Lummie

17th May 2020

Monk (2002)

Correction: It wasn't really stupidity on her count. She knew her former partner was showing the house to some potential buyers and would have been unaware the woman was a cosmetic salesperson. Additionally the odds the woman would even be able to identify that type of lipstick in such a quick and frightening situation was a million to one so it wasn't likely a major factor when she plotted the murder. Even if it was never pointed out, Monk connected a number of other factors to her. The former partner was leaving their firm, she had a gun similar to one the shooter used and the witness said the figure of the shooter was a woman. The lipstick was just a small factor in the entire case.

Lummie

5th Jul 2004

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Plot hole: Harry tells Doc Ock that in order to find Spider-Man he must find Peter first. Doc Ock finds Peter with Mary Jane in the cafe and throws a car through the window straight at them, then later throws Peter against a brick wall. Any normal person would've been killed instantly (or very badly injured), and Doc Ock doesn't yet know that Peter is Spider-Man. Given that Peter is his only lead on Spider-Man, it makes no sense that Doc Ock would try to kill him.

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

Suggested correction: Doc Ock is being controlled by the arms. They aren't behaving rationally.

Creating a series of silly explanations for obvious plot holes never resolves them. These arms were not behaving irrationally. In many scenes they were shown to be very intelligent. A good example is the scene where they attack doctors who try to remove them from Doc Ock's body. Saying that they weren't behaving rationally is absurd.

He may not have been trying to kill Peter, he could've been trying to make more of a scene of his entry, so Peter would take him more seriously and tell him where Spider-Man was. He could've been thinking of it as a risk of killing Peter though, but his arms made him go crazy.

This is only a theory. Theories never resolve mistakes.

It's not a theory. When Otto is first giving his demonstration to everybody at his apartment, a woman asks if the advanced AI for the tentacles would make him susceptible to being controlled. Otto says that yes it would so he shows everybody the inhibitor chip that he designed so he would not fall under its control. After the inhibitor chip gets destroyed, it's seen that the tentacles have not only taken control of his mind by forcing him to commit crimes, but have slowly driven him insane.

This scene is much too confusing for many people. This entry is correct. This is a mistake.

If these tentacles wanted him to finish the experiment then they wouldn't make him kill the person who has valuable information for him.

The arms are influencing his thoughts but not controlling every part of him. Doc Ock still seems to have control when defending himself but they seem to work in tandem with Ock. The only time they work on their own is when he under anesthetic. As we don't see him before he throws the car, we can only speculate the arms were trying to hurt Peter by themselves.

Lummie

It's a cool scene regardless man.

Rob245

Killing Peter would probably send a message to Spider-Man as well, so Ock probably wasn't concerned about being gentle.

6th Jan 2019

Monk (2002)

Mr. Monk Is on the Run (2) - S6-E16

Plot hole: When Stottlemeyer is confronted by the Sheriff for not going to the morgue there are 2 plot holes in that one scene: first it is impossible for that article to be in the morning paper since the coast guard "just fished him out" last night. And secondly an article, especially a long article like the one about the body in the bay would contain a physical description of said body. That is the reason it does not make sense to even ask the captain why he did not go to check the body to see if it was Monk when the body was tattooed and had red hair. (00:13:30)

Prince Eitel Joe

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

Suggested correction: The article being there that fast is a bit odd, the sheriff mentions a police alert had been put out and was why he went to the morgue. That was what he was confronting the captain about. Even without the article the point of why he didn't check is still a valid question.

Lummie

Do you really believe that the police alert did not include a description of said corpse being found for the missing person's unit to combine against their lists?

Prince Eitel Joe

6th Jan 2019

Monk (2002)

Mr. Monk and His Biggest Fan - S6-E1

Corrected entry: Monk is confronted with a case where Marci's dog, which died 3 days earlier, is suspected of mauling her neighbor. Marci therefore is suspected of killing her dog after the fact to save herself from prosecution. Any veterinarian could easily determine whether a dog died today or 3 days earlier by its stage of decomposition.

Prince Eitel Joe

Correction: While true, Marci hadn't been arrested or charged at that point. The police were still investigating the case as seen by the Captain with the file at dinner. It was only a theory at that point that she had her dog euthanised after the death.

Lummie

Of course but my point is that it did not need Monk to prove her innocence as portrayed and it is highly unlikely that Monk would - according to his disliking of Marci and his genius - would not have pointed to that simple solution.

Prince Eitel Joe

14th Apr 2012

Monk (2002)

Mr. Monk Buys A House - S7-E1

Plot hole: Monk and Natalie temporarily incapacitate Jake before crawling all the way down the hall from the bathroom to the living room while pulling a heavy claw-footed bathtub. Exactly why didn't Monk or Natalie think to consider a more permanent solution to preventing Jake from attempting to kill them again, like grabbing his gun and using it to detain him until the police could arrive to arrest him? (00:30:00 - 00:39:05)

dmcreif

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

Suggested correction: It's tricky to make that determination. First off they were panicked and possibly facing death. Not to mention he was a large and powerful guy. Maybe they grab the gun and maybe they detain him. You can't fault characters for making rash decisions. He was only incapicated for a short time so it may have been risky to take that option.

Lummie

17th Apr 2012

Monk (2002)

Correction: In the episode the host says you need a pin but if you didn't have one there were some near the back. In any case, there was nothing to suggest this was a high security event. As you said he could have made Natalie his plus 1. A number of the other alumni at the event brought their partner. The gentleman who lost his wife and the former classmate of Monk's both had their partners.

Lummie

Corrected entry: When John finally gets his motorbike started and drives frantically through the mall car park with the T-1000 in pursuit, he presents a clear target on at least four occasions. Why doesn't the T-1000 just draw his gun and shoot him? Don't tell me he's worried about hitting a bystander - he kills lots of innocent people, and he uses his gun many, many times during the film - it isn't something he doesn't know how to do. He can't be worried about making a spectacle of himself and blowing his cover, either - driving a truck into a sewer will do that, every time, quite apart from the fact that as far as anyone is concerned he is an armed cop shooting a fleeing suspect who may have been part of the furious gunfight that just took place. He could have emptied the gun into John's back, mission complete.

Correction: Watching him chase John through the parking lot, you can see he doesn't have the gun he possessed earlier in his holster anymore. He did drop it when the T800 was firing the shotgun at him in the mall corridor.

Lummie

23rd Feb 2009

The Departed (2006)

Corrected entry: Sullivan shouldn't have had to yell out that he had Costello after shooting him. The other cops would've surely heard the barrage of gunshots and came running as they had already stopped shooting long before. (02:05:45)

zephalis

Correction: The most likely reason for this was as you pointed out the police would have probably heard the sound of gunshots and have their weapons drawn. Sullivan would be simply taking the precaution to warn the police in case they mistook him for one of the suspects.

Lummie

23rd Jan 2009

King of the Hill (1997)

Pigmalion - S7-E9

Corrected entry: Before Luanne moves in with Trip, he tells her that he had her things shipped to the house, and some movers are shown carrying a couch and other things. But later, Luanne is shown staying in a room with the mansion's furniture and none of her things.

Correction: That is not a mistake, but just the oddity of Trip. As we see in the episode, Trip wanted to make Luanne look just like the girl from the advertisement, with whom he grew up. The fact he replaced all her clothes with those like the ad, and colored her hair would explain that he wanted to control everything about her. As for her belongings, they likely put it all in some other room or in storage, yet another means of control.

Lummie

31st Dec 2008

Armageddon (1998)

Corrected entry: When we see that AJ and the Russian have survived, we see a sweep through the wreckage of the shuttle. Pieces of wreckage are burning with little, earthly like flames, which are not possible without oxygen.

Jacob La Cour

Correction: This is already listed as a mistake. Its the highest ranked one.

Lummie

Corrected entry: Pay close attention to the scene in the airplane where Butthead is behind one of the flight attendants in the aisle as she is serving dinner. He says, "Hey, I got a beer, want some?" A split second later, we see Beavis rush the cockpit and scare the pilots. At this exact moment, we now see Butthead at the back of the plane with that same flight attendant (same hair, clothes, everything), only she is seated in one of the take off seats and reading a book. Even if for argument's sake, Butthead did walk to the back of the plane, that same flight attendant couldn't have been there.

Correction: While the shots and scenes happen one after another there is no time reference to know how long after Butthead was talking to the flight attendant before Beavis went into the cockpit. Its impossible to tell whether Beavis went right after or it took him a few minutes.

Lummie

11th Dec 2008

Wall-E (2008)

Corrected entry: When Wall-E is sitting with Eve on top of his truck, in one scene he sits on the edge and plays with his treads. Listen to the pitches of the sounds he makes; he's using his treads to "play" the tune for "Put On Your Sunday Clothes".

Correction: Thats an observation. The sites rules that trivia must be more than just an observation.

Lummie

11th Dec 2008

Australia (2008)

Corrected entry: In the scene where the cattle are startled by fire, it is late evening, yet by the time they've run to the edge of the gorge 400m away, it's daytime again. A few minutes later, David Wenham's character states that, 'they must have pushed on during the night'.

Correction: Its the other way around. The time that the cattle are startled is early morning with the sun rising.

Lummie

11th Dec 2008

Wall-E (2008)

Corrected entry: When Wall-E gets struck by lightning while holding an umbrella over EVE, watch his solar charge meter fill all the way up after the first strike.

Correction: The sites rules state that simple observations made by just watching the film are not 'trivia'.

Lummie

Corrected entry: By the time the action reaches El Paso, Anton Chigurh has killed 11 people (deputy, 1st motorist, 2 drug dealers in desert, hotel desk clerk, 3 Mexicans in hotel, pickup truck driver, chicken truck driver, Carson Wells) including a sheriff's deputy. There were also several additional murders in the desert in the beginning. Yet there is no massive manhunt, just old Sheriff Tom Bell alone hunting for him. There should have been a major police presence hunting him.

Correction: This sort of thing comes under the category of we don't see everything going behind the scenes. First, we don't see enough outside of the Sheriff's world. We don't know what other authorities such as the FBI are up to so they might be on to him but might not. Secondly whether the authorities were linking up that all the murders were connected is left unknown. Maybe same gun but no specific M.O. Finally Anton was almost like a ghost leaving little to no trace behind of him. Even if they were on a manhunt, what would they look for? A man who has killed virtually everyone who has taken a good look at him, no real physical evidence and perhaps no background file on him.

Lummie

5th Oct 2008

Transformers (2007)

Corrected entry: At the Hoover Dam, Simmons asks Sam if he would like a "Double Venti Macchiatto." There is only one coffee company who uses "Venti" as a size, and their Macchiattos automatically come with 2 shots of espresso and would never be referred to as "Double Venti."

Correction: Just because there is one company that might use this size term doesn't mean it's a mistake for anyone to use it if it's not the same company. It's like saying people can only refer to 'Walkman' when they are using a Sony tape player (they created the term) and if it's not Sony it should be called tape player. It's common usage and people are bound to use other terms.

Lummie

5th Oct 2008

28 Weeks Later (2007)

Corrected entry: In 28 Days Later, the Infected stick to the darkness. However, in this movie, they have no trouble running around in full sunlight.

Correction: That is completely not true. There were not many sunny days in the first one to begin with and secondly they were running around in the day in "28 Days Later." You might be getting confused with "I Am Legend" in which they cannot come out at night.

Lummie

6th Oct 2008

Juno (2007)

Corrected entry: The comic Mark gives Juno (Most Fruitful Yuki) is priced $2.95, despite the fact he tells Juno he picked it up in Japan while touring with his band. (01:04:05)

Correction: Unless Mark elaborates and explains that it was made in Japan as well, there is nothing wrong about his story. It might have been brought over by a collector in Japan, someone sold it to him while they were in Japan etc.

Lummie

5th Oct 2008

Best in Show (2000)

Corrected entry: When the couple who own the grey dog are talking about how they met at Starbucks, the man says he was drinking a "Grande Espresso." Espresso is measured in shots (single, double, etc.), not cup size (tall, grande, etc.).

Correction: It's his story, he can describe it whichever way he likes. Even if it's a "character mistake", it's what he calls them.

Lummie

5th Oct 2008

Superbad (2007)

Corrected entry: In the scene where Seth gets his car towed from the school, watch Fogel as the three of them walk into the parking lot. Right as Fogel says, "I mean, why would you park in the staff?" he looks at the ground to where he is supposed to stand.

Correction: Can you please explain how this is a mistake? Is there tape, or something to tell where to stand? Looking down doesn't constitute a character or any other type of mistake.

Lummie

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.