Character mistake: When Reid realizes who the unsub is, he asks Hotch if he was introduced as "Doctor" or "Agent". As explained in the pilot (and in every episode since), the team has always introduced Reid as "Doctor", to make sure that the people they meet treat him with respect and don't just see him as a kid.
Bishop73
17th Jan 2013
Criminal Minds (2005)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think the reason Reid asks for a clarification is because the unsub knew his name and title when he hadn't been formally introduced because this case was under special circumstances so the team wasn't being formal.
It has nothing to do with being formal. The mistake is saying the team never introduces Reid as "Agent Reid", so there's no reason to for Reid to even ask this question.
I think what they meant was that it would be assumed his title was agent, as he is a part of the FBI, but she addressed him by his correct title without any indication of his title being different to the others, which ultimately suggested that she knew Reid beforehand.
2nd Jul 2018
Kindergarten Cop (1990)
Corrected entry: Phoebe and Kimble are supposed to be married as their undercover identity but on Kimble's first day of school, a student asks him if he's married and he says no.
Correction: Only the principal (and maybe other staff) are to assume they're married. The fact a kid is told he's not hardly would make a difference. It's not like the kid would tell anyone from the school.
The correction makes no sense. What's the point of going undercover as a married couple if the one person who already knew he was an undercover cop was the only one who was suppose to think he was married? Plus, one kid literally shouts from the classroom he's not married, for a lot of people to hear. Several moms know he's not married from their kids telling them, and Joyce (a staff member) is told Phoebe is his sister. No way the principal doesn't know he's not married.
14th Oct 2018
Common mistakes
Character mistake: People who carry a loaded pistol, or keep a loaded pistol next to them, that never have a round in the chamber, just so the character can cock it right before a shootout. Or when a round is suppose to be in the chamber and the person cocks the gun anyways and no round is ejected.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: On the first point, this is not a mistake. Proper gun handing would dictate that you don't have a round in the chamber until you are going to use the gun. On your second point, you are assuming too much that there is a round in the chamber.
Proper gun handling would be to use the safety. It's ridiculous for a character to keep an unchambered gun that they're planning on using, or think they might use. On the second point, I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying when it's suppose to be chambered because we saw it chambered, or it was fired and a round was chambered, etc. I didn't say when it's assumed to be chambered.
You are right that it would be ridiculous for a character to keep an unchambered gun they are planning on using, but that is not my point. My point is that proper gun safety would be to not normally keep a round in the chamber unless you were going to use it. Cocking the gun shows the audience he intends on using it. Before that, you didn't know his intent. On the second point, OK, you provided additional clarification.
27th Aug 2001
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Corrected entry: When Willis is in the pilot's seat of Esperanza's plane, he ejects when grenades are thrown in by the terrorists. First of all, those aircraft are sealed tight and have no canopy or hatches to blow off for an ejection. In that case, ejection seats would be useless. Also in that scene, multiple grenades are thrown in the cockpit, yet it takes 23 seconds before any of them blow. The type of grenades they were using, which were US issue, have a fuse no longer than 7-8 seconds upon release.
Correction: Some C-123 Sherpa (Esperanza's plane type) transport aircraft are equipped with ejection seats. The V-22 Osprey's model is so equipped for example.
And the grenade explosion time?
That's why it's suggested people only put in 1 mistake per entry and not combining mistakes, since part would be wrong. It's not up to the corrector to correct every part of the mistake entry, just the part that's wrong. If you think the grenade part is a valid mistake, make an entry.
Esperanza's plane is NOT a C123 Sherpa, which is a twin turboprop cargo aircraft with a square profile fuselage, fixed undercarriage and a twin vertical tail. It looks nothing like the weird (and completely fictional) aircraft in this film.
14th Jan 2004
Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)
Continuity mistake: When the bathroom explodes, from one angle we see the toilet come sailing out over the roof of a police truck parked at the front of the house. While the angles make it a bit tricky to judge, there's a definite leftward trajectory. We then cut to a closeup of Murtaugh's car, and the toilet lands on it as if it was flying to the right. Even if the angles are misleading, in the first shot the police truck and other cars are parked to the right of the exploding window. In the shot of Roger's car he's also parked to the right, but without all the cars visible around it which there should be. (00:57:15)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The toilet is flying straight out and straight towards the car - you can see this from the perspective of the interior of the car prior to the toilet becoming visible. Next the toilet is flying towards the area in front of the police van, not over it. And the car is parked in front of the van. When we see the car again, the van and other police cars are out of frame, so they can't be seen.
The mistake is valid. When we see the toilet flying, it's moving to the viewer's left, but when it hits the car, it's moving to the viewer's right now. Even if in the first shot, with the angle of the camera, the toilet is flying straight, it doesn't hit the car straight on. And he's not saying the toilet sails over the roof, but that you can see the toilet in the background is above the roof of the van in the foreground and that's moving over it (from right to left).
30th Jun 2020
Gilmore Girls (2000)
Corrected entry: The title of the show is "Gilmore girls." Notice that the letter G in girls is not capitalized. Rory's manuscript in the revival has the G in girls capitalized. Almost everywhere you see the name of the show the word girls is not capitalized. The references to "Gilmore girls" on this website has the G in the word girls capitalized. A theory exists that the 7 seasons of "Gilmore girls" is the first 7 chapters of Rory's book. In that case the letter G shouldn't be capitalized.
Correction: It's entirely variable. IMDb has it capitalised, Wikipedia has it capitalised. Some posters do, some don't. Netflix uses a non-capitalised banner image but the text has it capitalised. There's clearly no absolute right or wrong.
In the real world, sites follow title case stylization rules to identify the title of the show as "Gilmore Girls." But the show itself doesn't have to follow any stylization rules and identifies itself as "Gilmore girls." The mistake is saying if Rory's manuscript is meant to be the show itself, it should also be written as "Gilmore girls" since that's how the show has already presented itself, regardless of how we identify it in the real world.
I guess the first seven seasons could be Rory's book, however she does mention to Dean that all the characters would be given a different name to who they are in real life. (A Year in the Life, S1:Ep4, 1:18:05), so surely if it was the book they would have different names or maybe it's still the prototype so there aren't any different names yet.
3rd Oct 2005
The Longest Yard (2005)
Factual error: In the penitentiary, the guards should be wearing a United States flag patch since it is a federal penitentiary, not the Texas flag patch. (00:08:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Paul Crewe was arrested by local police and not charged with a Federal crime, therefore he would have been incarcerated in a State Prison, not a Federal Penitentiary.
But the prison is named Allenville Federal Penitentiary so they should be wearing American flag patches and not state patches.
If he was arrested in California by local cops, why would he be incarcerated in a Texas State Prison and not a California State Prison?
He was arrested by locals but under Federal probation for shaving points. He went to Federal prison for probation violation.
He violated his federal probation. He would have been initially charged by the local district attorney, but the feds would also charge him due to the probation violation, and the local charges would be dropped.
25th Jun 2020
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (1999)
Question: In a mistrial, most DA's have to decide if it is a do over. But in this show they have some dismissals in the mist of a trial and they can't be retried because of double jeopardy. Is this really a fact?
Answer: It would best to cite a specific episode; however, a dismissal is not the same thing as a mistrial by legal definitions. A case may be dismissed with or without prejudice. A case dismissed with prejudice would prevent a retrial on the grounds of double jeopardy. When this happens, the judge is basically saying he or she has heard enough to make a final decision and the case is over. Dismissals without prejudice and mistrials that the defendant consents to can be retried (generally it's the defendant's lawyer that will move for a mistrial for one reason or another).
Answer: Yes, once a jury is sworn in and impaneled, jeopardy attaches. So if a trial is ended for any reason, the accused cannot be tried again. Downum v. United States (1963), Crist v. Bretz (1978), Martinez v. Ilinois (2014).
A mistrial can allow the defendant to be re-tried in many cases.
A mistrial is not a dismissal. Since the jury has not reached a verdict, the trial has not ended.
Which is literally what I already said. But you stated if the trial is ended for any reason. A mistrial does end the trial, but not necessarily end jeopardy.
27th Jun 2016
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)
Continuity mistake: When Ethan and the girl are sliding down the rope at the opera, in one shot, as it should be, her dress is up around her neck - that is all we see - and in another shot, the dress is down around her ankles, which it shouldn't be.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The top of her dress is also fluttery and could have created the illusion that her dress is up around her neck.
That's not the top of her dress we see. The top is fitted over just one shoulder, there's not enough material to cover up her shoulders and neck like it does. It's the bottom of her dress.
29th Mar 2012
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Jill and Angie are crawling around on the floor and are being attacked by dogs, a woman zombie crawls toward Jill and attacks her. Jill grabs the woman zombie by the neck and twists it, breaking it and "killing" the zombie. Jill then checks the zombie's neck for a pulse to make sure it is "dead". Zombies are already dead and wouldn't have a pulse in the first place.
Correction: Zombies have to have a pulse. It is stated in Resident Evil, as well as many other zombie movies, that the zombies are reduced to primal instincts, and only have one objective: To feed. Also, for a human body to move as extensively as they do, (i.e. walking, biting, running) they would have to have, at the very least, a functioning brain stem. None of what they do is possible without some form of blood flow to the brain. Ergo, pulse.
This explication contradicts directly the one given for the cemetery. The buried dead do not have blood due to preservation and brain matter doesn't last long. Ergo one of those two explanations, resurrection or primal instincts is false as the two facts cannot coexist.
It should also be noted to have some form of blood flow to the brain stem means zombies have beating hearts and therefore any shot to the heart, or any shock that stops the heart, would stop the blood flow to the brain. By your logic, that would stop the zombie. Most zombie lore is only a headshot, or otherwise destroying the brain stem, can stop a zombie. Most of what zombies do is impossible to begin with.
Almost all zombies only have brain activity and nervous system, making the body move. Destroying the brain stops the nervous system and thus the zombie. Almost never do they have a working blood circulation. The zombies in resident evil don't have one either.
Actually, watching the scene (so important to do before commenting) she is not checking the pulse at all, she just has her hand under the neck.
19th Feb 2013
Predator (1987)
Corrected entry: Throughout the movie Dutch is referred to as Major, and Mac is referred to as Sergeant, yet when Mac runs up as Blain has just been killed, he yells "Sergeant" as he begins firing at the Predator.
Correction: He doesn't say "Sergeant." He says "Contact", meaning he's spotted an enemy.
Correction: I'm looking for an explanation of why Mac yelled, "Sergeant," because I turned on closed captioning and that's what he said, not "contact."
At first I heard "sergeant", but after replaying it a few times, I heard "contact." The first syllable you can hear the 'kän sound but he fades off and you don't really hear a hard "takt" sound. It should be noted that Blain's rank was sergeant.
7th May 2019
Home Alone (1990)
Question: Harry burns his hand by touching a red hot doorknob, and then cools it off by putting in the snow. In real life, wouldn't putting in his hand in the snow make the burn worse?
Answer: Yes, on major burns you never want to use ice or cold water because it can further damage the tissue and water can cause bacterial infections. A 2nd degree burn on the hand is considered a major burn. However, in the context of the film not only would Harry not know this and seek for immediate relief, we don't really see the extent of the tissue damage so we don't know how much the ice affected it.
Would Harry have gotten a 2nd degree burn if the door knob was as hot as shown in the movie?
He definitely would have gotten 2nd degree burns, more likely 3rd degree given the handle was shown to be red hot. Although it should be noted, the red glow would indicate the handle was over 900°F and at that temp, the door itself would probably have caught fire before Harry touches the doorknob.
Answer: Putting ice or cold water on a burn provides immediate temporary relief. It wouldn't make the burn worse.
Answer: In real life, what on earth was he supposed to have done differently? Putting it in the snow would have been the first thing to come to mind.
23rd Oct 2013
Hotel Transylvania (2012)
Factual error: Johnny shows Mavis the sunrise by keeping her back in the shadows. But if your whole body is in an object's shadow then you can't see the light source. The rising sun is reflected dead center in Mavis' eyes, which means the sunlight is touching her, which means she ought to be on fire.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not really though. You see you can stand in the shadows but still look at the sun. No one actually does but it is possible.
A shadow is caused by something blocking the sun. If you stand in the shadow (i.e. you are no longer casting your own shadow), you can not see the sun. Think of lying on the beach and someone stands over you in such a way their shadow is cast over your head. The sun would be blocked from your view. You obviously would still see all the scattered light, but the sun would not be reflected off your eyes.
12th Jun 2020
We Are Marshall (2006)
Question: Is it true that Marshall lost more football games in the 70s than any other program in the nation?
Answer: Not quite, at least for Division 1 schools. Marshall had a record of 22-84 from '70-'79. UTEP (University of Texas at El Paso) had a record of 23-87 during the same time. So, while UTEP did lose more games, they had a slightly higher win percentage.
Well, the narration says that Marshall lost more football games in the 70s than any other program in the nation.
I was only giving both perspectives to answer the question. The statement made is not quite true since UTEP did lose more. When comparing teams win-loss records, you generally take into account the number of games played.
12th Mar 2020
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Doc is quite a resourceful and clever guy. Why didn't he set to work on repairing the flying circuits which would have enabled them to use Mr Fusion to reach 88mph, instead of the engine?
Answer: Mr fusion only powers the flux capacitor. The engine is needed to get the car up to 88mph whether flying or not and the only way to get the car any power is by the use of petrol, which didn't exist in 1885.
At the beginning of the movie, when 1955 Doc reads the letter that 1985 Doc sent to Marty, he reads that the lightning bolt activated the time circuits and at the same time destroyed the flying circuits. Because of this, the Delorean will never fly again.
These answers are correct. Plus, to the original question: as clever as Doc is, keep in mind he got the flying conversion done in 2015. Definitely no way he would have been able to repair something so futuristic with 1885 tools at his disposal. He couldn't even get gas.
Yet just a few years later he had built from scratch a flying time-traveling locomotive, all with 1885 tools and parts.
There's no indication he built the flying train in 1885. It's suggested he had been time traveling with his wife and kids and says he's already been to the future. Whether this is in the DeLorean or the train it's not clear, but the dialogue suggests he's been to the future in his train with the family and could have modified his train to fly with future technology.
19th Aug 2019
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Back in 1885 why doesn't Doc change the letter he sent to Marty, asking him to bring a can of gas?
Answer: When Marty received the letter from Doc in 1955, as seen in the second movie, Doc wrote down that he didn't want Marty to go to 1885 to rescue him because he was happy living in the past. Instead, he wanted Marty to take the Delorean straight back to 1985 and then destroy it so it could never be used for personal gain again.
But once Marty appears in the past Doc could easily change the letter, changing things such that Marty would bring gas with him.
Answer: This would create a different timeline, not the timeline they are in.
Answer: That would not be possible as in 1885, Doc sent the letter on September 1st, and 1955 Doc sent Marty to 1885 on September 2nd so it was a day later and on the 1st, Doc was not expecting Marty to turn up. However, one CAN ask why Marty and Doc didn't go to the local Western Union office and change it (or write a new one) there since it was in their possession per the gentleman in part 2.
Changing the letter while Marty is in 1885 with Doc would accomplish nothing, because it doesn't it instantly travel to the future. Marty at the end of Part II, for his part, may receive the letter almost immediately, but the letter itself had to wait 70 years to be delivered to him.
I mean, there's no solid rules to time traveling, but just for argument's sake it seems like the letter idea could work... in the franchise, when something is set in motion, the effects usually take place immediately. Take for instance when George and Lorraine kissed at the dance in Part 1. The picture of Marty and his siblings went right back to normal, even though the kids had not been born yet. Doc and Marty changing the Western Union letter "could" have had an immediate effect and a gas can could have materialized in the Delorean, much like we've seen newspaper headlines change before our very eyes, disappearing gravestones, etc.
In your examples, the changes occur to future events. The items that changes, like the picture and newspaper, are from the future themselves. They can't change the past by changing events in the future (like they do in Bill and Ted's). This is why Doc and Marty couldn't go back to 2015 to stop old Biff from taking the DeLorean.
18th Feb 2006
Are We There Yet? (2005)
Continuity mistake: When Kevin gives the cookie to the deer, the deer eats the cookie, but in the next side shot, the deer eats the cookie again.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not a mistake as the next shot went to Lindsey, then back to the deer, in which Kevin seemed to be giving him another cookie.
The mistake is valid, the camera only cuts to Lindsey for a second and Nick is the one that had the bag of cookies. Not enough time for Nick to get another cookie out and hand it to Kevin so he could feed it to the deer. Plus, Kevin and Nick are in the same position.
8th Jun 2020
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Question: Why do so many people consider this movie to be anti-semitic? There have been many movies made about Jesus' life but, no-one says anything about them being as such.
Answer: Professor John T. Pawlikowski wrote a paper explaining in more detail about why he and others thought the script was heavily anti-Semitic ("Christian Anti-Semitism: Past History, Present Challenges Reflections in Light of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ") In part, the story line presented, Jesus being pursued by an evil cabal of Jews, has been previously rejected by the Vatican and other mainstream Christian churches. And some took offense to the way the film portrayed "evil" Jews compared to "good" Jews. Others felt that the film falsified some of the history. On top of that, many found the film to be too violent which left them "spiritually drained" compared to other films of depicting the passion of Christ that left audiences uplifted. Those that felt the film was anti-Semitic felt that the violence portrayed would fuel hatred towards the Jewish people.
Not to mention the fact that Mel Gibson has his own anti-Semitic rants in real life and many felt the film's message must reflect Gibson's personal rants.
27th Aug 2001
A Bridge Too Far (1977)
Factual error: There is a close-up of a parachutist's boot as he leaves the aircraft. It is a DMS boot. DMS boots were not issued to the army until much, much later. Late sixties, early seventies as I recall.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Expecting 1970's paratroopers to wear 1940's boots is hardly an error. There were no 1944 issued boots for the 200 odd para's to wear! Anyway I used to jump with non issued Corcoran jump boots instead of issued Army boots.
An attempt to correct this was already made. In this type of film, it is a very valid mistake, just as if cars from the 60's or 70's were seen in the film. Even if the viewer doesn't expect characters not to wear era appropriate attire, it still a mistake, which is the point of this whole website.
24th Nov 2017
Legends of Tomorrow (2016)
Character mistake: When the Legends are talking about Chicago in the 20's, during prohibition, Nate says there was "illegal drinking." But prohibition didn't make drinking alcohol illegal. It was only the production, importation, transportation, or sale of alcohol that was illegal. As a historian, Nate would know this and not make that statement.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The term "Illegal drinking" is actually in reference to people going to locations that were selling alcohol illegally to drink it, hence it is illegal drinking.
That still would not be illegal drinking.
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.