Corrected entry: When Stella writes the safe combination on the wall she writes the numbers 7-17. The first 7 has a line through it, but in the number 17 the line is omitted. There should be a line through that seven as well. No one would write the first seven one way and the next a different way.
Bishop73
16th Jan 2021
The Italian Job (2003)
16th Jan 2021
Designated Survivor (2016)
Other mistake: The First Lady mentions that her father's heart transplant was done when she was 10 years old in 2002 which means she was born in 1992, and she was 25 years old in 2017, so when did she give birth to her son Leo who's 17 years old? When she was 8?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The First Lady never mentioned a date. Andrew Booker's (her father) heart transplant was done in 1987, according to the medical record found. Her father died in 2002, but that wasn't the year of the transplant.
14th Jan 2021
The Mandalorian (2019)
Chapter 10: The Passenger - S2-E2
Corrected entry: Mando's passenger is a frog woman who has not been established as being in any way dangerous or wanted or have any reason to hide (and her cargo is her offspring, which is again nothing illegal), but Mando acts sneakily to hide her presence.
Correction: When Mando said traveling at sublight speed was dangerous, he was talking about for himself. He wasn't trying to be sneaky in hiding her because of who she was, he was trying to avoid the New Republic at any cost. Telling her to be quiet was so there wouldn't be an extra reason to force him to the outpost.
Logically it would not be an extra reason since all they check and ask for is the ship's data and if he mentioned that he had a female aboard who needed to deliver her offspring, they probably would have let him go more easily without getting too much into technicalities, however I don't want to move into alternative writing and speculation. Mando did not exactly keep a poker face in the circumstance but it's not out of line with the character and he was acting on impulse without a plan. I am fine with the correction, actually.
12th Jan 2021
Think Like a Dog (2020)
Corrected entry: The entire plot is fantasy... I think it is safe to say those things (e.g, amplifying electrical disturbances in someone's brain and using a transmitter to hear that person's thoughts) could not happen.
Correction: Which is why it's listed as a "science fiction comedy", it's not meant to be real or currently possible.
Whose listing is that? What I find most interesting is that before I submitted my view that it is "fantasy", I looked on-line to find what genre this movie fell under. Most websites listed family and kids, kids and comedy, drama, and combinations. I could not find Lionsgate's official "classification." But NOT ONE website listed "fantasy" until AFTER my submission. This makes me believe it was ADDED by someone. Some websites allow anyone to edit... and make someone else's view no longer accurate. [At least there are ex-post facto laws... and I've committed no crime... or ethical violation - although I'm sure at least someone might disagree.].
Which is why I never said it's a fantasy genre. You can see it listed as sci-fi on IMDb and Box Office Mojo. Wikipedia, while it can be edited by anyone, lists it as sci-fi but not fantasy. Lionsgate's website doesn't list genres for most of their films. Although "a science experiment gone awry" tell most people it might be a sci-fi film.
I specifically noted to myself that you did not directly state fantasy. I will not reply, so write whatever makes you happy.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Stupidity: Max is shown fulfilling the various wishes that people express to him, and never turn down any; it would not fit what he became anyway, which is a wishing stone. If people touch him, he has to comply. The wishes he can grant have seemingly no limit, and yet, in this predicament it takes a humongous level of suspension of disbelief to assume that in a climate of global war and chaos, NOBODY wishes for things to go better in any way and the nuclear war to be stopped. There are even in some street scenes "Ban nukes" signs; surely some of those guys must have wished for the madness to stop.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The Dreamstone was also created by the Duke of Deception to bring chaos into the world. It brought out people's selfish desires. When Max Lord became the Dreamstone, he was able to continue to manipulate people in wishing what they truly desired, wishing for more than than had. In the comics, Max Lord had the ability to telepathically alter people's minds after he became a metahuman, so it seems the film incorporated this power as well. It/He made people wish for selfish things. That was the purpose of Wonder Woman's monologue, to tell the people to become less selfish, so give up their wants, to be the hero to save the world by giving up their wish (and wish for a better world would have cost too much, so that wouldn't be an option).
"Cost too much" is not a rule established in the movie, since desires like the deportation of the Irish, "Wish I never met you" "want all the money in the world" someone says in background have astonishingly powerful ramifications. LIkewise why would it be an implication that he is the one who makes them wish only selfish things? The movie wants to say that there are no 'good' wishes when you take shortcuts to make them happen (or at least it tries to referencing the Monkey paw) but to do so shows only wishes that are rotten to begin with.
Suggested correction: With so many people wishing at the same time, it's logical a lot of people are wishing for the opposite. I'm sure the stone's power has some way of dealing with conflicting wishes. For example, someone could wish for the world to blow up or burn, whilst others wish that everybody will be happy and healthy. So, nothing much happens that threatens human existence (the stone would be worthless if all humans are dead) as those wishes cancel eachother out. But the nuclear war happened before Max started talking to everybody, so that is happily continuing.
Most people would have wished the nukes to disappear pretty instantly especially with the world falling into chaos and everyone panicking about it.
And others would have wished for them to hit and kill the "heathens" or "hateful." Cancellation.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Plot hole: The established rule of the wishing stone says that you get one wish, to the point that Max couldn't grant a second wish to the guy who wished a Porsche even if Max was really eager to get his help, and warned his son against wasting his, screaming disappointed when he did waste it. But all of a sudden, he can grant Cheetah a second wish because he's "feeling generous". Without rules, he'd be some omnipotent being who can do anything. The fun part is that there was no need at all for this mess, since Barbara's second wish by its nature (and even the way she formulates it) supersedes the first...but Max couldn't know that. (02:01:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Max is taking from whoever wishes, he choses what. What he takes, he gives to Barbara and himself. He takes the health, she gets the fury. That way he grants her wish without her actually wishing. Same with himself, taking what he wants. And yes, what she wishes does supersede her first wish, but e still holds those powers as well.
That's just changing the established rule out of the blue and just for one person. Why would she get more than one wish when everyone else can't and earlier he was shown to have that limit and be frustrated by it?
It can also be pointed out that the original stone gave Barbara her wish. When Max Lord became the Dreamstone, he became something else. She never got a wish from him. When he says he was feeling generous, he wasn't saying he'll grant her a 2nd wish, he's saying he won't take anything from her.
Then he did not get what he wished for, since his wish was literally "I wish to be you, the Dreamstone itself." And him not taking anything from her is again a change of the rule.
And since he didn't turn into a crystal, he became something else. He had the power. And there was no "rule" something had to be taken, Max was taking something out of greed. The stone did have a natural consequence, which Barbara experienced by losing her humanity in order to become Cheetah. But that's noting to do with Max taking anything or the rules changing.
The conversation is shifting away from the original point; she gets 2 wishes and nobody else does, not even people he wants them to. It cannot be because they are considered separate entities, because then the previous stone is not considered in existence anymore and then Barbara and Diana's desires should have been nullified.
Technically you can't call this a mistake. The stone being absorbed by Max doesn't destroy the power the stone held, nor is there a president for this. So there is no telling what would change from the original powers and or ruleset of the stone. Max never granted a 2nd wish and stating he was feeling generous was just a means to get the wish spoken out. Max also offered Diana a wish even though she already had a wish happen by the original stone. The question is, did the stone restore?
It's all the same thing. The problem with a lot of these mistake entries is making false assumptions about what should or shouldn't happen and not understanding who the characters are and what's going on. Yes, the film has flaws, but this isn't a forum to express your personal thoughts about what you think is wrong with the film (some don't even sound like original ideas since they're word exactly like what you can find online everywhere).
Since it's not a forum, I shouldn't reply to something not pertaining to the entry itself, but thanks for saying that you can read this 'everywhere', means I am not the only one thinking this way and perhaps you should wonder why? But that aside he can't grant wishes to someone who already expressed them not take nothing away, until he just does. My original entry says who when why based on the movie itself. The movie being flawed or not is not really my point, I hope it's clear that whenever something about a movie is posted, it does not mean to just 'riff' on the movie or 'bash' it or anything per se. Enjoying a movie and its plot with its simplifications and sometimes metaphorical licenses has nothing to do with examining a plot point and read through the fine print.
Maybe instead of endless comments one should just wait with commenting until the suggested entry is actually liked enough and corrects your mistake. If people don't agree with the suggested correction, no need to discuss it.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Character mistake: Barbara mentions that Kush went extinct in 4 AD. Maybe the fourth century? In 4 AD the civilization was still alive and well, and the collapse happened around the 4th century. (01:27:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Barbara didn't say it went extinct in 4 AD. She says the stone appeared in Kush in 4 AD.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Plot hole: The plot specifies that the only way to defeat the evil god is destroying the stone or for everyone to renounce to their gifts. That second option is an impossibility, if you consider that people wished things like "a cup of coffee" that they can't take back in any fathomable way or didn't even realise it was a wish, and it's of course statistically impossible that everyone on the face of Earth was convinced by Wonder Woman's pep talk, or was reached by her message, that spreads through the TV.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not everyone had to renounce their wish. The point was that as Wonder Woman was convincing people to be better and rescind their selfish wishes, Max Lord began to lose power and regain his humanity enough to be convinced to rescind his wish. Once he did so, all wishes he granted were not only rescinded, but what he took from everyone was given back. And in a fantasy film, you can certainly "give back" the coffee you wished for. It simply becomes as if you never drank it and the coffee goes back into the pot it came from.
Max ultimately does rescind his wish, but the idea as Steve said was for "everyone to renounce their wish", which would have been impossible to begin with, and the movie shows only, constantly, people wishing for bad things, some of which were inherently transient and can't be reversed (such as the person who wished Max to have an audience with the President.: that can't be taken back). The supposed alternative method was impossible to fulfill. However I agree that that the impossible idea suggested was not what ultimately happened, which matters more.;-).
13th Mar 2014
How I Met Your Mother (2005)
Continuity mistake: When Robin leaves to get Battleship, Barney thinks they're going to have sex, whips his belt off, and throws it on the floor. When Robin returns, he's neatly folding his pants and draping them over a chair, and his belt is still threaded through the loops. (00:16:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He could have easily done that himself so it was easier to put back on afterwards.
This correction is too much of a stretch. It would make no sense for him to take off the belt and throw it to the ground in the first place. He was alone at that point, so he wasn't doing it to impress anyone and he's been in this position before.
8th Jan 2021
After We Collided (2020)
Trivia: This is the sequel to "After" (2019).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't trivia, especially since it stars the main cast of characters and is based on the sequel to the book.
Arguably, EVERYTHING is trivia.
No, anything obvious, common knowledge, or easily seen by viewers is NOT trivia. Also, things unrelated to the film or those involved is not trivia.
The "easily seen by viewers" is a bit of a grey area, because people (well, I) do read trivia listings before seeing a movie just for background info. But I agree that not everything can be trivia - it needs to be broadly of note, although granted that's highly subjective!
5th Jan 2021
Chicago P.D. (2014)
Character mistake: Alvin Olinsky appears in this episode investigating the bombings in which Trudy was involved, but he died at the end of season 5.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Where do you see Alvin (or even the actor Elias Koteas) in the scene? I couldn't see him in this episode.
6th Sep 2007
The Core (2003)
Factual error: In a few shots through the movie the gauges or screens displaying information, they use "PPI" for pounds per sq. inch instead of PSI. PPI is wrong it's always PSI. The first time you see it is in the scene when they just launch the ship right before they pierce the crust with Braz and Serge for sure.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They are measuring pounds per linear inch which is PPI.
3rd Jul 2020
Monk (2002)
Corrected entry: They're interviewing criminals Monk's put in state prison, mostly guys. Yet they interview Arlene Boras. I've never heard of any prison that houses both men and women.
Correction: There are prisons that house both men and women. For example, Folsom State Prison in California currently hoses both male and female.
Well then they should have Saturday night dances. It'd hopefully discourage escapes by giving them interaction, conjugal visits, should they have nobody on the outside.
2nd Jan 2021
The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)
Continuity mistake: When Bond hangs the clear sheet on the screen, the dark line is both next to and on top of the pink line showing the submarine course. A moment later, the clear sheet has moved, making the lines further apart. (00:13:58 - 00:14:41)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The pink line is always visible and depending on the camera angle it's brighter in places than others, if the clear sheet with the black line on has moved it's very slight.
The mistake says nothing about the pink line not being visible or changing brightness. And if the clear sheet moved slightly, that's a mistake.
25th Mar 2005
The Incredibles (2004)
Corrected entry: During Bob and Helen's wedding, Stratogirl is sitting in the audience. However, later in the movie Edna reminds Bob that she died when her cape caught on something. Stratogirl died in April '57, which is before the wedding took place. (00:10:00 - 00:45:25)
Correction: It is never established when the film is set. The only years mentioned in the entire film are the dates that E lists with the superhero deaths.
Correction: I'm not sure if the first correction was trying to say we don't know when they got married, but we know it was before 1957. The comment is correct that the film takes place in 1962, when Violet and Dash are 14 and 10, meaning they were born in 1948 and 1952. There's nothing to indicate they got married more than 5 years after Dash was born and it's more probable that they were married before 1948.
19th Dec 2001
Air Force One (1997)
Factual error: The plastic explosive used on the cockpit door was C-4. When shot (as shown), C-4 does not explode; it requires the use of a detonator.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You can see him applying a detonator prior to him shooting it.
If he applied a blasting cap (detonator) he should have used it then. Just putting a detonator into C-4 doesn't all the sudden make it vulnerable to being shot, he would have to actually hit the blasting cap's wire, which is about 5mm thick and relatively short (and it would have to be one that's sensitive to gunfire). Not a very probable shot, even less so when he doesn't even look when he shoots.
14th Apr 2007
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
Corrected entry: When Mike and Sulley are stuck in the Himalayas with the Yeti, the Yeti says that you can get milk from a Yak. This is not true as the Yak is the male of the species and the female (which would produce milk) is actually a Nak.
Correction: "Yak" is an English word borrowed from the Tibetan language. In English, "yak" is the species of animal with "bull" and "cow" being used for male and female, therefore, saying you can get milk from a yak is correct. If the Yeti was speaking Tibetan or Balti, then you might consider it a mistake.
22nd Jan 2006
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Corrected entry: When the Hobbits are in the woods and Merry has asked Frodo who the Black Rider was looking for Pippin says "Get down". Though if you look you see that it is actually Sam who says it, but Pippin's voice is heard. You can tell because the one speaking is the one to the left, and when the Hobbits duck Sam is to the left and Pippin to the right. Plus it is the chubbier Hobbit who speaks, which would be Sam.
Correction: It sounds like Pippin but it is Sam. In the Extended Edition cast commentary, Sean Astin explains how in one take of that scene, he said the line with an American accent.
I watched the film and I am sure it didn't sound like Pippin saying get down.
I've seen mistake entries for other film where characters say a line without their established accent or in the actor's real life accent. Perhaps then this would still be considered a mistake with a a different wording.
29th Dec 2020
Fantasy Island (2020)
Character mistake: Near the end while in the caves Maggie is the first to go missing, but they use the name Gwen multiple times, the actress' actual name.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Maggie Q is the actress and she plays the character Gwen Olsen.
9th Jun 2018
Guns of Navarone (1961)
Plot hole: Maria describes in lurid detail how Anna was arrested by the Germans and tortured by being severely whipped, leaving her with gruesome scars all over her back. She also says that Anna hasn't spoken a word to anyone since she escaped from captivity. How, then, does Maria (or anyone else) know about the scars? Nobody saw them (they don't exist) and Anna obviously didn't tell anyone about them.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She is probably able to write.
This correction is too speculative and offers no in-film evidence or further proof.
Anna was a school teacher.
Wasn't she a school teacher? So probably could write.
If she "wrote" about the scars wouldn't someone want to see them, perhaps get her to a doctor? Making up silly, deux ex machina explanations for film mistakes does not invalidate them.
Your assuming a lot like when the Germans release here. She could have "recovered" and had a fit anytime anyone touched her.
As was noted above, making up silly, deux ex machina explanations for film mistakes does not invalidate them. You cannot 'recover' from scars. It is ridiculous to think that nobody ever thought to get Anna to a doctor for treatment.
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: This is an assumption and not a mistake. I'm constantly switching back and forth between putting a line through my 7's and not doing it. Often my stand alone 7's get the line and a 7 with other numbers (like 17) don't. This is especially true when I'm not writing the numbers at the same time.
Bishop73