Continuity mistake: This happens in King Kong's death scene. After he puts down Ann for the last time, he is shot and his right arm goes limp. In the close-up, he's suddenly using that limp arm to hold on to a spire. (01:38:05)
Super Grover
26th Jul 2022
King Kong (1933)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Well, it's said in the official Anthony Browne book adaptation that Kong got shot in the throat, not the arm. That's probably what's going on.
I believe the submitter meant that after Kong puts Ann back down for the last time, when Kong is shot (in the neck area) in the wide shot, Kong's upper body and (limp) right arm lean over in front of the building's spire, but it cuts to the close-up, and now Kong's right arm is suddenly up behind the spire with his right hand gripping that spire. This is how I interpreted the mistake.
That's exactly what the mistake is saying. The correction misses the mark.
9th Feb 2025
The Bad Guys (2022)
Continuity mistake: When Snake and Wolf are fighting in the prison, a guard crashed down to the floor from above. Later, however, the guard is gone. (01:01:43 - 01:02:29)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When this guard falls to the floor between Wolf and Snake, he points to Diane Foxington at the upper level. Then, in the many shots that follow, we do not actually see the floor area where Wolf and Snake are being held by their own two guards. While Diane is taking out a bunch of other guards in multiple shots, the guard who originally fell has had ample time and opportunity offscreen to carefully flee—just hightail it out of there. So, as stated in the mistake, that guard is gone "later" in the scene, but this is not problematic to continuity.
That is a very legitimate correction. I do have one possible counter. When Diane was perched atop the railing, the ceiling above had additional lights above her, indicating it was the top floor/level. When Diane jumps high when the lights turn red, you can count the number of floors. There are three floors above the ground level. If that's the case, I personally feel it would have been very hard for the guard to move at all, let alone flee.
I do get what you're saying, but even if it's as you state "very hard" to flee, it is not impossible; though I don't think it's actually quite that hard. For instance, there are double doors directly behind that guard, and he could have slipped out that way. It's just the fact that, during the numerous shots of this lengthy sequence, we do not have eyes on this guard, nor do we see the floor area he was lying on. So, since it's possible, we cannot claim his being "gone" "later" as a mistake.
9th Feb 2025
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Continuity mistake: In the Well of Souls, Indy and Sallah place the Ark in the box. Indy closes the box with a wooden lid and looks up. In the next shot, a torch has appeared in Indy's hand, a rope has appeared, tied to the four sides of the box, and Sallah has appeared next to Indy's left shoulder. In addition, the box is already several metres above Indy and Sallah in the second shot. (01:09:43)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is an obvious time jump between the shots. They simply decided not to spend ten minutes showing all the details of sealing the box and tying the rope around it.
I wouldn't say this was a deliberate time jump, as they show Indy carefully and slowly placing the Ark in the box, then sealing it. In addition, when he looks up, he immediately says, "All right... take it up! Easy!" so it's clear this is a continuity mistake.
He says, "All right. Take it up." After the cut. Yes, he does look up before the cut, but since everything else is different, we are supposed to interpret it as a jump in time.
In fact, almost nothing changes between these two scenes, except for these small but clear details.
There's a deliberate jump in time between these two shots, and this transition is done creatively. First, we're below with Indiana as he places the lid on the crate and looks up toward the top entrance; it then cuts to the entrance POV, and now we're looking down as the tied-up crate is being lifted. The jump in time between these two shots is transitioned using a type of match cut. Absolutely no mistakes regarding these two consecutive shots.
3rd Feb 2025
High Potential (2024)
The Sauna at the End of the Stairs - S1-E11
Corrected entry: Cody sees that after he electrocuted his father, the wall plug is on fire and has burn marks. He removes the plug plate and replaces it. We see him remove the plate and the central area where the plug holes are. Plugs aren't made that way. The outer area (the plate) is easy to remove, but the central part would require an electrician to remove and rewire.
Correction: There are two 'self-closing outlet covers' in both the bathroom and bedroom. Cody didn't remove the wall outlet receptacles that conduct electricity; he only removed and switched the outer self-closing outlet cover plates: the bathroom cover plate decorated in wallpaper and the bedroom's plain outlet cover plate. In the bathroom, when Morgan removes the self-closing outlet cover (without wallpaper), they see the scorched outlet receptacle is still there from the fire. Near the end, during the reenactment, when we hear Morgan say, "He cleans up any evidence of a fire," note the self-closing outlet cover plate in Cody's hand that he places over the scorched outlet receptacle to conceal the burn marks. Rewatch, please.
Thanks. I've never seen covers like that.
This type, and other similar variations, has often been used by people (myself included) to child-proof and pet-proof wall outlets.
7th Jan 2025
Bad Boys (1995)
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)
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).
4th Nov 2024
Toy Story 4 (2019)
Corrected entry: When the stroller rolls out of the antique store and crashes into the railing, in the shot where the lady runs up to it, look at the attendant inside the ticket booth in the background. She is completely frozen, with no animation on her at all. (01:17:05)
Correction: This is simply wrong. The attendant can be seen moving and reacting to what’s going on.
You are likely referring to the shot before the stroller crashes into the railing. The attendant is moving there, but after the stroller crashes and the lady runs up to it, she becomes motionless.
Correction: When the lady runs up to the crashed baby carriage, in this shot the attendant in the booth in the background (seen in this specific shot for 2 seconds) you described as "motionless" and "frozen, with no animation on her at all." This attendant does not display movement in this shot; however, her stance and facial expression convey shock at what just happened, so she's staring with her eyes wide open and mouth agape. There's really nothing "revealing" about it.
I suppose I put this mistake under the wrong category, but I never stated that the attendant doesn't react to what happened. You mentioned her stance and facial expression, and I agree with that. But here's the thing: the attendant is standing still, which is fine, but there is no movement to make her look... well, alive. As a result, she looks like a statue. It's an animation error. That's what I'm saying. If I'm still wrong, please explain why, because it really doesn't look right to me.
Within the 2 seconds this attendant is visible, she doesn't look like a statue; she just looks completely transfixed and shocked - appropriate for that moment. And actually, movement to make her look "alive" is unnecessary because for those 2 seconds she's seen, the fact that she's standing there transfixed, with her shocked expression, is quite human. Her animation does not appear odd or weird in any way, to me.
I mean, she still looks off to me, but fair enough, I suppose.
27th Jan 2020
Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)
Question: What were the Triad throwing into the dryers along side the counterfeit bills?
Answer: It's poker chips (occurs at approx 01:30:35).
What was the purpose of adding poker chips with the fake money?
Within the heat of a dryer, the poker chips tumble around with all the stiff new counterfeit bills, helping them obtain a used/worn natural appearance similar to their real Chinese currency.
Answer: I believe that it's to make it look like the money's been in circulation. That amount of money in all brand new looking bills would be so far beyond suspicious.
20th Nov 2014
I Love Lucy (1951)
Continuity mistake: When Lucy buys back her coffee table, Ethel and Fred move it to the kitchen in the Mertz's apartment. The door to the Mertz's kitchen (with its doorknob on the right) in this episode opens the opposite way, inward towards the inside of the kitchen, and not outward in the direction of the living room, as seen in all previous and following episodes, including the very next episode. (00:17:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The kitchen is a double hinged "saloon style" door. The door opens both ways, just like in a restaurant and most kitchens of the era. This is evident in many episodes.
You're confused. Rewatch the episode, please. Your correction is describing the Ricardo apartment; it's Ricky and Lucy who have the kitchen with that swinging door, which you describe as "double hinged saloon style" that opens both ways. This mistake is actually referring to the Mertz's apartment, and their door leading to their own kitchen is a standard door with a doorknob and it always opens only one way - outward into the living room. It's only in this specific episode the Mertz's kitchen door is attached to the door jamb differently, and it opens inward into the kitchen. The mistake is absolutely valid.
4th Apr 2012
The Godfather: Part II (1974)
Corrected entry: When a young Vito is sitting on the steps with his family during the parade there is one child missing. We know Michael is sitting on Vito's lap. Connie is on Carmella's lap. So either Fredo or Sonny is missing in this scene. (02:05:25)
Correction: That's Fredo on Carmela's lap. I can see why he would be mistaken for a girl, though. Michael is the baby on Vito's lap, and we know Connie is younger than Michael...therefore, she wasn't born yet. So all three boys are accounted for.
Michael is the youngest child of their 4 children. I was wondering where the fourth child is, but looked it up, and Michael is the youngest of the family.
I don't know where you looked it up, but that info is wrong. The youngest is Connie (Constanzia) Corleone, and she's Carmela and Vito's only daughter. After Fanucci is shot during the Feast of San Gennaro scene, Vito returns to his family and when he picks up the infant, he whispers to him in Sicilian, "Michael, your father loves you very much" (02:05:40). At this point, Connie hasn't been born yet. Later in the film, when Vito and Carmela visit the town of Corleone in Sicily, now we see all 4 children are with them. Carmella holds infant Connie, and Vito holds little Michael (02:44:00).
19th May 2023
13 Going On 30 (2004)
Question: Why did Tom-Tom/Lucy have a nose job? Their nose was basically the same (and pretty as well). And why do people call her Tom-Tom?
Answer: Near the start, when Tom-Tom holds up her school photo packet, her real name Lucy Thompson is on the packet (there's a sticker at the right side of the photo with Lucy's name sideways, and Jenna's photo packet also has a sideways sticker with her own name). So the nickname Tom-Tom may stem from Thompson, though we're not told why or when that nickname even started. Within the movie we're also not given the outright reason for her nose job. If she became self-conscious about her nose, regardless if others thought it was a "pretty" nose, she opted to have rhinoplasty to alter the shape, even in a small way.
I just looked at that scene, and her name isn't on the packet. It has "Tamarack" in big letters at the top, in between two 1987s, but it says the same thing on Jenna's, which I'm presuming is the name of the school. So that can't be it.
Look again. Both Jenna's and Lucy's packets have their names on stickers at the right side of their photos. On Jenna's it reads "RINK, Jenna 03-88743" (we see it when Jenna picks up her photo packet from the table), and on Lucy's packet it reads "THOMPSON, Lucy 04-22578."
Answer: I think the "Tom-Tom" and nose job details were just bad writing. She says, "No one's called me that since I had my nose job." Thompson is not an unusual last name, but I've never heard of anyone being called "Tom-Tom" because of it. And it sounds like the nickname is connected to her nose, even if it's not supposed to be. Just not good writing. Maybe someone based this on an "inside joke"/private joke, not realizing that a mass audience might not understand it.
20th Jul 2009
Goodfellas (1990)
Revealing mistake: Morrie gets whacked by Tommy with an ice pick. After that, Morrie is dead and lifeless. Soon after, Frankie Carbone (post Jimmy leaving) exits the car. When he does, the car light comes on and you can see Morrie blink. (01:45:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Morrie does not blink, but his body moves slightly due to the car rocking.
You can see him blink in the edition I have.
I saw it yesterday on the Netflix version. Morrie blinked.
The mistake is valid. When Tommy says, "Where you going, you dizzy motherf*cker you," specifically just as he says the words "you dizzy," we do indeed see Morrie's left eye blink (the shadow covers his right eye). It has nothing to do with: "his body moves slightly due to the car rocking." This mistake is quite visible when streaming (MAX and Tubi, timecode 01:45:43), and it's especially visible on a laptop or iPad.
10th Apr 2023
Three's Company (1977)
Upstairs Downstairs Downstairs - S5-E1
Corrected entry: Jack's nurse date wears a wedding band.
Correction: Doreen is wearing a ring with a raised dark center stone - it glistens as she moves her hand. It looks like a regular fashion statement ring that women wore/wear on either their right or left hand; nothing indicative of a "wedding band" at all.
Explain? Alright. I watched the episode, and Doreen's ring does not look like a wedding band. It appears to be just a normal ring with at least one raised dark gemstone.
Correction: Generally the idea of seeing a character wearing a wedding ring as a mistake is because in real life the actor or actress forget to take off their wedding ring. In real life, Lee Crawford (who plays Doreen) was divorced in 1978 and wasn't married or engaged at the time of shooting the episode. So it's just a character choice to wear a ring on her left hand and doesn't mean she's married or engaged.
The very point being, that she is wearing on one on her hand, when she's supposed to be single in this episode. So the mistake stands.
No, because it's a character choice. People who are single wear rings on their left ring finger for a variety of reasons, none of which indicates it's a wedding band or that they're married.
28th Feb 2023
Bones (2005)
Corrected entry: Everyone except Bones and Booth are curious over Dr. Tanaka's true gender identity, so Angela deliberately hugs Tanaka, then audibly 'informs' Hodgins, Saroyan, and Sweets standing 15 feet across at the doorway, that Tanaka is male, instead of discreetly informing them privately apart from Tanaka's presence.
Correction: Remember, when Hodgins asks Dr Tanaka about the microsil, Tanaka replies, "I believe your partly Chinese woman will be able to reconstruct the tool," then Angela walks in saying she heard Tanaka's comment. Nakamura quickly clarifies that Tanaka (who is Japanese) "means no offense" and did not mean for it to "sound so insulting" (00:31:05). At the end, Angela decides to take matters into her own hands so to speak, regarding Tanaka's physical gender. So considering Tanaka's earlier rude comment about her, and even more so, as well as Angela just being our Angela, after Angela hugs Tanaka she walks back over to her team and in a normal voice as usual Angela bluntly says, "It moved, he's a guy" (00:40:40). Angela very simply did not care if Tanaka would overhear this. This is not a "stupidity" or any other kind of mistake, whatsoever.
I would add, Angela is very outspoken through the show and has shown numerous times that she will just say whatever needs to be said rather than hide away from a topic. And if we disregard everything mentioned above, about Tanaka being rude, How is it a mistake that Angela says it out loud?
Yep, agree about Angela being outspoken, that's why I mentioned "as well as Angela just being our Angela" because yes, that's exactly her just being her :).
Tanaka wasn't rude, it was Angela who was rude and unprofessional about the former's identity. And absolutely makes it a mistake when it's a direct failure of professional protocol. One simply does not set out to embarrass a colleague by "proving" anything in a workplace, that could potentially set them up for harassment.
I'd stated that Angela (or the production) failed to use proper professional etiquette when she approached Tanaka to curiously clarify his/her gender, without any privacy of the room. So very much a mistake, considering even Bones would not have done such out of courtesy and respect to another professional. However, Angela did not care. So that was stupidity and or negligence on her part as a supposed forensics professional, in displaying such repugnant behavior. Very much a mistake.
18th Feb 2008
Mama's Family (1983)
Corrected entry: It is well known that Vint had two kids in the opening of Mama's Family, but later on, Vint and Naomi try to conceive and are having trouble. They all assume that it is Vint, but he already has two kids and this was never mentioned during the time they were trying.
Correction: Fertility can change over a person's lifetime. Just because Vint has had two kids in the past doesn't mean he can't have trouble fathering a new one now.
But when Naomi gets pregnant, Vint also says he's excited to finally be a father. But he already has two kids.
In the basement, when Naomi tells Vint (who has two older teenagers) that she's "already pregnant," Vint does not say that he's excited to finally be a father. Vint's actual reply is, "You mean I'm gonna be a daddy, again?" Note that Vint says, "again" after a beat.
27th Aug 2001
Forrest Gump (1994)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Robin Wright is supposed to be playing the guitar and singing nude in the club, you can see the nude-coloured thong she is wearing when they show her from the back.
Correction: The thong is so noticeable that it is apparent that it's presence is a deliberate one. Two explanations within the storyline: One, it's a topless bar not a totally-nude bar and she chose to wear a thong that was flesh/skin colored. Or two, it is a totally-nude bar and perhaps she planned to strip after the song, and didn't get a chance to get that far, due to the unruly crowd and Forrest's interruption.
But what year was it supposed to have been? Thongs weren't invented until 1974.
This scene takes place around 1967 and Jenny is wearing a G-string with a fur front. G-strings had been in use for many years prior to 1967.
21st Sep 2018
The Nanny (1993)
Corrected entry: In the Christmas Episode (s1e8), we are told Fran's watch meant a lot to her because her grandmother gave it to her on her deathbed. In this episode Fran has two living grandmothers.
Correction: Fran's bubbe (Yiddish for grandmother) Sophie is dead though, this is mostly likely a reference to her.
Who is Sophie? Fran's Grandmas are Nettie Fine and Yetta Rosenberg. Both are alive.
Bubbie Sophie is mentioned in S4xE4 The Rosie Show. She's portrayed in the dream cemetery sequence by Fran Drescher. I believe that Bubbie Sophie is meant to be Yetta's mother, so Fran's great-grandmother, and she may have died right before Fran was born, or when Fran was a baby.
30th May 2022
Cliffhanger (1993)
Question: How much money was in the cases the bad guys lost?
Answer: It totalled more than $100 million.
Uh, wouldn't a stack of $100 million in cash be too big to fit in a case?
The money was in 3 cases.
This, plus it's also worth noting that they were $1,000 bills, which would greatly cut down on the size.
28th Apr 2022
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Question: Has it ever been explained what would have happened if the Sorting Hat couldn't decide what students should be placed into what house?
Answer: If the Sorting Hat experienced a "Hatstall" where, after a certain amount of time passes, it was unable to decide where to place a student based on their being suited to more than one House, then the student's personal preference would be considered. There were a handful of "hatstalls" over the centuries, but the Sorting Hat eventually placed the students.
Where are you getting this?
From the Harry Potter "Wizarding World" web site. The supplemental material was written by J.K. Rowling and originally published on "Pottermore." According to Rowling, Minerva McGonagall was a Hatstall student. The Sorting Hat had difficulty placing her between either Gryffindor or Ravenclaw, finally settling on Gryffindor.
The term Hatstall was created by JK Rowling. It can be found here: https://www.wizardingworld.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/hatstall.
15th May 2020
Top Gun (1986)
Corrected entry: The call of "going ballistic" is totally wrong. Calling "we're going ballistic" is a warning call to all other aircraft that you have no control of your airplane and it's only being controlled by the laws of physics (diving, turning etc) and not the pilot.
Correction: While you are correct technically, I don't believe Goose was referring to the technical use of the phrase/term. He was using it as a indication of excitement. "My daughter went ballistic when she saw the new puppy."
The fact that you point out the mistake is correct isn't a good way to open a correction. Plus, there's no indication he's expressing "sudden excitement." On top of that, even if he did intend to say "we're excited", it would still be a character mistake to use a specific phrase that has a specific meaning out of context like you're suggesting.
I did not point out of the "mistake" is correct at all. I pointed out that what the poster stated is true (to my knowledge) about what going ballistic means in the technical flying a plane sense. However, this is not how Goose is using it. He was absolutely expressing excitement. Maverick states that they are going vertical. Goose replies "We're going ballistic Mav, go get'em." He is not saying it to alert other craft (thus the call out specifically to Mav). This was a phrase used a lot in the 80's, but not much anymore. "Dad is going to go ballistic when he finds out", or "She is going to go ballistic when we get to Disney." It expresses anger, excitement, craziness. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/go%20ballistic.
The NATO Brevity Code manual (google it), specifically mentions "going ballistic" as a the term to be used once you have lost control of your aircraft, a warning to others. It's a term that was adopted *after* the movie for expressing excitement.
When the couples are all together at the restaurant/bar (01:01:45), Carole tells Maverick, "He told me all about the time you went ballistic with Penny Benjamin" (the Admiral's daughter). So considering his wife, Carole, uses this specific slang expression it's believable that Goose also uses the slang in this way despite its "technical" use. During the earlier training mission (00:31:55), when Goose reacted to Maverick going vertical after Jester goes vertical, Goose, perhaps inappropriately, casually used the term only while speaking directly to Maverick, so if this is to be listed as any kind of mistake it would be a character mistake. This movie was released mid 1986, and excitedly "going ballistic" (just like "going bananas") was indeed a term used prior to this movie's release.
Yet, they are not losing control of the aircraft in that scene, and he is not warning other aircraft since it's not happening AMD he is only talking to Maverick (the pilot who would be well aware if they were ballistic). I don't know exactly when the term hit the main stream as a term of excitement but it's pretty clear to me that he is saying it that way. Classifying this as an error would be like saying the lines "a walk in the park Kazinsky" or "the defense department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid" are errors because neither is true. He wasn't reporting to anyone that they were ballistic. He was encouraging his pilot and just happened to use an aeronautical statement in his excitement.
From The Dictionary of Clichés by Christine Ammer: "It began to be used to describe human anger in the 1980s and quickly caught on." No exact date, but was used in magazine articles in the late 1980's, so probably by around 1986 it was a popular expression.
28th Jul 2004
Jurassic Park III (2001)
Question: When the boat is sinking and everyone is in the cage, what does Grant say to Ellie on the satellite phone and how does she know what it means and which island to go to out of the five?
Answer: He says "The River, Site B." Obvisouly there is only one main river on Site B (the island). Ellie was smart enough to figure it out.
But how does she get a US navy battle group to turn up? Previously the US embassy wouldn't send anyone for a missing child, but a fleet for an old man off a very garbled phone call? As far as I remember, she had a fairly ordinary job/life in a suburb of the America.
Ellie's husband is Mark Degler, who works at the State Department, and it's with his connections that the rescue gets underway. Early in the movie Ellie told Grant he's bad about asking for help, and he should ask her anything anytime. Near the end, before their phone line was cut off, Ellie had heard the dinosaur roar and screams, so she knew Grant was in trouble.
I think it has something to do with what her husband does for a living.
Answer: Ellie's husband is in treaties and diplomatic relations and would be able to get a rescue group sent.
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.