Other mistake: Digital version: Wade claims to be 18 in the year 2045; he was born in 2024. He is actually 20 years old and yet still in high school. The paper version has the correct birth year of 2026.
Bishop73
14th Jul 2019
Ready Player One
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: In the paper book (print version), Wade was born in 2026, making him 18 in 2044, the year the book is set in. The year was changed in the Kindle and Apple digital book version to 2024, but that's Kindle's or Apple's mistake (whoever digitized the book first), not a mistake for the original book.
This was Audible's digital copy which is an exact copy from the text.
Audible is owned by Amazon, which runs the Kindle platform. The Audible version is the same as the Kindle version and wrong. I've read the physical paper book and in chapter 14, Sorrento says "Wade Owen Watts. Born August twelfth, 2026."
16th Jul 2019
The Karate Kid (2010)
Corrected entry: No kid ever uses karate in this movie. Kung Fu is used, which is a different martial art.
Correction: This isn't a film mistake and would be more suited to a forum discussion to address the question "why isn't it called The Kung Fu Kid?" Since this is a remake, they decided to keep the original name. Plus, karate, which means "Chinese" "Hand", later changed to "Empty" "Hand", can be used to describe kung fu, and some people use the terms interchangeably. Questions or comments like "Why is it called Karate Kid III when Daniel's not a kid?" or "Why is it called Home Alone 2 when Kevin isn't at home?" are not considered mistakes and neither is this film's title.
When a movie title is inaccurate including getting a martial art wrong it is a movie mistake. An alligator even though it has similarities to a crocodile is not the same animal.
Kung Fu is not interchangeable with Karate if that were true most persons would be saying Bruce Lee created Karate.
And these are all good points to make in a forum discussion. Perhaps Jon can weigh in on if film names constitute a movie mistake (perhaps mis-titling films/shows can be listed in the common mistake section or trivia for the film). There are already "mistakes" that are not valid, like mistakes needing slow-motion to see, so I think it should be an invalid mistake.
Yeah, I'm with you. Sometimes a title can be a mistake, like Krakatoa, East of Java, which is actually west of Java. But there has to be some leeway, and especially if something's a remake or sequel the understanding of the title is what matters more than the literal meaning. I mean Reservoir Dogs or A Clockwork Orange or The Haunting In Connecticut 2: Ghosts Of Georgia. Sometimes you've got to give some leeway. But as ever it's a grey area and there's not always a one size fits all approach.
18th Jun 2014
Lone Survivor (2013)
Factual error: In the scene at the evacuation hospital doctors are seen administering shocks to Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg) with paddles. The EKG shows a flatline. In reality, medical personnel do not give shocks for a flatline - a "shock" is to correct Ventricular Fibrillation into a normal sinus rhythm, if you have a systole there is no muscle activity in the cardiac area and a manual shock will not achieve anything.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That's not true. If ever you do a first aid course they will point out that on arrival, paramedics will replace your AED with their defib precisely because their defib will shock no pulse, whereas an AED that you might find in public spaces will not.
No professional medical professional would shock a flatline patient. They would start chest compressions until they could determine why the heart stopped. Ventricular Fibrillation or Ventricular Tachycardia, where shocking may help, does not register as a flatline. The mistake is valid and doesn't need to be corrected.
30th Nov 2013
The Sound of Music (1965)
Question: Gretel was 5 years old and the mother died seven years ago. Who is Gretel's mom?
Answer: In the film, the Mother Abess explains to Maria that the Captain Von Trapp's wife died "several years" ago. This is commonly misheard by viewers as "seven years." In reality, the actual mother of the Von Trapp children was Agathe Whitehead, who died of scarlet fever in 1922, just four years before Maria came to the Von Trapp home, initially as a tutor (not a governess) in 1926.
Answer: However when Captain Von Trapp gets the children to step forward and introduce themselves to Maria he states that their mother died 7 years ago.
Not in the 1965 film, perhaps in another version. In the 1965 film the only thing he says about his late wife when he first meets Maria is "you'll be the 12th governess...since their mother died." When he has the children introduce themselves, he only advises Maria to pay attention to their signals and names. Later after he leaves and the children say how old they are, Marta says "I'll be 7 on Tuesday."
4th Jul 2019
Army of Darkness (1992)
Corrected entry: When the army of the deadites arrives at the castle, Evil Ash says something along the lines of "Bring me forth into that castle." A few moments later, he says "Sally forth!" only not being able to say forth because of his decayed mouth, despite being able to say it only moments before.
11th Apr 2016
My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 (2016)
Corrected entry: In the beginning they show an Illinois license plate with OPA! on the plate. There are no punctuation marks on Illinois license plates.
Correction: The front plate seen isn't state issued. It's a novelty plate he put on the front. While it would be illegal for him to drive without a state-issued front plate, there isn't anything otherwise preventing him from having a novelty plate on and cops probably wouldn't harass him about it. I drove my last car for 10 years without a front plate in a state that required it and never got a ticket for it, even when I was pulled over for speeding and the cop told me I had to have one.
Correction: They could have gotten one that says "OPAI" and just used a little paint to touch up the I into an exclamation point. Probably illegal, but doable.
After reviewing the scene, there's no possible way it was done with just some paint (nor is it possible in real life to do). Illinois license plates don't use any letters or numbers that resemble a lowercase "l."
12th Sep 2007
Shooter (2007)
Continuity mistake: When Memphis is tortured, he gets water poured in his mouth from a bottle. When they're done pouring, the water level in the bottle is almost full. (01:07:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Before this frame, there is a shot showing multiple water bottles on a nearby table... it could easily have been the next bottle of water?
No, it could not because the shot was meant to be continuous. After Memphis spits out the water, we see the guy holding a half filled bottle start pouring water into Memphis' mouth. When the camera angle changes (i.e. continuous shot and not a jump cut), we still see the guy holding the bottle up to Memphis' mouth. It's at that point the bottle has changed and is now almost full.
It's even worse than that. It refills at least twice between those quick successive shots.
10th Oct 2017
The Office (2005)
Continuity mistake: In one episode Angela says she hasn't talked to her sister in years over an argument that she doesn't remember. When she's engaged to Andy and they're touring Dwight's farm he mentions she has multiple sisters. In the finale she only has one sister and apparently they are incredibly close.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: In the finale the "Sister" is Angela's best friend. Do you recall them each saying this is my older sister?
That's a common joke among siblings that are close, they're joking about which one is older. Rachel is Angela's sister, not just a friend. They even go on to say "we're very close. We even have our own special language", which is something common among siblings that are close. The mistake is valid.
5th May 2006
Phoenix Nights (2001)
Continuity mistake: During the last episode of the first series doorman Paddy uses his hair spray to give him fuller locks. But at the start of the second series his hair is back to its normal style even though the second series starts where the first series ended with the club on fire.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The start of the second series takes place some time after the fire of the first season. Many of the staff of the Phoenix have moved on and got new (proper!) jobs. For example, Jerry is now working for Asda, a job he didn't have before. The spray maine (sic) is, as the name suggests, spray-on hair and would undoubtedly come straight off again the first time it gets wet! Plus after a couple of weeks or months, even a slightly more resilient hair spray 'treatment' would have fallen off.
15th May 2019
Back to the Future (1985)
Question: Are we ever given any suggestion as to what offence Lorraine's brother was incarcerated for?
Answer: Not in any official, canon source. In the Back to the Future comic books published by IDW he is an aspiring member of Biff's gang and gets arrested breaking into the home of Doc Brown's mother in an attempt to steal a large sum of money. It must be reiterated that the comics are non-canon and this should be taken with a grain of salt.
The comic books are so skewed from the movie events, they cannot be considered canon. "Jailbird Joey" was only a baby in a playpen when Biff and his gang were seniors in highschool. Unless Biff and his highschool buddies were still recruiting gang members into their mid-30s, there is no way Jailbird Joey would be trying to join their gang.
While the answer does state the comics aren't cannon, it's the only place that really delves into Uncle Joey's criminal history since the film's didn't need to spend time discussing the exact nature of his crimes. However, it would not be unreasonable (or even unheard of) for Biff to be recruiting members for his "gang" at 35. Plus, Joey wanting to be part of Biff's gang wouldn't necessarily require Biff or his high school buddies to be personally involved in recruiting young Joey.
19th Mar 2016
Frasier (1993)
Other mistake: When the power outage occurs, Daphne claims she can't cook the steaks, however, the cook top in the kitchen is gas. They have matches as shown by them lighting the hurricane lamps.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: In episode 6:02, Frasier's Curse, Niles finds Frasier's head in the stove and is worried. Frasier responses "I was cleaning it, Niles. It's electric" The matches seen in episode 2:24 were more likely used for candles (like for Frasier's bath), not the oven, because it's electric.
The range is gas burning. You can see the grates and burners indicative of a gas cook-top. The comment regarding the matches wasn't used as proof the range is gas, but merely to point out they had the ability to light the gas cook-top (to avoid someone correcting the mistake by saying maybe they had no matches). The mistake is valid. In s06e02, the cook-top is still gas and one may want to submit a character mistake for that episode because Frasier says it's electric when we see it's gas. However, if one submits the mistake, be prepared for someone to correct the mistake by pointing out that dual fuel ranges exist, so the oven could be electric and cook-top gas, Frasier has an electric oven and gas stove, or Frasier was simply lying.
5th May 2019
Married... with Children (1987)
Corrected entry: Al goes upstairs and yells in excitement that "she listened to me" referring to Peggy not messing with the bathroom upstairs. Later in the show Al says he will use the bathroom upstairs because she ruined his bathroom in the garage. Peggy says he shouldn't use the upstairs one because she decorated it like a woman's bathroom. So at first he saw it and was happy she didn't change it. Later she said she did and he acted surprised but he already saw it normal.
Correction: Al does not make the statement referring to the bathroom upstairs. He doesn't like using the upstairs bathroom because of all of Peg's stuff in it, so it's unlikely he would checked. He's more concerned about his bedroom so he just did a quick check of that.
I understand what you are saying but he said it when he went upstairs and there is only one bathroom upstairs. I guess I am only saying bathroom because he knows she was doing a bathroom and went upstairs. But I do see what you are saying. I guess we both could be right ;).
At that point he had no idea she was going to redecorate a bathroom. She only chose to do the bathrooms because "a bathroom is not room." Since we know he didn't check all the rooms in the house before making the statement or talking about his win with Bud, it's safe to say he only looked at his bedroom, since he also wasn't up there long enough to check the kids' rooms.
21st Sep 2018
Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005)
Character mistake: When Jet tells Katara and Aang to waterbend the water from underground in the geysers, Katara states that she has never waterbent on water she couldn't see before. However, six episodes prior to this, in 'The Warriors of Kyoshi', she waterbends the water out from Aang's lungs to save his life.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That was a moment of desperation on her part, and she probably doesn't think of it/think she can do it again without the same desperate impetus, Furthermore, the water in Aang was only a small amount and very close anyway.
Regardless of if she did it in desperation or not, she did use bending on water she didn't see. The mistake isn't suggesting anything about Katara's ability to waterbend unseen water, the mistake is only in regards to the statement Katara made about never using bending on water she can't see. And for Katara to forget the one time she used bending on water she didn't see would qualify as a character mistake as well. Now if she made the statement "I don't think I can do this" or "I've never used bending on underground water", etc, that would not be a character mistake.
21st Jan 2004
The Relic (1997)
Corrected entry: When Margo first explores the Superstition exhibit near the beginning of the movie, she has to step over a velvet rope blocking its entrance. However, when she runs out of it a few minutes later, she charges right through the entrance and down the stairs - the rope was obviously removed so she could run faster, but in reality, she would have either jumped over it or tripped and fell.
Correction: When she is running her arms are pumping but when she reaches the rope she raises them in a wing - like fashion as people do when they are jumping down. You can also faintly hear her shoes thud when she lands because she jumped the over the rope (which was only calf high) and the three steps.
She doesn't jump over the rope, she jumps down the steps (rather than running down each one). At no point in the scene is she seen jumping up that would be required if she jumped over the rope. The rope is not there.
Correction: The rope is still there. The reason it's not seen is because when Margo flees from the exhibition the focus is on her and the entrance. Not on the ropes.
The rope is not there because there's no evidence she jumped over the rope, even if the camera angle was too high not to show the rope, her jumping (or even stepping over) it would have been visible on camera.
It's not because the camera is on her the entire time and with how low the rope is, it would never be seen on camera.
Except that's not what the mistake is saying. The rope not there in real life for the stunt scene of her running out. Saying the rope is simply off camera is wrong. Yes, if the rope was actually there it's possible that it would be off camera. But if the rope was there, she would have had to jump over it, which she does not do. We know she doesn't jump over the rope because we see her on camera and all she does is jump down the steps.
Pause the movie at the 35:04 mark and advance frame by frame. It shows the rope is still there. And yes, Margo is seen making a jumping movement. If she hadn't, she would have tripped over the rope.
The rope is there from that angle, just as it was there when she stepped over it. That's never been the issue. When the camera cuts to face Penelope Ann Miller, that's when the rope is no longer there. Because in real life they would have stopped the action in order to change camera position, or the shot of her running out was a re-shoot during post. Either way, that shot of her (which is meant to be continuous in the film but was not continuous in real life) was filmed without the rope present.
If the rope wasn't present, then there wouldn't be a need for her to make a jumping motion. She would have just kept running without any interference but her jumping is a clear indication that the rope is still there. We don't actually need to see it.
Except she never jumps up and over the rope. She only jumps down the steps. There was no jumping up motion.
20th Mar 2018
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
We'll Always Have Paris - S1-E24
Character mistake: When Data is on the planet, about to drop the material into the temporal rift, one of the three Datas asks which one of them should do it. The middle Data replies, "Me. It's me." Data is meant to be incapable of using a contraction.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That character trait was not established until season 2. Data uses contractions multiple times in the first season.
While it was explicitly expressed in season 2 that Data can not use contractions, the fact that they did established this character trait means it could be a valid mistake since the trait is meant to show Data could never use contractions since his creation, not that he suddenly developed it some 30-odd years later. Although it would probably be best to submit it as a mistake in season 2 when it's mentioned that it contradicts what was established or at least make one character mistake for "all of season 1" than list every individual time it happened.
9th Dec 2016
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Other mistake: After greeting Crusher, Data explains where Picard is. Problem is he uses the contraction "he's" instead of "he is." Data is supposed to be incapable of this.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is only a mistake if the series is taken as a whole. At this point in the series, that particular trait wasn't part of the character. Data uses contractions multiple times in the first season, as the trait was added later.
While it was explicitly expressed in season 2 that Data can not use contractions, the fact that they did established this character trait means it could be a valid mistake since the trait is meant to show Data could never use contractions since his creation, not that he suddenly developed it some 30-odd years later. Although it would probably be best to submit it as a mistake in season 2 when it's mentioned that it contradicts what was established or at least make one character mistake for "all of season 1" than list every individual time it happened.
3rd Feb 2016
Jaws (1975)
Character mistake: Chief Brody and Hooper go to the wharf to dissect a large tiger shark and examine the contents of its stomach. Finding nothing unusual, Hooper recommends they go offshore that night to search for the real killer shark because "he's a night feeder." Coming from a marine biologist, that remark really makes no sense. Hooper knew that, in addition to eating Chrissie the midnight swimmer, the shark also ate Pippin (the black Labrador retriever) and the Kintner boy in the middle of the day at a public beach. Based on all available evidence, the shark was no more likely to feed at night than in broad daylight.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The statement is correct, the shark was a night feeder, as opposed to just being a day feeder, meaning the shark will likely be hunting at night.
Again, given all the evidence (including the daytime attacks), Hooper had no more reason to suspect the shark was a night feeder than a day feeder.
Except that's not what the conversation was about, he wasn't speculating on whether the shark was more likely to attack during the day or the night. He simply states they should go out at night to find the real shark responsible for the attacks because that shark will be feeding at night as well (and by going out at night they wouldn't have to face the daytime crowd). If he made an statement such as "the shark isn't a day feeder" or "the shark is strictly a night feeder", those statements could be considered mistakes.
Even when Chrissie was killed at night and two men later on in the movie tried to catch the shark for the reward...at night?
5th Apr 2019
Smallville (2001)
Other mistake: Maddie and her father can control only glass, but when at the Talon he uses his powers to pull the diamonds out of the stained glass. Diamonds aren't glass.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This may not necessarily be true by the way their powers work. Remember, diamonds are a form of rock that are clear. Glass is made from melted sand, which is a ground up type of rock that becomes clear. The similarities between diamonds and glass are enough that it is possible they could still do this.
Diamonds are compressed carbon, not a form of rock. Glass is melted silicon. They're both clear materials, that doesn't mean they're equivalent, otherwise they'd be able to control clear plastic or any number of other things too.
If more explanations of their powers were discussed in the show, one might be able to conclude they do or do not have power over diamonds. However, the script only states they have power over glass, they show no propensity for power over sand itself, or other rocks and minerals. As scripted, this remains as error as it go against what is established.
13th Dec 2018
Annie Hall (1977)
Trivia: Alvy's sneezing into the cocaine was an unscripted accident.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He turns the box for maximum effect.
This correction makes no sense in attempting to invalidate the trivia. If this meant to add to the trivia, create a new trivia entry.
At a guess their point is that by turning the box to increase the effect, it shows it wasn't an accident, but intentional.
27th Jun 2016
General questions
From what I vaguely remember it's about a woman in a fancy big house. There is a party going on. This guy is being nice to her and they are flirting. She says she has to go somewhere. He begs her to stay with him - she promises to come back, then she goes off, races back, and when she comes back the house is old and some person tells her no one lived there for over 100 years. I think if she had stayed the spell would have been broken. If someone has any ideas please put me out of my misery.
Chosen answer: It sounds like you're thinking of "Brigadoon". A Scottish village is under a spell where it only appears for one day every 100 years (which was done to preserve the way of life of the villagers.) When two men find it, one falls in love with a woman villager and if she were to leave the village, the spell would be broken and the village of Brigadoon would disappear forever, along with everyone in it (if he stayed he'd have to leave the real world behind). There's been a lot of adaptations of the story, so not sure which version you saw. Two versions I know of are a 1954 film and a 1966 TV movie.
The movie described in the question is not "Brigadoon." For one, the entire village disappeared and there was no old house with someone in it that remained in the intervening 100 years. Also, in Brigadoon, it was the man who came upon the village, not the girl.
Possible, but I've noticed when people only have a vague memory of things, they confuse what they saw with another film or mix up some points. The key points of 1 day and 100 years and a broken spell pointed to "Brigadoon." But there's been adaptations of the film that the person might have seen which may have alternate minor plots that I'm not familiar with, which I mention so the person could have a reference to look for in case I was wrong in guessing what they saw. I've noticed with these general questions that the original posters sometimes reply if the suggest film is not what they were thinking of.
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.