Other mistake: Clarence tells George that his brother died at the age of 9 because he wasn't there to save him from falling through the ice, but when you see the tomb stone, it shows Harry Bailey was born in 1911 and died in 1919. That would make Harry only 7 or 8 years old.
Plot hole: Why on earth would the military be interested in a soldier (sailor, aviator, whatever) who has to go into combat naked and unarmed, and who is detectable by an enemy equipped with a pair of cheap, mass-produced goggles? How would you treat them if they were injured? They would be utterly useless in any form of military operation, even espionage.
Plot hole: The huge guns are set high up on a cliff face facing out to sea and it is obvious that they cannot be depressed to fire at a downward angle - the massive gun carriages set on rails would prevent that happening. They cannot be elevated to fire at an upward angle, too, because they fit pretty snugly in the hole cut into the cliff face to accommodate them. This means that their maximum and minimum ranges would be quite close together, covering a strip of maybe a few hundred metres either side. Given that the sea is completely open on the side of the island they are protecting, why don't the ships targeted by the guns while passing the island simply sail inside or outside of the narrow stretch of sea the guns can hit?
Suggested correction: The guns are firing across a strait. A strait is a "narrow passage." Since the targets must appear at a limited range, the guns only need a limited elevation angle.
Watch the film again. The guns are facing the open sea. There is no land visible anywhere behind the ships. If that's a strait, it's a very, very wide one.
Other summaries explain that the strait is only deep enough for the ships at the place which matches the guns' range. So ships could not take advantage of further away or closer in.
Suggested correction: That the gun carriages are supposedly set on rails is not correct. In the novel template, as well as in the film, it is shown that the guns were installed on turntables. And as for their variable angles of fire - it could be due to (fictional) modifications.
Continuity mistake: When Del comes out of the passenger side of the dairy truck, he is with a black eye, for no reason. The next scene, it is not there. It is there again when he admits to being homeless. (Steve Martin punched Del in a deleted scene.)
Revealing mistake: How on Earth can Selby get those skin tight T-shirts over that huge cast on her arm? They cannot possibly stretch any more than they already are - look at the scene where she and Eileen are checking the mail. There is no way that sleeve would fit over the cast without ripping! It is well beyond the capacity of that tight T-shirt to stretch to that extent! Obviously Christina Ricci had the cast fitted after she was in costume.
Continuity mistake: When they are looking at the house and they get out of the car, the one man on the passenger side leaves his door open. When they walk to the side of the house and come back to the front, you can see the car in the background and the door is shut.
Factual error: Listening to a radio broadcast, live, since no other indication is given, Joe Louis is completing the 12th round of a fight. This is December 6, 1941. Joe's last fight of 1941 occurred in September, his next fight was January 1942. (00:00:10)
Factual error: Eddie specifically tells the gang not to take his mom's "Delicious Deals" snacks because his mom loves them. But Delicious Deals are made by Mrs. Freshley, a company that was not founded until 1994. The boxes used in the movie even include the modern design that can be found today in most Dollar Tree stores. (00:23:00)
Continuity mistake: In the final scene where Roxie and Velma are dancing in the concert hall, Roxie is on the right and Velma is on the left. They then turn around, and from behind (same point of view as before) they're suddenly the other way around. (01:44:20)
Character mistake: A TV news announcer describes Alan Shepard's first manned launch into space as him being lifted to "an altitude of 116 miles per hour." That's not an altitude, that's a speed. It should have just been "116 miles."
Plot hole: This film is set in 2004. The thought that no search and rescue operations would be put in place after an aircraft disappeared from radar during a routine flight is absurd. The Chinese are paranoid about intrusion on their territory and the downed aircraft would have been located by a simple satellite search within hours of it crashing. Chinese military satellites crisscross the Gobi and they are equipped with optical cameras, microwave and infrared detectors and radar, so spotting a metal aircraft on the ground would be simple even if it was hundreds of kilometres off course. The crew would have been visited by Chinese military helicopters (and probably arrested!) as soon as the storm had died down.
Suggested correction: The Chinese government, for whatever reason, may have denied there was any crash at all if it suited their purposes, and the oil company that owned the plane would have little recourse. The Chinese have done this before. For the purpose of the plot, the survivors decided that they had to save themselves rather than wait for rescue and that was completely plausible.
Suggested correction: It's now 2021, and we still can't find Malaysian Airlines MH370. So this suggestion of planes always being found is laughable.
MH370 crashed into the ocean, and in fact some wreckage has been found. The Chinese military does not have the south Indian Ocean under satellite surveillance 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, unlike the Gobi desert where a crashed plane would be spotted within hours of it going missing.
Continuity mistake: During the Xmas day scene, Markus receives a Sony portable CD player as a gift from Will. However, before the gift's unwrapped, the Sony box is visible on the table. (00:51:45)
Continuity mistake: When swimfan85 is trying to talk to Ben and he tells her he has homework to get done, she is talking with the nick name swimfan85 but when she signs off it says "swimfan has signed off." They forgot to add the 85.
Factual error: After the successful Trinity test in 1945, people in a crowd are holding small US flags with 50 stars on them (offset rows). At the time there were only 48 states and the flag had 48 stars in even rows. The 50 star flag didn't exist until 1960, after Alaska and Hawaii were made states in 1959.
Suggested correction: While this is correct, an argument can be made that since the colour scenes are meant to be subjective and the black and white scenes are meant to be objective, Oppenheimer could have been unintentionally mapping the modern US flag onto this scene.
That's a ridiculous stretch with zero evidence, not least as 48 star flags are seen in colour in other scenes. Sometimes a mistake is simply a mistake.
There is evidence, though. Nolan said so himself. Look it up. As for the mistake itself, I'm merely repeating what I've read on Twitter, and this correction was merely a suggestion. Seeing the 48 star flags in other colour scenes still doesn't disprove this theory. It is just a theory though, so no need to shoot it down so hard.
He's said subjective in terms of the colour scenes being "first person", and maybe not strictly factual in terms of creating moments between characters and conveying emotion, but nowhere does that stretch to "one random scene happens to feature 50 star flags because Oppenheimer is mapping the modern flag onto it, when nothing like that happens anywhere else in the film."
Meh, take it up with Twitter. I just thought it was interesting, so I posted it here for a different point of view/perspective for others to read. It is most likely bull**** though.
The fact that a director realized they had made a mistake and retroactively made up a deus ex machina explanation for it in no way invalidates the mistake. Nice try, Mr. Nolan but this posting is absolutely valid.
While Christopher Nolan's talked about the subjective/objective colour/black and white thing, which is entirely fair and no doubt exactly his intention, I don't think he's actually tried to "excuse" this by using that explanation, that's just other people trying to connect the two things. I'm not sure Nolan has commented on the flag issue in interviews at all.
Precisely, and I was in no way trying to invalidate the original mistake. I just found the whole theory interesting and posted it here. It is rather hilarious that a director with such attention to detail like Nolan would have missed something like this. We shall see if he gets it fixed for the streaming/physical release.
It's not fixed in the home video version. However, the behind-the-scenes materials provide a reason for the mistake, in that putting a crowd in the scene was apparently a spur-of-the-moment decision. It's like that in their haste to bring in the crowd, the set decorators bought some modern miniature flags and put them into the scene without anyone realizing the 48/50 discrepancy.
Continuity mistake: When the real 'manager' comes outside to yell at "Mr. O'Donnell', you see the manager walk back into the club. If you look in the background of the next shot, you can see the manager walking through the door again. (00:13:25)
Continuity mistake: Dick Jones brags (admits?) to Robocop, "I had to kill Bob Morton because he made a mistake. Now, it's time to erase that mistake" while Robocop is crouched on the ground, not only looking away from him from across the room, but also Robocop's eyes are in a vertical position. In the playback, Jones is facing the camera as though it were videotaped or filmed in a studio. (01:10:50 - 01:35:10)
Audio problem: (May only apply to the original VHS release.) When Scar has Zazu locked up in a cage, Zazu mentions Mufasa's name and Scar yells at him, "What did you say?" Right before Scar's actual line, whilst Zazu is talking, you hear Scar's "What did you say?" line very faintly in the background, even though Zazu has not even mentioned Mufasa yet.
Character mistake: The commentator says "avalanche of power shots by Ivan Drago." Viktor is the one in the ring. Ivan is the father. If you have the subtitles turned on, it even says Viktor in the subtitles instead of the spoken name, Ivan. (00:55:45)
Continuity mistake: When they steal the truck at the mall they have to hot wire it to make it start. Later at the San Andreas fault scene where the road ends, in the same truck, he turns the truck off with the key.
Factual error: When Chigurh is in the gas station and throws the wrapper on the counter, the "Nutrition Facts" are visible on the label. Set in 1980, the "Nutrition Facts" label wouldn't have been available for at least another fourteen years, as nutrition labels were started in 1994.
Suggested correction: Presumably the military are interested because Sebastian's research could lead to advanced forms of invisibility technology, such as the ability to turn materials and weapons invisible for use in combat.
You cannot second guess the film like that. Sebastian is making no effort to make non-living items invisible and throughout the film we see that is not possible (why else would Sebastian have to walk about naked?). His research is on animals (and later humans) not "materials and weapons" and is based on their physiology, anatomy and metabolism. How would you inject a rifle or a tank with a serum? They don't have a bloodstream. The military wouldn't see any value at all in this research - maybe they would be interested in invisibility, but not if it was restricted to living creatures as we see here.
You know how easy it would be for an invisible person to infiltrate an enemy's compound undetected and take out powerful leaders or dictators? Especially if no-one knew the technology existed.
Easy? Impossible. First, they would be naked and unarmed. Too bad if you are trying to knock off Vladimir Putin - a taekwondo black belt - with your bare hands during a Moscow winter! Being invisible doesn't mean you can avoid making a sound or triggering a pressure plate or an infrared detector and so on and so on. Final answer - a naked, unarmed combatant would be about as useful as a chocolate teapot in any form of operation, covert or otherwise.