Character mistake: When Cyrus and Johnny-23 are talking they both pronounce the Spanish version of Johnny-23's name as Juaniyo. That is not how Johnny is pronounced in Spanish. It is pronounced Juanito with a T. Normally I would have chalked it up as a language barrier but Danny Trejo is of Spanish ancestry. He should have known better. (00:20:41)
Bishop73
25th Oct 2021
Con Air (1997)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: "Juanillo" is another, though less common, diminutive of Juan.
I can appreciate you doing a google search but you would have noticed in your google search that the Juanillo you speak or is predominantly an Asian name and is not a translation of Johnny in Spanish. I am Spanish and can assure you that it was a mistake as Juanito is the correct pronunciation. Thank you for doing your due diligence however he was not playing the role if an Asian.
It should be pointed out that there's a town in Mexico called Juanillo and Juanillo Beach is in the Dominican Republic. So it is a word Hispanic and Latinos might be aware of.
Don't know why the previous guy said that Juanillo is not a common name in Spain... I am Spanish and know 2 guys that go by the name Juanillo. I would say that not only Juanillo and Juanito, but also Juanele are commonly used in Spain and probably Latin America as well.
18th Oct 2021
Top Gun (1986)
Continuity mistake: When Cougar is looking at the picture of his wife and child, it's a girl. When he is interviewed by the Captain, he says "I almost orphaned him..." (00:10:14 - 00:13:03)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He actually says "I almost orphaned 'em out there today" ie. Orphaned THEM not him.
Except he follows it up with "I've never even seen him." So he's talking about a boy. And before the orphan line he said "wife and kid", not "wife and kids", implying only one child.
And he couldn't have orphaned them anyway if their mother is still living. Dude was all shook up and couldn't think straight.
20th Jan 2019
Blue Bloods (2010)
Corrected entry: Grandpa says his dad was able to get a job as a cop when he got to America in 1910 because he had been in the Royal Air Force in WW I. However, WW I did not start until mid 1914. (00:08:00 - 00:09:00)
Correction: He's talking about 2 different things. He's said when his father first got here in 1910 no-one liked the Irish. Then his father got a job as a cop because he was a soldier in WWI. There's no mention that his dad was a WWI soldier in 1910.
You're incorrect - go back and listen again.
Henry never said his dad got a job as a cop in 1910, which is the whole premise of your mistake. The correction is valid.
19th Jan 2014
Diary of a Mad Black Woman (2005)
Continuity mistake: At the cook out Brian introduces Helen as his kids' aunt, but introduces her as his cousin to Orlando.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Any person can be introduced as an aunt or uncle to kids, it's seen as a term of familiarity to children. So even if she's introduced as a cousin to Orlando, she can still be considered an "aunt" to her cousin's children.
23rd Sep 2004
Candyman (1992)
Factual error: When Virginia Madsen's character sees Candyman in the mental hospital, a male nurse calls for the injection of 1000 milliliters of sedative to calm her down. 1000 milliliters is equal to 1 liter, which certainly could not be injected, let alone as fast as it was.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The nurse said 1000mg, which is true and accurate wording for medication.
First off, he actually said "bring me a thousand mills." Second, 1 gram equals 1 milliliter, one is liquid and one is solid.
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.
15th Oct 2004
Time After Time (1979)
Corrected entry: When Jack the Ripper and H.G. Wells play chess, the chessboard is in the wrong position. A black square is in the lower-right corner facing the opponents. According to chess rules, the board must be laid down such that there is a white square in the lower-right corner facing each opponent.
Correction: Character mistake.
This is a valid mistake. The characters playing have enough chess knowledge to know better. Plus, it means they either put their Queen on the wrong color square or the wrong position.
5th May 2015
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Trivia: The voice of Biff's grandmother was provided by Thomas F. Wilson.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: According to The IMDB website, Charles Fleischer who played Terry the Tow Truck Driver and the old man taking donations in 2015, provided the voice of Gertrude Tannen.
And other sites list Wilson as the voice of Gertrude. Neither men are credited for the role and I have yet to see any site list a source for the information.
Https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0281486/otherworks.
IMDB is not considered a good source. Plus, on that site the information is given as trivia without a source, any crackpot could have claimed that.
Well until you can show me a confirmed source stating it was anyone else, my correction stands.
But IMDB isn't a confirmed source. Here's a site that lists Wilson as the voice actor, so by your logic the trivia entry stands. https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Gertrude_Tannen.
On the audio commentary it is stated that the voice of Grandma Tannen is Fleischer. This is stated right after we hear "her" voice when the outside of her house is being shown.
30th Jan 2018
Logan (2017)
Corrected entry: In the casino, as Logan is trying to get to the room during Charles' seizure, everyone is frozen. A woman sitting at a slot machine turns to look as Logan passes her, then back to the machine - not frozen like everyone else.
5th Apr 2017
Logan (2017)
Corrected entry: After the first fight scene when Logan is pulling bullets out of his body and dropping them in the sink there is a shell casing with them, showing they're unfired.
Correction: There are no casings, just the bullets. The back part of the bullets are fairly intact, giving the appearance the casings are still on them but you can see none of them are long enough to be bullets with casings.
Wrong, there are ACTUAL hollow shell casings in the sink. Simple mistake.
I paused the film to look at what's in the sink and at first I thought there was a casing. But after looking at the other two bullets, it's clear that it's not a casing. The way the blood is covering the bottom of the bullet just gives an illusion you're looking at something hollow. The correction is valid.
Correct. There were no bullets in him. He only pushed out casings which should be in the ground in the parking lot. It makes zero sense. Huge flaw.
30th Aug 2010
Dexter (2006)
Corrected entry: In the season finale of Season 4, when Arthur Mitchell threatens to steal his son's fillings from his teeth, his wife screams at him by his real-life name, "Jonathan" instead of "Arthur". (00:20:45)
Correction: There is no mistake. The woman cries out "Jonah" to her son, that's is name. In any case, Mr. Lithgow's first name is John, not Jonathan. TRIVIA: His middle name is actually Arthur.
Nope, she screams out "Jonathan, please!" while looking directly at Arthur. The fact that Lithgow's first name isn't actually Jonathan is irrelevant to the fact that she called him by the wrong name.
The correction is correct. When Arthur moves towards Sally, Jonah gets up to confront his dad. Sally says "Arthur!" then hold Jonah back and says "Don't, Jonah, no!"
I'm watching the episode right now, and going over this scene again. Jonah says to Arthur "What the hell is going on? What did you do?" Then as Arthur angrily approaches Jonah, Sally - while looking in Arthur's direction - screams out "Jonathan, please, no!" Then Arthur tells Jonah he's lucky he doesn't pull the fillings out of his teeth, just as the mistake describes. The entry is valid.
Then you're watching a different version than everyone else. I too just watched it and the correction is correct. She says "Jonah, no." But she is looking at Arthur because that's where the threat is.
If a mistake occurs in a certain version of a TV show or movie, then I would argue that it's still valid as long as there is a caveat pointing it out. I watched the episode on Amazon Prime and reviewed the scene around 10 times, and Sally saying "Jonathan" is unmistakable. The first syllable of "Jonah" is pronounced differently than the first syllable of "Jonathan," and "Jonathan" has an additional syllable. I even double-checked the scene on YouTube, and she can be heard saying "Jonathan" in the video titled "Dexter 4x12 Trinity Confronts His Son," around the 0:43 mark.
15th Apr 2006
Remember the Titans (2000)
Corrected entry: In the first game against the Hawks, Petey forces a fumble after a reception and another player from the Titans picks it up and runs it into the wrong end zone for a touchdown. It would be a safety against the Titans.
Correction: It was the wrong direction not a reverse angle.
Correction: Actually, the camera just reverses angle.
It's the wrong direction and the mistake is valid. Pay attention to which team is on the sidelines. When the Hawks snap the ball, you see the Hawks' sideline is to the right-hand side of the offense. When #17 picks up the ball, we see the Titans sideline, which means they should be on the left-hand side of the offense. That means if the defense wants to score a TD, #17 needs to be running with the Titans' sideline to his right, but he's running with them on his left.
3rd May 2017
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)
Question: At the beginning, Stretch asks the two punks in the car to hang up so that the call can end and the phone line can be clear. Why? Why can't she just hang up and end the call? This makes no sense.
Chosen answer: That's how telephones worked back then. It has to do with the lack of a disconnect signal being sent by the called party, which phone companies have now. Back then when someone called another person, they were paying for the call and thus it was felt that they're entitled not to be hung up on and the line would not be "free" for the person being called, even after they hung up. This also meant if someone was called and they picked up in one room, they could say "hold on I'm going to switch phones", hang up, go to another room and pick up the phone and the caller would still be there. It was also a great way to scam or annoy people by calling them and not hanging up. Some countries still maintain this method of operation, largely because some people have become used to it, although nowadays it's by choice, not by technical limitation, and the length of time the line is held open is significantly reduced.
Yeah that's actually true. in the 80s we used to call up talk radio shows from isolated, seldom-used phone booths and then leave the phone off the hook. No more calls for hours until they straightened it out with the phone company. we called it 'jock blocking'.
That's not true my brother would prank call KDKA in Pittsburgh constantly they had no trouble hanging up. If people called our house there was no trouble hanging up.
That's exactly how it worked if the line didn't have a disconnect signal.
23rd Sep 2008
Stargate SG-1 (1997)
Plot hole: When the team manage to create the cavern with the buried stargate they send Teal'c through to drill his way out, but wouldn't it be safer (and significantly faster) to fire a missile or two through and blast their way out? They have no idea how deep the stargate is buried, or under what type of rock, so sending Teal'c with only four hours of air seems suicidal. (00:35:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Except that sending a missile through would only cause the rocks to cave in onto the Stargate again and could possibly make it impossible to reopen the Stargate. If they could reopen it, they would just end up creating the same cavern. Not to mention the fact the danger to life on the planet if a missile did make it through and ends up exploding on the surface.
Except that if the gate is active, anything falling down on it would be destroyed, so if anything you would still end up with a cavern if material soil bound together as it was falling towards the gate, OR you would end up with a crater which would be Teal'c's objective.
It's not about the rocks being destroyed. It's about if the Stargate ends up shutting down and the rocks creating an iris, making it impossible to establish a wormhole.
17th Jan 2006
Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd (2003)
Continuity mistake: When Ms. Heller is talking to the tour guide at the museum, she offers her a $5 bill to take the tour twice. How the bill is folded and held changes. When Ms. Heller says do the tour twice it's pinched between her fingers, then it's folded in half. It keeps switching between folds. (00:35:19)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I didn't see it folded at all. The "other half" or part of the $5 bill that you can't see is actually squished/crumbled in the palm of Heller's hand.
The mistake is partially valid, its position changes. You seem to be talking about when she has the $5 and camera in her hand. When she says do the tour twice, it's pinched between her fingers, then in the next shot, it's folded in half, then she's pinching the end and the other end is unfolded, then back to folded in half.
Regarding the "folded in half" - the $5 bill is folded, but VERTICALLY. The differences that are shown appear to be deliberate SLEIGHT OF HAND. Heller is flashing the whole $5 bill at first, then crumbles it (symbolizing it "going away"). By having the $5 folded vertically, Heller was able to quickly fan out the left side (part equivalent to a flat $5 bill), then hold the $5 to resemble a bow tie. Folded vertically, the $5 bill could be manipulated to look different and more or less appealing.
She never crumbles the $5 bill during the part the mistake occurs. The way she's holding the bill changes between shots, meaning no time elapses, so there can be no deliberate sleight of hand.
Or would that be HORIZONTALLY? The $5 bill is folded to be long, not short, if this clarifies what I'm trying to say.
31st Aug 2021
Law & Order (1990)
Corrected entry: When Levi March's wife makes it clear that she will testify against him his lawyer protests that she cannot so do under spousal privilege. He should know better. Spousal privilege protects a wife from being compelled to give evidence against her husband (and vice versa). It does not prevent her from volunteering to do so, which is the case here.
Correction: That is incorrect. In New York, the martial communications privilege is codified at CPLR §4502 (b), which states: "A husband or wife shall not be required, or, without consent of the other if living, allowed, to disclose a confidential communication made by one to the other during marriage."
There's almost always exceptions to the rules, and the statute applies to "confidential communication." You would have to know the nature of her testimony to ascertain if the privilege will or will not protect him. (I'm not familiar with this episode, so do not know what the case is about - maybe someone could add some details about the case and nature of her testimony?).
While there are exceptions, the episode didn't spend time on her testimony since Levi takes a plea. But the correction is valid because the lawyer's objection is valid, so there is no mistake. Yes, counsel would have to discuss the situation and have the judge make a decision, but the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong.
I might not be understanding something and/or don't have enough information to ascertain if the privilege is relevant. A spouse cannot be COMPELLED to testify about confidential communication and the husband can exert the privilege even if the wife wants to volunteer information. Beyond these basic rules, more information is needed.
Actually, if we presume the lawyer was correct when he said spousal privilege applied, there is NO "factual error." The "factual error", as written, is using EXCEPTIONS to support its assertion, but there is no reason to believe exceptions are applicable. (I think I get it!). I think your wording is "off": "the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong." A lawyer would say a wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is correct. (?).
You're overthinking it. You were correct when you said a wife cannot be compelled to testify... Which is why the mistake is wrong.
Maybe... but the last part " which is the case here" leads me to question if the person posting the error knows there was an exception because the testimony wasn't going to be about confidential information (private between spouses).
Since the person posting the "factual error" did not specify what the actual case is, there is enough doubt among others to dispute the "factual error" (as presented).
6th Sep 2021
Stargate SG-1 (1997)
Character mistake: At the end, Vala and Mitchell establish a wormhole and let Teal'c and Jackson know. Almost a minute passes before Teal'c and Jackson get back to the gate and Jackson yells "run" because they need to get through the gate right away. Obviously they're detained, but after being let go, Mitchell says they're sending the iris code now. This is something that should have been done sooner, especially after hearing gunfire, so they could be ready to go through when Teal'c and Jackson arrived.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: OR... after hearing the gunfire maybe it was smarter to wait until they verified that it was Teal'c and Jackson who prevailed. Otherwise, they risked leaving the gate open to a hostile force.
Perhaps they waited, but they still would have sent it when they saw them, which the didn't. And they've never waited like that before.
17th Jun 2020
The Incredible Hulk (1996)
Darkness and Light: Part 1 - S1-E11
Plot hole: When Hulk and Banner have been physically separated by the nutrient bath, they are both wearing tattered pants. Given that Hulk and Banner were previously occupying the same body, this should not be possible. Hulk was the one that went into the nutrient bath, so if Banner's body was separated from Hulk, then Banner should be naked.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It was done deliberately as a form of censorship. They didn't want to show Bruce's genitals.
Explaining why the mistake occurred doesn't invalidate it. Unless you're suggesting the nutrient bath also was able to duplicate the pants.
You realise a character can be drawn naked without actually showing their genitals (and/or breasts in the case of women), right? The Little Mermaid is a good example of this.
21st Feb 2019
The Predator (2018)
Continuity mistake: After the small predator kills everyone in the back of the truck he grabs a left arm that becomes a right arm. (00:37:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I agree this APPEARS to be correct, but I think it is questionable - it COULD be the left arm. The covered thumbs-up arm the Predator extended to the driver had its fingers curled toward the palm, not straight out like they were. There was a zigzag pattern on the glove's wrist, but this could be the opposite (outer) side if it also had the pattern, not the inner side. The thumb looked broken - giving the image that it might have been the right thumb, but actually the left. You MIGHT be right.
The mistake is valid, no correction needed. It's a right hand that extends through the opening and a left arm seen on the floor. A key factor is the knuckles location, so it doesn't matter if the thumb looked broken.
I watched several times and still believe it could be the left hand. The way the fingers are folded (curled) toward the palm, they look like left knuckles.
If the hand was a left hand, then you wouldn't see the knuckles.
No matter which way fingers are folded under toward the palm, there will be knuckles showing on either side. (Make a fist and see for yourself!) No further replies from me here.
27th Aug 2001
The Terminator (1984)
Corrected entry: The Terminator runs his finger down the phone book to look up the Sarah Connors. Why would a cyber with enhanced vision need to do this?
Correction: The Terminators are designed to appear and, more importantly, act, as human as possible. It would look very suspicious if he were to just open the book and pick the names out without using some means of keeping his place on the page.
I think is an overused cop out of the Terminator doing things a machine wouldn't need to do. First off, it would have to be programmed or somehow learn that's how humans look up names in a phonebook. Also, a lot of people can look up names in a phonebook without running their fingers down the page and nothing would be very suspicious if someone just opened it up and started looking for a name using just their eyes. It's done just for the audience.
Correction: He probably does not technically "need" to do this, but he also "wants" to get it right the first time (i.e, not make a mistake). The print in phone books are often quite small. So using a finger reinforces what the eyes are seeing. [The running of his finger down the page might be more for the audience to see what he is doing (looking for), but that wouldn't mean a terminator could not do it to facilitate speed and accuracy, too.].
The idea that a highly advanced machine with targeting systems, etc. needs to use its finger to help it read slightly small print which any human with 20/20 vision would have no problem with is a bit of a stretch. There's zero reason why with a futuristic CPU driving its every action it would need to validate what line it's reading with a finger. Hell, Google Lens on a smartphone can read a page of small text and accurately make the printed words machine readable, and it definitely doesn't need a finger's help to do that.
I wrote, "He probably does not technically 'need' to do this..." Need and want are two different things. Terminator 2 was more advanced. Did he need sunglasses?
It is possible that seeing so many Sarah Connors (as opposed to just the one he was looking for) caused a problem. If he was programmed to stop at Sarah Connors, using his finger enabled him to override the first and each successive one until he found the one (s) that looked most likely to be the correct Sarah Connors.
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.