Continuity mistake: The taxi leaves the scene with a left turn. You can see it is missing the front hubcap on that side, but it was in its place just moments before; no further crashing happened. (01:37:25)
Sammo
7th Jan 2025
Bad Boys (1995)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The taxi's front left hubcap does not suddenly go "missing" between two shots. The reckless taxi hits the median island (sparks in this shot), hits three metal trash cans, and slams into a car. It's quite plausible to accept that, due to these jarring impacts, even though no further crashing happened the left hubcap has already been jostled loose; so during Martin Lawrence and Will Smith's iconic close-up shot, there is sufficient time for that hubcap to fall off while the taxi is off-screen.
I never said it was from consecutive shots, just that there were no other collisions. It didn't look loose in the slightest after all the collisions you mentioned. The last time we see it on screen, it is actually hidden by a fender that is not supposed to be there because of another mistake already reported, so we could say that is part of that other mistake, if anything.
Even though "there were no other collisions" that occurred, within the scene it's a reasonable possibility the hubcap could have been loosened by all the impacts from moments before. And the problem with stating "it didn't look loose in the slightest" after all the collisions is that a loosened hubcap can sometimes be completely unnoticeable visually while the vehicle is in motion. The hubcap could have fallen off as the taxi is driving away, while off-screen (blue fender shot notwithstanding).
23rd Jul 2003
Bad Boys II (2003)
Revealing mistake: In the morgue scene where Will Smith and Martin are checking out the "fat does" for evidence, Will asks Martin to check a coffin for clues. As Martin looks through the coffin there is a shot of money that he finds inside the casket. If you look closely at this shot, the top bill in the bundle of hundreds reads "to be used for motion pictures only."
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: May have been fixed in the DVD - I couldn't see anything untoward.
This was, in fact, digitally fixed for the DVD, although just for the most conspicuous shot, the close-up of the money stash. When, a moment later, Martin Lawrence holds wads of bills in hand, you can see they have some sort of odd stamp on them that wasn't there in the close-up. I don't know if there's a screenshot of any version of the movie before the digital correction; you can see the actual props have been for sale at online auctions, though.
26th Aug 2003
Bad Boys (1995)
Other mistake: Near the end of the movie, Martin Lawrence and Will Smith are in a Porsche catching the bad guy. The whole time Martin Lawrence is driving, BOTH hands are on the steering wheel. Now most of us know that Porsches have a manual transmission, so shouldn't Martin Lawrence be switching gears during the chase?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Hopefully someone else can confirm, but it appears that from around 1995 onwards some Porsche models came with an optional 'tiptronic' automatic transmission.
It was Michael Bay's own personal car used in the movie, a manual transmission model. But even if we do not use "outside" knowledge, we see the gear stick in the movie at the very beginning when Martin Lawrence spills fries all over it. So no, despite what the correction says, it's not an automatic version.
13th Oct 2003
Bad Boys (1995)
Corrected entry: The end of the film during the airport scene is supposed to be taking place in Miami like the rest of the film. But if you watch closely, there are mountains in the background. Anyone that has been to or lived in Miami knows that there are certainly no mountains or even hills.
Can't see them either. From all sources, the movie was shot entirely in the Miami area, too. Michael Bay didn't mention shooting in other towns either in the DVD commentary.
22nd Jun 2008
Bad Boys (1995)
Corrected entry: Right after Martin Lawrence asks his wife if he can get a pillow, in the next shot Will Smith is getting out of a police car. As the camera pans, before the car door opens, a crew member is reflected in the car.
Correction: The area where the car pulls up is full of people. It could easily be a member of public or police officer.
Indeed, there are people reflected in the glass, and they look like perfectly normal extras. Could the OP possibly mean the reflection in the green part of the car, the right side of the truck area? It does look like someone following the camera in a crawling position. I can make sense of it only if I crank the brightness higher, though.
8th Oct 2003
Bad Boys (1995)
Audio problem: When Mike and Marcus are driving in Marcus's car, just before they sing Bad Boys, in the shot over Mike's shoulder we see that what he is saying does not match the movement of his mouth. (00:22:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: But Will Smith is not speaking in that shot. Martin Lawrence is saying something corny ("I'm a baaad boy") that is the cue for the song. Smith is just mouthing under his breath.
19th Apr 2010
Bad Boys (1995)
Continuity mistake: When Marcus Burnett drops Julie Mott off at Mike Lowery's apartment it's dark outside. When he leaves shortly after, there is daylight outside.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
27th Feb 2011
Bad Boys (1995)
Other mistake: In the scene where Mike returns to his apartment for the first time since Julie was living there, as they walk towards the elevator Chet says "Hey Mr Lowrey" to Mike then says "Hey Mr Lowrey" to Marcus although Marcus never told him that he was taking Mike's identity. (00:59:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's not in real time. They could have been back on a different occasion; we just aren't shown it.
2nd Sep 2009
Bad Boys (1995)
Corrected entry: When Julie rings Mike and ends up speaking to Marcus, Julie's microphone wire can be seen running along her jumper. (00:33:30)
Correction: No it can't.
This does not seem much of a correction. However, I do have trouble finding the mistake as well; I think I see some strange creasing, especially in the full-figure shot of her when she speaks (on Prime and Blu-ray I have it at around 34:50 when she says, "And she said if she ever needed anything."). Not sure why they'd use a wired mic or wire it to her front, though.
6th Apr 2020
Bad Boys (1995)
Continuity mistake: At the beginning of the film when Martin Lawrence is in bed with his wife, he wakes up on the left side of the bed and leans over turn the alarm off. The next shot he's on the right side of the bed and the alarm has moved to the right side too, he's reaching over to turn it off. (00:09:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
22nd Nov 2024
Gladiator II (2024)
Factual error: In his flashback en route to Rome, young Lucius is shown playing football (soccer) as goalkeeper with his friends in Africa. There is no historic testimony of any ball game in the ancient world with such a close resemblance to modern soccer (exclusive use of feet, rectangular goal, etc.).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There are a few seconds of kids kicking a ball (coconut) around and a kid guarding two poles. Nothing shows they are actually following the rules of modern soccer. They are not doing an official sport, just a ball game they came up with that happens to look like soccer. There is only one goal too.
It is not an official game, but it's not randomly kicking the ball. It's the way modern kids with a previous knowledge of football would organise. It seems trivial to us, even natural, but as you can see, for instance, on the FIFA website, it is anything but. Games with exclusive use of feet weren't a thing in the Greco-Roman world. What is shown in the movie is meant to resemble something that the modern audience is familiar with, but wasn't at all close to the culture of 2nd century kids in Egypt.
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.
7th Nov 2007
Fracture (2007)
Corrected entry: Crawford shoots his wife and then fires 4 shots through the glass. But throughout the movie there are only references to 4 shots being fired and 4 shells being found.
Correction: That's right, they found 4 shells, and the gardener heard four shots. The gardener most likely miscounted how many shots he heard, as under stress that is easy to do. There were no eyewitnesses to the shooting to suggest there were more than four shots fired.
That's wrong. The correction, I mean, but also the mistake. The mistake is not there because Crawford shoots only 3 times through the glass, so the bullet count is correct and the OP is wrong. That's it. The mental gymnastics of the correction are unacceptable, though; you can't randomly assume that every witness and investigator in the movie is wrong and the movie itself wouldn't address it at some point just because in the real world mistakes happen.
31st Aug 2008
Fracture (2007)
Corrected entry: Midway through the movie, Anthony Hopkins calls Ryan Gosling at Hopkins' office. Hopkins could not possibly know the exact moment Gosling would be at Hopkins' office because Hopkins was in jail at the time.
Correction: This is a case of we don't know what was happening behind the scenes. Hopkins could have been trying a few times his office to check and see if Gosling had stopped by. Hopkins would know that Gosling would visit his office at some point to try and ascertain any possible evidence. Lucky perhaps, but it doesn't contradict anything to confirm it being a mistake.
Correction: This is also a case of a movie villain going for a big flex. They keep vague in the movie itself how he would exactly be able to do that, but there are several possible methods (it was his own company with presumably his own handpicked staff, and throughout the movie, he shows to be in constant touch with private detectives also due to his status as being his own defense attorney) where they actually go for the "how did he do that, come on!" feel. It's not a case of fridge logic plot hole where you have NOT to think of how stupid and implausible it is; the fact that it was out of the ordinary is, on the contrary, the actual point of the scene.
31st Aug 2008
Fracture (2007)
Corrected entry: Anthony Hopkins' entire scheme is based on the exact LAPD officer who is having an affair with his wife being the single officer who enters his home to arrest him. Per the LAPD website, on 08/29/08, there were 9753 sworn officers in the LAPD. Wrong officer responds and the entire scheme fails.
Correction: Hopkins asked for the detective. If you listen carefully before the detective entered the house, he was told that Hopkins was specifically asking for him before anyone else.
But Hopkins' ask wouldn't have been met. The PD would have strict policies that wouldn't allow Hopkins to have conditions set on his arrest. Police department dispatchers assign officers on practicality, not personal request, in order to ensure the response is fast and impartial. Also, Hopkins was banking on the detective that was "____ing the victim" being present, but investigation integrity policies wouldn't let that happen. (This undermines Hopkins' genius, as he would have known that.)
I did "listen carefully," but I haven't picked up on any dialogue saying anything of the sort. And it does not agree with how the plot unfolds at all. Unless I am mistaken after triple-checking, the correction to this damning plot contrivance is plain wrong. Hopkins asked for Nunally through the phone earlier in the movie, being told when he would be on duty, but nobody made the connection between the current situation and the earlier call. The mistake is valid, since it hinges on a statistical implausibility that was completely out of the killer's control.
12th Nov 2024
Agatha All Along (2024)
Circle Sewn With Fate / Unlock Thy Hidden Gate - S1-E2
Plot hole: Spoiler - considering what emerges at the ending of the series, Agatha's behaviour in this episode hardly makes sense. She had no trust in the Witches' road; in fact, she knew it did not exist at all, and her only aim was to steal the powers of the other four witches during a fake ritual. However, one of them is a normal human with no powers, one is a witch with her powers sealed and thus impossible to steal, and she literally tells the third one how her very specific energy-stealing power works - which, of course, is entirely absurd considering she had no purpose for her, given the lack of a real ritual.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The whole point was to just get a witch to do the ritual. Agatha's earthly ability is to read people. Knowing it's a rouse, she tells Lillia what she needs to hear to participate in the ritual (the road will make Lillia more powerful) and that at the end of the road, Agatha cannot just steal her power. She knew she needed to show a bit of her hand and had no doubt a witch would blast her out of anger (and show no restraint) when the song was over and no door appeared (human nature).
Suggested correction: She made do with what she could find. Two of the witches had powers she could steal. Since she was totally powerless at that time, it would be enough for her. After taking the power of just one or two, she could have killed the others just as easily. It didn't matter to her that one of them was not a witch at all; she needed four to make them believe they were walking the witches' road.
"I can't steal your magic unless you blast me with it. So if you show a little self-restraint, which, let's be honest, you're gonna need to, all that power is yours to keep." This is not me paraphrasing her for humour or to be concise; it's the actual dialogue to the person she plans to rob of their power. And it is 100% accurate; there is no "spark" she can steal without being hit directly. This level of candour makes sense only if there is an actual point to the ritual, and her subsequent attempt at taunting them is desperation because the ritual does not work, so then, at that point, she has to make do with what she has. Not if the whole thing was a sham to begin with.
I agree it's strange she would warn her about her ability if she planned to have them attack her, but Alice did in fact use her powers on her later without thinking about those consequences. So maybe Agatha hoped she would forget or not show restraint once she angered them enough. The witches in the past all seemed very eager to attack her after being taunted, and seemed to have been working for her for centuries too, so why not now?
1st Aug 2024
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
Other mistake: During their first confrontation with Cassandra Nova, the dynamic duo seem to score a point when Wolverine backstabs her in a very literal sense. While it makes for a cool moment, it also is pure nonsense; they are in an open space surrounded by her goons and none of them has the slightest reaction nor you can see any cover Wolverine could have used to sneak upon her. Even the soft ground is intact.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Cassandra uses her powers to phase shift (ghosting, selective intangibility) Wolverine into the ground and behind her. After her quite long time inside Deadpool's head, Wolverine manages to get himself out, phasing himself back behind her and stabs her. Since he was phasing, the ground won't be disturbed.
But he DOES disturb the ground when she phases him into it. He sinks in a hole, he leaves a trail. And that is with her controlling the process. Since he doesn't control the phasing and how to emerge from it, I don't get how he can just casually pop up (with no particular speed) without any trace, and again, unseen surrounded by goons watching from every angle, to nobody's reaction.
Look at the scene closely (if you can). There is far less disturbance than would have happened if someone was dragged through the ground. The only disturbance you see is from his claws still sticking out of the ground as he is being dragged; his body has zero effect on the ground. I think it also has to do with the amount of force Cassandra uses to pull him. Coming up slowly would hardly disturb it. The goons won't interfere; they know what she is capable of and has nothing to fear from these two.
Will of course check out the Disney+ release in the future, but the movie doesn't show the action going on this way; if they wanted to show him being phased, then they shouldn't have depicted him as being sucked into the ground with his body looking very much solid, nor his claws leaving claw-shaped trails. The fact that it causes much less of a disturbance than it could have is because well, her powers are not something we have a real life comparison with; the way she "skinned" Johnny wasn't physically accurate either but there's no lack of consistency with anything else. As for the on-screen portrayal of the ground pull, all I am pointing out is that he very much leaves physical and permanent trails on the ground that the movie shows, at no point his body shows to be immaterial, and then a minute later he just pops up, with no particular haste, and there are no traces of him going through the same medium. As for the lack of reaction, it's a lack of timely reaction; they do react to him when he stabs her, you can see some of them raising their guns, so it's not as if all of them have such trust in their boss' abilities that they are nonchalant about whatever is directed at her. It's just that they react to it when the audience does. There's no reason why they wouldn't do it earlier. Other than the fact that it's a movie, but's not like Deadpool makes a joke about their terrible reaction times.
31st Jul 2024
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
Plot hole: In the opening scene, Wade applies to be an Avenger, and does it in the Sacred Timeline, the main MCU timeline, on Earth-616. Not his own, which the movie classifies in the next scene as Earth-10005. Assuming he can just do that (at the end of his second movie he certainly did stranger things than that with Cable's device), one fails to see the purpose of it. Let's assume he aced the interview and got hired; it's not his timeline. He does it to have a good relationship with his girlfriend. Who...is in a different universe. Whatever Wade does in the vastly different universe is not altering anything in his own. It was never going to work.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He goes back to his universe. Think Thor...or the Guardians or Captain Marvel or whomever isn't Earth based. They "Assemble" then go back to protecting their little corner of the Marvel Universe.
Suggested correction: But it's Deadpool. When does anything he ever does make sense? He wanted to be an Avenger, he went out to be one, no matter what that meant in the literal sense. As long as he can say it, it's enough for him. Even if it is in a different universe/timeline, he can still say he's an Avenger. He is also a rule breaker, so maybe he can figure out how to make it work.
I knew this was going to be the objection to it; it's Deadpool, he can do whatever, etc. There are multiple times during the movie when he mentions things that he is not supposed to know because they are meant to be fourth-wall-breaking jokes. He references real-life actors, he interacted with them in previous movies. So they are absurdities with a purpose, and it's pointless to argue with comedy. But him being rejected by the Avengers is part of his motivations and of the 'serious' part of the plot, which is focused on his own universe and his girlfriend. Earth-616's Avengers though? The namedropping for nerds is an absurd choice when you think about it, which the movie does not want you to do, since it makes zero jokes about it. Without that caption it was not even going to raise any objection or paradox; he could have met with the Avengers of his universe, any universe - later in the movie Wolverine says "F*** the Avengers" as if he knows them.
Two things: 1. Even if he is able to join the Avengers on Earth-616, being part of a team might give him a sense of belonging and change his whole attitude. It wasn't to impress Vanessa about being an Avenger, it was to change his attitude which had soured after the events of the second movie. 2. It cleverly explains that the Marvel characters from the Fox universe were in their own universe and, to this point, have likely not been a part of the MCU.
Maybe his universe doesn't have Avengers and he found out about them through the MCU. That's what I'm saying. It's just a gimmick in the movie and actually doesn't affect the plot that much as he was given a task by the TVA (or whatever lone wolf from the TVA) and teams up with Wolverine. Him trying to be an Avenger and talking about it is just a running gag.
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.
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."
Yes, exactly, "because movie." You see, this site's "Stupidity" tag is for the kind of stupidity that a movie _commits_, not those that a movie _shows_. Characters can be desperate, crazy, angry, hopeless, and yes, stupid.
Characters can make any sort of choice that still has to make sense at least internally. Your first comment read Blanc as a psychopath who would literally willy-nilly wish death or disfigurement upon everyone *including* Helen. That's not how he is portrayed. It's simply a classic case (that's why I said "because movie") of a supposed master plan of disruption with a flawed and inconsistent premise the movie needs you not to question due to its ultimate favourable outcome.
You change your words a lot. First, you say "had no way to know," but quickly change it to "What a ruthless fellow." Sounds like you're the one with the internal consistency problem. In our world, people consistently blow up buildings without themselves dying in the explosion. It's as simple as that. Are you sure you're thinking about the right film? Because the last time I checked, the finale featured a spur-of-the-moment revenge decision. There was no "master plan."
No words have been changed; you just have to read them. I said "he had no way to know" the explosion "wouldn't gravely injure or kill anyone", which yes, would make him ruthless. Since the movie does not characterise Blanc (who did absolutely orchestrate that) as a villain who wants Helen to die, that's obviously absurd. So it's "daft character behaviour" which "would likely be a talking point with someone you were watching with." That's all there is; I don't see it as a controversial position, in particular not one I would question one's media literacy about.
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.