Phaneron

21st Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

X-Men mistake picture

Time Fugitives: Part 1 - S2-E7

Continuity mistake: When Bishop is shown returning to his original timeline, he is wearing the temporal band on his right arm. However, when he was sent back to his timeline at the end of the episode Days of Future Past: Part 2, he was not wearing the band because Rogue tore it off his arm and crushed it, which is what caused him to be sent back in the first place. (00:05:08)

Phaneron

21st Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

21st Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

X-Men mistake picture

Time Fugitives: Part 1 - S2-E7

Continuity mistake: When Graydon Creed is first shown giving his testimony, in an overhead shot, we see the front row of the benches in front of him are filled with civilians. When the shot changes, the X-Men are now occupying the row on Creed's right. (00:14:34)

Phaneron

21st Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

20th Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

The Phoenix Saga (3): Cry of the Banshee - S3-E5

Continuity mistake: When Moira and Banshee are alerted to Xavier in distress, the building with his room is several yards away from the edge of the cliff. However, when Banshee dives to save Xavier from falling to his death, the edge of the cliff is now only a few feet from the building. (00:02:46 - 00:05:02)

Phaneron

18th Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

18th Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

The Phoenix Saga (3): Cry of the Banshee - S3-E5

Continuity mistake: When Moira is telling Banshee that Xavier has given everything for his students, she has her left hand placed on Banshee's right arm, and her right arm is down at her side. Then when she remarks that she thinks she's the only friend Xavier has, she is running her fingers through her hair. When this scene was shown in the previous episode however, she is grasping Banshee's arm with both of her hands, and she never runs her fingers through her hair. (00:02:26)

Phaneron

17th Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

17th Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

17th Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

17th Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

13th Jun 2021

Friends (1994)

The One With Ross's Tan - S10-E3

Question: I occasionally perform spray tans as a side gig, and the solution usually takes around 8 hours to set. Is there any reason aside from creating a comedy situation that the spray tan salon wouldn't just tell Ross to immediately go home and shower so that his tan won't look so ridiculous?

Phaneron

Answer: None at all. It's played for laughs and that's all. If we really wanted to give it a real-world explanation, we can speculate that maybe Ross stormed out of the tanning salon without giving the staff a chance to recommend a shower.

13th Jun 2021

Loki (2021)

Character mistake: When Ethan Thomas objects to Dr. Adanie's testimony, he does so on the grounds of "silliness." Silliness does not fall under the federal rules of evidence, and any lawyer worth their salt would know this.

Phaneron

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: During the Manson trial in real life, the prosecutor objected to a completely pointless question the defense asked a witness on the grounds of being ridiculous. The judge agreed and sustained the question. In his book Helter Skelter, Bugliosi even acknowledges there's no such rule, but the judge sided with him. The prosecutor in this film is grasping at straws, since nothing that would fall under the rules of evidence would apply to his objecting to her scientific testimony.

dewinela

Not true, he can object on the grounds of relevance. The YouTube channel Legal Eagle, which is run by an actual lawyer, even stated so. The same logic applies to the Manson trial. If a lawyer feels that a question is ridiculous, they can object on the grounds of relevance.

Phaneron

In a case involving demonic possession as a central aspect of the defense, there's no way relevance could be grounds to object to her testimony. Her testimony dealt with possession from a scientific point of view, but he objected because it was for the defense. The judge in the film even allowed her testimony stating that they'd heard a lot of scientific evidence supporting the prosecution's case and it was fair to hear from an 'exorcism expert'.

dewinela

As for the Manson case, try reading the book written by the prosecutor. It even states in the transcripts that he objected on the grounds of a question being ridiculous (even if, in the end, it would actually be relevance).

dewinela

Just because a lawyer in real life was able to successfully object on the grounds of ridiculousness doesn't mean it would suddenly become a good practice. That would be like saying basketball players should just wantonly heave half court shots, because sometimes they go in. The premise of your suggested correction was also that the lawyer had no legal grounds to object on, and that is objectively false. As I mentioned, the lawyer behind the LegalEagle YouTube channel even said otherwise.

Phaneron

10th Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

10th Jun 2021

The Lookout (2007)

Trivia: Chris Pratt had planned to audition for the role of Chris Pratt, thinking he would land the role simply for having the same name as the character. However, he postponed the audition to go on a fishing trip, and by the time he had returned, Joseph Gordon-Levitt had been cast in the role.

Phaneron

10th Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

10th Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

10th Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

10th Jun 2021

X-Men (1992)

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.