Jon Sandys

4th Apr 2019

Supergirl (2015)

Stand and Deliver - S4-E14

Corrected entry: When Colonel Haley tells Brainy that she wants to take measures to prevent a disaster during the pro-alien march, he mentions the Women's March as one of a few successful peaceful protests that have taken place in the past. While it was a large event that many may have considered successful, the Women's March was mostly in response to Donald Trump's election as President of the United States in the real world. Since Olivia Marsdin was president on Earth 38 at the time and remained so until she resigned after being outed as an alien, it is unlikely that the Women's March would have still happened on their Earth. (00:20:00)

Correction: He's most likely referring to the march for women's suffrage in 1913, or the 2004 "March for Women's Lives", one of the largest protests in US history, which had no violent incidents.

Jon Sandys

Correction: Brainy specifically said the words "The Women's March" when he mentioned three previous successful marches, and the other two he mentioned in the same sentence were the Freedom March (nickname for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom) and the Million Man March. While both the March for Women's Suffrage (actually named the Woman's Suffrage Procession and commonly known as the woman suffrage parade of 1913) and the March For Women's Lives appear in the disambiguation page of the article "Women's March" on Wikipedia, neither of them are commonly known as the Women's March and would more likely have been called by their official names. Considering that the show also bought up the southern border wall and other politically-charged incidents involving the Trump Administration that would be plot holes on Earth 38, it's more likely mentioning the Women's March was a deliberate mistake done as a political statement rather than just an oversight or referring to a different march that would have still happened on an alternate Earth where Trump was never president.

AD

29th Nov 2005

Star Wars (1977)

Corrected entry: When C-3PO lowers himself into the oil tub, Luke says, "It just isn't fair.", but his lips don't move. (00:19:00)

Correction: His lips absolutely move without question. If you run the scene on slow motion or frame by frame you can see that Luke's mouth opens and closes, especially clear right before he turns and walks towards C3PO.

OneHappyHusky

But if you're only able to see it in slow motion, it doesn't count, according to this site.

True of mistakes, not corrections - if something looks like a mistake, but closer examination with slow-mo shows that it isn't, no point leaving it online as a false claim.

Jon Sandys

14th Mar 2019

Captain Marvel (2019)

Corrected entry: In the scenes set in June of 1995, "Vers" uses a Windows 95 computer to search the internet via dial-up. Windows 95 wasn't released until August 24, 1995, two months after those scenes were set.

Correction: A beta version of Windows 95 (probably build 347) was released before June, when this takes place. They could be using that. It included MSN, for internet access.

lionhead

Good guess. That preview version was available for $19.95 in the U.S.

FleetCommand

I think that's a reach - especially back then beta versions were much harder to come by - you couldn't just download it, you'd have to apply and receive a CD or floppies. She's in an internet cafe if memory serves, and why would they go to the hassle of installing a beta OS which most people would never have used before, and which would run the risk of having bugs, etc.?

Jon Sandys

Windows 95 had one of the most expensive advertisements and launch programs to this date. (Second to Windows 8's.) Microsoft had special personnel known as Evangelists who went to potential customers encouraging them to test Windows 95 and give feedback. They didn't send the 3.5" diskettes with post; the Evangelists delivered them personally. Microsoft didn't become a software giant by sitting on its behind, waiting for customers.

FleetCommand

Correction: The month is never specified in the film.

True Lies was released on home video on July 15th - any cardboard standee in a Blockbuster would be for an upcoming or very recent release. By late August something else would have replaced it.

Jon Sandys

Not if it was a popular rental, then they would keep promoting it.

ctown28

When they're looking at the black box recording, there's a calendar on the wall that reads June.

Brian Katcher

Correction: The recycle bin icon on the desktop is an oval shape which was first introduced in Windows ME, which wasn't released until 14th September 2000.

The corrected entry mentions a scene searching the internet via dial-up; the computer in that scene has indeed Windows 95 with a square-shaped bin. Since then this entry has kinda been more about the plausibility of Windows 95 in a public internet cafe in June than anything else. There's a separate entry about the scene when they use a totally different computer, the one at her friend's house, which has the bin you mention and is a ME edition.

Sammo

It's not, it's the rectangular bin.

10th Aug 2008

The Mummy (1999)

Corrected entry: There was no solar eclipse visible anywhere near the Middle East in 1923.

Correction: The eclipse was caused because Imhotep was regenerating. An event that happens in a fantasy, as a result of a fictional character's actions, cannot be considered a factual error.

Chanteuse66

Correction: "Magically" creating a solar eclipse would mean altering the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun. The earthquakes would be beyond imagination and the resulting tsunamis and devastating climate changes would wipe out the few survivors. Some things are beyond magic. This is one of them.

But using magic he could "easily" (at least judging by his powers in this film) cast a shadow over the sun - it doesn't have to be the moon. Especially given that the sun stays dark for a while, whereas natural eclipses are over quite quickly.

Jon Sandys

Actually creating a solar eclipse would require moving the moon, not the Earth. It's not "beyond magic", magic is magic.

lionhead

Correction: The ancient Egyptians worshipped the Sun as their ultimate god, Ra. Given that their "magic" seemed to function remarkably well (well enough to resurrect desiccated mummies after 3000 years, anyway), there's a slight chance that the ancient Egyptians were slightly more in touch with the magic of celestial mechanics than we are today with our dogmatic Science. I mean, if it happened that they were correct about the Sun being a God, then perhaps they were knowledgeable in summoning the Sun's cooperation in their magical endeavors.

Charles Austin Miller

6th Feb 2019

Star Trek (1966)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Stating the obvious is hardly trivia. This is also not the only episode where members of the crew are seen but not heard.

I never knew that! While obvious if you watch the episode itself, bear in mind lots of this is just read by people browsing, reading for background info, not necessarily people watching the show, or who've seen the episode in question.

Jon Sandys

25th Jan 2019

The Town (2010)

Corrected entry: Throughout the entire movie, Blake Lively's, character is known as "Krista" Coughlin. Once the cop calls in her DUI, it's called in as "Coughlin, Christina."

Correction: Krista could easily be a shortened version of her full name she prefers to go by. I go by Jon to everyone I know, but my given name is Jonathan.

Jon Sandys

28th Dec 2018

Star Wars (1977)

Corrected entry: When Obi Wan Kenobi drops Luke as a baby to his uncle he is a fairly young man. In episode 4 given that Luke is only 18 or 19, why does Ben Kenobi look like he's in his 60s or 70s? He couldn't have aged that much in 20 yrs.

Family5

Correction: It's slightly fudged but adds up OK. Ewan McGregor was 34 in Revenge of the Sith, but could easily be playing as slightly older, into his 40s. Alec Guinness was 63 in Star Wars, and Obi-Wan has been living a fairly hard life on the binary star planet of Tatooine - the sun damage alone would age him a bit.

Jon Sandys

27th Dec 2018

Star Trek (1966)

I, Mudd - S2-E8

Plot hole: How did the android Norman get aboard the enterprise? If he beamed aboard I'm sure someone would have noticed and where did he beam from? The Enterprise was nowhere near any planet and I'm sure they would have detected any spacecraft nearby.

hifijohn

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: These are unanswered questions, not plot holes.

But something phrased as a question because it has no decent answer can constitute a plot hole.

Jon Sandys

27th Dec 2018

Family Guy (1999)

Correction: The phrase "tip of the iceberg" exists for a reason. Yes there's damage above the waterline too, but the critical damage was below it, that's just not shown onscreen.

Jon Sandys

Also, the actual Titanic suffered damage above the water line, making the scene very accurate.

Ssiscool

Corrected entry: In the scene where Whoopie asks them to sing "Mary Had a Little Lamb," about four students sing it. When she asks the blonde girl to sing, she says she doesn't know "Mary Had a Little Lamb." Yet she just heard four people sing it, so why wouldn't she know it?

Correction: You can hear a song on the radio, but that doesn't mean you've now got it committed to memory, especially if you're nervous.

Phixius

It is those 5 words. Most of them sing only the words "Mary had a Little lamb"

brianjr0412

She couldn't memorize 5 simple words (Mary had a Little lamb) to memory? Really, come on.

brianjr0412

It's not just those 5 words, it's the whole verse/song. The girl was stressed and didn't remember it.

Jon Sandys

Corrected entry: When the people in the SUV are talking about how they cheated death before the one woman talks about the bus she was on hit some girl on the road. Later Clear says that girl was Terry Chaney (from FD1) but the bus that hit Terry was empty. (01:03:35)

Correction: If you frame by frame the sequence you can faintly see outlines of the passengers on the bus.

Correction: This isn't a valid correction if you have to view frame by frame to see something.

Other way around - mistakes that can only be caught in slow motion aren't valid, but if something seems like a mistake, but closer examination at slow mo proves it isn't, that's a valid way of correcting something.

Jon Sandys

27th Jul 2017

Wonder Woman (2017)

Corrected entry: When Diana and Steve sail from Themyscira to London, the sails on the boat just hang there, indicating that there is no wind. Sailboats need wind to move and the sails need periodic adjustment depending on from which direction the wind is coming.

wizard_of_gore

Correction: In the sequence at night there's no wind, but nor are they moving much - that's sailing for you - if there's no wind you just need to wait and hope. After another scene we then see them arriving in London, with a taught rope off the bow, a steamboat in front clearly towing them, and Steve says "we got lucky, we caught a ride and made some good time".

Correction: The sailboat is attached to a steamship or similar in front. That's why Steve said they made some good time.

I just watched the film again. There is no steamship. Where would it have come from?

wizard_of_gore

As they sail into London they're being towed by a steamship.

Jon Sandys

There's no indication the boat is under any form of power other than the sails.

Ssiscool

29th Jul 2018

Luke Cage (2016)

Correction: He's referring to Jessica Jones.

Jon Sandys

27th Aug 2001

The Terminator (1984)

Corrected entry: After the car chase in which Kyle and Sarah are being chased by Arnold, Arnold's stolen cop car crashes into the parking lot wall. When the trailing police haul Sarah and Kyle away, Arnold is missing from the car he's just crashed. Kyle has clearly stated that the Terminator will absolutely not stop until Sarah is dead. Why would he flee the scene from a few cops - given his resilience - when he could have kept after Sarah and killed her right there? Was he "afraid" of doing it in front of the police? Was he concerned about getting away?

Correction: The terminator was injured in the crash as we see later when he repairs his arm and eye. He also has no way of knowing that the police don't have weapons that could damage him (he asks for a plasma rifle at the gun shop, implying he knows little of 1980s weapons).

Yet the Terminator apparently does possess a 1980s database, allowing him to instantly operate a variety of 1980s automobiles (including tractor-trailers), use telephone directories and telephones, and even select appropriate curse words of the day. He also, obviously, possesses a database of current 1980s road atlases (allowing him to track Sarah and Kyle by physical address). It would be inconceivable to equip the Terminator with all of this 1980s data and yet not equip him with full knowledge of available 1980s weaponry, given the purpose of his mission. Thus, the "plasma rifle" request at the gun shop was either a glitch in his programming or it was a plot-hole in the movie. Just as his fleeing the scene of the car wreck was a plot-hole. The Terminator had absolutely no fear of 1980s law enforcement, as is made apparent when he destroys police headquarters single-handedly.

Charles Austin Miller

Correction: I disagree with why this is in the corrections as this assessment as earlier in the film, Sarah asks Kyle "Can you stop him?" And Reese replies "with these weapons, I'm not sure." So, obviously, the weapons that are carried around couldn't have stopped the terminator. Plus the terminator wasn't worried about the weapons being used as we see later on it goes into the police station to kill Sarah Connor, so this proves it wouldn't have been worried about the weapons being used. Also, Kyle has said to Sarah, the terminator will stop at nothing to kill her, so why stop here?

oobs

I think the weaponry concern was less of an issue than him being injured. With a damaged arm and eye and facing reinforcements he opted to withdraw and repair himself before trying again. Not to mention that Reese doesn't say: "With these weapons, I'm not sure." He specifically says, with a doubtful tone of voice: "With these weapons, I don't know."

Jon Sandys

Exactly. Not stopping for anything doesn't mean he isn't tactical.

lionhead

15th Jul 2018

Trading Places (1983)

Continuity mistake: During the final trading scene, both Dan and Eddie (along with most of the other traders) have green badges. As the medics are wheeling out one of the Dukes after his heart attack, Dan and Eddie's name badges change to grey. And in no way is that due to lighting or camera angle.

kbt

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: It's not a continuity mistake since everyone else's badges have also taken on a grey appearance. At best it is a film processing error since it probably is a result of color correction in post-production.

jimba

Wouldn't this still qualify as a mistake since it's still an error? Cartoon mistakes, and movies/shows that use CGI, are constantly submitted when the color changes for a few frames. I know there use to be a feature to "change mistake type" if you think it's a revealing mistake, etc.

Bishop73

Yep, still a mistake - the type is a bit debatable, but I'd stick with continuity, because regardless of the reason behind it, fundamentally it's still a change between shots.

Jon Sandys

27th Aug 2001

Bicentennial Man (1999)

Corrected entry: In the world of Issac Asimov robots, the three laws are immutable. At the beginning Andrew makes a lavish presentation of the three laws. At the end of the film, Galatea breaks the first law (not to harm) in order to conform to the second law (obey orders). The three laws are hierarchical in that the first law takes precedence over the second. In Asimov stories, the contradiction between the laws most often causes paralysis of the robot in question.

Correction: Galatea is not causing harm. Andrew and Portia are dying anyway, and all she does is let them. Any doctor would do the same, and they also make the same promise, to, if nothing else, do no harm. There's also the fact that Galatea is very much human at that point, so who knows if she is still held to those three laws?

Hello, this is a very good response, do you mind giving me a name to put this under so I can quote you in my research project. Thanks.

I'm afraid there's no way to attribute this comment to a specific person - it's about 10 years old and even if someone claimed it was theirs I couldn't confirm it.

Jon Sandys

29th Oct 2015

Halloween (1978)

Corrected entry: There's no way Annie could have locked herself in the laundry room considering the lock is on the outside of the door.

Correction: It's a figure of speech when one says 'I/you locked myself/yourself in/out'. She was alone, nobody knew that Michael was skulking around, and she got locked in the laundry room. Anyone would say they locked themselves in.

dewinela

That's pure opinion, not a correction.

Charles Austin Miller

In this scene, you can literally see her turn the lock knob which is above the handle before she tries to get out.

Correction: It's not a figure of speech since the door magically locked itself because the wind blew it shut. She tried to open it and it wouldn't open because the lock is on the outside. Why do you think she was trying to get out the window?

The point is she didn't literally lock herself in - she was locked in. Personally I think it's a minor semantic difference - she may well just think she did something wrong that led to the door locking itself. Regardless it's a standard turn of phrase, if technically inaccurate.

Jon Sandys

Corrected entry: At the end of the film we learn that all of the survivors lived happily ever after and went on to enjoy hugely successful careers in their chosen fields. Haven't they forgotten something? Elliot committed a cold blooded murder, shooting dead a wounded nomad because he would have interfered with their construction plans. Self defence is one thing but shooting an injured man in the head in order to conserve water is an entirely different matter. Obviously the Chinese authorities are going to visit the site as soon as the story breaks and they are going to want to know who shot one of the citizens dead, and why. Elliot is going to face a range of serious charges and will be extradited to China to face trial.

Correction: There is no indication that any of the survivors would have told about the man Elliot killed. The nomads wouldn't have told either, as they committed several murders before that and tried to kill them after as well. Elliot also basically put him out of his misery. He was dead anyway.

Greg Dwyer

The Chinese would not have allowed the murder of one of their citizens to go unpunished. We are dealing with a legal system that executes people for crimes that would incur a suspended jail sentence anywhere else. They would not accept euthanasia as a defence, either. Elliot would be on a plane back to China whether he liked it or not.

The USA and China don't have an extradition treaty. China could ask, the US would most likely tell them tough luck, and Elliot would still get to live a happy and successful life. Couldn't ever return to China, but I'm sure he'd cope.

Jon Sandys

Wrong. If an American citizen commits a crime such as murder or assault or other violent crimes, the American citizen is going to be charged regardless of where the crimes were committed. Even if the crime was committed in a country with which the US doesn't have an extradition treaty, They have have other ways to you charge for your crimes. They don't have to extradite you for you to be charged.

Citation? Because with zero evidence the US isn't going to take China's word for it and charge him themselves. And China can charge him with a crime without him present, and...then what? The charge may technically exist, but it won't affect his life in any meaningful way. And as the original correction notes, officials may want to know what happened, but that doesn't mean they'll find out. This entry is massive conjecture at best.

Jon Sandys

If evidence to US, like a picture of the body, or a video of the person murdering someone, and you are an American then US will charge you, and sentence you to prison. The only way court would truly decide that you cannot be charged because the crime was committed outside of the US is if you are non-American. We don't know if Elliot is an American citizen.

Again... Citation? A photo of a body isn't evidence. Without evidence you can't be charged. And given the lack of info and detail in the film this is all hypothetical conjecture which still doesn't constitute a mistake.

Jon Sandys

What about a video of you murdering someone? Would that not prove your guilty?

If you want to have a detailed debate about extradition treaties and what evidence would or wouldn't exist and justify someone being charged with a crime, great, but here isn't the place. The above mistake claims Elliot would face charges and be extradited to China. There's no evidence of his crimes and no extradition treaty with China. People get away with crimes every day. The sole opportunity for evidence is eyewitness testimony, as the correction above points out, and no-one would say anything, plus it would be questionable at best. As such the "mistake" is invalid, end of story.

Jon Sandys

The Chinese government would first have to know about the murder before they could do anything about it. Given how the sand shifts during the storm after he is killed, enough to at least cover the Phoenix, there is little chance they would ever find the body.

Greg Dwyer

26th Mar 2018

Tremors 2 (1996)

Corrected entry: Kate finds a Graboid fossil and explains that the rock is from the Precambrian era (which ran from about 4.5 billion years ago through about 500 million years ago), thus making them literally the oldest complex life-forms in the history of Earth. Cool idea, but it makes no sense. Life in the Precambrian era was mostly bacterial or simplistic organisms such as sea-sponges and jellyfish late in the era. Something like the Graboids just couldn't have existed, both because they're too complex to have existed in that time-frame and also (and more importantly) because there wouldn't be an adequate food source for them to thrive. Sure, maybe they could have existed during the time of dinosaurs, but that only started about 250 million years ago, way after the end of the Precambrian era.

Correction: They retconned this in the TV series, saying that Kate had misdated the fossil, which was actually from the Devonian Period.

Greg Dwyer

I don't think a retcon validates a movie mistake.

Correction: The oldest known life forms. Graboids existed, therefore other life forms existed too, which they ate, we've just not discovered them yet.

Jon Sandys

Correction: The graboids might not have originated from earth. Like suggested they could be aliens and their species landed on Earth 5 billion years ago.

lionhead

The movie states that they are from Earth. The suggestion that they're aliens is invalidated in the film itself, as it is proven wrong by the scene in question. Ergo, this correction is invalid. Also, this correction fails to address one of the key issues brought up in the mistake - they wouldn't have a viable food source and would have died out, even if the preposterous notion that they were aliens were true.

Correction: This is speculation at best regarding creatures that don't exist in real life. There's no way to say they wouldn't have adequate food source without knowing what they needed to survive, or how they evolved.

Bishop73

Factual error: When the first assassin drives to Waterloo station to take out Simon Ross and Bourne, he is driving a BMW 3 series with a 2006 UK licence plate. However the events in this film are meant to follow on six weeks after the previous film, which make it still set in 2004.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Nowhere in either of the first 3 Bourne films indicate the year they are taking place.

aassed

Technically, there is a timeline. You may have to watch the films again, and read up on when production for each film began and wrapped. The Bourne Identity was filmed between October 2000, and Spring/Summer 2001 (Greece scenes). Supremacy (With the exception of the New York ending which was filmed two weeks prior to the release) was filmed between October 2003, and March 2004 Ultimatum was filmed between October 2006 and March 2007 (which explains the snow seen in New York) Identity takes place in the winter of 2000, while Supremacy is set two years later, with Ultimatum taking place six weeks after he escaped Moscow. Legacy takes place around the same time as Ultimatum, and the last Bourne film (Jason Bourne) is set ten years after the events of the Supremacy/Ultimatum timeline.

The year of filming can't be used as indication of when films are set.

Jon Sandys

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.