Question: When Obadiah Price's son talks to J about how he was "there" and you'll tell him all about it what did he mean?
Bishop73
25th Jan 2018
Men in Black 3 (2012)
8th Nov 2004
Battlestar Galactica (2003)
Question: In the first main movie, Baltaar the traitor (as a human) is executed before the Cylon's supreme ruler; yet in the later movies (and probably the TV series, which I did not get to watch) he reappears. How can this be possible?
Answer: The original BSG has something of a complex version history. Several versions exist, but the rationale behind what you're referring to is as follows. BSG, before anything else, was a TV series - the 'pilot episode' was a three-part tale called "Saga of a Star World". In that three-parter, a last-minute alteration to the script meant that Baltar was ultimately spared execution, because Glen A. Larson, the series producer, decided that he liked the Baltar character enough to keep him around for the rest of the series. The theatrical version, which was edited down from the three-parter and was shown in some countries before the US TV broadcast, lost quite a number of scenes, including the one where Baltar is spared. The real continuity of the series can only be found in the TV version - the movies, all of which were created by editing together existing episodes, miss out scenes leading to such apparent continuity errors.
Answer: Baltar wasn't executed... the supreme leader decided to spare him to send him on a peace mission with the humans. I have every episode... just watched it again.
Answer: Strange... given I saw Battlestar Galactica at the movies when I was a kid. Aka the 'pilot' you refer to (which WAS a movie shown at the cinema).
Yes, there was a theatrical release of the film, which was released after the original 1978 series ended. This 1979 film is the edited compilation of the 1978 series "Saga of a Star World" episode.
1st Dec 2007
Apollo 13 (1995)
Question: Did anyone play him- or herself in this movie? That seems to be typical for many movies of this kind, but I'm not aware of anyone doing it in Apollo 13 (yes, I know Jim Lovell had a cameo at the end).
Answer: Other than a few individuals who appears in archive footage taken from the era, who could technically be said to be playing themselves, no, there's nobody. Too much time has really passed since the original events for anybody to be convincing as their younger selves.
Answer: Marilyn Lovell also played herself. She is in the viewing stands clapping.
Marilyn Lovell doesn't play herself, she just has a cameo (the same as Jim Lovell) where she plays on onlooker at the site.
18th Sep 2003
The Thing From Another World (1951)
Corrected entry: While at the saucer near the North Pole, you never once see the men's breath from the cold. (00:20:45)
Correction: That's because visible breath is NOT solely due to cold, but to air humidity. If the air is dry, it does not matter how cold it is, breath will not be visible.
The last statement of the correction is incorrect, and there's a misunderstanding of the role humidity plays. If the relative humidity of the air and your breath combined is 100%, you'll see your breath. There are two ways to affect relative humidity, higher humidity or lower temperature. Thus, at a certain temperature (usually below 45°F), you'll always see your breath, no matter the humidity.
16th May 2007
Alien Vs. Predator (2004)
Corrected entry: Numerous times while in the outside, you cannot see their breath in the cold. For example while Lexx is being persuaded on the ship by the two men to help with the expedition, because of the cold, you should be able to see their breath, but you don't. They are in Antarctica which should be very cold.
Correction: As explained several times for other movies, visible breath has nothing to do with cold. It is the humidity of the air around you that matter.
This is a misunderstanding of the role humidity plays in seeing your breath. Seeing your breath is the result of your breath and outside humidity combining to be 100% relative humidity, meaning you're able to see your breath at higher temperatures if outside humidity is high enough. You can affect relative humidity by increasing humidity or decreasing temperature. This means at certain temperatures (usually below 45°F) you'll always see your breath. Given the Antarctic temperatures in the film, we should always see their breath, no matter what the humidity is.
4th Jul 2004
Rocky (1976)
Revealing mistake: When Rocky wakes up on the day of his first jog, the radio announcer reports that it's 28 degrees outside. However, when we see Rocky jogging, you can't see his breath. (01:07:45 - 01:09:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As pointed out several times before, breath showing in the air is about humidity, not temperature. See Alien vs Predator for similar corrections.
This is a misunderstanding about how humidity plays a role in seeing your breath. If the relative humidity of both your breath and air outside combined is 100%, you'll see your breath, this means you can see your breath at higher temperatures. To reach 100% relative humidity, the outside humidity needs to be higher or the temperature needs to be lower. However, at a certain temperature (usually around 45°F), you'll always see your breath. So at 28°, you'll always see your breath, no matter what the humidity is. This is a valid revealing mistake.
1st Mar 2016
Murdoch Mysteries (2008)
Murdoch.com - S2-E10
Factual error: Enid, the telegraph operator, exclaims that "He is sending an SOS." However, in the 19th century, distress calls did not include the letters "SOS," It was not until the early 20th Century that SOS was chosen as the international distress call.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The show is set in the early 1900's, which is the early 20th century. By the time this event transpired, SOS would have been established as a universal distress signal.
The show starts in 1895 and by season 2, it was still the 19th century and before Germany adopted SOS in 1905.
6th Feb 2018
Criminal Minds (2005)
Character mistake: Morgan asks Reid what track on the CD (Some Kind of Monster by Metallica) would help an insomniac sleep. Reid replies with "Enter Sandman" however, Some Kind of Monster doesn't feature the song Enter Sandman. (00:29:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Morgan doesn't ask what song on that album would speak to an insomniac, he asks what Metallica song in general would. He says, and I quote, "Okay, so I'm an insomniac who listens to Metallica to get to sleep. What song could possibly speak to me?" His query is in regards to the band's discography as a whole; neither he nor Reid mention a specific album, so the fact that "Some Kind of Monster" is the CD that they find is, ultimately, irrelevant.
The team was looking for what CD Slessman listened to the most to figure out what his password could be. They had no luck going through all his metal collection. The clue was suppose to be Slessman listened to "Some Kind of Monster" CD the most to help him sleep, which is why it wasn't in the case.
1st Aug 2009
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: When the 1985 Doc is suddenly transported back to 1885 at the end of BTTF 2 and Marty discovers that he has been murdered, because there is a Doc in 1955 that has already been born after the 1985 Doc has died in the West, why did he go to the trouble of going all the way back to 1885 when Doc was still alive? Is there any actual legitimate time travel reason for this, or did he just do it out of instinct to help his close friend?
Answer: Technically when Doc got transported to 1885, he should not have existed in 1955 because he died. This is the problem I'm having with part 3. The movie should not have happened this way. It should have been where doc did not exist nor the time machine. Part 3 should've never happened.
That's not how most time travel (if any) stories work. Just because someone dies in the past doesn't prevent them from being born since they were already born and alive before going to the past. Think of it this way, if instead of 1885 he travelled to 2085 and died, would that prevent him from being born? The only reason Marty was in danger of disappearing and not existing (i.e. being born) was because his parents were in danger of never getting together.
It was the 1985 Doc that went back to 1885 so he would still be alive in 1955.
The Doc that got sent to 1885 was the Doc from 1985 so therefore it wouldn't have affected 1955 Doc at all.
The one in 1955 hasn't done anything 1985 Doc did.
3rd Oct 2016
The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)
Question: I know Hilary Clinton is on one of the denomination of the lunar money. But at the end, when Felix is in Pluto's new club, there's money sitting on a waitress' tray of a different denomination with someone else on it. Who is on that bill? If there were other bills seen (i.e. deleted scenes) who is on those?
Answer: You can't see any other bills and there are no deleted scenes that show the money either. The only money gag in the film is with Hilary Clinton.
At 1:27:38 there's money on the waitress' tray that does not appear to be Clinton as the profile angle is different.
That's true but you cannot see it well enough to answer the question of who is on the bill.
I couldn't tell either, or find it online. That's why I asked, hoping someone with knowledge of Pluto Nash props would know or perhaps it was mentioned in a DVD extra somewhere. It's clear that it's lunar money and time and effort went into making it, so someone has to know.
1st Feb 2018
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Corrected entry: As Wesley and Picard prepare to depart the Enterprise, Data says the ship is at impulse speed. However when we see the shuttle exit, the ship is shown not to be moving.
Correction: At impulse speeds, there would be no visible indication of movement as they're in open space.
This is incorrect. In-universe has shown the difference between a moving ship and stationary ship, even open space.
Exactly what is this difference you're referring to? If a ship is moving at sub-light speeds with only stars visible it is impossible to tell how fast it is moving, or even if it is moving. The only movement visible would be that imparted by the difference in movements of the camera and ship. (In fact, they create of the illusion of the ship speeding by by moving the camera past a stationary ship.) This is reality. If there is an error, it is the fact that the stars can be seen moving outside the hanger bay door which would indicate the ship was slowly rotating.
11th Jul 2016
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Encounter at Farpoint (1) - S1-E1
Character mistake: In his exchange with Admiral McCoy, Data uses several contractions (i.e., shouldn't, I'm). For the rest of the series he doesn't, and in S3: Ep16, "The Offspring", he admits that his programming makes him incapable of using contractions. And in S4: Ep8, "Future Imperfect" Riker questions Data on when he started using contractions, knowing that Data is incapable of it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is true that in later seasons he is unable to use contractions. However, since that characteristic was not introduced in the first season, this is not a mistake. His behavior is consistent with the character's behavior throughout the first season.
It's still a possible mistake, even if it wasn't part of season 1 scripting. Just because we only learn later that Data doesn't use contractions, doesn't make this mistake invalid. We learn Data was specifically constructed that way and hadn't been able to use contraction since being created, which means all of season 1 he shouldn't be using contractions. 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.
Incorrect. It would be a mistake if he used a contraction after the trait was added to his character, but the mistake can't be retroactive as it wasn't a mistake for him to use it at that point in the show.
14th Jul 2011
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Character mistake: At the end of the episode, after Lore has been defeated, Picard asks Data if he is O.K. Data replies, "I'm fine." One of the plot points of this episode is that Data cannot use contractions.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That characteristic was not added to the character until season two. In the first season, Data uses contractions on a number of occasions.
It's still a possible mistake, even if it wasn't part of season 1 scripting. Just because we only learn later that Data doesn't use contractions, doesn't make this mistake invalid. We learn Data was specifically constructed that way and hadn't been able to use contraction since being created, which means all of season 1 he shouldn't be using contractions. 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.
It would only be a mistake if he used the contraction after the trait was established for the character.
Possibly, but that's not how mistakes on this site work seem to work. It could still be a valid mistake in the context of the entire show since the character trait had in fact been established. It's the same way for when shows do something like establish a character's birth-date in later seasons, but when episodes from earlier season have the character at the wrong age. 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.
23rd Jan 2017
Frasier (1993)
It's Hard to Say Goodbye If You Won't Leave - S3-E10
Question: In this episode, Frasier is portrayed as being allergic to cats, and cannot be close to Kate's cat. What about the times when he had sex with Kate (at the radio station building, in the elevator in his building, etc.)? As a cat-owner, shouldn't her clothes have set off his allergies before?
Answer: Not necessarily. Cat allergies aren't caused by the cat's fur (so if she has cat fur on her clothes, it wouldn't actually bother his allergies). It's the cat's dander (dry skin flakes), saliva, and/or urine that people are allergic to, so if her clothes don't have traces of any of that, he would be fine. For example, she could have clothes at work she changes into, or simply keeps her clothes in a room the cat isn't around.
Answer: But this is complicated by the episode where Frasier cat sits for a friend.
If there is an episode where he cat sits, it may be worthy of a character mistake entry. Although, only if we see him come in contact with the cat somehow without his allergies acting up. Otherwise someone may submit a correction, such as just because he's allergic to cats doesn't mean he won't do a favor for someone and just deal with his allergies, etc.
6th Jan 2018
Blade Runner (1982)
Question: Can anyone tell me the translated piano notes of the original soundtrack?
Answer: Back to the future 1 Yes he was sent back to 1955 thereby he accidently interacted with his parents he didn't know they were from the beginning and when he did it was too late he already interacted with them thereby altering 1985 thankfully with the help of his friend Emmett Brown he was able to fix the timeline and go back to the future Back to the future 2 Emmett Brown went 30 years into the future thereby discovering Marty's son altering the future so Emmet Brown had go back to 1985 to take Marty back to the future to repair the future which they did unfortunately Marty obtained Greys Sport Almanac Biff from the future obtained it& the DeLorean sending himself back to Nov 5th 1955 handing to his younger self what he obtained from the future which created 1985a the reason why 2015 wasn't altered by old Biff future because Emmet Brown and Marty McFly repaired that timeline n the timeline old Biff collapsed in pain and slowing faded away in 1985a both Emmett and Marty discover both Emmett and Marty decide go back to Nov 5th 1955 to repair that timeline meaning that timeline never really existed meaning Biff from the future is alive and well Back to the future 3 On Nov 12 1955 the lightning struck the clock tower and the DeLorean sending Emmett Brown into existence Emmett wrote a letter what had happened 6 days before he was shot in the back by Biff's great grandfather realising this Marty raced back to 1955 to get help so he could go into the past so he could rescue his friend and get him get him back to the future this brought timeline 8 into existence that's where Emmett fell in love with Clara later the marry and to have a family unfortunately when Marty goes into the past so he could rescue his friend and get him get him back to the future Back to the future 4 Marty learns he' not in 1885A he's in 1885B similar to timeline 4 with Emmet Brown's help Marty goes back to January 1st 1885 10 minutes before Emmet brown arrives Marty explains 6 days after you sent me that letter which Marty shows who get shot in the back by Buford Tannen over 80 dollars both Emmet and Marty head back to 1985 Marty wakes up believing he's now back in 1985 only he discovers he's not n 1985 he's in 1955B similar to timeline 4 Marty writes a letter to his friend 30 years into the future Emmett arrives and collects Marty and arrives back to Nov 12 1955 at 6am unfortunately the clock tower hasn't changed its still at 10:04pm Emmett then remembers 4 hours ago he did sent himself back into the past his did damage the clock tower and it's because of that the clock still reeds 10:04pm.
This is an answer for the wrong film.
15th Feb 2017
Wrong Turn (2003)
Corrected entry: In the beginning, the Mustang has a PA plate on the front and back. PA only requires one plate and it's on the back.
11th Apr 2015
Weekend at Bernie's (1989)
Continuity mistake: When Gwen is with Richard and sees Bernie and wants to go thank him, the various people standing behind them change when Richard yells "no!"
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Incorrect, the camera is simply in a different place before and after the scream. Before Richard yells "no" there are two men, one in a black shirt, the other in white, near the left of the screen behind Richard and Gwen. These men can be seen after the scream, but on the right side of the screen. If the camera were to pan another 30° to the right you would see all the same people.
The camera isn't in a different location as the pool is in the same spot. But, there's a lot more than just 2 people who change, for example, before the scream there's about half a dozen people by the pool next to a guy in yellowish pants and black coat, but after those people are all gone and it's the man in black coat and 1 different woman.
16th Dec 2017
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Question: In Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, Luke's replacement hand looks like a normal human one (though it was mechanical). In this film he has a more obviously robotic hand. Other than to remind today's audiences that he previously lost his hand, was there any point to this change?
Answer: The outer skin could have been destroyed when Ben attacked Luke and ransacked the temple. We see Luke's robotic hand rise out of the rubble. Perhaps it had skin before that, and Luke never fixed it as a reminder of his "failure."
Answer: At the beginning of Return of the Jedi Luke gets shot in the robotic hand and just wears a glove over it for the whole movie even though he could have had the skin fixed. Apparently in the many years between the movies he never bothered having any damage to the face flesh and skin fixed.
Answer: After thirty plus years, it could just be the natural degradation of the organic flesh covering the robotic parts.
Answer: He likely downgraded to a simpler, easier to maintain version at some point. Presumably before going off to the island.
The robotic hand Luke has in The Last Jedi has the scorch mark he got from a blaster from Return of the Jedi. It's the same hand, just without the artificial skin covering.
13th Nov 2017
Iron Man (2008)
Question: What are the Mark 1 armor plates made of? Would they really provide any protection against bullets? I mean they're just one or two millimeters thick.
Answer: The mark-1 appears to be made of repurposed military armor. This would provide enough protection from the AKs as the armor is layered, but not indefinitely.
Answer: It's made from a iron-copper-magnesium alloy. Magnesium alloys are lightweight like aluminum, but strong like titanium. His suit may be bullet resistant to small caliber rounds, but unlikely to stop larger caliber rounds from piercing it at its thickness, unless he layered the inside with something else. Most metal armor (like on tanks) work by deflecting bullets because of the slant of the armor, which Tony may have incorporated into his suit.
I doubt it would offer protection against black tip bullets since black tip bullets are armor piercing rounds.
Answer: Tony Stark mentions in the movie the armor is made of a titanium-gold alloy. Its a very strong alloy that can stop a bullet.
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.
Answer: J asked why he remembers K when no one else does and Price says J remembers K because J was in 1969. One of the things with time travel is that effect can precede cause, meaning J was in 1969 before J travelled to 1969. Then Price says he wants J to tell him all about it when he gets back to the present.
Bishop73
Possibly but when talking time travel, theories expound endlessly. Your explanation generally fits the events, or how they're authored to occur, but it's almost too simplistic. I believe that it is impossible for effect to precede cause... At least not without a break. To me, for time travel to exist and be possible, it would require endless loops or time-lines. Essentially that the moment you go back in time and make any change, which could be almost impossible not to, you break the original timeline thus creating a new one. Only then, could effect precede cause imho. It's the butterfly 'effect' :) or the ripples in the pond theory. Even then, I'm not sure that effect could ever precede causation. Your thoughts?
I purposely kept the answer simple since most movies with time travel don't go into much details about how time travel is possible and all the consequences, etc., especially in comedies. Plus there tend to be plot holes left when only partially explained. There was a saying I heard in passing in regards to writing science-fiction (so I don't know who said it or the exact quote), "it's better to have unexplained science than faulty science." One example of effect preceding cause is "tachyons", a hypothetical particle that travels faster than light. As such, a tachyon fired from point A to point B would reach point B before it was fired, due to special relativity. I personally don't subscribe to this theory and say if it was to occur, the tachyon would simple arrive before a particle of light would. I don't believe time travel into the past is possible, so as long as a movie is consistent, I don't think there's anything wrong with picking a closed time loop over an alternate time loop.
Bishop73