Factual error: The TLAM cruise missiles launched at the runway are subsonic. They could not catch up with and pass the Super Hornets.
FleetCommand
18th Jun 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's not defined how fast the hornets are flying, and considering the mission I doubt that they would be running tanks in order to extend their range - so it could be possible that the hornets are flying slower than the max speed of the TLAM's.
With respect, the film does mention their speed: 660 knots, equal to 1,222 km/h, or Mach 0.99.
That's their speed once the actual attack run began in the canyon. Could have easily been going much slower while on approach over the water.
That's only during the run through the canyon after the missiles hit, and it would be known that something is coming. Until the missiles hit, there's no need to burn the fuel to get there as if they are spotted before missiles impact, the unknown enemy has time to scramble more aircraft than what's already airborne.
F-18 achieves maximum range (best fuel consumption) at 0.83 to 0.85 Mach, which is greater than TLAM's 0.7 Mach.
660 knots indicated, at high altitude, seems like it would be over the speed of sound.
20th Sep 2009
Wall-E (2008)
Corrected entry: All satellites orbiting the earth experience a phenomenon known as "orbital decay" - the process of prolonged reduction in the height of a satellite's orbit. Larger satellites, like those shown in the movie, are especially susceptible to this as they collide with molecules in the outer atmosphere. The satellites depicted in the movie could not possibly have lasted over 700 years in orbit; the Skylab space station, for example, was only able to stay in orbit for six years before it crashed to earth.
Correction: Human technology presented here was able to create, among other things, a huge spaceship filled with a great number of humans over several centuries, with artificial gravity and a whole host of intelligent robots. Building satellites that are able to stay in orbit for a few centuries should be rather easy for them.
"Orbital decay" is the least of the problems here. Thrice throughout the film, we see a densely packed envelope of trashed satellites (which have lost the ability to fight orbital decay). The real threat to this envelope is called a "collisional cascade." The EVE's transport alone must have initiated one. At 0:33:34, we see the ship going through the envelope and... leaves it largely untouched. This is either magic or a movie mistake.
13th Jan 2020
Wall-E (2008)
Continuity mistake: All the makeup that Wall-E has put on him in the repair bay disappears instantly. (00:51:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Simply untrue. At 00:52:43, WALL-E receives a cute make-up. At 00:52:54, WALL-E shakes off its fake eyelashes. At 00:52:57, a suction machine sprays white soap over WALL-E, who activates its wipers (screenshot's top pane). By 00:53:06, WALL-E's face has lost much soap but is still stained. At 00:53:17, WALL-E is clean again, but the suction robot is busy sucking WALL-E's soap (screenshot's bottom pane).
13th Mar 2020
Wall-E (2008)
Character mistake: Captain McCrea tells the passengers that it's the 700th anniversary of the Axiom's first flight. The Axiom has been in flight for 255,642 days. Actually, 700 years is 255,675 days. That figure includes the additional day in 175 leap years.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Leap years only occur because of the earth's rotation around the sun. As the AXIOM is in space, there is no need to correct for the earth's rotation.
First, rotation is the spin of the Earth (which cause day and night). Revolution is the earth orbiting the sun (which causes years). However, this correction is not valid on the premise you're trying to present. Many films set in space still use Earth time, so a day is 24-hours, even though they're in space and there is no sunrise and sunset (although it's stated the Axiom operates on a 25-hour day). So they would use Earth's year, which takes 365.256 days. Since the Axiom isn't orbiting the Sun, it wouldn't experience a year, so they're using something else. The fact that they're slightly off suggests it's a writing mistake and there's no evidence they use an arbitrary 365.203 day year.
That's still wrong. Even if their years were strictly 365 days, 700 years would be 255,500 days, not 255,642.
26th Oct 2020
Enola Holmes (2020)
Factual error: Mrs. Harrison travels to a random, remote country mansion (kilometers away from any civilization), meets a woman who is not her pupil, forcibly takes her measurements, insults her, and slaps her! Nobody in the right mind would do that because they know they would be murdered, harmed, or handed over to the police for trespassing, assault, and battery. (Such outcomes are recurrently portrayed in Sherlock Holmes stories.) Schoolmistresses did use corporal punishment but only on their pupils and within the bounds of school, where they have relative safety. To make matter worse, Mycroft warns Mrs. Harrison in advance. He describes Enola as "unbroken", "a wild and dangerous woman", "a wild child." (Indeed she is; she beats people during the rest of the film. How did Mrs. Harrison escape unscathed?). (00:11:43 - 00:13:46)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: How was she trespassing or going to a 'random' mansion? Mycroft, who owns the mansion and is Enola's guardian, specifically invited her there and enrolled Enola as Mrs. Harrison's pupil. Slapping Enola was out of line (Mrs. Harrison seems to immediately regret it), but not unheard of. And Enola still holds out hope that Mycroft will change his mind. Fighting Mrs. Harrison would just prove to him that she needs discipline. She'd rather play it safe and escape before being sent to school.
The slap wasn't just out of line; in the real-world 19th-century England, it was defensible by death. Enola could kill all three, call the police, and allege killing trespassers. The worst verdict an inquest could return was "death due to misadventure." Or Enola could just kill all three and nobody would be the wiser. Read the original Sherlock Holmes books to find out why. Things didn't happen as they they'd happen in real-life... because the director said so.
Except it would be incredibly easy to prove that they'd been there at Mycroft's (the homeowner's) invitation, and Sherlock and the housekeeper also knew they were guests. It would also seem rather out of character for Enola to kill a teacher, let alone a couple of innocent dressmakers, don't you think?
Proof of Mycroft's invitation merely changes the inquest's verdict from "lawful killing" to "death by misadventure." It is out of character for a real-world Ms. Harrison, the epitome of decorum, to slap someone outside the school without fear of reprisal. (Does she have no self-preservation instinct?) It is out of character for a real-world Mycroft, an upper-class mansion owner, not to kill Ms. Harrison in defense of his honor. The Mycroft of this film is a 21st-century American redneck.
He's a redneck because his first response wasn't to kill a woman? It's a moot point. Enola never told anyone she'd been slapped.
Mycroft Holmes, the smartest man in the world, must have deduced something was wrong at point 13:53 when he saw the distressed Enola. After all, his inferior brother Sherlock has made more impressive deductions. And yes, the Englanders of that era could be deadly when somebody stepped out of bounds. Most importantly, you've stopped defending the original mistake and are now content to attack me for whatever reason. I think we're done here.
9th Jan 2023
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022)
Stupidity: The Disruptors have been close friends for well over a decade, and one of the other guests is Duke's girlfriend who has been living with him for at the very least one year (she was at the previous meeting). Yet nobody seems to have the slightest suspicion or recollection about his pineapple allergy, so lethal that it kills him in a few seconds, even more amazing considering that the favourite drink of one of those drinking buddies of his (who is sitting on his lap in one of the flashbacks) is exactly what would kill him; the topic of contamination surely must have been touched upon. (01:00:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The disruptors were never close friends. According to 1:19:50, they were Andi's "pack." Andi discovered their potential in 2010 because she was an entrepreneur. They were so unfaithful to Andi that they had no qualms perjuring themselves in the Brand v. Bron case. At 1:27:07, Whiskey describes the group's relationship as fake. She says the group's gatherings are "the worst." The only things each of the Disruptors ever cared for was Bron's "golden titties."
Is the correction just about the usage of the adjective "close" on my part? I mean, fair, but I don't see how that changes the absurdity of the fact that these people (the victim's girlfriend and his "pack", "friends", "group", etc.) who have been hanging out at the bar, shown drinking together and established knowing each other for years and years, somehow are oblivious to the violent allergy of this person - something Duke himself is not secretive about and that they know would kill him with just a drop. It's the typical unrealistic dumbing down/forgetfulness of whoever in a wuddunit is not the main character (hence a stupidity, never painted it as a plot hole).
I get it. You say it is stupid that a group of friends know each other so poorly. I'm saying they were never friends. They cared for their own benefits. Hence, they never sought to know each other, let alone care.
9th Jan 2023
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022)
Plot hole: Benoit Blanc ruins on purpose the murder dinner party because, allegedly, someone is really trying to kill Miles, and he wants to warn him that it's not a game. But as we know later, Blanc is actually trying to investigate the murder of Andi Brand and he does not really think that Miles Bron is in danger. In fact he is positively convinced that everyone has motives to kill in order to protect Miles and all he wants to be on the island for is to gather clues and investigate. Cutting the game short does not serve his purpose at all, in fact it defeats it. Had he played along, both Helen and him would have had a perfect excuse to investigate. In fact it is a miracle that nobody went back to their rooms right away after that tense moment, instead of being busy with the opening investigation; you even see that they are groaning and complaining and want to leave. The movie explains away most of the other details but none about this.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Blanc knew he couldn't hide Helen's identity for long. He said so at 1:15:15. His fear was justified when Duke discovered Helen's identity on the night of her arrival. In short, Blanc and Helen were on a clock.
Regardless of how little time they had left (Blanc estimated "another week", so the leak happens presumably earlier than he anticipated), ruining the dinner does not serve the purpose; gives "Andi" less time to search the rooms, which is what Blanc planned her to do.
If the game was allowed to proceed, Helen would have been forced to play along. Any behavior, other than playing along, would have been suspicious.
9th Jan 2023
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022)
Stupidity: Of course, it's a movie with a heavy comedic tone and it's a rather cathartic scene, but still it's worth noting that Benoit Blanc had no way to know that making the whole HOUSE (full of glass shrapnel, too) explode wouldn't gravely injure or kill anyone. What a ruthless fellow.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The scene at point 2:06:02 suggests the opposite. Blanc knew the house would explode violently, hoped everyone would get injured, and sat watching it while helping himself and Derol to a cigar. Bron was guilty of two counts of first-degree murder. The remainder were accessories to the crime, having already pledged to perjure themselves. Their sentence would be death if it were not for their destruction of evidence. So, all Blanc needed was a sense of justice, not ruthlessness.
Helen, the innocent sister of the original murder, is in the building too. I wouldn't want to say that he hoped *everyone* would get injured, just the bad guys but that's the point. It's simply a case of an absurd decision that puts to mortal risk everyone but has no negative consequences "because movie."
9th Jan 2023
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022)
Plot hole: There is a pivotal moment when Duke poolside casually says; "remember that night when..." That is a mighty strange way for him to mention the very last time the two met, barely two weeks earlier. Miles was not even supposed to be in the country, but Duke, who later jumps straight to casual blackmail once he gets the Google alert about Andi, never mentions that to Miles before or since. Miles cut him off pretending he meant "Anderson Cooper", but for the rest of the movie he struggles and has no leverage on Miles to the point that he pimps his girlfriend out to him. Furthermore, he mentioned the "pancaking" to the other friends, but somehow never mentioned it was Miles. If he was not going to take advantage of that, then he had no reason at all to keep the secret, especially with the lot of them hanging out for an hour waiting at Andi's door. Anyone would have mentioned the fact already back then, or if they realised it was important, would have already started to use it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When Duke says "remember that night," he doesn't know that Andi is dead. At this point, he thinks Miles went to Andi's house (just as they all did) and didn't go in. Miles has reason to cut him short, though. Attempted murder is also a crime.
I can't stress enough how absurd it is that he'd tell his friends and co-conspirators that he nearly had an accident without mentioning WHO with. They are banging at the door of Andi without a clue for ages, over a matter that has Miles at the center of everything. That's not how human interactions work. They all are outside her house, and he does not mention the identity of the person responsible for the accident? Again, one could only withhold information like this if there is a purpose.
Feel free to file this one under another mistake entry.
23rd Aug 2014
Ratatouille (2007)
Corrected entry: When Linguini is exiting the pantry after just being confronted by Skinner, the light from the kitchen illuminates Linguini's hat, revealing a silhouette of his hair. Remy's silhouette is not seen. A shot from inside the hat shows that Remy is sitting upright, not even trying to hide in his hair.
Correction: I just checked the film. There are four shots to which this description applies: 0:37:30, 0:37:32, 0:37:44, and 0:37:46. In all four, the cap is opaque. There is no transparency. Therefore, there is no mistake.
12th Aug 2019
The Princess and the Frog (2009)
Plot hole: When Charlotte kissed Naveen at the end, she should've turned into a frog as well because she was no longer a princess.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When ordinary people kiss a frog, they don't transform into anything. (Perhaps they die from infection after a few days.) Charlotte was just an ordinary person. Tiana was chosen. She wished upon the star. Naveen and the consequences of kissing Naveen were a result of Tiana's wish.
Suggested correction: How? She was no longer a princess.
Tiana turned into a frog because she kissed Naveen without being a princess, so Charlotte should have, too.
Tiana broke the talisman that the voodoo man had, thus breaking any more frog-turning spell. I know Mama Odie said that Naveen and Tiana broke the spell when they got married, but Dr. Facilier was still responsible for the spell in the first place, and he died, so there's that.
2nd Nov 2017
Fracture (2007)
Plot hole: *SPOILER* Toward the end of the movie, Ryan Gosling goes to Hopkins' house where Hopkins is tricked into not only confessing again, but giving Gosling the murder weapon, after they are back in court and Gosling is the acting prosecutor. This would be a conflict of interest due to the fact that Gosling is a witness.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: First, the gun that Beachum took from Crowford's house was not the murder weapon. It was Crowford's unfired gun. He only took it out of the fear of his life. Second, Beachum entered Crowford's house with police supervision. If he plays it by the book, Crowford's confession is valid. In that case, supervising officers will stand witness, along with a recording confirming their testimony. Third, Beachum doesn't need the confession anymore. He was amply clear on that matter.
You are on point for the corrections, but they involve just mostly context/details, don't they? The text of the entry should be polished a little, but the core issue is valid, I think; Beachum would never be the acting prosecutor in a case when he is the key witness as well. If it's a case for the "murder," he has to be on the stand for practically everything; even if we exclude him from the confession to the shooting, as you suggest (and even if it should never be litigated to begin with), he still is integral to the pulling the plug phase (he was literally there as it happened and did everything to prevent it). We can just assume that he will be forced to hand the prosecuting role over to someone else later, and he was just there for 5 minutes to gloat before the movie credits run, but it's kind of funny.
Beachum doesn't have to testify, neither for the confession part nor for the "pulling of the plug." I've already covered the former. For the latter, the fact that the woman is now dead is enough. If necessary, the attending doctors could testify that the woman "would have outlived all of them."
Beachum received the confession under "police supervision," as you called it, which still involved him being the only person in the house with the defendant. You mentioned a recording in the earlier comment; are we just to assume he took one, or is there a visual hint I missed? He was also the person who fought for the court order to the point of being physically tackled in front of the victim's deathbed—so doctors and security staff defiant of such an order would be on trial too, I suppose? Since, again, this 'murder' was not even committed by Crawford. So how would Beachum not be a crucial witness, often the only witness to cover that part of the story?
OK. You want to assume Crawford's confession was for the viewer's benefit entirely, and there was no wiretapping? Fine. The police have the gun now, hence proof of the first actus reus. Hospital staff tackled Beachum, but Crawford can't pin the murder on them when he has two counts of actus reus and twice demonstrated mens rea. Courts always hear such nonsense as "I didn't kill him; I shot him. The bullet and the fall killed him" (Collateral, 2006). Shooting someone is actus reus.
I am sure you are right on the Latin, especially since it's hard to imagine the trial going the way it went the first time around to begin with, and I am not getting into the rabbit hole of what exactly could legally be relitigated. But still and again, what does this have to do with the original point being made, that some other guy would be the one leading the trial, since Beachum would be realistically called in as a witness, even a hostile one? I mean, I honestly didn't think it would be much of a point of contention; it's just something there for the audience. I followed the lead about the 'witness' part the OP ended on, but seriously, a conflict of interest would be invoked just because of all the personal first-hand, hands-on involvement in the facts.
I explicitly told you what happens if the court struck the confession from the record. (The gun happens.) And yet, here you are, saying "Beachum would be realistically called in as a witness"! This correction is turning into a confrontation. Also, don't conflate "involvement" with "conflict of interest." The latter means someone has different de facto and de jure motives. Beachum always had one motive: to convict Crawford.
Far from me to be confrontational, and sorry if I came across that way. I guess I simply don't get it; it happens. Specifically, if I stated again the point about the witness, it wasn't because I was blindly disregarding what you said (check the words immediately after the ones you quoted), but it's pointless to delve further into something that goes beyond the original mistake. You just directly addressed the meaning of conflict of interest, which was what the OP talked about. I simply felt the initial correction posted was not doing that; now it does, and I am not disputing your knowledge on the topic, especially not having any of my own. Cheers.
9th Oct 2020
Enola Holmes (2020)
Plot hole: No sooner than the film begins, Mycroft becomes the legal guardian of Enola; Sherlock accepts it without question. How on Earth did that happen? No coroner would grant a transference of guardianship just because someone's mother stepped out of the house and didn't return for a day or two. (00:11:37)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The brothers obviously think that Enola's mother is out of her mind; Being the elder brother, Mycroft would immediately have had to take responsibility over Enola. Even if the mother did only go away for a day or two, Enola would still have required a guardian.
The brothers might as well think whatever they want. The UK's laws still mandate an inquest and a coroner's decision.
9th Oct 2020
Enola Holmes (2020)
Plot hole: Enola and Tewkesbury make an unpremeditated decision to visit the Basilwether estate. This decision was made on the spur of the moment, and no-one knew about it. but when they arrive, Linthorn, who is supposed to be in London looking for Tewkesbury, is waiting in ambush to kill them. (01:32:45 - 01:34:31)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Linthorn saw them in London. He travelled back to the Basilweather estate, and waited for them to slowly make their way there.
Enola and the young Tewkesbury were in London two weeks prior to Enola's forced enrollment in a boarding school where she was supposed to spend her next few years! Furthermore, there is no evidence of Linthorn having seen them.
7th Nov 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Other mistake: The film's premise is attacking a target that GPS jamming protects. As the attack starts, it is becomes apparent that no such protection is in place. GPS jamming is a form of radio frequency jamming. It would severely affect all radio communications. But planes and their command carrier are in constant, undeterred radio contact. Moreover, the enemy uses radar-guided SA-3 Goa SAM units that would have been unable to operate properly in jamming conditions.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: GPS jamming is transmitting radio signals on GPS frequencies, not all radio frequencies. It might prevent GPS being used for navigation or weapon aiming, but it would have little or no effect on radios or radar which use different frequency bands. At the risk of oversimplifying, it's like you could shine a bright flashlight to blind people trying to see you, but it wouldn't stop them using infra red (or hearing or smell or whatever else).
This correction is a mistake in itself. Without wide-spectrum jamming, the U.S. Navy never needed to use NAVFLIR for payload guidance. The site would be open to attacks from other radio-guided weapons, such as NAVCON guidance, standoff missile, and operator-guided bombs, especially since they were hard-pressed to guide their payload through a small window and ensure the survivability of their pilots.
In the movie they say GPS jamming, not wide spectrum jamming. GPS could be affected, but radar etc would still work. Like you say, the site would still be open to other attacks, and be able to use various defences.
It doesn't really matter. Maverick was told that GPS is jammed, so he threw all kinds of attack plans based on radio guidance out of the window, behaving as if there was a full-spectrum jamming in place. And his commanding officers didn't mind. Either the film's mistake is in its depiction of U.S. Navy's understanding of aerial warfare or its depictions of aerial warfare itself. There is huge mistake in there, it is only a matter of where.
15th Oct 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Factual error: One of the major plot points is the second aircraft "buddy lasing" so that the bombs will hit the target. Since the target is a non-moving structure, the coordinates would have been programmed into the mission computer onboard the aircraft ahead of time so there would be no reason to have to manually find and aim the laser to guide the bombs.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It was mentioned in the movie that the location was GPS jammed, so they cannot get the exact coordinates for the bunker beforehand, therefore it requires this mission to have the F-18/A pairs and buddy lase the bombs to the target.
That's another mistake. GPS jamming is a form of radio frequency jamming. There is no such jamming in place. The aircraft are in constant two-way contact with their carrier group.
GPS is only one part of the radio frequency spectrum. Radar is another, radio communications another (actually a number of different frequencies). A GPS jammer does not block radio communication - unless it's a broad spectrum jammer - which could then interfere with the radar they are flying low to avoid. In the first gulf war GPS jammers were sold to Iraq by Russia - and the US mentioned that several were destroyed with GPS guided devices.
And that's yet another mistake. Without a broad spectrum jammer in place, F-35 could deliver its payload using NAVCON guidance. Another issue is that the so-called GPS jamming was so clean it didn't even cause crackle on other radio frequencies.
7th Jun 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Deliberate mistake: When Maverick is in the bar texting Iceman, Iceman's sentence-long responses come almost immediately after Maverick sends his messages, without enough time having elapsed for Iceman to have typed them out. Compare this to the later scene at the selectively mute Iceman's house, where he types out various sentences for Maverick to read, and the amount of time it takes him to type them out is more of what one would expect.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Typing on a PC keyboard isn't the same as typing on a smartphone. The former requires proper coordination of both hands. The latter may use AI-assisted predictive suggestions and auto-correct. Microsoft's discontinued SwiftKey could predict all of Iceman's responses.
Predictive text and autocorrect still wouldn't account for Iceman's responses appearing on Maverick's screen almost immediately after Maverick sends his texts to Iceman. It would still take at least a few seconds for that to happen. The reason this is a deliberate mistake because they didn't want to waste screen time showing Iceman's responses appearing in a more realistic time-frame.
Iceman's typing starts at 0:21:51 and ends at 0:21:58. That's more than long enough. Maverick is twice as fast and we see his typing on the screen. He can type a whole sentence between 0:21:58 to 0:22:01. And it seems natural to me.
Maverick texts "The kid's not ready for this mission." Iceman responds "No one is," and roughly 2 seconds later a separate text appears, in which he says "That's why you're here." No amount of predictive text or autocorrect can both type out that sentence that quickly as well as deliver it to the recipient's phone.
First, in the real world, Iceman would be typing even as he hits the Send message. Maverick's phone would stop displaying the "Iceman is typing..." message to do the unfurl animation, but Iceman is still typing. Second, yes, Microsoft's AI-assisted SwiftKey could. Iceman types "That's" and SwiftKey guesses the rest. This degree of intelligent predication is mundane! Microsoft's IntelliCode predicts the C# code you'd want to write.
27th Sep 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Corrected entry: Phoenix says Hangman is the only active-duty pilot in the Navy with a confirmed kill, but she is wrong because Maverick has 3 confirmed kills and is still an active-duty Navy pilot, even though he has been flying test aircraft. (00:25:10)
Correction: She says, "you are looking at the only naval aviator on active duty with a confirmed air-to-air kill." She isn't wrong. Maverick was not an active-duty navy aviator since three years before that moment and would not become one until near the end of the film, i.e, a week later. Second, films are allowed to show characters that make in-universe mistakes. She corrects herself near the end of the film at 1:58:20, saying Maverick is an active-duty navy pilot with five kills.
Maverick is still an active duty Naval aviator the entire time.
Active duty yes; his designator was a test pilot, not a naval aviator at the time.
People on active duty get promoted based on their service length. In this film, Maverick has not received a promotion for 30 years, and more importantly, has not scored a single aerial kill in 30 years.
He's had a few promotions in 30 years. In 1986, he was an O-3. In this film, he is an O-6. He hasn't been promoted at the same rate as his peers, for sure, but that's just who he is. He didn't want to be in a position where he couldn't fly anymore. On that note, he's not assigned to a Fighter Squadron at the beginning of the film, but to a test pilot billet - so technically, Phoenix was correct in her thinking if not her choice of words.
Cyclone graduated in 1988. 34 years later, he's an Admiral and air boss. Maverick graduated two years earlier and stayed a Captain for Amelia's entire life, despite having flown missions in Iraq, among other things. Where did all his service time go? The answer is a "dishonorable discharge." He got his service time annulled because of his escapades involving "The Admiral" (Penny's father), "the Other Admiral", and Admiral Cain. He got fired. In the real world, he'd get fired upon.
You are assuming way too much. While it's true that the Navy would likely encourage him to retire long before the events of the new movie, it's spelled out in the film that he hasn't advanced because he wants to keep flying. He's a maverick, plain and simple. If he has to piss off an Admiral to keep from getting promoted to a desk job, he'd do it.
Let me quote what you just said: "it's spelled out in the film that he hasn't advanced!" There you go. Do you know what else has been spelled out in the film? That at 00:25:10 film time, Hangman was the only active-duty pilot in the Navy with a confirmed kill.
No, it's spelled out that he is the only active naval aviator with a kill. Maverick is not a naval aviator anymore; he is a test pilot. Different designators.
18th Jun 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Corrected entry: The only export customer for the Tomcat was Iran. But the "fifth gen" enemy fighters were PAK FA (Sukhoi T-50 / Su-57) which are flown only by Russia.
Correction: Entertainment films deliberately fictionalize something in our world, per their story-telling tradition. That's deliberate and is exactly what sets them apart from a security camera feed. Another thing that you see in the film that doesn't exist IRL is Captain Pete "Maverick" Mitchell.
16th Oct 2010
Kung Fu Panda (2008)
Corrected entry: When master Shifu is trying to show Po how to do a perfect split, Tigress breaks clay over Po's head. Violating the laws of physics, the larger piece of the clay falls last and the powder of the clay falls first.
Correction: The entire 92 minutes of the film consist of nothing but violations of the laws of physics. Po survives painful falls from ungodly heights, Tai Long flies, and anthropomorphic characters get smashed into stone walls and shatter the stones instead of getting turned into dust. They are part of the fantasy genre of the film. Critiques call them cartoon violence.
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.