Other mistake: The Millennium Falcon crash lands on Kef Bir, leaving a long trail of destruction, supposedly because the landing gear is malfunctioning. However, the Falcon has always had vertical takeoff capability, so even if the landing struts were damaged, there would be no reason for this type of crash landing.
wizard_of_gore
10th Jan 2020
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
4th Apr 2019
Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
Plot hole: Michael uses herself as bait to trap her future self, putting her own life in jeopardy with the reasoning that her future self will come back to save her. All well and good, except they have a backup plan with the doctor to resuscitate her if needed, meaning her life isn't really at risk, or nowhere near as much as might be implied. And her future self would undoubtedly know that, having lived through it in the past, so not swoop in to save her. Or even if she did come, would also know it was a trap.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: ***SPOILER ALERT*** But, as it turns out, The Red Angel that comes to save her is NOT Michael, but her mother, who would not necessarily have known about the backup plan.
***SPOILER ALERT*** That it was her mother doesn't stop it being a plot hole since they thought The Red Angel was future Michael, and future Michael would know that present Michael wasn't really in danger so they weren't presenting a situation, _according to what they believed_, that required future Michael to act. It being the mother was a plot twist that created a motivation to act that the present people had no reason to think would exist. Basically, unless they presume a split timeline (i.e. this present is a different past than The Red Angel lived through), making a trap for future Michael that present Michael is involved in makes no logical sense.
Alternatively, Michael would have to come back, KNOWING it was a trap, to prevent the timeline unravelling.
The point of the exercise is they were setting a trap. If it didn't work, then Michael wouldn't have to come back to "prevent the timeline unravelling (sic)", even if that were a thing - it presupposes a fixed, unalterable timeline, which goes against their attempt to send the data to the future to protect it, and thereby alter the future. Even with an unalterable timeline, it would only work if future Michael had chosen to allow herself to be trapped, but in that case why wouldn't future Michael just voluntarily come back to help? Since her being trapped wasn't a certainty, there was no reason to think she would be given that the current Michael, and therefore also future Michael, knows a trap has been set, but one that doesn't actually threaten current Michael. The whole premise of the trap, under their assumption that The Red Angel was future Michael, is completely flawed and made no logical sense.
The fact that The Red Angel was in the future, and that they had a backup plan meant that The Red Angel never should have come back in time, ever. Because the backup plan would be the recorded history, thus, she never would have died. Thus, nothing to save. Face it, everything in Discovery is a plot hole.
22nd Nov 2019
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
Corrected entry: When they are in Antarctica, people are just running around without hats or gloves, and we don't see their breath.
Correction: This is a common fallacy. You don't always see your breath just because it's cold. It also depends on humidity. If it's very dry, you won't see your breath.
16th Nov 2019
Batwoman (2019)
Continuity mistake: The bat-signal (or bat-light as Alice calls it) is on a rooftop looking entirely different from the one established in the first episode (from minute 4 on). (00:03:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Yes, because Kate re-designed it.
Ohhh, okay. I must have missed the part when she said she was doing it, my bad. Which episode?
I'll have to look that up, which I will when I have a chance, but it follows in line with the redesign of the batsuit and emblem.
27th Mar 2005
Open Water (2003)
Trivia: No digital- or special effects were used in the film. The actors were in the water with real live sharks.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You can see the edges of the pool the actors are in when there are "ships" on the horizon.
Not true. The film was shot on location, for three weeks, off the coast of The Bahamas. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2004/08/open-water-sharks-fear-real/#close.
30th Sep 2019
Ad Astra (2019)
Factual error: There no explanation given for why Cepheus does not have enough fuel to return to Earth. It would have been refueled on Mars and sent on a mission to Neptune. They wouldn't have sent it without enough fuel to return.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's never specifically stated, but the implication is that they are going to destroy LIMA with a nuclear weapon, and the ship and astronauts are not expected to survive.
The other astronauts knew the purpose of the travel, it's very unlikely they would have gone there to die.
Unlikely but not impossible. The suggested correction, however unlikely, is still valid.
24th Sep 2019
Ad Astra (2019)
Stupidity: When Roy finally gets to the Lima project in the shuttle but can't dock, he just lets it drift away - he could have at least tethered it to the station to use it for his return trip.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is no way to know the reason why he did this. It's plausible, or even likely, that the pod was out of fuel. Not only that, but it could not dock with Lima because it was damaged, so it's likely that the damage played into the decision as well.
13th Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Trivia: The film took inspiration from the Star Trek saga - the last episode of Star Trek Voyager was named Endgame as well and involved time travel.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It should also be pointed out that "Endgame" as a term has been around a long time. It's a chess term and refers to the final stage of a process or event. "Voyager" might have taken inspiration from Marvel themselves since Marvel Comics have had at least 16 stories titled "Endgame", starting in the 60's. Stories involving The Mighty Avengers, Iron Man, Captain America, Black Panther, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, The Incredible Hulk, and Thanos.
Suggested correction: Not to be confrontational, but has this actually been confirmed? As in, did any of the filmmakers say that they were inspired by "Star Trek: Voyager"? The fact that the word "Endgame" appears in both titles doesn't mean that one was inspired by the other.
It was confirmed by the producers.
Kevin Feige confirmed that Star Trek: The Next Generation inspired elements of the film. At no time did he mention Star Trek: Voyager.
The episode is also about time travel. Caption Janeway goes back in time to get her ship home faster and save member of her crew.
The fact that 2 things involving time travel also involve the term "endgame" does not mean that one inspired the other.
4th Aug 2019
Elementary (2012)
Unfriended - S7-E11
Character mistake: Odin Reichenbach talks to Sherlock about "doing the irrevocable", but pronounces it "irrevOWEcable." It should be pronounced "irrevacable" in both British and American English. He's supposed to be a highly intelligent, highly educated person - not a mistake he should make.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not necessarily. A lot of people have strange vocal tics where they pronounce a certain word in a certain way, usually without even realizing it. My grandfather was a smart guy, and he always mis-pronounced "toilet" as "ter-let."
29th Jul 2019
Rim of the World (2019)
Other mistake: The girl turns on all generators in the basement of the JPL building. Yet there is no power to the basement where she is. Just flashes of light, highlighting the suspense. There is power everywhere else. (01:23:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The building is severely damaged. There could be several reasons why the power in the basement isn't working.
You have a point. Thanks.
8th Jul 2019
Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Stupidity: Beck wants to kill Peter's friends because they know his secret. Instead of using Edith to attack them directly with a drone strike, or using his illusion technology to lead them into the path of a train like he did with Spider-Man, he instead has a henchman drive them onto a bridge and leave them in the path of his next Elemental attack. Because absolutely nothing is forcing them to stay on the bridge, they all casually walk off the bus and out of immediate danger. It is unfathomable that a man as intelligent and resourceful as Beck would take such an idiotic approach, especially considering all he had at his disposal and how desperate he was.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He wanted it to seem like they were killed in the Elemental attack because it was cleaner. If they were killed by a drone it would be much more suspicious than being killed in the disaster. Once the plan goes wrong, he does simply send an Edith drone after them. If it wasn't for Spider-Man's timing, he would have been successful as well.
But that is the major problem, and why I think it was an egregious mistake in the movie. The plan "goes wrong" because it was idiotic. So idiotic that it is unrealistic that Beck, a highly intelligent person, would have made such a glaring oversight. Leaving the kids on the bridge but not trapping them at all allowed them to make an easy escape.
I think the point is that Beck thinks he is the smartest person in the room and that this plan is going to work. Should he take into account MJ and co's free will, yes, but he is so maniacal (and not thinking rationally) that it does not cross his mind. This is proven by the fact that as his plan is failing around him that he still wants his suit pressed and ready to meet the Queen because it will work out in the end in his mind. Also, to your point, having them walk in front of a train or walk off the bridge, would not make him a hero. He needed real casualties and Peter's friends were the place to start. Finally, in the sequence showing Beck and his team preparing for the attack, he was focused on the theatrics of the attack and, again, thought the size of it alone would work (he wanted it bigger, scarier, more forceful).
Suggested correction: Fury is well aware of the drone system (he berates Peter for misusing it earlier). If Beck simply utilised EDITH to kill the students, it would give away that Beck was using the drones for his own gain. Once Fury was dead, he could have used EDITH had the original plan failed, but he certainly couldn't do it until after Fury (and potentially other SHIELD agents) had been taken out. He was going to attack London no matter what, so he took the opportunity to take out Ned, MJ and Betty at the same time.
This doesn't stop him from using a targeted drone strike to kill the kids, he was planning on using it to kill Fury anyway. The fact that he fails in his strike against Fury is irrelevant to the fact that he needed those kids dead and decided to take a round-about way of accomplishing this goal. Again, he doesn't have to use a drone strike, he is perfectly capable of using the illusion technology to force the bus off a cliff or into some other immediate danger. Having a henchman drive the bus to a bridge and hope the kids are dumb enough not to escape danger when literally nothing is forcing them to just stand there and be killed is ridiculously idiotic.
Suggested correction: Characters, even intelligent ones, are allowed to make bad tactical decisions. Real-life history is replete with examples. Just because it seems unlikely doesn't make it a plot hole.
True - this was originally submitted as "stupidity", which is slightly different, but this seemed like such a massive oversight that it qualified as a plot hole.
Suggested correction: Beck's intentions were to make it look like the kids were killed in the attack by the monster. Had he just killed them with a drone out right, it would have obviously looked like murder and foul play bringing in more investigations and potential problems for him.
But again, he doesn't need to use a drone strike he can use the illusion technology to trick them into an accident. Even what he chooses to do (just leaving them on the bridge) would have also been fine had he trapped them there at all. Just leaving them there without trapping them is so stupid it is unbelievable. It's like leaving someone on train tracks but not tying them up.
Suggested correction: He was an insane person and wasn't thinking fully rationally.
26th Mar 2019
Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)
Factual error: Near the beginning of the film there is a warning sign that the "Tron" game has a virus. How does an arcade game get a virus?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't believe it was actually a virus in the game. It was more of a bug in the coding that arose, probably in just that particular cabinet after wear and tear. However, the characters in the arcades would not really have a full understanding of a virus and would conceivably use the terms of virus, bug, and possibly even glitch interchangeably. I don't think it was an actual virus or a mistake in the movie, but just the miss-information that the characters were going off. Especially seeing as how we see the physical/cyber manifestation of a virus later in the film.
Respectfully, that's just speculation. What you "believe" to be the case doesn't make it so.
26th Mar 2019
A Quiet Place (2018)
Corrected entry: The opening grocery store scene shows father, son, and wife leaving after the father tells the son no to the toy. Less than a minute later the boy is back in the grocery store when the sister gives him the toy and tells him to shush.
Correction: It is the older brother that leaves the store with the father. If you have trouble telling them apart, check the color and pattern of their hats.
Correction: Yes, because they snuck back to get it.
12th Feb 2019
Glass (2019)
Corrected entry: During a flashback to explain his disability, a young Mr. Glass is seen being flung right and left on a Tilt A Whirl, crushing his fragile bones. In reality, a Tilt A Whirl keeps you in place through centrifugal force. A more accurate depiction of side to side chaos would be on a Troika or Scrambler ride, which is what I think the director meant to show instead.
Correction: This is absolutely not true. Because each car spins independently of the main "disc", you can absolutely be tossed from side to side. Having been on this ride many, many times, I can vouch for that.
15th Jan 2019
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Corrected entry: Khan says he doesn't know Terrell, but remembers Chekov. Chekov wasn't a part of the crew at the time of "Space Seed", when Khan was first introduced.
Correction: This has been submitted and corrected in the past. Chekov was not part of the bridge crew during this episode, but it's entirely possible that he was part of the Enterprise crew in some other capacity.
29th Dec 2018
The Polar Express (2004)
Stupidity: The Engineer and Fireman of the Polar Express train crew should have known better than to not bend back the the metallic prongs of the cotter pin, which would have prevented the cotter pin from coming loose and causing all those problems in the driving of the train.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As you yourself stated, the whole thing is likely a dream, where "normal" reality doesn't apply. In the "real world", the train would never be able to do any of the things that it does in the film.
Dream or not, it is still a stupidity of the train crew to not secure a pin that could work itself free of the controls of the locomotive.
Dreams are often unrealistic. There is no mistake.
The entry doesn't say anything about the entire trip to the North Pole being a dream.
26th Dec 2018
Mary Poppins Returns (2018)
Corrected entry: Mr. Wilkins, hoping to foreclose on Michael Banks' home, leafs through a register listing all the bank's shareholders, then tells Michael, "I don't see your name." After Michael leaves, Wilkins rips out a page and throws it into the fireplace. At the top of the page is the name "Banks" in large letters but each of the other pages lists several names all written in small letters in a column on the left side of the page.
Correction: Why is this a mistake? There could be several reasons why Banks' name is more prominent. It could be based on the fact that George Banks was an important bank official or it could be dependent upon the number of shares owned.
12th Jul 2017
The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016)
Other mistake: When propping Jane Doe's head up onto the block, her head tilts back but her eyes stay focused toward the ceiling, not tilting back. (00:26:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She is a supernatural entity, so her body does not necessarily behave as a normal body would. It's just one of the many unexpected things about her.
7th Dec 2018
Rampage (2018)
Corrected entry: The wolf and crocodile have added physical traits such as spikes and quills, but George looks exactly as he did before, with the exception of the growth.
Correction: How is this a mistake? George simply didn't experience the same random mutations as the other animals. Either that, or the genes of the other species were manipulated in a very specific way on purpose.
29th Oct 2018
A Quiet Place (2018)
Corrected entry: How could the deaf daughter have the rocket that caused her brother's death? He had it in his hand when the alien attacked. It is somehow in perfect condition in her drawer.
Correction: The brother could have dropped it as soon as he was attacked by the alien and she went back and picked it up as something to remember him by.
Suggested correction: Since so many things always break down on the ship it's possible the vertical landing capabilities were malfunctioning at that time.
lionhead
However, the characters specifically mention the malfunctioning landing gear as the reason for the crash landing.
wizard_of_gore ★
Exactly, they needed the landing gear to land but it malfunctioned, resulting in a crash.
lionhead
If the vertical landing capabilities were malfunctioning then they wouldn't be able to take off, as they are the same things that help keep the Falcon level in atmosphere and control its yaw and wake in space and also what gives it vertical lift at the point of liftoff. Also, before you suggest it, how would they repair it when they can't even reach them because the ship is sitting on them and buried in sand. Also, the exit to the ship is a ramp underneath the ship, how did they get out?
I never said they had to repair it after crashing. I just said it malfunctioned at that time. Perhaps it was a software issue. As for the specifics on the Falcon's capabilities and exits, same guesswork. I'm sure you can exit the Falcon at other places than just the belly.
lionhead
A plausible explanation but highly unlikely as it would be a one way trip. The damage caused by a high speed landing and a hard one at that would make the falcon unusable for space flight, the underbelly gun would be ripped off for starters and possible damage to the gunner's window as well and damage to the Hull. Same situation in the force awakens on Starkiller base and in solo. These problems are never addressed or explained but I guess this is the magic of the movies.