Question: When Superman went back in time to save Lois, doesn't that mean that the people that he had originally saved are now doomed to die?
Bishop73
15th May 2013
Superman (1978)
Answer: There are generally two methods of time travel. Skip vs Slide. When you slide through time, you are in essence rewinding or fast forwarding a tape. Time will accelerate to the desired moment. This method, the traveler will witness the rewind and will only allow one of them to exist. When skipping, you are plucking yourself from the time stream and placing yourself in the desired moment. This method, travel is instantaneous and can allow for multiples of the traveler to exist at once. Superman rewound time. He used the slide method and went directly to Lois after doing so. This means those he previously saved...died after his reversal.
Or he could have used the skip method. Like you said, it enables a traveler to pluck themself from the time stream and placing them at the desired moment allowing for two Supermen to be able to prevent both missiles from reaching their destinations.
He couldn't have used the skip method if he rewound time.
19th Dec 2001
Air Force One (1997)
Factual error: The plastic explosive used on the cockpit door was C-4. When shot (as shown), C-4 does not explode; it requires the use of a detonator.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You can see him applying a detonator prior to him shooting it.
If he applied a blasting cap (detonator) he should have used it then. Just putting a detonator into C-4 doesn't all the sudden make it vulnerable to being shot, he would have to actually hit the blasting cap's wire, which is about 5mm thick and relatively short (and it would have to be one that's sensitive to gunfire). Not a very probable shot, even less so when he doesn't even look when he shoots.
22nd Jan 2006
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Corrected entry: When the Hobbits are in the woods and Merry has asked Frodo who the Black Rider was looking for Pippin says "Get down". Though if you look you see that it is actually Sam who says it, but Pippin's voice is heard. You can tell because the one speaking is the one to the left, and when the Hobbits duck Sam is to the left and Pippin to the right. Plus it is the chubbier Hobbit who speaks, which would be Sam.
Correction: It sounds like Pippin but it is Sam. In the Extended Edition cast commentary, Sean Astin explains how in one take of that scene, he said the line with an American accent.
I watched the film and I am sure it didn't sound like Pippin saying get down.
I've seen mistake entries for other film where characters say a line without their established accent or in the actor's real life accent. Perhaps then this would still be considered a mistake with a a different wording.
14th Oct 2020
Annie (2014)
Question: When Mr. Stacks was telling Annie what ingredients to use, and she had only heard of two of them, which two was it?
Answer: Probably steak and tomatoes. But there's really no indication which ones she actually knew (and might have been exaggerating).
Answer: I'm not familiar with this specific part, and I don't know what the third ingredient was, but I'd assume that an orphan during that time period never heard of or had the opportunity to eat steak.
Also, the reply was "Google it." You must also be thinking of a different version of the film since it's not set in the past.
Might be better not to offer replies until you've seen the specific part of the film, given your answer isn't really answering the question asked.
Bishop73 said "probably steak and tomatoes" - which is a guess. Without knowing what the third ingredient was, it is reasonable to speculate that orphans, especially during that time period, never saw, heard of, or had eaten steak. Yes, it is best to actually see that part of the movie, but this is a question that the answer can reasonably be based on conditions of orphanages and the low quality of food fed to them.
Except I made an educated guess based on knowing the scene and all 6 ingredients and indicated there was no in-film indication what the character meant. You still think it was only 3 ingredients and set in the past.
I have seen several versions of "Annie" but none lately. Whether there were three ingredients, six, or a hundred, it is still plausible that an orphan never heard of steak. Perhaps an orphan might know there is a category of food called " meat", and the "slop" in the soup was called "meat." Kids in orphanages were not treated well, were barely fed enough, and the "food" usually was not what would be called nutritious, especially when eaten day after day. Something like steak would not be likely to be served to orphans largely because the institution's limited food budget would be prohibitive - therefore, only cheap foods would be available and many orphans were hungry. Even in contemporary society, steak is not something likely to be served to kids in institutions like group homes.You might be surprised at the type of things kids who come from poverty situations don't know about. [Even some kids from wealthy families don't know that French fries are made from potatoes.]
None of this seems relevant to the actual question. Bishop73's answer was a reasonable speculation which was already qualified, and which you're nitpicking for no good reason. His other answer details all the ingredients involved and you're fixating on "an orphan wouldn't have heard of steak". We don't KNOW, so going on a diatribe about the hypothetical knowledge of orphans is way off topic. Not least because THIS version of Annie has her as a foster kid, not an orphan, and "that time period" is 2014. If you've got a better answer you can provide it as a direct answer, but excessively critiquing someone else's answer isn't helpful or productive.
There's a difference between knowing what steak is and eating it. There were 6 ingredients (not 3); fusilli, pancetta, steak, pomegranate, truffle, and sun-dried tomatoes. You think an orphan is more familiar with fusilli, pancetta, truffle or pomegranate over steak?
Yes, other than pomegranates.
If she was never exposed to steak, she would not know what it was.
Yes, if she was never exposed to steak she wouldn't know it, which is why I said there was no indication. But I can't imagine a scenario where an orphan wasn't exposed to steak, but was exposed to fusilli, pancetta, truffle or pomegranate. I'm an adult that's eaten a lot of different things and I've never had any of those 4 items (although I know what they are), so it's more likely an orphan knows steak, especially it the generic sense as opposed to a specific type of steak being mentioned.
29th Dec 2020
It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown (1966)
Question: There is something I don't understand about Linus in this special. He is flattered when Sally flirts with him by saying he says the cutest things, and that he's so intelligent. Linus usually rejects Sally's feelings whenever she flirts him. Why should this be any different?
Answer: From what I've seen, usually Sally is often annoying Linus with her flirting when he has nothing in common with her, or he's just trying to do something to help her and she tries to make it into more. Here, Sally's comments make Linus think she believes in the Great Pumpkin too, or is at least interested in hearing more about it. It's more that he's excited she likes the same thing as he does. Later in the pumpkin patch, he's happy she's there because he wants to share the experience with someone, not because he has any feeling towards Sally.
8th Jul 2020
Ford v Ferrari (2019)
Question: During La Mans, it shows Shelby taking a stopwatch from Ferrari's pit and dropping a nut on the floor. Is there any indication Shelby ever cheated during a race like this (whether at Le Mans or somewhere else)? Like, was he ever caught or accused of cheating? I get there's a lot of artistic licensing taking place in this film, so I understand if it was made up, just curious if it was based on anything from Shelby's life.
Answer: Technically, neither of these incidents would be considered cheating in the classic sense. Stealing the stopwatches would be just that, stealing. It's likely that some other members of a team like Ferrari had back up stopwatches. Dropping the lug nut in the Ferrari pit would just be a mind game to put doubt in the minds of the pit crew as to whether they got all the lug nuts on the wheels. Neither of these incidents would affect the performance of the race car. It was mischief, not cheating.
This doesn't answer the question at all (and seems like someone's trying to correct this thinking it's a mistake entry). I said "cheating like this" for the 2 examples I gave, because it's cheating (by definition) but not necessarily breaking La Mans rules. Plus I also asked about actual accusations of cheating.
It's called gamesmanship, how is dropping a lug nut to make the Italians think they had forgotten one cheating? Now if he had taken the lug nut so it delayed their pit stop or so it wasn't put on at all that's a different story. You seem like you never competed if you think those things are cheating.
And stealing a stopwatch is gamesmanship too? The question is was this based on anything. I've never competed in LeMans, but in a majority of sports there are rules against deceiving the other team (for example a balk). Seems like you've never played sports.
9th Jun 2018
Guns of Navarone (1961)
Plot hole: Maria describes in lurid detail how Anna was arrested by the Germans and tortured by being severely whipped, leaving her with gruesome scars all over her back. She also says that Anna hasn't spoken a word to anyone since she escaped from captivity. How, then, does Maria (or anyone else) know about the scars? Nobody saw them (they don't exist) and Anna obviously didn't tell anyone about them.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She is probably able to write.
This correction is too speculative and offers no in-film evidence or further proof.
Anna was a school teacher.
Wasn't she a school teacher? So probably could write.
If she "wrote" about the scars wouldn't someone want to see them, perhaps get her to a doctor? Making up silly, deux ex machina explanations for film mistakes does not invalidate them.
Your assuming a lot like when the Germans release here. She could have "recovered" and had a fit anytime anyone touched her.
As was noted above, making up silly, deux ex machina explanations for film mistakes does not invalidate them. You cannot 'recover' from scars. It is ridiculous to think that nobody ever thought to get Anna to a doctor for treatment.
1st Sep 2020
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)
Corrected entry: In the final scene, he takes off his tennis shoes, but it doesn't seem that he ever puts on another pair of regular shoes.
15th Dec 2020
Crossroads (2002)
Trivia: The poem Lucy reads to Ben at the campsite are lyrics to the Britney Spears' song, "I'm Not A Girl, Not Yet A Woman."
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I'm not really sure this would count as trivia considering how obvious it is. Ben even turns it into the song at the end of the movie.
14th Oct 2020
H2O: Just Add Water (2006)
In Too Deep - S1-E23
Continuity mistake: When Ms. Chatham is at Emma's house, she puts her hand on Cleo's arm. It's not there in the next shot. (00:10:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Ms. Chatham's hand is barely visible in the next shot but it's there.
The fact that it's barely visible (as seen in the screenshot) confirms the mistake. It's on her arm and then it's not on it, she's just barely touching.
23rd Dec 2020
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)
Question: What is surrounding the famous Jell-O mold? Is it shredded carrots?
16th Dec 2020
Constantine (2005)
Corrected entry: Constantine threatens demon Balthazar with the last Rites, so Balthazar goes to heaven where he for sure doesn't want to end. However, if it is so easy and possible even for a demon to go to heaven, why is occult expert Constantine still searching so desperately for the big way out of hell? He only needs to find a catholic priest who gives Constantine the last Rites.
Correction: Constantine mentions to Balthasar afterwards you have to ask to be forgiven before you are accepted into heaven. He needs to believe, it only a bluff. Constantine himself is too stubborn to ask to be forgiven and instead feels the need to buy his way into heaven, he does not believe in the grace of God (who he feels is a hypocrite). The demon can not be sent to heaven just because he was read his last rites, he doesn't believe in the grace of God either.
Constantine himself is too stubborn to ask to be forgiven and would rather go to hell where the devil would so love to meet him? To be honest, that's even a bigger plot hole. The whole story is about Constantine being too selfish and now him being more stubborn than being selfish is the problem? I don't think so.
The problem is he doesn't believe in the grace of God. Thats bigger than his stubbornness. He knows he is going to hell, but he doesn't think that's fair and should be admitted to heaven regardless of his believes. He won't submit to the hypocrisy of God. He doesn't like God, almost as much as he doesn't like the devil. But naturally he doesn't want to go to hell so he tries to buy his way into heaven by fighting the devil's spawns. But he would never bow to God to get to heaven. At the end of the movie he does find a way though, by sacrifice, but an opportunity like that needs to present itself, he can't create one, unlike being forgiven. It's not a plot hole, it's the plot.
I am really upset with "corrections" like this. With stubbornness people could "correct" any movie mistake caused by any protagonists. And it also makes no sense. I think the entry is valid and should be published without any "corrections"! Constantine for sure would believe in the grace of god if he would get some AND he would for sure get some, if he would call a priest which gives him his last Rites. Problem solved. You are creating a problem where no problem is, just pure assumption. And for sure he would bow to god cause he doesn't want to bow to devil even less.
The correction is valid if you ask me. Constantine specifically refers to God as being a kid with an ant farm, and doesn't really believe God cares that much for humanity. At the end of the film, he acknowledges that God does indeed have a plan for everyone and that he had to die twice to finally understand that. That's Constantine's arc. As lionhead said, that is literally the film's plot.
Problem with the correction is, that he escapes hell not because he has lost his stubbornness or because his relationship to god has changed (which has not). He indirectly escapes hell cause he commited suicide to save Angela from being killed by Gabriel. Which wasn't even awarded by god, only the devil was so nice (!) and asked him unnecessarily for a quid-pro-quo wish. And that's not even suicide, it is martyrdom and that alone should buy him a ticket out of hell, plus he saves a woman he loves, plus he keeps the balance in balance. 3 tickets in once, he doesn't even has to trade his soul for the soul of Isabel, he has already done more than enough. There are many plot holes.
You assume those 3 tickets are enough, but they aren't. All of them are him still trying to buy his way into heaven. It's about love for god, not love for another person nor fighting the devil. Plus he was dying anyway. But the self-sacrifice, not his life saved by the devil but the twin sister send to heaven, is the one thing he could do to be admitted.
He already sacrificed himself for one sister, second sister is unnecessary. The devil's him granting a wish is just a feelgood moment for the audience to save the second sister. That's unnecessary and therefore a plot hole.
He didn't sacrifice himself for the first sister. He did it to stop Mammon, not for the love of Angela.
"Stubbornness" is a valid correction when people submit mistakes, especially plot holes, because they think a character should act in a different way than they would. Nothing about Constantine's behave or believe goes against his already established character (which is based on the comics). Having him act the way you want him to could also be seen by some as a plot device and thus a plot hole.
However him committing suicide a second time, is an act of love, maybe not for god but for Angela (so she doesn't gets stabbed by Gabriel). This is martyrdom cause he also prevents Mammon to conquer earth and shows the love for an other human being. The one or the other way he has got the ticket out of hell already. Saving Isabel which he also does, isn't even that much compared what he has already done. So why should god forgive him after saving Isabel but not before (after saving Angela). The devil offering him a wish like a jinn is silly and unnecessary for sure.
He commited suicide the second time to stop Mammon because he knows Satan will show up and wouldn't like it when he finds out his son is trying to take power on Earth. He doesn't do it for love of Angela, nor would God see that as good enough to admit him into heaven (as he would still be buying his way into it). God and Satan are bound to certain rules (according to the "game" they play as mentioned by Constantine) so in exchange for helping Satan, Satan grants him a wish, not realising it is a wish that will admit Constantine into heaven. He is admitted into heaven not because he is forgiven, but because of his self-sacrifice (as Gabriel mentions, and the bible). I think you really need to rewatch both the conversation between Gabriel and Constantine at the church as well as the conversation between Constantine and Satan to understand the reasoning behind it all.
He already self-sacrificed himself for one sister, second sister is unnecessary. The devil's him granting a wish is just a feelgood moment for the audience to save the second sister. That's a plot hole.
Correction: Constantine was bluffing when he threatened Balthazar with the Last Rites. "True contrition" is required as well. This is different than just asking for forgiveness, something Constantine shows not to have. Of course, the Devil heals him in hopes that Constantine will once again damn himself to hell.
16th Dec 2020
Countdown (2019)
Stupidity: Dr. Sullivan not only put unwelcome moves on Quinn, he mentioned the good or lush letter of recommendation he wrote for her - implying he deserved or was entitled to a sexual favor in return. For "Doctor" Sullivan to do and say what he did in this day and age isn't merely a "character mistake", it is outright stupidity. (00:25:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Stupidity entries are not for when characters do something stupid, otherwise everything in "Dumb and Dumber" would be mistakes. Stupidities are minor plot holes that extend beyond character mistakes. The fact that in real life people in power behave this way means it's something the character of Dr. Sullivan could do.
Dumb and Dumber is supposed to be stupid; a medical doctor is not.
You missed the point entirely. It's not a stupidity that a man in power thinks he can get away with sexual harassment, despite being a doctor.
I didn't assert that he thought he could get away with it - he was being stupid for even saying such a thing.
Regardless of if you asserted it or not, unless someone thinks it's not wrong, people do questionable or illegal things because they think they can get away with it. But characters are allowed to do stupid things without it always being a minor plot hole (i.e. a stupidity). A quick news search of doctors accused of sexual harassment will show half a dozen stories this year alone, showing that doctors in real life act this way, therefore, it's not a mistake for a character to do it.
It is still stupidity... and the doctors in your search were also stupid.
I'm not sure how you're not getting this, or if you're being pedantic on purpose. There was no plot hole for his actions. Therefore, no mistake exist and the correction is valid. Being stupid isn't a valid stupidity entry. Being stupid to serve the plot is though (e.g. writing a drug name on the arm instead of telling someone your plan). People submit mistakes incorrectly and as long as it's not wildly inappropriate or nonsensical, it will be posted. Which is why there is the option to submit a correction. To clarify, being stupid, not a mistake. A character doing something they wouldn't (possibly because of the writer's lack of knowledge), character mistake. A character doing something that doesn't make sense that mildly serves the plot, stupidity. Something done that contradicts the plot or what's been established in-film, plot hole.
I'm willing to modify "stupidity" to "utter stupidity." [I'm too ignorant to be insulted.].
Then you're on the wrong site and you should create your own site.
I'd like a second opinion.
I'll give my opinion and I agree with Bishop73. This sounds more like a character exerting hubris than stupidity. If he sexually harassed an underling in front an attorney or a judge, or even other employees, then I think it would rise to the level of being a stupidity. The current President of the United States has openly admitted to sexually assaulting women, and he did so out of hubris because as he claims, his celebrity status gives him carte blanche to do so.
Sorry to say I concur with Bishop73, in that people do stupid things all the time in films, and we can't list them all! The stupidity section is just for plot-related issues - sort of "movie logic" things, like running upstairs in a horror film when they should run out the door. Yes people might do that in reality, which would be stupid, but they do it in a movie solely because it helps the plot / narrative. It's not strictly a plot hole, and it's arguably even a "mistake", which is why they're listed separately. In this case yes what he does is stupid, but it's a stupid thing which people in authority in reality do often, it's not solely an unreasonable or unlikely stupid action for the sake of the plot, if that makes sense. I've also realised that's not made clear when submitting a "stupidity", which is an oversight on my part - I'll amend that.
20th Dec 2007
Friends (1994)
The One Where Underdog Gets Away - S1-E9
Continuity mistake: At the end of the episode when Chandler makes a toast, he is holding the glass in his right hand. In the next shot, the glass has jumped to his left hand. (00:21:05)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He switches the glass from right to left, so, unfortunately you're wrong.
The mistake is valid. While we do see him switching his glass between hands during the scene, when he says he's glad everyone's Thanksgiving sucked, he raises his glass in his right hand. In the next shot it's switched to his left and lowered a bit. Since this happens between shots (and he's not off camera), it means no time elapsed, so there's no time for him to switch hands again (in the submitted pictures, the bottom picture is the first shot and the top picture is the 2nd shot).
10th Dec 2013
Memphis Belle (1990)
Factual error: When the radio operator was asking for a radio check he used a phonetic alphabet. He use the word Tango, representing the letter T. Tango is the modern and current phonetic representation for T. In the 1940's the word was Tare. Able, Baker...Roger, Sugar, Tare, Uncle...Zebra.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: British forces adopted the American phonetic alphabet in 1942.
American forces weren't using "Tango" until 1956. When the British and American forces coordinated calling alphabets in 1943, they used "Tare", not "Tango."
26th Aug 2003
Top Gun (1986)
Trivia: The "MiG-28s" in the movie are actually all Northrop F-5E Tiger II's, an American plane used for training and sold to other countries. In reality, there is no MiG-28.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It could be argued that in the alternate reality of Top Gun the fictional "MiG-28" was an improved reverse-engineered F-5 (VPAF gave the Soviets access to ex-VNAF F-5:s for evaluation after the fall of Saigon) explaining their similarity.
This isn't a valid correction for a trivia entry. There is no mistake being suggested, just letting viewers with limited plane experience know MiG-28 isn't a real plane.
10th Dec 2015
Home Alone (1990)
Continuity mistake: When Kevin goes outside the first time and sees the cars in the garage, the light isn't on. When it shows the garage again in the next shot, the light is on. (00:20:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The light could be motion activated. Either Kevin's movement or passing vehicles could have turned it on, regardless of the time of day. I have motion detector lights in my carport and they constantly go on and off in the daytime if it's low-light and cars pass by fast enough. People walking their dogs can also activate it if they are close enough. They sometimes stay on until I have to manually turn the power off, then on again.
That would explain it only if the light came on when Kevin "activated" it. It stays off during the first scene, and he doesn't make any motion towards the garage when the camera is on him. Nor do we see any vehicles or people pass behind him.
How likely is it that this movie - taken in 1990 - had access to the developed technology that we have today, to make automatic lights turn on?
Infrared motion sensors were around in the 80s.
3rd Jan 2009
Yes Man (2008)
Corrected entry: When Carl arrives at his apartment, it says "Allen" (his second name) on the door. However, when he comes out of his apartment later on in the movie, just as his neighbour asks to put up some shelves, the sign is gone.
Correction: This is because his mate moves in and starts living there too.
When his neighbor asks for help with the shelf, he's living alone.
23rd Sep 2018
Frasier (1993)
Corrected entry: At the cafe, the employee says that Niles' credit card was declined at the register because "cancelled by order of co-signatory." A co-signatory shouldn't be able to cancel the card without the other person.
Correction: It depends on state laws and the credit card company. A co-signor is just as liable for any accumulated debts and fees on the card, they just don't have purchasing rights. However, usually a co-signor can't just take his or her name off the account, the account has to be closed.
Are there cash registers that will reveal that a cosigner cancelled? I've been a cashier at a few places, the register always says "declined" or "insufficient funds."
I remember in the 80's and 90's instead of a card being listed as declined, the cashier (or whoever was charging the card) was instructed to call an 800-number for verification, etc. I never had to call, but certainly more information could be given over the phone.
11th Mar 2013
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
Corrected entry: In the grave yard scene. It doesn't seem possible for a virus contracted through bodily fluids (blood, saliva) to get 6 feet down into sealed coffins, infect a half decomposed corpse filled to the eyeballs with formaldehyde and methanol (typically), and make a zombie that could break out of its casket and dig up six feet with naught but bare hands, a seemingly impossible task for even the fittest, healthiest and craziest human.
Correction: This is the explanation given on IMDB: This occurrence is explained in the first film where the Red Queen (Michaela Dicker) reveals that the T-virus goes from the transition process of liquid to gas in a matter of hours. The virus was vented out through the ground after Umbrella reopened (The Hive was located under Raccoon City). As for them being able to break out of their casket, lots of zombie movies do that.
The brain liquefies when we die unless a there's a preservative. The cells are dead as well. I don't understand how a virus infects a dead cell.
Regardless of the transmission method or movie explanation, it's standard zombie lore that when the dead turn into zombies, they have minimal brain function and motor control, despite it being impossible in real life. The virus basically has supernatural powers, which isn't a valid movie mistake.
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.
Chosen answer: No. Because the version of him *before* he time-traveled is still out doing those things. The REAL question is, what happens to that Superman, seeing as Lois no longer dies and he has no reason to travel back in time.
JC Fernandez