2nd Mar 2014
Safety First - S2-E6
Factual error: When Helen tells Laura she's trying to quit all the pills that she takes to deal with Gordon, she starts listing them off. "The Valium, the Diazepam, the Librium..." Valium and Diazepam are the same thing. (Valium's the brand, Diazepam's the generic). (00:08:20)
14th Nov 2019
Corrected entry: Throughout the movie, Caffey is constantly being warned not to accuse Col. Jessup because he could get into trouble. This is totally wrong and the opposite of the aim of the military justice system. Any and all personnel are subject to the law and their rank or connections never come before that. Unless Danny is in contempt in court, he has every right to question and even accuse a ranking officer, especially considering a young man under Jessop's command is dead.
Correction: They weren't telling him not to accuse Jessop because it's illegal, they were doing it to protect him. Col. Jessop is an extremely powerful man with deep connections and if Caffey went after him in court and failed then Jessop would ruin his career. They were telling him not to go after him unless he was sure he could get him.
Correction: He's not being told not to accuse Jessup. He's being told not to accuse Jessup without any basis in fact. He's basically being told not to make unreasonable accusations just to try and get his clients off.
They didn't say don't accuse Jessup. Joanne Galloway told him to only accuse Jessup of ordering the code red if he feels that Colonel Jessup would admit to ordering the code red. In other words he's being told don't accuse Colonel Jessup with a baseless accusation that he ordered the code red, only accuse him if he has facts that substantiate the accusation. No reason Santiago should be transferred off the base if Jessup's orders are always followed and he ordered that Santiago wasn't to be touched, so Santiago being in grave danger doesn't make sense. Colonel Jessup contradicted himself.
10th Oct 2019
Trivia: Mitch's sister, Cathy Brenner, is played by a then very young Veronica Cartwright in her first horror role, who went on to star in other horrors, often alien-related: the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers as the sole surviving human, Nancy, in Alien as the character of Lambert and play a recurring abductee character on the long running series, The X-Files.
Suggested correction: Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but how is this trivia? Actors and actresses star in multiple movies. The three mentioned are not related or even similar. I don't see how this is trivia.
I felt that it is trivia to know that this actress continued to stay active in the horror/thriller genre...different, important roles. Some of her fans might not have even recognized her starting out in The Birds.
This isn't a trivia about the movie itself though. Trivia about cast members is acceptable if their role reflects or references a previous work, but not future works. And simply listing a person's acting resume isn't trivia without it being relevant to the film itself. For example, if an actor from an original TV show or movie appears in the reboot, you can list that as trivia for the reboot, but it wouldn't be trivia for the original. Plus, the film "The Birds" isn't an alien-based horror film.
27th Aug 2001
Corrected entry: When Swayze first starts the truck, he turns on all of the switches for his lights. When he pulls away, they aren't on. (00:20:40)
Correction: He could have been doing his pre-trip walk around to make sure everything is working and in proper order to be on the roadway. Standard operating procedure for any commercial driver. When done he'd turn them off.
I'm a truck driver and before I take one out on the road it's my responsibility to check all the lights work. One of the first things I do is check them, but I turn them all off again once I know they work.
18th Oct 2018
Corrected entry: Unless the character is being portrayed as a bumbling oaf then their car is always spotlessly clean inside and out. No empty sweet wrappers, drinks cans, receipts, window streaks etc.
Correction: How is this a mistake? Clean people do exist and it is not a mistake to want to film them. Cleanliness is a virtue, and the films might want to deliberately exploit the fact. Women with hourglass-shaped bodies? Now, that's a mistake.
Every single person? I've never, in my life, been inside a spotlessly clean car.
Bear in mind the vast majority of the time we aren't shown the entirety of the car. My car's pretty clean but has bits of leaves, etc. in the footwell because I never clean there - no movie ever shows the footwells! I don't throw random garbage around the inside either, it gets put in the side pockets, again, not somewhere that tends to be of great focus in movies.
Films are intended to bend reality. Wanting to have clean cars in the film is not automatically a mistake. It is at best a cliche or trope. Sometimes, it is advocacy.
1st Mar 2019
Plot hole: When Miles tries to hand the pizza to Carlson, he steals the ID card off him. Carlson would have realised that he had lost the card the next time he came to open a security door and would have reported it as lost. This means that his original card would have been blocked, meaning that Miles wouldn't have been able to use it.
Suggested correction: Unless he didn't report it lost due to the fear of being reprimanded for losing the card.
Miles is a strictly by the book cop. No way he wouldn't report his ID card as lost. The original posting is correct. Correcting an entry by guessing what may have been going through a character's mind only works if it fits the characters usual mindset or attitude, which this correction doesn't.
So without a card how would he be getting through the security doors? Are you saying he would just stand there and wait for someone to swipe their card and just piggyback behind them? And how long is that supposed to last?
No, I'd say the original entry for a plot hole is correct and that the card shouldn't have worked.
Well to be completely honest this whole movie doesn't make sense. Wouldn't it be more rational to try to sneak in the backdoor disguised as a janitor instead of impersonating a detective? Most people would not question a man wearing a janitorial outfit, examining the vents. Yeah its still a risky move but not nearly as risky or time consuming as impersonating a cop. It is hard to believe someone as clever as Miles would not at least consider the idea.
27th Feb 2019
Corrected entry: After Qualen magically happens upon Jessie across the vast mountainscape in the rescue helicopter, he holds Jessie at gunpoint to take her hostage despite him being the pilot. How is he expected to take her hostage when he has a helicopter to fly? Is Qualen seriously capable of aiming and shooting a pistol accurately while piloting a helicopter if Jessie were to run away? Is the audience really expected to believe that Jessie stayed put while Qualen lands the helicopter, exit it, and then take Jessie captive?
Correction: Jessie isn't used to having guns pointed at her. It's entirely feasible she froze and/or wasn't thinking for a strategic get out. If she had decided to run then yes, Qualen would have had a problem but for the purposes of the movie, her character decision was to freeze when a psychopathic criminal pointed a gun at her and she wasn't able to think enough that running would save her as he can't fly and shoot.
25th Oct 2006
Corrected entry: When Stan is still at his trailer, and first calls his daughter's house, his ex-wife says that it's Saturday, and she is at soccer practice. After this point in the movie, Stan goes to LA, to Gabriel's house, and spends the night there (all in one day). The next morning he takes Ginger's car to see his daughter, who is at school. On a Sunday?
Correction: It's pretty apparent that his ex-wife is pretty medicated, probably outside the realm of what she actually needs. This, combined with the visible alcohol use, wouldn't make it out of the realm of possibility that the ex-wife was mistaken on what day it was, or where the daughter actually was. As we see, she is not the best parent.
Correction: It's also worth noting that the daughter *was* at school, indicating a school day, so therefore we can deduce, as the correction states, that the ex-wife was indeed so out of it she didn't know what day of the week it was.
21st Oct 2018
Corrected entry: Despite being a lawyer, architect or whatever, the male character will have a garage filled with high end, spotlessly clean tools.
Correction: Several issues with this entry being a mistake: - first, how often do we actually see this? If this has happened in some shows, perhaps it would be better expressed as a mistake in those specific shows, instead of 'common'. - second, why a male character? Can't female characters have tools in a garage? - third, the writers may have given the character shiny tools for a reason: the character is wealthy but still handy; they feel they needed to buy the tools to project an image even if they don't use them; they like buying shiny toys (the character does the same with the kitchen or home cinema); somebody else in the family uses them; the character has a hobby or a long term DIY project, etc.
To me, it's a mistake because it almost always feels out of place for the character, their life, lifestyle etc.
Again, do you have an example?
A garage full of top of the range, specific, expensive and spotlessly clean tools? How many lawyers, office executives etc do you know who perform sophisticated diy projects on a regular basis to need a whole garage full of tools like that?
My brother is a CFO and he built a treehouse for his kids by himself. He has a garage full of nice tools which are kept clean. Clean tools are long lasting tools.
Can you give an example?
9th Oct 2018
Corrected entry: It makes no sense why the Gecko brothers took the bank teller hostage at the beginning. Their plan was to get across the border into Mexico and to the rendezvous using the Fuller family, and their RV was perfect. But what was their original plan? Were they gonna have the hostage drive their car while they hid in the trunk? She would have given them up immediately. Also let's not forget that her face was on TV news programs which makes her a liability at the border gate. Basically there is no logical reason and all they would have done (if Richie didn't kill her) was create unneeded collateral.
Correction: Criminals behaving illogically don't constitute a plot hole. The fact that Ritchie raped the bank teller may have been his motive for kidnapping her, rather than just killing her right away.
Also, Seth states at some point he does not take hostages (either on leaving Benny's world of liquor or after discovering the teller is dead, I can't remember where he said it) which suggests it was all Ritchie's idea to kidnap her and Seth didn't want, far less plan, to take a hostage, and that he felt it was unnecessary to do so.
Correction: They had Gloria hostage in case they had a run in with the police.
18th Apr 2006
Corrected entry: Isn't it rather strange that nobody outside the Howard family's small town expresses any interest in the confirmed discovery of a new human sub-species, the only one on the planet? Wouldn't it be more likely that their little backwater town would be inundated with every press and scientific organisation on earth, and that the Howard family would be the centre of the greatest publicity carnival of all time?
Correction: I don't see this as a plot hole but as the comedic core of the movie. I mean, one of the funniest bits in the film is when Mr. Howard rather nonchalantly "comes out" for a father-and-son chat about maturing as a werewolf. This is a gag throughout the film, with locals oddly accepting werewolves in the community. It's reminiscent of the surreal humor of "The Addams Family" and "The Munsters," in which actual monsters and ghoulish psychopaths somehow fit into society.
Correction: Probably not, because this same case is most likely to have happened to other people before - as seen in Teen Wolf Too, there are plenty of other 'werewolf' people. So it is most likely that a case like Scott's has been exposed and reported before in other locations. Also, such a small town would probably want to prevent such a thing from happening, and everyone seems a certain bit frightened of Scott as a werewolf.
Scott doesn't even know that he is a werewolf until it "hits him in the face." It is a very closely guarded secret until Scott goes public. That would bring every biologist, anthropologist, zoologist - name the scientific discipline - running, as well as every reporter on the planet. The posting is absolutely correct.
I agree with the original posting. The entire town is shocked about Scott and certainly not familiar with other cases of werewolves.
I'm going to agree. Not only is everybody surprised at the discovery that Scott is a werewolf but, the same thing happens in Teen Wolf Too. Todd believes he's just an ordinary guy until he turns into a werewolf while dancing which again, surprises everybody.
18th Aug 2018
Other mistake: As the cop is walking towards the coffee machine, he steps on the T-1000 (disguised as the floor). The cop proceeds to the coffee machine and buys a coffee while the T-1000 turns into the cop. The T-1000 only touches his shoe, so shouldn't be able to copy his appearance. (00:51:00)
Suggested correction: The impression is given that the cop walking over the T-1000 gives the T-1000 the ability to copy him. But in truth we don't actually see when the T-1000 came with the sample of the cop to be able to copy him, maybe he had already collected his DNA beforehand. Far-fetched example is that humans shed skin and hair all the time, if that falls onto the T-1000 that could be enough.
Sorry but I disagree with this correction. If we are going down this road of "but maybe..." then it opens up a whole can of worms for what is a mistake and what isn't. In an explosion, a vase still on a shelf might have been glued but its unlikely. Where does it end? I think the original entry is for mistake is correct based on A - if the t1000 already had his DNA then why disguise himself as the floor? He'd have just killed him when he first got to the hospital and B - Unless we actually see or hear any evidence that the T-1000 would actually behave in this manner then as far as we the audience can believe, it doesn't happen.
It's about plausibility. It's to see if the writers and director actually made a mistake or gave it to our imagination.
Another possibility: people do occasionally touch the sole of their shoes when taking them on and off (or if they're polishing them, or trying to clean something off them). That would leave at least a few skin cells that the T-1000 could thus use as a sample.
19th Apr 2004
Corrected entry: In the scene where D-Fens fires into the canal construction site he is surrounded by a lot of kids. All but the one he is talking to disappear between shots. (01:13:15)
Correction: It's just the camera angle. They are there the whole time.
21st Jul 2018
Stupidity: After the Slick devours Laverne, Randy jumps into the water and swims for shore with the Slick following. Even though Randy made it to shore, he stops and turns to confront the Slick, screaming that he beat it. When Randy turns around, the Slick immediately envelopes him. If Randy had just got up and started running instead of facing the Slick, he would have lived.
Suggested correction: This is a deliberate movie making technique to make the audience think the character has escaped but at the last second a surprise is thrown in. It's the same as hanging over the body of the killer. It doesn't come under stupidity.
Yes, it does. In any movie where someone comes face to face with either a supernatural enemy or even a regular one, confronting it is extremely stupid because the character could have simply walked away and made it to safety. The character confronting the killer is stupid because they'll always be killed. Better to do the smart thing and run as far and as fast as possible.
A example of a valid stupidity entry is an astronaut taking his helmet off when in space because he's an expert and knows better. A stupid person doing something stupid is considered a stupidity entry (which is essentially a plot hole writers use to move the story in a particular direction it wouldn't have gone otherwise). A character making the wrong choice because they underestimate the situation isn't a minor plot hole, in real life people underestimate opponents all the time, and movies exploit that all the time in their plot development (i.e. Apollo underestimating Rocky).
Suggested correction: Randy's decision isn't what constitutes a "stupidity" mistake. Stupidity mistakes are minor plot holes, which means characters can act stupid. Plus, when Randy gets to shore he's worn out so he tries to catch his breath. He then says he's won because he under estimated the Slick's ability to get him (which would fall under the category of "celebrating too early").
Put yourself in Randy's place. If you're friends were eaten by a huge slick like monster and you were swimming to shore with it chasing you, after making it safely to shore, would you want to turn around to confront it. No. That would be stupid because confronting it will certainly get you killed the moment your back is turned. The smart thing to do would be to keep running. Randy facing it was very stupid. Had he done the smart thing and kept going after he made it to shore, he would have survived. Stupidity killed him. Pure and simple.
First off, you said it would certainly kill you once your back is turned, which means if you're running away, your back is turned and if you confront it, your back isn't turned. But, he never tried to confront it. He just celebrates beating it. However, Randy thought he was safe once on land because he thought the creature couldn't attack him or reach him, so in Randy's mind he wasn't doing anything stupid. He thought he was safe, he thought he won. He was tired and sat to rest. But that's part of his character and his character traits. But, acting stupid isn't a "stupidity" mistake. Otherwise movies like "Dumb and Dumber" would just be thousands of stupidity mistakes because stupid characters are acting stupid. Now, if Randy knew the creature could kill him in water and he turns to celebrate his victory, or stops to rest, in the water, that could be a "stupidity" mistake since his character was already shown to know he can't stop in the water and the writers ignored what was already established as his character. Stupidity mistakes just are minor plot holes that go against already establish character traits or established facts/statements in the film.
Not only that, but, Randy was acting stupid since he chose to face it rather then run.
If you re choosing to say its a stupidity because they choose to fight rather than run then that's a moot point because you wouldn't have a movie in the first place! Movies get a degree of latitude when it comes to reality (people can be shot 7 times and still walk away as the credits roll) so rather than stupidity, this is under slightly suspended reality of how an actual person would behave. In this segment, we're talking about an oil slick with a mind of its own. 100% reality has to take a back seat where plot forwarding is concerned.
9th Oct 2017
Corrected entry: The female lead holds a gun on the President in a hallway. At first the camera is behind her and she has no gun in her hand. The shot transitions to the opposite side and she is holding a pistol.
Correction: I'm not sure what scene you watched but she always has a gun in her hand. She hits the other secret service agent with it, spins round and points it at the President then when the camera changes she still has it in her hand.
12th Jan 2004
Corrected entry: The 160-million dollars that the heist group carries out of the vault in several duffle bags would actually weigh about 6400 pounds and take up the better part of 2 cargo vans. A quick calculation: a stack of 200 $100 bills is $20000 (they can't have used $1,000 bills - while legal tender, they're steadily being removed from circulation, so there wouldn't be enough). Roughly 100 of these stacks would fit in a milk crate sized container, so we are up to $2,000,000. $160 million would require 80 of these crates. Figuring 80 pound per crate, that is 6400 pounds.
Correction: This math is way off. A $100 bill weighs approximately one gram, so 453 weigh one pound. 1,600,000 of them would weigh 3500 pounds, not 6400. Also, one bill measures 2.6"x6.1"x0.004". A medium-sized duffel bag is around 24"x14"x14" when fully packed. So one duffel bag could hold 73,500 bills, requiring 22 total bags to hold all the money, and each one would weigh 162 pounds.
Correction: If a $100 is 1 gram then $160M is 1.6M grams which is 3527lbs. The correction is correct, the original entry is wrong.
8th Jun 2003
Corrected entry: When Jack falls in the tar pool Whitney comes in with clean clothes about 30 seconds after it happened. So how could she find out about it, drive over to their new house, get the clothes then drive over to the tar pool in 30 seconds?
Correction: That's the point the filmmakers wanted to make. They wanted us to remember that it is a movie (within the movie), so they deliberately added mistakes and illogical happenings. Besides, Whitney knows that her father needs new clothes, cars, ammo and other equipment on a regular basis. She could just pop by with stuff in case he needed it occasionally. Cheesy, yes, but not more so than shooting a closet because "there's always a guy in there" and being right.
Also, When Whitney says she has new clothes for her father Danny says "Doesn't anyone find this just a little convenient", expressing his disbelief that she should be there so quickly as it would only happen in the movies, not real life.
23rd Oct 2003
Corrected entry: By the end of the film, Chris is wounded, tired, and should be very weak. Yet he managed to hold himself under the car for many miles. A normal man would have tired out so much that he couldn't do it, let alone a man wounded and exhausted.
Correction: Yes Chris did have alot of problems, but it is quite possible that he had an adrenaline rush. Human beings can possess super-human powers when faced with life-or-death situations.
Its also worth noting that the site rules to cover a movie mistake are quite clear on suspension of belief.
9th Jun 2018
Corrected entry: Robin walks into the apartment and sees a goat turd, which can only be there if The Goat was in the apartment. She goes on to talk to Marshall about keeping quiet about the fact that she slept with Barney, so we know that this happened when Ted was turning 30. But later in the end, Ted says that The Goat was actually there on his 31st birthday. So The Goat turd could not have been there at the time.
Correction: This whole show is told in flashback from a guy remembering 10 years previously. It's the type of thing where it's very, very difficult to pinpoint what is a mistake and what would come under remembering, which I think this does. It would only be a plot hole if it meant something else in the series couldn't have happened unless it specifically had to be there on his 30th.
Correction: First, it's more like 20 years in the past (2030 is present and 2005 - 2013 is the past... Ted turned 30 in 2008). Second, Marshall threw 2 surprise parties, the first on Ted's 30th birthday and the second on his 31st birthday. It is totally conceivable that Present Day (Bob Saget) Ted co-mingled the events of two separate birthdays that occurred 22 and 21 years in the past; one where Robin identified The Goat turd (Ted's 31st birthday) and when Robin slept with Barney (Ted's 30th birthday) especially if the focal point in his mind was a surprise birthday party. Finally, that is the point of the end of the episode when Present Day Ted acknowledges that The Goat incident happened the following year so the viewer is meant to disregard any references to The Goat on Ted's 30th birthday.
18th Aug 2013
The Builders - S1-E2
Revealing mistake: When Basil smashes Manuel against the wall where the dining room is meant to be, we can see it is made out of cardboard. Notice how it begins to fall off, even though it is meant to be sealed and covered in wallpaper. (00:16:05)
Suggested correction: Perhaps this was due to O'Reilly's shoddy workmanship?
You could say that but Fawlty towers had wobbly sets all the time. I would say this would be covered under "mistakes".
Where is the 'codswallop' as you so euphemistically put it? To me it looks like O'Reilly cut corners by shoddily placing a sheet of plasterboard in the doorway without attaching it well then shoddily wallpapering over it. Hence the reason for it falling out.
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: And Helen might not know that and think they are different pills.
Ssiscool ★
Anyone on those pills knows exactly what they are.
The_Iceman
Usually true in real life but this show exaggerates things for comedy. The writers probably genuinely made the mistake but it is still plausible that Helen is that messed up.
If you're on these meds, you know this stuff. Like how people on Percocet know that its generic is Oxycodone.
Captain Defenestrator