Corrected entry: Where did Ash's chainsaw go? He uses it once to get out of the pit, once to dismember bad Ash, and then it disappears. Why didn't he use it during the final fight, when a chainsaw would have been much more effective than a sword, even while not running. (00:39:50)
TedStixon
27th Aug 2001
Army of Darkness (1992)
Correction: In addition to the other answer, it's also entirely possible he simply ran out of gas for it, and didn't want to siphon gas from his car to use it. Either way, a character discarding a weapon isn't a mistake in the slightest.
31st May 2022
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022)
Corrected entry: When America and Wong jump through the Star Portal just before Wanda destroys Mount Wundagore, you can see they will travel to Kamar-Taj. However, when America opens another Star Portal to retrieve Dr. Strange from the destroyed universe, they are standing back on the snowy mountain top.
Correction: If these moments were back-to-back, this may be a mistake. Problem is, there is quite a gap of time that passes between the two scenes... as in, almost 5 minutes of screen time, which might translate to even more time in-movie, as we don't know how long Strange waits to wake up Palmer, who is passed out when the scene cuts back to them. It's entirely possible and even likely that they returned to the mountain top in the meantime to see if they could find any traces of Wanda.
26th Aug 2003
Tremors (1990)
Corrected entry: When Mindy is getting her picture taken next to one of the graboid's tongues, look at the shelf of movies behind her when the camera zooms out its farthest in that shot; in the second row down (I think it's the in the second row down), if you look really closely, you can see that one of the movies is Tremors. (00:25:40)
Correction: This is simply not true. The edge of the tremors VHS is black with Tremors written down the middle in orange writing with a small picture at the top of the main characters. There is no black video with orange writing in this scene.
They wouldn't have known what the VHS tape's final design was going to look like when shot it well over a year prior.
19th Feb 2021
The Wolf of Snow Hollow (2020)
Other mistake: Based on its position (facing the overhang), the "OPEN" sign inside the restaurant ("NEPO") would NOT be visible to anyone outside of the restaurant, thereby defeating its purpose. (00:36:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It absolutely would be visible. What are you even talking about? The sign seems to be at roughly 5' or so off the ground based on its position in the window. The overhang seems to be at least 6' in front of the sign, AND at least a few feet above it. How is someone's view of the sign going to be obstructed by something above it? Anybody walking by would be able to see the sign! I've seen diners that have signs in pretty much exactly the same sort-of spot.
19th Feb 2021
The Wolf of Snow Hollow (2020)
Other mistake: When PJ opens the door for the officers, the painting on the wall behind him is not straight as would be expected - it is how it would appear if looking down a hallway (the top and bottom of the frame are not parallel). (00:33:56)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There's absolutely nothing wrong with the painting. It isn't parallel because the wall behind him is at an angle from the position of the camera. If the wall was parallel with the camera, then this "mistake" might be right... but it isn't. The wall is at about a 45 degree angle facing away from the position of the camera. (Although to be fair, even if the painting was crooked, I don't see how that would be a "mistake.").
19th Feb 2021
The Wolf of Snow Hollow (2020)
Corrected entry: The way the mirror in Jenna's room was positioned, it could not be reflecting the string of lights along the window or an image of the jacket on the coat rack as shown. Instead of the back of the jacket, the mirror should be reflecting its side/arm, the scarf, and maybe part of John's shirt. (00:30:32)
Correction: I cannot wrap my brain around this mistake. First of all, the mirror is absolutely in a spot where it can reflect what's reflecting. It's in a corner, sure, but it's facing the jacket moreso than the opposite direction. I loaded up the scene and I see nothing wrong. Second, the mirror is reflecting what it's reflecting. How is possible for the mirror to be reflecting something that it couldn't reflect? It's literally just a mirror on the set! This mistake makes no sense whatsoever.
19th Feb 2021
The Wolf of Snow Hollow (2020)
Character mistake: John shot at the "werewolf" but wasn't successful in hitting it. Instead of pursuing the werewolf, who he supposedly was determined to catch, he let it run away. Alcoholic or not, a sheriff's deputy should have done everything possible to try to capture the creature that was terrorizing the small town. By not even attempting to follow the werewolf, John missed the one opportunity he - or anyone else - had thus far to potentially put an end to the senseless and tragic murders of young ladies. (00:55:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Dude's daughter was attacked and bleeding from the head, of course he didn't pursue it.
Suggested correction: He didn't go after the wolf because his daughter was hurt, and his (albeit misguided) parental instincts took over. It's not at all a character mistake for him to prioritize making sure his daughter is all right over chasing a perp. Most parents would probably do the same thing.
19th Feb 2021
The Wolf of Snow Hollow (2020)
Factual error: The force with which Paul thrust the knife into John's stomach, plus the amount of time that the knife was digging into John's stomach as Paul suspended him against the wall, would cause a severe, incapacitating injury - or death. John should have been rendered incapable of even crawling along the floor, but he managed to get up soon thereafter and chase/ fight with Paul in the woods. Miraculously, John also did not seek or undergo any treatment for the stab wound. (01:14:14)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Whether he should have died is entirely dependent on if he hit any major arteries or organs. Being stabbed in the gut is not an instant death sentence. Additionally, he's running on adrenaline and shock... there have been numerous times someone has been shot or stabbed and been able to run away or fight back in real life. Also, he literally fainted before he could seek out medical treatment, so I'm not sure what your comment about "miraculously" not seeking medical treatment is about. That's 100% conjecture on your part. And conjecture based on no evidence is not a mistake. Obviously he was given medical treatment after he passed out.
17th Feb 2022
Batman: The Animated Series (1992)
Corrected entry: Unless he didn't feel like it or Daggett's being held somewhere that's secret there's no reason that Clayface, who faked his death, couldn't try to track him down again.
Correction: There's absolutely nothing in the episode that suggests Clayface can't try to track down Daggett again. That's pure conjecture on your part. And conjecture is not a mistake or plot hole. But just to humor you, as seen in the series, Clayface goes through many other trials and tribulations that take up his time, which might explain why they don't show him going after Daggett in future episodes. Either way... this isn't a plot hole.
18th Jun 2022
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (2022)
Corrected entry: When Sonic Duo calls Donut Lord in Hawaii, it's day time in Hawaii but dark in Washington, which shouldn't happen because they're in the same time zone.
Correction: 1. Hawaii and Washington are in different time zones. 2. Sonic and Green Hills are in Montana, not Washington. Montana is also in a different time-zone. 3. Montana is roughly in the range of 3 hours ahead of Hawaii, and according to Google, Sunset is at roughly 9pm in Montana and 7pm in Hawaii... so given the three-hour difference, it's totally possible for it to be dark in Montana but there to still be light in Hawaii.
10th Nov 2015
Breaking Bad (2008)
Corrected entry: In the famous mugshot of Walter against a height chart, the chart goes up in nice 2 inch increments until 5'8." It then jumps to 6'0", completely skipping 5'10". Did they forget there are 12 inches in a foot, not 10?
Correction: This picture was never used in the show. This looks to be fan-made. Regardless, this picture was never seen in any episode of Breaking Bad, so it is not a valid mistake.
If the picture was used as a promo shot by the production team then it could be considered a mistake. If it's fan-made then the correction seems to be valid. Does anyone know the source of the image?
I can't find a source, but I don't recall ever seeing it in the show or in any ads, and in all honesty, it's pretty low-quality, so I seriously doubt it's a real production or promotional image. (The masking around his ears is quite bad, the "bruises" are digitally painted on - and poorly so at that, etc.) I would be willing to bet money on it being fan-made.
22nd Jan 2015
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Other mistake: When the two pirates are rowing toward the beach, and the dog is at the front, one of them is reading the bible. From the cover it's being held the right way up, but in a very quick shot showing the actual text of the book, the text itself is upside down. (00:30:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't a mistake. Pintel states that Ragetti can't read. So the fact that Ragetti has the book upside down adds to this claim. With regard to the cover and text being opposite ways round, Ragetti or someone could have reattached the cover at some point as the Bible is damaged in places.
I feel like arguing that the "cover may have been reattached" is far too much conjecture to be a mistake. It's much more likely to just be a minor continuity gaff as the mistake suggests.
8th Jun 2022
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Corrected entry: When Jennifer Connelly is in the bar chatting with Tom Cruise for the first time, the iconic song "Let's Dance" from David Bowie is playing in the background. Connelly and Bowie had starred together in the film "Labyrinth" in 1986, and featured a similar upbeat song called "Magic Dance." A subtle reference, perhaps?
Correction: While it wouldn't surprise me if the David Bowie song being in the film is a reference to the fact that Connelly was in "Labyrinth" with him... I feel like it should be pointed out that "Let's Dance" is not from "Labyrinth." You're getting it confused with "Magic Dance," which was the song in "Labyrinth." (Albeit both are similar, upbeat tunes.) "Let's Dance" was released in 1983, whereas "Labyrinth" (and "Magic Dance") came out in 1986. I'll submit a word-change.
10th Aug 2020
Highlander (1986)
Corrected entry: When Connor decapitates the guy in the parking lot of the wrestling arena, you can notice it's a dummy.
Correction: In all honesty, I wouldn't consider this a mistake because the effect is VERY good, and there's nothing giving away the fact it's a dummy. (Other than the fact they wouldn't decapitate a real actor, of course.) It's appropriately gory, the dummy's movement is fluid and lifelike, and the dummy is very detailed and realistic. Even watching the scene frame-by-frame, it looks quite real. Like I said... nothing really gives away the fact it's a dummy, so I wouldn't call this a mistake.
28th Dec 2016
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
Corrected entry: In the scene when Raphael crashes through the window, as April and Leo converse on his well being, you can see Donatello mishandling his bow staff on the left.
Correction: You're going to have to define "mishandling" and explain how it's a mistake, because I watched the movie last night, and then just looked up the scene again on YouTube, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with what he's doing at the moment in question. Certainly nothing that would qualify it as a "mistake." He's just fumbling with his staff as he pulls it out and gets ready for potential combat, since, you know, his brother was just thrown in through a window. At best, he sort-of loses grip on his staff for a half-second before grabbing it again... but that's not really a "mistake." Fumbling with objects (especially in a high-stress situation) is something that happens to people in real-life literally all the time.
2nd Jun 2022
War of the Worlds (2005)
Corrected entry: It becomes quite obvious as the movie progresses that the aliens want to capture and use (or digest) humans, so it defies logic that the first one to appear immediately starts vaporizing every human in sight. Since the people posed no threat, the only reason to vaporize them would be if the aliens simply wanted to be rid of them - which they obviously didn't. So this initial vaporization was simply a manufactured plot device by the movie makers.
Correction: There are plenty of humans to go around. They don't need all of them. What they first wanted to do is collapse human society. That usually works if you start killing indiscriminately.
Maybe they needed 20 billion people. So we don't know that there "are plenty to go around." And again, the people they vaporized were no threat. And they didn't need to "collapse human society" (and you have no way of knowing what they "wanted" to do); they merely needed to remove threats. So, again, it defies logic to unnecessarily vaporize what's later shown to be desirable to them, if not required by them.
You don't know what the wanted to do either. Seeing them kill so many people, logically shows that they don't need all those people.
Maybe they didn't need 20 billion people. Maybe they didn't have the "human harvesting" equipment ready. Maybe they just felt like it. Who knows. Either way, I'm not sure we can't apply our concepts of logic to an alien race.
You might try reading the original novel. While I don't disagree that it defies logic, the fact is that the only person that could address the why of this was H.G. Wells. While the filmmakers changed a number of details to base the story in the present (2005), in the U.S., from a family's point of view, the tripods being buried...the basic story itself, on the aliens illogically torching lots of humans before they began harvesting them, is pretty much the same as in the novel.
Correction: Doesn't defy logic in the slightest. It seemed pretty obvious to me that the initial "invasion" (vaporizing every human in sight and starting battles) was to disrupt and take control of the human population. Thus making it easier to harvest human blood/tissue from the remaining population. (Which, from my memory at least, were implied to basically be used to fertilize their terraforming efforts/the red weed.) If you wanna take somewhere over, you can't just wander in and say "Ok, this is MINE now!" That's not how war works. You have to show force, assert dominance and then get rid of any possible opposition.
Correction: "So this initial vaporization was simply a manufactured plot device by the movie makers." This 'manufactured plot device' was written by Herbert George Wells, 110 years before the 2005 movie. While there are differences between the original novel and the 2005 movie, there are a number of similarities. One identical plot detail being that the aliens' tripods started by incinerating countless humans before harvesting them to fertilize the red weed. I can't recall if the novel explained why.
14th Oct 2021
A Quiet Place Part II (2020)
Revealing mistake: The "baby" looked quite "rubbery" at times and its limited movements (even motionless) and lack of sound are indicative of a "fake" baby (doll) most of the time. The baby was mostly kept covered in some kind of box and did not even cry when the mother was running with it (while in her arms or in the box). (00:14:35 - 00:20:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is not really a "revealing mistake." Fake babies are used in movies all the time. Due to the complexities of filmmaking, it is simply impractical and impossible to use real infants for most scenes. Child safety and labor laws strictly limits how long a baby can be on set. A fake baby may or may not look "rubbery" but that is what they had to work with.
Your correction is precisely what makes it a revealing mistake. Explaining why a mistake occurs doesn't invalidate the mistake. You could only argue that it doesn't look fake or a real baby was used, but since that's not the case, the mistake stands.
A "mistake" is an unplanned and/or unwanted circumstance. Obviously using a fake baby was an intentional decision. At best, this should be classified as a "Deliberate Mistake."
This very website defines "revealing" mistakes as: "Anything which gives away filming techniques, such as stunt wires being visible, or glass smashing before anyone goes through it." (And I could be wrong, but I believe the definition used to be even broader.) An obviously fake baby falls under that umbrella, and always has. You simply can't argue that it's not a revealing mistake by the rules of this site just because it was a deliberate choice by the filmmakers. Heck, even under your strict definition of mistake (which is very problematic, because it doesn't really account for plenty of things that 99.9% of people would commonly consider "movie mistakes"), it's still a mistake, since the filmmakers wanted people to think it's real, and we obviously don't - ergo an unplanned circumstance.
It is a revealing mistake. They could have used CGI, shot some baby sequences separately and edited them in, etc. There are many ways they could have done things differently; they would just have been more complicated and cost more. The option they went with wasn't all they had to work with; it's just what they chose to work with.
23rd Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Plot hole: Strange says he can't turn back time any more since he does not have the Time stone, so he'll resort to "a standard spell of forgetting." The statement is already quite odd since even with the stone he never showed anything close to the ability to revert time on a global scale for the WEEKS it would take to get back to that moment. But no worries; the "standard spell" is in fact more powerful than the Time stone; for it to work, it can't just make the people forget, or else people would learn back about Peter from the gigabytes of pictures and stories published, the Daily Bugle's archives, Flash's published book, T-shirts etc.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He didn't understand the workings of the time stone as well as he did other spells. The time stone is definitely more powerful, able to trap an omnipotent cosmic being in a time loop. The spell focusses on 1 person's secret identity being forgotten from memory, hardly more powerful than what the time stone can do. In any case, the difference in power is not important to the plot.
The Time Stone in movies always focuses around limited areas, including Dormammu, with Strange concentrating during the activation. It's also a unique artifact and the most powerful in the universe. This is a "forgetfulness spell", but it needs to alter reality (physical evidence) to work, or it's useless, and it's a "standard spell" according to Strange. Was he downplaying it? Let's say he was; it's still a 'fire and forget' sort of deal that alters reality years back.
Suggested correction: I wouldn't say that a spell making everyone in the world forget about Peter is more powerful than the time stone. Memory loss is something that happens regularly (and pretty easily, T.B.H.) to people as a result of anything from illness to a bad bonk on the head. Therefore, it doesn't seem like it'd be something that'd be hard for a wizard to do. He's just applying that to a global scale, which doesn't seem like it'd be impossible if it is indeed a basic spell. As for evidence of Peter, it's really not hard to use conjecture to assume he also made evidence of Peter vanish from existence as part of the spell... making things disappear is a very basic wizardry/magician trick. Heck, it's basically a cliche.
I don't get the logic, sorry. It is easy to do it with a person, therefore it's also doable on a global scale? It's easy for a wizard to move a rock, then by that logic it'd be not that hard to move every rock? Instantly? And since it does that but also makes every physical evidence of it vanish, it is not a spell of forgetting. It has to restructure time and space on a massive scale in a very precise way, and here it is trivalized because the movie does not address the consequences (you will see proposed corrections of this entry that assume it changed nothing physical and it's just no biggie). For instance in the latest Strange movie, there's a magic item that is more powerful than any Infinity stone, but it's not something any wizard can access. The fact that a clichè exists (it's not like I haven't read One More Day, for instance) doesn't mean it fits every context (it's not quite the same doing it in the Tooth Fairy movie and here).
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that making people forget about something and making some stuff disappear restructures time and space. The film explicitly states that it doesn't - Strange says the spell "won't turn back time." It just makes people forget. (And presumably makes evidence disappear.) There's even a joke in the movie where Strange implies he uses the spell regularly, including an instance where he used it to make Wong forget about a party. Doesn't mean the party didn't happen. Just means Wong doesn't remember it. It seems like you're really over-reading and over-complicating the spell in your head. Forgetting about something (or making some books and computer files vanish) does not necessitate the rewriting of space and time... it just means people forgot and things disappeared. If I forgot about something, and the only piece of evidence vanished, to me, it basically never happened. Doesn't mean history was necessarily re-written.
The boundaries of what constitutes "over-reading" and "over-complicating" are subjective; to me saying "it's a basic spell of forgetting", castable on a whim, for something that necessarily has also to act globally if not universally (Nick Fury is not on this planet and he would forget, most likely) and does not 'merely' affect minds but a plurality of records and physical items dating back over a decade (remember we talk about the whole life of Peter Parker here, not just his association with Spider-man), is over-simplifying on top of misrepresenting. One of the writers answered on the subject by saying they have an answer to that they are not at liberty to reveal currently. We'll see if that is true, (or will just be ignored and dumped on the Sony writers who already spectacularly got it wrong in Morbius); the MCU is not just one movie, and Strange in the previous movies never showed the ability to change the universe deleting selectively parts of it with a 'standard spell'.
I think I can get where you're coming from with this. I just personally didn't see it as that big an issue. I think it's probably just an agree to disagree situation. Sorry if I came across as rude.
Suggested correction: Even if we assume the video footage of people saying that Peter is Spidey still exist, this wouldn't matter much. If anybody saw a video of themselves recorded a week ago saying something that they never remembered saying, they would laugh it off and assume it was some "Deepfake" or something.
Besides the fact that I would sue whatever media outlet published my deepfake and most certainly not laugh it off, if there's no magical alteration of reality/space/time to make that spell work, it would be entirely useless. Anyone could just type "Who is Spider-Man" on google and find out from a million sources.
26th Aug 2003
Batman Returns (1992)
Plot hole: When The Penguin is controlling the Batmobile, Batman punches through the floor to take off the transmitter. We still see a video feed of The Penguin. Why? Batman pulled off the transmitter, so there is no reason for there to still be a video feed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: We see the Red Triangle gang spends a while fiddling with the Batmobile's workings before installing the transmitter. It's likely they made multiple 'modifications', thus the transmitter was for controlling the car's engine and steering, and the video feed was made possible by another, separate means.
Suggested correction: I concur with the other correction. There are multiple shots showing the gang working on the car and doing other things to it beyond just putting on the transmitter. (You see them playing with wires, moving parts around, etc.) Hacking into the computer/video-feed so Oswald could taunt Batman is likely among the other things they are doing. There's nothing into the movie that suggests taking off the transmitter should (or even could) interrupt the video-feed. The fact that Batman has to punch the screen to get rid of the Penguin's image is another point to the fact that the transmitter itself had nothing to do with the video feed.
21st Apr 2014
The Avengers (2012)
Factual error: During the scene on the Helicarrier where Bruce Banner "Hulks out" and jumps at the F-35B hovering just outside, we see the F-35B fire its guns, one inside each of its intakes. The F-35B has only one gun, externally mounted to underside of the fuselage. It would be impossible to mount a gun inside an aircraft's intakes.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: We can only assume it's a F35B but it's never stated at being one. It's a universe with a flying aircraft carrier. That could have similar looking planes with far different technology and specs.
I dunno... I feel that's a very weak correction. It's too nebulous and opens up too many holes. What's to stop people from applying that to every other mistake? (Ex. "Oh, well this movie's universe, blah-blah-blah, therefore nothing could be considered 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: It's debatable whether a chainsaw would be more useful than a sword. Ash could have simply decided against using his chainsaw. Alternatively, he could have used it off-screen, but it simply broke. Also, Ash is commonly depicted to be an idiot, so that could explain it.