suit and hat, white shirt, black tie? The one in tan trousers, white shirt, patterned tie? The four people indisputably wearing out of place Western clothing in the scene? That's right. Indiana Jones, Belloq and Belloq's bodyguards. Not a mistake.
Correction: This is probably the most famous non-mistake of all time. Denim jeans date from 1871. They were first sold by Jacob Davis and Levi Strauss in 1873 and the design hasn't changed much since then! Plain white cotton T-shirts date from 1898 and were first issued by the US Navy to their sailors in 1913. The design caught on immediately and they flew off the shelves. In short, there is nothing at all unusual about a man wearing jeans and a T-shirt in the late thirties.
He's the only person wearing that outfit in Cairo. Every single other person is wearing "traditional" clothing. He's clearly not meant to be in shot.
If that's true, then what about the two guys standing in the door/archway and the one guy who is sitting in the doorway next to them - all three of them don't match the rest of the extras either? All three are in the background to the left of Indy before the supposed blooper guy appears and walks right in front of them during the scene.
Highly possible. Unless you know the man's backstory who's to say he can't be where he is?
All of Cairo? I count 12 people (not including Indy) aside from him wearing traditional clothing. So one in 13 people has a different style of dress than the other 12. So what? A woman wearing a niqab in New York City might be different from others; it's not a mistake to have a niqab-wearing extra in a NYC crowd shot. This should be easily resolved anyway because there's one other person not wearing traditional clothes-INDY. And no-one gave him grief for it. Jeans aren't illegal in Cairo.
Correction: There is a simpler explanation of the man's presence and the fact that he is not there in error. This scene was shot on a closed set, and security was very tight. No member of the public would have got within a hundred metres of the place, and no crew member would be stationed in front of the cameras during a shot. It just doesn't happen. He is an extra, doing what he has been directed to do.
This site is filled with mistakes where crew-members are on camera. Whether it's an error, this correction is an assumption not supported by any facts.
13th Jul 2019
The Legend of Tarzan (2016)
Question: In real life, had Tarzan been raised by apes from the time he was a baby, would he have actually been able to be educated to act and speak like an ordinary person?
Answer: I'd have to disagree with the previous answer. Being that Tarzan was raised by apes from infancy, there are many higher-level brain functions that he (in real life) would never have completely developed, such as upright walking and other motor skills, cognitive and speech abilities, social interaction, and so on. There are some vital human-brain capacities that if not learned at certain stages of early-childhood, cannot or can only partially be learned later. However, it is highly unlikely an infant could survive long in such an environment.
Answer: Any answer would be speculative at this point since we don't have enough examples of feral children living in the wild until Tarzan's age. Most children that become feral either start out at an older age, 5 or 7, where they know how to speak a language, or are found before they hit puberty. This makes teaching and integration somewhat easier. There was a case of a boy living in the wild for 15+ years that still had difficulty interacting with society even in his 60's and 70's. He had the ability to speak but eventually lost it as he became more feral and he had huge difficulties understanding technology, like radio and cinemas. In all probability, Tarzan, and similar characters, would not be able to learn how to communicate, even if he could learn to speak English. He would have an even more difficult time learning how to socialize and live as "normal" adults do. And I could not see any possibility he teaches himself how to read and speak English, or any language.
Answer: In the books, Tarzan was self-taught after he discovered the house his father built. He learned to read English using the elementary books his parents brought with them to teach the child they were expecting, these books were in the house. While studying these books, he mimicked many of the things he saw in pictures, which could have included walking upright. He did not learn to speak English until he was a young adult after traveling to Europe. Also, after rescuing Paul D'Arnot in Africa, the French officer taught Tarzan French as the two of them left Africa for Europe.
Yes, but the question was could he "in real life" be educated and learn to speak like an ordinary person if he had been raised by apes from the time he was a baby. You are only describing how Tarzan accomplished that fictionally in the book. In real life, that could not have happened.
25th Feb 2019
Guns of Navarone (1961)
Plot hole: The huge guns are set high up on a cliff face facing out to sea and it is obvious that they cannot be depressed to fire at a downward angle - the massive gun carriages set on rails would prevent that happening. They cannot be elevated to fire at an upward angle, too, because they fit pretty snugly in the hole cut into the cliff face to accommodate them. This means that their maximum and minimum ranges would be quite close together, covering a strip of maybe a few hundred metres either side. Given that the sea is completely open on the side of the island they are protecting, why don't the ships targeted by the guns while passing the island simply sail inside or outside of the narrow stretch of sea the guns can hit?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The guns are firing across a strait. A strait is a "narrow passage." Since the targets must appear at a limited range, the guns only need a limited elevation angle.
Watch the film again. The guns are facing the open sea. There is no land visible anywhere behind the ships. If that's a strait, it's a very, very wide one.
Other summaries explain that the strait is only deep enough for the ships at the place which matches the guns' range. So ships could not take advantage of further away or closer in.
Suggested correction: That the gun carriages are supposedly set on rails is not correct. In the novel template, as well as in the film, it is shown that the guns were installed on turntables. And as for their variable angles of fire - it could be due to (fictional) modifications.
13th Nov 2003
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
Factual error: When the T-X is driving the crane and swinging the Terminator around, that is mechanically impossible. All mobile cranes are designed to run only when they are in neutral. The T-X would have burned out the hydraulic pump within seconds. (00:33:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The TX can control other machines including police cars, it's not far fetched she could control and manipulate the crane truck in anyway she wanted.
Being able to control the crane truck does not alter the fact that the hydraulic pump would burn out. That's the purpose of the safety system.
The T-X is a super robot from the future with machine controlling superpowers. So she presumably overrode the hydraulic systems in some techno magical way. None of the Terminator movies are particularly mechanically realistic so this shouldn't shake our willing suspension of disbelief.
I can't answer for every single model of crane as I imagine they all vary, but we have a Demag AC45, a Bocker AK46 or our Manitou 2150. We can operate the hydraulics whilst in motion and we've never once had a problem. That being said, we're not doing 30MPH at the same time as using them, might very well be a different story if we were.
4th May 2017
Alien Vs. Predator (2004)
Trivia: The Predators in this movie were played by Irish basketball players.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
9th Feb 2007
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Factual error: Given that the entire premise of the movie revolves around the melting of the ice caps and the disruption this causes, including a rise in sea-levels, and that at then end of the movie most of the Northern Hemisphere outside the tropics is covered by an enormously enlarged ice cap the sea-level should have lowered significantly enough for the shape of the land masses to appear different from space.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Ice that accumulated on land doesn't change sea levels enough to make the continents appear different.
8th Jun 2018
Stargate (1994)
Corrected entry: The premise for Jackson going on the mission is that once on the other side someone would need to be able to re-open the gate using new symbols, but in reality it would just be a matter for earth to re-open the gate from their end at a predetermined time or times.
Correction: The gateway is a one way trip, you can't go back through the wormhole when the gate has been opened from the other side.
Pure assumption. We don't know exactly how the stargate works. It may actually be possible to go back through the stargate, even if you just came through and it was still open. We just don't know.
It has been well established that Stargate travel is one-way.
Since when?
After Jackson says he doesn't know how to dial back, when they are setting up camp, Brown says "if we're not back soon, they'll just turn on the gate from the other side", and Ferretti tells him "no, it doesn't work that way, you see, if you don't turn it on from here, we're screwed." The one way travel is also stated in the later TV series.
Since always.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: He does not state Sodium Phosphate. He said "Ammonium Sulfate", which does have a smell.