Corrected entry: When Callie is talking to George's mom, she tells Callie "you have a baby." Callie replies "yes I do, do you want to see him?" But Callie didn't have a boy, she had a girl.
Bishop73
13th Jul 2018
Grey's Anatomy (2005)
23rd Dec 2009
Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)
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.
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)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He says "hand ‘em over" (meaning "them"), not "him."
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.
I watched the scene several times to verify prior to making the correction and I heard ‘em every time.
10th Jul 2018
The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)
Other mistake: Like most Sherlock Holmes films 'The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes' is set in Victorian England: Queen Victoria even makes an appearance. Holmes and Watson go to Loch Ness in Scotland, where they see the Loch Ness monster. (Spoiler alert) it turns out that the Loch Ness Monster is not a living creature, but an experimental submarine. Like most people who would have seen the film on its release in 1970, they are familiar with the Loch Ness monster (even if they do not necessarily believe in it). But the first documented sightings of the Loch Ness Monster were only made in 1933. Nobody ever thought there might have been a monster in Loch Ness before 1933.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Sightings and lore of the Loch Ness Monster date back over 1,500 years. In fact, the indigenous people of the region carved images of the monster into stone as far back as 500 AD. The 1933 hoax was certainly not the first time the monster was sighted; however, the hoax was inspired by the centuries-old Loch Ness legend, of which Holmes, Watson and everyone else would be well aware in the Victorian era.
The only carved images from that period are Pictish symbol stones, none of which are particularly associated with Loch Ness.
On the contrary, the Pictish "Drumbuie Stone" (recovered at Drumbuie Farm on Loch Ness in the mid-19th Century) depicts a large serpentine creature, very much matching traditional descriptions of the Loch Ness monster. Https://canmore.org.uk/site/12626/drumbuie.
Suggested correction: This is somewhat incorrect. The 1933 photograph that was published in newspapers may have brought the idea of a Loch Ness Monster to a wider audience, reports of a creature in Loch Ness (or Loch River) were around long before then. And just because the term "Loch Ness Monster" may have first been printed in 1933 doesn't mean the term didn't exist before then. In a fictional story surrounding fictional events, there's no mistake in bringing up a creature already rumored to have existed.
Well observed sir! I thought somebody might well say that. Maybe I should have gone into more detail. May I make it clear that I have absolutely no problem with a sighting of the Loch Ness Monster in a Sherlock Holmes film, since Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character, and 'The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes' was an imaginary story. (Plus the film contained some intentionally comic elements, it was a bit 'tongue in cheek', so lets not take it too seriously!) But lets look at the history of sightings of the monster. The first sighting to attract widespread attention was on 22 July 1933, when the Spicers saw a creature near (but not in) the Loch. On 12 November Hugh Gray took the photograph you allude to. In 1934 Rupert Gould published the first book about it. You say that earlier sightings may not have been widely reported. You are quite correct! One D. Mackenzie said he saw a monster in the Loch in 1872, but did not tell anybody at the time. A sixth century life of St. Columba records an encounter with a 'water beast' in the River Ness. My point was that, in the film, Holmes, Watson, and most other people, are familiar with the story of the Loch Ness Monster. (Spoiler alert again) : The 'monster' is an experimental submarine, which Sherlock's brother, Mycroft, is helping the war office to develop. To stop people realising they were experimenting with new military technology, they would develop the submarine in Loch Ness, so anybody seeing it would think it was the Monster (to add to the deception they give it an artificial neck and head). My point is that, while most people who saw the film in 1970, and most people using this website, would be quite familiar with the story of the Loch Ness Monster. So, whether or not they believe in its existence, they would get the joke (after all, the film was not meant to be taken completely seriously). In the Victorian era the Loch Ness Monster would, at best, have been a local rumour, not something that was known worldwide so it is doubtful that even people as undoubtedly intelligent as Holmes and Watson would have known about it. If they saw a monster in Loch Ness they would not say 'Oh, that's the Loch Ness Monster'. They would ask 'Whatever is that great big thing going through the water?'.
6th Jul 2018
Incredibles 2 (2018)
Corrected entry: The whole plot of the movie is premised on the fact that it has been 14 years since the last release with the movie "catching us up" on what has happened the last 14 years. The big problem is that none of the Incredibles have aged. "Dash" and Violet Parr (the kids) should be 20-something adults possibly with their own kids and Bob and Helen Parr (The parents) would be middle-aged grandparents.
Correction: "Incredibles 2" is not set 14 years later. It takes place 3 months after the first film. In fact, it's still 1962, the same year "The Incredibles" is set.
Yeah, pretty funny entry as I think odelphi is referring to the start of the first movie, with the interviews. Whilst this movie starts with showing exactly where the last movie ended.
5th Sep 2008
That '70s Show (1998)
Corrected entry: During the episode, it goes back to 1968 and in the closing credits Eric is listed as being 7. However, he can't be because in 'Eric's Birthday' it was 1976 and he had turned 17. Thus in '68 he would have had to be 8 or 9 (depending on his birth) but certainly not 7.
Correction: Eric's Birthday is officially March 5 1960, per the show's website. So he would have been 7, turning 8, in 1968. However, in the show, his birth date is inconsistent and it's for those episodes that a mistake should be listed (such as e01s02).
3rd Jul 2018
Cheers (1982)
Woody For Hire, and Norman of the Apes - S6-E13
Corrected entry: When Woody is making finger sandwiches, Sam tells him that they don't have to be in the shape of fingers (or something along those lines), and Woody replies back "Whatever, Ted". Ted is the actor's name, not the character's name.
2nd Jul 2018
Trolls (2016)
Corrected entry: The Trolls have shown to be able to do things with their hair that should be impossible, like Poppy walking on her own hair as if they were stairs. So why couldn't they use their hair to pick the lock on the cage Chef puts them in?
Correction: Just because they can do impossible things doesn't mean they can do anything. Even if Trolls could use their hair to pick a lock doesn't mean they'd have the skills to pick a lock. I know people who can't pick a lock with actual lock pick tools.
1st Jul 2018
Fracture (2007)
Corrected entry: In real life, Crawford could not have been retried for murder at the end. Double jeopardy means you can't be retried for the same event under a different charge. If you could, then whenever someone is acquitted of first degree murder, prosecutors would just retry them for second degree murder, then third degree murder, then voluntary manslaughter, etc.
Correction: Double Jeopardy does not apply because Crawford was tried on two different crimes (not different degrees of the same crime). He was never charged with murder during the first trial because Jennifer, his wife, was still alive (although on life support). He was tried on attempted murder. After the plug was pulled and she died, Crawford was then charged with murder because her death was a direct result of being shot. Someone can be charged with a different crime involving the same event, even after being acquitted of one of them. If Jennifer survived, was put on life support, made a recovery, but then died of an infection later, it's unlikely the D.A.'s office would charge Crawford with murder in that scenario (or if they did it's unlikely he would be convicted).
27th Jun 2018
Red Dwarf (1988)
Corrected entry: At the restaurant, the guide hands Lister his caviar vindaloo, which he states is "half rice, half chips and more bread and butter to follow", but there are visibly no chips on the plate. There are caviar, vindaloo, rice and potato wedges shown on the plate, but no chips. (00:19:25)
Correction: The potato wedges are the "chips." It's a British term for fried potatoes or what Americans may call "fries."
Potato wedges and chips are made from potato, but are still two different things. If the guide wanted to say it was half potato wedges, then he could have just said "half potato wedges."
21st Jun 2018
iZombie (2015)
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.
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.
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.
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.
When get turned in to a zombie your flesh is dying so her flesh could be dead.
25th Jan 2014
National Lampoon's European Vacation (1985)
Corrected entry: The dog falls from the Eiffel tower into water. There is no water around the Eiffel tower.
Correction: From the angle of the shot it is hard to tell which side the dog fell off. There is a river, the Seine, directly to the northwest of the tower. It can be seen in the shot where the hat is thrown. It is possible the dog landed in the river.
Correction: The Seine River is over 500 feet away from the base of the tower, so it's unlikely the dog fell there. However, there are two ponds on the sides of the tower, in the park area.
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.
26th Aug 2003
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003)
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.
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.
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.
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.
10th Jun 2018
Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: In the opening scene when Riggs and Murtaugh are driving through the tunnel, Riggs states over the radio that they are "East bound, on foot..." when they are driving a vehicle. (00:00:40)
Correction: He says "we're east bound on Fourth", not foot.
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.
Thank you Bishop.
6th Jun 2018
M*A*S*H (1972)
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.
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.
6th Jun 2018
That '70s Show (1998)
Moon Over Point Place (1) - S2-E26
Corrected entry: The show is based in the 70s, but Donna sings "Baby got back" which is from the 90s. (00:09:15)
Correction: Not sure if this is just a troll entry, but she does not sing "Baby got back." She says she likes showing her butt and then sings " (Shake, Shake, Shake) Shake Your Booty."
6th Jun 2018
The Cosby Show (1984)
Cyranoise de Bergington - S5-E8
Other mistake: During the opening scene, Cliff is in his home office, located in the basement of his home. The phone rings. He walks over to his office desk, then presses the speaker button. An unfamiliar female voice is heard speaking, as she states that someone is there is see Cliff. Who is that woman? Where is her office desk stationed? She is never heard, or seen, ever again within this episode, and throughout other episodes, prior or after. This is S5E7. This website has the season and episodes mismatched. (01:19:00 - 01:39:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It sounded like Clair to me. And in regards to who that someone was, it was Rudy. So it wasn't as if it was Dr. Huxtable's secretary announcing a patient, or a secretary who didn't know who Cliff's kids were. It's easy to picture Clair acting like a secretary for her daughter's sake so that Rudy could come in and talk to her dad while he's a work, without Rudy just running in and disrupting him. Plus, his phone didn't ring, it was the intercom that Clair would have used from another phone in the house.
Clair is not seen speaking into a speaker, at any time, during any episode, throughout the entire show's existence, and that woman's voice does not sound like Clair's. In addition, Cliff exchanged with 'the mystery female' in a professional manner/tone of voice, like a boss would to an employee, an not in his usually playful, loving voice, that he normally speaks to Clair with.
27th Aug 2001
Next Friday (2000)
Corrected entry: At the beginning of the film when Ice Cube is getting in his dad's dog pound van ready to go and live with his cousins, he remembers Smokey (Chris Tucker in the first Friday movie) and utters the words "I'll miss it around here but I'm going to especially miss my boy Smokey who went into rehab a month ago." If this film is set next Friday from the original as the title suggests how did Smokey go away a month ago?
Correction: The story is not suggested to show that it is 7 days later from the original movie. In the beginning of the story it tells us that it's been a while since the last episode.
Correction: Craig mentions a 4 month period where Deebo was locked up.
Correction: Craig narrated "Deebo ended up going to jail for about 4 years." In the behind the scenes featurette, Ice Cube mentioned that Deebo broke out 4 years after the brutal fight that happened in the original film. So, the film took place 4 years after Friday. Friday was shot in 1994, then released in 1995. Next Friday was shot in 1999 then released in 2000. That makes it a 5 year gap in release. However, the events of this sequel still took place 4 years after the event of the original film. Since Next Friday took place 4 years after the events of the original Friday, it is possible that Friday might have taken place in 1995, and Next Friday might have taken place in 1999 (due to some of the pop culture references in the film).
Correction: The title is only for sequel marketing purposes, rather than calling it "Friday 2." It's like "Star Trek: The Next Generation" takes place 100 years later, not 25 years, which is the length of a typical generation.
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.
Correction: She's doesn't say "him." Ms. O'Malley asks Callie if Callie has any pictures (of Sophia). That's when Callie says "I do." Then she says "do you want to see 'em?"
Bishop73