Question: Why is Tom Clancy credited as an executive producer on this show considering he passed away 5 years before the show went into production?
Bishop73
3rd Mar 2021
Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan (2018)
18th Jun 2014
The X-Files (1993)
Trivia: Rebecca Toolan plays David Duchovny's mother in the series, even though in real life she's only a year older than him.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This entry is actually incorrect. There are records that prove she is much older than what's stated. By 1968, she married her first husband and was a university professor. Https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22109182/wedding-announcement-rebecca-cox-and/.
While there are many conflicting reports about Rebecca Toolan's age, it seems the Wikipedia entry is the most incorrect (which is where you got your source). It seems more probable than not that whoever edited her Wikipedia page linked a article about the wrong Rebecca Toolan.
14th Jan 2021
The Sweeney (1975)
Character mistake: After Regan and co jump out the back of the police van and a punch up ensues, Brian Blessed quietly walks away to a white car to make his escape. Regan clocks this and goes after him. Brian Blessed lashes out and pushes Regan away, but growls "Carter..." instead.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Brian Blessed growls 'cozzer', not 'Carter'.
What does cozzer mean?
"Cozzer" means "copper."
27th Feb 2021
Gladiator (2000)
Factual error: Early in the film Maximus walks through a cereal crop trailing his hands against the heads of grain. Except that dwarf varieties of cereal were only bred in the 20th century. Before this a crop would have been up to a man's shoulders.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: No doubt the scene was shot with a modern variety, but it turns out that it is a good approximation of the wheat grown at the time of the story. Two varieties of wheat grown in ancient Rome, the Emmer and Eikorn varieties, reach only 2-3 feet at maturity. These were originally wild wheats that had been cultivated for 8-10 thousand years BCE.
27th Feb 2021
Forrest Gump (1994)
Continuity mistake: At the beginning of the movie, before meeting Jenny, Forrest is sitting on a bus bench wearing the Nike shoes he received from Jenny and ran across the country in. When he arrives at Jenny's and crouches down to meet little Forrest, he's wearing brown loafers.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's certainly possible that he brought a nicer pair of shoes in his suitcase to change into when he arrived to her place.
Except nothing in the film suggest he had a chance to change shoes. He was so excited to see her and when he found out he's only 5 or 6 blocks away, he runs all the way to her apartment. It wouldn't be in his character to then stop and change shoes before knocking on her door.
If we look closely, those are just dirty shoes. Same ones Jenny gifted him.
Of course it would be in his "character." Forrest Gump was always a tuck in your shirt and straighten your tie kind of guy.
23rd Feb 2021
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Other mistake: When Lewis looks at the cup that he got from the coffee machine, the cup has two Jacks and two Aces. When he looks at the bottom of the cup, it has a Queen underneath giving him two pairs, but he tells Gwen the receptionist that he got a full house.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There are more cards displayed on the right side of the 2 aces, we can't see them. There are probably 2 queens there.
No there aren't. There's only 4 cards on the side of the cup. That's the whole point of Wildcard Poker cups, 4 cards with one on the bottom.
Well actually there are 5 on the side of the cup, but indeed that still wouldn't be enough to get a full house with a queen. But still, he is allowed to be wrong.
There's only 4 cards on the side of the cup and the card at the bottom. Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovq9xOQNamk and go to the 00:36 mark.
It's possibly because multiple takes were made of this scene and different cups were used. This can be evidenced by the cup that falls to the floor being different to the one seen in his hand. Presumably, in one take he did have a full house, but they forgot to use the correct cup in the shot that was used.
23rd Feb 2021
Star Wars (1977)
Question: Why was the original trilogy always titled episodes 4, 5 and 6, when the prequel trilogy wasn't even planned?
Answer: The original wasn't. It was just "Star Wars" when I saw it in the theater. In fact Lucas wasn't planning on any sequels when he made the first. After the first made it as a big success and drafts of a sequel were started, the second was first numbered as 2, but Lucas decided on a series with prequels, so the first became number 4, and so on. For a long time after 4-6 came out, people doubted if 7-9, let alone 1-3 would every be made. It was 16 years between the release of #6 and #1.
Answer: It is true "Star Wars" was not originally called episode IV, but Lucas always had the idea of doing a sequels. His original script became too big for one film, so he took the first third of the script (Act 1) and turned it into "Star Wars." However, since the film gave no context or background information to the audience (we're basically just thrown into the action), Lucas took the opportunity when "Star Wars" was a success to plan on creating prequels.
Https://drbeat.li/album/Bücher/The_Secret_History_of_Star_Wars.pdf (pdf of "The Secret History of Star Wars"). And here is a quote from Lucas "The Star Wars series started out as a movie that ended up being so big that I took each act and cut it into its own movie...It was like a big script. It was way too big to make into a movie. So I took the first third of it, which is basically the first act, and I turned that into what was the original Star Wars."
1st Jan 2011
Stargate SG-1 (1997)
Corrected entry: Hathor is seen leaving the room, when she is supposed to be dead in the bucket of dead parasites. (00:40:40)
Correction: This has been corrected before; she is not dead.
I am rewatching SG1 and I saw a weird movement then I saw some sort of distorted effect and then you see the (assuming) stuntwoman transitioning out of the room. So of course when I watched this I wondered is she still alive, but she does not appear later in the ep, so I assumed it was a goof.
The transition out of the tub does looks odd (intentionally) and then you see someone that looks like they're walking pass the shot. But Hathor does appear later in the episode, she's seen leaving through the Stargate.
19th Feb 2021
Halloween (1978)
Question: How can Michael possibly know how to drive a car if he's been locked away in an insane asylum since the age of six?
Answer: He likely saw his parents drive before he killed his sister and remembered it. After all, in America 96% of people drive automatics which would be a lot easier to understand at that age than a manual (stick shift).
I'm not sure where you got your random 96% number. But that sounds like a figure from 2020 where less than 4% of vehicles sold are manual. This film takes place in 1978 (where Michael would have been 6 in 1963). Even in the late 90's, more than 25% of cars sold were manuals.
16th Sep 2002
The Parent Trap (1998)
Plot hole: The parents meet and get married on the QE II and then we jump to the girls getting to camp 11 years and nine months later. We learn their 12th birthdays are on October 11, so at the time of the camp (which must be around July/August) they are 11 years and around 9 months old. They should only be 11, given it takes 9 months to grow a baby, but instead they're nearly 12.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Elizabeth James got pregnant sometime within the 11 years. Their parents sent them to camp in July because in October they both turn 12. So they are 11 years 9 months old.
The mistake is valid, but perhaps not specific enough about why. The opening scene takes place Jan 8, 1986 (as seen on the marriage licence). Then it says 11 years and 9 months later, which would mean in the next scene it's October 1997 (when it's July 1998). It's 11 years and 9 months after the twins' birth and/or the parents' divorce. But we're not actually shown that part.
15th May 2020
Jumanji: The Next Level (2019)
Question: What does "follow the flame to the desert fruit" mean?
Answer: In the building with the Jumanji berry tree, there were flames on the wall. By following the flames on the wall, Ruby was able to get to the tree, rather than try to cross the waters somehow.
16th Aug 2016
Bruce Almighty (2003)
Corrected entry: God tells Bruce he can't mess with free will. However, he does when he makes Evan say lots of crazy stuff on TV.
Correction: He doesn't change Evan's mind such to make him want to say the gargled messages, he's merely controlling Evan's mouth as opposed to changing his thoughts. His will remains unchanged. On the other hand, forcing Grace to love him would be different than simply forcing her to utter the phrase "I love you" without her meaning it.
Except that Bruce is making Evan say gibberish against his own free will.
Free will is based in the mind. Bruce is only controlling Evan's body.
I think it could be argued either way. Bruce was controlling Evan physically (in addition to the gibberish he makes his voice higher), but Evan may still have had the free will to not open his mouth. We don't see the extent of Bruce's power though. Could he have forced Evan say something against his will? (i.e. something he would never say or believe). Since we don't see that, the correction seems more valid than the mistake.
29th Jul 2019
Another Life (2019)
Through the Valley of Shadows - S1-E2
Question: Spoiler alert! At the end of the first episode, Ian attacks Niko with a knife. In self defence, she round house kicks him into an electrical current that kills him. She was reacting out of self defence and he struck first. With that being the case, why in the second episode is she not explaining that to the rest of the crew? She simply says he was a threat to the crew and she killed him... Leaving out completely that it was self defense and he attacked first. Why? It started causing tension immediately with some of the crew ready to turn on her for murder. Why didn't she just tell them he attacked her first and she defended herself?
Answer: First, it should be pointed out that Ian didn't actually attack Niko. He had a knife, made a vague threat about not being as magnanimous as she was to him, and did raise the knife after approaching her, but she kicked him first. But the crew had already mutinied against her. The way I see if, she wanted to make sure the crew thinks she was willing to kill anyone who was a threat to the mission. Whereas if she claimed self defense she would either look weak or a look like a liar.
The crew members that followed Ian might not believe he would try to attack for no reason. She had no marks on her, so if she claimed he attacked her first, she would be lying. Most of the crew that was awake already mistrusted her, so claiming self defense at that moment wouldn't make them start trusting her.
Answer: This is a mistake and should be listed as such.
If it can be verified as such, sure. It seems there was a conscious decision by the show makers to do this though.
19th Feb 2021
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Just before Doc shows his plan with the DeLorean and the train Marty checks the walkie-talkies and Doc confirms it that they work. How are they able to get the walkie-talkies to work in 1885? I'm thinking Doc invented something so Doc and Marty can communicate with each other with them.
Answer: Given Doc's scientific ability (and some suspension of disbelief) it would be easy enough to rig up a makeshift battery that would last long enough. Or indeed they've just got lucky and the walkie-talkies' batteries still have enough life in them. They're not mobile phones, they don't need masts or any infrastructure, they just connect directly to each other.
Like you said, walkie-talkies work independently of any infrastructure, which is what I think the question was more about. However, the battery was invented way before 1885 with the first lead acid rechargeable battery being invented in 1859 with pasted electrode batteries being invented in the 1880's. So it's less about Doc rigging up a battery and just using what's already available or charging the batteries it came with (if we are assuming the batteries ran out of power).
The best batteries they had in those days were crude, wet batteries made out of earthenware and filled with sulphuric acid. They were cumbersome, dangerous and didn't have a lot of voltage or low current. Hardly suitable for a walkie-talkie that needs at least 9 volts. But I suppose it's possible Doc had some charged self-made batteries sitting at home to keep them going.
Definitely not "crude", certainly not as advanced as today, but the lead acid battery is the same technology a lot of batteries use today. They even had electric vehicles prior to 1885. My point was Doc didn't have to invent technology that didn't exist (as opposed to what some say he would have to do to get an 80's camcorder to play on a 50's TV). They had rechargeable batteries back then so it wouldn't be a stretch that Doc could recharge the batteries he had.
Answer: 1955 Doc got him some new batteries ("Just in case, fresh batteries for your walkie talkie. Oh what about that floating device?") They only used them on the train so the batteries would still be charged. In regards to how they work, they don't rely on phone masts, satellites, WiFi etc as they send radio waves to each other and not to any sort of base station.
29th Nov 2008
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)
Continuity mistake: When Prince Nuada holds up the golden egg-shaped "Forest God" pod, it's in his right hand. After it opens and he goes to take out the green object, he's holding it in his left hand and takes it out with his right hand.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Between frames, where the Prince holds the egg with two different hands, there is a shot with Hellboy, long enough for the Prince to switch hands.
He was off camera for 1 second. His left arm was down by his side and his right arm stretched out. Really not enough time to switch hands when he showed no intention of bringing his left arm up and given how slow and deliberate he was moving.
29th Dec 2020
Stargate SG-1 (1997)
Question: On every planet SG-1 travels to, plants are the same color as those on earth. Shouldn't plants have different colors on different planets?
Answer: The Aliens choose planets that were similar to Earth. They possessed human beings, so they needed worlds with vegetation and atmosphere. In the original movie, their race was dying and humans were the only ones who could give them eternal life - they took many inhabitants as slave labor.
Answer: There have been times where plants are different color, but generally speaking, green is evolutionarily better at capturing the best amount of sunlight energy for photosynthesis. Thus, plants evolved to have green chlorophyll on other planets as well.
Answer: Planets with Stargates were chosen because of the similarities to Earth.
That's ridiculous. Stargate command would never choose a planet based on similarities to earth unless it would to make sure it was safe to travel to.
Stargate command had nothing to do with where the Stargates were. The answer is saying those that placed the Stargates throughout the galaxy chose Earth-like planets. More accurately though, inhabitable planets, which tend to be similar to Earth.
The Ancients put the Stargates on planets, and since their physiology was very similar to modern Earth humans, it stands to reason that they only chose to put planets which could support a similar lifeform. Hence, why most planets or moons resembled Earth at some point in their history.
Huh? First of all, you're trying to surmise what a fictional agency would do. Second, SG-1 and other SG teams frequently visited both Earth-like planets and planets with toxic conditions.
Stargates were placed at worlds that were similar to Earth, this mostly due to the ancients establishing themselves on Earth over 50 million years ago and finding planets to colonize from there. Some worlds may have become inhospitable over the millions of years after the stargate was built though. It is quite possible all these planets were seeded with life from Earth and planets close to Earth's appearance, hence the same vegetation and animal life.
10th Jun 2004
SpongeBob SquarePants (1999)
Corrected entry: Spongebob Squarepants was originally named Spongeboy.
Correction: While Hillenburg did draw a similar character he gave the name Spongeboy to, it was never considered for use in the show and not relevant trivia. There already existed a product using the name Spongeboy.
But it was still the original idea for the show.
No, it was two separate ideas.
17th Jan 2007
The A-Team (1983)
Question: What were the machine guns The A-Team used?
Answer: They never use an M14. The nearly always use a Ruger Mini 14, a totally different weapon.
Answer: The machine guns primarily used were M60's or M60D's. Although there were a lot of sub-machine guns used too, like the Mac-10. For some reason other answers are talking about rifles used in the show.
For the reason is because most people don't know the difference between an automatic rifle, a sub-machine gun, and a machine gun. I.e. Die Hard "Ho-ho-ho now we have a machine gun" - actually a HK MP5K. M60D's are for helicopter door gunners. I suspect you mean an M60E3, with the pistol foregrip.
You suspect wrong. I did mean M60D since they were seen being used as helicopter door guns.
Only in the stock footage in the intro though.
Yes, because the question was asking what machine guns were used, but didn't cite a specific episode or anything, so I was being thorough.
The question is what machine guns were used by the A-team. Not that one.
So you think the question was what machine gun was used by the A-Team but not by the A-Team?
No. The A-Team never used the M60D anywhere in the series, you only see it in the stock footage of the intro. And the question was what machine guns the A-team used.
Answer: Mostly M-14's. Occaisionally M-16's or Ingram Model 10's. http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg00-e.htm.
They are not M-14s, that is a full automatic military rifle used during the early part of the Vietnam War as a replacement for the M1 Garand. It has much the same appearance as the M1 except with a magazine instead of a top-loading en-bloc 8 rd clip. The rifles used by the team are Ruger Mini-14s, chambered for .223. An M-14 is NATO 5.56.
24th Jul 2006
Swamp Thing (1982)
Continuity mistake: When in the rowboat, Adrienne Barbeau's t-shirt is white in some shots and blue in others. It is not the lighting - it is plainly two different coloured t-shirts.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
23rd Jun 2012
Prometheus (2012)
Corrected entry: Upon reentry, a crew member comments that the atmosphere is like "breathing through an exhaust pipe, CO2 is over 3%, two minutes without a suit and you're dead." However, human beings can live in an environment of over 5% CO2, with only mild discomfort in the 3% range.
Correction: They're just rattling off a list of details about the atmosphere, concluding with the fact that it will kill you. Its lethal toxicity is not to do with the CO2 levels.
"Not to do with the CO2 levels"? Read the quote. They're saying you'll die in minutes from exposure to 3% CO2. That would make mouth-to-mouth resuscitation an impossibility as we exhale about 4% CO2. Even if they meant carbon monoxide - ie. What comes out of an exhaust pipe - you'd still have have to be WELL over 3% concentration for it to be lethal within minutes.
The quote does say the atmosphere is over 3%, not at 3%. Could be 6%.
It's unlikely after saying 71% nitrogen and 21% oxygen that "over 3%" would mean double the amount. Over 3% would mean less than 4%. But I would like to know what studies shows humans surviving over 5% CO2 levels to see what the rest of the air is made up of.
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.
Answer: As he is the author who created the Jack Ryan character that was adapted into a successful movie franchise, he could be credited as an executive producer for any TV or movie projects both before and after he died. It was announced in 2015 that the series would be produced for Amazon. Clancy died in late 2013, and he probably was involved in the series' earliest stages or discussions just prior to his death, and therefore would be credited posthumously. The title of TV or movie "executive producer" is fairly broad and can include one or more function, including securing financing, production oversight, creative input, script consultation, story concept, and more. Clancy's estate would likely continue to be involved under his name following his passing and receive profits and royalties.
raywest ★
While his estate would receive the profits, it's not automatic that Clancy would receive credit as a executive producer just because he wrote the novels. Authors like Michael Crichton, Douglas Adams haven't been credited as an executive producer after their death for use of their characters and works. Clancy's estate must be involved in the production in some way and rather than credit the estate, they credit the man.
Bishop73
Most likely his estate would be involved, through surviving family members, lawyers, etc. to act on his behalf in his name. No one said it was "automatic." It would have been a contract arrangement made while he was alive and that would continue posthumously. Whatever Michael Crichton or Douglas Adams did was a different arrangement for whatever reason they chose.
raywest ★
Nothing in your answer suggested anything about a contract arrangement (which if true would be the reason). You implied it was automatic. You said "as the author...he would be credited...for any...projects", but that simply is not true.
Bishop73