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.
15th Oct 2018
Venom (2018)
Corrected entry: Venom kills the mugger at the end in the convenience store, but when Eddie is leaving there is no sign of the body behind him.
Correction: Venom ate him.
15th Oct 2018
Venom (2018)
Corrected entry: When Carlton Drake is giving the tour to the children, he gives the pin on his lapel to a girl, but it's suddenly on his lapel again when he's interviewed by Eddie.
Correction: His assistant says he needs to get ready for his interview, implying some time passes between the two scenes. He simply put another one on in between scenes, since it has his company's logo on it, and he'd want to show it off.
11th Oct 2018
From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
Corrected entry: When Sex Machine is turning into a vampire, he hears a voice in his head saying "Kill them. Kill them." This is most likely a homage to the original Friday the 13th film where the killer Mrs Voorhees hears similar voices saying "Kill mom. Kill mom." Tom Savini who played Sex Machine did the special effects for that film.
Correction: This observation seems like a minor coincidence at best. Sex Machine is literally hearing a mass of voices saying random things, with "Kill them" (a pretty generic phrase heard in many horror films) simply being among them, whereas the sound in the "Friday the 13th" (a shortening of Pamela's repeated phrase "Kill her mommy", shortened to "Ki-ki-ki-ma-ma-ma") isn't literally meant to be something she hears, but more a background ambient sound in the musical score. (And it was done so vaguely done and unintelligible, they later recycled it in every other film as a generic "spooky noise.").
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.
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 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.
18th Jul 2017
Lucy (2014)
Corrected entry: The gazelle that is chased and killed by a cheetah early in the movie is male (i.e. with antlers) when chased and killed but it is female seconds later when the cheetah carries it away. (00:07:45)
Correction: The instance you're referring to (the cutaways comprised of nature footage early in the film) are meant to be symbolic momentary implications of Lucy's mental state in montage form, and are not literal scenes within the context of the film. Hence, they jump around, are different every time, etc. Therefore it's not really a continuity mistake - we're just shown random shots of cheetah attacks to show how vulnerable she is in the situation.
21st Jul 2018
Halloween (2007)
Corrected entry: The way Michael pins a guy on the wall using a knife is exactly like he did in the original version.
Correction: Given that this is a direct remake, especially in the second half, I don't think noting various similarities should be considered valid trivia. There'd need to be far too many entries, and it's not really something that'd be considered interesting or notable since it's expected.
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.
23rd Apr 2018
A Quiet Place (2018)
Corrected entry: How did the Death Angel reach the basement while it got flooded? It seems to have magically appeared, and never took the staircase.
Correction: We never see how it gets in, but it seems to just sort-of be poking and looking around when Everylyn wakes up, so in all probability it just found the opening above and crawled down inside to check the room out. Just because we don't see how it got down doesn't make it a plot-hole.
6th Jun 2018
Jigsaw (2017)
Corrected entry: The scars on the back of Logan are inclined, but the saws in the beginning were arranged horizontally. (00:47:00)
Correction: Logan is seen struggling and wriggling about, which is totally understandable. Hence, the cuts on his back aren't perfectly straight, and are at different angles - he was moving the entire time.
5th Aug 2008
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)
Corrected entry: The emperor's general had all his limbs pulled out by horse at the first of the movie, but when the general is raised he only has one arm missing.
Correction: In addition to the other correction, a deleted scene confirms this. His back is broken by the horses, and one of his arms is ripped off, but otherwise he stays in (mostly) one piece.
Correction: You never actually see his limbs torn off. It's implied, but the shot moves away from him as the horses take off. He could have one arm still attached.
13th Apr 2005
Rumble in the Bronx (1995)
Corrected entry: The voices were added to the movie later which is why half of the time the voices don't match up to their mouths.
Correction: This is because the movie is dubbed. Not a mistake.
Correction: To add to the other correction, the actors all spoke their native tongues during filming. Hence some were speaking English and the dubbing looks more-or-less natural, whereas others spoke Chinese, and thus look noticeably dubbed.
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.
17th May 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Corrected entry: Before Thor gets the axe he has no cape, but when he gets to earth he does.
Correction: Yes, because getting the mystical axe regenerates both him and his costume, just like retrieving Mjolnir in the first Thor film did.
13th Oct 2002
Red Dragon (2002)
Corrected entry: When Ralph Fiennes is in the Brooklyn museum, and hits the woman showing him the painting, over the head, you hear the sound before he actually hits her.
Correction: I concur with the other correction. Just loaded up my copy and the sound definitely plays right when contact is made.
15th May 2018
Jigsaw (2017)
Corrected entry: During the final scene with the laser collar traps, we can see that there are seven lasers attached to the collar (as per the bottom-up view of the beams burning through the ceiling above Halloran.) However, when the trap goes off, it makes eight cuts (as per the top-down view of Halloran's former head).
Correction: The cuts all line up perfectly, so one could assume that the "extra slice" on the back of his head is from the laser in the front, as the slices on the front and back line up. It just depends on how strong the laser-cutters are. As indicated earlier in the film, they are strong enough to slice through metal quickly and with ease, so it could be assumed that they would go through flesh and bone like butter. (You also gotta remember, the bone in the skull is actually pretty thin for the most part).
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.
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.