3rd Nov 2017
The Rhinitis Revelation - S5-E6
Other mistake: When Mary is rubbing VapoRub on Sheldon's chest, she makes a comment that last time she saw that there was no hair, to which Sheldon replies "Yeah it filled in last year." In Season 1, Episode 11, Penny rubs VapoRub on Sheldon's chest and a very clear remark about chest hair was made. Season 1 for the show was 4 years ago.
19th Sep 2019
Factual error: Speaking with Miss Watkins, the protagonist learns of the backstory of the complex, and how in 1814, the local baron was running all sorts of experiments on "his own peasants." The movie though is set in Switzerland, where the power of nobilty was considerably lower and less traditionally 'feudal' than in most neighbouring countries (and stayed as such even after the Congress of Vienna). In particular this castle supposedly is in the canton of Graubünden (aka Grisons), where within the context of the Three Leagues you'd have been hard pressed finding a 'baron' ruling lands, a radical prohibition of nobility, titles and particles having been enacted, surely with no life and death powers over his serfs.
Suggested correction: Even though Swiss nobilities were prohibited doesn't mean anyone with a nobility wasn't allowed to own land in Switzerland. They were simply not priviledged as a noble anymore. He could have been made Baron in Italy, Austria or France. The Count de Salis-Seewis is still a count to this day, with land and mansions and everything, in Grisons. Of course a Baron could still live in a castle in Switzerland in 1814, even in Grisons. The acts he performed on his serfs were illegal and criminal, but he held it secret.
6th Sep 2019
Other mistake: When the Amazons interrogate Steve they don't know the meaning of the word "crap" yet they know one of the definitions of the word "rack."
Suggested correction: Just because they understand some slang, doesn't mean they should understand all slang.
Well if they're an ancient race then how do they know of the use of the word rack regarding female anatomy? One of them went out into the modern world and learned this? Hera tell them this? Maybe they got internet or a modern dictionary?
Well obviously they know stuff about the modern world. Diana could speak Dutch fluently, not Old Dutch either, but modern Dutch. So they do get information or else she wouldn't have known that. This would include slang.
28th Jul 2007
Corrected entry: In one scene in the common room the song 'Boys Will Be Boys' by 'The Ordinary Boys' is playing, released in 2006, but this film is set in the 1990s, before the song was released.
Correction: The films are separate from the books - the films have never stated what year they're set.
As far as I know, the movies don't explicitly state their years, but the years can be inferred but are a mess. For example, the graves for the Potters say they died in 1981, so if Harry was one year old when they died, it was about 1991 when the first movie starts. This date match the book's dates. It does raise a problem with the 7th movie though, since we see the Millennium Bridge collapse, which wasn't opened until 2000, and the Dursleys driving a 2008 model car. I think the producers didn't say a date so didn't worry much about consistency.
Movies are separate from the books but they are set in the same time as them.
Nope. For a start we see the Millennium Bridge in the movies, which wasn't opened until 2000.
The millennium bridge being in the movie is actually a mistake, as its supposed to be 1996. I think its listed.
28th Feb 2011
Corrected entry: In the second task, Karkaroff can be seen mouthing the words that Dumbledore is saying.
Correction: He only mouths "reward him", and does so after Dumbledore said it. He repeats the words to himself as he is wondering what Dumbledore means by them. Not as a mock, but questioningly.
7th Sep 2019
The Hamburger Postulate - S1-E5
Character mistake: When Sheldon knocks on Penny's door to seek advice about the tie on Leonard's doorknob, he does not use his typical triple knock. (00:07:43)
First time he knocks 3 times is in Episode 2 of Season 1. First time knocking 3 times followed by saying the name is episode 10 of Season 1. The ritual of 3 knocks and 3 times saying the name and then stopping is Episode 5 of season 2.
Sheldon knocks three times because he once walked into his parents bedroom and saw his father with another woman. He's been doing the triple knock since he was a teenager.
Yet, he didn't in the show till Season 2. Funny ain't it?
Suggested correction: A one-time lapse in someone's usual behavior does not count as a "character mistake", even in the case of someone given to ritualistic behavior as Sheldon is.
Ah, but in an episode he explains he had developed this particular ritual at age 13 after walking into his parent's bedroom without knocking and seeing his father having sex with another woman. He says he started knocking 3 times since then and would never forget. So its not consistent and a mistake as this is not the only example one can name.
7th Sep 2019
Plot hole: Anderton getting to Crow pivoted on seeing the Precog visions of Anderton killing Crow. But it's a causal loop. How did it happen the first time without the vision? To top it off, Anderton had Agatha in the room. Later Burgess points our to Witwer that there are no signs of Precrime descending on him because the Precogs can't see him about to kill Witwer because of their separated condition. However, that's the exact same condition the Precogs were in when Anderton was supposed to shoot Crow...so how would it be seen in pre-vision?
Suggested correction: The pre-vision of Anderton killing Crow happened before the Precogs were seperated, for Witwer's murder the pre-vision came too late. It's paradoxal but the fact there was a pre-vision of the Anderton-Crow murder, it was going to happen. But at the last second Anderton made a choice not to, something which the pre-cogs can't see as Agatha explained to him, the pre-visions are only 1 possible outcome of the future. Thats the flaw in the system.
2nd Sep 2019
Plot hole: The shapeshifting aliens without even flinching take full barrages of M4A1 carbines point blank, absorbing in full all the damage, but somehow they can be kicked and punched and get hurt and stopped by scraps of metal, knives, whips, Beast clawing at them, and even better, the non-superpowered Nightcrawler snaps the neck of one of them.
Suggested correction: None of them are killed or actually harmed by any of the attacks as later shown when they just get up again. They have stolen human bodies and those bodies still react like a real human body does, they just take some time to regenerate.
Without mentioning the D'baris from the comics who don't steal bodies but just pose as humans, in this movie they are shown having their own body to begin with, with an ability to assimilate humans with their memories and appearances: it's doubtful they'd have a spine to snap. Their reactions are just all over the place though: they take virtually no time to regenerate full barrages of automatic weapons, staying all the time on their feet not even flinching and showing no pain (also, being equipped with superhuman strength, since they toss people all the way from one end of the train wagon to the other with one hand). They show no reaction to bullets maiming them, but if it's a main character taking a swing, then it's a hit - even if non lethal. The main villain reacts to no bullets but when Nightcrawler was cutting her up she swayed wildly under his every strike, just as an example. I get it that it's choreographic, but it just makes no sense.
The turret shot bullets through them and they quickly healed.
Plot hole: In the shot where two of the pirates find Jack Sparrow in the prison, you see the moon shine out over Port Royal and the pirate's hand around Jack's neck is skeletal. While this is happening we know that Elizabeth is being led onto the Black Pearl by two pirates. If the pirate in the prison turns skeletal, why don't the pirates with Elizabeth turn skeletal? It's clear that they don't as Elizabeth only discovers the curse later on aboard the Black Pearl.
Suggested correction: This can be explained that on the route from Elizabeth's house to the ship there is a lot of fog, smoke from fires and gunpowder explosions, so the moon doesn't get through. The moon only get through once they are underway again and the fog is cleared. The prison is much further and higher than the town and so the moon does get through (only sometimes) there.
You're very much mistaken. In later scene pirates turn skeletal when marching underwater, at the bottom of the ocean. Moon is easily able to get through water and this smoke isn't thick enough to block the moon.
How does water compare to fog? Of course the moonlight comes through the water, its transparent. Fog isn't transparent. You can go technical and question how much the moonlight is reflected away before the effect wears off, but obviously the effect wears off when there is no direct moonlight hitting them, as is the case with fog and smoke.
30th Aug 2019
Corrected entry: In the labs, the Beast is looking at colour LCD monitors, they weren't available in 1992.
Correction: They weren't available in the real world in 1992. This is science fiction though, and there are mutants both in the films and the comics they are based on that are extremely intelligent and innovative. The character Forge for example, who does not appear in the films but may exist offscreen, has the mutant ability to basically invent anything. Beast is also intelligent enough to invent LCD screens a lot sooner than we had them. He did create Cerebro in the early 1960's after all, which is a piece of technology that we in the real world to this day do not possess.
Next to that the first LCD screens came at the end of the 80's though in low quality and small. By 1992 they were very expensive but a lot better. The actual invention of the LCD technology was as far back as the 1960's.
Agreed that the Beast had the smarts to develop LCD screens but the story should be based on reality. For example if the Beast had pulled out an iPhone, it wouldn't fit the narrative, but the Beast would easily be able to construct such a device should he wish to.
Why should the story be based on reality? The movie doesn't take place in the real world. Should the president in the movie be George Bush since that would have reflected reality? The LCD monitors serve a purpose for the scene. While it technically wouldn't have been a mistake for Beast to have in invented one, an iPhone wouldn't serve any purpose for any of the scenes in the movie.
30th Aug 2019
Corrected entry: Doc Ock robs a bank to get funds to rebuild his machine. He seems to take only three or four bank bags, which, given the size of the machine, doesn't seem like enough to buy all the parts to rebuild it.
Correction: Let's say it wasn't enough, perhaps because Spider-Man intervening prevented him from taking more. He could have robbed another bank or an armored truck offscreen. Showing that, however, would just drag the movie down. Since he has all the equipment he needs, we have to accept that he acquired enough money to pay for it all.
Correction: Just because it "doesn't seem" like enough doesn't make it a plot hole.
Yeah you don't really know what is inside and what seems to be inside are golden coins which are probably worth quite a lot more than bank notes would. There could even be jewellry inside.
23rd Aug 2019
Stupidity: Assuming that Stark had absolute faith in being able to bring Peter back (otherwise, not much point making a dead person his heir), he had an army of killer drones standing by in space, but he made no use of it during the dramatic battle against Thanos, when you'd expect he'd use every resource available.
Suggested correction: Besides the fact it's a possibility these killer drones (or the satellite) were not yet ready when Thanos attacked, since Tony likes to have his new gadgets be build autonomously, I think it's safe to assume that during the time Thanos' spaceship was in the air the drones had little chance to impact the battlefield as that thing had excellent AA as proven when Captain Marvel came in from orbit. Once the spaceship was destroyed however I'd take it Tony was kinda busy with fighting Thanos and keeping him from the gauntlet to be thinking about any drones or any other protocol he had in space (I doubt he had only 1 satellite with weapons technology on board). Next to that I doubt the drones would have any use keeping Thanos away from the stones anyway, and them fighting the rest of Thanos' army was only second priority (and they were winning).
I actually agree (and upvote) the consideration that there's no hard evidence that the drones were fully operational before the event of Endgame, as I figure that the orbital facility should have some in-built technology to replace any drone lost. He can build new armors in minutes, drones should be assembled quite readily, so the 'big' part would have been designing the 'ship', but I won't get into speculations about the logistics involved, it'd be a wild tangent. I maintain that in this movie we're introduced to quasi-instantaneous anywhere-in-the-world tactical intervention capabilities Stark seemingly had, being presented as his heritage. You postulate that he could have even more space weaponry lurking around, and it wouldn't be out of place since this movie makes the reach of his technology appear truly global in a much different way than it was before, where we saw armors pieces fly from his Malibu garage or something. So, if he was too busy dealing with the messy fight on the ground to be bothered sending an order to the huge swarm of expendable decoys and hunter-seekers he (likely) had at the ready, well, he was surely under-utilizing them (hence the 'stupidity').
Perhaps I was a bit too generous when I said he had plenty of other weapon equipment in orbit. Ever since Iron Man 3 Tony hasn't been building a lot, nothing too elaborate anyway and after infinity war you gotta remember he has been living quietly and peacefully with his family the past 5 years without building anything probably. Even though he was pissed off they didn't build the shield around the earth he was just too tired and depressed to be the guardian, also believing I think that Thanos was right in some way and the dangers for Earth were over, so there was no need for The Avengers. Once he decides to help bring everyone back (and thus Peter) he must have ordered EDITH to build the satellite as a last bit of useful tech to leave his succesor in the case of his death. Last point I want to make which is a bit of a stretch but when Thanos' ship arrives it arrives high in the air and starts and attack on the ground. It's a good possibility the attack was directed at any threats in orbit as well.
Suggested correction: Using hundreds of weaponized drones in that battle would actually be an awful strategy, as the battlefield was so densely packed that almost any member of the Avengers or their sorcerer, Asgardian and Ravager allies could have been accidentally killed by one.
With the huge caveat that this entry is simply "stupidity" and not a legitimate plot hole because it involves a character decision, he could have used them to temporarily distract Thanos during their 3 on 1 battle, attack his ship, provide cover and tactical support during the chase for the gems and whatnot, his software is more than capable of providing valid targets.
29th Jul 2019
Corrected entry: The nanny cam footage A-Train watches makes no sense. There's footage of him having sex with Popclaw, then static, then her accidentally killing the landlord. That would only happen if someone edited it together - there's no lead-in to her landlord situation, it just cuts right to his death and the Boys arriving. But they were in the bedroom well before that - either it's motion sensitive and should have caught the whole thing, or it's recording continuously and still should have caught the whole thing. Instead this digital recording acts like a VHS tape someone accidentally recorded over.
Correction: Actually A-Train is holding the remote and it changes after he is pressing it against his forehead. He even looks at the remote after it changes, implying he accidentally pressed a button. The static shouldn't be there though as it's a digital recording.
27th Jul 2019
Corrected entry: The whole point of the "ass bomb" is that Translucent's skin is impenetrable, no way into his body except, as they realise, through his ass. So when the bomb goes off, the blast should be entirely contained within his impenetrable skin, leaving a flesh-bag of destroyed internal organs. Instead he explodes into mush. They even say afterwards his skin won't burn off so they've got to dispose of it somehow.
Correction: You don't know exactly how his skin works. It could be the skin is able to protect the body from the outside because of it's impenetrable properties, able to contract when something impacts it, absorbing any impact. From the inside however that property could not be working and the skin cells are torn apart but not destroyed.
28th Oct 2003
Corrected entry: In northern South Vietnam (now central Vietnam), there are no navigable rivers that lead into Cambodia.
Correction: The Mekong river is navigable (I've personally navigated it twice...) and goes from Chau Doc Vietnam past Phnom Penh and deep into Cambodia.
I think the Nung is a fictional combination of the Mekong and the Dak Krong Rivers. I just saw Final Cut in imax - there's a glance at a map indicating the Nung goes N/NW to the west of Buon Me Thuot. The Dak Krong follows that path into Cambodia.
Correction: From the central highlands there is a river called the Tonle San River (or Se san River) that goes fom Vietnam straight into Cambodia. Most rivers from Vietnam flow into the Mekong river in Cambodia and then onwards to the Mekong Delta. Another one is the Se Kon although that one goes through Laos first.
5th Aug 2019
Corrected entry: One of the big sources of tension in the heist is the fact that they supposedly have a limited number of Pym particles, as stated by Scott Lang. So after the test run they only have enough for everyone to take one round trip through time. Cap and Tony use their return supply to go to 1970, which is why they needed to steal more particles to get back. However, Ant-Man's shrinking tech is also based on the Pym particles, and his shrinking suit seems to work without restriction in 2012. They also have enough to both shrink the Benetar in 2023 and re-grow it in 2014. So either Scott is mistaken about how many Pym particles he has, or he is lying about them. And before someone says they calculated the number of particles it would take for the shrinking during the mission before assigning them to the team members, Scott discusses the limited supply before they had any plan of what they were going to do in the past.
Correction: Shrinking for those more common actions would not eat up as many Pym particles as say, shrinking enough to go sub atomic, as well as controlling where you're going and doing time travel.
This was addressed in the post. Scott calculated all the Pym particles he had on hand and said there was enough for 1 round trip each and 2 tests. Not '1 round trip, 2 tests and an indeterminate amount of shrinking during the mission which we haven't planned yet.' Plus, he uses a whole vial in mistakenly shrinking before the test, after which he says there's enough for 1 test, not 2. So, maybe there are enough extra Pym particles to do some shrinking after they plan the mission, but this is never brought up and would seem to contradict what Scott has already said about it and what we see onscreen about how many Pym particles it takes just to shrink (though the shrinking tech has never really been consistently portrayed in any of the films featuring it). So, a justification for one perceived mistake just raises a question somewhere else. There's just something off about how the film conveys the circumstances of using the Pym particles, however it is parsed.
Thanos has access to technology centuries beyond Earth. It's definitely possible his crew of henchmen were able to replicate the particles.
To add to Quantom X's correction: Thanos' men reverse engineered the Pym particles to allow evil Nebula to return with the others and pull the ship through the timestream. Remember it can take as long as they want to reverse engineer it before sending evil Nebula back, nobody would notice. There were never any more particles used than what Scott had available. Either more were obtained (from Pym himself in 1970's), or more made (by Thanos' men). I agree with the original correction that the small size shrinking obviously doesn't use up as much particles as the subatomic shrinking does and that's why he could do it.
The shrinking tech for Scott and the shrinking tech for objects are two different things, remember he has those red and blue discs that shrink and grow things and he uses the vial in the suit.
16th Aug 2019
Other mistake: When Georgie is following the paper boat there is construction equipment on the road that he goes around, there is something burning there but it's pouring rain.
Suggested correction: Those are oil lamps, they can keep burning in extreme conditions, including rain.
12th Aug 2019
Stupidity: This film reveals that the theme park was built upon a dormant volcano. This means that John Hammond either neglected to do a geological survey when picking a location for his park, or simply ignored it and foolishly gambled that the volcano would never erupt.
Suggested correction: Lots of people live right next to dormant volcanos. It can be thousands of years before a dormant volcano erupts. Might be a risk, but not as much as lets say living on a tectonic boundary or in tornado alley.
There's a difference between assuming the risk of living in an area prone to a natural disaster versus building a theme park that's completely reliant on tourism revenue in an area prone to a natural disaster. If a person's home is destroyed by a volcano, they can eventually get a new home, even if it takes a year or two. If a multi-billion dollar theme park is destroyed by a volcano, it's not something that can be replaced so easily, especially since no insurance company in their right mind would cover any of it. Additionally, the island in this film is fictional, which means the writers deliberately chose for a volcanic eruption to be the reason for the evacuation, when they could have just as easily made it so that the military decides to carpet-bomb the island or send in ground troops to gun down all the dinosaurs.
A dormant volcano is a dormant volcano, no reason to think it will erupt only years after you build a theme park on it. The area is not "prone" to a natural disaster. The eruption is a total surprise. Vesuvius erupts once every 2 decades or something and a lot more than a simple theme park is inside its destruction zone (red zone), including 800,000 people. And that is an active volcano. Take a look at Carney Park, a military recreational facility on top of a dormant volcano. Stupid?
Also, the examples you gave are areas with civilian populations that rely on those types of attractions to help stimulate the local economy. Isla Nublar is a privately owned island with no civilian population to speak of, other than park employees, meaning it is 100% reliant on tourism for its revenue.
How many theme parks are built in California, which is severely prone to earthquakes?
That's not an apples to apples comparison. California has a heavy civilian population and theme parks help contribute to their economy. Jurassic World is located on an isolated island with no civilian population and has to rely completely on tourism to stay in business.
21st Jun 2010
Plot hole: In the scene where Anderton is talking with Hineman, she says to him that "You will bring down the [Precrime] system yourself if you manage to kill your victim. That would be the most spectacular public display of how Precrime didn't work." Shouldn't she be saying "If you manage to not kill your victim"? (01:01:30)
Suggested correction: Well, if Crow did die, then Precrime wouldn't have worked because the whole point is to stop murder from occurring at all.
Ether way it is a hit against precrime. If he does not kill Crow then it shows that the vision may not come true so you do not know if someone would really have killed someone else, outside situation like with the cheating wife at the start where they interrupted the murder. If Crow is murdered then it shows the system is flawed, which would not be as bad as the first as you would still be stopping a lot of the murders.
I can't tell if this reply is suggesting the correction is wrong or stating the line should be "not kill", making the mistake valid. By not killing the victim, that shows how Precrime is actually working and that knowing the future means you can alter it. If the murder occurs, it would weaken Precrime's stance and support that it can prevent crime.
No if he chooses not to kill Crowe then that means that the visions are just a version of the future, and thus not the actual future. So all the people with the halo on them are locked up wrongfully, as they may have decided not to do it like Anderton did, so the system collapses. That was the point, and it did. Hineman's remark is about the idea that precrime stops all murders, unless Andrton does manage to kill Crowe. The system then is flawed but like the previous commentor says, they still prevent most murders instead of all of them, which would count for something.
3rd Sep 2004
Corrected entry: When Lamar shoots Colin Farrell, where was a pre-cog ball?
Correction: It's explained quite clearly in the film - unless the three precogs are together, it doesn't work. As Agatha is away from the twins, off with Anderton, there's no precognition, so Lamar can kill Witwer without being picked up.
The question still remains though: why was there no pre-cog ball of Witwer's murder rolling, before Agatha was kidnapped by Anderton? Witwer's murder happened a few hours after Crowe's death, hence the pre-vision of Witwer's murder could have easily occurred a few hours after the pre-vision of Crowe's death.
The decision to murder Wither was not made until after Agatha was taken. As stated at the beginning of the film premeditated murder gives them more time to look at the visions and decode the information, crimes of passion only give them minutes.
Well yeah but they aren't attained only after the decision is made by the perpetrator. Anderton got his ball well before he even knew he would do anything. His ball came hours before the intended murder, so should Lamar's. I like this question.
But with Anderton there were events that lead to the murder that happened before he knew anything, like Burgess hiring Crow to be the victim. So somehow the Precogs pickup on that and created a ball. With Wither there was nothing before hand that would trigger the Precogs.
The PreCrime system works by the PreCogs scanning for people with the intent to kill and then determining details. Burgess' intent to murder Witwer came well after Agatha was disconnected, when he discovered that Witwer knew about the framing of Anderton. Therefore, there couldn't have been a ball, as the system was offline.
Correction: It's because Burgess' murder of Witwer would count as a red ball since he doesn't have any reason to murder Witwer until Witwer reveals he's getting too close to uncovering the truth. By the time the precogs would normally have foreseen such a murder (remembering the movie states red ball killings only have a few minutes worth of warning) Agatha has long since been removed from the equation so yes, it makes sense Witwer's death isn't picked up ahead of time.
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.
Suggested correction: Sheldon is probably joking when he tells Mary his chest hair filled in the previous year.
Sheldon doesn't make jokes.
Ssiscool ★
He doesn't understand sarcasm, hence, doesn't know when to be sarcastic.
ckbyers
If Sheldon didn't make jokes, the term "Bazinga" would have never came into play. Ever.
ckbyers
And nearly all instances of Bazinga are not used in a funny circumstance. Indicating poor judgement and lack of knowledge regarding jokes.
Ssiscool ★
They were funny to him. And to the audience.
lionhead
Google "how many times has Sheldon said "Bazinga" " - and it'll explain that he does, indeed - joke.
ckbyers