Character mistake: Jim Sturgess uses a sentence that contains the word 'me'. He is corrected, being told that the word 'I' would have been correct. However, he was grammatically correct in his use of the word 'me'. The correction was in error.
Character mistake: Characters refer to the Dallas and the Red October as "ships," but anyone stationed aboard a submarine would know to call it a "boat."
Character mistake: When Charlie is calling out the brick count to Napster from the subway, he describes it as being "13 across, 4 high, 4 deep". The bricks appear to be 2 deep in the safe (13x4x2), so he could just be lumping two shelves together, which works (13x4x4 = 13x4x2x2). The problem is that when the camera pans down there are 3 shelves in the safe. This means that there are more than the 208 bricks that Napster announces. (01:33:40)
Character mistake: There is no way on earth that a police officer would shoot a hostage in the thigh to 'take them out of the equation'. Anyone who suggested such a thing would likely be taken out and shot themselves. Bullet wounds to the thigh are often fatal, as an injury to the femoral artery causes massive and frequently unstoppable blood loss. Breaking the femur often leads to fat embolisms as bone marrow gets into the bloodstream and then to the lungs. In fact a broken femur is a life threatening injury in itself, and a shattered femur - a typical bullet injury - would almost always result in a total amputation. You cannot aim carefully enough to avoid the bone or artery as their position in the body varies, (as will the bullet trajectory upon impact). Jack is an experienced cop and would know the potentially disastrous consequences of shooting someone in the thigh. He'd shoot him in the foot. (00:21:05)
Character mistake: Barbara is in her office looking for the one item they need help to identify when Diana walks in. She says "OK, item number 23." She suddenly finds it saying "here it is" and reaches in the box to grab the Dreamstone. The ticket says item #24. (00:22:18 - 00:22:50)
Character mistake: Near the beginning when James Bond enters the North Korean complex, Zao is sent information to his mobile phone about James Bond being from the "MI6 Security Service". This is inaccurate information because MI6 is the Secret Intelligence Service and not the Security Service. It is MI5 which is the Security Service. (00:06:29)
Character mistake: When the Terminator scans the doorman at the bar, a display comes up categorizing each piece of the doorman's clothing. The word "briefs" is misspelled "breifs". (00:13:40)
Character mistake: It's all very heroic and manly but the effort put into dragging the Phoenix into its takeoff position once the engine is started is totally wasted. Townes and A.J. are both experienced pilots and Elliott is supposedly a genius aeronautical engineer - they must surely be aware that the engine power required to taxi an aircraft is trivial compared to that required to lift it into the air. Even taking into account the drag of the skids and wheels, if that engine cannot propel the aircraft at a few kilometers an hour on the ground it cannot propel it to take off speed, nor keep it up once airborne. They are not there to steer the aircraft - they are taking the strain of the whole weight of the air-frame, dragging it into place, and the energy input of eight exhausted, underfed people would add nothing to the contribution of a 2500 bhp aircraft engine in moving the Phoenix. They are not trying conserve fuel - they had enough fuel for an extended flight with both engines at full throttle, so they have easily enough to run one engine throttled back to reduce stress on the air-frame, which they say they are going to do.
Character mistake: At the beginning of the movie, the German sub gets surprised and severely damaged by a destroyer. The sonar man first notices the enemy destroyer approaching, but only a short time before the destroyer is already literally on top of the sub. German sonar at the time had the capacity to detect ships up to more than 7 miles away, so the sonar man really had to be asleep at his sonar station not to notice the destroyer approaching. (00:03:40)
Character mistake: One of the other trainers said he rode over on a Pidgeotto, but it was a Pidgeot.
Character mistake: The Admiral refers to Top Gun as Maverick's final post. As Maverick is a Naval aviator, it should be referred to as his final duty station. The army uses the term post.
Character mistake: In the opening scene is a paragraph describing why the Top Gun school was started. The word "insure" is used when the word should have been "ensure". They wanted to guarantee the U.S. had superior pilots, not take out an insurance policy.
Character mistake: In the beginning scene where the shuttle lands on Pandora, as Jake gets on his wheelchair preparing to alight from the shuttle, the man behind him unloading equipment has his exopack mask loose even though he is exposed to Pandora's atmosphere. (00:05:20)
Character mistake: When Harley asks Tony what the light is coming from his chest, Tony responds "an electromagnet." Harley replies "What does it power?" An electromagnet is not a source of power. The arc reactor is the power source which powers both the electromagnet (to keep Tony safe from the shrapnel near his heart) and the Iron Man suit. (00:43:25)
Character mistake: While in the sewing workshop, the teacher approaches and asks, 'What's the matter, Charlie?' but at this point he is still known as Peterson. It's not until later on in the film that he decides upon the name of Charles Bronson. (00:11:35)
Character mistake: When they're on the island and the INGen helicopters are flying in, Jeff Goldblum takes the binoculars and looks through the wrong end. (00:32:30)
Character mistake: During the opening raid of the FSB safe house, an operator is seen taking hard drives out of a safe. As he does, he states over the radio that they are "SSDs" (Solid State Drives), when in reality they are normal HDDs (Hard Disk Drives), which are noticeably larger than SSDs. (00:07:25)
Character mistake: The scene in the outdoor Parisian cafe is incredibly daft. First, the cafe owners call James Coburn's bizarrely-accented Australian to the telephone to keep him out of the way as their accomplices assassinate three uniformed German officers seated in the cafe in a drive by shooting. They then toast the killings with cognac, and that is the mistake - not the shootings, not the luring away of Coburn - the mistake is that the cafe proprietors celebrate the assassination of the German officers in broad daylight, in the open, without even stopping to think that such an action would have them shot, because all of this is done in the direct view of passers-by in broad daylight. Do they think those three German officers were the only ones in Paris? How did they know Coburn wasn't an undercover Gestapo agent or a French collaborator? Don't they stop to consider that in an occupied city machine gun fire is going to draw some attention from the authorities, who might just wonder what a couple of bullet riddled corpses are doing lying about the place?
Suggested correction: Regarding the French cafe proprietors making a toast, if questioned, they could simply claim they were celebrating surviving the incident and/or needed a calming drink. Considering any ensuring panic and confusion after the shooting, pedestrians would hardly notice the waiters. Attention would be on the dead Germans. French citizens most likely wouldn't care or cooperate with the authorities. Being indifferent to German officers getting killed is not proof of involvement. Most French hardly be remorseful over their enemies' deaths. Antagonism toward the Germans was normal. It would be more suspicious if the proprietors showed concern. As far as helping James Coburn, it was pretty obvious he was neither French or German, and they took a chance to protect an innocent bystander. Also, it was to inject some subtle levity into the scene.
Rubbish. During the occupation Paris was crawling with collaborators and undercover German agents. The cafe owners are drinking champagne - not much of a nerve stiffener! - and they clink glasses in celebration of the shooting of the German officers. Their actions are beyond obvious to anyone that can see them. They simply would not take the risk and would act as if they were horrified to see their customers shot dead in their cafe.
Nope. Even if collaborators were "crawling" around, no-one would expect any French citizen to care about Nazis being killed. If questioned they can claim it was for the other reasons already stated (and they are not drinking champagne). It does not prove their involvement. Little would come of them being interrogated. As mentioned, this is a movie, and the scene injects subtle humor and is intended to show the audience that they are involved in the coordinated plan.
Again, rubbish. The Nazis occupying Paris arrested anyone suspected of belonging to or assisting the Resistance on the slightest pretext, and the cafe owners who were celebrating the deaths of three German officers would be in a Gestapo prison cell before the bodies of the dead Germans were cold. What they do after the Germans are shot is blatant, irresponsible, dangerous and completely unnecessary. They could have saved their celebrations for later when it was safe.
Once again, NOPE. Clinking glasses is not proof of possibly belonging to or aiding the Resistance. They also were not wildly celebrating. It was a quick, low-key action, and they looked both nervous and relieved. Also, I re-watched the scene on YouTube. When the car pulls up to shoot the Nazis, the street around them is completely empty. No witnesses anywhere. People are only seen far in the background. The phone call just before the shooting is a signal and indicates this was well-coordinated and timed. Secondly, the story needs to move quickly, and insignificant characters would not be seen toasting later. This also showed James Coburn (and us) that the waiters were potential allies.
You think the Nazis needed proof of someone's involvement in the Resistance? They arrested, tortured and shot innocent people on the unsubstantiated word of pro-German informers! No witnesses anywhere? What about Coburn? They didn't know who he was or where he was from. For all they know he could have been a Gestapo agent himself. The scene is absurd. Nobody is so stupid as to do what they did at the risk of dying horribly if caught doing it.
It should also be noted that the cafe owners duck behind their counter before the car carrying the gunmen shows up, and they get Coburn to do the same. They just provided incontrovertible evidence that they knew about the assassinations ahead of time.
Yes, they absolutely were part of it, and the hit was timed and planned in advance for the opportune moment. This was not a random act, and the phone call appears to be the signal that sets the events in motion. When they made the toast, they knew the street was completely empty and obviously felt it was safe to do so. Also, if Coburn was a spy or collaborator, he would have warned the Nazis, not hidden behind the counter.
Character mistake: On the way approaching town the camera pans to a woman's hanged body with a sign written in German around her neck. One of the crew asked Wardaddy what it said, to which he answered something like "It reads 'I am a coward who refused to fight for the German people'." That sign actually translates to "I wanted my children not to go fight" or Anglicized for better effect, "I refused to let my children to go to war." Interestingly, once into town, there appears the corpse of a hanged man with a sign written in German that does translate to what Wardaddy said of the first sign. (00:43:00)
Character mistake: In the opening scenes when Brian goes back to the shop, he demands that he needs some nitrous to boost his low top speed. Well I'm sure that most tuners will agree that more horsepower doesn't equal more top speed, it only contributes IF you have a transmission that can handle it and distribute it. (00:09:53)
Suggested correction: Insure and ensure are equivalent in US usage, and are from the same Anglo-Norman root.
Having the same root word is irrelevant. Many distinct words have the same root. In the US "insure", "ensure", and "assure" are not equivalent, therefore this correction is not valid. One could argue that "insure" was used to mean to be protect against risk as "insure" doesn't specifically mean "take out an insurance policy." But generally one would use the phrase "insure against."
Bishop73