Factual error: When performing CPR on Elena, Robert doesn't tilt her head back. As a former firefighter, he would know one of the first steps of CPR is to tilt the victim's head back to clear the airway. His rhythm is also way off.
Suggested correction: Tilting the head back to clear the airway isn't practised any more, due to exacerbating possible neck/spinal injuries. Instead, one would do a chin lift to clear the airway. But alas, he didn't do that either.
Paramedic here. The head tilt-chin lift is absolutely still practised today and is definitely our go to manoeuvre for CPR. You're thinking of the jaw thrust manoeuvre where we do it when we suspect spinal injury, which Elena did not have.
Former Volunteer First Responder and Ambulance driver part-time but also volunteer here. It actually depends on the SOP of the company in which you serve. Liability purpose has us practising caution in otherwise duty-to-act scenarios. While you are always to remain either Red Cross or American Heart certified in CPR, ALS guidelines and SOPs still govern the practice in which you are performing and can be effected by the decisions of your local Medical Director, but I digress.
Factual error: No electricity, yet the washer is running.
Plot hole: Explosions are very predicable and leave very clear traces after detonation, and the precise epicentre of a small nuclear explosion could be established within a few meters. Experts from the United States military could show that the nuclear explosion originated outside the airbase, and the evidence they could show (aerial photographs, etc) would be irrefutable. They could even invite their counterparts in the Russian military to see for themselves. The only way Petrofsky's plan could have worked would be if he could somehow get the bomb inside the perimeter of the airbase - not a terribly likely proposition.
Suggested correction: The plan was to claim that a USAF fighter bomber carrying an unstable nuclear warhead had crashed while on approach to the airbase, causing the explosion.
What plan? This plot twist is not mentioned anywhere in the film or the book. The posting is absolutely correct.
Continuity mistake: About 10 minutes into the movie, when the truck is chasing the 2 college students in the car and starts ramming them, the bumper and the trunk is smashed in. The shot changes and shows the car's rear end and it is in perfect condition. This repeats at least 3 times.
Factual error: In one scene they are playing on an Xbox 360, but the Xbox 360 did not come out until 2005, and the game being played, Gears of War, wasn't released until 2006. The movie takes place in 2004.
Other mistake: Spock lifts his crew mates with the rocket boots. He passes deck numbers 35 through 78 from bottom to top. First off, deck numbers go from top to bottom. The bridge is on deck 1. Second, the Enterprise of that class only had 23 decks.
Continuity mistake: Linus and Rusty are standing in the Botanical Garden at the Bellagio going over Linus' observations. Rusty has a cocktail glass of shrimp in hand. When they change angles he has a plate in his hand, then change back, it's a glass. Full screen version. (00:43:40)
Revealing mistake: Right after Nell sends Hugh to hell, Dr. Marrow and Theo come out of hiding behind a pillar. As Marrow puts his hand on the pillar, it squishes in as if it was made of foam rubber, instead of stone. (01:39:50)
Plot hole: At the end of the film Mardukas reveals that he has been wearing a body belt packed with cash - "in the neighbourhood of three hundred thousand dollars" - ever since Jack detained him in New York. Are we to assume that Jack Walsh, an experienced, hard-bitten ex-police officer, now a bounty hunter who routinely chases down violent and armed bail absconders who would kill him without a second thought, didn't even perform a perfunctory search of Mardukas when he detained him? This man used to work for the Mafia! What if he was carrying a weapon? A body belt with three hundred one thousand dollar bills in it would be uncovered by even the most casual pat down.
Suggested correction: He was using $1000 bills. That's 300 bills in the belt which spread evenly absolutely could have been missed near his waist as part of his clothing.
Rubbish. I specified $1,000 bills as that would be the smallest package he could have secreted about his person, and it would still be instantly detectable. If he used $100 bills the package would be ten times larger, and he would have to carry a rucksack under his shirt.
Plot hole: The whole movie plot relies on a very unlikely assumption: that the ex-husband would not visit Kidman at her mental institution where he put her in, nor call for any news at all, for four whole years... Even though divorced, they still share a common child! And what about the parents / siblings / extended family/ friends of Kidman? Would they also never visit for four whole years? If any one of them had, then they would have known the (fake) ex-husband had taken her out and would have called the real husband to get news. Then Kidman would have been reported as kidnapped.
Factual error: When Sandra Bullock and George Clooney manage to get to the ISS, she gets entangled with some ropes and manages to grab Clooney's safety rope. Clooney's speed should be very close to Bullocks' and the ISS', hence. The parachute ropes should be able to withhold the forces of deceleration (the mass of two people is very small, compared to Soyus or ISS), so no more pulling or having to sacrifice himself... This is due to the fact that there's no drag in space to constantly change Clooney's velocity (revert to Newton's First Law).
Suggested correction: The parachute ropes are of course strong enough to hold the relatively low kinetic energy of the drifting astronauts, but that is not the reason why Clooney detaches. The rope is not attached firmly to Bullocks' leg. There are some loops loosely wrapped around her leg, and while both astronauts are still drifting away from the ISS (seen in a shot a few seconds earlier), those loops slip away from the foot one by one. Before the last loop slips away from the foot, untethering and condemning both astronauts, Clooney detaches himself to lessen the kinetec energy that pulls on the rope by reducing the total mass of the "system of two astronauts", so that there is a better chance that the last loop will remain attached to Bullock.
Once Clooney had stop moving all that would have been need was a slight pull from Bullock to pull him towards her. The momentum was lost when he stopped moving. So no need to cut himself loose.
It all happens in free fall. As soon as the cord withstood inertia resulting from George's body mass pulling on it, George would bounce back towards Sandra. The entire scene was completely unrealistic.
Clooney stopped moving in relation to Bullock. But both were still moving in relation to the ISS (look at the scene again; there is a wide shot that establishes this), with both their masses pulling on the parachute cords, straining the tenuous connection of the cords looped around Bullock's foot. To lessen the strain, Clooney detaches itself from the two-astronaut-system, reducing the mass and kinetic energy pulling on the cords.
Clooney and Bullock - when they were connected to each other - never actually stopped moving in relation to the ISS.
Actually parachute cords can withstand hundreds of pounds of force, making them very difficult to snap.
The danger wasn't the ropes snapping, the danger was that they would slip off her foot, and they would both be lost to space.
Revealing mistake: The kid in the wheelchair is playing a Game Gear with no game in it.
Plot hole: Inmediately after Jamie Foxx finds the bomb in the city hall, and he says, "We don't tell the mayor anything", we see Gerard Butler arriving to his property next to the prison, and finally he enters his jail cell. So, in the time between Gerard Butler's arrival to the property and his entrance to the jail cell, Jamie Foxx thought about a plan, picked up the bomb, passed through the traffic and security checkpoints, talked to the warden to get access to the prison, entered solitary, handcuffed the bomb, and still had time to wait for Gerard Butler's arrival.
Visible crew/equipment: When Xander and Yelena are in the restaurant and they are shown through the window from outside you can see the reflection of a film crew member in the window. (01:04:35)
Factual error: It is not possible that Pitt could have gone up to the ship when it was already blasting off. There was literally fire in the tunnel.
Suggested correction: It was a bit confusing, but what I saw was a shower of sparks or hot particles and some fumes, and no fire in the tunnel until he was through the hatch. The makers may have been influenced by seeing vapour prior to a rocket launch, and then some rockets use a shower of electric sparks to ignite the engines. It was implausible, but no fire in the tunnel.
Factual error: Their 'spot' for drinking is apparently in the French Quarter because of the street signs. That said, they are drinking Budvar beer. If you know about Budvar, it is the original Budweiser beer from the Czech Republic. Budweiser sued Budvar and won, preventing them from using the name 'Budweiser', even though Adolph Busch came up with 'Budweiser' after going to Pilsner, Czechoslovakia. Budweiser being the bully, and their lawyers and all, won the lawsuit. So now the beer is sold as 'Czechvar' in the US and 'Budvar' everywhere else, meaning they couldn't be drinking it in the USA.
Other mistake: On the back cover of Scream 3 in the Scream trilogy on DVD, the town of the original killings is referred to as Greensboro twice. The correct name of the town is Woodsboro, of course.
Suggested correction: I'm not "correcting" this per se, but I'm wondering if there should be either a separate type of mistake for things like DVD/Blu-Ray cases or posters (Ex. "Multimedia and Marketing Mistakes" or something like that), or if these things would be better classified as trivia? Especially since it's not something everyone can necessarily observe watching the movie itself. (Ex. My Blu-Ray and 4K releases don't have this mistake.) If not, feel free to downvote/delete this. I've just seen a few of these mistakes over the years here, and it always seems a little off to me since it's not something wrong with the film itself.
I agree these aren't valid movie mistake if the studio wasn't involved in the mistake. It could be trivia if only certain home releases had them. These mistakes are like when episodes are aired out of order creating continuity issues,, streaming services make changes, or closed captioning (not subtitles) gets something wrong. It can't be considered a mistake of the film or TV series.
It's tricky - largely, if I'm honest, because adding new types to the site is incredibly fiddly. :-) There's also room for endless debate about what's a "mistake", whether it's about assigning specific blame or just looking for interesting stuff. Likewise things that can only be seen in slow motion, which arguably warrant a category to themselves because there are plenty of them, but then the "mistakes" section gets cluttered. Becomes a user interface issue as much as anything! Will think.
I'm not disagreeing with this post, it's the only way I can reply. But yes, for the first run of the VHS and the DVD of Scream 3, there is that typo on the back cover. Now knowing that, is that version worth more money?
While misprints can sometimes add to something's value, I don't think this would necessarily make this release more valuable. Perhaps the VHS version just because there is something of a collector's market for VHS tapes now. But the movies have been released on DVD, Blu-Ray and 4K so many times, I don't see the DVD version being worth significantly more. (Unless you find a really weird collector who would specifically want THAT version.)
Yes, there is that typo. They were the first run of the VHS.
I didn't say there wasn't a typo. I was questioning whether a typo on the cover would technically qualify as a movie mistake, since it's not part of the actual film.
Factual error: An An-12, the aircraft the main character uses to fly all over the world, has a maximum range of about 3,500 miles. Hardly enough to fly from the US to South Korea or from South Korea to Israel. The An-12 also miraculously transforms into a C-130 in a couple of filler scenes. And why is this ex-Soviet aircraft marked in USAF markings, assigned to McGuire AFB?
Suggested correction: Can't speak to the second half of your paragraph (should really post as 3 separate mistakes) but as for the first, a range of 3500 miles, aircraft such as the kc-135 exist and aerial refueling is fairly common place. Considering it's a mission supported by the acting UN Secretary General to stop a world crisis, resources could have been diverted for refueling.
The initial launch from the carrier is a C-130 which can do this (if empty, minimal fuel, has the full length of the flight deck and the carrier is steaming full ahead into the wind). It then morphs into an AN-12 and back to a Hercules. They make the point that this small fleet is what is known to remain of allied forces so not sure where any tanker support will come from. Many movies have ridiculous range issues with aircraft anyway.
Continuity mistake: Mr. Furlong pushes Zeke into the fishing tank and it breaks, soaking him from head to toe with water. Moments later they are walking out and he is dry.
Revealing mistake: On the ice the tank is firing - in slow motion we see empty shells are littering the area. The shells have crimped ends, revealing them to be blanks.