Corrected entry: When the turtles travel through time they switch clothes with the other people they are switching with. But, if they are totally switching clothes. Why do they still have head bands on?
Sammo
12th Mar 2005
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993)
Corrected entry: When the turtle Tokka (Rhazar?) jumps in the hole to chase after the turtle brothers, he gets stuck. If you look at his shell, one of the spikes has bent as if the shell is rubber. Seeing as he was a turtle before, the shell should be rock hard.
Correction: The outer layer of a turtle's shell (where a snapping turtle's spikes would be) are made of keratin, just like your fingernails which will bend with enough force. Snapping Turtles don't have very protective shells to begin with and Tokka certainly weighs a fair bit. It's not unreasonable that the spike could have warped under that kind of pressure.
If your fingernails are shaped like cones and a few inches thick, good luck bending them! If they budge it's more likely that they are coming off the bed. I understand that we're talking about the bodyweight of this big creature here, but the spikes around the lower edge bend, and in particular when Tokka is already stuck in the manhole and squirms annoyed as Michelangelo tickles its foot, one of the largest spikes in the back comes up in view. The whole shell of the turtle would have to be completely soft, sorta spongy, to allow that, but it's not a creature designed to be a hedgehog or something like that: the shell is a solid one.
Corrected entry: There is only one full canister of Ooze in the entire movie. Shredder uses some of the Ooze on the animals to create Tokaa and Razor but then in any other shot with the canister, (as in the one with Vanilla Ice or when Shredder puts some in a glass vial) it is completely full once again.
Correction: As the movie progresses, the canister is tossed about. It's likely the level of the ooze changes, but since we only get to see a small section of the ooze through the canister, it's likely we can't tell it's changed. The ooze probably sticks to the sides of the canister.
I disagree with the correction. We see practically all the length of the canister, far from being a small section, and for prolonged periods of time with the canister being tossed and turned. When Perry was emptying the canisters in the lab there was no evidence of the ooze being particularly viscous to the point of sticking to glass not allowing anything inside to be seen, in fact none of it was sticking it to the surface.
Corrected entry: At the end, after Shredder has taken the ooze and his suit has changed, look at the 'muscles' he's grown. They're just painted onto the cloth.
Correction: This is so obvious it was almost certainly intended to be just a design on the cloth. If they wanted muscle definition, they'd have just used a muscle suit like they made for the turtles (but leave off the shell...).
"If they wanted", yes. They did not because it was a cost-cutting measure and in a movie like this for a final fight that lasts about a minute they could get away with the Power Rangers look. I am not sure you can say it was a design choice but more like a budget constraint. In the context of the movie the fact that he suddenly has a painted-on shirt does not make any sense.
1st Aug 2005
XXX: State of the Union (2005)
Corrected entry: Stone hooks the tank up to a catapult shuttle, and launches it. If it was actually the Independence (CVA-62), the cats use steam power, and if it was the Hornet (CVS-12) the cats were hydraulic. In neither case would the cats have been charged while the vessel is in port.
Correction: Not so. The USS Bennington CV-20 corrected to the problem of hydraulic catapults. USS Bennington had a hydraulic catapult fire in the 1950s that killed over 100 men. After that, the U.S. Navy rejected the use of hydraulic cats in favor of steam. All were swapped for steam cats.
Corrected entry: At the end of the movie, Shredder takes the last of the ooze for himself. When the Turtles see him larger, and stronger, his suit is changed. The ooze would only change his body, not his suit.
Correction: Only if he really drank it like the turtles claim. Shredder may have poured the ooze on himself therefore it would mutate the suit as well.
Wait so the...suit has DNA that mutates? I understand that this mistake is questionable because of the cartoonish nature of it all, but this reason to refute it is not quite...reasonable. It forces us also to assume that the Turtles (acting as exposition for the movie plot) are deliberately wrong for no reason, when the explanation is simply that they wanted him with a cool new armor and not in stretchy Hulk underpants for this final fight and trusted that given the kind of movie we'd simply accept this unexplainable costume change.
18th Apr 2004
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
Corrected entry: When the turtles are fighting the Foot in April's flat, it is daylight. However when they have to evacuate because of the fire, it is pitch black.
Correction: It is not incorrect for it to be night. By the time Ralph was on the roof top it was later in the day, by the time April came home from work it was a little later, then April shows the Turtles around her dad's old shop this takes up some time (and not a little time) as well, then there is the fight between the Turtles and the Foot. So by the time everything is over it would make sense for it to be night.
I don't see how this is possible. Take as reference the moment when the Foot clan ninjas drop en masse on the weakened floor causing its collapse. That's the darkest the sky through the window view is, and it's still definitely day. They fight downstairs for two and a half minutes of the movie, double it if you want to assume the time is 'compressed', surely they can't keep going on fighting in close quarters and with a fire soon erupting for longer than that. They break the fight off as the police arrives (law enforcement in this movie has insanely fast response times when it's convenient) and it's pitch black outside. It can't get dark THAT insanely fast.
24th Jan 2003
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
Corrected entry: When the two turtles are waiting for the pizza guy to come to their sewer grate, one of them is sucking on a popsicle stick. The actor in the turtle suit can't see what he is doing, though, and subsequently pokes himself in the face with the stick a couple of times before finding the mouth of the costume.
Correction: I always saw this as him absent-mindedly (purposely) poking himself, in the same way someone at a desk might poke/tap himself in the face/mouth/chin area with a pen while thinking.
21st Sep 2002
XXX (2002)
Corrected entry: Towards the end of the film they resolve they must destroy the submarine and hence all of Prague to save the world - Why oh why does Samuel L. Jackson, and all the other executives, drive to the middle of the soon to be destroyed city? It seems a waste that such important people would be willing to die for no good reason, especially considering they had 30 minutes to get away and weren't even aware at first that Xander was actually on the sub. (01:49:45)
Correction: The weapon is supposed to be more powerful than a nuclear weapon. Thirty minutes to get out of the area wouldn't be enough to be safely out of the area. They are militarily trained and go to downtown in hopes of discovering some way to neutralize or destroy the sub. It's a pretty cowardly military person who would save their own skin before doing everything they can to protect civilians.
I don't agree with the correction. Thirty minutes would be plenty, with the kind of resources Gibbons has, since he has plenty of planes at his disposal, but more than that; the bad guys earlier detonate one of those rockets inside their own basement and cackle madly at death being unleashed through a security glass door. All it takes for Gibbons, or anyone really, to be 'safe' from that is lock yourself up somewhere, probably even your car with air recycling on and get the hell out of there. It seems awfully uncharacteristic of Gibbons and the other top brass to just stand there on the bridge (with no hazmat suits or anything, and they knew well in advance the nature of the weapon) and be cheerleaders. The entry should be at least a Stupidity (although then #320720 becomes a Duplicate entry).
17th Jan 2011
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
Factual error: During the scenes where the drivers are all racing to the impound lot, Verone and Fuentes are doing background checks on the drivers. When they show the shot of Roman Pearce's California driver's license information, it shows his DOB as Apr 12, 1973, A License issue date of 03/24/90, and Expires Date of 03/24/01. Driver's licenses don't expire on the anniversary of the issue date, they expire on the driver's month and day of birth. So his driver's license should show an expiration date of something like 04/12/01 instead. (00:31:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not all state's driver's licenses expire on their birthday, or at least not anymore. Example: my current driver's license expires on the anniversary of when I got it Aug 16th, but my birthday is in June.
I've never heard of a State license doing this. Which State is this? Although the mistake is valid.
According to google, "Every California license expires on your birthday five years after it's issued" (I can't seem to access the CA DMV website at the moment) but it does seem as though the mistake is, as you say, valid.
My reply was to the corrector who claims his/her State's driver's license expires on the issue date, which is something I've never heard of. So I was asking which State his/her license was from, not the movie's license.
Sorry, my mistake. On my page it was formatted as though you were replying to Sammo. Looking online, Delaware is one state where the licence expires 8 years after issue and not on your birthday (at least from what I can see).
Delaware driver licenses, while issued for 8 years, still expire on the driver's birthday.
27th Feb 2020
Joker (2019)
Factual error: It is established that Penny Fleck adopted Arthur and that he's been abused. In her file, when Arthur reads it, you can see that she was admitted the first time to the psychiatric hospital at 15 years of age, had multiple episodes with drug abuse, and the file mentions she is 25 and single on the date of the report, 11-2-1952. A single parent already had rather slim chances to adopt in the 50s, but a known mental patient and drug abuser, not a chance. (01:13:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She could have bribed her way into adopting a child. Someone who is desperate for attention could find ways to get what they want.
Suggested correction: It is not firmly established that Penny actually adopted Arthur - in fact, it's strongly hinted at that Thomas Wayne forced her into signing adoption papers in order to cover up Arthur's true parentage.
The established, as in recognized, backed up by documents, 'official' version the main character finds out and acts by, is the one contained in the report, newspaper clippings and flashback; son abused by the boyfriend of an adopted mother. Such story is impossible the way it is presented the moment we see details in a document that overblows it painting this 'adoptive' mother as single and with a history of drug abuse since 15 years old. Penny is not eligible to be an adoptive parent, and yet nobody seemed to have raised an eyebrow about that. If you want to assume that rather than being a mistake with overzealous details in a prop (check out of the original script of the movie, which has none of this ambiguity) whoever arranged the fake adoption documents kinda forgot to also make quietly disappear the mental and medical record invalidating their own fabrication, sure, do that! It's not exactly a small oversight - and really one would wonder why Wayne kept his bastard son with her at all.
Arthur is not Thomas Wayne's son. That was all in Penny's head.
27th Sep 2004
Collateral (2004)
Trivia: The film was almost entirely shot in high definition. Director Michael Mann states he did this to capture the night scenes more vividly.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The number of movies shot in less-than-HD could be counted on one hand.
I believe it refers to the fact that Collateral is considered to be the first major movie to use a digital camera, not the traditional film support.
8th Apr 2020
Common mistakes
Factual error: In almost every movie from the introduction of sound on to present day, lightning and thunder happen simultaneously, while in reality there's always a delay between the former and the latter.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Hardly always, if the lightning hits right in front of you you hear the thunder immediately. I'd say from about 100 meters you perceive it as instantly, as it's only 0.3 seconds between flash and thunder.
This is a mistake about in almost all movies, not in all thunderstorms. The common mistake in the movies is when lightning isn't hitting 100m away from the character, but the sound is still instantaneous.
I assume it's about thunderstorms in movies. Name an example.
Instant thunder (even at a considerable distance of miles from the lightning or explosion source) is, indeed, a common and probably deliberate error in most films. The reasoning for it is simple: a prolonged and realistic delay between lightning and thunder could change a 1-second shot into a 6-second shot, for example, compromising the director's intended pace and mood for the scene. Steven Spielberg films have utilized both instant and delayed thunder. In "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," for example, when the UFOs zoom out into the distant background (certainly miles away) in a wide landscape shot, they produce a lightning effect in the clouds that is simultaneously heard as thunder. But in "Poltergeist" (a Spielberg film directed by Tobe Hooper), there is a very deliberate scene of characters realistically counting the seconds between distant lightning and resulting thunder. Choosing to obey physics or not is a matter of the director's artistic license.
I posted this while I was watching Death in Paradise, episode 7 of the third season, but really, you have never seen in pretty much any horror or cheap slasher movie whenever there's a storm, the flash of a lightning coming at the *same* time as a thunder jumpscare sound? It's vastly spoofed, even, when some ugly/creepy/terrifying character makes its appearance. One example randomly picked? Dracula by Coppola, in the first 10 minutes, carriage, lightning in the distance, not even a split second after, rumble. In RL it would reach you a couple seconds later. But really, it's such a movie archetype, I am sure you can find it in any Dracula movie.
The Dracula example doesn't really show how far away the lightning is, it could right above them. It's fake as hell, I agree with that, but the fact there is lightning and thunder at the same time without actually seeing the distance is not a mistake to me. It's also highly unnatural lightning as it only happens twice and then nothing, it's not even raining. It's obviously meant to be caused by the evil surrounding the place. The idea is there is constant lightning right on top of them.
There's a scene in Judge Dredd where every few seconds, there is a flash of lightning instantly accompanied by the sound of thunder. It happens frequently in Sleepy Hollow as well.
I know the scenes you are referring to. In both those instances you have no idea about the distance of this lightning. It could be (and probably is) right on top of them. You can hear that from the typical high sharpness of the sound, only heard when the flash is very close. Thunderclouds are never very high in the air so even the rumbling within the cloud itself can be heard, sometimes you don't even see lightning when it rumbles (yet there is). It's a bit far fetched but you could hear a rumbling or the thunder from a previous flash and mistake it for the flash you see at the same time. Can happen when there are continuous flashes.
9th Feb 2010
Avatar (2009)
Question: Jake's paralyzed legs really look small and thin and weak. How did they make the actor's legs look like that, since he's not really paralyzed? Or did they edit a pair of fake legs in?
Chosen answer: It would have been done with digital effects.
27th Feb 2020
Joker (2019)
Plot hole: Arthur's appearance on the talk show makes hardly any sense. The show is a close port of Johnny Carson's Tonight show, for a huge audience, and yet he receives no screening at all, they put him (someone NOBODY in the staff knows the first thing about) on the air literally without a clue of what he is gonna do or say, and wearing a highly controversial costume. And, when he murders Murray, it is implied that everyone was able to see him doing that right away and he is cut 'off the air' at some point, as if the show were really live, which is preposterous for this sort of program outside of specific events (similar to how in contemporary TV "Jimmy Kimmel Live!", is not live). Even earlier when Arthur opened the letter his mom addressed to Wayne, you could hear the end credits of "Live with Murray Franklin" with the announcer saying the show is "Taped live in front of a studio audience." (00:48:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't see this is a problem due to the fact that we can't be sure what really happens as apposed to what only happens in Arthur's mind. So if the whole TV show appearance is just another fantasy, he would have skipped the who screening process.
You are free to treat the whole movie as something where things don't make sense because in the fan theory of your liking it's all meant to have subtle hints that the movie is all a fantasy, but the movie does not present that particular talk show scene as a dream sequence. It'd be silly to nitpick the logic in the scene when he is picked from the audience by Murray at the beginning because it's obviously presented as nothing more than his fantasy, but his appearance on the show is what the movie built up to up to that point and is not treated as a parenthesis where logic should be suspended, nor disproven like the scenes with his girlfriend standing in.
Suggested correction: The points raised are logical in the context of our real world. However, in the film world, different rules/logic can apply, and apparently do. In the movie world, this show is live, etc. Saying that something is taped live doesn't mean that it isn't also broadcast live; the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. They could just be saying that so people don't think they use a laughter track.
13th Apr 2020
Death in Paradise (2011)
Corrected entry: In the close captions (Prime Video) Goodman on the boat in the dark says "So much that Nancyand I are going to do together", missing a space. (00:21:50)
Correction: While subtitles on an official DVD normally count as a mistake, on streaming services I'd be more tolerant, because that's more Amazon's responsibility, and they're often corrected once alerted to the problem.
Will remember that in the future! Thanks. I understand the part about the fact that it's easy for them to fix and therefore the mistake could be corrected very easily (although I could take a screenshot, which is hardly worth the hassle for very minor mistakes of this nature) and is in fact corrected if reported (that's a bit like bugs submissions for games tho?), not sure about the responsibilities, since DVD subtitles too are normally done by external companies as well.
True, I guess my attitude has generally been that by the time it's crystallised onto a DVD it's been signed off by the distributor/filmmakers, and the whole thing is sort of a package, whereas if Amazon/Netflix get the subtitles wrong or make a strange edit, etc. that's more a one-off, plus can be fixed after the fact. Grey area though!
14th Mar 2019
Captain Marvel (2019)
Corrected entry: In the scenes set in June of 1995, "Vers" uses a Windows 95 computer to search the internet via dial-up. Windows 95 wasn't released until August 24, 1995, two months after those scenes were set.
Correction: A beta version of Windows 95 (probably build 347) was released before June, when this takes place. They could be using that. It included MSN, for internet access.
Good guess. That preview version was available for $19.95 in the U.S.
I think that's a reach - especially back then beta versions were much harder to come by - you couldn't just download it, you'd have to apply and receive a CD or floppies. She's in an internet cafe if memory serves, and why would they go to the hassle of installing a beta OS which most people would never have used before, and which would run the risk of having bugs, etc.?
Windows 95 had one of the most expensive advertisements and launch programs to this date. (Second to Windows 8's.) Microsoft had special personnel known as Evangelists who went to potential customers encouraging them to test Windows 95 and give feedback. They didn't send the 3.5" diskettes with post; the Evangelists delivered them personally. Microsoft didn't become a software giant by sitting on its behind, waiting for customers.
Correction: The month is never specified in the film.
True Lies was released on home video on July 15th - any cardboard standee in a Blockbuster would be for an upcoming or very recent release. By late August something else would have replaced it.
When they're looking at the black box recording, there's a calendar on the wall that reads June.
Correction: The recycle bin icon on the desktop is an oval shape which was first introduced in Windows ME, which wasn't released until 14th September 2000.
The corrected entry mentions a scene searching the internet via dial-up; the computer in that scene has indeed Windows 95 with a square-shaped bin. Since then this entry has kinda been more about the plausibility of Windows 95 in a public internet cafe in June than anything else. There's a separate entry about the scene when they use a totally different computer, the one at her friend's house, which has the bin you mention and is a ME edition.
It's not, it's the rectangular bin.
6th Mar 2020
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
The Veracity Elasticity - S10-E7
Answer: She wanted room for her own things. The apartment was cluttered with so many collectables that Leonard never looked at, that he never noticed when she put some in storage.
Well if they're a couple why not talk to him about it? After all couples are supposed to compromise on things, imagine if he'd done this to her.
6th Mar 2020
Parasite (2019)
Corrected entry: The landscape bonsai is a very heavy rock. When the apartment floods the rock floats to the surface. (01:37:25)
Correction: You missed the point of the scene. The rock floating implies it's a fake reproduction. It was never real. It's kind of a microcosm of the whole story. It's supposed to bring good luck and wealth, but it's hollow and fake. Just as the Kim family's attempts to move upward and find wealth via the Park family ends up backfiring and meaning nothing in the end because it all goes to hell. (SPOILERS: The fact it's a fake also helps explain why it doesn't kill Ki-Woo when he's beaten over the head with it).
Oh. OK. But then why when it is originally found it is at the bottom of the water and not floating? At least that is what I remember. I could be wrong.
Simple answer: It's much more cinematic for it to be underwater and then rise to the top, revealing it in a dramatic way. It gives the reveal of it being a fake more impact. If he just randomly saw it floating, the moment wouldn't work as well. (But I'm sure you could also make an argument that it's being pushed around by all the debris floating around, the current in the water, etc. and it got pulled under for a few seconds).
I agree with you, but up to a point. I was referring to the fact that when he first got the rock he got it from the water and he got it from the bottom. Or am I remembering it wrong?
The mistake is 'deliberate' by account, because, quoting a page that is based on what the actor playing the son says; "In the script, the rock didn't originally float," Choi recalls. "But when we were shooting, director Bong was like, 'You know, I think it would be better if the stone floats up through the water.' I remember thinking, 'Whoa. What?' ", On the other hand, I wouldn't really extend this alleged bit of symbolism in one shot, to infer properties of the rock on other than that single scene; the rock has always been presented and described as heavy, and not the foam prop that it is, and if it were hollow the characters would have noticed and made it apparent earlier. Not even the director and commentators of this particular bit support this. As you say later in the discussion, it's just "more cinematic" to do so but it I don't believe there is reason to paint it as a reveal. Therefore I'd say this should not be corrected but rather changed as 'Deliberate mistake".
I'll agree with this. Thanks, Sammo.
19th Mar 2020
Star Trek: Picard (2020)
Character mistake: Dr. Agnes Jurati, one of the Federation leading scientists, is bored during the hyperspace travel, and so she chats a bit with the captain. While she gives her quirky speech, she casually mentions that "there are over 3 billion stars in our galaxy." She's not wrong, technically, but the number of stars in our galaxy is estimated between 100 and 400 billion. She is way off. (00:08:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Two things. You state that she's not wrong, which she isn't. The fact that she chose an odd turn of phrase doesn't make it a mistake. Plus, you reference the number of 'galaxies' in our galaxy but I am guessing this is just a typo.
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: The same reason Kenshen kept his sword, April kept her Walkman, and three of the Honor Guard kept their 'underwear'. It's not explained in the film how or why, but it's shown to have been done repeatedly and deliberately. Not having an explanation does not make it a mistake.
Phixius ★
Not having an explanation, it does not make sense. Like with the absurdity of English being widely known is explained with reasons that don't hold up to scrutiny, the movie goes out of its way to 'explain' magic with 'rules' that then are violated whenever it's convenient. It would be deliberate if the contradictions made some sort of sense, not when it sneaks in constant arbitrary contradictions.
Sammo ★