Continuity mistake: When they call for a stretcher for Blackburn, the stretcher is half folded up. The camera does an instant cut and it is now fully open. They don't unfold that quickly. (00:45:40)
Bishop73
25th Feb 2011
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The scene shows them opening it that quickly.
The stretcher changes from partially opened to fully opened between shots. Meaning no time has elapsed to finishing opening it, which is why it's a continuity mistake.
27th Aug 2003
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Continuity mistake: When Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon arrive to defend the downed chopper, Shugart is shooting his rifle as a right-hander, but in one short sequence as they're pulling Mike Durant to cover he is shooting as a left-hander. The shot has obviously been reversed as the bolt of the M14 and the height adjustment knob on the aim point optic are on the wrong side of the rifle. (01:29:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You can see him change shoulders as he goes back into the building.
The mistake is valid. He's shooting with the rifle against his right shoulder and you can see the flag patch on his right shoulder. In the next shot, after the guy is pulled out, the rifle is against his left shoulder and he turns, he doesn't change shoulders as the rifle is still against his left shoulder after he turns. However, there is no longer a flag patch on his right shoulder, meaning the shot was flipped as indicated.
13th Oct 2020
Grease (1978)
Question: Why didn't Sandy immediately telephone Danny when she found out she and her family were not going back to Australia, and that she would be attending his high school?
Answer: Perhaps Sandy didn't know the high school she would be going was the same as Danny's, so she didn't think to call him already, but wanted to do it later. It's all very vague about where it all come from. The point is she never thought she would see Danny again, just like Danny thought he would never see her again. With that in mind they might indeed not have exchanged phone numbers anyway so no way to contact each other.
Answer: Maybe they didn't exchange phone numbers.
Answer: Again, he had his reputation as a Ladies Man, he didn't want the gang to know, he was wimping out and had fall in love. Remember the song, "Summer Lovin" He told of scoring with a hot babe, while Sandy sang of true love.
Answer: I had an exchange student LIVE in my parents house for a month when I was in high school in 1990. I liked her a lot. We were the same age. We got along. I did not have her phone number when she left. Why? Because there was no way my father was letting me call France "long distance" in 1990. In 1959, I'm going to say that calling long distance was probably not on their radar as a viable option. Not to mention - realistically, when you're 17, and you never think you're going to see each other again because you're separated by continent, what would be the point of exchanging numbers?
This was a nice story, but has nothing to with answering the question. Sandy didn't live with Danny, so they would have exchanged local numbers, or at least Danny would have given Sandy his number if she didn't know the number where she was staying so they could call each other during the summer. For your story to be slightly comparable, the exchange student would have had live somewhere else. In that scenario you certainly would have given her your number and she wouldn't give you her number in France but where she was staying.
Answer: More than likely, based on Sandy's demeanor and adherence to etiquette, she would not have exchanged her number with a boy. She even said to Rizzo at the lunch table that she went to the beach to see a boy she met so most likely she and Danny would have made plans in person to meet up like they did.
17th Dec 2013
Arthur Christmas (2011)
Other mistake: Grand-Santa has made 70 missions, and Santa (Malcolm) has just completed his 70th mission, totaling 140 years. Yet Grand-Santa is only 136 years old.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Grandsanta's portrait is shown in the halls of the North Pole with the dates 1902-1941 (with Malcom having done 71 missions from 1941). Therefore he did 39 missions. That makes for a total of 109 years, meaning he was 27 when he took over from his own father.
20th Dec 2022
Black Adam (2022)
Other mistake: When everything is moving in slow motion, to indicate how fast Black Adam is supposed to be moving, one of the mercenaries throws a grenade from a distance that is shown moving faster than the lightning moving through the bodies. It reaches Adam before the truck he just ripped apart starts to fall.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The grenade isn't moving faster. Black Adam is moving towards it, he closes the distance. You see it only turns twice before he grabs it and gets to ground level, shove it in the guy's mouth, and then he's back in mid-air in the next shot.
Watch the scene again. Black Adam isn't even in the shot when the grenade is moving faster than everything else. The grenade is moving away from the guy that threw it. He's even moving as fast as the lightning.
21st Jun 2006
Liar Liar (1997)
Continuity mistake: When Fletcher takes his son to the office, they step out the lift and a woman in a purple suit is seen walking to the left. In the next shot, the same woman is walking to the right. (00:06:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That's a different woman with a different hairstyle. The second lady's hair is up over her ears and the first woman's suit is a darker purple.
I don't think there's enough detail in the wide shot to say it's a different woman or not. She's seems to be carrying the same clipboard in the same way. Plus, in the next shot, the first woman should still be seen somewhere in the wide shot off to the left, and she's not.
Again. In the wide the woman's hair is up. You can even see a pin in it. It's not in the first shot. Also, she would not necessarily need to be seen in the wide shot. The first shot has them in the elevator, then there's a hallway, before they cross the doorway into the lobby. She would have already walked past the desk (notice the lamp) by the time they were a few inches out of the elevator. By the time they walked to the doorway she could easily be out of frame.
Impossible. The very short distance she walks takes her almost 2 seconds, and then she's off camera for maybe a second. The distance to the hall to be out of the shot is almost twice the distance she was just seen walking.
Depth perception. She's walking directly in front of the desk. She's not in the same spot as the second lady (in front of the lobby door). She walks across the screen before Max's feet leaves the elevator. The distance between the left side of the desk and off screen is fairly short and plenty of time for her to cross before they exit the elevator. Third time...different hairstyle. I'm pretty sure the second lady is even wearing a different shirt underneath her jacket too.
28th Dec 2022
General questions
I am trying to remember an episode of a show that I watched at my Grandparents house one summer. I want to say it was Stargate but I'm not so sure. I remember a lady takes a baby boy and later discovers that he is sick with something. She is told that all of the baby boys in this specific dimension have something in them that makes them sick and eventually die. I remember she fights to have him saved and I think her father is able to get him the antidote to make him better. What was this from?
Answer: I found it the show was called Sliders.
Was it "Mother and Child", s04e14?
Answer: If you're looking for a Stargate SG-1 episode, maybe s02e20, "Show and Tell." The Reetou are an incest-like race out of phase and thus invisible to the unaided eye. One of the Reetou, referred to as Mother, genetically engineers a human boy and sends him to SG Command to warn them. But because of his rapid growth, he is quickly dying. He develops a bond with Jack and takes the name Charlie, the name of Jack's (now dead) son. By the end off the episode Charlie's organs are shutting down and the Tok'ra agree to take the boy and blend him with a symbiote to heal him. Although we never discover if it works or not.
I checked it out and that isn't it. This is driving me crazy. I remember that people travelled through tunnels or something to get to different dimensions or alternate worlds or something like that. I remember the baby receiving the medicine and I think he lives as well. I remember when he gets the medicine it is through a weird looking syringe that was put flat against the baby's arm and then a man injecting it into him. I want to say it was around 1999 maybe 2000 if that narrows it down.
28th Dec 2022
Ghosts (US) (2021)
Revealing mistake: Hetty's reflection is in the octagonal mirror, Issac's reflection is caught in the window he is standing next to and Thorfinn's reflection is in the dressing mirror he passes.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Where was it established that the ghosts' reflections aren't visible?
It doesn't make sense that the ghosts would have reflections or even cast shadows for that matter, it indicates they have a physical body to block or reflect light which we know isn't the case.
I'd argue if we the audience can see the ghosts, there's no reason why we can't also see their reflections. Other people can't see the ghosts or the reflections. It's suspension of disbelief or a visual narrative tool of sorts. It's different from vampires, say, which generally aren't meant to have reflections at all.
That makes a valid point but based on the "mistake" that started this, I can see why that person thinks reflections are out of context with every other ghost movie out there, like in Beetlejuice where Gena Davis moves the horse in the mirror and she isn't visible. It wouldn't be as good a scene if she was reflected in the mirror too.
Light reflecting off objects is exactly why things are visible. So how can Sam can see them if they're not reflecting light off their bodies? They also can't interact with their environment, so it doesn't make sense that only Sam can hear them because that means they're vibrating the physical air around them. It doesn't make sense that they can walk through walls but sit in chairs.
The whole plot of the show is that only Sam can see/hear them because she had the near death experience. From what you are saying about air vibrations, Jay should be able to at least hear the ghosts but since he can't, its implied they are invisible to, and unheard by, living people. They are manifestations of energy, hence why some can pass their powers onto living people or turn on/off lights, and energy is invisible to the naked eye.
I understand the plot. My point was nothing makes sense if you use physics as we know it, so the mistake isn't valid. Because being "manifestations of energy" doesn't explain how Sam can see and hear them (not the why) or most anything else they do. But since it's a fantasy with its own made up rules, there's nothing to prevent the ghosts from having reflections, no matter what you want to assume they are.
I don't know how many people are in on this, but I'm loving this debate! I do agree though that the ghosts should not have reflections, they're supposed to be invisible unless you have the gift like the lady does.
6th Dec 2004
Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (1985)
Audio problem: After Captain Lasard delivers his inspiring speech to "Nail these punks," one of the cops stands up and yells "Let's kick ass." even though his lips aren't moving.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Looked like his lips were moving to me.
They weren't moving. He had a big smile on his face but for him to say, "Let's kick ass." would be impossible without his lips making the necessary movements to say it or with an enormous smile.
I just watched this movie and his lips WERE moving.
I've seen the scene and the mistake is valid. His mouth doesn't move in any significant way for him to say what is dubbed over. His lips barely move as if he simply took a breath.
21st Nov 2018
The Snowman (1982)
Corrected entry: There are 4 toothbrushes in the pot, but only three people live in the house. (00:04:35)
19th Feb 2022
Scream (1996)
Revealing mistake: Sidney is teasing Billy, and as a sort-of-reward to him she flashes him before he goes. That's the idea, but in the view from behind you can actually see through the nightie the shoulderstrap of a bra. (00:16:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Could she have had a bra that undoes at the front and quickly flashed him?
To actually answer the question; her hand is on full display, holding the nightie open. She'd still have to open the bra. You can technically argue that you can't see her other hand, which she could be simultaneously maneuver to pull down the cup of the bra and expose a nipple, since there's hardly any time to undo it fully and she'd have to fasten it back afterwards. Or that cupless bras exist. Truth is, she opens her casual, normal, comfy nightwear during the unexpected visit of her boyfriend, and the way the scene is shot leaves no room to interpretation.
This is a question, not a correction.
14th Jun 2005
How the West Was Won (1962)
Question: Doesn't the water tower fall completely to the ground during the buffalo stampede in the original theatrical release? It's missing in the DVD release.
Answer: Yes, the water tower did indeed fall completely over in the initial release. I saw it fall all the way to the ground and release a flood of water. What happened was that the tower fell on the rump of one of the buffaloes, and the buffalo stumbled and got up and continued running. Later the animal rights people objected to the scene, so it was removed from the DVD, and all that was left was the tower shown leaning over.
Answer: Footage of the water tower falling has NEVER appeared in the film. My first viewing of the film was in Cinerama in 1962 and the tower doesn't fall over. It doubtless was supposed to fall over but for technical reasons it didn't come out right, and so no footage beyond seeing it wobble a bit has ever been in the film.
This answer is incorrect. The original release did have the tower fall over completely. There's even a picture of the flooding after it falls over. It was since deleted. Http://www.daveswarbirds.com/HTWWW/deleted_scenes.htm.
I agree. The tower fell and water poured out. I saw this movie in Cinerama in 1963. For years later, I wondered why I never saw that scene in its entirety again. A shame that for a mistake that caused the unintentional death of an animal, the scene should no longer be viewed by anyone.
Answer: I saw the film in Cinerama the week it came out and the water tower didn't fall. I remember being puzzled by the shot of it falling in the souvenir program.
18th Dec 2022
Sliders (1995)
Question: Has Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt or Arturo ever found out what caused the Slider to malfunction?
Answer: It didn't malfunction. If I remember correctly, Quinn forgot to enter the coordinates to go home into the device.
The device (timer) didn't open up a vortex to their home world because they opened the vortex up too early, before the timer hit zero. They were on a frozen planet and didn't think they could survive 5 hours and Quinn didn't realise that's what his double was warning him about. The vortex expanded to engulf Rembrandt because Quinn added too much power into the vortex to allow 3 people to slide.
4th Sep 2007
Smallville (2001)
Corrected entry: After Chloe, Lana and Lois vanish from Clark's barn you can see Clark's chest with blood streaking down. The problem is the wounds are too far apart to have been made by Chloe's hand.
4th Sep 2007
Smallville (2001)
Tempest (1) - S1-E21
Corrected entry: As Jonathan reads the paper on the plant closing there is a nice up close shot of the front page. It reads "Management Problems Sited". That should be Cited, not sited.
Correction: "Dewey Defeats Truman." Newspaper headlines can have errors in them. It happens. Jay Leno has a whole bit devoted to it.
Misspellings and using the incorrect word like this are considered valid mistakes (unless intentionally done with a valid reason, like kids spelling cemetery as semetery.) And printing outcomes that you're certain to happen before they do to get papers out on time isn't a spelling or grammar error.
4th Sep 2007
Smallville (2001)
Corrected entry: Clark is supposed to hide his powers from everyone. When the other swimmer in the final race starts to drown Clark uses his super speed to get him off of the bottom of the pool. Everyone who was in the pool area had their eyes on the drowning kid so somebody should have seen Clark just appear at his side.
Correction: People would care more about him getting saved than who was saving him, so, no, they wouldn't have noticed Clark. He likely went slow enough as to not draw too much attention, yet of course still fast enough to save the one drowning.
The mistake is valid. Chrissy brings everyone's attention to Troy struggling in the water so people are stand at the edge of the pool looking into it before Clark reacts. Clark then uses his super speed to get to Troy on the bottom in an instant. People watching would have seen Clark move like a blur and then appear at Troy's side. When he brings him up, he moves at normal human speed.
19th Nov 2004
Judge Dredd (1995)
Corrected entry: When Rico is making the clones, he says "these are your brothers and sisters." If the clones were clones of him and his DNA, they'd all turn out male, i.e. just brothers.
Correction: Men have an X and Y chromosome, where women have two X chromosomes. Surely with the technology to create new clones in 24 hours, they could alter the chromosomes at a precise point to make some of the subjects female.
Not only would that cause a high rate of "birth" defects, but if you're altering their chromosomes they're not clones anymore.
I think the correction may have misled you. You wouldn't be "altering" the chromosomes or causing birth defects. One would just need to replace the Y-chromosome with an exact copy of the X-chromosome. All the females would still share the same DNA with him. Then it comes down to semantics if you want to call that a clone or not. For simplicity sake, they choose to.
25th Nov 2017
The English Patient (1996)
Factual error: Prochnow is addressed as "Major," in English, but he wears the collar tabs of an SS lieutenant colonel. He should've been addressed as "Obersturmbannfuhrer," or, in English, as "Colonel," because lieutenant colonels are acceptably addressed as "Colonel," as are full colonels.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Obersturmbannfuher is also incorrect. The single oak leaf on each lapel of the uniform is the insignia for a full Colonel or Standartenführer. Therefore it would be acceptable to address him as Colonel because that is his rank.
This isn't a valid correction because you're agreeing he was called by the wrong rank. If you disagree with the word and want to make the entry more clear, do a word change.
27th Nov 2022
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)
Continuity mistake: In the department store as Clark is talking with Mary, the lingerie sales lady, his left arm is supporting him on the glass counter as he is standing. The next shot when Rusty approaches, Clark is now bent down with his left arm resting on the counter.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You actually see Clark go from sitting on the counter to bending down as the saleslady is modelling the undergarment.
That's not the part the mistake is talking about. The mistake is valid. Clark is sitting in the counter but is off screen when he changes position (so you don't actually see it). When Rusty enters the shot, Clark's hand ion the counter. In the next shot, his elbow is on the counter, with no time elapsing.
24th Nov 2022
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Corrected entry: When Andy and Red are discussing the cost of the rock hammer, Andy says between $6-7, and Red closes the deal at $10. In reality, $10 in 1947 would be the equivalent of $130 in today's money (2022).
Correction: Andy was a successful accountant. He could have access to his money, which was likely substantial.
I'm suggesting that Andy (Robbins) and Red (Freeman) got the pricing and value wrong. The value of the American dollar was different compared to the year of the film's production and the present year. Example: one American Dollar ($1) in 1947, the year of the scene, would equal to $6.65 in 1994, the year of the film. All due to inflation.
The price for the rock hammer is deliberately "inflated" because it costs "extra" to acquire contraband in a prison. The person agreeing to "sneak" a prohibited item into prison is taking a risk of getting caught and therefore is the one who gets to set the price - take it or leave it! Realizing he was seeking contraband and would have "to pay" to get it, Andy suggested $6-7; Red wanted - and got - more. The relative value of $1 in 1947 versus the equivalent value in 1994 is not relevant. Hypothetically, Red - realizing that Andy had the means to pay even more - could have requested much more than $10.
Using a different example, today's price for a pack of cigarettes might be $8.00. Cigarettes may no longer be permitted in a prison, thereby classifying cigarettes as "contraband." Inmate A might be seeking to buy a pack of cigarettes and offers $10 to anyone providing the same. Inmate B tells Inmate A that he can get him a pack of cigarettes, but it will cost him $20. If Inmate A says $20 is too much, he simply will not be able to buy the cigarettes.
You're misunderstanding inflation. The value of the dollar can be different then the value of a product. For example, a McDonald's hamburger cost $0.15 in 1947, which is $2.00 in today's money, even though a McDonald's hamburger today is only $1.49 (which is to say your "$130" is only "$96.85"). Plus, you can find cheap rock hammers or rock hammers that go for $100 or more.
I agree that the price of a particular product may not be related to (or proportionate with) inflation rates, but I think "Matdan97" made a decent analogy. What "Matdan97" failed to realise is that the rock hammer was contraband, which changes (greatly increases) the "asking price."
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.