Bishop73

4th Feb 2008

The Jackal (1997)

Revealing mistake: In the scene towards the end, where Declan has chased the Jackal back onto the subway platform, and has just followed on himself, behind him you see a man (possibly a cop) running to get out of the way of the guns, but just before going out of shot, he stops running and just casually 'strolls' to the edge of the set (some kind of small booth or shop on the platform). (01:50:55)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: This doesn't really reveal any mistake. I see the guy he runs into it and then slows down as he looks back. There's not really much else place to go and he just saw that Declan wasn't shooting any of them, that the previous guy, The Jackal, was the one shooting the cop. There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with how this man acted as he went into that booth.

Quantom X

I watched the scene and he's running out of fear along with everyone else and the just stops running, as if he thinks he's off camera, and the starts to walk, but he never turns around. Everyone else is ducking if they're not running. It would not be a natural reaction in that situation, especially since people were still screaming.

Bishop73

Hmm, it is a debatable thing for sure. Watching it though I do see him turn his head to look back at Declan just before he is off camera with a woman in brown now sprinting out of hiding towards his spot to.

Quantom X

2nd Aug 2018

The Jackal (1997)

Question: I'm asking this as a question, cause I'm unable to determine if this is actually a mistake with the weird writing... or if I'm just missing something. Right after The Jackal kills Lemont, it cuts to the FBI in a room trying to piece things together. Witherspoon walks in and says "Here we go, sir. Eleven days ago, Charles C. Murdock bought himself a brand new Dodge mini van. Now, that was a big surprise to Mr. Murdock, whose passport and wallet were stolen 16 days ago at the Helsinki Airport." He says this to Preston and the rest as if this is brand new news, a new lead they have to go on and a break they've needed. But then Preston just looks at him contemplating this and immediately responds. "Anything from the border? We sent a description of the van to every crossing from here to Manitoba." Him saying this as if they had this information long ago and already had people searching for it. To me this doesn't make any sense with how either of those characters said their lines. Witherspoon has been with Preston and the others almost this entire time in on the investigation and would have known if they already knew about the van. And if the van was actually a new lead Witherspoon just found and was telling them. Then what Preston said makes no sense. So where is the error in this or am I just missing something? (01:01:35)

Quantom X

Answer: It seemed to me that they had a description of the van, but had not yet identified the owner. Witherspoon is saying the van was purchased with a stolen identity and therefore they still don't know who really bought the van.

Bishop73

But how did they even have a description of the van then? Up to that point it seemed they didn't know anything about a van. This is why i'm confused.

Quantom X

The film makers may have cut out some scenes that would explain it in better detail, but as it is, there's no mention when the FBI knew about the van. However, they did know the Jackal was using James' passport and flew into Montreal so they have been able to follow him, although they're always a step behind. I don't think it's a plot hole or bad writing though, but it certainly up for debate.

Bishop73

In the movie the Jackal (Willis) often changed the colour of the van, white, blue, red etc. So for a proper BOLO of a van especially in 1997 there are many (including currently) many colours of a minivan (family van) so the color it was sold as was changed and it showed him practising washing away one color over another and the last being red.

Corrected entry: During the scene where Blondie and Tuco are wiring the bridge with explosives, Tuco suggests they tell each other their part of the secret. As Blondie is replying, you can see a car drive by in the background. The movie takes place in the 1860s.

Correction: Yeah I see it now too. In the forest.

Correction: I have watched this scene several times and what you say never happens, there is NO car driving by in the background.

When Tuco says "you go first", there's a car in the far background driving down a road. At first the trees are kind of blocking it, but then there's a clearing and the car is more visible. Look to the right of Clint Eastwood's hat.

Bishop73

4th Jan 2007

Casino Royale (2006)

Question: I don't fully understand how Le Chiffre lost all his money when the bomb failed to blow up the prototype aircraft at Miami airport. If the bomb had exploded, the shares in the airliner would have crumbled, but because it didn't, wouldn't think mean that Le Chiffre missed out on the opportunity to make a load of money, but would still be left with the money he had in the first place?

Answer: Le Chiffre was essentially betting that airline stock would fall, so he bought futures contracts assuming the price would fall, when the bomb did not go off, airline stock did not fall, so he lost his money, as the contract he'd bought still had to be fulfilled.

pross79

Answer: Lachiffre had bought Puts on the Airline stock which have a definite drop dead date, expiration date, usually the 3rd Friday of any month. So the bomb is a dud, the Airline rollout is a success, stock goes up, puts expire worthless.

Answer: Its not realistic IMO, but a successful roll-out of the new airliner would have led to an increase in the stock's price which would have cost anyone shorting it. Just not 100% of their investment.

sdaniels7114

Shorting stocks can cost an investor more than 100% of their investment. For example if you borrowed 1 stock for $50 hoping the stocks drop to $20, you make $30. But it the stocks jump to $150, you lose $100 (twice your investment).

Bishop73

3rd Sep 2013

Stripes (1981)

Factual error: Then, as now, every recruit reporting to boot camp would be tested for illegal drugs, first by a urine test and then by a broad spectrum blood test in the case of a positive result. There is no reason for Elmo to try to hide his stash when the recruits are told they are to be tested - he is going to come up positive anyway. He may as well just say he has changed his mind and walk away. He is entitled to do that any time up to ten days after he signed on, and it happened a lot in real life!

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Those drug tests didn't exist in 81.

Did you watch the film? The recruits are told they are about to take a broad spectrum drug test - not they are going to be searched for drugs, they are going to tested for the presence of illegal drugs in their systems. As has been pointed out such drug tests were mandatory at the time the film is set but that is not important - in the context of the film Elmo's action make no sense as he is going to be tested for drugs. Hiding his stash makes no sense at all as it will not solve his immediate problem. The posting is correct and the correction is nonsensical.

Drug testing of recruits commenced in the United States on a trial basis in 1975 and became compulsory in 1977. In 1981 every single volunteer would have to take a broad spectrum drug test before being allowed to start boot camp.

What specific drug tests didn't exist? Nixon directed a military drug urinalysis program in 1971 and the DoD started random drug testing in 1974 (not that testing deterred drug use).

Bishop73

I enlisted in 1982. I got a single drug test at the meps and didn't get tested again during an entire 3 year enlistment. In fact, I didn't receive a drug test until 2 years into my second enlistment. The military just wasn't as strict on drug testing.

ssgemt

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: This isn't a mistake. That's him, under the water in the same pose he was in before he touched the water.

After watching the scene, the mistake is valid. When he's underwater, he's not in the same "pose." That would require him to be upside down and squatting. But that's not the pose we see him in.

Bishop73

We see Mace semi-kneeling and reaching out to touch the water when he vanishes, but his upside-down reflection is still in the exact same calm position even when he's gone, and in the next shot we see Mace under the water right-side up, with his arms reaching up to the surface. This is a valid mistake, the suggested correction is not right.

Super Grover

Corrected entry: Throughout the movie, McConaughey wears a wedding band on his ring finger. He is not married in the movie.

Correction: It should also be noted that McConaughey wasn't married at the time of filming, so he certainly wasn't wearing a wedding ring.

Bishop73

A gold band is visible on his right ring finger in the scene in the bathroom at his family's house.

That is to say a ring on the ring finger, even on the left hand, doesn't constitute a wedding ring. It's just a ring. There have been instances when married actors don't take off their wedding rings for a film (or scene) which means the ring it's possibly not a character choice, but this wasn't the case for McConaughey.

Bishop73

Correction: Not a mistake to wear a ring wherever you like - quite a few people wear a ring on the ring finger of their left hand despite not being married. No law against it.

Correction: No he doesn't. He always wears a ring on his right hand, not his left, where you would wear a wedding ring. Lots of guys wear a ring on their right hands.

princesskelli

Could be a family heirloom and have sentimental value. I wear my grandmother's ring on either ring finger, if it's not fitting on my middle! Darn knuckles... So, that's a logical possibility too.

18th Jul 2018

Elementary (2012)

Answer: I'm the same person who asked this question. I discovered it was Molly Price whom I recognized from Third Watch.

Cathrine R

It should be noted Donna was Jim Fowkes‘ secretary. Donna killed Peter.

Bishop73

17th Aug 2008

Cars (2006)

Corrected entry: Lightening McQueen is portrayed as the first rookie to possibly win the Piston Cup. When he discovers the Piston Cup trophies in Doc Hudson's garage, we see that Doc won the Piston Cup in 1951, 1952 and 1953. Doc Hudson is a 1951 Hudson Hornet, as confirmed by his license plate is 51HHMD. By winning the Piston Cup in 1951 the year he was made, Doc Hudson is actually the first rookie to win the Piston Cup.

Correction: Doc Hudson would still be considered a rookie even if he raced before. Like other sports if he came from a lower racing league he would be considered a rookie when he got to the professional league.

Correction: "Rookie" would mean someone who's never raced before. McQueen's first races were in the Piston Cup Series. Doc Hudson must have raced prior to racing in the Piston Cup Series; meaning he won the Cup his first year racing, but had racing experience prior to competing for it.

Phixius

Correction: If the year convention follows how it is in the real world, the 1951 Hornet would have come out in 1950, making that his rookie year if he began racing right away.

The ‘51 Hudson Hornet was a new model car introduced in 1951.

Bishop73

The first 1951 Hudson Hornet was produced in September 1950 (18 built), with main production beginning in October 1950 (2977 built).

jimba

Being produced and introduced are two separate things. Even if Doc was built in Sept 1950) he wouldn't have run a full season of the Piston Cup. Doc was meant to represent the Hudson driving team of NASCAR, especially Herb Thomas who won the Grand National Championship in 1951, with their ‘51 Hudson Hornet (1951 being the first year they drove the Hornet). Yes, ultimately it's just a cartoon movie with talking cars so there's nothing to say Doc didn't run a full season in 1950 or wasn't a rookie in 1951. But in keeping line with some semblance of the real world, by all accounts, Doc should have been a rookie in 1951.

Bishop73

15th Jul 2018

Trading Places (1983)

Continuity mistake: During the final trading scene, both Dan and Eddie (along with most of the other traders) have green badges. As the medics are wheeling out one of the Dukes after his heart attack, Dan and Eddie's name badges change to grey. And in no way is that due to lighting or camera angle.

kbt

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: It's not a continuity mistake since everyone else's badges have also taken on a grey appearance. At best it is a film processing error since it probably is a result of color correction in post-production.

jimba

Wouldn't this still qualify as a mistake since it's still an error? Cartoon mistakes, and movies/shows that use CGI, are constantly submitted when the color changes for a few frames. I know there use to be a feature to "change mistake type" if you think it's a revealing mistake, etc.

Bishop73

Yep, still a mistake - the type is a bit debatable, but I'd stick with continuity, because regardless of the reason behind it, fundamentally it's still a change between shots.

Jon Sandys

Corrected entry: The movie supposedly takes place in April, however based on Chicago's climate, it is quite clear that the actual filming was conducted well into the summer months based on how full and leafy all the trees are, not to mention the ivy on the outfield wall at Wrigley Field which does not become fully developed with leaves until late May at the earliest.

Correction: Do they specifically state the month in the movie? Also, this is Chicago, what with all the snow days they have any given year, it's conceivable the make-up days have pushed Graduation and things back an entire month.

dizzyd

Correction: Given the baseball game they went to, the movie took place on June 5.

Greg Dwyer

The baseball game was obviously staged for the film.

The baseball game was definitely not staged for the film. The baseball scenes were filmed during a real Cubs game in September (when filming took place). John Hughes added footage from the earlier June game during editing to make it appear they attended the June game.

Bishop73

Factual error: In every version of the story, including the book, in the scene where Augustus Gloop is sucked into the chocolate pipe, there's no pressure below him (it's an open river, with the pipe sticking into it) so the pressure must come from a vacuum at the top of the pipe. Augustus would have had his lungs and innards sucked out until he was thin enough to pass through the pipe. He would not have survived.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: In the book Charlie ask Mr. Wonka if all the other kids would be all right and he tells him yes they will.

This isn't a valid correction because the point of the mistake is that he wouldn't survive, as shown. At best you're saying Wonka lied to Charlie.

Bishop73

10th Jul 2018

Foodfight! (2012)

Character mistake: When Dex is rescuing the three baby kittens from the Fat Cat Burglar, he says to the burglar "I'm giving you one last chance to hand him over before I cash in your coupons for you." The Fat Cat Burglar is holding three kittens hostage, so in this context, Dex should have said "hand them over" and not "hand him over." (00:02:55)

Casual Person

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: He says "hand ‘em over" (meaning "them"), not "him."

Bishop73

He says "hand him over", not "hand ‘em over." This is evident by the fact that there is a distinct H heard, plus there is also a distinct I heard after the H, showing that he says "hand him over" and not "hand ‘em over." It is possible the line "hand ‘em over" was written in the script, but that is not what is heard onscreen.

Casual Person

I watched the scene several times to verify prior to making the correction and I heard ‘em every time.

Bishop73

21st Jun 2018

iZombie (2015)

Eat, Pray, Liv - S3-E3

Plot hole: When Katty is first discussing the dead girl from the plane crash who had brains in her stomach, she says the girl's flesh indicated she died months before she ever got on the plane. But then later in the episode, Katty says the plane crash girl was at the boat party (massacre) the day before she got on the plane. Everyone at the boat party was alive before dying and turning into a zombie, so the girl's flesh would not indicate she was dead for months since she only died the day before.

Bishop73

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Not everyone at the boat party was "alive", there were some zombies there as well, Blaine included, it is entirely possible that she was a zombie before the boat party happened.

ctown28

Which episode(s) mention Blaine and others were zombies before the boat party massacre? Everything in the show makes it seem like it was the combination of tainted Utopium and Max Ranger energy drink that night which caused the zombie outbreak, including Blaine's transformation. And the Fillmore-Graves outbreak was a separate incident that Blaine wasn't a part of.

Bishop73

Yeah, the boat party was ground zero for the outbreak, Blaine and everyone else was human when they got on the boat. Nothing suggests otherwise.

Purple_Girl

When get turned in to a zombie your flesh is dying so her flesh could be dead.

9th Dec 2015

Spectre (2015)

Other mistake: When flying the grey Hughes 500 helicopter off the crater, the pilot sits on the right side, but in a Hughes 500, the pilot always sits on the left side.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Helicopter pilots always sit on the right, as the collective lever is on the left, and to use the left seat means climbing over it every time you enter.

This corrector seems to be missing the point. The collective lever being on the left is why helicopter pilots-in-command started sitting on the right (while in airplane the PIC sat on the left). However, helicopters began developing dual collective levels that allowed piloting from left or right, so this idea of "climbing over" the lever is a moot point. But, for whatever design reason, pilots of MD 500's sit on the left, not the right.

Bishop73

22nd Dec 2017

Sons of Anarchy (2008)

Falx Cerebri - S2-E6

Other mistake: Tara and Gemma are practising shooting. Tara is using a .38 which holds five rounds. She shoots all 5 rounds, then she shoots Ima's car 5 more times without reloading. (00:31:35)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: The barrel is open in her hand when she's shown then she fires at the car. One would assume the barrel is open to reload.

We hear Tara open the barrel when she and Gemma are watching Ima get out of the car and then it's a quick shot to her with the open barrel. There was no time to reload in that time.

Bishop73

Thank you Bishop.

6th Jun 2018

M*A*S*H (1972)

George - S2-E22

Factual error: In surgery Trapper John is singing Frank Sinatra's version of "I got you under my skin". Although it was written in 1936, Sinatra did not release it until 1956, after the Korean War ended. The 1936 version sung by Al Bowlly sounds nothing like the version Trapper John was singing, which was mimicking Sinatra's version.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: While it hadn't been released on vinyl until 1956, Sinatra had sung the song as early as 1946 on his radio show and during live shows.

Greg Dwyer

The version Frank Sinatra sang on his radio show was similar to the original version used in the movie "Born to Dance" (a movie he references before singing his two songs). He didn't change it to the big band version that Trapper imitates until 1956.

Bishop73

28th May 2018

Mr. Nice Guy (1987)

Question: Why do the bad guys want the video tape that they are after?

Answer: The cocaine deal, that had gone bad, between the mob and gang. They were afraid it would be turned into the police.

Bishop73

How did the video get recorded in the first place?

The two reporters, Diana and Richard, were hiding above and filming it. After the shootout there's a explosion which exposes them. The mob boss sees them and tells his men to go after them.

Bishop73

Answer: TV Reporter Diane, played by Gabrielle Fitzpatrick, and her crew film the drug deal between the mob boss and the street gang.

14th Dec 2010

Carry on Behind (1975)

Trivia: Although Joan Sims plays Patsy Rowlands' mother in this film, Sims was only four years older than Rowlands.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: There was only eight months between the two actresses.

Wikipedia has Patsy Rowland's date of birth wrong. Patsy died in 2005 and in a 2005 article by The Guardian, the article list her age as 71. This would put her birth year 1934, not 1931, which is also confirmed at the end of the article.

Bishop73

1st Jan 2018

The Wolverine (2013)

Continuity mistake: The note that says "come and get her" in blood changes when Yukio pins it to the wall. The letters are written differently.

Bishop73

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: The letters are in the same way.

Watch the scene again. They are different, they are in a different position too.

Bishop73

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.