oldbaldyone

21st Jun 2004

Aladdin (1992)

Corrected entry: When Jasmine is accused of stealing at the apple stand, she says she has no money. Coinage was a rarity at that time period and bartering was much more common, so why didn't the vendor or Jasmine consider those enormous gold or brass earrings and headband?

Mike Wotton

Correction: The movie is intended for children, who are unlikely to understand bartering concepts but would be familiar with money and paying for things. For trivial plot points like this it seems they tried to stick with terms and concepts that children could quickly comprehend.

oldbaldyone

Correction: Jasmine was unfamiliar with markets and, being a Princess, the concept of bartering as well. I have just watched the scene and her headband is never visible to the vendor and her earrings, while partially visible, are very close in color to her scarf; this could easily explain why the vendor failed to notice them, particularly combined with Aladdin's fast talking rescue of Jasmine distracting the vendor.

OneHappyHusky

27th Aug 2003

Reign of Fire (2002)

Corrected entry: When the male dragon destroys the castle he breathes fire down into the basement. The blast kills Quinn's friend and closes the metal door. Quinns hits the door with his hands as he tries to open it but recoils because the fire apparently heated the door. Since the sprinkler installation is working and even the door is wet the water should evaporate but there is no steam at all. So the door cannot be that hot, can it? (01:15:25)

Correction: When there is an excessive amount of water (ex. a pot of water), only then would you see steam when it evaporates.

If you have an outdoor BBQ grill and light it up when it is raining, you will see water evaporate when hitting the lid of the BBQ. It may not be as obvious as a pot of boiling water, but you can see it. If the door was hot enough to make a guy recoil in pain, the water should be evaporating and been seen. The only real explanation for it not to be would be that the water is keeping the inside of the door cooler, and he only recoiled because the door was getting warmer, not due to pain.

oldbaldyone

27th Aug 2001

Stargate (1994)

Corrected entry: When the military sends the robot-transmitter through the stargate for a test, the mapping machine locates where in the galaxy the robot is transmitting from. One of the researchers says that the robot is 5 light years away. If something is 5 light years away and it's transmitting a signal to earth, it would take the radio signal 5 years to reach the earth! How did the robot let them know where it was so quickly? The signal couldn't go through the stargate, because a code to open the gate on the opposite side is required.

Correction: Although a code is indeed needed to open it, after you go through, it stays open for a short time - it was in that period which the robot sent the data back.

This would be a direct contradiction to what is said in the movie. The doors are 1 way only. If the doors were 2 way, there would be no need for Jackson to have to decipher the new symbols on the other side. This error stands, either there is no way they would know where it is that fast, or the gate is 2 way and they could easily get back.

oldbaldyone

It's 1 way for things with mass. Radio waves can go either way.

Corrected entry: We all know that Old Biff stole the time-machine, went back to 1955 and gave the book to himself. He also returned the time-machine to Marty and Doc. WHY? He actually gave them the ability to restore the past. Why didn't Old Biff just keep the time-machine?

Correction: Biff doesn't know how time travel works. Presumably, he assumed that if he were to go back to the future, he'd end up in the alternate future he had just created (which would make sense) and become the 'rich' Biff.

Correction: Character choices are not mistakes.

oldbaldyone

Biff didn't want Marty and Doc to know what he had done, otherwise they could've presumably gone back to 1955 from 2015 and swipe it. He needed them to think the car hadn't moved, so he could become rich. Biff isn't the brightest bulb on the tree but even he could figure that out.

Corrected entry: After Marty returns to the present, he wakes up in his room that is identical to the beginning of the movie, however the rest of the house i.e the living has changed and is more modern.

Waldo Gonzalez

Correction: That merely tells us that Marty was more or less the same in both timelines, having similar tastes.

Which wouldn't happen. Because with loving, successful and self confident parents, there's no way a kid turns up just the same as with goofy, drunk, and pushovers parents.

poulatak

Unlikely, but not impossible and therefore, not a mistake.

oldbaldyone

Other mistake: Throughout the movie, Hank's lab in its shrunken form is constantly jostled and tossed around, but when it's restored to full size in a new location, nothing is out of place and everything still works perfectly.

wizard_of_gore

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

Suggested correction: Given that he has prepared the lab to be shrunken and mobilized at a moment's notice, he probably thought of this ahead of time and secured everything important in place.

Phaneron

Perhaps he could secure some things, but there's never so much as a computer monitor out of place.

wizard_of_gore

It's a fair point. I agree that some things should definitely be out of place, but given the importance of what he is working on, he would take measures to ensure that the important things wouldn't become damaged and inoperative when the lab is being moved around. We see on at least one occasion that he has ants roaming the lab, so it's possible he trained them to ensure that the Quantum Gate and any device essential to its operation are protected at all times.

Phaneron

In a world in which a man becomes the size of an ant, I guess any correction could be invalidated. I this case, there are any number of reasons why everything, down to paper and pens, never moves. Maybe the ants pick them all up. Maybe gravity works differently when shrunk. This means that basically any movie that uses magic or magic type technology would never have a valid mistake.

oldbaldyone

Except that I conceded that minor things should be out of place. I specifically mentioned that everything essential to the Quantum Gate's operation was most likely protected from being strewn around or damaged while the lab was mobile.

Phaneron

Corrected entry: When Luke asks Leia if she remembers her real mother, she says yes, and that she died when Leia was very young. She also says that she was very beutiful, but sad all the time. In Revenge of the Sith, Padme dies in childbirth, so unless Leia has super newborn memory, she couldn't remember her mother.

Correction: There are many books stating that the Force can allow its wielder to see into the past, which is what Leia is doing.

She could also be referring to her adoptive mother.

oldbaldyone

13th Dec 2018

Common mistakes

Other mistake: The hero can usually knock out henchmen with one or two punches, but the main villain (as well as the hero themselves) can take much more punishment. This is practically akin to enemies in video games. In fact, heroes are so confident of their abilities that they can knock an opponent down and know that they are down for the count without even having to verify.

Phaneron

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

Suggested correction: How is this a mistake? Of course the main villain, the boss, is hardest to knock out. If his henchmen were just as strong or stronger, why are they just henchmen? See it like a race, the champion is hardest to beat, that's why he is champion.

lionhead

He doesn't mean that it's in video games, he's meaning that this makes movies and shows like video games using that.

Quantom X

Just to give an example, at the beginning of the movie "Goldeneye," James Bond knocks out a henchman sitting on a toilet with one punch. But at the end of the movie, Bond and Trevelyan are beating the crap out of each other and neither is knocked unconscious. It's certainly reasonable for someone to be a more formidable fighter than their underlings, but it wouldn't make them magically impervious to blows to the head.

Phaneron

The mistake is that the hero of the movie very rarely checks to see if a disabled opponent got back up. They are supremely confident that they are out, even if the hero literally just rolled them on to the floor. Makes for good movie magic, but is totally unrealistic.

oldbaldyone

This mistake has four aspects. (1) The hero knocks someone unconscious for good with just one hit. (2) The hero does this to several enemies in succession, with the same results. (3) The hero shows no signs of fatigue. (4) The hero takes on the tougher villains and takes them down too. Doing all of these requires immense superhuman strength. In films about superhumans, this is not a mistake. But there are films that deliver this and are cheeky enough to give the appearance of there being a modicum of reality in it.

FleetCommand

It's not necessarily a measure of strength, technique has got a lot to do with it. When one goes for the throat for example or the jaw a knockout is almost always certain, if you know what you are doing. You have to if you got no time to hit someone twice because the next opponent is not waiting.

lionhead

You are right. But we don't see proper technique either. I really have issues with people getting unconscious for good from a punch between their eyes, especially when John Reese does it.

FleetCommand

I agree with you that some movies take it too easy. But is it really common? The first knock out of Goldeneye example isn't all that unlikely, he may even have hit that guy twice, but a blow to the head, a surprise blow to the head can definitely knock someone out, happens in boxing all the time. Even between the eyes, as long as the head is knocked around.

lionhead

Corrected entry: At the beginning of the movie, when the Griswold family are in their car under the wood truck, everybody panics but not Russ, who sings or something like that. (00:06:30)

Dr Wilson

Correction: Character choice: He's used to this kind of thing from his dad.

Being used to that kind of thing are you kidding me know once used to be and under a truck that scary and deadly a lot of these mistakes in the movie I have seen because I've watched this movie about 365 times.

Correction: I just watched this scene. Rusty isn't losing his mind or anything, but he is obviously scared/worried. His lips are quivering, which may be what you think is singing. He is certainly not happy with the situation.

oldbaldyone

23rd Feb 2006

Doom (2005)

Corrected entry: The skeleton of Lucy and her child- they wouldn't die in that position (her shielding the baby) if there were mutants/demons attacking; she'd be torn apart, thrown against a rock/wall, etc. as would the child. The only way they could die and be preserved in that manner would be if she died from a volcano (ie Pompeii). When asked "How did [she] die?" Samantha replies "We don't know". Death by volcano is easy for a master archaeologist to spot.

James King III

Correction: Reaper and Samantha are not talking about Lucy and her child specifically, but the entire race they belonged to. Sam describes how their extra chromosome made them smarter, stronger and healthier, and also how the extra chromosome must have been artificially made, since earlier skeletons don't have it. Reaper then asks "If they were so smart, how come they're so dead?", to which the answer is "we don't know". So the conversation is about why an entire race of advanced beings suddenly died out, something a volcanic eruption would not be capable of.

Twotall

After they finish discussing how such a super race died out, Reaper makes a rhetorical statement asking what she was protecting the baby from. Ultimately I think this is a character mistake by Reaper, assuming the skeletons were found in the same position as they are being displayed.

oldbaldyone

13th Jun 2007

Ocean's Thirteen (2007)

Corrected entry: SPOILER ALERT: The NGC official turns out to be Linus' father. Why, then, does the plan involve his arrest of Livingston Dell and require a last-minute, frenzied attempt to stop Bank from checking Dell's fingerprints and finding out his known associates? This chain of events is superfluous to the plot and only creates problems, so why is it there, other than to facilitate Basher's impersonation of the motorcyclist?

Correction: Dell had to be exposed as a criminal because, if you remember, Linus's father said that Dell had rigged the current shuffle machines and other equipment. Then Banks orders new machines to be brought in. In walks The Roman with the new machines, which are *actually* rigged. The price of bringing in the actual machines are that Dell is fingerprinted, and that leads to the frantic image altering.

Additionally, Dell set up this part of the plan on his own. He is not exactly a master criminal. He did not want Rusty and Danny to know he couldn't handle it, so he set it up without them knowing. All was fine, except Dell didn't know that Bank could run fingerprints on location.

oldbaldyone

Q Who? - S2-E16

Other mistake: Worf says the Borg have locked on a tractor beam, but in the next exterior shot there is no tractor beam visible between the two ships. Later there is.

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

Suggested correction: Stating that it is locked on is not the same as stating it is engaged. For example, there are numerous occasions where they detect that phasers have been locked but have not yet been engaged/fired.

garok89

In regards to a tractor beam, locked on has always meant engaged and holding the target. Phasers are different as they need to be targeted. The tractor beam just has to hit the ship. I think this is a valid error.

oldbaldyone

Corrected entry: When the group enters the Ferrari warehouse, all of the cars they need to steal are lined up in a single row and they are right in front of the garage door. Likely? Not really.

Correction: When they first get to the warehouse the cars are not all lined up in a single row and right in front of the door. Once they jump started the cars, they moved them there to wait for the garage door to open, so they could all get out together as quickly as possible.

AFosteROTC

Another possibility is that when Memphis was talking to the dealer, he arranged to have the specific cars shown to him the next day (he specifically asks what all is int he warehouse). The dealer could have taken the time later int he day to get them ready for showing, all lined up and ready to go.

oldbaldyone

Corrected entry: Mirrorman asks why all the cars have girl's names, and Memphis replies by saying, "If you name them girls names, nobody listening on the wire is the wiser." Still, Detective Castlebeck asks Memphis, "Did Eleanor teach you that?", during the chat outside the cafe. If the police are that well informed, would it not be an idea to change the codes?

Correction: Castlebeck would have known about Eleanor because he'd had trouble with Memphis stealing that car before. This does not mean that he knows they use women's names for all the cars. Castlebeck tells Memphis outside the Diner that he regrets not taking him in when he had the chance, therefore implying that he knew about a previous boost. Also, not all of the police knew about Eleanor, proven by Castlebeck's partner not knowing who Eleanor was; therefore the police weren't that well informed about the female name codes.

Even if the police knew that Memphis and team used female code names, it really doesn't do them any good. The idea is that they can use the codes to talk about specific cars without the police knowing which car they are talking about. Saying "I'm picking Daisy" means very little to the cops, as opposed to "I'm picking up the 1982 Cadillac Eldorado." The only one that the police specifically know about is Eleanor being the Shelby GT 500, because they keep using the same name for that specific car (which would be a character mistake, not a movie error).

oldbaldyone

27th Aug 2001

Purple Rain (1984)

Corrected entry: Prince concentrates on the chalk mark of his father's suicide attempt in the basement just before he flips out. Funny, but I thought they only made chalk outlines for people who actually died. (01:19:23)

Correction: This scene is happening in his head. After he sees the outline, he shakes his head drastically trying to get control of himself again because he knows the image isn't real. After this, he goes rapid fire through images of what he believes will happen to him if he stays on the path he is going, which makes him lose all control and start destroying the basement. Finding his father's music brings him out of it.

oldbaldyone

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.