Factual error: Barbossa addresses one of his officers as "lieutenant-commander". This rank was not introduced into the Royal Navy until 1914.
Ssiscool
24th May 2011
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
6th Jun 2011
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
Trivia: Stay until all credits roll. There is a clip with Penelope Cruz you don't want to miss. (02:15:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's already common knowledge that ALL the Pirate's movies have a bonus scene after the credits. This doesn't count as trivia.
And how do things become "common" knowledge? By being listed somewhere such that people who don't know things can discover them. By your reasoning no trivia should ever be listed anywhere, because everyone should know it all already.
11th Sep 2015
John Wick (2014)
Character mistake: When he called for a dinner reservation for 12 at his home it should have been 13, as he put 13 men down. (00:32:05)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually 14.
It's possible he simply miscounted in the heat of the moment. I'm not saying you're wrong was John doesn't seem like the type to make this sort of mistake but it could be let off as a character mistake rather than a movie mistake.
A character mistake is a valid movie mistake and this entry is listed as such.
18th Jun 2018
The Great Escape (1963)
Factual error: A convoy of open trucks arrive at the camp bringing the latest batch of prisoners, many of whom are carrying rucksacks and tote bags of clothing and other possessions. Where did they come from? Combat servicemen in World War Two did not carry overnight bags with them - a change of clothes or a handy supply of toiletries was the least of their concerns. A prisoner of war arrived in the camp with the clothes he stood up in and nothing else.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: These prisoners were being transferred from other camps to this camp. As Big X said, "they are putting all their eggs in one basket." It's likely they are carrying possessions they've acquired during their time in captivity.
What "possessions"? Do you think they had Oxfam shops in POW camps during World War 2? They would be dressed in their combat fatigues and nothing else.
They would have possessions as they would receive parcels from home and Red Cross parcels.
Prisoners of war would receive Red Cross parcels, and may have also scrounged, made or been issued a few other bits and pieces. In particular, they'd probably have a change or two of underwear, some toiletries and a few books or games at the very least.
POWs acquired possessions by hand-making, scrounging, care packages, 'selling' watches and rings to guards or local civilians.
They were universally known for their trading and scrounging abilities. Remember these were the "worst of the worst" in offending.
Just to clarify. They weren't exactly the "worst of the worst" for bad or incorrigible behavior. They were the best at attempting to escape POW camps or otherwise subverting their German captors. The fed-up Germans decided to contain them all in one prison to stop the constant breakouts. They only succeeded in creating a POW "think tank" by pooling together the most talented escape artists who combined their skills and knowledge.
In international conflicts, in addition to prisoners regularly receiving Red Cross care packages, the Geneva Convention requires captors to treat all POWs humanely, and provide food, clothing, housing, medical treatment, and hygiene. As mentioned, these prisoners brought their belongings with them from other camps. International Red Cross inspectors monitor POW camps for compliance. Failure to comply with the rules constitutes war crimes, which are adjudicated after a conflict. Germany was generally compliant. POW camps were to detain captured soldiers and prevent them rejoining the war. They did not punish detainees as "criminals" but disciplined them when they were non-compliant or for other misbehavior. Once the war was over, POWs were repatriated.
The Great Escape was from a POW camp specifically set up to hold trouble makers from other camps. Also, sometimes people expect to be captured and prepare to for it! Today, during funeral of John Lewis, speakers repeatedly mentioned that he was carrying a backpack with 2 books, an apple, an orange and a tooth brush. Which haven't been seen since his head was beat in. A least one German Fortress commander, sworn to defend his fort until he and all those under his command were dead, surrendered with multiple suit cases to make his incarceration more comfortable. Like the character Yossarian in Catch-22. [Spoiler alert: he makes elaborate preparations to the paddle in a life raft from Italy to Sweden.].
17th Jan 2020
Pokemon (1998)
Question: Why does Team Rocket keep trying to steal Ash's Pikachu?
Answer: I only know that they wasn't Ash's Pikachu because he is very powerful. I don't think it was ever said as to what Giovanni would do with Pikachu though. He may want the Pokémon for its powers kind of like how he had Mewtwo and used the armour to help him control his powers.
Answer: A quick google brings up a ton of results ranging from keeping Jesse, James and Meowth busy to Pikachu having extra powers. Feel free to read more from this article that provides many detailed answers https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/23383/why-does-team-rocket-always-try-to-catch-pikachu.
Their goal is basically to capture pikachu so they can present him to their boss. Now I sort of have a problem with that because would their boss want pikachu?
A pikachu is rare.
You really need to be more specific.
No I don't.
Ash's pikachu has more power as a pikachu than a Raichu (his evolved form) as such, this particular Pikachu is of interest to Team Rocket (as stated on the link) However, Rockets reason for NEEDING a Pikachu with all that extra power is unknown.
Team rocket seeks rare valuable, and powerful pokemon. Their objective is to steal rare, valuable, and powerful pokemon, and bring them to their boss so he can use them to take over the world. Pikachu is a rare, valuable, and pokemon. Of course in my opinion, if team rocket managed to steal pikachu and give him to their boss, it would probably make sense for him to sell pikachu for a high price because there would be no way pikachu would ever obey him.
16th Jan 2014
Family Guy (1999)
I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar - S2-E8
Revealing mistake: When Brian says "Well face it Peter, your attitude towards women isn't exactly enlightened", Brian's dog tag is the same color as his fur. It also stays still, even while Brian is moving his head. (00:11:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
8th Jan 2020
Elf (2003)
4th Jan 2020
The Terminator (1984)
Corrected entry: In the motel when they're making those bombs, he tells Sarah to handle them very carefully, but when he's packing them up in the bag, he angrily throws each one individually into the bag.
Correction: Kyle knows they are stable enough to be manhandled, and knows what he is doing. Sarah has never handled explosives before, so tells her to be careful.
Not at all. When he tells her "gently" it's when she's assembling them and the explosive is exposed. A simple spark could set one off. When he's shoving them into the bag they're fully assembled and can only be ignited by lighting the fuse. He was likely as careful during assembly as he asked her to be.
15th Feb 2013
Battleship (2012)
Corrected entry: Alex Hopper's brother receives posthumously a Navy Cross (2nd highest award) for attacking the aliens, but Alex Hopper only receives a Silver Star (3rd highest award) for saving the world?
Correction: Military politics. It's a mix of his accomplishments, his rank, and the fact that he paid the ultimate sacrifice. It's actually fairly accurate for the US Military to award higher awards to higher ranks as well as higher awards to those that have fallen.
27th Oct 2017
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Other mistake: In the bar shootout, a man is shot in the head. The bullet hits him in his hat right in the middle of his forehead, and then his hat falls off. But we then see a close-up of his face, and there's no bullet wound in his forehead or anywhere else.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
20th Jul 2008
Wall-E (2008)
Continuity mistake: When Eve fires a shot at the tanker they show an overhead view of the scene - there are three other tankers sitting on the starboard side of the exploded tanker. When the tankers fall like dominoes there are now four of them next to the exploded tanker.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is correct number of ships, but more likely wrong ship is burning in second image.
13th Jul 2008
Two and a Half Men (2003)
Continuity mistake: During this whole episode, Jake calls his mother's boyfriend Greg. But in the 4th season when Judith is marrying the guy, he is called Herb. We know that it is not two different people because they both have the last name Melneck, and they are both Jake's pediatrician.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Greg was the guy with the boat. I don't think they ever said his last name. Herb is the Dr. Two different people at two different times in the show.
The mistake is correct. The character of Judith's then boyfriend, and then eventual husband and then ex-husband, was named Greg Melnick (played by Ryan Stiles) in season 2. He actually first appeared in s02e02, "Enjoy Those Garlic Balls." Later, when he became a reoccurring character, his name was changed in the show to Herb. Although one could argue Greg was his middle name the whole time. There was another character named Greg in season 4.
22nd Nov 2019
Hobbs & Shaw (2019)
Corrected entry: When Hobbs and Shaw are boarding the plane with fake identities, Hobbs has a fake mustache when he gets to security, but it's gone when he gets on the plane.
20th Jul 2014
Only Fools and Horses (1981)
The Russians Are Coming - S1-E6
Plot hole: Del and Rodney find the nuclear shelter and decided to try it out. They then do a couple of runs to find the best place to build it. We then see the pair inside the nuclear shelter which they have built, filled with stuff like a bed, food batteries etc. all in one afternoon. (00:11:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: No reference is made to what day it is. There is nothing to suggest that the practice run and the scene inside the bunker happen on the same day.
Apart from all of them wearing the exact same outfits, Del mentioning that it needs to be back on the building site by Monday when having a weekend to try it out. All points to it taking place over the course of a day from the start of the episode to the end.
When Del refers to "it" being back on the building site by Monday morning, he is actually referring to the chemical toilet that he's acquired. He is not referring to the shelter as this was under a pile of bricks on a demolition site not a building site. Del has already assumed ownership of the shelter due to finding it under the pile of bricks he has purchased.
4th Jan 2020
Die Hard (1988)
Stupidity: Hans keeps a major part of his plan secret from his own team: that the electromagnetic lock will be disabled if the FBI shuts down power to the building. The mercenaries hired as muscle don't need to know the minutiae of the plan, but it seems ludicrous that Theo wasn't told. Theo states on more than one occasion that he can't proceed past a certain point and that he hopes Hans has a plan for the final lock. Evidently, Hans was keeping this information secret simply to amuse himself, which makes little sense considering how much planning went into the heist.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Or because he simply doesn't trust anyone with that kind of knowledge. He neither trusts them or cares about them, it's all him.
So he trusts that Theo would be on board with all the murder and mayhem, open all the other locks, be in a tactical lookout position when the police try to breach, and drive the getaway vehicle. But he doesn't trust Theo enough to tell him the last lock will open when the power goes out?
It's not about trust; Hans needs Theo to do what he is there for and that is all you mention up to the final lock. He has a plan for the final lock and so there's no need to discuss it with the team, since it won't be any of them responsible.
The more people that know the plan the more chances of someone talking. Especially when they are hired mercenaries.
Theo was already on board with taking hostages and committing murder. Him knowing that the power needed to be shut off to open the last lock doesn't appear to be particularly important information you would need to keep from someone to keep them from talking.
If he's the only one that knows the final step to get the money, then at least up until that moment he is absolutely indispensable to the plan and ensures no-one would double-cross him. In any case I'm not sure being more cautious than necessary really qualifies as "stupidity."
14th Sep 2017
Home Alone (1990)
Question: Why was Kevin's family so mean to him?
Answer: I think it was a way to make leaving him "home alone" more realistic and understandable as opposed to absurd. Being perceived as a brat/pest and annoying to be around, it is (somewhat) conceivable that none of the family members would be eager to have Kevin by their side. This "frees" all of them from noticing that Kevin isn't with them. Everyone would just assume that Kevin is somewhere among them and each be glad they didn't have to sit next to him on the way to the airport or during the long flight.
In addition to this, the movie is partially about Kevin learning to have more respect for others. He appreciates his family more as he spends more time without them.
Answer: The ones who were mean just saw Kevin as a brat. However, it's not uncommon in situations of being in an overcrowded house to easily lose one's patience and temper and become frustrated with small, but irritating things; which seems to happen to his mother. Buzz just has that general big brother contempt for his kid brother, but obviously still loves him, along with everyone else in the family, at the end when he finds out Kevin is safe.
Nuts to that. They all could've tried a little harder, that's one lame excuse for treating someone like garbage and I come from a good sized bunch who've done the same to me. You also forget his uncle didn't care about him regardless of the situation.
Like it or not the answer is perfectly valid. Families have different dynamics. Kevin is something of a brat (he calls his mother "dummy" and openly wishes he didn't have a family), as are his brothers and sisters, especially Buzz. I for one have TWO uncles in my family who behave just like the uncle in the movie. We don't invite them over, but we've had similar situations to what's depicted in the film.
Hey I've had three uncles, father's older brothers, he hated all three of them, cared only when they started dying. Yeah the dynamics and all, my mother has stated "You ruined this family" though this bunch didn't need my help in being messed up. My sympathies to you Mr Hoffman, your uncles Dustin and Philip Seymour must be/been terrible, just kidding only on the famous names there, no offense meant.
It's just a movie! The characters are fictional and were given contrived, exaggerated, over-the-top personalities to fit the comedic plot. It's pointless to compare them to real-life family dynamics.
Also, it's a movie from a child's point of view. Kevin is supposed to be the "victim." As a 35-year-old, I have more sympathy for the adults and older kids. The movie is about Kevin learning to miss his family and be more considerate of others.
17th Dec 2019
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Question: Why doesn't the Interceptor fight back against the Dutchman and the Pearl?
Answer: I'm assuming you're actually referring to Beckett's ship the Endeavour in the third film "At World's End." (The Interceptor was destroyed in the first film.) If that's the case, the ship is simply outgunned and the captain Beckett freezes and doesn't make any commands. He doesn't know what to do because there's no way he could win. The call is then made to abandon ship. Hence, they don't fight back.
13th Dec 2019
Die Hard (1988)
Question: The armoured vehicle that gets sent in when the SWAT team are struggling to get in, before they're even attacked...what's that meant to actually achieve? If it's just meant to smash the doors, the men with guns could do that. And if not...will it just sit there?
Answer: I believe it is supposed to be that it was a precautionary measure and probably standard operating procedure to have it on site when dealing with a terrorist situation. To have it at the ready for if they needed it. Not only this, but a large armored vehicle like that could serve as physiological warfare to make the terrorist more fearful merely by it just being there. A show of strength. As for using it on the door, yes, guys with guns can smash those doors. But guys with guns are still targets to be shot at especially though glass doors. The armored vehicle can smash through it and get the men inside without exposing them to small arms fire.
But why send the armoured car into the lobby before being attacked? And why send it in in the first place? Once it's in the lobby it becomes a sitting duck. Easy pickings for when the occupants decide to disembark.
In some cases, maybe. But the vehicle itself still provides cover for the men in it. They usually would exit from the back or the top, and have that as something to hide against or shoot from. Also, most armored SWAT vehicles like that usually have a very high powered water cannon on the top that has the pressure of a fire truck. This can quickly subdue any hostile forces and knock their defenses down, giving the SWAT ample time to make their move while the enemy is still recovering. Not only this, but the vehicle can have inside more equipment the SWAT members can use, like throwing out smoke and flash bang grenades, or have riot shields as the exit. But this at least gets them inside and up where they can do good. If they tried to walk up to the door without cover, they would be easy pickings from small arms fire and snipers.
Good answer. I would add that presumably, the SWAT vehicle could be put in reverse, and once the front entrance was breached, it would back up. Also, this being a movie, it's shown that the overall police and F.B.I. response is supposed to be somewhat bungled, with different egotistical characters vying for control. Plot wise, it shows how well armed the "terrorists" are supposed to be by blowing up the SWAT vehicle with a missile, and how they anticipate and outsmart the police's every move. This is not reality.
21st Jun 2017
Home Alone (1990)
Factual error: Kate flies American Airlines to Scranton, but that airline did not serve Scranton in 1990. Also, a DC-10 is too big to be serviced at Scranton.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Air Force One, which is quite a bit larger than a DC-10, has landed at Scranton in the past (https://wnep.com/2013/08/22/air-force-one-lands-in-scranton/). Just because DC-10s don't generally land there doesn't mean they can't.
They are much more likely to make an exception for Air Force One than the are for a single family unless it was for something wrong with the flight or an emergency on the flight, not for a connecting flight to Chicago or a chance at a connecting flight.
The idea is that DC-10s can land there for whatever reason.
Kate landed at Dallas first, then flew to Scranton. This is revealed in Kate's rant at the ticket agent.
Air Force One would park at GA parking, not at the terminal. The DC-10 that lands would have very likely parked at a gate for only 737s and smaller.
5th Jul 2005
Toy Story (1995)
Trivia: The carpet design used in Sid's house is the same design used in the hotel featured in The Shining (1980). (00:48:55 - 00:50:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
The design is spot on. The color is just different.
So it is identical, except for how it is different?
No one said it was identical. The trivia is the pattern is the same. Color has no bearing on the trivial fact. The fact that they animated the carpet means the design was intentional. Although, it's possible they copied the design from a 70's carpet pattern that "The Shining" also used, rather than copy the design in "The Shining."
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.
Suggested correction: These movies aren't set in a specific time.
Credit for the following goes to another member here, Super Grover, who actually answered a question about the dates the films are set a while ago. These dates are estimates. The intro of 'PotC: The Curse of the Black Pearl' takes place mid-1720s (roughly 1725), when Will and Elizabeth are around 11/12 yrs old. Then eight years later the duo are about 19-20 yrs old during the main part of 'The Curse of the Black Pearl', then around a year later are set to marry in 'PotC: Dead Man's Chest' followed by the consecutive 'At World's End', which take place around 1733 / 1734. The next movies 'PotC: On Stranger Tides' and 'Dead Men Tell No Tales' (after the intro) take place in the 1750s. Again, credit to Super Grover.
Ssiscool ★
They're set in the 1700's. In "On Stranger Tides", King George wants Jack to find the Fountain of Youth before King Ferdinand, who reigned from 1746 - 1759.
Bishop73