Plot hole: The Riot symbiote inhabits the body of the paramedic immediately after the crash at the beginning, then goes into the body of an old woman who goes to the airport and proceeds to take control of a little girl who's going on a flight to San Fransisco. Riot then takes over Carlton Drake's body. The entirety of these events would need to have taken six months, for it to be consistent with the timeline of the rest of the film.
TedStixon
9th Oct 2018
Venom (2018)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Riot only arrives at the airport as the old woman after 6 months. There is no reason given why Riot decides to stay in the body of the woman for so long, but not giving a reason doesn't make it a plot hole. It stayed in the old woman for 6 months maybe because it needed to gather strength or devise a plan.
The director has even admitted it's a plot hole. Regardless, the film does nothing to suggest it was doing anything other than traveling towards its destination, so this does constitute a plot hole.
Why does it constitute as a plot hole if it's traveling towards its destination? Why does one thing imply the other?
It's a plot hole because it's absolutely ridiculous that it would take six full months to do that. That's a few days worth of activity... maybe a week. As I said, the director even admitted it was a plot-hole.
18th Aug 2018
The Shape of Water (2017)
Corrected entry: In the film it is advised that the creature be maintained at 5 - 8% salinity. The sea is only around 3.5%. It seems odd that he should need so much salt.
Correction: The film states he's not from the ocean. He's from a specific, presumably fictional, area of the Amazon where he was worshiped as a god. We can simply assume the area has water with a higher salinity level than ocean water. (As there are places around the world that have water with significantly higher salinity levels than ocean water).
Those bodies of water on the earth's surface with much higher salt content are invariably isolated lakes and inland seas that were formerly connected to the oceans in the distant past. Such high-salt lakes are the result of many millennia (even millions of years) of evaporation and reduction, which results in the nearby terrain becoming almost devoid of vegetation (due to the increasingly high alkalinity of the surrounding water table). So, you would expect to see near-desert-like conditions in the vicinity of isolated salt lakes and inland seas and virtually no large wildlife (except maybe migrating flamingos at certain times of the year). Point is, while there is evidence of "marine incursion" across the northern half of South America as far back as 14 million years ago (which did, in fact, produce the largest salt flats in the world at Uyuni, Bolivia), these salt lakes are very hostile and even toxic to complex life. Large animals, such as gill-people, simply couldn't have evolved there, with a saline content more than twice that of the ocean and virtually no food chain.
He's meant to be a river god, as confirmed by the director, who wrote: "It is a river God. It's not an animal. It's a river God in the Amazon. There was never another one." Therefore, it's entirely possible he survived in such a harsh environment and thrived.
18th Jul 2018
Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
Corrected entry: Throughout the movie the cars and building are shrunk down to size and carried by people. Though the size has changed, their mass hasn't. In this and the original film it is specified that the Pym Particle works by reducing the distance between atoms. That's absurd, but in the context of the film that is what happens. This means that a human reduced to the size of an ant would have an unimaginable density, and thus his mass and weight would stay the same. There's no way the characters could carry those things with little or no effort, they would weigh as much as they did before they were shrunk.
Correction: While it's easy to miss, there actually is some brief dialogue in the first film when Scott is learning about the suit that establishes the rules. In addition to shrinking and growing, things like mass, energy and weight are also affected by the Pym-Particles. Sure, perhaps it's not 100% realistic, but the films do address these issues and offer explanation. Hence people can carry around shrunken buildings, tanks, cars, etc.
In this, and the previous film, it is specified that the Pym particles work by reducing the distance between atoms. That is utterly impossible, of course, but in the context of the film that is what happens. This means that shrunken or expanded articles or people retain their mass and weight. This is an inescapable mistake for both films, and the original posting is correct.
Here's the problem with this reply - the first film specifically states that it's not just the distance between particles that's being altered - other properties change along with them as a result of the Pym particle. The fact of the matter is yes, you can try to apply real-world logic to it and pick it apart, but the films do an adequate job explaining why it's possible to do things like carry buildings or tanks around so long as they are shrunken down, or for a plastic children's toy to become a destructive object when enlarged, as they are effected by the mysterious properties of the Pym particle. Hence, it shouldn't be considered a mistake unless a specific scene contradicts something else shown earlier in the film.
The shrinking works differently on inanimate objects. It's the suits that let the person being shrunk to maintain its mass, anything else being shrunk loses its mass. Blowing stuff up works differently though, the technology to do that is just different. The way Pym particles work is one thing, but how all of the technology involved works is a totally different thing.
Correction: This isn't a mistake so to speak. The abilities of Ant-Man and the whole shrinking and growing thing is very much a comic book thing. And the only way these movies even work at all is through the suspension of disbelief.
Maybe, but in the first film they explicitly state that even though the shrinking technology makes objects sizes' smaller, it doesn't change their mass.
15th Jul 2003
Robocop 2 (1990)
Continuity mistake: When RoboCop is being scraped up against the wall creating a shower of sparks, we cut to views of Cain. In one of these shots of Cain, the background suddenly changes - the wall he's scraping up against is nowhere to be seen and the sparks vanish. In the other shots of Cain, the background is correct. For some reason, a shot was taken from another part in the sequence and added in here, creating an odd continuity gaffe in the background. (01:02:02)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is not correct. When they show the interior shots, you can see the red brick wall out of the window.
This correction is untrue. You can find the scene on YouTube (look up the video "Robocop 2 (6/11) Movie Clip - Demolition Ride" and pay attention from about 0:55 - 0:58), and the background is definitely totally different - different type of brick, graffiti is missing, there's no sparks and it's in the distance. The original mistake is correct.
31st Jul 2018
Men in Black (1997)
Question: I loaded the film up on Netflix, and it seems that the dialogue in one scene was edited. In the standard cut of the film, Jeebs says "You insensitive prick!" to K, but in the version I saw on Netflix, Jeebs says "You insensitive jerk!" What's the deal with the Netflix version changing this one single line? The original "prick" line appears to be on both the VHS and Blu-Ray edition I own.
Answer: After a little research, I discovered that the line was changed in the UK release from "prick" to "jerk." So the most likely explanation I can find is that the Netflix version is taken from a UK master of the film. As mentioned in other comments, Netflix doesn't censor their films, so the other answer regarding the film being edited like movies shown on airplanes isn't accurate. (Not to mention, it'd make no sense for Netflix to edit this one profanity while leaving all the others intact if they were editing it for content).
I agree it's the UK version. I don't know if it's a licensing thing or cheaper, but I've notice Netflix will use the UK release version on a number of films. I'm not familiar with "prick" as a UK slang but I believe it's more graphic than US slang, similar to the word "fanny", and edited for the UK release.
Answer: In fact, it's done twice. When talking about Frank the pug, the standard edit has K saying "I just hope the little prick hasn't skipped town." The streaming version doesn't. I say streaming version because I just discovered that the Amazon version of this film edited out the word "prick," and I didn't realise the Netflix version had too. I'm in the US, so what's going on here?
Generally the changes people notice in films when watching Netflix or other services come from the fact that they're airing the UK release version (for whatever reason). I remember the first time people really noticed this was when Scooby-Doo 2 changed the product placement from Burger King to KFC (which I commented on).
Answer: As more films become available online and are accessible to a wider audience, the studios edit mature content that is unacceptable to under-aged viewers. It's the same as movies that are shown on airplanes where the adult content is edited or removed altogether.
Netflix doesn't censor their movies, though... So this explanation makes no sense.
It just seems odd, as Netflix basically never censors content in other films they host (since they're supposed to be hosting the officially released versions anyways), and the rest of the profanity/violence in this particular film is unedited.
31st May 2017
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Corrected entry: After freeing himself from the symbiote, the symbiote begins to fall into the area where Eddie is. In an overhead view, the symbiote is seen rapidly attaching itself to Eddie's arms and covering them. The very next shot shows the symbiote rapidly enveloping his arms again.
Correction: Just watched the scene to check and this is incorrect. The first shot (the overhead shot) merely shows the symbiote grabbing onto his shoulders. We never see it covering/enveloping his arms until the second shot.
I have seen the scene to and the overhead shot does indeed showing the symbiote covering his arms and then covering his arms again when a close up of his transformation is happening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqdiN5cFgZs&app=desktop.
I just watched the link you sent. While it's true that his right arm (mainly the hand and forearm) is starting to be covered in the overhead shot, there's no inconsistency. The amount of symbiote on him is the same at the end of the overhead shot and the start of the next shot where we see him. So it's still not a mistake.
27th Oct 2013
Curse of Chucky (2013)
Plot hole: When Chucky is decapitated, no blood comes out. He still has the scars from Bride/Seed of Chucky so that means he's still in the same doll's body. The longer he remains inside the doll the more human he becomes, so he should definitely bleed by this point in time.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There's no telling exactly how his Voodoo works.
1st Nov 2013
Curse of Chucky (2013)
Factual error: Chucky is not tall enough to rev the engine of the car in the garage when trying to suffocate Nica.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I watched the scene and it's clear Chucky wasn't using a brick on the accelerator to rev the engine. However, Nica is paralyzed and there are devices you can install on a car that allows a paralyzed person to operate the gas and brake from the steering wheel, so Chucky could rev the engine without touching the gas pedal.
Suggested correction: All he would have to do is stand on the gas pedal.
He's standing at the wheel the entire scene. He's not tall enough to be doing that and pressing the gas pedal.
He could have used a brick or something to keep the gas pedal down and then climbed up to the wheel.
Except if you watch the scene, the engine revs up and down, not something putting a brick on the gas pedal would do.
26th Feb 2018
Jigsaw (2017)
Revealing mistake: At the beginning when the coroner cuts the bucket off the body, the metal is red hot and her pinky touches it. Not only does it not burn the glove but it doesn't burn her.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The metal is not red hot, it was cut by a laser that gives off a small amount of smoke. Nothing says the metal is hot. So no burn is reasonable.
Your correction suggestion completely contradicts how laser-cutters work. The metal would definitely be hot if cut with a laser cutter. That's how laser cutters work - they essentially melt the material they're pointed at in a very controlled fashion, and they do indeed get quite hot.
Smoke doesn't make the metal glow red, that would be heat. Also for the laser to cut through thr metal it needs to heat it up.
14th Jun 2016
Captain America: Civil War (2016)
Question: How did Tony know about Spiderman's real identity?
Chosen answer: He's a multimillionaire with unlimited resources. He probably had his AI do some digging - facial recognition on the picture/video he had?
As evidenced in "Iron Man 3", Tony can easily access GPS, satellite imagery, files, etc. and be able to investigate events even better than the authorities. (Remember that he was able to create an accurate 3D map of the Chinese Theater bombing and work it out when nobody else could.) He very likely was able to use the information available to deduce Parker's identity by tracing his steps, noticing patterns, working out likely candidates, etc., even though nobody else could.
28th Jun 2008
Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)
Continuity mistake: Whenever Goldmember undresses. it causes a gold glow to light up the surrounding area. Later on in the movie when he reveals the 'second key', it stops producing this effect.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: We still see the glow as he's getting the key.
I believe he's referring to the fact that once removed, the key is no longer glowing, even though the film indicated it glowed.
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.