Factual error: The film begins and ends with Hutch handcuffed in custody, being interrogated by two police detectives. He was apprehended at the scene of a major violent crime with many fatalities, he has a gunshot wound, and he's a likely murder suspect. In real life, Hutch would be strip searched and treated for injuries under tight security, and he would not be allowed to carry personal effects into the subsequent interrogation. But during the interrogation, Hutch impossibly produces a pack of cigarettes and lighter, a can of cat food, a metal can opener and a live kitten from inside his jacket.
Charles Austin Miller
17th Aug 2021
Nobody (2021)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You're missing the concept that he was a special individual. He would not be treated as you suggest, because of the uniqueness of his character.
His "special" status was unknown until the end of the film, when the two detectives simultaneously receive phone calls with orders to release him. Before that, he was still in handcuffs and being interrogated, and his identity was still a mystery to the police.
6th Sep 2021
Free Guy (2020)
Plot hole: When Guy kisses her, she questions how he did it - stating no "kiss" function existed in the game. However, later on after the reboot she proceeds to kiss him (rather than him kiss her).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As one of the principal developers of the simulation engine, Millie recognizes that Guy is a non-player character (NPC) who merely obeys a loop of coded actions, and he's supposedly incapable of acting outside of his code. So, she means that NPCs can't just arbitrarily kiss players. Players can do whatever they want, but NPCs are mindless robots. At that point, however, she doesn't realise that Guy's Artificial Intelligence has evolved to independent self-awareness, allowing him to act outside of his code.
Key's actually says "There isn't a button for that" when Millie brings it up. There would be no way for her to initiate, as her in game actions would be limited to the controls offered.
By the time Millie kisses Guy, we know that the Free City simulation engine was already undergoing Artificial Intelligence evolution, essentially rewriting its own code, allowing Guy (and other NPCs) to achieve independent self-awareness. It follows that Free City was probably rewriting its player code, as well, making all sorts of new and startling functions possible for players and NPCs alike.
18th Apr 2006
Teen Wolf (1985)
Corrected entry: Isn't it rather strange that nobody outside the Howard family's small town expresses any interest in the confirmed discovery of a new human sub-species, the only one on the planet? Wouldn't it be more likely that their little backwater town would be inundated with every press and scientific organisation on earth, and that the Howard family would be the centre of the greatest publicity carnival of all time?
Correction: I don't see this as a plot hole but as the comedic core of the movie. I mean, one of the funniest bits in the film is when Mr. Howard rather nonchalantly "comes out" for a father-and-son chat about maturing as a werewolf. This is a gag throughout the film, with locals oddly accepting werewolves in the community. It's reminiscent of the surreal humor of "The Addams Family" and "The Munsters," in which actual monsters and ghoulish psychopaths somehow fit into society.
Correction: Probably not, because this same case is most likely to have happened to other people before - as seen in Teen Wolf Too, there are plenty of other 'werewolf' people. So it is most likely that a case like Scott's has been exposed and reported before in other locations. Also, such a small town would probably want to prevent such a thing from happening, and everyone seems a certain bit frightened of Scott as a werewolf.
Scott doesn't even know that he is a werewolf until it "hits him in the face." It is a very closely guarded secret until Scott goes public. That would bring every biologist, anthropologist, zoologist - name the scientific discipline - running, as well as every reporter on the planet. The posting is absolutely correct.
I agree with the original posting. The entire town is shocked about Scott and certainly not familiar with other cases of werewolves.
I'm going to agree. Not only is everybody surprised at the discovery that Scott is a werewolf but, the same thing happens in Teen Wolf Too. Todd believes he's just an ordinary guy until he turns into a werewolf while dancing which again, surprises everybody.
13th Sep 2003
Hollow Man (2000)
Corrected entry: Gorillas are almost exclusively herbivores. They have been observed eating small insects and grubs but nothing larger. So why does Isabelle eat a rat at the beginning of the film? The serum may have turned her into a crazed killer, as it does with Sebastian, but it hasn't changed the structure of her teeth and palate, biochemistry of her digestive system and so on, all of which would be required. She might kill or torture the rat, but she'd never eat it.
Correction: This entry is wrong. Gorillas can, and do eat meat, so the actions of the gorilla are believable. From feedingnature.com: "Gorillas will sometimes eat meat. They can catch small animals such as mice, rats, or birds and will eat these animals if they lack protein in their diet. The silverback gorilla has been known to eat meat and might even attack and eat other primates." Even if you dispute this fact, most people would believe that a gorilla is certainly capable of eating a rat.
Correction: Gorillas do sometimes eat meat, especially small animals. Also, Isabelle may not be getting fed the right foods resorting to her eating a rat. Humans will resort to drinking their own urine without access to water for a period of time, it's not far fetched that a gorilla will eat something that will be harmful to its body in a similar circumstance.
Gorillas do NOT eat rats. Inventing Deus Ex Machina explanations for a factual error (Isabelle was underfed so she was desperate for food!) does not invalidate the error. The posting needs a little more detail but is absolutely correct.
Wild gorillas have been documented (on camera) feeding on freshly-killed monkeys. Like chimpanzees and humans, gorillas are omnivores and are perfectly capable of eating and digesting raw meat.
I think speculation about her eating it because she's not fed a proper diet isn't valid. But it's plausible the serum made her vicious where she ate the rat. To say her teeth and digestive system are the reason why she wouldn't/couldn't eat the rat isn't valid either. My dog once ate my sock despite not having the teeth or digestive system required to eat socks.
To add, it was noted that the gorilla's mind has been affected by being invisible for so long causing her to be more aggressive. Especially when she bit Matt's hand.
But she didn't eat it regardless so everyone is making the same mistake (she bit it, perhaps from the rage side effect?).
Nonsense. She picks up the rat, bites it in half, and swallows it. If she spat it out, we'd see it. As we see later in the film, anything ingested by an invisible creature instantly becomes invisible, so why don't we see a bloodied half rat splatter on the cage floor? Because Isabelle chewed it up and swallowed it.
24th Mar 2021
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
Factual error: In Part Two, as Diana explains to Bruce Wayne the history of the Mother Boxes on Earth, we see an extended flashback of Earthly gods and warriors in an epic battle against Darkseid. When Diana says, "A golden age of heroes fighting together," we see a close-up of an Amazon archer drawing back an arrow right-handed, leaning right, and releasing it. However, the arrow is unsupported on the bow, so she couldn't possibly aim or control the arrow. (01:03:59)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's not even a matter of how good you are. Placing the arrow on the opposite side of your dominant hand is very much a Western style draw, popularized often times in Hollywood movies. Ancient and Eastern methods used a same side draw. It's mostly determined by the grip used and type of archery you're performing.
Nonsense. The physics of the draw demand that the arrow is supported on the riser. Even ancient Roman archers and American Indians supported their arrows on the bow. Again, go try it yourself. You can't hit diddly releasing an unsupported arrow on the wrong side of the bow.
Not that this is the forum for it, but here's just 1 example. Https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9cGSpYLdH8s.
Yes, it's possible to shoot same-side, as long as you're supporting the arrow with the bow. However, in the Justice League shot that I cited, the Amazon archer is holding the bow right-handed hunter style, with the bow tilted to the right, which means the arrow is totally unsupported and uncontrollable. There's this inconvenient force known as GRAVITY that pulls the arrow away from your intended trajectory when the arrow is unsupported.
Suggested correction: Incorrect. You can place the arrow either side of the bow. It depends on how good of an archer you are.
I've been an archer for over 40 years, and you don't load your arrow on the outside of your bow. I don't care "how good an archer" you THINK you are, you can't aim or control an unsupported arrow on the wrong side of the bow. Try it. Make a video of it. You'll be embarrassed to find you can't hit the broad side of a barn with the arrow on the wrong side of the bow.
Firstly, it's clearly possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n5M2KHVyWI. Secondly, given the multiple "impossible" feats achieved by the Amazons given their super-physiology, "being able to accurately fire an arrow on the 'wrong' side of a bow" obviously falls under suspension of disbelief, and doesn't warrant either a mistake or the level of anger you're showing to people here.
Both videos state explicitly (especially Lars Andersen's) that yes, you CAN shoot from 'the wrong side', IF and only IF you use a particular, Eastern based grip, the thumb one. Watch the movie. She uses (which makes sense, for someone from the Greek mythology, I guess!) the 'Western style' so, left side as stated. I personally love over-analyzing this sort of things that give you so much insight and fun tidbits, rather than "Ah it's magic, who cares."
8th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Revealing mistake: Steve Trevor approaches and stands before an oval, wall-mounted mirror, incredulously looking at himself and seeing a stranger's face in close-up. Steve finally smiles approvingly, turns to Diana Prince and says, "He's got it! Y'know, I like him!" The camera immediately cuts to two wide shots from behind Steve standing directly in front of the mirror (only a couple of feet away from it), but there is no reflection of Steve in the mirror at all. This error reveals that the "mirror" is actually a hole in the wall (a low-budget practical effect used in films of decades past for such mirror illusions). They probably filmed a lot more footage of Steve mugging in front of the "mirror" but edited it out, because this old-school effect is notoriously difficult to get exactly right. (00:49:50 - 00:50:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They don't use this trick for the scene, the actor playing "the other guy" is standing in front of the mirror himself when you see him in the reflection, since he has black hair and Chris Pine does not. And Chris Pine can only be seen without the mirror. Later in the wide shots the angle of the mirror simply doesn't show Chris Pine's reflection. Only a tiny second at the start of the wide shot can you see it is actually a real mirror, when you see a piece of Chris Pine's hair in it.
As I said, they probably filmed a lot more footage of Steve mugging in front of the "mirror" but edited it out. When Steve approaches the "mirror" in close-up, you can see that there are two distinct actors (which is the whole purpose of the scene): Chris Pine's hair is a distinctly different color and texture, and the actor in the "reflection" is taller. Plus, their subtle body and head movements are not perfectly synchronized, as would be the case in a true mirror-image. It's the old hole-in-the-wall trick.
But it is a real mirror, as it reflects his hair. So it's not a hole in the wall anyway. The back of the head you see when seeing "the other guy" in the mirror is that same guy's head, not Chris Pine's. No need to use that trick.
No, the hair color and texture of the back-of-the-head shot are distinctly different from the guy in the reflection. The whole purpose of the shot is that Chris Pine in the foreground IS NOT the guy in the reflection in the background. The hair color and texture is different, and the guy in the reflection is taller; plus, the body and head movements are not synchronized. Go back and watch the scene (if you can stand watching the movie again).
16th Nov 2018
Bullitt (1968)
Corrected entry: Steve McQueen performed all his own driving, including a reverse burnout during the chase scene which was not scripted. He had mistakenly missed a turn, but the footage was still kept in the final print.
Correction: McQueen WANTED to do all his own stunt driving, but he simply couldn't perform many of the maneuvers to directorial satisfaction and he was hastily replaced by professional stunt drivers.
14th Aug 2020
Justice League (2017)
Factual error: The existing Justice League members realise that they cannot battle Steppenwolf without Superman, so they procure the last Motherbox to resurrect Superman from death. Unfortunately, the crippled Kryptonian spacecraft lacks sufficient power to activate the Motherbox. The Flash suggests that, given enough distance to accelerate, he can use his super speed to generate an enormous static electrical charge to activate the Motherbox. The problem with this scenario is that, although the Flash may generate a huge static electrical field at super speed, he is constantly discharging that static electricity, as we see every single time he exerts his power. As Flash races toward the Motherbox, gigantic arcs of electricity (easily hundreds of thousands of volts) pour off him, grounding to the spacecraft's bulkheads, thus neutralizing the static charge. Meaning that The Flash is not accumulating energy, he is discharging energy with every step; so, by the time he arrives at the Motherbox, he should have no more accumulated static electrical energy than if he started ten feet away from it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Under known physics, you are correct, however, The Flash can tap into the speed force, something that transcends known physics, which therefore makes his charging of the motherbox possible.
It doesn't matter what he is "tapping into" if he is still grounding-out to the ship's bulkheads and is discharging electricity the whole time.
Also the bulkheads are made of Kryptonian technology, being alien in nature maybe the discharged energy reacts differently and perhaps is reflected back into the Flash at a rate so fast that is imperceptible to the human eye. Like Bruce said the mother box is science beyond anything imaginable so we have to keep our mind open to possibilities regarding its properties.
Sorry but you are incorrect. According to you Barry shouldn't be able to run at all at high speed because physics. The speed force may as well be magic, as it defies physics in multiple ways i.e friction, gaining momentum the requirement for an equal opposite force to come to a rapid stop etc. Nevermind that it's canonical that they can generate and hurl lightning bolts.
Suggested correction: He said that he can "conduct a significant electrical current." At the moment he touches the cube, you can see the bolts sucking back into him and flowing into the cube. Also..."speed force."
8th Apr 2020
Common mistakes
Factual error: In almost every movie from the introduction of sound on to present day, lightning and thunder happen simultaneously, while in reality there's always a delay between the former and the latter.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Hardly always, if the lightning hits right in front of you you hear the thunder immediately. I'd say from about 100 meters you perceive it as instantly, as it's only 0.3 seconds between flash and thunder.
This is a mistake about in almost all movies, not in all thunderstorms. The common mistake in the movies is when lightning isn't hitting 100m away from the character, but the sound is still instantaneous.
I assume it's about thunderstorms in movies. Name an example.
Instant thunder (even at a considerable distance of miles from the lightning or explosion source) is, indeed, a common and probably deliberate error in most films. The reasoning for it is simple: a prolonged and realistic delay between lightning and thunder could change a 1-second shot into a 6-second shot, for example, compromising the director's intended pace and mood for the scene. Steven Spielberg films have utilized both instant and delayed thunder. In "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," for example, when the UFOs zoom out into the distant background (certainly miles away) in a wide landscape shot, they produce a lightning effect in the clouds that is simultaneously heard as thunder. But in "Poltergeist" (a Spielberg film directed by Tobe Hooper), there is a very deliberate scene of characters realistically counting the seconds between distant lightning and resulting thunder. Choosing to obey physics or not is a matter of the director's artistic license.
I posted this while I was watching Death in Paradise, episode 7 of the third season, but really, you have never seen in pretty much any horror or cheap slasher movie whenever there's a storm, the flash of a lightning coming at the *same* time as a thunder jumpscare sound? It's vastly spoofed, even, when some ugly/creepy/terrifying character makes its appearance. One example randomly picked? Dracula by Coppola, in the first 10 minutes, carriage, lightning in the distance, not even a split second after, rumble. In RL it would reach you a couple seconds later. But really, it's such a movie archetype, I am sure you can find it in any Dracula movie.
The Dracula example doesn't really show how far away the lightning is, it could right above them. It's fake as hell, I agree with that, but the fact there is lightning and thunder at the same time without actually seeing the distance is not a mistake to me. It's also highly unnatural lightning as it only happens twice and then nothing, it's not even raining. It's obviously meant to be caused by the evil surrounding the place. The idea is there is constant lightning right on top of them.
There's a scene in Judge Dredd where every few seconds, there is a flash of lightning instantly accompanied by the sound of thunder. It happens frequently in Sleepy Hollow as well.
I know the scenes you are referring to. In both those instances you have no idea about the distance of this lightning. It could be (and probably is) right on top of them. You can hear that from the typical high sharpness of the sound, only heard when the flash is very close. Thunderclouds are never very high in the air so even the rumbling within the cloud itself can be heard, sometimes you don't even see lightning when it rumbles (yet there is). It's a bit far fetched but you could hear a rumbling or the thunder from a previous flash and mistake it for the flash you see at the same time. Can happen when there are continuous flashes.
5th Apr 2020
Common mistakes
Corrected entry: It's very common for shows, games, or movies that take place after the end of the world to still show people using fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel in vehicles. However, with the production of gas having ended, this could not last very long. Even when properly stored, civilian gas supplies would go bad and be unusable after about a year, diesel a little longer but not by much. Private stashes of gas, like in cans, would only last about 5 months. And the military supplies of gas would, at best, last for 5 years.
Correction: Stored gasoline is typically treated with fuel stabilizer (about 2 ounces of stabilizer will treat 5 gallons of gasoline and prolong its shelf-life by years). All of my stored gasoline is treated with stabilizer, and I've used cans that are 5 years old and older. Even untreated gasoline can have a remarkably long shelf-life: Some years ago, I sold an old Volvo that had been sitting in my garage with a dead battery for 11 years; the buyer brought a fresh battery and installed it just to test the starter, to see if the engine was frozen. To everyone's amazement, the old car immediately started, revved and purred like a kitten, burning the gasoline in its tank from over a decade earlier.
Correction: This all highly depends on the quality of the gasoline and the amount of ethanol and its exposure to oxygen. I've heard about jerrycans of gasoline 25 years old still usable. It's also possible to purify the gasoline again so it's usable by filtering it. Don't need a huge refinery for small amounts.
18th Feb 2020
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Factual error: It is long-established in Star Trek canon that onboard diagnostics can detect any animate intruders on Federation vessels. Any living thing that exists upon a Federation vessel can be identified, and its location specifically noted on Federation property. How is it, then, that there are rats aboard the Regula I space station (as observed by Doctor McCoy) that haven't been eradicated?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is not established that Regula 1 has the same internal sensors that a starship has.
It is definitely established, however, that the Regula 1 space station is conducting the most highly-classified technological research and development in the entire Federation: The Genesis Project, which entailed re-engineering whole worlds to create new ecosystems where no life existed before. If anything, Regula 1 should be equipped with even more sensitive and discriminating biological sensors than any starship in the Federation, for the express purpose of preventing biological contamination of their experiments. So, Regula 1 must have necessarily possessed the most sophisticated biological sensors available. As Dr. Carol Marcus emphasized, the Genesis Project couldn't risk contamination by so much as a microbe, nevermind foot-long rats creeping around the space station.
None of the scanning shown in the film was done by the Regula 1 station. The Reliant is what scanned the planet where Khan was found. Even if Regula 1 did have highly advanced sensors there is nothing to suggest anyone has the time or need to regularly scan for pests on the station itself. The presence of a pest in the Genesis cave itself would have been an error, but not on the station. A pest on the station has no bearing on the Genesis project itself. There are too many assumptions for this to be considered a movie mistake.
The rat was not shown in the Genesis Cave, it was shown aboard the Regula space station, where the Genesis Device itself was constructed before it was beamed inside the planetoid for a test run. The point you're missing is that the space station had rats crawling around inside, but a rat infestation wouldn't be tolerated at an ultra-top-secret research and development facility for a project that was highly sensitive to biological contamination.
Regulus One was a scientific research laboratory, the rats seen roaming the passageways were lab rats that had escaped in the earlier confusion. Genesis was their current project, but I'm certain there were many other experiments going on. Bear in mind, Carol Marcus retorted that "they waited until everyone was on leave to do this." They only had a skeleton crew aboard at the time Khan boarded the station and killed those still present who were not transporting equipment to the cavern.
Suggested correction: It was most likely a lab rat that was inadvertently freed when Khan and his followers ransacked the station. The sensors probably pick it up just fine, everyone on the station is just too busy being dead to do anything about the stray rat scurrying about.
It's the 24th Century. After all the "animal cruelty" activism of the 20th and 21st Centuries, I very seriously doubt they are still experimenting on lab rats in the 24th Century. That practice would be deemed medieval, at best, and barbaric, at worst.
Suggested correction: When was this established? There are a number of episodes of the original series where the plot depends on them not being able to detect intruders. "Court Martial" for example.
"Court Martial" is probably the worst example you could use for your argument. In that episode, the vengeful Lieutenant Commander Benjamin Finney repeatedly sabotaged the Enterprise main computer (changing ship's chronological data records in order to fake his own "death" and frame Captain Kirk for a murder that never happened). Finney also sabotaged the computer and caused the Enterprise to fall out of orbit. Indeed, Spock discovered that the ship's computer was malfunctioning due to sabotage. So, Finney was more than capable of sabotaging the ship's bio-scanners, as well, to conceal himself from a whole-ship scan. In fact, they had to resort to a very sensitive audio-scan of the Enterprise, selectively eliminating the audible heartbeats of every known person aboard the ship. When all known heartbeats were eliminated, just one unknown heartbeat remained, and its owner couldn't be identified. Therefore, Finney had certainly tampered with the bio-scanner to conceal his whereabouts. It's very doubtful, however, that foot-long rats hacked the bio-scanners aboard the Regula research station to conceal their whereabouts.
Every time the Enterprise computer system reported an "intruder alert," and every time they asked the computer for the location of specific individuals and lifeforms anywhere aboard the ship. This was all well-established in the Original Series.
It's a big leap to go from that to they can detect any living being. It is explicitly established that under many circumstances they can't even detect a full grown man if they are in hiding. This is the whole basis of the plot of "Court Martial." Even as late as The Next Generation it is established that it is difficult to find someone if they're not wearing their communicator badge.
Yet they can detect single-celled organisms on a planet's surface from thousands of miles away. The technology certainly exists in the Star Trek universe, and especially for the highly-classified Genesis Experiment. In "The Wrath of Khan," Dr. Carol Marcus stipulates that the Genesis Experiment cannot be contaminated by so much as a microbe, and complete sterility is a condition for selecting a test planet. Yet they have foot-long rats scurrying around the Genesis research facility? That is a plot hole, a continuity problem and a factual error all rolled into one.
Reliant scanned the planet to search for any life forms. That scan was inaccurate and it read Khan's entire group (and presumably the Ceti eels) as non-specific, potential life matter. Reliant's crew speculates that it could just be some speck of matter and they are completely shocked to find multiple living humans there. If they were using these highly advanced sensors you claim they were using they would not have been surprised by the presence of humans at all. And even if they could, there is nothing to suggest they should also use those sensors for pest control on their space station.
Suggested correction: Obviously the first thing the rats did was chew through the cables to the lifeform scanners.
Which would set off alarms like crazy aboard the station because preventing biological contamination of the Genesis Experiment was a No.1 priority for Dr. Carol Marcus. Undoubtedly, the station was bristling with redundant bio-scanners.
All of which had been also chewed through! No, you make a good point.
Suggested correction: Someone on the Reliant had a pet rat and one of Khan's henchmen brought it aboard Regula I to torment the lab techs. (Yes, this sounds silly, but the point is that strange and unlikely things actually happen quite often and it's exactly what makes stories interesting. As long as an event can be rationalized, unlikelihood alone isn't enough to qualify as a mistake. If it really bothers you, you might get more mileage putting it under "stupidity" since it's obviously just a lazy horror cliche).
30th Sep 2019
Ad Astra (2019)
Factual error: From the continuity of the movie it appears that the response from LIMA came within a few minutes of the transmission from Mars. This would be impossible. Even if Mars and Neptune were on the same side of the Solar System, in a straight line, they would be 4 light-hours apart, meaning the replay could not be received less than 8 hours after transmission. There's no implication that they kept Brad Pitt sitting in a room for 8 hours waiting for a reply.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: IIRC, there was a communication sent from earlier. It's very possible they resumed 8 hours later, even if it was the next day. And, judging by the auditors sentiment to LIMAs response (discretion), there is a chance that LIMA did not respond favorably, nor ever would have a chance hear the "emotional" version of the communication sent that day.
Suggested correction: The objective of sending McBride to Mars was for him to transmit a number of appeals to his father on a familial level. Although McBride didn't know it, his messages were intended to catch his father off-guard, making him believe his son was en route to Neptune, but actually clearing the way for a nuclear strike against the LIMA. Unfortunately, the movie fails to make it clear that the younger McBride is transmitting several sequential messages over an extended period of time before his father finally responds. This is more a matter of bad pacing and editing than it is a factual error.
It was shown that the message the father answered was exactly the one in which the son rejected the script and began to speak from the heart. And this was the same message after which the father immediately answered, while the son was still in the room.
No, Roy McBride sent more than one message, and it even shows time pass between messages. His father's reply to an earlier message only arrived coincidentally as Roy went off-script on a subsequent message.
27th Dec 2019
Watchmen (2009)
Plot hole: Although this film is a virtual jigsaw puzzle of flashbacks, the dynamic between Dan, Laurie and Rorschach pretty much defines the movie's continuity in the present. However, when Rorschach is framed for murder and arrested, he goes directly to a maximum-security prison, apparently without trial, conviction or sentencing (all of which would require months of due-process, at least). Even if this lapse of time is some sort of artistic device to rapidly advance Rorschach's story, there is no corresponding lapse of months in the relationship between Dan and Laurie, which runs parallel with Rorschach's story. Either there is no due process for Rorschach in this story, or there is a glaring plot hole.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Rorschach was a famous and dangerous outlaw. We are talking about an alternate 80's here with Nixon as president and a nation-wide ban on masks (the Keene Act). Rorschach probably faced the death penalty for his long list of crimes, besides the murder he was finally captured for (not to mention to handful of cops he seriously injured whilst trying to evade capture). I don't think it's strange that his trial was quick or not fully by the book. They made sure he was locked away fast and quietly. The justice system probably works a lot faster in a world of masked vigilantes.
Yes, Rorschach was a vigilante; but, before masked superheroes were outlawed, Rorschach was also responsible for sending dozens (if not scores) of far worse criminals to prison, thus benefitting society. This much is stated in the film. His contributions to justice would certainly carry weight, and testimony in his favor would have to be considered in any legal proceedings against him. Also, after his capture, authorities were still trying to assess his mental state, which implies that some sort of due-process was still in place. Rorschach should have received a months-long trial, at the very least.
To be fair, the original, Hugo Award-winning "Watchmen" graphic novel makes the same continuity leap when it comes to Rorschach's fate. Rorschach keeps a secret diary that dates everything, but it egregiously skips over his trial and sentencing, even though the relationship between Dan and Laurie remains consistent. So, we can say that the movie is faithful to the novel, but the novel itself is flawed with a gaping plot hole.
The cops of that city don't care about his past deeds, which includes dropping the body of a criminal in front of the police station with the message "Never." They don't like him. Not even his colleagues liked him. That was a long time ago too, he's been the sole masked vigilante for a long time and I bet the cops just started disliking him more and more for his antics. Thus, a quick trial.
8th Jul 2019
Gorgo (1961)
Revealing mistake: The sea creature Gorgo is paraded through the streets of London on a flatbed tractor trailer, and an off-screen American newsman announces the monster's arrival at Battersea Park, where it will be exhibited at Dorkin's Circus. The announcer introduces the creature's owners as they step from their motorcade, saying, "And our own Mr. Dorkin, of Dorkin's Circus, in the checkered suit." Problem is, Mr. Dorkin is wearing a plain gray flannel suit. Closeup shots of Mr. Dorkin over the next 40 seconds reveal that the suit is not checkered, not plaid, not striped, not patterned in any way at all. It's simply a plain gray suit. Apparently, the announcer's pre-recorded lines were never modified after changes were made in costuming. (00:34:05 - 00:35:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You must have been watching a poor-quality copy of the movie. In the HD version available on Amazon, the checkered pattern is visible, although it is subtle. Frankly, it probably would not be visible on a television broadcast of the time.
I watched it in HD purchased from Amazon Prime on a large high-definition screen. No checkered suit.
You may need to adjust your settings. It is especially visible in the interview scene. The suit definitely has a checkered pattern of various shades of gray. Again, it is subtle, but definitely visible.
You may need to check your imagination.
27th Apr 2005
Brainstorm (1983)
Continuity mistake: When Christopher Walken gives his wife a tape of his best memories, many of the shots are 3rd-person, of the two of them, and not 1st-person, from his perspective, like everyone else's recordings. (00:44:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The device that records experience, esp. memory, is sometimes viewed in a non-logical way. This is because memories and emotions are not usually recalled exactly as they occurred. The brain is not a camera. There are complex mechanisms at work. I assume the filmmaker had this in mind.
Producer/director Douglas Trumbull knew that the montage of romantic memories was vital to establishing a backstory for the relationship between Christopher Walken and Natalie Wood. This montage was the first time we see the love they actually had for one another, so it was necessary to show them interacting on the screen. If Trumbull had stayed strictly with the movie's premise of first-person brain-recording technology, the montage of romantic memories would be nothing but closeup shots of Natalie Wood (from Walken's perspective), with no visual interaction between the couple. So, Trumbull violated the first-person technological premise of the film in order to more firmly establish the depth of their relationship. Trumbull did the same thing for Louise Fletcher's memory sequence. It was a matter of artistic license.
8th Jun 2019
Iron Man (2008)
Factual error: A tank's main gun could not blast Iron Man out of the sky, as depicted in this film, and the "lucky shot" theory holds no water. In military history, there are only a couple of instances of tanks using their main guns to shoot down aircraft by chance, and those involved tanks repeatedly firing their main guns on known flight paths until an aircraft literally ran into a tank round. However, in this movie, Iron Man comes out of nowhere on no known flight path, he's not recognizable as an aircraft, he's traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, and he's only airborne for about 4 seconds before he's hit with a tank round. The tank gunner could not possibly identify Iron Man as a new target, elevate the main gun, track him and fire in 4 seconds. Modern tanks do not have the ability to acquire and track fast-moving targets with the main gun, nevermind fast-moving aerial targets.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: All that might be true in the real world but in this movie we know that the forces of the Ten Rings have been supplied with advanced weapons from Stark Industries. A retrofitted tank weapon that can engage a superhero in a flying suit is no more fanciful than a hand held paralyzing noise device or an arc reactor.
Yes, it's a fantasy film. You could even fairly say that no fantasy film can be in error by virtue of its fantastical premise. That does not negate a factual error.
Tony Stark is an extremely intelligent inventor that makes advanced weapons for the military. A targeting system for made for tanks lies entirely within the realm of possibility presented within the world of this franchise.
And, yet, it is established in this first movie that the Ten Rings terrorists only possess as much Stark technology as Obediah Stane allows them (which isn't much). Obviously, the tank is not very advanced technology, as Tony merely sidesteps the second tank round and he utterly destroys the tank with a wrist-rocket. There is no indication in the film that the Tank is advanced Stark technology.
No one is saying that the tank itself is Stark technology, only that it's weapon can be retrofitted with a targeting system. It wouldn't be much different than retrofitting an older model car with a GPS system. The reason Iron Man is able to sidestep the second shot is because he's expecting it, and even then, he barely dodges it.
No way the single-shot main gun of ANY style tank would be "retrofitted" to track and fire on high-speed aerial targets. Any refit would require rebuilding and automating the tank and turret and replacing the main gun (which fires only single rounds) with an automatic repeating cannon, essentially turning it into an advanced mobile anti-aircraft platform. The tank in the movie is recognizable as a standard, slow, single-shot British Chieftain MK10, so it's not Stark industries.
Well you definitely know a hell of a lot more about tanks than I do, so I concede my previous points.
It takes a man to admit he's wrong. I doff my cap to your courage.
23rd Jan 2017
Ash vs Evil Dead (2015)
Home Again - S2-E9
Plot hole: Old Ash travels back in time to 1982 to snatch the Necronomicon before Young Ash ever finds it (which should, presumably, erase all of the evil events from the original Evil Dead film right up to the present). Upon escaping the cabin, Old Ash finds that the timeline has self-corrected, and his amputated right hand has reappeared on his arm. But he is still in the 1980s. If the timeline had truly self-corrected, then Old Ash's car, his friends, and he himself would have vanished instantly from the 1980s, because the purpose of their mission never existed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Time travel is not real. The rules of it are dependent on what the writers deem fit. Ergo, this isn't a plot-hole.
By that rationale, plot holes don't exist in any films, because the screenwriters are making all the rules. But, of course, plot holes do exist because screenwriters forget their own rules. In this case, the screenwriters chose to go down the path of correcting the Evil Dead timeline, but then they forgot to correct the timeline.
Baal was messing with time.
3rd Feb 2016
Jaws (1975)
Character mistake: Chief Brody and Hooper go to the wharf to dissect a large tiger shark and examine the contents of its stomach. Finding nothing unusual, Hooper recommends they go offshore that night to search for the real killer shark because "he's a night feeder." Coming from a marine biologist, that remark really makes no sense. Hooper knew that, in addition to eating Chrissie the midnight swimmer, the shark also ate Pippin (the black Labrador retriever) and the Kintner boy in the middle of the day at a public beach. Based on all available evidence, the shark was no more likely to feed at night than in broad daylight.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The statement is correct, the shark was a night feeder, as opposed to just being a day feeder, meaning the shark will likely be hunting at night.
Again, given all the evidence (including the daytime attacks), Hooper had no more reason to suspect the shark was a night feeder than a day feeder.
Except that's not what the conversation was about, he wasn't speculating on whether the shark was more likely to attack during the day or the night. He simply states they should go out at night to find the real shark responsible for the attacks because that shark will be feeding at night as well (and by going out at night they wouldn't have to face the daytime crowd). If he made an statement such as "the shark isn't a day feeder" or "the shark is strictly a night feeder", those statements could be considered mistakes.
Even when Chrissie was killed at night and two men later on in the movie tried to catch the shark for the reward...at night?
11th Jan 2005
Superman (1978)
Corrected entry: When young Clark Kent is being taken on a journey by his deceased father, the journey ends with Jor-El saying, "By the time we return to the confines of your galaxy, twelve of your years will have passed." If Clark was gone twelve years, how could he have managed to get a job at the Daily Planet? There would have been a background check to see which journalism school that Clark went to as well as college and also to see if he had other jobs, yet he simply gets the job without a problem. All of the people that Clark grew up with would probably be curious as to why they haven't seen or heard from him in a long time as well.
Correction: People fake their credentials to get jobs all the time. A background check not being thorough isn't a plot hole, it happens in the real world quite a bit. At the time the movie was made it wasn't unheard of for people to be hired on the spot without a background check. If he submitted a writing sample, or did some freelance work and submitted that for consideration he could very well have been hired right then and there without anyone checking his background. People in Smallville would probably wonder where Clark has been but that isn't a mistake either. People leave their home towns for better opportunities every day.
Correction: Clark could have easily secured a newspaper job as a "stringer" (a part-time reporter and contributing writer) without extensive background checks or academic vetting, based simply on a few writing samples and his willingness to churn out quantities of filler material for about $7.00 per printed inch. Editor-in-Chief Perry White would have initially assigned Clark an in-office typing test and perhaps a couple of dull little human-interest stories, just to gauge Clark's writing and turnaround time. Perry White was impressed with Clark's overly-respectful demeanor, his writing style and his sheer speed. White even mentions these facts to Lois Lane: "Clark Kent may seem like just a mild-mannered reporter; but, listen, not only does he know how to treat his editor-in-chief with the proper respect, not only does he have a snappy, punchy prose style, but he is, in my forty years in this business, the fastest typist I've ever seen." Clark would have rapidly proven his worth as a full-time reporter with his detailed coverage of Superman. Also, Clark/Superman seems to possess some sort of hypnotic ability (as seen in the sequel, when he wipes Lois Lane's memory) ; so there's the possibility that Clark employed a few mind tricks to charm his way into the job.
27th Aug 2001
Jurassic Park (1993)
Corrected entry: When the doctor is showing off the piece of amber that they have gotten the DNA from, there is a problem. The mosquito in the amber is a male, as one can tell by the antennae. Because it is only the female mosquito that feeds on blood, the male should only have nectar in its stomach. To make it worse, in that species of mosquito, Toxirhynchites, both the males AND females are flower feeders, and would therefore have no blood, or dinosaur DNA in their stomachs. (00:25:00)
Correction: Can we not just assume that the mosquito in Amber in the cane is just symbolic and doesn't necessarily have to be the exact species and gender of the mosquitoes that yielded the dino blood and DNA?
Using the actual mosquito will have more meaning to Hammond than a random one. John is also shown to want only the best.
I don't know. I would think that a mosquito preserved in Amber containing dinosaur blood would be exceptionally rare and probably not the kind of thing you'd waste on a cane.
Correction: Hammond's company, InGen, did not deal exclusively with dinosaurs. Dr. Ellie Sattler, the paleo-botanist, observed and mentioned that Jurassic Park was also full of ancient and extinct plant life. InGen used the same process to procure vegetable DNA from ancient insects (such as the Toxirhynchites mosquitoes) that fed on vegetable matter. It's the same process.
Plant sap is composed mostly of water and dissolved sugars, hormones and carbohydrates. It does not contain any DNA.
Incorrect. Plant genomics research shows that plant fluids do, indeed, contain plant DNA. Moreover, a single mosquito could yield the DNA of several different plants, as well as the mosquito's own DNA and the DNA of microbes consumed along with the plant fluids.
Correction: The mosquito in the amber is not one that supplied the DNA for the dinosaurs. We know this because there is no drill hole for the extraction. When the extraction process is shown, a hole several millimetres across is drilled into the amber.
Correction: Plant sap consists of water, some simple sugars, more complex carbohydrates and plant hormones. It does not contain any DNA at all.
It's about the mosquito inside the amber, not the amber itself. Anyway, plant sap most definitely contains DNA, just plant DNA. All living organisms have DNA.
Plant sap does not contain DNA. Phloem sap consists primarily of sugars, hormones, and mineral elements dissolved in water. DNA is polar due to its highly charged phosphate groups and dissolves easily in water. Transporting dissolved DNA would be utterly pointless.
Fine, the amber doesn't contain DNA (it's fossilized anyway). It's still a bad correction.
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.