Corrected entry: An umpire does not announce penalties in a game. The responsibility actually lies with a referee. In the movie, the mistake is probably made to move the plot forward so Crewe could throw the football twice on the umpire's groin as a way of forcing the umpire to call a fair game. (01:11:25)
Bishop73
22nd Apr 2008
The Longest Yard (2005)
Correction: Dude what? There are no umpires in football. It is a referee that is making the biased calls and who Crewe nails in the nuts. The guards even call him ref "ref, you gotta get back in the game".
There is an umpire in football. There's a ump, a ref, and judges. Colloquially, everyone with a striped shirt is called a ref. The referee and the umpire are in the backfield, but only the umpire wears the white hat. He's the one responsible for announcing the penalties. But here, the ump did it.
22nd May 2023
Full House (1987)
Trivia: In this season, you can see DJ, Gibler, and Stephanie having a conversation in the garage. Before the renovation, Stephanie expressed her concern about there being a monster in the garage. However, in the episode before this, they renovated the garage and turned it into Joey's room. The episodes were aired out of order, hence the discontinuity, but it's not strictly a "mistake", more just an indication that this episode is clearly set earlier in the season.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The episodes were simply aired out of the order in which they were produced.
In the "world" of the show, however, this is a mistake. The garage can't be renovated in one episode, then be the former garage in the next episode. The rules of this site note that behind-the-scenes explanations are not valid corrections.
No. The correction is valid. It's not a "behind the scene" explanation. The show's continuity remains constant if you watch the episodes in the order they were produced. A network's decision to air them out of order is not the fault of the show. This would be like if you had a book on CD where each track is a chapter but you played the CD on shuffle and then blamed the book for its continuity issues.
I can see both sides of it in terms of it being a "mistake", but it's such a grey area that stuff like this is rarely worth a debate. It's such a blatant discontinuity that it's a byproduct of the episodes being shuffled, making this more of a "prequel" rather than it being a mistake. A bit like errors in subtitles, it comes down to what strictly counts as a mistake in the show vs. A problem arising after the fact, whether someone's "at fault" or similar. I'll refile this as trivia.
19th May 2023
General questions
Are there any TV series that were cancelled before a complete first season was even aired? I am mostly curious about sitcoms and dramas/thrillers, not reality shows.
Answer: Honestly, there have been numerous TV shows cancelled before a complete first season was aired. Another great example is cult-favorite sci-fi series "Firefly," which was cancelled before the 14 produced episodes finished airing. "Emily's Reasons Why Not" is another good example. It's a romantic comedy series that was cancelled after only one of the six produced episodes aired. (The remaining five episodes never aired on TV, but were quietly released on a DVD set.) "Viva Laughlin," a musical comedy-drama series produced by Hugh Jackman was cancelled after only two episodes, and none of the remaining episodes have aired or been given a DVD release. "Mockingbird Lane," a re-imagining of "The Munsters," was cancelled after it's pilot was aired as a TV-special, so the remainder of the first season was never produced. There's honestly probably hundreds of shows that were cancelled before a complete first season was aired.
I was wondering if there are contracts that require the entire first season to be shown, before a network can decide not to show another season. I guess not, based on the answers here.
Shows being pulled mid-season isn't indicative of what other shows' contracts consist of. Some shows may have had it in their contracts that the entire season be aired (there are shows that get pulled mid-season beyond season 1). I don't have personal knowledge because that would be a lot of contracts to read to find out. So maybe someone does. But there's plenty of shows that don't produce an entire season prior to being picked up, so it's possible all the episodes produced were aired.
Answer: So, so many. Drive comes to mind - Nathan Fillion thriller about an illegal road race, only had a few episodes before being pulled off air. "Selfie" (2014) with Karen Gillan and John Cho was cancelled by ABC after only 7 episodes. "Do No Harm" (2013) cancelled after 2 episodes. The Dictator (2012) starring Christopher Lloyd only had one episode.
Answer: One of the shortest TV shows ever was the 1997 series "Lawless," starring former NFL player Brian Bosworth. It was cancelled after the first episode. Also, "Cop Rock," a TV show in the 90s, was cancelled after only 11 episodes. "When The Whistle Blows," a TV sitcom in the 80s, also only lasted 11 episodes.
Answer: There was a police drama roughly 10 years ago called Golden Boy. It was about the youngest police Commissioner in NYPD history and kept hinting at a department-wide shootout that led to the man's promotion. It lasted 13 episodes.
Answer: Another show was called "Brimstone" and had actors Peter Horton and John Glover. The show only had 13 episodes.
The 1963 ABC "The Jerry Lewis Show" was originally planned for 40 episodes in the first season. It went off after 13 shows.
Answer: Outlaws 1986, was cancelled after a few episodes. Sitcom In Case of Emergency, with Kelly Hu, was cancelled after only a couple of episodes.
19th May 2023
Bloodsport (1988)
Stupidity: Amongst the dubious statistics attributed to the real Frank Dux at the end of the film is the claim that he holds the record for "Most Consecutive Knockouts in a Single Tournament - 56." A single tournament with at least 56 rounds would include over 72,000,000,000,000,000 entrants.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While the entire film could be considered fiction based on Dux's dubious claims, your statement is only valid for a single-elimination style tournament. There are other types of tournaments, such as a round robin which would only require 57 contestant (Dux plus at least 56 guys to knock out).
The kumite is a single elimination tournament. It wouldn't make any sense to have a full-contact tournament, where the action is so (legally) violent that fights routinely end in severe injury or even death, use any other form of bracket.
Nothing is stated that every tournament Dux was in was the Kumite as depicted in the film. Just that he retired undefeated in the Kumite.
The records listed at the end of the film are kumite records. The information comes from Frank Dux himself who made the claims on more than one occasion. When it says 56 consecutive knockouts, it is referring to the kumite and not some other, possibly round robin (which honestly would still be a ridiculous claim) tournament. It is likely the makers of the film believed "consecutive knockouts" meant "single tournament."
I guess everything I've read on him over the decades never made it clear it was talking about one type of tournament with all the accomplishments he's claimed to have. And I've read the same repeated factoid about how many contestants 56 rounds would have that you read.
19th Oct 2022
Ghost Ship (2002)
Question: I'm trying to figure out if the book Dodge is reading on the way to find the ghost ship is real. It says "A Conspiracy of Evil" on the cover.
Answer: Yes. It is real. You can find a copy on Amazon.
I have searched but his book cover says "a conspiracy of evil genius" - can't find it.
I haven't found the book yet and the original answer comes across as someone who did a quick Google search without knowing what he or she found. As you said the title looks like it contains "genius" and "A Conspiracy of Evil" found on Amazon was published in 2018. And "The Conspiracy of Evil", about Osiris, was published in 2006.
24th Sep 2021
The King of Queens (1998)
Question: The elderly man in Carrie's overnight team, George, says that the firm is trying to force him to retire. Why don't they fire him?
Answer: Because he didn't do anything wrong. If they fired him simply for being older, he'd have excellent grounds for a wrongful termination suit. Much easier to 'convince' him to retire.
I know he didn't do anything wrong, but I thought New York was an "at-will employment" state, meaning that a company can simply terminate someone's employment at will.
Answer: To fire someone you need a reason and simply being older is not a reason. They could be sued for wrongful dismissal. If he retires the company doesn't get sued.
Yes, but New York is an "at-will employment" state, so a company can terminate employment at any time, without needing to give a good explanation. Unfair but it happens.
Even in at-will States, employers and employees can still enter into binding contracts that would protect an employee from being terminated without cause. These contracts may have retirement policies as well, should an employee want to retire with any benefits offered. And, what others were saying, barring any contract, terminating someone without reason is one thing, but for an illegal reasons (age discrimination) is another matter which could result in a lawsuit.
27th Aug 2001
Forrest Gump (1994)
Factual error: When Forrest and Lt. Dan first try catching shrimp on the new boat in the mid 70s, they catch a bunch of junk, including a Mello Yello can, which wasn't launched until 1979. (01:30:05)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The time frame is right on track. It took Dan a lot of years to get to the point where he joined Forrest on the boat. 1979 tracks with what comes before and after.
You should watch the film again. Hurricane Carmen, which happened after Lt. Dan joined, and they were struggling to catch anything, was in 1974. And Forrest leaves the shrimp business in 1975 when he finds out his mother is dying of cancer. 1979 comes well after all those events. Not to mention that it's only 1981 when Forrest is sitting on the bench telling his story.
27th Aug 2003
Seinfeld (1990)
Corrected entry: In the episode when Jerry looks after Farfel The Dog, George and Elaine are at the coffee shop, when they start making fun of Jerry. George asks Elaine if she's ever seen Jerry throw up, and she starts acting like she has seen him throw up. But she could not possibly have seen Jerry throw up because the last he did was June 29th 1980, years before Elaine and Jerry ever met.
Correction: It was mentioned in a later episode that Jerry threw up ten years later on June 29.
In what episode does it ever mention he threw up 10 years later on June 29, 1990? In "The Masseuse" he mentions not throwing up since June 29, 1980 and he remembers the date because the previous time was June 29, 1972. The mistake is valid.
11th Aug 2005
Seinfeld (1990)
Corrected entry: When Kramer is modeling underwear for the Calvin Klein people, he leans and slides against a wall leaving a large spot of body makeup.
Correction: And how is that a mistake? Models wear makeup too, you know.
19th May 2004
Seinfeld (1990)
The Slicer - S9-E7
Corrected entry: George's boss Kruger claims that the mole on his back hasn't changed in the past ten years from the picture on his desk. However the mole wouldn't be visible in the picture as you cannot see Kruger's back in the picture. Kruger is facing chest forward in the picture.
8th Oct 2008
Seinfeld (1990)
Corrected entry: Jason Alexander wore the same pair of blue Nike shoes for the whole series on every show (Jason gave this information in an interview, just after the series ended).
Correction: This can't be true because in the episode where they all go to India for Elaine's friend's wedding, George is wearing Timberland boots that make him a few inches taller.
Except at the end of that episode, "The Betrayal", it flashes to two years prior and George is with Susan and meets Jerry at The Cafe. He wouldn't have been wearing the Timberlands in that scene, so Jason Alexander could wear the blue Nike shoes in that scene and that would count.
25th Apr 2023
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
Question: This film will be a sequel to the first two Deadpool films, which were part of the Fox X-Men franchise, but will instead be a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Is this the first time in history that a film is a sequel to another film, but is now part of a new franchise?
Answer: In addition to Bishop's answer, you could theoretically apply this to Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man characters. They both appeared in "Spider-Man: No Way Home," which technically acts as a sequel to "Spider-Man 3," "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" and "Spider-Man: Far From Home" - three distinct movie franchises. (And there are persistent rumors that Maguire and/or Garfield may make future MCU appearances).
To add to that (I ran out of room in my reply), with the creation of the multiverse, now any Sony or Fox franchise or universe can be considered as part of the MCU. So any Fantastic Four or X-Men sequel (although most likely any up coming film will be a reboot) can be part of the MCU.
I get what you're saying, but No Way Home was more of a crossover film that acknowledged characters coexisting in the multiverse, with those characters returning to their respective universes by the end, and Sony would still have control of those characters. Although we won't know for sure until Deadpool 3 comes out, Deadpool is meant to start as a character in a previously established film franchise and then occupy a different one moving forward.
But what film franchise would he be in? If he's in a Deadpool movie, he's in the Deadpool franchise. If they stop making Deadpool films and put him in another film, then he becomes part of another franchise. (Or more likely, just another crossover film).
This is where I would disagree with you about the MCU not being a franchise. I would contend that it is a franchise, and every series of films and TV shows within it are sub-franchises. So the Deadpool series of films would be a franchise unto itself, beginning in the larger Fox X-Men franchise and transitioning over to the MCU.
So what distinguishes one Marvel film from being in the MCU and another Marvel film not to be in it? Marvel Studios has been part of the production of a lot of films not included in the MCU, including the Blade, X-Men, and Deadpool films.
Any film made by Marvel themselves (or co-produced like the Tom Holland Spider-Man films). Marvel didn't begin making their own movies until the first Iron Man. All previous movies based on Marvel characters were made by other studios in association with Marvel, largely because Marvel licensed out their properties to avoid going bankrupt. The MCU itself is recognized as being the highest-grossing film franchise of all time.
Answer: It depends how you want to define a franchise. Are you talking production companies involved or the distribution company? And are you considering reboots? The reason Deadpool 3 would be "set" in the MCU is because Disney bought Fox and the filming rights returned to Marvel Studios, along with the rights to X-Men and Fantastic Four. When Sony rebooted Spider-Man with Tom Holland, Sony shared the rights with Marvel Studios. So Spider-Man was part of the MCU while still being part of the Sony Spider-man franchise. Venom 2's mid-credit scene is meant to make it part of the MCU while still being part of Sony's Spider-Man Universe. That being said, there are a number of cross-over films that put sequels into another franchises. Such as Freddy vs Jason, Godzilla vs Kong, or Frankenstein meets the Wolf-Man.
I'm speaking strictly from a narrative point of view. Say, for instance, they made a new Alien movie, but it was now part of the Avatar franchise moving forward, while still being a sequel to the previous Alien movies, and not intended to be a brief crossover. I know the meta nature of the Deadpool character and movies makes it a different beast, but still.
And this is what's up for debate, but to me, the MCU isn't a franchise. It's made up of the various franchises; Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, etc. where they exist in the same universe. So when crossover films occur, it's two or more franchises now existing in the same universe. Even the Avenger films can be considered crossovers. Which is why people were wonder if Spider-Man was part of the MCU or the Sony universe. Deadpool is still part of the Deadpool franchise, but now part of the MCU.
11th Sep 2005
Seinfeld (1990)
Trivia: In every episode of Seinfeld there is a Superman reference somewhere.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is a myth and not true. Even if you count seeing the Superman fridge magnet or Superman statue as a reference, they didn't appear until season 4 and 5.
Season one had a few and one of them is episode 15 The Stock Tip. To quote George: "I never heard him say anything really funny." Jerry: "It's common sense. He's got super strength, super-speed; I'm sure he's got super-humor." "Either you're born with a sense of humor or you're not. It's not going to change. Even if you go from the red sun of Krypton all the way to the yellow sun of the Earth."
That wasn't the point of my correction. The trivia is wrong because not EVERY episode has a reference. I didn't say no episode prior to season 4 or 5 had a Superman reference. I only said the magnet and statue didn't appear until season 4 and 5, so even if you want to count those objects as a Superman reference, it doesn't apply to season 1-3.
30th Jun 2009
Stargate SG-1 (1997)
Question: What was report 30185 and why wasn't Mitchell permitted to read it?
Chosen answer: Report 30185 is a joke report referring to the time when SG-1 go back in time to 1969 in the episode '1969'. The joke is that Colonel O'Neil knocked up a hippie and made sure Mitchel was taken care of throughout his life, like how he got into the 302 program while his buddy, a better pilot, did not.
Answer: This answer is incorrect, because after Mitchell said, I'm being parked on a Samantha, in a very serious tone, said seriously we can't tell you about 30185.
To clarify this entry, what Mitchell asked is "Oh, I'm being punk'd, aren't I?" The joke in the scene was 30185 was too classified for Mitchell to know, but then they turn around and tell Vala. O'Neill isn't really Mitchell's father, they were joking around. But then Samantha does honestly say they can't tell them about 30185. From there we never learn what it is.
10th Apr 2023
Three's Company (1977)
Upstairs Downstairs Downstairs - S5-E1
Corrected entry: Jack's nurse date wears a wedding band.
Correction: Doreen is wearing a ring with a raised dark center stone - it glistens as she moves her hand. It looks like a regular ring that women wore on either hand, not a wedding band.
Explain? Alright. I watched the episode, and Doreen's ring does not look like a wedding band. It appears to be just a normal ring with at least one raised dark gemstone.
Correction: Generally the idea of seeing a character wearing a wedding ring as a mistake is because in real life the actor or actress forget to take off their wedding ring. In real life, Lee Crawford (who plays Doreen) was divorced in 1978 and wasn't married or engaged at the time of shooting the episode. So it's just a character choice to wear a ring on her left hand and doesn't mean she's married or engaged.
The very point being, that she is wearing on one on her hand, when she's supposed to be single in this episode. So the mistake stands.
No, because it's a character choice. People who are single wear rings on their left ring finger for a variety of reasons, none of which indicates it's a wedding band or that they're married.
21st Apr 2005
The Rock (1996)
Corrected entry: When Hummel's marines are breaking into the naval weapons depot, the guard inside the control tower isn't wearing a hat. When he falls through the window, he is.
Correction: It does not appear to be the same guy. He looks to be from a different race.
It definitely is two different characters. The first guy, without the hat, is attacked first and kicked down, you see him fall down without a hat on. When the second attack is shown, it's a different tower and guard. The second guard has his hat on and is standing before getting shot and falling out the window.
Then this is not a mistake. Clearly 2 different characters.
25th Mar 2023
A Royal in Paradise (2023)
Continuity mistake: In the front view of Olivia when she sits at her desk and opens her laptop, the clear LED globe lightbulb to her right is illuminated with a visible filament, but the bulb looks solid white when the camera shifts to a rear view. (01:22:22)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's still a clear bulb in the rear view, you're just seeing the white curtains behind the clear bulb.
Filaments should still be visible because they are darker and in front of the paler background.
The filament is still visible.
Didn't look illuminated on my screen.
It definitely is illuminated. It might be hard to tell with so much lighting already present in the scene, especially coming through the window.
I seriously doubt there's enough background light to make what is supposed to be a clear illuminated LED bulb several feet in front of it to fade away. (This will be my last response).
Then you're talking about two completely different lamps altogether because the bulb is in front of a giant window with light coming through the thin curtain and it's inches away from the window, not feet. And it's not faded away at all.
3rd May 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Continuity mistake: While Hulk eats breakfast with Cap, Nat and Scott, the crepe on the top is cut in two. In the next shot it's in one piece, then in two again. (00:38:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The crepe is cut in two in every scene. The angle in the middle scene, does not show the cut as prominently as the first and last scene.
The mistake is valid. It's after the kids wanting the picture are leaving that you see the crepe is intact. You see the crepe from the same camera angle when the Hulk agrees to the picture and it's in half. In fact, in the shot of the crepe intact, it's completely differently coloring with less browning spots, so it's a different prop altogether.
21st Mar 2023
Law & Order (1990)
Character mistake: McCoy asks his witness, an expert geneticist, what the odds are that a DNA sample presented in evidence does not match that of the defendant. He answers "About one in two hundred." That is idiotic. If the DNA samples are identical the chances that the the sample presented in evidence does not come from the defendant is about one in two billion, not one in two hundred! A bright high school senior would know that, never mind an expert geneticist.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If the odds are 1 in 200, that means the accuracy of the DNA is 99.5%. If the odds are 1 in 2 billion, that means the accuracy of the DNA is 99.9999999995%, which simply isn't true.
In fact as any geneticist (i.e, anyone like me) will tell you the chances of two identical DNA "fingerprints" coming from two different and unrelated individuals are around one in two thousand million. Two billion. In fact the odds are much higher than that but we scientists don't like to make claims that sound unlikely or fantastic. The accuracy of DNA fingerprinting is, as you point out, 99.9999999995%. You correction is wrong and the posting is correct.
Except that's not what happened in the scene or what happens in real life. You simply don't understand what you're arguing. You're not a geneticist.
21st Nov 2015
The Green Mile (1999)
Continuity mistake: When Del finally dies his jaw is slack, but when it shows his body on the gurney his teeth are clenched tight.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: How can you tell his jaw is slack when he had a hood over it the entire time?
I have the movie and during Del's execution, the hood is partially burned off. After he finally dies, his jaw is completely slack.
I also have the movie and can confirm that not only is Del's jaw slack but, when the hood is burned off it looks like most of his face has been burned off leaving nothing but a skull. Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh3u3Kqdynw.
Suggested correction: Rigor mortis can occur as quickly as 2 hours after death. One of the first muscles of the body to stiffen is the jaw. It also depends on the age of the deceased and calcium amount.
Suggested correction: The guards would have done what they could to make his remains less grotesque. Closing his jaw is probably one of their regular duties.
Once the body dies, muscles can not constrict, and they relax. A guard could never close the jaw or mouth after death anymore than he could close a dead man's eyes shortly after death. That's a movie myth.
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: Or it could simply be that since this is not an officially sanctioned game, they've chosen to use a different process.