Character mistake: Captain McCrea tells the passengers that it's the 700th anniversary of the Axiom's first flight. The Axiom has been in flight for 255,642 days. Actually, 700 years is 255,675 days. That figure includes the additional day in 175 leap years.
Bishop73
13th Mar 2020
Wall-E (2008)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Leap years only occur because of the earth's rotation around the sun. As the AXIOM is in space, there is no need to correct for the earth's rotation.
First, rotation is the spin of the Earth (which cause day and night). Revolution is the earth orbiting the sun (which causes years). However, this correction is not valid on the premise you're trying to present. Many films set in space still use Earth time, so a day is 24-hours, even though they're in space and there is no sunrise and sunset (although it's stated the Axiom operates on a 25-hour day). So they would use Earth's year, which takes 365.256 days. Since the Axiom isn't orbiting the Sun, it wouldn't experience a year, so they're using something else. The fact that they're slightly off suggests it's a writing mistake and there's no evidence they use an arbitrary 365.203 day year.
That's still wrong. Even if their years were strictly 365 days, 700 years would be 255,500 days, not 255,642.
14th Aug 2020
Robinson Crusoe On Mars (1964)
Question: Was Robinson Crusoe On Mars scientifically plausible when it was made in 1964? Aged eight, I watched this movie on release. Even then I knew it was a movie, not a scientific documentary. Nevertheless, I understand that it was once seriously believed there were canals on the surface of Mars. (I even had a children's pictorial encyclopaedia which showed Mars criss-crossed by canals.) After crash-landing on Mars astronaut Kit Draper (Paul Mantee) discovers that the Martian canals were made by intelligent, technologically advanced beings millennia ago. Could anybody in the scientific community have believed this in 1964? Kit Draper discovers ways of creating oxygen, so he does not suffocate; he then finds water sources, vegetation he can eat and a coal like rock that burns to make fires. He witnesses extra-terrestrial aliens visiting Mars in space ships. Was this, by any stretch of the imagination, regarded as even remotely credible in 1964? Or was it pure Hollywood hokum?
Answer: This is pure Hollywood fiction, never meant to be science-based fact, and was typical of sci-fi films of that era such as: War of the Worlds, Invaders From Mars, The Martian Chronicles, and others. Many were based on early-to-mid-20th century science-fiction novels when little was scientifically known about any of the planets. Authors imagined what Mars was like purely to entertain readers. After the 1960s, as more was scientifically known about Mars, films became more realistic, although the 2012 Disney film, "John Carter," was a deliberate throwback to that earlier genre. Also, scientists never believed that there were canals on Mars. In the 1870s, Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli was mapping Mars through a telescope. He described the long, trench-like geographical features as "canali," (Italian for channels). American astronomer Percival Lowell misinterpreted this as "canals" and believed they were of intelligent origin, though other scientists debunked that. Sci-fi writers of the time (H.G. Wells, Edgar Rice Boroughs, et al) incorporated Lowell's published theories into their stories.
It should be noted "John Carter" is based on the 1912 novel "A Princess of Mars."
29th Nov 2003
The Simpsons (1989)
Lisa's Pony - S3-E8
Corrected entry: When Homer falls asleep in the car, he hits the dashboard with his fist, and the airbag pops out. If you watch in slow motion though, he doesn't hit anything at all. (00:19:30)
28th Jul 2020
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Visible crew/equipment: While the T-1000 drives the trailer, in front of him the camera crew is visible on a pick up truck.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Entry not specific enough.
How is this not specific enough?
For one, there's more than one chase scene involving a truck in this movie. This entry doesn't specify which one. Nor does he specify if we see the camera crew itself or simply a reflection of the crew on the vehicle.
I think he is referring to a truck seen just before the Freightliner runs the stop sign and hits the brown and dark blue cars. The "camera" truck though looks like it has trash cans in the back, not a film crew, at least nothing that I can see in the 1080p version to indicate it is a film crew. The reverse shot of the collision if from a fixed position camera close to the cars so wasn't shot from a truck, so again no evidence this is a film crew truck.
17th Sep 2015
Von Ryan's Express (1965)
Factual error: Sergeant Bostick tells Colonel Ryan he is from the 113th Armored Division. The U.S. Army never had a 113th Armored Division in WW2.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Is this actually an error? I believe the British Regiment who feature in this film are The Ninth Fusiliers. Well, there never has been a Ninth Fusiliers in the British army, either! For that matter, there never was a Colonel Joseph L Ryan, or a Major Eric Fincham, or a Major Battaglia. While this film is set in the Second World War, it is openly admitted that it is a wholly fictional story. Some Second World War films (A Bridge Too Far; The Longest Day; The Battle Of the Bulge) were made to recreate historical events, and so refer to soldiers and military units who existed. Other Second World War films like this one (Sahara, Escape To Victory, Ice Cold In Alex) while referencing actual events, and, showing sequences of events that are not beyond probability, are still stories. Since this is a fictional, imagined story, is it acceptable for soldiers to serve with fictional regiments or imaginary fighting units?
While some fictional accounts can be taken for granted and not counted as errors (even films based on true stories can have fictional characters), there are limits when setting films in the past. To have a 113th Armored Division is a valid mistake as the highest number in WWII was the 20th Armored Division, unlike Infantry Divisions that went into the 100's. This could almost be the same as giving a character an 8 or 11 number phone number.
The anonymous drive by hit and run "contributor" (not referring to you, Bishop73) may not have seen another post I made about Sgt. Bostick wearing a 4th Armored Division patch on his uniform: he says he is from the 113th A.D. (which never existed) but wears the 4th A.D. patch, which did exist in WW2, but did not see service until France in 1944.
16th Nov 2018
The X-Files (1993)
Hell Money - S3-E19
Question: At The End of the episode, why did Detective Chao place himself in the incinerator?
Answer: He didn't place himself there voluntarily. He mysteriously vanished from the hospital and awoke to find himself inside the incinerator. It appears this was punishment for his exposing that the lottery was rigged.
But, as a detective, it was his job to expose the rigging.
Chao didn't expose the rigged lottery as part of his job as a detective. He was already involved in the game and working for those in charge. He was paid to keep the game a secret from foreigners and his blood was found in Lo's apartment, meaning he was the mysterious figure that tells Lo he must pay. But despite Chao's involvement, he wanted the game to end. To me, it seems he smashed the vase out of anger, not because he knew it was rigged and was trying expose that fact. But regardless, that's what he seems to be punished for.
Thanks. It was really confusing.
30th Nov 2015
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 (2015)
Factual error: When Katniss approaches the gate to President Snow's mansion, just after the massacre of civilians in the large plaza, she sees her sister attending to wounded and runs toward her. There is a fiery explosion and Katniss is thrown onto her back and we see that radiant heat from the blast has caused the front of her coat to burst into flames. Flash burns are a common injury following an explosion, but Katniss has not a mark on her face, and not a trace of redness then, or shortly afterward when she is treated in a dispensary.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As is made clear in the book, the fire never touches Katniss' face.
22nd Aug 2013
Family Guy (1999)
Question: At the trial, Carter's lawyer asks Brian the star of two films he rented - Brian replies "Pauly Shore" and everyone seems shocked. Is there supposed to be a joke behind this? If so, what does this joke mean?
Chosen answer: They were shocked that anyone would rent movies starring him - he is a bad actor.
And what's the connection of that making him a bad dad?
It's just a joke that someone who would make such a bad decision in renting movies couldn't be responsible for making good decisions in raising a kid.
29th Jul 2020
The Nun (2018)
Question: At the beginning, what was the old nun trying to do with the cross key in the dark room with the door that says "God ends here"?
Answer: The nun was trying to find the relic. The deceased nuns had no actual idea where it was. That's the whole reason Irene was summoned by the Vatican because she had visions about "Mary pointing the way" also the "ghost nuns" more than likely have something to do with her clairvoyance as well.
Answer: Are you talking about before she opens the door? She's just making the sign of the cross, but using the same hand she's holding the key in.
I'm asking about what she was going to do in the dark room, what her plan was, what the cross key was for.
It was to open the chamber that kept the vial of the blood of Christ so they could try to send Valak back to Hell.
The gateway to the relic was near the state of Mary, and it wasn't located inside the chamber seeing that Burke and Irene found the relic before crossing the passage leading to the chamber with the sign "God ends here." If there's someone who must have known where the relic was, it has to be the abbess. Then, why didn't she take it if she was going to?
From everything I understood, the cross key opened the chamber that had the blood of Christ. The room with the sign "God ends here" was not the chamber I was speaking about. I was only addressing the question about what the key was for.
16th Jan 2009
Carry On Cowboy (1966)
Audio problem: When we see the can-can dancers perform on-stage, the music is played by a full band including brass and drums, despite the fact that there's only a pianist on-stage. (00:22:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This error is not unique to Carry On Cowboy. It seems that in very many western movies (and TV shows) there might be a scene in a saloon, in which a singer or some dancers are performing on a stage. In nearly all such occasions they seem to be accompanied by a full orchestra which is nowhere to be seen.
This is not a valid correction. To say the error exist in other films does not invalidate this error.
Sorry, I think I got that wrong. I was not trying to invalidate the error, far from it! What I meant to say was that I agree that this is quite an obvious error in Carry On Cowboy, and that this also seems to be a common, and rather amusing, error in many other western films as well.
Unfortunately at this time, valid mistake entries are not subject to forum discussion where one agrees or discusses the mistake. Just give the mistake a thumbs up if you agree with it.
5th Oct 2015
Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins... (1985)
Other mistake: At the carnival, the duo is told by the carny that they get seven rings for a dollar, but the only get five.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The carny never says anything about how many rings a player gets. He only tells them the way to win, by getting a ring on a bottle.
When he's leaning up against the poke he says "Here we are folks. Seven hoops for a dollar."
I stand corrected. I just rewatched the scene. He does in fact say seven for a dollar. Interestingly, it's clear he hands Chun five rings, but when the rings are shown on the bottle, SIX are shown.
21st Feb 2005
A Cinderella Story (2004)
Corrected entry: At the very end of scene two the camera zones out so you can see the whole neighborhood. The Montgomerys' neighbor's lawn (to the left) is very brown. In one of the last scenes when Fiona is being chased by the police men, you get a quick glimpse of the lawn and it is very green.
Correction: The neighbors lawn is brown in the beginning of the film because they are in the middle of a drought. the drought is over by the end of the movie when Fiona is being chased by the police men, which is why the lawn would appear to be greener.
The mistake is valid. Yes, they are in a drought, but the amount of rain seen wouldn't change the grass from dead and brown back to living and green so quickly. It's clear the initial overhead shot was edited to look like the lawns were brown and Fiona's was extra green. But in real life, the neighborhood had regular green lawns that weren't edited or changed to brown for this scene.
22nd Feb 2017
Psycho II (1983)
Question: Who was doing the killings before Norman finally snapped?
Chosen answer: The murderer is Emma Spool, Norman's biological mother. She was killing people because she didn't want anybody harming Norman.
Emma was not Norman's biological mother. She was the sister of Norma (and Norman's aunt) and jealous that Mr. Bates chose Norma over her and thought Norman should have been the son she and Mr. Bates were suppose to have. Later, while still mentally ill, she believed Norman was her son and told Norman this.
Emma Spool was, in fact, Norman's biological mother. It was revealed at the end of the movie that she is his real mother and Norma Bates is her sister who adopted Norman and raised him While Emma was institutionalized.
Again, that was just Emma being delusional and/or lying. Tracy Venable tells Norman the truth in Psycho III. Emma was never his mother.
I never knew Emma Spool was Norman's biological mother. In fact, I never heard of Emma Spool. Thanks.
4th Aug 2010
Hancock (2008)
Continuity mistake: In the scene when Mary visits Hancock for the first time at his house, she arrives from the air and crashes down on the ground, after a discussion inside they both walk outside together and Mary is shown getting into a car. In the next shot shown from above the house the car has disappeared and they both fly into the air.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: No, we see her drive up in the car, not fly in. But you are right that when we see them take off the car is missing.
You must have seen a different version of the movie I saw her land there, it's on Netflix.
You're right. I just saw the version on Netflix and she flies in, while the version from disc I have shows her drive up with a minute of dialog between them next to the car that is not in the Netflix version. I find it very surprising that there are two versions with that major of a difference.
An extended cut was released on DVD and Blu-Ray which has a couple extra scenes as well as modified scenes (including Mary driving to Hancock's). Netflix would have shown the theatrical cut version. (Or if I had to venture a guess, the UK release version as Netflix has a tendency to use those versions for some reason).
22nd Jul 2020
XXX (2002)
Question: Does the word 'Ahab' mean anything?
Answer: Captain Ahab is the main character in the book "Moby Dick" where he's obsessed at finding the white whale that bit his leg off.
So are there any similarities between the 'Ahab' rocket's mission and the Moby Dick Ahab character other than the shared name?
It doesn't seem so, but often times "Ahab" is used to describe someone vigilantly set about completing a task, or in this case an object (although it's usually said without regards to how everything ended for Ahab).
Answer: In Hebrew, "Ahab" means "uncle" or "my father's brother." In the bible, Ahab was an idol-worshiping ruler in the "Book of Kings." In literature, Ahab was the revenge-obsessed captain in Moby Dick whose sole purpose was to kill the white whale. The Ahab drone had a singular target like Captain Ahab, so that might be the inspiration for it being called that.
4th Jul 2020
Ozark (2017)
Continuity mistake: Wendy takes her brother Ben to Knoxsville in a black car, and when she returns it's in the usual grey car.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is explained at 26:49 into Season 3 Episode 9 (Netflix Timestamp). Marty is on the phone while escorting Ben to the "escape boat," and says the line: "Yeah, I understand. Just rent a car and meet us at mile marker 18." Wendy arrives in the Chrysler van. Later in the episode, when she pulls into the house, she is in the family van. It is presumed that she left the family van at the rental facility and picked it up upon return.
Suggested correction: She is never seen in a black car. The whole time during episode 9, they're in the regular grey minivan. There may be times when it's dark outside and a dark reflection is on the car, but it's never a black car.
No. The wheels are different on the car she takes Ben away in.
Then submit a screen shot because I saw no difference, even though different wheels isn't the same as saying it's a black car.
It's true! They greyish car has a plate in front of the car. The darker one did not have a plate.
Not only are they in a black minivan, but it actually appears to be a Dodge Caravan and is definitely not a Honda Odyssey. The fact that it is a rental makes sense. I had wondered whether it was a rental myself, and I guess I had missed the line where Marty tells her to rent a vehicle. The difference in the two vehicles is obvious to a car person like myself, but I'm sure some people don't notice.
27th Aug 2001
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Continuity mistake: When Danilov first shows Vassili the leaflets that praise his exploits, the shot shows a leaflet coming off the printing press with four "x-ed out helmets", indicating how many German soldiers Vassili has killed. The camera follows the leaflet off the press, Danilov picks up the leaflet and hands it Vassili. The next shot shows Vassili looking at the leaflet, but now there are five x-ed out helmets. (00:20:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The other X'd-out helmet is beneath Danilov's thumb. You'll notice that the border is wider and there is an additional text column on the left of the page beneath the helmet hidden by his thumb.
That other X under his thumb is from a 2nd printed leaflet. There's not an extra column of text or a 5th X. Plus, look how the first X lines up with the B, whereas what you think is the first X wouldn't be under the B.
30th Jun 2020
Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020)
Factual error: Considering Sigrit and Lars are similar ages in the opening flashback to 1974, 41 year old Rachel McAdams should be a similar age to the 52 year old Will Ferrell, which she clearly isn't. Alternatively, if she's meant to be in her 50s, there's no way they'd have been able to have a baby together.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Women *can* get pregnant, and have healthy babies, in their early 50s. There are more health risks, but it happens.
Suggested correction: Actors play older/younger characters all the time. The fact that you know their real age says nothing about the character's age. In real life, people often look older or younger (when I was in my mid - to late-30's, a lot of people wouldn't believe I was older than 25).
Considering that Sigrit is 4 or 5 years old in the 1974 flashback, she is 50 or 51 in her role in the main part of the movie. Not only is McAdams too young for the role, but also is Sigrits dream of founding a family and getting a baby quite unrealistic.
She's not too young for the role, which is the point of the correction. When I looked to see her age, I saw her pictures and guessed she was about 47 or 48, so she looks older than she really is. And there's a lot of 50+ year olds that look like they're in their 40's. Plus, the original mistake has nothing to do with a 50+ year old woman having a child.
5th Jul 2020
Star Trek: Voyager (1995)
Factual error: Chakotay says "if our orbit starts to decay, Voyager will begin to feel the effects of the differential, and we'll begin aging hundreds of times faster than we would in normal space". Whilst it is true that they would be aging faster relative to normal space, they would not instantly become old. Time would simply slow around them, so whilst they would be aging faster relative to normal space, they would not all of a sudden become really old - which is how it is made out to be. They would all age the same amount whether in a standard orbit or in a more decayed orbit. (00:06:37)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is nothing incorrect about what he said. They will start ageing hundreds of times faster than in normal space.
Aging implies getting/feeling older. They'd only be "aging" relative to normal space. What would happen would be more akin to time travel, with the universe getting older around them.
But the point is, they wouldn't age faster just because "normal" time slows down. If they spent a year on the planet, they'd age 1 year, not 100 years.
15th Jun 2010
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Question: Can anyone explain why Crispin Glover was almost completely edited out of this film? True, his character wasn't that important, but even in 2015 (when he was hanging upside down after throwing out his back), his character was played by another actor.
Answer: Crispin Glover is not in the BTTF sequels (except where footage from the first film was recycled). There are some contradictions as to the whys depending on who you talk to (salary dispute, Glover uninterested in reprising the role, Zemeckis uninterested in working with Glover again, etc.).
Answer: To be honest Glover didn't like the end of part I because the McFlys were rich and love was a better reward, however he complained about not getting as much money as Christopher Lloyd and the others, even Fox. He then sued Universal for using unlicensed footage of him.
His lawsuit was for violating his right of publicity, not for using footage of him. Prosthetics were applied to Jeffery Weissman using an old mold of Crispin Glover to make Weissman look like Glover.
Answer: Glover had a reputation for being difficult to work with. This may not be the official reason, but may have been a factor.
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.