Factual error: At the very beginning, while Frederick is telling us about the party, he says, "There will be food and drink and ghosts etc..." Throughout the movie, there isn't a single morsel of food ever seen or offered.
TedStixon
20th Nov 2023
House on Haunted Hill (1959)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Around thirteen minutes into the film, when Frederick starts to pour drinks for his guests, you can see a table with food on it behind them. Appears to be sort-of of a small, buffet style selection of hors d'oeuvres, albeit it's out of focus in the background. (It's very easy to miss.)
6th Sep 2004
UHF (1989)
Corrected entry: At the very end of the movie when the main character's in a different setting, there are thick black lines in the background, but when George Newman says, "I knew she was gonna say that." and they kiss, the lines are gone. (01:31:05)
Correction: It's a fantasy, all happening in George's head. Anything can happen.
Being a fantasy sequence doesn't make a scene exempt from mistakes.
11th Nov 2023
What If...? (2021)
What If... Captain Carter Were the First Avenger? - S1-E1
Factual error: In the intro, we are shown how Nazi Germany spreads across Europe - but after showing Denmark being conquered, it is shown to start spreading across Sweden. Sweden was never occupied by the Germans in WWII.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I feel like this falls under the "Not a mistake because it's an alternate universe" umbrella. We're in an entirely different universe with a different timeline in this episode.
The show also makes a point that the only difference should be the minor choices or events befalling the MCU characters, and how these minor things have huge consequences for them, basically creating a new, alternate timeline. Basic world history before these events is not affected by the new timeline.
Suggested correction: The black spot spreading is not representing territory physically conquered by the Nazis, but more of their sphere of influence expanding. It is a steady spread and not a true representation of the war's progression. You can notice how Switzerland is also covered by the black, even though it was neutral during the war. Nor was Italy conquered, but their ally instead.
11th Nov 2023
What If...? (2021)
What If... Captain Carter Were the First Avenger? - S1-E1
Factual error: When Stark starts telling about the Tesseract, the colonel shows surprise that Nazis were in Norway. Peggy answers with "Close. HYDRA." The scene is set in 1943, and Norway had been occupied by Nazi Germany for three years already. Them being in Tønsberg should not come as a great surprise to an Allied commander. (00:07:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I feel like this falls under the "Not a mistake because it's an alternate universe" umbrella. We're in an entirely different universe with a different timeline in this episode.
The show also makes a point that the only difference should be the minor choices or events befalling the MCU characters, and how these minor things have huge consequences for them, basically creating a new alternate timeline. Basic world history before these events is not affected by the new timeline.
Basic, unaltered world history does not apply with this because we are talking about an alternate WWII from the beginning. One with Schmitt/Red Skull as propaganda minister of Hitler, Hydra superseding the SS, super soldier serum, Stark tech, the Tesseract, etc. It is not WWII as we know it, even without the "what if."
18th Sep 2023
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
The Maternal Congruence - S3-E11
Corrected entry: Sheldon tells Leonard and Penny that he had inflatable lawn decorations as a child (in the late 80s/early 90s). Those weren't invented until 2001.
Correction: Sorry, but this is completely incorrect. I had inflatable decorations back in the 90s, and there were absolutely inflatable lawn decorations in the 80s. You can still buy some inflatable 80s decoration secondhand on sites like eBay. "Modern" inflatables like balloons date back 200 years, and the air-inflation process had been used prior to that even. I can only presume you're referring to the more current in-vogue inflatables that use fans... but even those existed before 2001, albeit they weren't as widely used. (Ex. The StarLab inflatable planetarium that many schoolchildren still experience to this day uses the same basic fan system and was invented in the 1970's.)
I researched my answer. Can you provide more info on yours?
How could you have possibly done research on inflatables and come to the conclusion that inflatable decorations were invented in 2001? My info is that I literally owned some, and you can still find plenty second-hand online. Go to Etsy and search "vintage inflatable" and there are currently multiple inflatable decorations that date from the 80s and earlier that people are selling secondhand.
Correction: He says he had an inflatable Santa Claus, but nothing to suggest it was an "air blown" version that you seem to be talking about.
Inflatable means you blow air into it.
Yes, but it doesn't mean to blow air into constantly with a portable fan. That's why kids before 2001 had beach balls and other inflatable pool toys. What you seem to be describing or alluding to are called "Gemmy Airblown Inflatables," introduced in 2001.
Very true, Bishop. And even then... the technology Gemmy Airblown Inflatables use existed long before 2001. As I said in my response, it's the same basic tech used for things like inflatable planetariums. I'm confused as to what MovieFan612 is getting at. They seem to be indicating that inflatable decorations in general didn't exist before 2001... which is just factually wrong.
20th Mar 2023
The Menu (2022)
Other mistake: During the dinner Slowik reveals that his restaurant does not have nor serve bread of any kind. Towards the end of the movie Margot requests that he make her a cheeseburger, which he does. Where did the buns come from?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I just watched through the scene. The chef never once says that the restaurant has no bread. He only states that the guests will not be getting bread as part of this specific meal plan. Furthermore, we actually see a plate of bread at the start of the course, the dude-bro customers ask for bread since they know the chef has it, the notecard specifically discusses the bread that was made at the restaurant but won't be served, and another customer actually even specifically notes that the restaurant is known for their high-quality bread. Every single indication is that the chef absolutely has bread and is simply withholding it due to the theme of his dinner that night.
Suggested correction: He didn't say they didn't have bread. He stated THEY wouldn't get bread for that evening, since it's a common man's staple, and they are not the common man. So, they get a breadless bread plate with nothing but dipping sauces.
11th Sep 2023
Model by Day (1994)
Corrected entry: There's no way that the around 5'4" foot Jae could fit into the Lady X costume that the 6'0" foot Lex wears.
Correction: The difference in height between the actresses is less than 4". Traci Lind is 5'8" and Famke Jannsen is 5'11.5". Not sure where you got 5'4" from. So she absolutely should be able to fit into the costume mostly OK. It also noticeably looks a little loose on her if you pay attention. I don't see any mistake here.
4th Sep 2023
MythBusters (2003)
Corrected entry: In testing the Point Break catch up myth, the Myth Busters demonstrated that Keanu Reeves could indeed have caught up with Patrick Swayze in freefall. But, understandably, they did not test what would have happened if he had. Several years ago, two members of the U.S. Army's Golden Knights parachute team had a similar (but unintentional) mid-air collision. One of them died instantly, while the other survived but lost both his legs.
Correction: Well, first of all, that's not a factual error. As you said, they were testing if he could catch up... not what would happen to him. Although, to indulge you, when they made the movie, the stunt men in the scene actually did tackle each other mid-air as depicted in the movie. An unintentional freak accident doesn't invalidate that. That'd be like me saying "Not EVERY car accident is fatal" and then you countered with "No, that's a mistake because SOME are."
8th Mar 2022
Pokemon (1998)
Mystery at the Lighthouse - S1-E13
Other mistake: When Brock turns his head to the costume, his nose is missing. (00:12:47)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Agree with the other correction. Dropping details, such as facial features like a nose or mouth, and simplifying character designs is a very common and encouraged drawing/animation technique to imply distance. This isn't something the animators would just overlook. It was a deliberate decision. Ash and Misty similarly look somewhat less detailed than they do in closer shots. At best, this would be a deliberate mistake, but I personally think it falls under the umbrella of "suspension of disbelief" and shouldn't be considered a mistake given it's a stylistic choice to imply distance.
Suggested correction: His nose isn't seen because he is far away from the camera.
28th May 2005
Child's Play 2 (1990)
Plot hole: In the factory we see the machine that adds the hair to the Dolls it "punches" the doll at standing level. Andy hits the reverse button and they watch a doll go backwards. A few moments later Chucky appears on a cart and now the machine "punches" Chucky to the cart. 2 Errors -1 How did Andy and Kyle not see Chucky on the cart right in front of them. 2. What made the machine go low enough to stick Chucky to the cart.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: 1. Andy and Kyle were looking away, hence they didn't see Chucky. But then, Kyle turns and sees him. 2. We are to presume that the punch machine goes down until it is stopped by the doll it's meant to be "punching" into. So, it just descended until it reached Chucky and the platform he's on. (Additionally, the machine also seems to be malfunctioning given it goes into a sort of overdrive.)
26th Aug 2023
The Conjuring 2 (2016)
Corrected entry: Peggy Hodgson gets her children out of the house, save for possessed Janet, telling them to go to Peggy's house while she attempted to re-enter their own home to save Janet. (01:49:03)
Correction: I'm not understanding what the mistake is. Are you saying it's a mistake that she said "Go to Peggy's house" because she's named Peggy? Because that's not a mistake. She's referring to Peggy Nottingham's house, who is a different character. Or are you saying it's a mistake that she sent her other children off without her? Because it's not... she's trying to protect them. I'm just not seeing what the mistake is here.
26th Aug 2023
Robocop (1987)
Corrected entry: Robocop actually kills a guy (the "fuck me" robber) with a swing blow that sends the guy through a refrigeration unit. He KILLS a guy but doesn't report it. He says, "Thank you for your cooperation. Good night." He then shoots a rapist but doesn't report it. He says, "I will notify a rape crisis center," but he doesn't report the shooting. This guy is not a cop at all.
Correction: We don't see everything he does or doesn't do. Much like other cops in movies, films would be pretty dull if they took some action and we then had to watch them in real time have a conversation on the radio about it followed by hours of paperwork.
Correction: First of all, I'm not sure where you got the idea that him clotheslining the robber and making him fall through the refrigeration unit kills him. You're the first person I've seen make that claim. He just looks like he gets knocked out. Second, both instances you mention cut away before we see the aftermath. It's not too difficult to presume that he either booked the perps or contacted other police to come clean up after him offscreen. After all, we do see him arrest Clarence later, so we know he does arrest people.
29th Sep 2003
Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)
Revealing mistake: In the scene where Johnny Depp is searching Cheech Marin by the river, you can see Cheech breathing, even though he is supposedly dead from the gunshot in the scene before.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is a feature on the DVD that shows the making of this scene, and that a dummy was used.
Incorrect. What they did was use digital effects to blend the fake eye socket of the dummy onto a shot of the real Cheech Marin because the dummy didn't look real enough in close-up. So, that actually is Cheech Marin, and you can, in fact, see him lightly breathing once or twice. The only part of the dummy you can see in these shots is the area immediately around his right eye, where they blended footage of the dummy in. They specifically said on the DVD that the dummy didn't look real enough to be used on its own. I'm not sure how you could have missed that part on the special feature because they show how they blended the two shots.
22nd Oct 2014
Halloween: Resurrection (2002)
Factual error: As we see in some of this series, Michael pins his victims to the wall with butcher knives. A kitchen knife isn't capable of holding a person's body weight pinned to a wall.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Sure, it can. If it's a full tang knife jammed hard enough into a stud, especially given Michael's seemingly superhuman strength, it could definitely support a body.
No. There wouldn't be enough knife jammed in the stud to support a body. The average man has a chest depth of about 10", and Michael is shown using regular-sized kitchen knives, which are typically 6-12" in length... and that includes the handle. Honestly, none of the knives Michael uses would realistically be long enough to go all the way through a man's chest, let alone embed themselves into the wall behind the victim. So it's 100% impossible as depicted. This is simply a suspension of disbelief situation where the filmmakers knowingly included something completely unrealistic and impossible because it was a great visual. So it's 100% a mistake... but it's a cool mistake because it looks great on camera.
27th Oct 2017
Hannibal (2001)
Trivia: "The Silence of the Lambs" director Jonathan Demme was approached to direct and had expressed interest in directing a sequel for some time before the publication of the novel. However, he opted not to return, feeling the novel was too gory and excessive compared to "Silence..." and he didn't feel it would make a good film. Producer Dino de Laurentiis also suggested that Demme was also nervous to make a sequel, given the first film's reputation as potentially one of the greatest films ever made. "Silence of the Lambs" star Jodie Foster also refused to return, feeling the character of Clarice Starling was "betrayed" in the novel of "Hannibal."
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: According to Jodie Foster, she didn't return due to a scheduling conflict with another film.
Foster herself has said that the "scheduling conflict" excuse was just the polite "official" reason she went with to not throw shade at the production, but wasn't the actual reason. A lot of times, "scheduling conflict" is used as a fall-back explanation when someone drops out of a project. Her intense disliking of the original novel and first few drafts of the script is very well-known, and why she turned it down.
20th Jul 2023
The Fifth Element (1997)
Corrected entry: When Leeloo escapes the lab by ripping through the wall, it's painfully obvious that the presumably "metal" wall is just made out of regular old tinfoil or a similar substance. It bends and breaks super easily, seems to be paper-thin, and tellingly, you can even see a bit sticking out at the end of the shot and the other side of it isn't painted... it's just the classic tinfoil "silver" color.
Correction: It is not meant to be a metal wall. It's not the outer wall of the room, just encased around the regeneration tube. It's possibly equivalent to MLI (Multi-Layer Insulation) used in astronautics. That is also gold on one side and silver on the other.
I did not know about MLI. Thanks for mentioning that. That actually would explain it very well. It always drove me nuts how cheap and flimsy it looked, but if it's meant to be something like MLI, it 100% makes sense.
21st Jul 2023
Oggy and the Cockroaches (1998)
Trivia: The episode starts off with Dee Dee eating scraps, while Marky looks over stuff. Later on, Marky found what seems to be an Identity Card that belongs to Joey. Here, the card shows that Joey's birthday is on June 15th, 1991. (00:00:14)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Is there some sort of special offscreen significance to this birthday? Because I don't see how this constitutes trivia if it's blatantly shown onscreen.
It counts as a trivia because no characters except Joey have their dates of birth revealed.
I mean, unless I'm lacking some sort of other context, I still don't think just seeing a character's birthday counts as trivia, unless the date is some sort of inside joke or reference.
12th Aug 2010
Poltergeist (1982)
Corrected entry: In the opening sequence, when Dana is in bed and hears Carol Anne say, "Hello, I can't hear you", for some reason there is a prosthetic leg lying across Dana's bed. (00:03:45)
Correction: It's just Dana's leg.
Yup, she just has it at an awkward angle, but it's 100% her leg. Not sure how the OP thought it was a prosthetic leg to begin with. There's literally no reason for a prosthetic leg to be in the shot when they could easily use the actress' leg, and it looks far too real to be a prosthetic from an 80's movie.
19th Mar 2023
The Whale (2022)
Corrected entry: Mary may have "fought hard" to gain full custody of Ellie, but - even if Charlie did "leave them" to be with his "lover" - Charlie should have still gotten at least court-ordered regular supervised visits with his daughter over the years, not shut off from maintaining a relationship with his biological daughter.
Correction: Fathers often get the 'short end of the stick' in custody battles. It is entirely possible that Charlie was denied even supervised visitation. Especially if the judge was extremely conservative.
Especially if the judge was conservative and anti-gay. Plenty of them around.
Charlie was not physically or sexually abusive toward his daughter Ellie (two major reasons to deny any visitation), so I have to disagree.
I'm not sure how you could disagree. Women are 4X more likely to get primary custody than men, and it's really not unheard of for a parent to get little-to-no custody/visitation even if they weren't abusive to the child. Ex. My father was not abusive towards me, but I only saw him for a few hours every other week because that's just how the arrangement worked out. (Which in retrospect was good because he had other issues and I shouldn't have been around him more than that. But at the time it hurt.)
18th Dec 2018
Paranormal Activity (2007)
Other mistake: When Katie tells Micah to look at their picture after the demon has broken the glass, you can plainly see the girl in the picture is not Katie.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Yes, it is. She looks a little different in the picture, but it just comes down to the camera angle (it's a high angle) and the weird lighting in the photo (she's in shadow). I also checked out a high-resolution still of the photo in the movie and compared it to a photo of the actress, and they share every minor subtle feature right down to the shape of her teeth. Micah also looks slightly different in the photo too, but it's the same actor. Also, I have to ask what purpose would there be to having a photo with a completely different actress when they could just take one with the actress from the movie?
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.