Corrected entry: A handler falls a good distance into the raptor paddock and lands on his back, but gets up as if nothing has happened.
Bishop73
15th Jun 2015
Jurassic World (2015)
3rd Jul 2018
Jurassic World (2015)
Corrected entry: When the kid tries to rescue the pig in the raptors' area, he falls from over 30 feet up and gets no injury of any kind - he's later absolutely fine and releasing the raptors from the paddock. (00:23:50)
Correction: While not likely, it is possible to fall from a height such as that and sustain no injury.
How do you know that for sure? I have never heard of people surging 30 foot falls without receiving any injury.
There's instances of people falling off midrises with only mild injuries, people survive skydiving accidents, but a young person falling 20 feet (it's no where near a 3 story drop). Just looked up a couple names Chris Staggers and Julianne Diller, look them up.
I didn't see any fall related story for Chris Stagger, but Juliane Diller suffered a broken collarbone, gashes, and her eye was swollen shut, which is the whole point of the mistake. The mistake never claims a fall from that height would have killed him, only that he would have at least SOME kind of injury. The fact that about 50% of people die from falls at a height of 48 feet, and that falls are the 2nd leading cause of accidental deaths, the mistake is valid that a fall of more than 30 feet would result in some injury, if not a major life threatening injury.
It does seem more like 15-20 feet instead of 30. He falls flat onto his back, the safest way to fall as it spreads out of the impact. In addition, we don't actually know that he suffered no injury. Since he wasn't rendered unconscious, he was well aware that he just fell into the raptor pen. The adrenaline surge he would have been going through would have meant pain would have been pushed aside.
16th Feb 2006
Godzilla (1998)
Other mistake: When they are tracking Godzilla to the second pile of fish in Central Park, the tracking device says that Godzilla is moving with a speed of 175 mph. If you look at the shots before it with the soldier looking over the top of the building, it is impossible for her to walk at that speed. (01:18:15)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She was moving at 175 meters per hour, not miles.
That would be an even more ridiculous speed. First, "mph" in America is the standard abbreviation for "miles per hour." Second, 175 meters per hour is less than 2 inches per second, which is slower than a slug.
24th Jun 2006
Click (2006)
Factual error: When Morty is showing Michael how to use the remote, Michael rewinds to a family vacation in 1976. A childhood friend of his invites everyone over to his parents' RV to watch Three's Company. Three's Company didn't premiere until 1977.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Although technically this is true, ironically there WERE two pilots for Three's Company filmed in 1976 with some similar and some different cast members, which may or may not of actually aired at the time after being filmed. The 3rd and final pilot with the familiar cast got the show finally rolling in 1977. So the mistake stands, but it could be a bit iffy based on this info.
This mistake does not need correction. This is just trivia that does not impact the mistake. Both pilots were unaired, so they couldn't have watched it on TV. Additionally, this was his summer vacation and the first pilot was taped in May and the second one was taped in November.
31st Jul 2018
Men in Black (1997)
Question: I loaded the film up on Netflix, and it seems that the dialogue in one scene was edited. In the standard cut of the film, Jeebs says "You insensitive prick!" to K, but in the version I saw on Netflix, Jeebs says "You insensitive jerk!" What's the deal with the Netflix version changing this one single line? The original "prick" line appears to be on both the VHS and Blu-Ray edition I own.
Answer: After a little research, I discovered that the line was changed in the UK release from "prick" to "jerk." So the most likely explanation I can find is that the Netflix version is taken from a UK master of the film. As mentioned in other comments, Netflix doesn't censor their films, so the other answer regarding the film being edited like movies shown on airplanes isn't accurate. (Not to mention, it'd make no sense for Netflix to edit this one profanity while leaving all the others intact if they were editing it for content).
I agree it's the UK version. I don't know if it's a licensing thing or cheaper, but I've notice Netflix will use the UK release version on a number of films. I'm not familiar with "prick" as a UK slang but I believe it's more graphic than US slang, similar to the word "fanny", and edited for the UK release.
Answer: In fact, it's done twice. When talking about Frank the pug, the standard edit has K saying "I just hope the little prick hasn't skipped town." The streaming version doesn't. I say streaming version because I just discovered that the Amazon version of this film edited out the word "prick," and I didn't realise the Netflix version had too. I'm in the US, so what's going on here?
Generally the changes people notice in films when watching Netflix or other services come from the fact that they're airing the UK release version (for whatever reason). I remember the first time people really noticed this was when Scooby-Doo 2 changed the product placement from Burger King to KFC (which I commented on).
Answer: As more films become available online and are accessible to a wider audience, the studios edit mature content that is unacceptable to under-aged viewers. It's the same as movies that are shown on airplanes where the adult content is edited or removed altogether.
Netflix doesn't censor their movies, though... So this explanation makes no sense.
It just seems odd, as Netflix basically never censors content in other films they host (since they're supposed to be hosting the officially released versions anyways), and the rest of the profanity/violence in this particular film is unedited.
6th Apr 2017
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Continuity mistake: Lecter asks for a lamb chop dinner, rare, and when they arrive, they are rare. When we see them later, they look well done. (01:15:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They don't look different in any of the shots. It's the same lambchops, same temperature. They are cooked as is, so they have a dark outside but inside they are probably rare. They do look darker in the last scene but that's probably because they have gone cold and dried out.
Suggested correction: How would a mistake like that come to be? Someone cooked them in between shots? Too much time elapsed and the substance oxidized? The potato and everything else on the plate look the same, and so do the chops, shape-wise. They might be of a slightly darker color in the very last shot with Boyle on the floor, but the plate has also been sprayed with blood, so that could account for this - mostly perceived - change.
A mistake like this would come to be if they're using real food and not props and had to do a cut, change camera position, do a reshoot, etc and had to set the scene again and redo the cooking of the food, or remake the props for some reason, but now the food looks different. What we see as a continuous scene in a movie or TV show is not always done in one take, which is why the site is filled with countless continuity mistakes.
9th Feb 2020
1917 (2019)
Corrected entry: The woman describes the baby as "mon fils" although it is a daughter and should be "ma fille".
Correction: The woman said "une fille" answering his question "what is it"? This means "a girl." She then said it wasn't her baby.
23rd Jan 2017
Fantastic Four (2015)
Corrected entry: When Reed repairs the cash machine in the foreign country, he has nearly a week of stubble, or close to that. When he gets back home, he's clean shaven.
Correction: After watching this scene, Reed (who has contorted his face to disguise himself at the register) does not have stubble, and certainly not a week's worth. There are shadows that may look like stubble, but then we watch him change back to his regular face in the car, and any growth remains the same.
I don't buy it. Reed's facial hair repeatedly disappears/reappears during the movie. It is due to the movie re-shoots. It is even mentioned on Wikipedia.
Regardless of mistakes in other scenes, this particular scene shows no evidence of a mistake.
2nd Feb 2020
Cars (2006)
Question: Is it really possible to turn on dirt simply by turning right to go left?
Answer: The idea of drifting is that you are swinging the back end around and losing traction on the rear wheels while counter-steering with the front wheels to maintain control. Once you enter into the left drift, you turn your wheels right to point them forward.
I know what the idea of drifting is. What I'm asking is whether or not it's possible to drift on dirt.
Answer: It's a rally move know as the "Scandanavian Flick" where you throw the car back end first into the corner and then counter the slide with opposite lock and flick the car around. I'm advanced driving instructor and it's one of the thing we teach pretty much straight away on a skidpan.
24th May 2011
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
Factual error: Barbossa addresses one of his officers as "lieutenant-commander". This rank was not introduced into the Royal Navy until 1914.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: These movies aren't set in a specific time.
Credit for the following goes to another member here, Super Grover, who actually answered a question about the dates the films are set a while ago. These dates are estimates. The intro of 'PotC: The Curse of the Black Pearl' takes place mid-1720s (roughly 1725), when Will and Elizabeth are around 11/12 yrs old. Then eight years later the duo are about 19-20 yrs old during the main part of 'The Curse of the Black Pearl', then around a year later are set to marry in 'PotC: Dead Man's Chest' followed by the consecutive 'At World's End', which take place around 1733 / 1734. The next movies 'PotC: On Stranger Tides' and 'Dead Men Tell No Tales' (after the intro) take place in the 1750s. Again, credit to Super Grover.
They're set in the 1700's. In "On Stranger Tides", King George wants Jack to find the Fountain of Youth before King Ferdinand, who reigned from 1746 - 1759.
11th Sep 2017
It (2017)
Factual error: Nivea Soft Cream is on the shelves at the chemist - this did not exist in 1989, when the film is set.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think the date is subject to debate. The only thing we really have to go on is it's 2019 in chapter 2, and It comes back every 27 years which would be 1992.
The date is not subject to debate. The marquee on the movie theater is advertising both "Batman" and "Lethal Weapon 2," placing the movie in the summer of 1989.
There is no debate about the date. After the title card it says "June 1989." The opening scene took place "October 1988."
16th Jan 2014
Family Guy (1999)
I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar - S2-E8
Revealing mistake: When Brian says "Well face it Peter, your attitude towards women isn't exactly enlightened", Brian's dog tag is the same color as his fur. It also stays still, even while Brian is moving his head. (00:11:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
14th Jan 2020
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
All Good Things... (1) - S7-E25
Character mistake: When Picard jumps to the past, he meets Data for the first time in engineering. If you look at Data's uniform, he is wearing the rank insignia of a Lt, Junior Grade.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
13th Jul 2008
Two and a Half Men (2003)
Continuity mistake: During this whole episode, Jake calls his mother's boyfriend Greg. But in the 4th season when Judith is marrying the guy, he is called Herb. We know that it is not two different people because they both have the last name Melneck, and they are both Jake's pediatrician.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Greg was the guy with the boat. I don't think they ever said his last name. Herb is the Dr. Two different people at two different times in the show.
The mistake is correct. The character of Judith's then boyfriend, and then eventual husband and then ex-husband, was named Greg Melnick (played by Ryan Stiles) in season 2. He actually first appeared in s02e02, "Enjoy Those Garlic Balls." Later, when he became a reoccurring character, his name was changed in the show to Herb. Although one could argue Greg was his middle name the whole time. There was another character named Greg in season 4.
5th Apr 2005
Alien (1979)
Continuity mistake: Near the start, when Dallas is at the entrance to Mother, one of the lights to his left, the fifth one down from the ceiling, is not lit. The next shot from inside Mother looking out shows that light is now lit. This exact same thing happens a second time when Ripley is entering mother later in the movie. These two scenes must have been shot at the same time. (00:08:20 - 01:18:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That light totally had enough time to light between the frames, because it was hidden by the sliding door for a brief moment. Lights were lit one at the time, not all at once, so this one starts to shine just a little bit later than all the others, that's it.
I consider this a valid mistake and the correction is a stretch. The lights only took about 2 seconds to light up, but she's at the door for almost 3.5 seconds after they're on and the last light did nothing. Then in the half second it took the door to open, the last light is now on.
19th Aug 2019
Little Monsters (1989)
Question: I'm watching on Netflix. Was this edited somehow from the original? In the Netflix version Brian enlists the help of Todd and Kiersten to rescue his brother. After escaping the dungeon, it shows them rearming themselves at the school. Then there's a cutscene where Maurice is in Ronnie's room and says "oh, Ronnie." Brian, Todd, and Kiersten are see walking into Boy's room a 2nd time, then all of the sudden Ronnie is there with the battery pack, and no-one seems surprised. In the original, was Ronnie recruited the first time around and then cut in the Netflix version? In the Netflix version Boy says the line "why lose 5 lives when you can gain 4?" when there's only 4 kids and not 5. So I feel like he must have been there. If Ronnie was edited out, why? Was it just to save the run time? If Ronnie wasn't edited out, who are the 5 lives Boy is talking about?"
Answer: I'd seen the movie a lot growing up and also just picked up the new Blu-Ray. As I remember seeing it when I was younger, and indeed in the new Blu-Ray, Ronnie is recruited on the group's second attempt to rescue Eric. He was never there the first time around. Admittedly, the line about "why lose five lives when you can gain four" is confusing given there's only four kids. But I always assumed he was referring to the four kids and Maurice, who he also has held captive.
Answer: You see Brian go down with Kiersten and Todd armed with their first set of flashlights. He then says this line because he wants to keep the four kids there and turn them into monsters. But he could kill them and my guess is maybe kill Maurice as well because he didn't succeed in turning Brian into one of them.
Answer: They went back to rescue Brian's younger brother Eric. Ronnie was there after Maurice went and got him to come and help. So the five lives refers to the four kids and the one that he stole which was Eric.
That's why I'm wondering why it was edited on Netflix because Ronnie isn't there when Boy says the line. In the Netflix version, Ronnie is recruited after Boy's line.
29th Dec 2019
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
The Best of Both Worlds (1) - S3-E26
Question: I can't tell if this was a mistake or if there's an explanation. When the Borg are on the Enterprise's bridge, the first two are covered in the green light indicating they're being transported back to the Borg ship, but the 3rd one (the one successfully shot by Worf) has no lights, he just fades away. Why?
Answer: The Borg use technology to cause the dead to disintegrate, presumably as a security measure to prevent their technology from being captured.
But in s05e23, "I, Borg", Riker says "the Borg collect their dead" when they encounter the injured Borg. Worf says to kill it and leave no evidence they were there so that when the Borg return to collect the dead member. Plus, there were 4 dead Borg and none of them disintegrated.
I believe "collect" refers to the disintegration. We see other Borg remove specific pieces of technology from the dead borg, which causes it to disappear.
Answer: Its possible that the Borg use a special transporter for living beings (which is the one with the green glow) and a different one for non-living things (which might not have a green glow). In Star Trek the federation uses a different type of transporter when moving bulk cargo than it does when moving people.
29th Dec 2019
Logan (2017)
Question: When Laura's foot claws come out why aren't there any holes in her shoes? Only the skin can heal from wounds, not objects.
Answer: It's just a continuity mistake. The blade rips a hole in the shoe, but the hole disappears later on... that's a continuity mistake. It's definitely not a plot hole. A plot hole is more a gap or contradiction in a film's internal logic, or when a film leaves out vital information. (Ex. If a character is established as having a deadly nut allergy, but is eating nuts later on with no ill effect... that would be a plot-hole).
It would only be a plot hole if somehow the lack of holes in the shoes was written into the plot that some effect on the plot. Of course, someone would probably correct the entry by saying she could have had a 2nd pair or they bought a new pair if it was integral to the plot.
17th Dec 2019
The IT Crowd (2006)
Corrected entry: When Moss is actually on Countdown, the host calls Moss' opponent "Jeremy" once, when he asks how long his word is, and again when he asks him for the word. Moss' word is longer and the host remarks that Moss will probably win, and apologizes to the opponent but this time calls him "Jonathan." (00:01:49 - 00:02:30)
Correction: He says Jeremy. However, I do know Netflix's closed captions says "Johnathan", but that's not a character mistake for the show.
I'm not referring to closed captions on Netflix. I'm talking about what the host actually says out loud. He says Jeremy first and then "Sorry Jonathan" later.
I know what you were referring to. I listened multiple times and he says "Jeremy" every time.
27th Aug 2001
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Continuity mistake: At the beginning, when Brett is initially shot by both Jules and Vincent after Jules' Ezekiel speech, we see Jules' gun becomes empty on firing the last shot. However, on returning to the same scene at the end, when Jules and Vincent shoot Brett the gun does not empty; in fact Jules is able to repeatedly shoot the guy who comes out of the bathroom afterwards and the gun still isn't empty.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's very hard to tell whether Jules' gun is empty or not, he is pointing it almost right at the viewer, and the scene is proceeding too rapidly.
It's easy to tell. You can see the slide is locked back in the first scene, indicating it's empty. If you can't see the slide is back, look at the ejection port. It's grey/silver color when the slide is forward (i.e. round in the chamber) and black when back (i.e. empty).
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: It is entirely possible to survive a fall like that onto your back with no serious damage, especially if he were to go limp. He did not appear to have time to tense up during his fall, which would have reduced damage. Also, the adrenaline would have helped him work through the pain and/or damage.
No it's not possible to survive a fall like that without being receiving serious damage especially given the very large number of Gs of force your body would receive.
Look up the names Chris Saggers, fell from the 22nd story of a building and walked away with a minor fracture, or Julianne Diller, who fell out of an aircraft at 10,000 ft without a parachute and not only survived, was in good enough condition to walk for 10 days in a Peruvian rainforest to get back to civilization. Point being, luck plays a part and the g forces from falling 20 feet aren't as bad as you might think.
The fall was over 30 feet, but bringing up stories of people who sustained substantial injuries doesn't bode well for your argument by that a fall from 20 feet (which isn't even the height he fell from) wouldn't result in injury. Plus, depending on the stopping distance, a fall from 20 feet would easily result in a g-force of over 150 (most concussions deliver 95 g's).
Bishop73