Corrected entry: There is no way that the SS Venture could plow into the dock as depicted. Easily pulling a 30-foot draft, the Venture would have grounded out a mile away from the shoreline, unless the ocean was 30 feet deep right off the beach.
Charles Austin Miller
14th Jul 2018
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
16th Aug 2005
Unbreakable (2000)
Other mistake: David is supposed to be immune to disease, which is why no one can ever remember him getting sick, but at a number of points in the movie the Chicken Pox scars on Bruce Willis's face are visible. If he was immune to disease, he should never have had Chicken Pox. I noticed this best in the scene where he asks his wife if she can remember him getting sick, look at his right temple.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The scars could easily have come from something else. His skin is not impervious to damage, so extreme trauma would break his skin and leave a scar.
David's skin is impervious to damage. After waking up in the hospital after the train crash, Dr. Duban tells David that not only does he not have any broken bones, but also that he doesn't have a single scratch on him. If his skin wasn't impervious, then he should have suffered major cuts and lacerations from the wreck. Even during the flashback of the accident when he and Audrey were teenagers, Audrey is show bruised and bloody while David is completely unharmed.
Suggested correction: David is not "immune" to disease. He has a much higher resistance to disease.
10th Jul 2018
Crossroads (1986)
Other mistake: When Eugene discovers that it really is Blind Dog Fulton, he (Fulton) says that he needs to get out to help Eugene find that lost song. Eugene says that he will be here at "5:00 a.m." When they breakout - which took all of about maybe 10 minutes, it's very light for the morning time. Looks to be maybe 6:30 by daylight savings time.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Aside from the fact that daylight continuity is seldom strictly observed in any film, you should be aware that dawn on the East Coast visibly begins breaking over the Atlantic at around 4:30 to 5:00 AM during Daylight Savings Time. The sun may not have cleared the horizon, but the sky is really quite bright in New York City (and the whole East Coast) by 5:00 AM.
The time of sunrise varies and, although it isn't pointed out what month they left the nursing home, it is suggested that it was during the academic year - not a summer month when sunrise would be within the earliest time frame. Astronomical, nautical and civil twilight (all 6° or more below the horizon) do not radiate the amount of light shown in the movie. Moreover, it did not appear to get lighter out as they traveled, suggesting they departed after daylight, which would be well after 5 AM.
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?'.
27th Aug 2001
The Mummy Returns (2001)
Factual error: When Brendan Fraser & his son are running to reach the pyramid before the sun hits it, the sunrise line approaches the pyramid along the ground, but the sun would naturally have hit the pyramid at the top first and worked its way down to the ground. [Some people insist on trying to correct this - think of it this way. If the sun's illuminating the ground from way up in the sky, what's keeping something higher up than the ground in darkness?] (01:34:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Despite the additional comments this posting is wrong. The terminator line - the distinct boundary between sunlit day and dark night - moves horizontally across the surface of the earth, from east to west. It is perfectly feasible for the land behind Rick (i.e. to the east) to be in bright sunlight while the pyramid - to the west - is still in darkness. What is not feasible is anyone outrunning the terminator line, which moves at around 1500 kmh in the latitudes they are in.
Try it for yourself - get a round object, such as a basketball, a map tack and a flashlight. As you shine the flashlight on the ball you will see the equivalent of the day/night terminator line. Now stick the map tack into the ball and slowly rotate the ball with the light still shining on it. As it moves, the terminator moves and the map tack will become illuminated before the surface of the ball at the base of the tack. The light will move down from the top of the tack. The only way it would work as shown in the movie is if everything is exactly flat - with no differences in altitude above the ground. Obviously that is not the case. (Of course, if you don't want to poke holes in your basketball, you can use any combination of something round and something to stick to it.)
The original post is correct. Because of its sheer height, the top of the pyramid would receive direct sunlight first, just as a mountaintop receives sunlight before it appears on level ground.
It is perfectly possible for a mountain to be in complete darkness and the low lying land nearby to be brightly sunlit if the mountain is to the west and has not yet been reached by the terminator line. I repeat, the terminator line moves horizontally (in all practical terms) across the surface of the earth and as a result anything west of the line will be in darkness regardless of its height and will stay that way until the line reaches it.
Look, you're talking about mountains miles away beyond the terminator (so far away that they would be beyond the range of sight anyway). We are talking about a pyramid, easily the tallest thing in the immediate vicinity, in the near background, only a mile away at most. Under the physical conditions and locations present in this film, the pyramid should be illuminated top-down. Period.
15th Jun 2018
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Factual error: When Zephram Cochrane, Riker and LaForge activate the warp drive of the prototype starship Phoenix, the prismatic starscape is seen streaking past (same effect as in the Star Trek: TNG series). However, the Phoenix never leaves the solar system or even the vicinity of Earth, achieving only Warp One (the max velocity of the Phoenix) for a few seconds. Even at lightspeed, the Phoenix did not enter interstellar space nor pass any other stars; therefore, the starscape should have remained almost motionless.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: What happens when a ship goes to warp it essentially creates a subspace distortion. This causes the starscape to change and move, as they exit regular space and enter subspace.
At Warp One, there should be zero prismatic distortions. It takes a full 24-hour DAY for light to cross the solar system. In a few seconds, a vessel traveling at Warp One, within a solar system, would see no distortions.
A ship slips out of regular space when going to warp, it creates a bubble around the ship, that bubble causes the starscape for the people inside it to appear moving or at least distort. That's what you see. That's what you always see when a ship goes to warp.
The prismatic effect was created for the TNG series to depict the ship passing stars at hundreds of times the speed of light. The Phoenix only achieved Warp One, one time the speed of light (lightspeed). As fast as that sounds, it wouldn't be fast enough to create any visual distortion.
Even at hundreds of times the speed of light you would only pass a star every few seconds, they didn't make that effect for TNG as in TOS they were going that fast too (as high as warp 9) and the same distortion is seen. You also keep saying its the speed that causes the visual distortion whilst I specifically mention its the fact the ship exiting regular space and into subspace is whats causing the distortion.
10th Jun 2018
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Plot hole: At the very end, when Leo Davidson crash-lands in Washington, DC, on the very steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the modified Lincoln statue depicts General Thade (the founder of the ape civilization on Earth) as wearing mid-19th Century clothing. This suggests that Thade escaped from his home planet Ashlar (aboard the recovered single-passenger Delta Pod, no doubt), entered the time-rift, and arrived on Earth in the early-to-mid 19th Century to begin taking over the human population. So, Thade by himself (with no advanced scientific knowledge) completely conquered human civilization on Earth in only about 150 years, which is absurd even for space fantasy.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is based on a lot of assumptions. Firstly, it's a perfect duplicate of the Lincoln memorial even though it's a different past, where humanity isn't the dominant species so it's obviously fantastical. Secondly, nobody says it's an historical accurate sculpture, in the middle ages and Renaissance they often depicted historical figures with modern clothes on. Just the sculpture doesn't give you the story behind it.
Judging from the closing shots of Washington, DC, Thade's ape civilization is a virtual duplicate of human civilization, right down to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, The Mall, the city itself, the makes and models of automobiles, and even the police uniforms. It's identical social evolution, except with apes in charge. The real Lincoln Memorial was constructed decades after Lincoln died (when fashions had dramatically changed) to memorialize a fallen president, realistically depicting him wearing his own 19th-Century clothing. If the apes followed an exact duplicate of human development (which is obviously the case in this film), then the Thade Memorial was constructed to realistically memorialize Thade, wearing his own 19th-Century clothing. This attempted correction makes no sense at all.
The idea alone that the apes evolved and build a society identical to our own makes it clear that the fact that they have a memorial of General Thade in 19th century clothes completely irrelevant to anything about any historical accuracy you might be referring to, as it isn't there. You can make an entire list of all the hundreds of things that don't make any sense in that scene, if that pleases you. But the clothing on a spoof of the Lincoln memorial doesn't make it a plot hole that Thade couldn't have taken power over such a short period. It's not supposed to make sense. Hell, Leo could be having a nightmare for all we know.
It's called a "plot hole," a poorly-reasoned concept with equally bad writing and production that does nothing to bring the plot full circle.
It's called a "plot hole," a poorly-reasoned concept with equally bad writing and production that does nothing to bring the plot full circle.
Additionally, the original mistake is making the assumption that the statue is of Thade. It could very well be (more likely in fact) that Thade made it to Earth in the distant past, causing the switch from human to ape evolution, and the statue is simply an ape who resembles Thade, possibly a descendant.
10th Jun 2018
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Plot hole: We know that Pericles the chimp (in Alpha Pod), then Leo Davidson (in Delta Pod), and then the entire Oberon space station are all pulled into the time rift and end up on planet Ashlar, each arriving at (drastically) different times. Apparently, just before the Oberon crashed on Ashlar, Commander Vasich sent a mayday transmission ("We're going down!") which is actually received by the Oberon itself before it entered the time rift. Commander Vasich and the Oberon crew are startled to see a very elderly Commander Vasich in the mayday transmission. This implies that Vasich and the Oberon crew instantly aged by decades while going through the time rift; yet, Leo Davidson and Pericles the chimp didn't age at all.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The mayday was broadcast years after Leo and Pericles had disappeared into the future, whilst still orbiting the planet, Vasich isn't as old as the later video recording Leo watches at the end of the movie, possibly a decade older. Eventually, after years of orbiting they crashed onto the planet, probably because they attempted to get closer. Then decades pass after the crash until finally the apes on the crashed ship take control. It's possible the Oberon never went into the time portal itself. It crashed in the past after all.
According to the backstory, Alpha Pod, Delta Pod and the Oberon were pulled into the time-rift in quick succession, and they almost instantly arrived at their respective destinations in time (in the case of the Oberon, it travelled back thousands of years to a time when Ashlar was uninhabited). If the Oberon then orbited Ashlar for decades before crashing, then the Oberon crew and Commander Vasich certainly knew that there was nobody to respond to their radio transmissions. but after decades of silence, the elderly Vasich suddenly transmits a mayday signal just before "going down"? No, this is a plot hole, just like the ending in which General Thade (the founder of the ape civilization on Earth) is depicted in statuary as wearing mid-19th Century clothing.
No, they didn't broadcast, they made a video log. They decided to record what happened.
Or, the went through the time-rift, stayed in orbit for as long as they could and got a signal from the rift coming from the past station and send a distress signal to them. Not knowing they were sending a signal to themselves.
27th Aug 2001
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Plot hole: The "video history" of the crashed USAF ship makes it very clear that the planet is uninhabited when they "landed". I can understand how a race of apes develops - they had a bunch of them on board. I can understand how a race of humans develops - they are descendants of the original crew. What I don't understand is...where the heck did all the horses come from?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Humans refer to parts of their own planet as uninhabited even though they are crawling with animals - vast areas of the Arctic are "uninhabited" even though polar bears and seals are found there. Were we to find a planet with nothing but primitive horses on it, we would label it as uninhabited. Apes and humans came from the crashed spaceship, horses were always there.
Which still makes no sense whatsoever.
I agree with you Charles. Horses are native to Earth but, the Oberon lands on a planet light years from Earth so it's a big plot hole how horses from one planet could end up on another when the planet was not only uninhabited but, the Oberon was believed to be lost.
Again, the Oberon was a massive space station, genetically experimenting with many earthly lifeforms, including horses, apparently. The time/space-rift was very near Earth (Mark Wahlberg made the journey in about 25 seconds at the end of the film. Not years but seconds). The implication is that the Oberon passed through the rift, and much of the crew survived to continue their genetic research on what later became the Ape Planet. So, the Oberon initially arrived on a barren planet and introduced all of the biological and botanical species, including apes, horses, and everything else.
Suggested correction: According to the backstory, the space station Oberon was dedicated to genetic modification sciences. They were actually experimenting with animal genes in the safety of space (which kind of makes sense). Given that the Oberon was a truly gigantic space station, it's not too much of a speculation that they were experimenting on many different types of animals (not just apes). When the Oberon crashed on Ashlar, half its crew was killed, but half survived with a number of ship's systems still functional, and they continued their genetic research, possibly producing a number of Earthly species on the otherwise uninhabited planet.
I think this should've been posted as a question, rather than a plot hole.
That's just a wild guess. There hasn't been a single mention of horses on board the Oberon. Even if there were, why only horses?
Wild guess? The Oberon was experimenting in genetic modification, which implies a broad range of research...and not just on great apes. The Oberon was gigantic enough to be an Ark.
So where are all the other animals?
Exactly. Where are the birds, lions, lizards, etc?
6th Nov 2002
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Cole and his mother are stuck in traffic behind the accident, it's a two lane street, one in each direction. Their lane is obviously backed up. But why is the other lane backed up as well? If anything, that lane should be empty, since they would stop traffic at the point of the accident for that lane, not allowing cars to continue. There's no reason for traffic to be stopped once it's past the accident.
Correction: If you look at the scene very carefully and very slowly, you can see that there is in fact a car (white) which has blocked traffic in that direction. The car is pulling through that lane and turning left, to enter the lane occupied by the main characters That car cannot enter that lane (i.e. toward the accident) because that lane is backed up (due to the accident). So, there actually is an explanation in the scene for why that lane is backed up.
Gridlock.
8th Sep 2016
Mysterious Island (1961)
Factual error: The balloon that the Union soldiers escape in has no mechanical burner of any type in it that would be needed to keep the craft aloft in the air. A balloon flies by heating the air inside the bag, causing it to rise up. It descend as it cools.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Gas balloons (using Hydrogen or Helium) large enough to carry passengers were invented in the late 1700s. Gas-filled observation balloons (such as the one in this film) were, in fact, used during the Civil War.
25th Feb 2016
Ghostbusters (1984)
Trivia: The Ghostbusters theme, "composed" by Ray Parker Jr., was directly ripped off from the song "I Want A New Drug" by Huey Lewis and the News. In fact, Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker for intellectual property theft (settled out of court). Premiere Magazine later featured an article in which the film makers admitted to using the song "I Want a New Drug" as temporary background music in many scenes. They said that they made an offer to Huey Lewis to write the main theme for the movie, but Huey Lewis declined. The filmmakers then provided Ray Parker Jr. with finished film footage (including the Huey Lewis song in the background) to aid Ray Parker in writing an original theme song, which apparently he couldn't do.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is incorrect. Ray Parker Jr paid a fee to Huey Lewis to sample "I Want a New Drug." Lewis sued Parker but settled out of court. Years later, Parker sued Lewis because Lewis broke a confidentiality agreement by speaking about the out of court settlement during an interview.
Ray Parker Jr, himself (appearing on the Adam Corolla show in 2015), claimed that he had never met Huey Lewis, did not personally know him, and that he did not know Huey Louis was the first musician approached to compose the Ghostbusters theme song. But Parker's statement must be a deliberate falsehood. After Huey Lewis turned down the theme song offer, it was Ghostbuster director Ivan Reitman who provided "samples" of movie footage containing the Huey Lewis song "I Want a New Drug" (as background music) to Ray Parker. Parker then produced a direct knock-off the Huey Lewis music. No "fee" was paid to Huey Louis for the direct use of his music until after Lewis sued for intellectual property theft. Ray Parker Jr additionally claimed that he didn't and still doesn't know any of the details of the original lawsuit; but that, too, is a falsehood. The settlement paid to Huey Louis was undisclosed but quite sizable, so much so that attorneys for Ivan Reitman and Ray Parker requested a gag order on the settlement (to avoid the perception of an admission of guilt). Ray Parker was allowed to keep the copyright on the Ghostbusters theme, but the fact remains that Parker (AND Ivan Reitman) paid dearly for knowingly ripping off the Huey Lewis song.
2nd May 2018
Casino Royale (1967)
Continuity mistake: When Sir James and Mata Bond infiltrate Dr. Noah's headquarters, they hurry down a corridor with dozens of doorways. There are no flashing lights, but the corridor color repeatedly changes from blue with blue doors to red with red doors from one camera shot to the next.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: And exactly how would this have happened unintentionally? This was obviously done on purpose to create a disorienting, surreal effect. It may not be "realistic" but this is not a movie that concerned with realism.
Your attempt to speculatively explain it away as a stylistic choice does not negate the fact that this is a continuity error in a film that is full of continuity errors. It's important to remember that this film had 6 different directors, as well as disgruntled and uncooperative actors (Peter Sellers even quit and walked out in the middle of production). As a result, the movie has a piece-meal appearance and is riddled with plot holes and continuity errors.
Are you suggesting the two parts of the scene was directed by two different directors and one of them decided to change the color scheme before shooting? Considering the difficulty in creating the two different looks, it is practically impossible for this to have been done accidentally. A break in continuity is not a mistake if it is intentional.
Early in the sequence, Sir James and Mata Bond are looking for an escape route: They glance down one corridor, which is a dead-end that is all blue with blue doors; but they choose another dead-end corridor that is all red with red doors. As they flee down the red corridor, the camera cuts to show them from the front, back and profile as they hurry down the corridor. Although they deliberately chose the red corridor, the color changes from red to blue and back to red from cut to cut. The obvious answer is that they tried alternate takes Sir James and Mata Bond fleeing down the red corridor and then the blue corridor, but then sloppily edited the shots together into one sequence.
19th May 2004
Star Trek (1966)
Corrected entry: Trelane says he studied Earth images that travelled to him at light speed, and earlier they establish Gothos is 900 years from Earth. But Trelane references Napoleon and Hamilton, who weren't around until 1800 or so. That would put this episode in 2700, but the original Trek episodes are set in the 2200's.
Correction: You assume that Trelane lived only on that planet. Rather, Trelane was a powerful energy-entity that did not actually live on the planet, he was just playing with it. Trelane's kind could go anywhere in the galaxy they wanted, at will. In fact, Trelane's parents merely allowed him to play with a whole planet to keep him occupied. As an energy-entity, Trelane had obviously observed Earth from much closer range, at some point, which is when he became fascinated with 18th Century Earth civilization and warfare. But, when the Enterprise encounters him, he's "playing" elsewhere in the galaxy, now 900 light years from Earth.
29th Nov 2004
The Blues Brothers (1980)
Corrected entry: At Bob's Country Bunker, Bob said that the band had consumed $300 worth of beer. Estimating $2 for a bottle of beer, this would mean the group of 10 men drank 150 beers among them - more than enough to get them seriously drunk. Despite this, everyone seemed to be completely sober during their after-show conversation in the parking lot.
Correction: It's a joke the filmmakers inserted in this scene. It is consistent with other exaggerated and "impossible" scenes in the movie showing how tough the main characters are; they are shot at with a flamethrower without bothering to notice, sleep through the demolition of the building they are in, duck missiles and keep on walking, etc. Not to mention the incredible "backflip" they manage with their car.
Correction: Depending on what bar you go to, beer prices can vary widely. Bars can charge whatever they want. Even in 1980, I know there were bars that charged four dollars for a single beer, on draft or in bottle, and strip clubs charged up to seven dollars per beer (and the manager could change prices at will). I mean, there's a good chance that Bob was deliberately overcharging the Blues Brothers Band just to get out of paying them, which seems likely.
9th Mar 2018
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
Corrected entry: They blow up the bridge with what looks like dynamite or TNT. The American civil war ended in 1865, dynamite wasn't invented until 1867 and the explosive properties of TNT were first discovered in 1891.
Correction: Certainly, director Sergio Leone was well known for the plot-holes and anachronisms in his films; however, Nobel invented the electrically-ignited concussive blasting cap in 1863 for detonating dynamite, which suggests that he was already developing dynamite from nitroglycerin. Nobel patented his dynamite formula in 1867, but he was apparently already blowing things up with it as far back as 1863. This still does not explain the burning fuses used in TGTB&TU, which should not detonate stabilized nitroglycerin, anyway. It's possible that they were using black powder sticks. Black-powder sticks require a burning fuse (like a very large firecracker).
18th Nov 2003
The Time Machine (2002)
Corrected entry: In 2020 they talk about the first 20-megaton explosion to create the lunar colony. Then we find out that these blasts have knocked the moon off its orbit causing it to break up. However even a single moderately sized crater on the moon would have been created by a blast an order of magnitude greater then this. How could such small blasts knock the moon out of its orbit while countless meteor impacts have had no effect?
Correction: For the moon to be knocked out of orbit, an object the same size and density would have to strike the moon and at relatively the same speed in the opposite direction. Even if the largest asteroid in our solar system struck the moon (Ceres which is almost 600 miles wide), the moon wouldn't be knocked out of orbit or even destroyed. As to all the comments about mining the moon to reduce its mass, even with unknown future technology, it's a ridiculous assumption. To reduce the mass of the moon by 100th of 1% (0.01%) you would have to remove about 7.35 quadrillion tons, so not trillions. A 1% reduction in mass would require 7.35 sextillion tons removed (not that a 1% reduction in mass would result in the moon being knocked out of orbit), which is over a quintillion tons a day for 7 years straight (1,000 mining facilities each mining out 30 billion tons a second, and currently we don't even mine 16 billion tons on Earth in one year). And a lighter moon would cause the moon to be pulled closer to Earth, not further away. Certainly a movie set in the future can have moon be out of orbit without creating a mistake. But to claim it was from blasting from 20-megaton explosions and mining isn't plausible due to the sheer size of the moon. Remember, the moon is bigger than Pluto.
Correction: All we hear is that the FIRST blast was a 20-megaton explosion, and then later, that the attempts to colonize the moon had knocked it out of orbit. We have NO idea what went on between the year 2030 and 2037, and to say that the moon's orbit was disrupted by 20-megaton blasts is an assumption, nothing more.
Its impossible. A bomb 10,000 times the strength wouldn't do a damn thing to the moon. Not even hundreds of them.
Correction: The mention of "blasting" was associated with lunar mining. Presumably, much of the mined lunar material was being freighted away from the Moon (perhaps and probably back to Earth, but also to other destinations), thereby depleting the Moon's mass over time. We know today that the Moon is gradually moving away from the Earth already under its current mass. Removing the Moon's mass gradually would affect its gravitational relationship to the Earth, eventually leading to the Moon's breakup due to gravitational tidal forces. The "blasting" would have only been the beginning of the calamity.
Sounds ridiculous. Got any idea how much mass they would need to remove from the moon before it would actually affect its orbit? trillions of tons. You need such a big operation of constant removal of huge amounts of material from the moon, for centuries. Not likely. Also, the craters on the moon are caused by meteorites that slammed into it with the power of hundreds if not thousands of megatons of TNT, for billions of years.
Why ridiculous? You have no idea how much material was removed, nor do you have any idea what a future civilization is capable of removing.
They would have to be removing trillions of tons of material from the moon for decades. In 7 years you can't remove enough mass from the moon to affect its orbit causing it to break up, not unless you have Superman doing the work.
Again, you have no idea of a future civilization's mining capabilities.
21st Jan 2018
Stargate (1994)
Factual error: When they first power-up the Stargate in the military facility (using Jackson's decryption), the thing surges to life, and electrical sparks spray out of overloaded connections all around the control room. This could only happen if there were no fuses or electrical breakers in the military's control system, which is a ridiculous notion for such advanced military technology. In real life, a powerful overload situation would instantly burn out fuses and trip breakers and the whole system would simply go dead (there would be no sparks). Showers of sparks are a common error in many science fiction and space fantasy films dating back many decades.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If there would be breakers and fuses then yes, the system would simply go dead and then they would have nothing. They intentionally let the system nearly overload because without power they wouldn't be able to finish the sequence.
No, that's not the way sophisticated (and expensive) electronic technology works. If you have sparks spraying out of electrical connectors, that means you're melting down millions and millions of dollars of hardware. No technician or electrician or even a first-year auto mechanic would intentionally design and hardwire an electrical system without fuses and/or breakers.
They're dealing with Ancient technology. It's quiet possible that such an advanced piece of technology as a Stargate could cause powerful arcs of electricity along lines separated even by tripped breakers.
Ancient technology does not override electrical physics. Modern electrical equipment is protected with fuses and breakers for a reason. If the Stargate technology overrode the parameters of the modern equipment, it would melt down the modern components being protected by the fuses and breakers. Either way, the whole system would shut down.
27th Oct 2017
Chaplin (1992)
Corrected entry: The scene with Douglas Fairbanks (Kevin Kline) climbing the Hollywood sign is historically incorrect. The sign at the time was still "Hollywoodland". The "Land" portion wasn't taken down until 1949.
Correction: The full "Hollywoodland" sign is, in fact, correctly depicted in this scene.
3rd Apr 2017
Final Destination (2000)
Corrected entry: Why are the FBI investigating Alex? After it was determined the plane explosion was a malfunction, they should have left. FBI don't investigate teen suicide, bus accidents or a teacher's death.
Correction: Because he had a vision of the plane "exploding" and find that very weird. Everyone believes that Alex is some freak so why shouldn't the FBI be checking up on him? Added to that, Tod was one of the "survivors" from Flight 180, same with Mrs. Lewton and Terry, so obviously it's all connected and Alex is at the center of it all. Also, Clear said so herself that the "FBI don't investigate teen suicides", so this can't really count as a mistake; again, it's all connected.
Correction: The original script for Final Destination (called "Flight 180") was written in 1994 as an episode of the X-Files TV show, but it was never used for the series. The X-Files was entirely focused on the FBI investigating paranormal events.
Maybe, but as this is not the X-files the FBI would leave after the investigation showed it was an accident. Them sticking around makes 0 sense.
For that matter, expecting the FBI to investigate paranormal phenomena in The X-Files made zero factual sense, also. The fact remains that Final Destination adhered to the original X-Files "Flight 180" script, in which the FBI did, in fact, conduct investigations into apparently paranormal events. Both The X-Files and Final Destination concocted highly unlikely circumstances and relied heavily on the audience's suspension of disbelief.
But again. This wasn't an episode of x files. It's still a mistake.
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: Of course it wouldn't have grounded, it was meant to dock at the pier. They had everything ready at the shore for unloading the ship once it was docked. The bay and dock is thus deeper than 30 feet.
lionhead
Which does not negate the fact that a super-freighter-sized vessel cannot dock at a beach pier. The ocean floor would have to be at least 40 feet deep right off the beach.
Charles Austin Miller
It's not a super-freighter sized vessel, its a medium sized cargo ship, probably around 250 or 300 meters long with a draft of 30 feet at max, if it was full. The scene is shot on a fictional location outside of San Diego on a small dock, you have no idea how deep it is there. I don't see any beaches either so I don't know where you get the idea that its a beach pier.
lionhead
The scene is post-production CGI, it wasn't shot at any location.
Charles Austin Miller
Have you ever seen a pier constructed elsewhere than on a shallow beach? No. Piers are not constructed in deep water.
Charles Austin Miller
A pier can be build at any type of location including a full fledged constructed harbor where cruise-ships or even aircraft carriers can dock at them, like in San Diego itself like the USS Midway Museum (called the navy pier). Piers can be constructed in very deep water, have to be in order for big ships to moor at them.
lionhead
Btw, USS Midway has a draft of 34.5 feet.
lionhead
A dock is different from a pier, in case you didn't know. The construction in this movie is a wooden pier, not a dock. There is no way that a cargo ship (or a super freighter in this case) could pull up to a pier.
Charles Austin Miller
Doesn't matter what you call it, it's a place ships moor at. It's a fictional location and the fact it's wooden is totally irrelevant. If this ship is supposed to moor at it, then the water is deep enough for it to get there. Even if it had a 60 foot draft. Ingen built the dock, the pier, the harbor, everything, for loading and unloading supplies onto big ships.
lionhead
Umm, yeah, it makes a difference what you call it. A dock is where ships moor (deep water). A pier is where people fish (shallow water). The SS Venture crashes into a wooden pier.
Charles Austin Miller
In American English the word is synonymous to dock. Doesn't matter, like I said, the place is meant to have a ship moored at it, it's not a fishing pier.
lionhead