Continuity mistake: If you look carefully at the monster (Frankenstein) you will see that his face is different in the ending scenes. The reason is, during the movie you see the monster take the woman doctor and throw her out the laboratory window. You then see the monster kind of stumble, which he really did and broke his ankle. So in the final scenes they replaced Lon Chaney Jr. as wolfman with a stuntman, and Lon Chaney Jr. finished the movie as the monster.
Continuity mistake: In the final battle, Wasp and Ant-Man are in the van trying to get the quantum tunnel operational. We cut back to the fight and we can see Ant-Man there too, fighting in his giant form. (02:22:20 - 02:23:00)
Plot hole: There is a barely credible explanation for the fact that a guest cannot be injured or killed by being shot in Westworld, but what about the vicious fistfight we see in the bar? People are injured or killed in bar brawls all the time, and this one was incredibly violent. How do they prevent guests from being injured or killed by the cutting and stabbing weapons we see in Medieval and Roman World? Guests are supposed to fight each other, not just robots - they cannot be 'programmed' to lose! Delos is going be sued into bankruptcy within a week of the first guest arriving. Quite apart from the legal position, think about the bad publicity! Who is going to pay the huge fees demanded by the parks owners when the media is constantly reporting on the guests who wound up dead or with life changing injuries?
Suggested correction: The explanation given in the TV show would seem to easily apply to the original film as well: guests can be injured, but not to the point that it would leave a lasting mark. The park has access to futuristic medical techniques, so they can heal most non-life-threatening injuries easily. Also the guests almost certainly sign waivers, so in the event of serious injury the park isn't liable.
Suggested correction: It's easy to nitpick the factual details of "Westworld," the screenplay of which was written on-the-fly on a fairly limited budget, even by early 1970s' standards. Author Michael Crichton (who also wrote "The Andromeda Strain," "The Terminal Man," "Congo," "Sphere," "Jurassic Park" and several other technological thrillers) himself acknowledged that Westworld was more a visual story (like a comic book) than a cerebral piece of science fiction, and he learned on this movie that suspension of disbelief outweighed technical or even factual details, if he wanted to expedite the story in an hour-and-a-half. Crichton said he was having more fun and devoting more time to shooting the film than actually writing it, comparing the experience to playing cowboys and indians as a child. So, yes, Westworld is not much more than an adult fantasy with a number of plot holes that we are supposed to gleefully overlook, rather than analyze.
Except for blatant continuity mistakes you just invalidated every single entry on this site.
Suggested correction: Westworld ensure that any interactions with the robots are entirely safe for the patrons of the park. They cannot prevent humans fighting amongst themselves, just as Disneyland can't prevent people fighting there. People are also injured or die all the time in horse-riding accidents, but that won't lead to people suing Westworld. Due to the nature of the park, all the guests likely sign a waiver stating that any injuries are not the fault of the park.
Utter rubbish. Guests who were completely innocent bystanders could be killed or injured by the actions of other guests, notably in the bar brawl or by the explosion used in the jailbreak. We see one guest smash a barstool against the back of another guest - not a robot - which could easily have broken his spine. There is no question whatever that the owners and managers of the park would be held liable in this and many other cases, just as amusement park owners and managers nowadays are held liable when roller coasters or other rides go awry, injuring or killing guests.
The most plausible explanation would be a waiver that visitors to the park have to sign. The waiver would explain that while the robots cannot harm humans, other humans can, and the park is not held responsible. In the event of death or serious injury, the guest who caused it would face criminal charges and possibly a civil lawsuit. But a waiver would protect the park. Also, the rules of the park may be similar to those in the HBO Westworld series, where the robots cannot cause a "permanent mark", meaning they can injure guests as long as the injury is repairable.
Factual error: Though extremely modest on today's standards, the dress worn by Clara to the hoedown shows far too much cleavage for the time. No schoolteacher would ever wear a dress like that in the 1880s.
Continuity mistake: On Utapau, when Obi-Wan faces off with Grievous, Grievous sends 4 MagnaGuards against Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan Force-pulls something from the ceiling to crush the droids. But in the ensuing fight between Obi-Wan and Grievous, the ceiling thing and crushed droids are gone.
Plot hole: Why on earth would the military be interested in a soldier (sailor, aviator, whatever) who has to go into combat naked and unarmed, and who is detectable by an enemy equipped with a pair of cheap, mass-produced goggles? How would you treat them if they were injured? They would be utterly useless in any form of military operation, even espionage.
Suggested correction: Presumably the military are interested because Sebastian's research could lead to advanced forms of invisibility technology, such as the ability to turn materials and weapons invisible for use in combat.
You cannot second guess the film like that. Sebastian is making no effort to make non-living items invisible and throughout the film we see that is not possible (why else would Sebastian have to walk about naked?). His research is on animals (and later humans) not "materials and weapons" and is based on their physiology, anatomy and metabolism. How would you inject a rifle or a tank with a serum? They don't have a bloodstream. The military wouldn't see any value at all in this research - maybe they would be interested in invisibility, but not if it was restricted to living creatures as we see here.
You know how easy it would be for an invisible person to infiltrate an enemy's compound undetected and take out powerful leaders or dictators? Especially if no-one knew the technology existed.
Easy? Impossible. First, they would be naked and unarmed. Too bad if you are trying to knock off Vladimir Putin - a taekwondo black belt - with your bare hands during a Moscow winter! Being invisible doesn't mean you can avoid making a sound or triggering a pressure plate or an infrared detector and so on and so on. Final answer - a naked, unarmed combatant would be about as useful as a chocolate teapot in any form of operation, covert or otherwise.
Visible crew/equipment: When Neo is going to open the door to enter the Oracle's house, you can clearly see a camera on the doorknob. There's a sheet over it painted to look like the wall behind it, with a representation of Morpheus' tie too, because he's blocked by the camera. (01:07:40)
Other mistake: In the slaughterhouse scene, after Harrigan has injured the Predator with his shotgun and Keyes reappears, the Predator throws its disc, and severs Keyes in half at the waist. We see his legs flop to the ground, and blood pour from above, but his upper half (torso, backpack and weaponry) mysteriously remain hovering out of sight. (According to the director, the MPAA made him cut the footage of the top half of his body hitting the ground because it was too gory, creating this odd error). (01:21:50)
Suggested correction: We don't actually know if the disc completely cuts Keyes in half (or just passes through him and leaves a gaping hole). You see the blood, but the movie is edited so that it cuts back to Harrigan looking on in horror for a split-second, then back to Keyes' body on the floor (mostly obscured by a cement pillar).
They blatantly show his legs hitting the ground without the top half! I can only assume you watched an edited-for-TV version or something. It's VERY clear in the movie that he was cut in half. (In actuality, the scene was the victim of the MPAA according to the director... they had to cut the bit where the top half of his body hit the ground because it was too gory... creating this odd movie mistake).
Factual error: Listening to a radio broadcast, live, since no other indication is given, Joe Louis is completing the 12th round of a fight. This is December 6, 1941. Joe's last fight of 1941 occurred in September, his next fight was January 1942. (00:00:10)
Factual error: When Clark speaks to Jor-El for the first time in the Fortress, Jor-El says "I will have been dead for many thousands of your years..." Fine in theory - Baby Kal-El travelled to Earth at above light speed so time passed differently for him. However, as such, wouldn't Jor-El have seen Earth as it was thousands of years ago? Which also makes there a problem with all the things Kal-El was taught during his voyage to Earth, as Jor-El references Einstein by name, for instance, and he would not have existed at the point when Jor-El sent him to Earth.
Factual error: When the bus is shown entering Washington, DC for the competition, the shot shows the bus traveling over the Arlington Memorial Bridge with the Lincoln Memorial in the background. That bridge is on the southwest side of the city. Since NYC is to the northeast of DC, this means that to get to that bridge and enter DC that way, the bus had to drive all the way around the city and then come back in from the opposite direction. Even if the bus driver made a mistake and missed the most direct route into the city from the north, there are dozens of other ways to get to the heart of the city without adding a good 45 minutes to an hour to the trip.
Character mistake: The last time Doc tries the defibrillator on Norris, he uses it on the abdomen instead of on the chest.
Other mistake: There is something drastically wrong with the design of the spherical 'Aries' moon shuttle. Some seats and many fixtures are 'upside down' relative to the up-down orientation of the shuttle itself, and we see loose food trays and equipment about the place as if this is routine. But - the shuttle is designed to land on the moon. What happens then? The moon has gravity, remember? There are going to be quite a few very disgruntled people dangling upside down like spiders, and there will be loose gear (and perhaps a stewardess or two) bouncing about all over the place. It is not a matter of stowing loose gear or lying flat on landing - some parts of the shuttle are upside down relative to others, which is why the stewardess has to do that famous 180 degree upside down walk. Whichever way you look at it the shuttle is going to encounter serious problems when it reaches a gravity well, which will occur whenever the engines are fired up, never mind landing on the moon.
Suggested correction: The shuttle lands "on its back" with legs extending beyond the engines. As in most traditional sci-fi, and ALL actual, space flights to date, the launch (and landing) orientation for humans is to be on one's back. This minimizes blood being sucked down to your feet if you were sitting upright at launch - you could pass out. So we see this when the shuttle lands on the moon - the cockpit (red window) faces up (pilots on their backs, facing out the window). When we presume that the passenger cabin was 180 degrees spun around from the cockpit seating, they're still on their backs. Any loose objects would have been stowed before landing - the airlines don't lock down your bags, newspapers and coffee cups, right? They're loose in the cabin during flight, but put away on takeoff and landing.
Airliners do not fly upside down. The Orion shuttle cannot possibly operate the way it does if it lands in a gravity environment - some rooms are upside down relative to others - why else would the stewardess do the 180 degree vertical walk? It is an idiotic design flaw, and the posting is 100% correct.
The Aries passengers sit and stand with their feet down towards the moon. The pilots sit with their back down to the moon, as conventional astronauts do on Earth. But the attendant's 180-degree walk is completely wrong to the orientation of the shuttle's interior: it should have been only 90° if you look at the Aries exterior. One assumes that Kubrick preferred a longer, more cinematic shot, over a technically accurate shot. But nobody was upside-down to the moon.
Audio problem: When Commander Taggert (Tim Allen) and Lt. Madison (Sigourney Weaver) first see the hallway with the chompers, she says, "Oh, screw that!" but if you watch her lips she clearly uses the 'f' word instead of 'screw'.
Continuity mistake: When Tim and Lex first arrive, Lex is wearing a purple tank top with a colorful design, and in the following scenes or even between consecutive shots her tank top changes to completely different designs, though it's the same style of tank top.
Continuity mistake: On the ferry, Rachel wears the purple/pink camouflage hoodie over her orange knit sweater with the colorful stripe sleeves, as usual. Now this is where things become strange. In the first shot as the trio come ashore, she is only wearing her orange sweater, she is not wearing the purple/pink hoodie - note the clear lack of fur hood. In the very next shot as they climb a bit more and then rest, Rachel is wearing the purple/pink hoodie - note the hood, but now it's on under her orange sweater. In the underwater shots she is also wearing it under the orange sweater. (This odd mistake has absolutely nothing to do with the very long wool cloak that Rachel wears in the next scene). (01:02:20 - 01:04:40)
Continuity mistake: It was briefly stated in the second film that the T-Virus was created by Dr. Ashford to cure his daughter Angela and that the Red and White Queens were based on her. This movie contradicts that by suggesting that Dr. Marcus created the T-Virus to cure his daughter Alicia, and that the Red/White Queens were modeled after her. While the rest of the movie stays true to the continuity of the previous films, this rather obvious ret-con is still a major continuity gaff.
Factual error: During the fight scene with Sandman in the armored car, the Terminal Tower can be seen in the background, which is a landmark in Cleveland, Ohio (where the scene was shot), not in New York City.
Continuity mistake: The T-1000 punches his body through the window of a helicopter to get inside. An instant later, the hole in the windshield is gone. (01:56:35)
Continuity mistake: Dick Jones brags (admits?) to Robocop, "I had to kill Bob Morton because he made a mistake. Now, it's time to erase that mistake" while Robocop is crouched on the ground, not only looking away from him from across the room, but also Robocop's eyes are in a vertical position. In the playback, Jones is facing the camera as though it were videotaped or filmed in a studio. (01:10:50 - 01:35:10)
Suggested correction: He needed to hot-wire the van. It's quite possible he could have left the van for parts (he's seen slamming a Leviathan to the ground) or to protect it. It also could have been an illusion by one of Dr. Strange's people.
DetectiveGadget85
Sorry but the suggested correction makes no sense. For one Dr Strange's people have no idea what Ant-Man looks like, and secondly Ant-Man would have no idea where to get parts from in the middle of a battlefield, let alone know if alien technology would be compatible. Also the time frame given when the scene plays out allows no time for him to leave the van, this is a legitimate mistake.
Dr. Strange's people don't know what Ant-Man looks like? He entered the battle with them long before they went to the van. Earth has had access to the same Leviathan parts since the original Avengers. If Toomes can make wings out of it in Spider-man Homecoming, it's possible he can figure something out. Clint had passed the glove to Black Panther before Ant-Man is seen in the background. There was plenty of time. He also could have been defending the van while they brought the glove.
There is plenty of time for Ant-Man to have left the van and returned to it. As the scenes play out, Ant-Man and Wasp are in the front of the van trying to hot wire it. The film then cuts to the battle for several minutes, as we see the passing off the gauntlet, which includes the brief shot of Giant-Man in the background. A few minutes later the film cuts back to the van and we see Scott opening the rear door of the van. So there's plenty of time for him to have gotten out of the van, saw potential trouble with the Leviathan, turned into Giant-Man to stop it while letting Hope finish activating the tunnel, and then returning to check the final settings. Now, all this raises another question that has to do with the apparent ease Giant-Man has in traversing the battlefield, as in why not just give Scott the gauntlet, have him turn into Giant-Man, take a few steps over to the van, and then shrink back down to take the stones back in time?
Vader47000