Corrected entry: When Justin is in the air lock and activates the outer door he freaks out as he sees the veins in his arms bulge and then he starts bleeding from his eyes and maybe his mouth too. This wouldn't happen. Movies get this wrong a lot. All that would happen is that he would lose gravity, he would be sucked out of the ship and unless he was holding his breath tightly the air would rush out of his lungs. He would die within about 30 seconds from lack of oxygen, maybe 60 if he was holding his breath, but he would not bleed from anywhere.
Quantom X
21st Dec 2003
Event Horizon (1997)
17th Apr 2019
Reign of Fire (2002)
Corrected entry: When Quinn sets up the last beacon how was VanZan to know he was riding a horse to use as bait to bring the dragon in for him to kill?
Correction: This is speculating too much on the character's knowledge. He could have known easily enough that Quinn had horses at his castle, probably even saw them. Given the distance that the third beacon was supposed to be, an intelligent man like Van Zan could have easily deduced that Quinn didn't travel that distance on foot so quickly.
23rd Oct 2002
Reign of Fire (2002)
Corrected entry: A starving, hundred tonne creature incinerates Quinn's little veggie patch, then stops to devour the ash. Later Quinn comes back and finds the tomato vines blackened but still there, their stakes intact (not even knocked down), and even some crisp but still edible fruit on the vines.
6th Aug 2007
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Factual error: Firing a full magazine of blank cartridges from an automatic weapon in the police station office as McClane does would be painfully loud. Nobody shows the slightest effect - nobody even winces. Some of the men wince slightly but their reaction is grossly underplayed. Obviously the sound was looped in later. (01:37:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Every person jumps/winces and cowers out of the way of the bullets, one other officer even draws his gun in response.
What has never made any sense to me about this is that in a room full of cops everyone just stands around watching McClane seemingly gun down their Chief and only one officer even bothers to draw his gun.
Probably because everyone hates the chief. I wondered about that too.
Suggested correction: What makes the loud bang from guns is not the explosion of the gunpowder, but the bullet itself breaking the sound barrier as it leaves the gun. It's very noticeable when a gun fires a blank because it's so much quite, as the only sound is the small pop of the gunpowder inside. It's little more than the sound of a firecracker, but even more muffled by being inside metal.
Makes you wonder this gun makes the same sound as a gun loaded with real bullets, then. You can't have it both ways.
I have shot blank and live with the military. Both are loud, but sound different. More of a crack with live.
Blanks are very loud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6PESH5LSE0.
6th Apr 2020
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Corrected entry: They need to get on board the ship for medical supplies, but there is a medical supply box in the cafeteria when they break open the vending machines.
1st Jan 2011
The Walking Dead (2010)
Other mistake: In the opening scene when the cop stops at the side of the road & walks between the truck & car you can see there is no engine or transmission on the truck lying on its side. (00:00:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
21st Jan 2018
Family Guy (1999)
Other mistake: When the family is driving to New York, another red car passes in front of them from the right where there is no road. (00:09:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Usually this would be right, but it's evident by their positioning that Peter is actually driving his car right in the middle of the road on the dotted line and not staying in one lane. This is why the truck passes on the left to get in front and then the car on the right, both also getting centered on the dotted line.
9th Feb 2020
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
Corrected entry: Grace could not know that Daniela was working in the car factory.
17th Jan 2020
Missing in Action 2: The Beginning (1985)
Continuity mistake: The Vietnamese soldier guarding the hole in two shots has an M16, in a third he has an AK47. (01:13:54)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
17th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Stupidity: The entire plot revolves around the First Order chasing the ships, waiting for the Resistance to run out of fuel. They could have easily destroyed the Resistance's fleet by sending a Star Destroyer or two around to cut them off from the other side and blast them into oblivion.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Maybe. But if the First Order does this the entire plot of the movie as it is is ruined. So, maybe both?
Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't change a character stupidity into a plot hole.
What prevents a character's stupidity from being a plot hole? Is it wrong to want competent villains? If a character is supposed to be intelligent (let's say, a naval commander or military leader) and has the capability to achieve his or her objective with an obvious decision a character of his or her stature should make but does not and it is the only reason the plot of the movie still exist, is it not both a plot hole and character stupidity? Not just Hux, Snoke, Kylo, and every other First Order officer failed to realise this. How? It does not make any sense. At the very least try to explain in the movie how the FO let the Resistance get away because they refused to let Star Destroyer make a few hyperspace jumps and cut the Resistance off.
Hux is an idiot, Snoke is a fraud and Kylo doesn't really strike me as a strategic mastermind.
Hux only really becomes an idiot because of this movie. In TFA, he is an established military officer who does come across as more feared and respected. The change in this movie is then character stupidity and/or a character mistake that creates a big plot hole from the start.
Well the new movie puts a whole new light into that. Changes the whole discussion.
So they retconned to correct this mistake? Still makes it a mistake in my opinion. Especially since it is not just Hux who could have been a better leader. Any FO military officer could have brought it up and executed that idea.
In the time it takes to switch the hyperdrive on and off again, travelling at light speed you would travel so far ahead of them you would take days to get back to them. In a quarter of a second at lightspeed you travel much farther than the length of the planet Earth.
To answer the question: a plot hole is something that contradicts something already established in the film that's done to move the plot along or resolve an issue. A stupidity is a minor plot hole, but can also be character acting contradictory to what's been established, usually to keep the plot going. A character mistake is a character making a mistake or error they shouldn't have (usually because the writers don't know the right answer). Characters acting stupid or irrationally or making human errors is not a valid movie mistake.
So by this, it is a plot hole because the Star Destroyers can jump in and out of hyperspace and could make that jump to cut the Resistance off. It is character stupidity because Hux is established as a high ranking military officer in TFA and thus should know basic military strategy along with all of his fellow officers. I think if a character acts stupid which goes against their established personality and traits without a good reason, it is very much a mistake. Hux was not pressured into an irrational decision. In fact, it is the most calming battle to ever take place in Star Wars. There is no reason for him to be this incompetent. He is only this way because Rian wrote him this way, which on your list is a character mistake too. When the general audience is a better military tactician than the FO Commander in the movie, it is a bad sign.
The problem is that we as the audience know the Resistance will find a way out of this situation. General Hux believes he has the Resistance trapped and they have no escape. In his mind, the plan was working perfectly well. There's no reason to alter the plan. It's not like they are under a time crunch and need to destroy the ships as quickly as possible. By moving the cruisers out of range and crawling away, it was clear to Hux that the Resistance had run out of options. Hux doesn't need to do anything differently in his mind, so he doesn't. It only seems stupid to us because we know the heroes will find a way out because heroes always do.
I am sure the First Order is well aware that the Resistance is doing all they can to find an escape, however unlikely it is. However, contrary to the audience, they do not know how they plan on doing so. All the more reason for the First Order to blow the Resistance to bits while they still can. What is the benefit of just waiting for the Resistance to run out of fuel in the first place? Wouldn't it just be better to end them swiftly? Also, it is not just Hux. There are other military officers and you would think there would be a few of them who would want to destroy the Resistance while the opportunity was present. Its decisions like these that make you wonder how the First Order gained so much power in the first place.
It is just Hux. The captain of the Dreadnaught makes it clear that Hux is in general command, as he is irritated that Hux did not scramble fighters as soon as Poe's X-Wing showed up. Overconfidence has been a staple of Star Wars villains from the very beginning, and if it's a movie mistake here then it's also a mistake that Tarkin doesn't evacuate the Death Star; or that Vader doesn't force choke Luke on Bespin instead of trying to trap him in carbonite; or that Jaba doesn't shoot Luke Skywalker instead of taking him to the Sarlaac pit; etc.
Comparing Tarkin's overconfidence to Hux's actions is practically insulting. The Empire believed the Death Star was indestructible until the flaw was discovered during the Rebels' attack run. Even with this flaw, the chances of the Rebels' success was incredibly slim. The Rebels have already failed multiple times and the Empire was mere seconds away from ending the Rebellion for good. The probability of the Empire ending the Rebels once and for all was almost a certainty and it was logical to take the chance. Tarkin may have been overconfident, but he had a right to be. The Vader example is dumb too. The Emperor ordered Luke to be taken to him alive. To do that, they were going to entrap him in carbonite. That was Vader's goal, not to kill him with a Force choke. Jabba is a sadistic showman, as seen when he fed Oola to the Rancor. When Luke is captured, he created a show in which he can enjoy. How Luke died was just as important to him as Luke dying.
Tarkin said he wanted to destroy the Rebellion with one swift stroke. Key word here being swift, not lazily waiting for some gas just to run out. If Tarkin was in charge of the First Order instead of Hux, the Resistance would have easily been destroyed, no questions asked. Having Hux betray what he was supposed to be from TFA by being a passive, ignorant, and incompetent leader causes the FO to be nonthreatening, terrible villains, and defeats any suspense in the plot. It's illogical for the audience to believe that a military commander could be this stupid.
Completely and entirely disagree with your assessment. Tarkin's overconfidence and Hux's overconfidence both come from the same belief: that their enemies have no means of victory. Both men believe they have already won and it is only a matter of time before they win. Tarkin is flat out told that there is a chance that the rebels will destroy them and he chooses not to evacuate. This overconfidence is a staple of every movie in this series because the major theme of an underdog triumphing over the odds demands this. I did not mean that Vader should force choke Luke to death, but once the plan to freeze him fails he certainly could have tried harder to incapacitate Luke. By not doing so he allows Luke to escape. This isn't dumb, it's just overconfident. Jabba choosing to put on a show rather than just shooting his enemies is the very definition of overconfidence, and it's honestly strange that you seem to be arguing that it isn't.
I was arguing against your assessment of Vader and Tarkin and explaining Jabba's view and how it differs from how Tarkin and Hux should go about things. Jabba is an overconfident crimelord and thus has different traits then a military leader so it is unjust to compare him to Tarkin and Hux. Tarkin was given that information mid battle a mere minute away from wiping out of the Rebellion. Here it is believable of him to assess the situation, see the Rebels have already failed multiple attempts, and that the Rebels chance for success was minuscule and waiting was the best option. Hux's ability to end the war is literally right there. Not minutes away, seconds away if he would have just commanded a ship to cut them off. There is no benefit in waiting, whereas Tarkin is operating a Death Star and must wait as it moves differently (slower, less maneuverable) than a Star Destroyer. Even if they have the same belief, Tarkin acts competently and Hux acts unbelievably moronic.
I think that's where I'm having a problem with your statements. I don't believe that Hux acted "unbelievably moronic." His plan was working perfectly fine. Just because he didn't wipe out of the ships as fast as he possibly could doesn't make him a moron, or a bad military leader. Hux had just lost Starkiller Base and his Dreadnaught, so it is perfectly reasonable for him to take a safe approach with destroying the remaining Rebel ships; picking them off one-by-one at no risk to his fleet whatsoever. His plan works absolutely fine and the few Rebels that do survive only do because Luke Skywalker projects his image across space to stall Kylo Ren. "Military leader" doesn't mean "infallable" and it certainly isn't a gap in the film's logic, especially in the Star Wars series, to have a leader make questionable decisions in hindsight.
You just said Hux was an extremely risk adverse military leader, whereas good military leaders must deliberately accept tactical risks. However, there is no risk here. Destroying the Resistance fleet would have been easy since all of their fighters and bombers were already destroyed fighting the Dreadnaught. Regular sight should have been able to see that waiting for the Resistance to think up an escape plan was a bad idea. Especially since the First Order knows the Resistance has a map to Luke Skywalker and his arrival could completely turn the tide of the battle. Logically, the First Order should destroy the Resistance fleet before Luke could arrive. The only explanation, which makes for a bad movie, is that Hux is unlike what he was represented in TFA and is an incompetent leader. From the beginning, he was never meant to be like is TFA self. He did fall for a "your mama" joke to start the movie and let a Dreadnaught die from the slowest bombers in the galaxy.
I did not say that Hux was "extremely risk averse." I said that Hux took a safe approach. Having Hux plan to defeat the Rebels before Luke Skywalker could show up would have also been out of character. The villains in the Star Wars stories consistently believe that not even a powerful Jedi could stop their plans when they have convinced themselves they've already won. Snoke says as much during this very film.
You said Hux likes playing it safe, that means he is a risk adverse military leader, or at least made a risk adverse decision when there didn't need to be one. So it is now out of character for Hux to defeat the Resistance until Luke shows up? At this point, the only reason it makes sense for Hux to act this way is what was revealed in TRoS, which would be a retcon to cover the mistake in this movie. I find your villain statement more of opinion then truth. It may only make sense in this trilogy. Palpatine is the true villain of Star Wars and his big plan to rule the galaxy found it necessary to kill all the powerful Jedi, so he obviously was not convinced he could win with them alive. As Emperor, discovering a potential Jedi in Luke was treated like an actual threat, maybe the only true threat. The Emperor wants Luke dead/capture in ESB. The Emperor tries to turn Luke in RotJ. The Emperor does believe he can turn/defeat Luke, and he would have defeated him if Vader hadn't intervened.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that Hux "likes playing it safe." I said that he took a safe approach in this particular situation.
I'm gonna say it here too, the new movie puts it all in a whole new light. So just wait till you see it. (not that it's particularly good though).
We do not know exactly when this character decided to do that. Could have been before or after these events. Most likely it occurred after Snoke died and Kylo took power. So that is just speculation. If this character's decision does occur before the events of this movie, then it is a retcon to cover this mistake, meaning the mistake exists.
Exactly. This movie's plot is very flawed and it lacks logic to the big extent. Hux was much more competent in TFA, so his behavior in TLJ was both stupidity and a plothole.
Then they should have written a better plot. Complaining that rational act ruins the plot is a writing issue with the plot. They shouldn't have written this problem in the first place. You can't hide behind the "but it will ruin the film" excuse when the writers could have written literally anything else.
Suggested correction: In the time it takes to switch the hyperdrive on and off they would have travelled so far in front of the rebels that they would be worse off than before. Even switching the drive in for .25 of a second would carry them around 400,000 kilometers if my memory serves. This is still a plot hole. The first order ships are bigger, therefore they should be faster due to larger/ more engines and the "fuel" issue is wrong because all you have to do is switch off your engine and you will not stop.
Suggested correction: Why would they need to? They easily outgun what remains of the Resistance, and they're patient enough to wait for the ships to run out of fuel. The First Order was overconfident, but they were not wrong about their plan working.
What is the benefit of the First Order waiting? It would be better to take out your enemy swiftly when given the chance. Especially since we are told this is the last of the Resistance. Destroying these few ships would then end the war and give the First Order control of the galaxy.
9th Dec 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: A human being cannot survive inside a closed refrigerator for even one hour, let alone overnight. They would suffer from a lack of oxygen and die. "Refrigerator death" is a rare occurrence but has happened on several occasions when children accidentally lock themselves in a fridge or if someone purposefully traps an individual in one.
Correction: Clearly it didn't work for him as he tried to commit suicide but was alive the next day. Maybe he got cold feet and exited quite quickly. Since the scene cuts after he closes the door you can't know what happened.
Incorrect. We see the refrigerator fully closing. When he closes it, it's night and when it cuts to the next scene it's morning, therefore he was in overnight.
Sure it closed, but you can't see he was in it all night. You can force yourself out of such types of fridge, if you have to.
So long as there is no scene specifically showing him crawl out of said refrigerator at dawn, there is no proof - implied or otherwise - he was in there overnight. As the previous entry corrected earlier, there is no way of knowing exactly how long he was inside for, and he obviously survived up until the end credits so the entire point or duration is moot.
Correction: It is possible the fridge just simply didn't seal fully. They are a poor family and likely have broken down old appliances. The airtight seals around the door could have been damaged thus letting air get inside, albeit even if just a little.
The fridge did close. Watch the scene, we here and see the fridge closing fully, it was night when he entered and the scene cuts to morning of the next day where it's daytime, so he was in the fridge overnight.
A refrigerator that is on, like the Joker's, has a fan that circulates cold air. The air comes from somewhere. A running refrigerator is not a vacuum.
There is so much wrong with this statement. First, that's not how refrigerators work. Second, asphyxiation doesn't occur in a vacuum. The mistake isn't claiming the Joker was in a vacuum.
9th Dec 2019
Elysium (2013)
Corrected entry: When Frey places her leukemia-affected daughter in the medpod at the end of the film, the machine activates and reads "regenerating atoms." There are 3 problems here: 1) You can't just "regenerate" atoms. Atoms cannot be damaged (especially not by cancer) and can only be ionised, which is definitely not damage. 2) Leukemia is a cancer of cells, and so there would be no need to regenerate the atoms if the cells were the main problem. And 3) The machine would not just regenerate the white blood cells affected by leukemia that are still in the bloodstream, as that would cause further complications with the patient. It would disperse the majority of white blood cells before attempting regeneration. Anyone who studied stem cells in high school and needed an example would know this.
Correction: It doesn't say "regenerating atoms" it said "re-atomizing." The machine basically reconstructs the body on the atomic level, totally clearing the body of any diseases including (and prioritizing) cancer. It cures all cells, bone marrow, lymphatic system. Everything.
4th Dec 2019
Home Alone 3 (1997)
Corrected entry: The spies catch the kid's chicken pox, but his father doesn't and he kissed him on the cheek.
24th Nov 2019
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
Corrected entry: If Sarah's Skynet future never happened and instead Grace's Legion future came to be, nobody could possibly know the coordinates of the T-800 to tattoo onto Grace, as it never existed in the Legion future. If Sarah's Skynet future never happened and instead Grace's Legion future came to be, nobody could possibly know the coordinates of the T-800 to tattoo onto Grace as it never existed in the Legion future.
Correction: The T-800 is from a deleted timeline, however he is still in the current timeline. If the Legion future exists in the timeline he's currently stuck in, that means he's in that timeline and would have taken steps to have his coordinates known for that future.
25th Jan 2019
Transformers: The Last Knight (2017)
Corrected entry: When Sir Edmund Burton is talking to Cade, he spots a picture from World War 2, mentioning that the bot "looks like Bumblebee." Burton then 'confirms' that it was Bumblebee. This can't be possible as Bumblebee didn't arrive on Earth, according to the Bumblebee movie, until the 80's and WW2 was finished by 1945.
Correction: The Bumblebee movie is a reboot of the franchise. It maintains some elements of the old films, but begins a new continuity.
Correction: The Bumblebee movie is NOT a reboot-and even if it was, this movie came out before they started trying to convince us it was a reboot. The more likely explanation for this is that Bumblebee had left Earth after World War II, then came back in the 1980s, as he does in Bumblebee.
21st Oct 2018
Common mistakes
Factual error: Protagonists who have been able to clear their name after being framed, but only in the process of committing several other crimes, for which they receive no punishments. The law is still the law and crimes are all separate from each other committed in that time period.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This can be true or not. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion whether to prosecute a crime of not. If you help the police solve a crime that you were originally a suspect by committing another crime, as long as that crime is not murder (it can be self-defense) the prosecutor has discretion whether to prosecute.
Plus, in the case of common mistakes, they are not working with the police to clear their name. And just because they're not murdering people doesn't mean they're not assaulting people (outside the realm of self-defense). Plus, this common mistake is especially true for police officers kicked off the case and then break all sorts of police procedures with no consequences.
The only point I am making is that prosecutors do have discretion whether to prosecute crimes. If the crime is minor AND you helped the prosecutor with other more serious crimes, they can choose to not prosecute you for the minor crimes. The OP was vague as to what kind of additional crimes they committed. If murder, then I don't see how they get away with that just because they helped solve other crimes. It would depend on what kind of other crimes the protagonist committed.
21st Oct 2018
Common mistakes
Factual error: When someone dies with their eyes open and another character can close the dead person's eyes by gently running their hand over their face. The eyes of a dead body won't stay shut that way.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is partially true. If the person is recently deceased then you can close the eyes with relative ease. If however they have been deceased long enough for rigor mortis to set in then the mistake is valid. It's a tough one to be honest.
That's not true at all. Muscles can not contract after death. Therefore, if someone tries to close the eyes of someone who is dead, the eyes will open back up to their original positions. They only way they can stay closed is if someone seals them shut, in the case after death, a wet swap may work, which is not what they commonly do in films.
22nd Oct 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: Dirt poor Arthur owns a VCR and answering machine, both of which were relatively new in the early 80s and too expensive for someone of his limited means.
Correction: This is assuming way too much. He could have gotten these in any number of ways from theft to gifts, to poor spending habits from him or his mother.
In the day the movie was made, VCRs, answering machines, two big television sets (his mom has a TV in her room too) are as little more than junk and don't disturb the narrative. But if the movie were set in 2020 and they'd watch Murray on their 82" screen in their living room and he'd doodle his thoughts on the latest iPhone, I kinda think that most people would raise an eyebrow about the tale of this family so down on their luck. Sure we don't have access to their bank statements and can't technically rule out that Arthur tripped over a big bag of cash some day on his way back from his beyond-minimal-wage job, but I think there's far more assumption in *denying* that this is strange, compared to just observing that it is entirely incoherent (given the time frame of the movie) with the premise of Arthur living a life without a single moment of happiness.
Correction: His mother did work for the Wayne's, maybe she saved up and bought it.
She worked for him in the 1950s and had drug habits and abusive boyfriends - no way she'd have saved that much money. That stuff was expensive at the time; a VCR was well over $1000 which for inflation at the time was like 3000 bucks today, and an answering machine was around $250, so about $750 today. That is without counting blank tapes, the expensive movie tapes and this is a very conservative estimation anyway, the equipment alone could have cost 50% more.
Even that guy who gave him a gun could have stolen a VCR and sold it cheap to Arthur.
16th Oct 2019
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
Corrected entry: If the events of the first film were reversed after Alan Parrish won the game and he was returned to his own time as a boy why would his shack still exist in the game?
1st Oct 2019
Shrek Forever After (2010)
Corrected entry: In the 4th Shrek film. Shrek and Gingy are talking about Fiona's curse and the curse that Shrek says (By day one way, by night another...) is different to the curse that Fiona says in the 1st film (By night one way, by day another). (00:57:00)
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.
Correction: It was the possession of whatever was in him that was causing his body to react this way. If the air had actually been pumped out of the air lock, he wouldn't have been able to speak. These were reactions to what has entered his body, which would have done to him similar to what happened to Weir.
Quantom X ★