Character mistake: When someone gets shot and the first thing people try to do is remove the bullet, often with a knife and no anesthetic.
Bishop73
14th Oct 2018
Common mistakes
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This commonly happens but this is not a mistake. What is wrong with removing the bullet with a knife and no anesthetic. Many times the characters don't have access to a medical facility with all the accoutrements to remove a bullet or don't want to go to a hospital where bullet wounds are reported to law enforcement.
It seems my original entry was edited to make it more brief. But in real life, bullets are not commonly removed because there's no need. The bullet is not the concern, it's the hole the bullet caused that's the concern. They (and more specific to what I was trying to suggest, they as in medical experts) are increasing the risk factors for no viable reason and are never addressing the main cause for concern. And the point of not using anesthetic is they are increasing the risk factors even more for an already pointless surgery.
21st Oct 2018
Common mistakes
Factual error: Protagonists who have been able to clear their name after being framed, but only in the process of committing several other crimes, for which they receive no punishments. The law is still the law and crimes are all separate from each other committed in that time period.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This can be true or not. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion whether to prosecute a crime of not. If you help the police solve a crime that you were originally a suspect by committing another crime, as long as that crime is not murder (it can be self-defense) the prosecutor has discretion whether to prosecute.
Plus, in the case of common mistakes, they are not working with the police to clear their name. And just because they're not murdering people doesn't mean they're not assaulting people (outside the realm of self-defense). Plus, this common mistake is especially true for police officers kicked off the case and then break all sorts of police procedures with no consequences.
The only point I am making is that prosecutors do have discretion whether to prosecute crimes. If the crime is minor AND you helped the prosecutor with other more serious crimes, they can choose to not prosecute you for the minor crimes. The OP was vague as to what kind of additional crimes they committed. If murder, then I don't see how they get away with that just because they helped solve other crimes. It would depend on what kind of other crimes the protagonist committed.
26th Jun 2003
A Fine Mess (1986)
Continuity mistake: After Dennis punches Spence in the nose the piano starts playing and Dennis just pushes it to turn it off even though every time they had to turn it on and off before then they had to use the on/off switch. (01:01:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I took it as a very movie-like "when you don't know how to fix/start/stop/do stuff to a machine, just hit it" moment. Thing is though, just mere seconds before in the same scene, Howie Mandel bumped against the piano, hitting harder than it does to stop it, and it kept going, so I do think that this entry has some merit.
This correction is unnecessary. It validates the original mistake at the end.
The original contribution points out something that, especially in movies, happens a lot: hit some device and it stops. Personally I don't see it as a mistake and I would have not reported it. But I do think it's inconsistent, that it stopped that second time and not the first. I could have submitted a new mistake entry but I did not find it necessary, or a request to change the entry's wording, but I think it is best to keep the original contribution and present a possible explanation and suggestion of a possible, slightly different, inconsistency in the same scene.
And none of that is needed. Explaining why a mistake happens is never a valid correction. And explaining the mistake in a different way isn't needed either (although one can change the wording of a mistake if one feels the mistake isn't clear enough).
2nd Apr 2019
The Good Place (2016)
Corrected entry: In this episode we learn that to earn points Eleanor needs to have the correct motivation, and doing good things so that she can get into the good place is having corrupt motivations. However when we meet Doug in a later episode he's shown to be a "model human" yet everything he does is so that he doesn't go to the bad place. This doesn't make sense, as his motivations should be corrupt by knowing about the good place at all.
Correction: I disagree, I think that because his theories weren't confirmed, he has the same chance of getting in as anyone else. There are plenty of other people that do good things because they want better treatment in the afterlife.
The episode makes it clear that Doug is convinced his theory is correct and he even says something along the lines of "I need to do good to get into the good place" (not a direct quote). To Doug his theory is confirmed and that should be enough to corrupt his motivations.
I agree. Doug's motivations for doing good things, are based on the belief that doing good things gets him into the good place. But that's all it is, a belief. Eleanor actually knows the truth and it's only after death, and after the fear of eternal torture, that she tries to be a better person. As for Doug's point total, I think he was so focused on not losing points that he became a passive hermit who rarely did anything. And by not doing anything, there were very few options to earn points.
Correction: Which explains why, as we later find out, his point total is nowhere near good enough to reach the Good Place. His good deeds are offset by his corrupted motivations.
That's not what happened at all. His good deeds aren't off-set by corrupt motivations, they're off-set by unintended consequences of good actions, which is why nobody was getting into the Good Place. Doing a good thing, like buying flowers for a loved one gave the expected positive points, but earned negative points for everything associated with the farming, raising, and selling of the flower.
No, Shaun said that because the good place was impossible to get in and it even said no-one arrived at the good place in 500 years.
Correction: The reason Eleanor's motivation is corrupt and not Doug's is because Eleanor was already dead, and knew definitely of the consequences. Though Doug's theory was correct he had no way of knowing what would truly happen if he didn't do good. It is the same with other religions, though Doug was correct in his theory, it still was only a theory that could not be proven. He went to Doug because he knew for certain Doug would be the one person on Earth whose points should have been extremely high.
27th Aug 2001
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Corrected entry: The Headless Horseman died in 1779 when the two little girls (who were about 6) make noise to get him killed. The grown up little girl (Miranda Richardson) in 1799 is much older than 26. (01:26:05)
Correction: We have no idea how old the girls actually are - many short thin people look much younger than their true age. The girls could easily be at least 10.
Even if she was 10, that would only make Lady Van Tassel 30. The mistake is saying she looks over 40, since the actress was 41 at the time of the film.
Correction: We have no idea of Katrina's stepmother's age. It was very common for an older gentleman to marry a much younger woman at that point in history.
Women also looked older and aged faster back then - hardships of life.
Mary Archer, who is known as Lady Van Tassel and is Katrina's step mom, was a little girl (around 6 according to the mistake entry) when her dad died. 18 years later, she becomes nurse to Elizabeth and 2 years after that, she marries Baltus, putting her at around 26. It should be noted, the mistake is saying Mary looks over 40 (since the actress was 41 at the time of the film).
6th Feb 2006
Benny & Joon (1993)
Revealing mistake: During the opening credits, it is obvious that the train is just a model during the initial close up shots.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is nothing in the opening shots that betray it as a model shot. Logic alone argues against it. Why would they go to the expense of building a detailed model when there is no unusual action or angles required? Especially since many of the shots are obviously not a model. Exactly how is it obviously a model?
I agree it does look like it's a model train, but that's only because of the filming techniques that make it appear to run a little choppier like it's was a light weight model. But it's real, for example in one scene that looks like it's a model, you see a real bird flying on screen.
24th Sep 2019
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Stupidity: When the parents knew Freddy was doing the killing then why didn't they watch him like a neighborhood watch so they could catch him trying it again, and thus avoid the legal technicality which threw out of the first case? It seems idiotic they broke the law to punish this lawbreaker.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The parents believed Freddy would not face justice for his crimes. They were unwilling to allow him the opportunity to kill another child, and believing the justice system had failed them they took the law into their own hands. They completely got away with their vigilante justice. The only bad thing that happened was Freddy was brought back as a vengeful demon with superpowers. There is no way the parents could have known this would happen.
It is still a stupidity. Even if they wanted him to suffer, they would try to avoid legal problems at all costs. It is good that they wanted to prevent him from killing another child but they still shouldn't act so hastily.
Stupidity entries are not meant to be stupid acts by characters. They're for minor plot holes. Without in-film evidence why the acts would be a plot hole, there is no stupidity mistake. And assuming what characters would or would not do does not make a valid mistake (not to mention revenge killings do happen in real life and in movies a lot).
No, it's not. What else were they supposed to do when he was caught and set free? It's still not their fault what happened next.
21st Jan 2007
Superman Returns (2006)
Corrected entry: When Superman is first flying toward the Genesis shuttle, a controller says an unidentified bogie (Superman) is approaching from the North, but the computer screens (one of which even shows a compass) indicate that Superman is apparently coming in from approximately the South East.
Correction: It is traditional but by no means compulsory to have north uppermost on a map or radar screen, and in orbit where 'up' and 'down' are meaningless concepts anyway the radar screen could be oriented any which way.
23rd Oct 2002
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
Continuity mistake: At the beginning of the film, we see Sully asleep in his bed and the alarm clock/radio on a bedside cabinet to the right. Later, when Boo climbs into Sully's bed, the clock/radio isn't there anymore. (00:04:50 - 00:32:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Sully may have unplugged the alarm clock and put it somewhere else, especially when there's a "dangerous" child in his home, and he wouldn't want his things to get contaminated.
This correction is a stretch. If he doesn't want his things contaminated, why not remove the pictures and lamps? Why let her sleep in his bed with his blankets?
16th Aug 2010
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
Other mistake: In the scaring simulation room, the alphabet wallpaper border at the top of the wall has the "J" written backwards.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The walls of the room also have nonsensical drawings like a giraffe with two heads. The implication is that the monsters designing the room didn't entirely know what kids would actually have in rooms (like they didn't know that giraffes don't actually have two heads). So they thought that humans have the J backwards.
Whether or not the backwards J was intentional or as a joke, it would still seem unreasonable for the monsters to get it wrong when you see they got the pictures for each letter seen correct "jaguar", "kangaroo "pig", "quail", "rhino." I would at the very least call it a character mistake.
As the original correction said, it's just an example of the monsters not understanding the human world. Not a mistake.
Yet they know the alphabet? I doubt it.
26th Sep 2019
Ad Astra (2019)
Factual error: Regarding people walking on the moon base, the movie made no attempts at recreating the moon's gravity being 1/6 of earth's. Everyone just walks around normally like on earth. Impossible.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Maybe there is some kind of artificial gravity field around the moon city, because during the moon rover chase, the gravity is apparently the normal, 1/6 Earth gravity.
There is nothing else about the technology shown in the film that would suggest such a thing is possible. All other technology shown is somewhat recognisable as an advancement on the present day. They at no point suggest the use of artificial gravity.
This correction appears to be made by someone guessing without knowledge of the film or scene. While using "maybe" in a correction could be considered valid, generally it's only when presenting a number of plausible explanations and you suggest 1 as an example. But 1 random maybe isn't acceptable, especially without in-film proof.
If the artificial gravity is developed it can be used in space travel also. But we don't see any during their space travels that they have any form of artificial gravity.
26th Jun 2019
Child's Play (2019)
Other mistake: Andy and his friends are watching "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" in one scene. However, the scenes they watch are completely out of order compared to the actual film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually this is simply a movie convention. When kids watch films onscreen, they deliberately only show the best bits of the film as oppose to just playing the film normally. Otherwise it would look dull and pointless.
Explaining why a mistake exists doesn't invalidate them. Skipping time or jump cuts is one thing, showing scenes from a movie kids are watching out of order, without a valid in-film reason, is still a mistake.
Technically no.
The issue isn't that they aren't showing the whole movie. They did the right thing by just showing clips, since it illustrates a passage of time. The issue is that the clips they show are all out of order. (You'll see one from the ending of the movie, then one from the beginning, then another from the ending, then one from the middle, etc.) They could have just as easily shown a couple clips in order from throughout the film, and it would have worked, but they chose not to for some bizarre reason.
19th Sep 2019
Jumanji (1995)
Character mistake: When young Alan is talking young Sarah, he says that he found a board game at the factory. Alan didn't find the game at the factory. He found the game across from the factory at a construction site.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The construction might very well be part of the factory, a new factory building for example.
The sign at the construction site said it was an "Executive Office Annex" that they were building.
Even though the sign said it was an Annex, construction was still being done outside of the main factory where Alan found the game. Not inside of the main factory itself.
9th May 2009
17 Again (2009)
Corrected entry: In the scene in the school gym, circa 1989, when the big game is just about to start, Ned (the little buddy) runs in late, wearing a robe and pointed hat. He says he was late because of some Harry Potter / Gryffindor activity he was doing. The problem is: the first Harry Potter book was published in 1997, and this part of the movie takes place in 1989. There is no way a character in 1989 could know about Harry Potter.
Correction: He doesn't speak about Harry Potter, he says something about what kind of wizard would he be if a quest during a battle with a hippogriff, the hippogriff is a mythical beast, he was probably playing Dungeons and Dragons.
Ned mentions being an good Dungeon Master because he didn't leave in the middle of the fight with a hippogriff. Although a hippogriff is mythological, it was created in the Harry Potter Universe which, again, didn't exist at the time.
Hippogriffs were not created by J.K. Rowling! They are ancient Roman mythical creatures first mentioned in writing by the poet Virgil (who died in 19 B.C.) They are also creatures used in D&D games.
19th Jul 2017
How I Met Your Mother (2005)
Plot hole: When Robin and Lily find Barney's secret Robin notebook, Barney and Ted are at the class, so Barney should have the notebook with him.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is a character mistake at best, and quite a common one. Students constantly forget their textbooks, homework, notes, supplies etc.
It should be noted that the plot hole isn't talking about "students." This isn't about forgetting textbooks, supplies, or homework. Barney is trying to be a better boyfriend to Robin and wants to learn Ted's secrets since Ted had dated Robin. If Barney has been writing everything down before, the mistake is pointing out why isn't he writing it down this time, except to allow the writers to have Lily and Robin find the notebook and the class.
19th Aug 2019
The Brady Bunch (1969)
Question: There's a scene in this episode I haven't seen in over 30 years (edited out in more recent years) where the 4 kids upstairs are arguing (boys vs girls) and the kids continuously stamp their feet on the floor and then Alice is shown downstairs watching her cake in the oven. Periodically with all the stomping from upstairs, the cake gets flatter until very flat the end of the scene. Question is does anyone remember this scene and why does the cake in the oven get flatter every time a kid stomps from upstairs?
Answer: I think I remember that episode - but, more importantly, my mother always told me (and my siblings) to stop jumping/ stomping, running in the kitchen, and opening the oven door when a cake was baking... because these could make the cake fall. I believed my mother... and I, as a child, also caused a few "fallen cakes" because I didn't quite always listen (right away, anyway). I'm sure Alice's fallen cake episode was exaggerated, but cakes really CAN fall from stomps and opening the oven door too soon. Usually, it has something to do with the baking powder and how the air bubbles change during the baking process. Doing something that might cause the oven and cake inside to move/shake can suddenly change the air bubbles inside the cake and cause a collapse. I don't know all factors that have to occur for a cake to fall (collapse in the middle), but I've seen fallen cakes during my adulthood and... well... caused at least a few myself. Regarding Alice's cake falling each time one of the Brady kids stomped upstairs, I'm not sure if a series of falls could occur. IF it is possible, I think there would have to be way too much baking powder in the batter or some other inaccurate combination of ingredients that alter the chemical process during baking.
Answer: Realistically, a cake would not deflate in that way. There are some desserts, like delicate, airy souffles, that can deflate during and after baking, and that must be served almost immediately from the oven. The scene, broadly played for humor, is merely meant to show the argument's growing intensity gauged against the rate of the deflating cake.
Answer: I haven't come across a scene like that, but maybe over time what you remember got mixed up with episodes of other shows, so this is just a suggested episode. "Try, Try Again." In the episode, Mike is preparing a gourmet meal for Saturday. Jan is practicing tap dancing in the kitchen and his soufflé that he had spent 3 days preparing is knocked to the floor. While it is true soufflés can "fall" (meaning deflate), it's because the cooking time was wrong (or opening the oven door too soon) or the structure of the egg whites is too weak. Noises don't make them collapse.
This was not from "Try, Try Again" (though I do remember that scene too). That was in a later season when the kids were older. The one I was talking about was during the first season when all the kids were young. I know the scene in question were the 4 youngest kids and the scene started by each the boys and girls arguing that Greg/Marcia (running for student body president) doesn't stand a chance against him/her to win (boys for Greg, girls for Marcia).
That's "Vote for Brady", s01e11. I watched it and for some reason Carol tells Mike to be careful, after he makes too much noise, indicating noise will ruin the cake. Alice does keep checking on the cake with the oven light every time the kids make too much noise. However, the cake is always fine, and in fact getting bigger. Then, realizing the cake is fine, Alice is relieved and leans against the counter, knocking over the cutting board. The cutting board crashes to the ground, which this time does cause the cake to flatten. It seems like an exaggerated prop, I've never see a cake rise like that, it looks like how a muffin might rise. Then it's somehow deflated, as if it was hollow, like a puffed pastry, or too raw. If it was too raw, it shouldn't flatten in the oven. But the look of the cake doesn't remind me of any puffed pasty, which is made from a dough, not a batter and the cake looks like a batter cake to me. So, it just deflates for irony or comedy of error reasons.
21st Jun 2010
Minority Report (2002)
Plot hole: In the scene where Anderton is talking with Hineman, she says to him that "You will bring down the [Precrime] system yourself if you manage to kill your victim. That would be the most spectacular public display of how Precrime didn't work." Shouldn't she be saying "If you manage to not kill your victim"? (01:01:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Well, if Crow did die, then Precrime wouldn't have worked because the whole point is to stop murder from occurring at all.
Ether way it is a hit against precrime. If he does not kill Crow then it shows that the vision may not come true so you do not know if someone would really have killed someone else, outside situation like with the cheating wife at the start where they interrupted the murder. If Crow is murdered then it shows the system is flawed, which would not be as bad as the first as you would still be stopping a lot of the murders.
I can't tell if this reply is suggesting the correction is wrong or stating the line should be "not kill", making the mistake valid. By not killing the victim, that shows how Precrime is actually working and that knowing the future means you can alter it. If the murder occurs, it would weaken Precrime's stance and support that it can prevent crime.
No if he chooses not to kill Crowe then that means that the visions are just a version of the future, and thus not the actual future. So all the people with the halo on them are locked up wrongfully, as they may have decided not to do it like Anderton did, so the system collapses. That was the point, and it did. Hineman's remark is about the idea that precrime stops all murders, unless Andrton does manage to kill Crowe. The system then is flawed but like the previous commentor says, they still prevent most murders instead of all of them, which would count for something.
8th Aug 2019
Dexter (2006)
Shrink Wrap - S1-E8
Factual error: In the police report Dexter examines, Emmett Meridian's name is followed by PhD, and yet he is referred to as a psychiatrist and prescribes medication. A psychiatrist would have an MD after his name, and a psychologist (PhD) cannot legally prescribe meds.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is possible for someone to be both a medical practitioner and have a PhD.
Someone with both a Doctor of Medicine and a Doctor of Philosophy would have both MD and PhD after their name. Not having an MD after your name means you can't prescribe medicine.
Yes, but in that case, both MD and PhD are listed after their name. Why would the report eliminate the MD, which is the more prestigious of the two degrees and certainly would have been noted during the investigation?
19th Apr 2004
Finding Nemo (2003)
Question: When the turtle first meets Marlin, he talks about how he brought up his turtle offspring and says, "You know, you leave them on the beach to hatch on their own... and coo-coo-cachoo, they find their way back to the big old blue." Coo-coo-cachoo is also mentioned in the song 'Mrs. Robinson' by Simon and Garfunkel in the beginning of a chorus saying "Coo coo ca-choo, Mrs. Robinson, Jesus loves you more than you will know." Does anyone know if there is any connection between the phrases containing coo-coo-cachoo, or what the phrase's possible meaning?
Answer: The actual lyrics are "Koo-koo-ka-choo, Mrs. Robinson", but it most certainly is a part of the song "Mrs. Robinson" by Simon and Garfunkel. There is likely not a connection of any kind, or any hidden meaning, it's just a nonsense sound that is in more than one song.
Answer: Coo-coo-cachoo is not in Mrs Robinson, they actually sing woo hoo hoo and wow wow wow in that song. Coo-coo-cachoo is from a Beatles (and then Oasis) song called I am the Walrus. Other than the aquatic nature of the walrus being similar to that of the turtle there is no connection. The turtle was supposed to be a hipp-esque character prone to use unusual words and phrases like whoa, and like whoa!
"Koo-koo-ka-choo" is from "Ms. Robinson." The line in "I Am the Walrus" is "Goo goo g'joob"
12th Nov 2015
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
Continuity mistake: In "The Luminous Fish Effect" (S1E04) Sheldon tells Penny he weighs 140 pounds. In "The Porkchop Indeterminacy" (S1E16), he tells his sister he weighs 165. 25lbs difference would be a noticeable change, but he looks the same.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Lying to Penny but not to his sister, not inconsistent with the characters and his relationships.
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.