A Dark Knight: Queen Takes Knight - S4-E11
Continuity mistake: When Bruce puts his emancipation papers in front of Alfred, he also sets a pen next to them. When Alfred picks up the paper, the pen is gone.
Bishop73
8th Dec 2017
Gotham (2014)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The pen is still there.
Watch the scene again and point out where the pen that was next to the papers is. And Alfred never picks it up before picking up the papers.
2nd Mar 2018
Rocky IV (1985)
Corrected entry: After Duke's speech to Rocky in the barn, Rocky says "thanks Tony." Tony is the actor's name.
Correction: Duke is the character's nickname. Duke's name is Tony Evers. Tony Evers just happens to be played by Tony Burton.
How do you know this?
Duke has appeared in 6 Rocky movies, although I can't recall which film establishes his full name, but Duke is certainly his nickname and Tony is his real name. In Rocky and Rocky II Tony Burton is only credited as "Apollo's Trainer" and the name "Duke" isn't used. But Rocky Wiki and Wikipedia do have established Tony "Duke" Evers pages. It should be noted though that Wood Harris (who plays Duke's son in the film "Creed") is credited as "Tony ‘Little Duke' Burton."
15th Feb 2007
Tombstone (1993)
Trivia: Val Kilmer is widely believed to be the most historically accurate portrayal of Doc Holliday. He is the same height, same build, and uses phrases used by Doc Holliday (eg "I'm your huckleberry" and "You're a daisy if you do").
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: But Hucleberry Finn appeared in Tom Sawyer in 1876 and was a bad influence on, or "made trouble' for Tom.
Not sure what this correction is trying to state, but "I'm you're Huckleberry" was slang in the late 1800's for "I'm your man" and didn't derive from Twain or Huck Finn. Twain uses the earlier slang meaning of huckleberry for Finn, meaning an inconsequential person, to establish Finn is a boy of lower extraction or degree than Tom Sawyer.
30th Sep 2010
The Office (2005)
Corrected entry: In Season 5, Jim is talking to Charles Miner and mentions that he is the number two in the office, and ultimately admits that this is a made up position. However, in Season 3, when Stamford is closing and being absorbed by Scranton, Jan specifically offers him the number two position in Scranton.
Correction: After Josh abandoned the company, Jim was offered this spot during the restructuring, as an incentive to make sure that he stayed at Dunder-Mifflin. Basically, this job was made up for him, as a promise that he would move on to higher positions of responsibility within the company, given time. Charles obviously doesn't like Jim, and doesn't want him to advance within the company, so he belittles Jim's "made up" position as an attempt to show Jim how little he values him.
The mistake is valid and it has nothing to do with Charles belittling Jim's position. Jan did offer the position of number two to Jim. At first he was going to be number two behind Josh, but when Josh left, corporate gave him the same offer, only behind Michael. Jim's position is completely different than the one given to Dwight, in addition, Jim says Michael offered him the number two position, which he didn't.
11th Jul 2007
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
Factual error: According to "The Doomsday Machine", full impulse drive is one-quarter the speed of light. In the first two movies, Enterprise used thrusters as opposed to impulse drive to leave Spacedock, confirming the notion that impulse drive is far too fast to leave such a (comparatively) small structure. Styles, however, orders Excelsior to one-quarter impulse, which is 18,750 km/s. In one second, she will travel half again Earth's diameter. From the time he gives the order to the time we see Excelsior clear spacedock's doors is approximately 40 seconds. Even allowing 30 seconds to go from rest to one quarter impulse, spacedock must be 13-15 times bigger than Earth! That's some serious engineering. (00:23:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I reckon the writers always refer to levels of "impulse power" precisely so they don't have to worry too much about particular speeds (personally I always thought of it as roughly analogous to gears on a vehicle, but your mileage may vary). They use impulse to leave dock in both Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (it's implied to be unusual in both cases, for what it's worth). If all of that contradicts an earlier episode, I think we're looking at more of a retcon situation than a mistake.
Suggested correction: The warp scale has been adjusted several times, so it is impossible to say precisely how fast this fictional technology is, and by extension, how fast impulse is.
Impulse drive speed on starships have been consistent. Although sometimes quarter impulse on a shuttle refers to quarter power and not speed. Even if the speed of quarter impulse is 10 times slower than suggested (and used in the series), spacedock would still be 1.3-1.5 times bigger than Earth, which it wasn't. "It's fictional technology" is usually only a valid correction if the technology isn't explained in-universe. However, when certain parameters regarding fictional technology are established (even if they set wide parameters such as warp speed velocities) violations or contradictions (through bad script writing or whatnot) are valid mistakes.
7th Aug 2005
X-Men 2 (2003)
Continuity mistake: When Xavier is in the plastic prison with Magneto, at the end of this scene, you see Xavier put his hands on the doors of the prison, but in the following shot from outside the prison his hands have changed positions on the doors. (00:33:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When Xavier is in the plastic prison with magneto, at the end of the scene Xavier has not changed his hands positioning, his right arm is up and his left arm is half way, on the following shot outside the prison his right arm is up and his left arm is up half way, it's a mirror image.
The mistake isn't saying his right and left hand have switched because they were confused about the "mirror" image. You can see the left arm is lower. At first the left elbow is above the frosted part, but in the next shot, it's well below and the hand is closer to the frosted part.
1st Nov 2017
Rango (2011)
Answer: Cactus mouse.
If you have the DVD watch the "Animals of dirt" in special features. She is an eye-eye. Found in Madagascar.
If the DVD says she suppose to be an aye-aye (there's no animal called an eye-eye), then she is terribly drawn. 1) Aye-ayes have long, skinny fingers, with an extended middle finger. 2) Aye-ayes have bushy tails, not the thin tail Priscilla has. 3) Aye-ayes are primates and Priscilla appears to be a rodent.
Even though it said that she was there would have been no way. For one it's across the world and two that would be illegal animal trading.
27th Oct 2017
Universal Soldier: The Return (1999)
Deliberate mistake: If this movie takes place 7 years after the original, how could his daughter be 13? He was part of a government project, I doubt they let them leave for relationships.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is a retconned film made after 2 other direct-to-video Universal Soldier movies were made. While the film is considered non-canon in the series, in the film itself, the facts of the original are altered to allow Luc to have a daughter.
Exactly. If this movie changes things that happened in previous films than they don't make sense in context to the series, that's a mistake.
Essential the film can be considered the same as a reboot. Reboots and remakes can alter characters without being considered mistakes because they're not actually part of the film series, just like "Universal Soldier: The Return" is not part of the Universal Soldier film series. However, changes to characters in retconned films, shows, or books, by definition, are not mistakes.
21st May 2014
Star Trek: Voyager (1995)
Emanations - S1-E9
Factual error: To protect the warp core, Janeway instructs Paris to move away from the rings at Warp 7. Moments later (Janeway, Torres and Tuvok are still in the same position), Paris tells Janeway they are 0.6 light years away from the rings. Warp 7 is 656 times the speed of light. It would take about 8 hours to travel 0.6 light years at Warp 7.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The warp scale, especially since it's fictional, has never been precisely defined.
While it's never been defined, certain aspects of warp speed drive and the length of a light year are accepted. Even if Warp 7 is double what is suggested in the mistake, it would still be 4 hours. The scene in question shows no lengthy travel at Warp 7.
9th May 2018
Star Trek: Enterprise (2001)
Other mistake: They show the tether and tether anchor fall out of the ship and fall behind, much in the same way as throwing something out of a car. However, it was still in the warp bubble and should have continued to be moving at warp 5 with the ships. We see later Columbia extend its warp bubble around Enterprise and Enterprise remains at warp 5 after cutting their engines. But, if the tether is no longer affected by the warp bubble, it should have been instantaneously out of view.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Too much supposition, especially regarding fictional technology.
This correction is too vague and gives no counter argument to support the statement. Either it's affected by the Warp Bubble and stays at Warp 5 or it doesn't. Even with the inconsistency of warp speed, the ship is still traveling 20-30 million miles a second (23.2 million miles a second at standard speed). An object that small would be out of sight within a mile or less (fictional technology or not). Since we know the object isn't traveling at Warp 5 (otherwise it wouldn't fall behind as it did), it would have to be traveling at least Warp 4.99999999 to stay in range as long as it did (a speed never established in-universe). It's also been established in-universe when a ship comes out of warp, it has no inertia so it will not continue to drift. Given in-universe established facts about the fictional technology, there's nothing to support the idea the object is still traveling at Warp 4.99999999 (at Warp 4.9999999 the object would still be out of sight after less than a second).
19th Apr 2006
Brewster's Millions (1985)
Corrected entry: Monty Brewster needs to spend $30 million dollars in a months time and have nothing to show for it at the end. One of the stipulations is that he cannot destroy anything of value. There is a scene where he buys a valuable postage stamp that was printed upside down and then, so that he doesn't own it at the end of the month, mails a letter with the stamp on it. This would cause the stamp to no longer retain its value as there would be a postage mark on the stamp.
Correction: But he doesn't DESTROY it. It still exists. Moreover, he actually uses it for its intended purpose.
Correction: Postage stamps are valuable used too.
Except he doesn't own it since he used it for its intended purpose and now it's not in his possession. But, he didn't gave it away as a gift.
26th Sep 2008
The Karate Kid (1984)
Question: In tournament action, is the crane kick an actual legal move to use? How about the stance to start the move?
Chosen answer: There are no rules about how a fighter must stand before throwing a kick, and it's basically just a jumping front kick, which is completely legal.
Answer: It was not the technique that was illegal but where and how he made contact with Johnny that was illegal. I'm not 100% sure how to describe what is wrong with it but it is the spot he made contact with and that he kicked Johnny with intent to hurt him (witch may seem weird but believe it or not point based karate sparring is in fact a non-contact sport somehow).
In the film, there was nothing illegal about the contact he made, nor was it determined he had an intent to harm. Bobby was disqualified for an excessive and deliberate attack, but he also intentionally kicked the leg, which was not a part of the body to earn a point. What you may be trying to describe as illegal was lack of control. The ref even says to watch the control. It could be up for debate about if Daniel had control over his kick, but in the film, the ref found it acceptable.
8th Aug 2009
Coraline (2009)
Question: In what language are the lyrics in the soundtrack sung? Like while Coraline is exploring and the end credits?
Chosen answer: It's all nonsense words. It's Bruno Colais (the musical director)'s signature style. It's got some inspiration from French and Hungarian accents.
Answer: It's not all nonsense, if you listen to the song with lyrics you'll see that she's speaking in English but like twisting the words a lot, for example for "we live somewhere" she says "we love somwye".
I don't know which song you're speaking about, but "Exploration" and "End Credits" are gibberish all the other songs I heard on the soundtrack are also gibberish, even if she occasional says a real Hungarian or French word.
Exploration and end credits aren't gibberish, there's actual lyrics for each, it's just in French I believe.
Here is the first verse for "End Credit" and you translate it from French into English for us if this isn't gibberish with an occasional real word. "Creaking van iddli fla lu va. Pretty sah lu feh iddli twu ki padi. Trelly goilly doilly seli pretty chedi. Emi swalin gwoh."
12th Mar 2012
The Thing (2011)
Plot hole: Through this film (and its predecessor) it is established that the creature imitates its victims perfectly, having all of their knowledge and memory. At the end, when the female lead tells the male lead she knew he was human because of his earring, he reaches for the wrong ear, confirming he is The Thing. Even if The Thing couldn't reproduce the earring, it would have known which ear it was supposed to be in.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is also established in this film that the creature cannot perfectly imitate inorganic materials; the tooth fillings, metal plate, etc. Kate knows that Carter is The Thing and asks him a trick question about his earring to confirm it. The fact that The Thing reaches for the wrong ear means that it didn't know where the earring really was because it cannot perfectly imitate inorganic materials. There is no mistake here.
The mistake has nothing to do with The Thing not being able to imitate inorganic material. The mistake is The Thing has all the memories and thus should know which ear was pierced based on these memories.
This goes with my theory that he was actually human because he didn't try to assimilate her when they we're alone and far away from people, and he didn't change when he was threatened and accused which was backed by (potentially false if the theory is correct) evidence which would make it defend itself.
You're obviously wrong here. The Thing imitates the human perfectly including the memory and I'm pretty sure that if you only have one ear pierced you'd know which one is it, therefore the imitation would know.
23rd Dec 2008
The American President (1995)
Corrected entry: When Sydney enters the White House for the GDC meeting, she tells the doorman that it's her first time. Then when the President pulls her out of the meeting and they go into the Oval office to talk, she tells him she's been on the regular tour of the White House.
Correction: She meant it's her first time as anything other than a tourist.
This is a mistake. There is no way to conclude from her statement "This is my first time at the White House. I'm trying to savor the Capra-esque quality." that she means first time going through security, otherwise she would say that. Either it's a mistake in the script writing or the actress flubbed her lines and meant to say "first time invited to the White House."
15th Mar 2018
Parks and Recreation (2009)
Time Capsule - S3-E3
Corrected entry: Jim O'Heir (then thought to be named Jerry) puts his mother's journal into the Time Capsule stating that she lived in the town all her life and it therefore contained facts about the town. When April reads a passage from the journal Jerry's mother calls him Jerold (Jerry is of course short for Jerold). However, later in the series during Leslie's ethics hearing for dating Ben, they claim that Jerry's name has always actually been Garry. This doesn't line up with the journal entry referring to Jerry as Jerold.
Correction: This isn't logical. For all we know, since we didn't see the text, his mother could have been calling him "Gerald," a much more common name that "Jerold."
How is Garry short for Gerald?
20th Feb 2009
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
Question: Is there any relationship or plot dependency on the Clock Maker family and Benjamin Button's birth parents?
Answer: It's setting up the story, so you could interpret it your own way. But as far as I can tell, there is no specific relation, just setting the story up.
Answer: Yes. The wife of the clock maker is the same person as the mother of Benjamin Button through adoption.
Where did you get this information? Queenie (who adopted Benjamin) was a nursing home worker married to Tizzy Weathers, and not married to Mr. Gateau, right? My understanding was the clock that ran backwards was revealed the same time Benjamin was born (or at least the same year, 1918).
4th Feb 2009
The Matrix (1999)
Corrected entry: While explaining the Construct, Morpheus tells Neo, "Your appearance now is what we call residual self image. It is the mental projection of your digital self." What he really meant is, "It is the digital projection of your mental self." (00:40:00)
Correction: The concept of a mental projection of one's digital self is rooted in the idea that the person's memory of how they looked (in this case, curated through years of living in an illusory digital reality) is going to manifest itself within any simulation that allows it. Because Neo lived in the matrix, he has a mental image of what he should look like (his digital self). So the line in the movie is correct.
No, it is not correct. As explained by others above (and overwhelmingly upvoted by other site users), it would still be a digital projection of your mental self. There actually is no digital self. It's just a digital projection. It is what is in the mind that is the self and what the film values as the core of an individual. "The body cannot live without the mind," as Morpheus says. Also, it is in the mind where we believe. Throughout the film, the mind is central. Thus, the correction stands.
Correction: That is not a mistake, Morpheus spoke correctly. They are in the construct, therefore it is Neo's digital self. His clothes and hair are his mental projection. Just as if Neo were dreaming it would be: "It is the mental projection of your dreaming self."
No, they are in the construct, a digital environment. So the projection is digital (being that it exists in a digital environment) and the self is mental (being that it is what he thinks it should be). The correction of the movie quote is correct.
When in the Construct, it's like being connected to the Matrix. The people in the Construct are Avatars of themselves, which means they are their digital selves. The projection of themselves is based on what their Avatars are thinking.
That is pure nonsense. Avatars don't think. Your comment makes no sense. As explained elsewhere, it should be "the digital projection of your mental self."
I probably oversimplified what I was trying to say. But I can understand your confusion. The digital self is what a person looks like in the Matrix, which is different from the real world. The mental projection (in the construct or as an avatar) resembles their digital self, not their real self. Which is why Neo in the Matrix has hair, real life Neo is bald, but his mental projection has hair.
1st Sep 2002
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Continuity mistake: Jodie Foster has very blue eyes. When they flashback to her childhood, when she is crossing the lawn to greet her father, the girl playing the young Clarice has dark eyes. (00:20:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Eye color also can change with age. This happens in 10 to 15 percent of the Caucasian population (people who generally have lighter eye colors).
Babies born with blue eyes can develop brown or darker eyes as melanin is produced. And while eye color can get lighter with age (older than Clarice usually), a child her age with brown eyes won't develop blue eyes. They could turn green maybe, but not the blue color seen.
I just rewatched the scene you were talking about and they're not blue eyes they're actually hazel and the adult Clarice could be wearing contact lenses.
8th Nov 2002
Cliffhanger (1993)
Corrected entry: Throughout the entire movie you never see their breath even though it is cold.
Correction: Yes you do see breath. See the scene with the night vision.
Correction: If the air is very dry you don't see the breath. Depending on the saturation of the air you can see breath or not, it is even possible to see the breath in rather warm temperatures if the air is saturated enough.
Once the temperature drops below a certain degree, around 42°F, you'll always see your breath, no matter how dry it is. Although, as you stated, if combined relative humidity is 100%, you'll be able to see your breath at any temperature.
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.