Corrected entry: At the book signing in Berlin, the camera pans from right to left and the guard at the very end of the line of soldiers (to the left) has his left hand raised in military salute to Hitler. All the other soldiers have their right hands extended.
lionhead
8th Dec 2004
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
14th Jun 2016
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Stupidity: When the Keymaker is closing the door to the room that leads to the Source, he stands in the doorway resulting in the multiple Agent Smiths gunning him down. He could have easily closed the door without standing in the doorway and consequently would have lived.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Who says the door was bullet proof and the Keymaker couldn't have been shot through the door?
The point of the stupidity is that he shouldn't have been in the doorway at all, even if the door wasn't bulletproof, there was no need for him to even stand behind the closed door. He could have pushed the door closed from the side.
It seems to be a heavy door, he simply couldn't close it with just his arm, thus he had to move his body forwards in order to close it. In that brief moment he got shot before the door closed. He could have for example kicked the door shut but he simply didn't think of that at that moment, also not knowing the Smiths were about to fire a volley of bullets at them.
22nd Sep 2018
Ocean's Twelve (2004)
Corrected entry: When The Night-Fox is explaining the egg bet to Danny he says the bet is to steal the egg once it's on display Monday morning. Danny steals it in transit before it's on display, so why doesn't he lose the bet? He was premature and he cheated.
Correction: They made a deal with LeMarc, bypassing the bet since Toulour broke the thief's code by giving them up to Benedict. They stole the egg before he could, so he lost the bet, if he would protest he would hear it from LeMarc, a man he fears and respects.
22nd Sep 2018
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
Corrected entry: It is revealed that Loki's scepter is holding an infinity stone. That would mean Thanos willingly gave Loki, a trickster he doesn't even know, the only infinity stone he had at the time. That makes no sense.
Correction: This isn't a plot hole, merely a plot point. Thanos needs all of the infinity stones. Realistically, the mind stone alone isn't much use to Thanos, but it gives Loki an advantage in acquiring the Space Stone. By using the mind stone, Loki is able to build a team of people to help him, and turn his enemies against each other and he was very nearly successful in achieving his goal. It is also made clear in the film that Thanos and The Other can punish Loki for failure without having to be on Earth with him. Loki's fear of Thanos would keep him in line.
Correction: Thanos used Loki to gain the Tesseract, the space stone and gave Loki the mind stone to help the Chitauri invade Earth and retrieve the space stone for him.
Thanos has been searching for the stones for for a very long time, finds one, but gives it away to gain another. That makes 0 sense, considering he needs all 6 to complete his task.
As the other correction states, one stone alone isn't all that useful to him though. He can still exert control over Loki, so he's not giving it away, he's just providing Loki with a tool to get another one, then Thanos will claim them both.
21st Sep 2018
The Purge: Election Year (2016)
Corrected entry: The girl with the puffs shouldn't be allowed to try and steal the candy bar at the beginning of the movie. The purge is the only time where crime is legal and it wasn't purge time yet, so theft wouldn't have been legal.
Correction: It wasn't legal, she had to give it back, that's the whole reason she came back when the purge had started, to get her candy bar.
Also, the fact that it was illegal is likely why she attempted it in the first place. With petty crimes like shoplifting, some people enjoy the thrill of breaking the law and escaping any consequences; at the end of the day, no-one is seriously hurt and, at worst, the vendor being stolen from is out a couple of bucks in profit. And if they should happen to get caught, they can use the fact that it was non-violent as leverage for a lighter sentence.
20th Sep 2018
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
Corrected entry: The film starts out showing a large pyramid in Egypt and puts the date at 3600 BC. The oldest pyramids weren't built till about 2630 BC, a thousand years later.
Correction: The oldest known pyramids were build then, this one was destroyed and buried beneath the sand completely, lost in time. Basically the entire civilization that worshipped Apocalypse disappeared.
What you're saying would make sense if not for the 1000 year time gap here. The pyramid that Apocalypse and his civilization were building more closely resembled later pyramids like Abu Rawash. The early pyramids were a much different look. The precursors to the pyramids were mastabas which over time were the building blocks to creating the first pyramids, still hundreds of years after the events that we see in the film. This would mean that an entire civilization was wiped out with an advanced pyramid and nothing else dating older than it, and it not be found. And then a thousand years later Egyptians created the mastabas that led to them discovering how to make pyramids just like Apocalypse's. It doesn't add up.
The technology to build the pyramid was lost as well obviously, the builders died no records of it. Perhaps it was only rediscovered 1000 years later. How and Why the civilization that worshipped Apocalypse knew how to build pyramids like that isn't told but I bet it has something to do with Apocalypse and his closest followers being mutants with extraordinary powers that they used to build or make people build it.
20th Sep 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Corrected entry: When Dr Strange is first captured in new York, the cable winds up his body and wraps around his neck multiple times. After the piece of road floats up into the air with him lying on, his cape then pulls him out head first and flies him away because the cable wrapped around his neck has mysteriously disappeared.
Correction: Cull Obsidian used the cable around his neck to knock Strange out, then made them retract and loosen again as he didn't want to kill him with it and they weren't necessary anymore.
16th Aug 2006
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Corrected entry: In the motorbike chase after the rescue of Indy's dad from the castle, you can see how they pass the border between Austria and Germany. The guardhouse is waving the Austrian flag. Austria however ceased to exist as a sovereign state after the annexation by Germany in March 1938. Looking at the weather it rather seems to be spring than winter. Therefore there would no longer be a guard at the border nor a guard house waving the Austrian flag.
Correction: The "anschluss" of Austria didn't happen overnight, although it did happen rather quickly. However, the people of Austria were not immediately integrated into Germany, for example the Jews were first to be subjected to the Nuremberg laws. Its safe to assume border guards stayed put during all of 1938 to prevent attempts of "unwanted" people entering Germany. The flag of Austria also couldn't have been replaced by the official flag of Ostmark until later in 1938. So during spring, which the movie probably takes place, the Austrian flag is still used on various places, especially unimportant ones like a small border post.
5th Jan 2005
The Incredibles (2004)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Mrs. Parr goes to see Dash's principal she walks into his office alone. In the car after leaving you can see and hear Jak Jak in the back seat. They are on their way to pick up Violet so was Jak Jak left alone in the car?
2nd Dec 2004
The Incredibles (2004)
Corrected entry: Nothing was explained where super-villains go when the superheroes were retired. Presumably the government could not just herd them up with the heroes - if it could, the government have just used the same technique to arrest them all for being villains. It is a very bad plot hole because, if there had been other villains around, Syndrome could have fought them to gain recognition as a hero rather than devising his evil plot.
Correction: Realize first that it's been about 20 years, counting the trials, since the superheroes have been allowed to save people. So, guys like Bomb Voyage may have retired for various reasons (no challenge anymore, too old, etc.). Also, some of them are dead, again for various reasons (showdowns with the government, rogue heroes that didn't listen to the government, etc.). Also, we don't know that Syndrome tested his Omnidroids exclusively on heroes; he may have "hired" a few villains for the project. Finally, guys like the Underminer and anyone else that would emerge were probably too young to become villains when all of the trouble started at the beginning of the film.
This seems all strangely convenient. Superheroes pop up, super villains do too. Then super heroes disappear and the super villains disappear too? I don't think so.
5th Sep 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Corrected entry: Just after Cull Obsidian advances on Tony, Bruce, Doctor Strange and Wong to get the Time Stone, Tony activates his nanotech Iron Man suit, and the Iron Man suit forms around his body. Just before his helmet forms around his head, there is a wide shot where he takes off his glasses, but as his he is lowering them, the glasses appear to fade out of existence. He is never shown dropping the glasses or putting them down, they just appear to have been digitally removed from his hand. (00:21:00)
Correction: It is possible these glasses are made of nanotech as well and they dissolve into his suit.
20th Mar 2018
Justice League (2017)
Continuity mistake: When Superman is explosively resurrected by the MotherBox, it disintegrates the clothes and shoes in which he was buried, but he's still wearing pants immediately afterwards.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It disintegrates most of his clothes. What he's left with are the pants he was buried in.
So, the gigantic blast vaporized his shirt, tie, jacket, shoes and even socks, but didn't affect his pants at all? Seems unlikely.
Well although I agree you gotta know that the obvious reason for this is that they didn't want them fighting a naked Superman. He is still wearing the same pants as he was buried in though, not suddenly wearing different pants. On the other hand it would have been more logical for Superman to be naked for a second or so, then in the next scene wearing something which he got from anywhere in the city in a split second. Unfortunately for the movie makers they show him wearing them as he shoots up from the building, and it's the same pants so the plausibility gets quite lost. It's not a continuity mistake though.
Whether it's plausible or not is debatable, but the original mistake claimed his pants changed. The correction is that they're the same pants he was buried in.
Suggested correction: It's never verified that his clothes and shoes were "disintegrated." He could have removed them because they were likely tattered from blasting through the roof.
True, but it's semantics? Vaporized, tattered, sliced into cubes or deep fried, the crux is still that his magic pants are intact and the rest isn't. I mean, it's pretty obvious like lionhead said in his comment, why it happened; modesty reasons. Some (not me!) might consider pedantic or too obvious to point out such an event that falls generally under the suspension of disbelief category, however it's a fact.
3rd Jan 2010
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Corrected entry: In the beginning of the movie, when Colonel Landa shows up and Lapidite is chopping wood, the shot before he pauses indicates he's about to chop wood but the stump doesn't have a piece to chop. When he pauses, he just slowly places it on the stump. His action was to chop but there was no wood.
Correction: Lapidite was chopping at the stump to remove it. In 1941 France he would have niether the truck nor have the availability to explosives needed to remove a stump of that size. By chopping at it every few days he would open the stump to the elements and decay quicker.
Correction: I have heard this from several people that he was removing the stump and not a movie error. I actually have a different conclusion from both ideas. When Landa walks by and introduces himself you can see the stump has been perfectly cut in half and shelved. Why make it lower? The girls. If he was caught hiding the Jews he was certain he would be executed and the lowering of the stump is so the girls can try to chop wood for winter time. The stump does not need to be removed - it is not in a field and perfectly located from the house for chopping wood. Hence he lowered half of it in case they would have to use it if he was executed for treason. Soooo I think this is one of first clues landa picks up on! After all he calls himself a "damn good detective." I can't believe it took almost 10 years for me to get around to see this flick! It rocks.
Landa already knew there were Jews hiding in the floor. He didn't get a hint from the stump or anything, he just knew. This was probably the last farm he visited and thus the only one that could have housed the Jews.
Maybe. Maybe someone sold them out. The point of the post and this website is whether or not it is a movie mistake. I was simply providing an alternative no-one thought of about the stump... Now I remember why I stopped spending time blogging - either people would cut and paste it as their own or totally miss (or intentionally ignore) the primary focus of the topic in an effort to dismiss a novel idea. Cheers.
27th Aug 2001
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Plot hole: If Old Biff changed his past and went back to 2015, he goes back to HIS future, not the bad future, but Doc later tells Marty that if he were to go to the future to stop Biff from taking the almanac, he'd go to the bad future, so Old Biff technically shouldn't have been able to return to "his" future at all.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The effects of the past being altered may not have happened immediately. It is possible that it took time for the timelines to adjust to the changes of events, meaning enough time would have passed to change 1985 when they return, but not enough time could have passed to change 2015. By the time Doc says if they went back to 2015 they would be going to an alternate future, some time has passed, so the effects of the past being altered and taking ahold in 2015 and altering it are more likely to have occurred by then.
Here is what you say: "perhaps it took time for the time lines to adjust." What kind of time would timelines take? Time is time, it doesn't take time to change the timeline. That doesn't make any sense. Some people claim it was the DeLorean itself that came back to its own original timeline and only then reset itself in the new one, but then the new timelines being erased later on wouldn't have happened either. So its a genuine plot hole.
It's established in the first film that it takes time for the changes to take effect. Marty and his siblings slowly disappear from the photo, rather than instantly. Although the scene in BTTF2 was deleted, it was filmed showing Biff dying and slowly fading away after his return to his present.
Yet they were restored instantly without any outside influence at the end of the movie. There are a lot of things wrong with this movie and the first one. Old Biff disappearing should mean that Marty and Doc should slowely disappear as well, even the DeLorean. But they didn't, that doesn't make any sense. The point is there is a plot hole, somewhere. To know where all you can do is look at it logically and then you automatically come up with Old Biff going back to the future but not the alternate future. If he did there wouldn't have been a movie, but that's the plot hole.
The timeline didn't change until he made his first bet which was some years I think after receiving it. He immediately travelled forward after giving the act, meaning he will still jump forward to the original future.
The timelines would instantly change, and Old Biff couldn't possibly have returned to "normal" 2015. It's just a poorly-thought-out time travel plot hole (or a deliberate error to expedite the storyline).
Suggested correction: In context, Doc was saying that they couldn't return to 2015 to stop Biff from stealing the time machine, because Biff didn't steal the time machine in the alternate 2015, he only stole it in the original 2015. Marty and Doc didn't stay long enough in 2015 after Biff returned, and that's why they didn't see any differences. Also, though they were unaware of it, Biff was dead in the alternate 2015, so the disasters he caused might have reverted back after his death.
11th Feb 2013
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Plot hole: When Old Biff goes back to 1955 to give himself the almanac, he comes back in the Delorean to the version of 2015 that he left, not the other, skewed version in which he is rich. Everything in 1955 should have changed around the Doc and Marty, as the Doc tells Marty everything will change around Jennifer and Einstein later on in 1985, when Marty and the Doc go back to restore normalcy. George is alive in this future, so we know the skewed version hasn't taken hold.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is established in the movies that the effects of the timeline being changed are not immediate. For example, in the first movie, in the photo of Marty and his siblings, it takes some time for them to vanish from it. When Doc tells Marty everything will change around Jennifer and Einstein when the timeline is restored, I don't think he meant the future will be restored to normalcy right that second, but more after an ample amount of time has passed for everything to be right. After Old Biff gave the almanac to young Biff, there was ample time for him to return to the original 2015 before it changed into the alternate 2015.
That would mean when they restored the timelines it would have taken time for it to adjust again, but it didn't. The new timeline was created but the old one remained because Marty and Doc were still in the original future. However, even though they are not in their original timeline it doesn't make sense for them to still be there, the timeline should have been erased or else old Biff wouldn't be erased either. Again though, a copy of another plot hole, which one is the oldest and original?
18th Aug 2018
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
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)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
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.
13th Aug 2018
Ready Player One (2018)
Corrected entry: When Aech is using the Halo Assault Rifle on Planet DOOM, she blasts through a few enemies, ducks and rolls as she goes through a trench on a large kill streak, firing many rounds. When she comes up and shoots someone behind them in the one long continuous shot, she has not reloaded her weapon at all. Yet the ammo indicator on the weapon shows there to be 32 rounds in the magazine. The Halo Assault rifle only holds a 32 round or 36 round ammo magazine. It is only after that moment that we see the ammo count on the weapon that it starts counting down with her shots. So her weapon is still fully loaded after that stint in a single camera shot without reloading. (00:05:20)
Correction: She could have picked up or bought a temporary upgrade, or powerup, to her weapon that doubles or triples her ammo count once, but that wouldn't show up on the indicator. PvP in the Oasis doesn't follow the rules of the games people adapt their weapons to. Next to that, reloading the assault rifle in Halo is a near invisible act.
9th Jul 2018
Ready Player One (2018)
Plot hole: During the final battle, we see all the other players charging over the hill and running into battle. We later see that these are just players standing on the streets wearing VR visors. But unlike our hero who is dangling on wires (and used a treadmill earlier on)...nobody on the streets is using any such thing. Which means when they are charging or running, they would all be crashing into walls or any obstacles that get in their way. Certainly nothing like the film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: How much you have to move in the real world depends on how much and what kind of haptic gear you're wearing. If you have a boot suit and an omnidirectional treadmill, for example, you do all your own walking, running, and jumping, because you have the space to do it and the haptics to respond to your movements. People with minimal gear-like those we see on the streets-might have only a visor and gloves, say, and they have to do all their "running", "fighting" etc. with signals from their hands. It's like if you don't have a joystick, you have to use the arrows on the keyboard.
I disagree with this. At one point during the big fight you see a group of players as Spartans running along the street, with visors on. They definitely would have run into a wall or other person at some point. I'm sure they were not the only ones. I'm sure it's possible to use something for movement control besides actual physical movements but that scene shows not everybody is using it and there should be a lot of accidents with people running into things and each other. At the start of the movie you see a mom climb upon her couch to imitate climbing up a rock in the game, physically imitating the movement. The lack of showing this disability for players on the streets might not be so big as to be a plot hole, but definitely a factual error.
Here's a clip of the Spartans https://youtu.be/D_eZxSYRhco?t=1m36s that shows they are definitely moving in exactly the same way in the Oasis as they are in real life, so even though yes it would make perfect sense for there to be different control schemes depending on the level of technology a person has, the film appears to show that it's a one-to-one translation of movement regardless of practicality or safety.
I don't think it's an issue. Note that several times in the movie people are also shown to be playing the game while just sitting down at a table. Case in point, the guy that dies on Planet Doom and then immediately jumps up from his work desk and tries to run to the window to jump out. He was sitting down but still playing in the PVP on planet doom. Same is true for right as Wade is telling that when you die all your money and everything you work for is gone. The scene shows Sho stabbing a person's avatar on Planet Doom that then shows the person who was playing that character falling out of a chair he was sitting in. With another person sitting across from him also in a chair.
I think in the end we can all agree its a mistake in the movie but not as big as a plot hole. Some people running, some people sitting down whilst playing, could be a matter of taste, but the Spartans running across the street with a visor on is definitely not logical.
The players have the ability to see the real world because the glasses of most people are transparent, Art3mis even looks at Sorrento approaching in IOI, which Wade even asks why she is looking in that direction if there is nothing there, so the players would not hit the wall when running.
30th Jul 2018
Beverly Hills Cop (1984)
Corrected entry: When Foley is in the hotel with Jenny, he orders some stuff for Rosewood and Taggart (knowing that they followed Jenny and himself to the hotel). He then proceeds to grab some bananas and sticks them up their exhaust pipe as his order was delivered to them. Next thing, Foley and Jenny are leaving the hotel while the waiter is still with Rosewood and Taggard. How did Foley go from putting bananas up the exhaust to him and Jenny leaving the hotel so quickly? (00:38:00)
Correction: He just crossed the street, Jenny was waiting for him on the sidewalk until he was done, and then they left.
30th Jul 2018
Jurassic Park III (2001)
Corrected entry: Parasailing Ben and Erik was in a hurry to release themselves from the suddenly emptied boat headed towards the skerry. Nothing would have happened to them if they had decided to stay attached. When the boat had come to a rest they could have floated down and looked for something that could have helped them. Perhaps a satellite phone, flares or a life raft?
Correction: The danger was landing in the water strapped to the para-sail and harness, which would have definitely meant drowning. Detaching themselves means they have the time to steer for land, whilst they still have altitude.
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: The person in question could have an injured right arm that he simply can't lift.
lionhead
Exactly. "If physical disability prevented raising the right arm, it was acceptable to raise the left." Kershaw, Ian (2001). The "Hitler Myth": Image and Reality in the Third Reich. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0192802064.
ctown28 ★
There's nothing about it in the script though. So between the two options, on the one hand (no pun intended!) that the creators were aware of that fact, and on the other hand, that it was a movie mistake that wasn't noticed, well... There's no possible reason why they'd put that in deliberately. Still, Jon decides, and the rules seem to be that behavioural oddities are not generally considered mistakes.
Spiny Norman
But not every single bit of background extra behaviour gets detailed in the script. The point is simply that based on what we see there's no way to decree something like this as a "mistake", because it has a perfectly reasonable in-universe explanation, and there's no point having an endless chain of bickering about it.
Jon Sandys ★
So just to summarise: the "perfectly reasonable explanation" is, then, that some random bystander has an extremely convincing prosthetic arm (which serves no purpose at all for he story); and NOT that one of the many "extras" simply made a mistake.
Spiny Norman