Corrected entry: When Sydney enters the White House for the GDC meeting, she tells the doorman that it's her first time. Then when the President pulls her out of the meeting and they go into the Oval office to talk, she tells him she's been on the regular tour of the White House.
Bishop73
23rd Dec 2008
The American President (1995)
15th Mar 2018
Parks and Recreation (2009)
Time Capsule - S3-E3
Corrected entry: Jim O'Heir (then thought to be named Jerry) puts his mother's journal into the Time Capsule stating that she lived in the town all her life and it therefore contained facts about the town. When April reads a passage from the journal Jerry's mother calls him Jerold (Jerry is of course short for Jerold). However, later in the series during Leslie's ethics hearing for dating Ben, they claim that Jerry's name has always actually been Garry. This doesn't line up with the journal entry referring to Jerry as Jerold.
Correction: This isn't logical. For all we know, since we didn't see the text, his mother could have been calling him "Gerald," a much more common name that "Jerold."
How is Garry short for Gerald?
20th Feb 2009
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
Question: Is there any relationship or plot dependency on the Clock Maker family and Benjamin Button's birth parents?
Answer: It's setting up the story, so you could interpret it your own way. But as far as I can tell, there is no specific relation, just setting the story up.
Answer: Yes. The wife of the clock maker is the same person as the mother of Benjamin Button through adoption.
Where did you get this information? Queenie (who adopted Benjamin) was a nursing home worker married to Tizzy Weathers, and not married to Mr. Gateau, right? My understanding was the clock that ran backwards was revealed the same time Benjamin was born (or at least the same year, 1918).
4th Feb 2009
The Matrix (1999)
Corrected entry: While explaining the Construct, Morpheus tells Neo, "Your appearance now is what we call residual self image. It is the mental projection of your digital self." What he really meant is, "It is the digital projection of your mental self." (00:40:00)
Correction: The concept of a mental projection of one's digital self is rooted in the idea that the person's memory of how they looked (in this case, curated through years of living in an illusory digital reality) is going to manifest itself within any simulation that allows it. Because Neo lived in the matrix, he has a mental image of what he should look like (his digital self). So the line in the movie is correct.
No, it is not correct. As explained by others above (and overwhelmingly upvoted by other site users), it would still be a digital projection of your mental self. There actually is no digital self. It's just a digital projection. It is what is in the mind that is the self and what the film values as the core of an individual. "The body cannot live without the mind," as Morpheus says. Also, it is in the mind where we believe. Throughout the film, the mind is central. Thus, the correction stands.
Correction: That is not a mistake, Morpheus spoke correctly. They are in the construct, therefore it is Neo's digital self. His clothes and hair are his mental projection. Just as if Neo were dreaming it would be: "It is the mental projection of your dreaming self."
No, they are in the construct, a digital environment. So the projection is digital (being that it exists in a digital environment) and the self is mental (being that it is what he thinks it should be). The correction of the movie quote is correct.
When in the Construct, it's like being connected to the Matrix. The people in the Construct are Avatars of themselves, which means they are their digital selves. The projection of themselves is based on what their Avatars are thinking.
That is pure nonsense. Avatars don't think. Your comment makes no sense. As explained elsewhere, it should be "the digital projection of your mental self."
I probably oversimplified what I was trying to say. But I can understand your confusion. The digital self is what a person looks like in the Matrix, which is different from the real world. The mental projection (in the construct or as an avatar) resembles their digital self, not their real self. Which is why Neo in the Matrix has hair, real life Neo is bald, but his mental projection has hair.
1st Sep 2002
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Continuity mistake: Jodie Foster has very blue eyes. When they flashback to her childhood, when she is crossing the lawn to greet her father, the girl playing the young Clarice has dark eyes. (00:20:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Eye color also can change with age. This happens in 10 to 15 percent of the Caucasian population (people who generally have lighter eye colors).
Babies born with blue eyes can develop brown or darker eyes as melanin is produced. And while eye color can get lighter with age (older than Clarice usually), a child her age with brown eyes won't develop blue eyes. They could turn green maybe, but not the blue color seen.
I just rewatched the scene you were talking about and they're not blue eyes they're actually hazel and the adult Clarice could be wearing contact lenses.
8th Nov 2002
Cliffhanger (1993)
Corrected entry: Throughout the entire movie you never see their breath even though it is cold.
Correction: Yes you do see breath. See the scene with the night vision.
Correction: If the air is very dry you don't see the breath. Depending on the saturation of the air you can see breath or not, it is even possible to see the breath in rather warm temperatures if the air is saturated enough.
Once the temperature drops below a certain degree, around 42°F, you'll always see your breath, no matter how dry it is. Although, as you stated, if combined relative humidity is 100%, you'll be able to see your breath at any temperature.
25th Jan 2018
Men in Black 3 (2012)
Question: When Obadiah Price's son talks to J about how he was "there" and you'll tell him all about it what did he mean?
Answer: J asked why he remembers K when no one else does and Price says J remembers K because J was in 1969. One of the things with time travel is that effect can precede cause, meaning J was in 1969 before J travelled to 1969. Then Price says he wants J to tell him all about it when he gets back to the present.
Possibly but when talking time travel, theories expound endlessly. Your explanation generally fits the events, or how they're authored to occur, but it's almost too simplistic. I believe that it is impossible for effect to precede cause... At least not without a break. To me, for time travel to exist and be possible, it would require endless loops or time-lines. Essentially that the moment you go back in time and make any change, which could be almost impossible not to, you break the original timeline thus creating a new one. Only then, could effect precede cause imho. It's the butterfly 'effect' :) or the ripples in the pond theory. Even then, I'm not sure that effect could ever precede causation. Your thoughts?
I purposely kept the answer simple since most movies with time travel don't go into much details about how time travel is possible and all the consequences, etc., especially in comedies. Plus there tend to be plot holes left when only partially explained. There was a saying I heard in passing in regards to writing science-fiction (so I don't know who said it or the exact quote), "it's better to have unexplained science than faulty science." One example of effect preceding cause is "tachyons", a hypothetical particle that travels faster than light. As such, a tachyon fired from point A to point B would reach point B before it was fired, due to special relativity. I personally don't subscribe to this theory and say if it was to occur, the tachyon would simple arrive before a particle of light would. I don't believe time travel into the past is possible, so as long as a movie is consistent, I don't think there's anything wrong with picking a closed time loop over an alternate time loop.
8th Nov 2004
Battlestar Galactica (2003)
Question: In the first main movie, Baltaar the traitor (as a human) is executed before the Cylon's supreme ruler; yet in the later movies (and probably the TV series, which I did not get to watch) he reappears. How can this be possible?
Answer: The original BSG has something of a complex version history. Several versions exist, but the rationale behind what you're referring to is as follows. BSG, before anything else, was a TV series - the 'pilot episode' was a three-part tale called "Saga of a Star World". In that three-parter, a last-minute alteration to the script meant that Baltar was ultimately spared execution, because Glen A. Larson, the series producer, decided that he liked the Baltar character enough to keep him around for the rest of the series. The theatrical version, which was edited down from the three-parter and was shown in some countries before the US TV broadcast, lost quite a number of scenes, including the one where Baltar is spared. The real continuity of the series can only be found in the TV version - the movies, all of which were created by editing together existing episodes, miss out scenes leading to such apparent continuity errors.
Answer: Baltar wasn't executed... the supreme leader decided to spare him to send him on a peace mission with the humans. I have every episode... just watched it again.
Answer: Strange... given I saw Battlestar Galactica at the movies when I was a kid. Aka the 'pilot' you refer to (which WAS a movie shown at the cinema).
Yes, there was a theatrical release of the film, which was released after the original 1978 series ended. This 1979 film is the edited compilation of the 1978 series "Saga of a Star World" episode.
1st Dec 2007
Apollo 13 (1995)
Question: Did anyone play him- or herself in this movie? That seems to be typical for many movies of this kind, but I'm not aware of anyone doing it in Apollo 13 (yes, I know Jim Lovell had a cameo at the end).
Answer: Other than a few individuals who appears in archive footage taken from the era, who could technically be said to be playing themselves, no, there's nobody. Too much time has really passed since the original events for anybody to be convincing as their younger selves.
Answer: Marilyn Lovell also played herself. She is in the viewing stands clapping.
Marilyn Lovell doesn't play herself, she just has a cameo (the same as Jim Lovell) where she plays on onlooker at the site.
18th Sep 2003
The Thing From Another World (1951)
Corrected entry: While at the saucer near the North Pole, you never once see the men's breath from the cold. (00:20:45)
Correction: That's because visible breath is NOT solely due to cold, but to air humidity. If the air is dry, it does not matter how cold it is, breath will not be visible.
The last statement of the correction is incorrect, and there's a misunderstanding of the role humidity plays. If the relative humidity of the air and your breath combined is 100%, you'll see your breath. There are two ways to affect relative humidity, higher humidity or lower temperature. Thus, at a certain temperature (usually below 45°F), you'll always see your breath, no matter the humidity.
16th May 2007
Alien Vs. Predator (2004)
Corrected entry: Numerous times while in the outside, you cannot see their breath in the cold. For example while Lexx is being persuaded on the ship by the two men to help with the expedition, because of the cold, you should be able to see their breath, but you don't. They are in Antarctica which should be very cold.
Correction: As explained several times for other movies, visible breath has nothing to do with cold. It is the humidity of the air around you that matter.
This is a misunderstanding of the role humidity plays in seeing your breath. Seeing your breath is the result of your breath and outside humidity combining to be 100% relative humidity, meaning you're able to see your breath at higher temperatures if outside humidity is high enough. You can affect relative humidity by increasing humidity or decreasing temperature. This means at certain temperatures (usually below 45°F) you'll always see your breath. Given the Antarctic temperatures in the film, we should always see their breath, no matter what the humidity is.
4th Jul 2004
Rocky (1976)
Revealing mistake: When Rocky wakes up on the day of his first jog, the radio announcer reports that it's 28 degrees outside. However, when we see Rocky jogging, you can't see his breath. (01:07:45 - 01:09:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As pointed out several times before, breath showing in the air is about humidity, not temperature. See Alien vs Predator for similar corrections.
This is a misunderstanding about how humidity plays a role in seeing your breath. If the relative humidity of both your breath and air outside combined is 100%, you'll see your breath, this means you can see your breath at higher temperatures. To reach 100% relative humidity, the outside humidity needs to be higher or the temperature needs to be lower. However, at a certain temperature (usually around 45°F), you'll always see your breath. So at 28°, you'll always see your breath, no matter what the humidity is. This is a valid revealing mistake.
1st Mar 2016
Murdoch Mysteries (2008)
Murdoch.com - S2-E10
Factual error: Enid, the telegraph operator, exclaims that "He is sending an SOS." However, in the 19th century, distress calls did not include the letters "SOS," It was not until the early 20th Century that SOS was chosen as the international distress call.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The show is set in the early 1900's, which is the early 20th century. By the time this event transpired, SOS would have been established as a universal distress signal.
The show starts in 1895 and by season 2, it was still the 19th century and before Germany adopted SOS in 1905.
6th Feb 2018
Criminal Minds (2005)
Character mistake: Morgan asks Reid what track on the CD (Some Kind of Monster by Metallica) would help an insomniac sleep. Reid replies with "Enter Sandman" however, Some Kind of Monster doesn't feature the song Enter Sandman. (00:29:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Morgan doesn't ask what song on that album would speak to an insomniac, he asks what Metallica song in general would. He says, and I quote, "Okay, so I'm an insomniac who listens to Metallica to get to sleep. What song could possibly speak to me?" His query is in regards to the band's discography as a whole; neither he nor Reid mention a specific album, so the fact that "Some Kind of Monster" is the CD that they find is, ultimately, irrelevant.
The team was looking for what CD Slessman listened to the most to figure out what his password could be. They had no luck going through all his metal collection. The clue was suppose to be Slessman listened to "Some Kind of Monster" CD the most to help him sleep, which is why it wasn't in the case.
1st Aug 2009
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: When the 1985 Doc is suddenly transported back to 1885 at the end of BTTF 2 and Marty discovers that he has been murdered, because there is a Doc in 1955 that has already been born after the 1985 Doc has died in the West, why did he go to the trouble of going all the way back to 1885 when Doc was still alive? Is there any actual legitimate time travel reason for this, or did he just do it out of instinct to help his close friend?
Answer: Technically when Doc got transported to 1885, he should not have existed in 1955 because he died. This is the problem I'm having with part 3. The movie should not have happened this way. It should have been where doc did not exist nor the time machine. Part 3 should've never happened.
That's not how most time travel (if any) stories work. Just because someone dies in the past doesn't prevent them from being born since they were already born and alive before going to the past. Think of it this way, if instead of 1885 he travelled to 2085 and died, would that prevent him from being born? The only reason Marty was in danger of disappearing and not existing (i.e. being born) was because his parents were in danger of never getting together.
It was the 1985 Doc that went back to 1885 so he would still be alive in 1955.
The Doc that got sent to 1885 was the Doc from 1985 so therefore it wouldn't have affected 1955 Doc at all.
The one in 1955 hasn't done anything 1985 Doc did.
3rd Oct 2016
The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)
Question: I know Hilary Clinton is on one of the denomination of the lunar money. But at the end, when Felix is in Pluto's new club, there's money sitting on a waitress' tray of a different denomination with someone else on it. Who is on that bill? If there were other bills seen (i.e. deleted scenes) who is on those?
Answer: You can't see any other bills and there are no deleted scenes that show the money either. The only money gag in the film is with Hilary Clinton.
At 1:27:38 there's money on the waitress' tray that does not appear to be Clinton as the profile angle is different.
That's true but you cannot see it well enough to answer the question of who is on the bill.
I couldn't tell either, or find it online. That's why I asked, hoping someone with knowledge of Pluto Nash props would know or perhaps it was mentioned in a DVD extra somewhere. It's clear that it's lunar money and time and effort went into making it, so someone has to know.
1st Feb 2018
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Corrected entry: As Wesley and Picard prepare to depart the Enterprise, Data says the ship is at impulse speed. However when we see the shuttle exit, the ship is shown not to be moving.
Correction: At impulse speeds, there would be no visible indication of movement as they're in open space.
This is incorrect. In-universe has shown the difference between a moving ship and stationary ship, even open space.
Exactly what is this difference you're referring to? If a ship is moving at sub-light speeds with only stars visible it is impossible to tell how fast it is moving, or even if it is moving. The only movement visible would be that imparted by the difference in movements of the camera and ship. (In fact, they create of the illusion of the ship speeding by by moving the camera past a stationary ship.) This is reality. If there is an error, it is the fact that the stars can be seen moving outside the hanger bay door which would indicate the ship was slowly rotating.
11th Jul 2016
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Encounter at Farpoint (1) - S1-E1
Character mistake: In his exchange with Admiral McCoy, Data uses several contractions (i.e., shouldn't, I'm). For the rest of the series he doesn't, and in S3: Ep16, "The Offspring", he admits that his programming makes him incapable of using contractions. And in S4: Ep8, "Future Imperfect" Riker questions Data on when he started using contractions, knowing that Data is incapable of it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is true that in later seasons he is unable to use contractions. However, since that characteristic was not introduced in the first season, this is not a mistake. His behavior is consistent with the character's behavior throughout the first season.
It's still a possible mistake, even if it wasn't part of season 1 scripting. Just because we only learn later that Data doesn't use contractions, doesn't make this mistake invalid. We learn Data was specifically constructed that way and hadn't been able to use contraction since being created, which means all of season 1 he shouldn't be using contractions. Although it would probably be best to submit it as a mistake in season 2 when it's mentioned that it contradicts what was established.
Incorrect. It would be a mistake if he used a contraction after the trait was added to his character, but the mistake can't be retroactive as it wasn't a mistake for him to use it at that point in the show.
14th Jul 2011
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Character mistake: At the end of the episode, after Lore has been defeated, Picard asks Data if he is O.K. Data replies, "I'm fine." One of the plot points of this episode is that Data cannot use contractions.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That characteristic was not added to the character until season two. In the first season, Data uses contractions on a number of occasions.
It's still a possible mistake, even if it wasn't part of season 1 scripting. Just because we only learn later that Data doesn't use contractions, doesn't make this mistake invalid. We learn Data was specifically constructed that way and hadn't been able to use contraction since being created, which means all of season 1 he shouldn't be using contractions. Although it would probably be best to submit it as a mistake in season 2 when it's mentioned that it contradicts what was established.
It would only be a mistake if he used the contraction after the trait was established for the character.
Possibly, but that's not how mistakes on this site work seem to work. It could still be a valid mistake in the context of the entire show since the character trait had in fact been established. It's the same way for when shows do something like establish a character's birth-date in later seasons, but when episodes from earlier season have the character at the wrong age. Although it would probably be best to submit it as a mistake in season 2 when it's mentioned that it contradicts what was established.
23rd Jan 2017
Frasier (1993)
It's Hard to Say Goodbye If You Won't Leave - S3-E10
Question: In this episode, Frasier is portrayed as being allergic to cats, and cannot be close to Kate's cat. What about the times when he had sex with Kate (at the radio station building, in the elevator in his building, etc.)? As a cat-owner, shouldn't her clothes have set off his allergies before?
Answer: Not necessarily. Cat allergies aren't caused by the cat's fur (so if she has cat fur on her clothes, it wouldn't actually bother his allergies). It's the cat's dander (dry skin flakes), saliva, and/or urine that people are allergic to, so if her clothes don't have traces of any of that, he would be fine. For example, she could have clothes at work she changes into, or simply keeps her clothes in a room the cat isn't around.
Answer: But this is complicated by the episode where Frasier cat sits for a friend.
If there is an episode where he cat sits, it may be worthy of a character mistake entry. Although, only if we see him come in contact with the cat somehow without his allergies acting up. Otherwise someone may submit a correction, such as just because he's allergic to cats doesn't mean he won't do a favor for someone and just deal with his allergies, etc.
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.
Correction: She meant it's her first time as anything other than a tourist.
This is a mistake. There is no way to conclude from her statement "This is my first time at the White House. I'm trying to savor the Capra-esque quality." that she means first time going through security, otherwise she would say that. Either it's a mistake in the script writing or the actress flubbed her lines and meant to say "first time invited to the White House."
Bishop73