Corrected entry: As cool as it looks, it is impossible for a planet to have two sets of parallel rings, because rings only circle a planet's equator.
Bishop73
1st May 2004
Pitch Black (2000)
24th Jan 2011
Buried (2010)
Corrected entry: When Paul is patched though to Dan with the hostage working group Dan asks Paul how much battery life is left on his phone. When Paul pulls the phone away from his head you can see the Blackberry is upside down, qwerty keyboard in his ear and screen and speaker at his mouth. When the kidnapper calls in 1 minute later the phone is instantly right side up.
This correction was made without watching the scene. After Paul checks the battery life, the keyboard is on top. He puts the phone back up to his ear and keeps talking to Dan the whole time. When Paul gets another call he checks the phone and it has now flipped so the keyboard is on the bottom. The phone has flipped instantly.
24th Aug 2009
Heat (1995)
Corrected entry: When Waingro kills the prostitute at the hotel, the girl he kills is a fair-skinned African American, but when Vincent Hanna is called out to the crime scene, the dead girl under the sheet is a darker skinned African American with braided hair, obviously not the same person. (00:54:45 - 00:58:10)
Correction: The coroner at the scene mentions there were a series of murders with the same MO, and would probably find evidence of "the same guy" in this girl. The different girls were shown to show the first girl wasn't Waingro's only victim.
Why on earth would they show a different dead girl right after the murder of this young prostitute in the hotel room? That makes no sense whatsoever. They obviously didn't bother to have continuity to the scene by showing the alive girl in the bedroom scene to be dead.
They are intentionally two different girls. Kai Soremekun is credited as "prostitute" and Rainelle Saunders is credited as "dead hooker." The scene is meant to show he's a serial killer, not a continuity mistake.
Thank you! The explanation above, about another victim being shown to show how many other victims Waingro had killed, is so ridiculously inaccurate it shouldn't have even been published. Makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.
12th Aug 2021
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Doc seemed hell-bent on destroying the DeLorean. So why did he go to the future and get a hover conversion done on the train? Why didn't he just build the train, return to his own time and then destroy the train?
Answer: He didn't return to the Old West, both of them had a desire to go to the final frontier. Their favorite author is Jules Verne, who wrote "From Earth to the Moon."
Answer: Doc was happy living in the Old West but returned to the future to collect his dog, Einstein, and he didn't want Marty to worry about him. He probably also wanted to make sure that Marty had made it safely back to his own time, to properly say goodbye, and make sure the DeLorean was never used again. He never indicated he would destroy the train, only the DeLorean. The hover conversion on the train would have been done in the Old West, not in the future.
I doubt he was able to make the train hover in the old west, whilst he could easily go to the future with it and do it there, like he did with the DeLorean. He did say he has been to the future with it, so it's logical to assume that's where he upgraded it.
Doc never says he went further into the future with the train or did the hover conversion there. If he could build a time-traveling locomotive in the 1880s, then he could create a hovering one, as he had the knowledge. Marty asks if he's going back to the future, and Doc says no because he's already been there. That could be interpreted a number of ways. It's a sci-fi movie, and there is a lot of suspension of disbelief employed here.
While the movie isn't explicit about when or where the Time Train was built, other sources do indicate its hoverconversion was done in the future. While Doc could invent a machine that was capable of time travel (the mechanics of which aren't really discussed), he had to travel to the future to convert the DeLorean and couldn't even fix the DeLorean in the past.
What 'other sources' indicate Doc travelled to the future for the hover conversion? Any fan speculation is invalid. I also don't get the argument. While Doc was unable to fix the DeLorean when Marty was in the Old West, he could, and did, in later years, build the time-travel train in the past. He could not otherwise have gone anywhere into the future to do anything. Time-travelling without the hover ability would be extremely difficult as a locomotive would be noticeable and require taking off and landing on empty train tracks. Doc would have to hide the locomotive while converting it. He would also have to know before time-travelling that the railroad tracks he took off on still existed in the future, as he could possibly arrive smashing into what became an urban development. This should be considered as both a deliberate plot hole and a plot device using "suspension of disbelief" solely intended to give the series a spectacular finale.
The comics reveal that Doc Brown traveled to 2017 in a prototype time machine and purchased materials which he brought back with him to the 1890s to use on the Time Train.
9th Feb 2012
Horrible Bosses (2011)
Corrected entry: Near the end of the movie when Jennifer Aniston closes the blinds, she isn't wearing examination gloves but when the scene goes to Dale then back to her she is wearing gloves.
Correction: Enough time goes by between shots, and she herself (since she does this for a living) could be good at getting them on and off quickly, as well as Dale recounting this in flashback. There are sufficient gaps in time to explain that.
Not enough time passes. After she closes the blinds, she's off camera for about 6 seconds, but when it cuts back to her, she's still by the door, which she had closed during that time but isn't near any gloves. Then the next time she's only off camera for about 2 seconds, but during that time has moved closer to Dale and the patient and she has gloves on.
8th Apr 2021
Common mistakes
Factual error: When a police officer finds a suspicious powder he or she puts some on his or her tongue and knows straight away what drug it is, in reality the powder would need a lab test to analyse it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not true. Generally they are tasting it to see how pure the drug is. Hard drugs are often diluted with milk sugar, so they make a bigger profit. The higher the sweet taste, the less pure the drug is.
First, law enforcement officers don't ever taste drugs, it's a good way to die if you don't know what you're ingesting. But second, the mistake isn't saying they are tasting drugs to know it's strength or purity. The mistake is explicitly about a cop tasting a drug and positively identifying what it is based on taste, which happens a lot in cop movies. Such as when the cop says "that's cocaine", not "that's half pure cocaine."
3rd Apr 2017
Beauty and the Beast (2017)
Question: I have questions about the horses in terms of their breeds. Is Gaston's horse a Friesian, Lefou's horse a Gypsy Vanner, and Belle's horse (Philippe) a Percheron?
Chosen answer: Gaston's horse was actually a Friesian cross. Incidentally, it was the same horse Luke Evans rode in "The Hobbit". Purebred Friesians were used to pull the prison wagon. Belle's horse was a Spanish horse, an Andalusian. And actually 3 different horses were used for Belle's horse, 2 of which had to be painted each day. I do believe for some of the action scenes, one of the horses was a Percheron. Lefou's horse does appear to be a Gypsy Vanner.
I don't understand why Philippe was played by Andalusian when he was Belgium draught, don't get me wrong but Andalusian are incredibly beautiful horses but Philippe identity was a Belgian draft.
Are you referring to the 1991 cartoon and asking why the change? Or are you saying in the 2017 film he is identified as a Belgium draft? There were a handful of changes made in the 2017 film that seemed to make Belle more empowered. Or the filmmakers simply may have wanted a different look. Of course, there are many mistake entries pointing out inaccurate breeds being used or named if that's what you're suggesting.
9th Jul 2021
Lucifer (2015)
Plot hole: There is a rather confusing revelation when Chloe is shown the recording Joe Fields made for his daughter to see in the event that he were to die. In the recording, Fields tells his daughter that he did not kill the cop (Chloe's father). Chloe then notices that this is true because based on the timestamp on a sign in the background of the recording, he made the video 3 minutes before her father was killed. But this would be impossible because at that point the cop in question was still alive.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That was the whole point of the episode. Joe Fields never killed Chloe's dad (officer Decker). Fields was innocent and took the fall for his murder. The time on the sign showed that Fields was too far away to have killed her dad. Her dad was in fact assassinated (arranged by Perry Smith) and not killed in a robbery attempt as previously believed.
But why would he even make a tape saying he didn't kill the cop if it hadn't even happened yet? Makes no sense. Did he go back in time?
I think you should rewatch the episode. He already agreed to take the fall for the murder. He knew the murder was going to happen. He made the tape for his daughter before he went to prison (and possibly made it before the murder as to further prove his innocent). The tape was to be given to his daughter after he died so that it wouldn't affect the deal he made.
They never made the connection that he knew the murder was going to happen, instead they went on a wild goose chase instead of going bit by bit.
But then as Bishop is saying, Joe Fields knew that the hit was going to go down. He made the video declaring his innocence so his daughter would eventually get the tape. Whether he knew that he would be exonerated is another matter. But the point remains the same. He knew that the cop was going to be killed and simply prepared for it. No mistake.
7th Aug 2021
Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020)
Plot hole: At the end, everyone was returned to their own timeline. Except for Ted's dad. He's shown still playing till the end and not disappearing like the others. However, this version of Ted's dad came from the future when he attempted to arrest his son at David Grohl's house. Therefore, he should have disappeared with the others and returned to his future timeline.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That's not what happened at the end at all. Only those whose were time-displaced returned to their own timeline. Which is why we see Kid Cudi leave, he was time-displaced and not picked up in the time machine. You can even see Ling Lun is still playing.
Incorrect. Ted's dad was time displaced as well. He never arrived by the time machine, but was sent to hell after being killed by Dennis. Therefore, he should have been sent back to his future timeline.
Ted's dad was never time-displaced, nor did I say he arrived by time-machine. He was sent to Hell in his own time line and then went with the group to 2020. Unlike Kid Cudi who was time-displaced because he popped out of his own timeline because of time and space collapsing. Just being from a different time isn't what time-displaced meant.
10th Jun 2021
Abduction (2011)
Continuity mistake: When Dr. Bennet (Sigourney Weaver) is driving with both kids escaping the hospital she gives them keys and an address and says apartment #2. When they arrive at the apartment and open the door it's #202. (00:45:06 - 00:53:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is true that "202" is on the door, but this is not necessarily an error. The first "2" refers to the apartment being on the second floor and "202" is not meant to imply that there are hundreds of apartments there. Apartment "1" would be labeled "101" to signify it is on the first floor. In her haste, Dr. Bennett simply gave an abbreviated room number but not something that Nathan would not be able to figure out when he got to the small building which obviously did not contain 202+ apartments.
Apt #202 rarely identifies it as on the 2nd floor. It commonly refers to building 2, first floor. The 2nd floor apartment in building 2 would be 222 (or even 212 depending on how many unit there are). Sometimes it could be building 7 because there are over 200 units in the complex. Even if there was just 1 apartment building, and #202 does represent the 2nd floor. What about #102, or #302, or #201?
I disagree... and "apartment" and "building" are not synonymous. Where did you get your information? Perhaps we are seeing different kinds of "structures", but (where I come from!) 100s are typically first floor and 200s are typically second floor. At hospital complexes, I typically see "building" numbers (e.g, one, two, three) as well as room or suite numbers (e.g, 101, 102 = first floor and 201, 202 = second floor). I'd need you to back up your assertion with objective data.
Then you start by backing up your correction with objective data. But even in the given scenario where #202 represents the 2nd floor because the apartment isn't a complex and has just 1 building, in what possible way does it mean apartment #2? Why isn't #102 apartment #2? Why isn't #201 apartment #2?
You challenged what I wrote, so YOU need to provide support. The "whys" you are asking may not have a specific, meaningful, or obvious answer. Why is the first house on the left side of my street 7291 and the next is 7301? I shouldn't dignify your questions, but there appeared to be TWO apartments, labeled 101 and 202. 101 is first floor, and the first apartment in the building and 202 is on the second floor and the second (of only two) apartments. I have no further comments.
23rd Feb 2016
John Wick (2014)
Other mistake: When John is talking to the club bouncer, John says that he lost weight, to which he replies (in Russian) "Twenty kilograms." The translation says "over sixty pounds," but 20 kilograms is just over 44 pounds. (00:46:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Maybe he's actually saying "Over 20 kilograms" in Russian. If you calculate the other way 60lbs is just over 27kgs.
Logically that doesn't make a lot of sense since the mistake is saying the translation says "over 60 pounds", so we have to assume by 20 he means over 27.6. Why not just just say "over 27 kg"? And you appear to just be guessing that maybe he says "over 20 kg" in Russian.
Watching it literally right now... he absolutely says "20 Killogramma".
1st Aug 2021
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993)
Question: What's the deal with the awful looking costumes in this movie? Were the costumes from the previous two no longer available?
Answer: Jim Henson's Creature Shop didn't work on the third entry, so they went with someone else.
Why would Jim Henson's Creature Shop have to specifically work on the film? There were already existing suits. Shouldn't the studio have owned the suits, or did Jim Henson's Creature Shop only provide them on a rental basis?
All Effects was the company that provided the suits for the 3rd film. They had similar technology as Jim Henson's Creature Shop but underbid Jim Henson's Creature Shop to get the job.
27th Aug 2011
The Ninth Gate (1999)
Corrected entry: Towards the beginning of the film when Dean Corso first goes to meet Boris Balkan he walks through a set of doors where Balkan is giving a speech. Corso passes a sign to his left as he opens the door. The sign mistakenly spells 'Literature' as 'Litterature'.
Correction: That is not a complete error. 'Litterature' is Literature in French. The class overseas in Europe.
Actually the lesson delivered by Boris Balkan takes place in New York (but filmed in France).
Two things; if it's meant to be French, then it's misspelled. The French word is "Littérature." Second, why would the other 3 words be in English?
4th Dec 2019
Spider-Man (1994)
Neogenic Nightmare Chapter 11: Tablet of Time - S2-E9
Factual error: When Peter is walking Alissa home, the traffic signal at the intersection they stop at goes from red to yellow to green. Not what US traffic signals do - they go straight from red to green.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not entirely true; although they are rare and may no longer exist now, I've seen traffic lights that followed the red, yellow, green pattern as recently as the mid-1990s.
Interesting. What state (s) did you see this in? I'm assuming going from red to yellow was to encourage cars to cautiously enter the intersection in case someone was running a red light?
Traffic lights in the UK do this - it's more to give you a second to get ready, in gear, etc., then as soon as the lights turn green you can go. Otherwise you get no warning of when the lights are about to change.
In Illinois; as I said, such traffic lights are rare, but they did exist at least as recently as the time this episode of the series aired, and they may still possibly exist in larger cities such as New York City.
This traffic light set-up (red to yellow to green) still exists today in the UK. From what I understand, it is to alert the driver that the light will be turning green imminently and to prepare themselves to put their car in gear, as manual cars are still pretty common in Europe. I'd wager this light cycle was phased out of North America due to the abundance of automatic cars today. Could have been different in 1994 though.
It should be noted that traffic lights that go from red to yellow before going green keep the red light illuminated so that both red and yellow are lit up. However, that's not what happens in the scene. I've never seen a traffic light operate the way it's shown. And Massachusetts still has traffic lights that go from red to yellow, however, when red and yellow are lit up together, this allows for pedestrian crossing.
17th Apr 2021
Monk (2002)
Question: Is it ever stated (in-universe or otherwise) if Natalie has a second job, or how she can afford everything, including all her new cars (I've seen her in at least 5 new cars, including an Audi)? She's always complaining she's broke, even after it's revealed she's a Davenport. But she also claims she doesn't take money from them. Plus, she's always trying to get Monk to pay her and/or pay her the full amount she's owed.
Answer: Through the entire show, I don't recall her ever mentioning another job. The two explanations I had for being able to afford those cars, was there might have been a life insurance policy after her husbands death (or Mitch left her quite a bit after he died). The other may have been she had accepted some money from her family willingly or unwillingly asked for it. But in truth, I would imagine it was for product placement in the show. Most shows like Monk tend to keep the characters moderately wealthy or financially healthy, so they can insert products or items for the characters to use. Phones, food items, cars etc.
Answer: In one of the episodes it shows her going back home and that she came from money. Her parents are wealthy. Maybe that is the answer.
But in the show after it's revealed she comes from money, she states she doesn't take money from her parents, despite still visiting them.
26th Dec 2003
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993)
Question: When Michelangelo is in the village and wakes up in the shed for the first time, there are some kids that run in front of the camera. As they move we hear a very distinct sound effect of them giggling. Like the Wilhelm, this giggle sound effect is played in tons of movies and even commercials. Any idea what it is called?
Answer: I don't belive it has a set name, other than giggle or laughter it is just a generic sound. Much like the Wilhelm, which I think fans named after hearing it in a lot of movies.
2nd Sep 2003
We Were Soldiers (2002)
Corrected entry: In the film, Hal Moore repeatedly fires his weapon at NVA soldiers near the command post. In actuality no NVA soldiers got into the command post area, and Hal Moore never fired his weapon.
Correction: Artistic license, not a mistake.
This is still a factual error. Any factual error could be said to be "artistic licence." That doesn't mean it's not a factual error.
I don't think you really know the definition of "artistic licence" or "factual error." This movie is a dramatization, not a documentary. As such, film makers are free to use artistic licence to further the action and make the story more intense. Having Moore, for instance, use a gun that was made after the Vietnam War, would be a factual (historic) error.
It becomes a gray area and I agree the term "artistic license" is too much of a blanket statement that can be used to wipe away factual errors. Generally artistic or dramatic license can allow a film, show, or book based on a true store to have composite characters, fictional characters, or real characters doing things in dramatic fashion. But having NVA soldiers in an area they historically never were should be a mistake just like if a dramatization of Apollo 11 mission had a crew of 4.
1st Mar 2008
Porridge (1973)
Continuity mistake: In several episodes of the show, Richard Beckinsale's hair changes length and style during individual episodes.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not a mistake. The show takes place over more than a year in the prison. People change their hairstyle and length during that time. Just because episodes are next to each other does not mean they happen within a very short period of time.
While the mistake is vague and should include a specific example or two, the mistake is saying that within an episode the hair changes, not that the hair changes between episodes.
9th Dec 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: A human being cannot survive inside a closed refrigerator for even one hour, let alone overnight. They would suffer from a lack of oxygen and die. "Refrigerator death" is a rare occurrence but has happened on several occasions when children accidentally lock themselves in a fridge or if someone purposefully traps an individual in one.
Correction: Clearly it didn't work for him as he tried to commit suicide but was alive the next day. Maybe he got cold feet and exited quite quickly. Since the scene cuts after he closes the door you can't know what happened.
Incorrect. We see the refrigerator fully closing. When he closes it, it's night and when it cuts to the next scene it's morning, therefore he was in overnight.
Sure it closed, but you can't see he was in it all night. You can force yourself out of such types of fridge, if you have to.
So long as there is no scene specifically showing him crawl out of said refrigerator at dawn, there is no proof - implied or otherwise - he was in there overnight. As the previous entry corrected earlier, there is no way of knowing exactly how long he was inside for, and he obviously survived up until the end credits so the entire point or duration is moot.
Correction: It is possible the fridge just simply didn't seal fully. They are a poor family and likely have broken down old appliances. The airtight seals around the door could have been damaged thus letting air get inside, albeit even if just a little.
The fridge did close. Watch the scene, we here and see the fridge closing fully, it was night when he entered and the scene cuts to morning of the next day where it's daytime, so he was in the fridge overnight.
A refrigerator that is on, like the Joker's, has a fan that circulates cold air. The air comes from somewhere. A running refrigerator is not a vacuum.
There is so much wrong with this statement. First, that's not how refrigerators work. Second, asphyxiation doesn't occur in a vacuum. The mistake isn't claiming the Joker was in a vacuum.
10th Jul 2021
Black Widow (2021)
Question: At the end, General Ross' convoy is nearly to Natasha, intent on arresting her...then we cut to two weeks later, and she's about to embark on a prison breakout. Are we just meant to assume she escaped...somehow? Fought off everyone who was in those about 20 SUVs? Ran for it and somehow got away?
Chosen answer: It was done intentionally that way by the director to be left up to the viewer's imagination. Cate Shortland said "that was intentional, because we wanted to leave the question of how she would get away, rather than allow the audience to get exhausted by another fight." Of course, it's also possible that future films or TV shows will discuss/show her escape. Perhaps she negotiated her way out with information on the Red Dust.
I don't see why she didn't just leave with everyone else. There was no reason for her to stand there and wait. She could have flown off, as well. The convoy was cars, not planes.
Natasha activated her tracker which led Ross to her. The plan was to have Ross and his men arrest Dreykov, but basically things went sideways. Natasha stayed behind to hold Ross and his men off from pursuing the Widows. Presumably, had she left with them, Ross would still be able to track her and everyone would be in danger of being captured.
Until it is explained by one of those future shows, it really can be thought of as a plot hole. The interview, after the quoted bit, goes like this; "We wanted to leave you guys on a high with the question of how did she use her ingenuity? Because she did. And it was probably, I would say, she bargained her way out of that situation. But I don't know." So...the director says she does not know how the hell did she -really - escape that situation, just that she must have done something clever. Hilarious.
Leaving the how unanswered isn't a plot hole, even if writers or directors don't know the how. At best, it's an unexplained Deus ex machina. A plot hole is something that contradicts what's been established for the sake of the plot, but here, nothing was established.
I wouldn't say it's a DEM. Wikipedia; "Deus ex machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem in a story is suddenly and abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence."There is no occurrence here. Nothing that we (nor the director.) know of intervened between the two scenes.On the other hand,"Plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot." Natasha's situation is established and then ignored.
Which is why I said it was "unknown." An unknown occurrence happened that resolved the situation that wasn't illogical. However, I wouldn't correct you if you submitted a plot hole mistake, but others might since something not being explained isn't a plot hole.
Yes, sorry, I was splitting hairs as usual; I don't think a DEM can be "unexplained" in the sense of "unknown" because its whole point is that it is the narrative device that gives the story its twist; as absurd as it is (like a literal God appearing out of nowhere fixing things), it must be "something." Here there's nothing; we only have a statement of the director, movie-wise it's not even particularly implied that the resolution was peaceful, since Nat simply says she'll hold them off.
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: It's a sci-fi film. Anything is possible with sci-fi. I suppose getting an eyeshine and deadly creatures using sound to hunt their prey at night are impossible too? It's not supposed to be realistic. EDIT: I'm not going to engage in this conversation any further as it's starting to turn hostile. I stand by what I said 10 years ago. Good day, Gentleman.
THGhost
Please don't say, "it's not supposed to be realistic." That's a cop-out. Fantasy is not supposed to be realistic. Science Fiction IS supposed to be realistic.
Edwin Frydendall
I agree, this is a valid mistake. The events of this movie take place in our universe, and the most fundamental laws of physics of our Universe dictate that there can not be two sets of rings around planet. It can not be explained away by saying that it is a fantasy or magic.
Science Fiction. Emphasis on "Fiction." Like I said 10 years ago, it's not possible in real life for someone to have "eyeshine" surgery like Riddick did to see in the dark, but it happened in the fictional world of this movie. A fictional planet having two sets of rings is no different.
THGhost
It is very different. The inability to have eyeshine surgery in the present is a technical limitation. One hundred years ago it was impossible to fly faster than sound. We can do it now. A planet having two rings breaks a fundamental law of nature.
But this isn't nature, is it? It's a sci-fi movie that does not adhere to the laws of our world. It's not a documentary.
THGhost
That is incorrect. Sci-fi adheres to the laws of nature. You're describing fantasy. Plus, planets in the galaxy and other galaxies, still adhere to laws of "our world", so it's a ridiculous statement to make.
Bishop73
Whether it is an error probably depends on which type of sci-fi is used. With "hard" sci-fi, the two rings are contrary to existing principles, thereby constituting an error. With "soft" sci-fi, two rings are allowed, so not an error. The movie is set in the distant future, so it is possible known principles could be revised. Sci-fi may overlap with fantasy - where do "bioraptors" fall? Soft sci-fi includes human aspects - Riddick refused then agreed to save others. The movie is SOFT SCI-FI.
KeyZOid