Corrected entry: Spoiler; Ajak and 'the true villain' are the only ones who know the true nature of the mission and the fact that the Earth will cease to exist in 7 days. None of her fellow Eternals would know where to find her or suspect that she's dead or that anything is wrong, but the villain makes them find her body on purpose to provide a distraction to keep them busy investigating her death. Provide a 'distraction' to someone who is completely unsuspecting (and actively lead them) is pure nonsense.
Bishop73
15th Nov 2021
Eternals (2021)
27th Jun 2010
Bloodsport (1988)
Factual error: Chong Li's South Korean emblem on his headband is upside down before breaking the ice blocks. And you can see his trainer has the emblem on sideways on his arm.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Someone wearing a headband, that they can't even see since its on their head, upside down doesn't qualify as a mistake and happens all the time.
While it's possible to happen, generally speaking, upside down flags or flag symbols are considered valid mistakes. Just like the patch wouldn't be sewn on sideways.
12th Jan 2022
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Trivia: Not sure if it was done on purpose, but when Tony and Happy are sparring and "Natalie" (Natasha) walks in, the song playing is "Magnificent Seven" by The Clash. It just so happens the Avengers (or the Avengers Initiative) are made up of Iron Man, Black Widow, Hulk, Thor, Captain America,, Hawkeye, and Black Panther.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't really think this constitutes trivia. I don't see the connection. Is there some significance to the lyrics I'm not realizing? Or are you suggesting that there are only seven Avengers in the MCU? Because if so, that's not really true at all. (It's not even true in the Avengers comics, which frequently shifts characters around.) Especially as when this film came out, Black Panther wouldn't be introduced for another six years. Plus that completely ignores characters like Ant-Man, Wasp, Doctor Strange, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Scarlet Witch, War Machine, Falcon, Vision, Captain Marvel and Spider-Man, who join the team at various points during the franchise. I think this trivia is stretching at best, and trying to create significance where there is none.
Which is why I wasn't sure if it was done one purpose, or if it seems significant. However, when Fury and Tony are talking at the end and you see markers on the map, there's one in Africa where Wakanda is, suggesting Black Panther was part of the Avengers Initiative, whereas the others weren't.
10th Jan 2022
The Cockleshell Heroes (1955)
Factual error: The German soldiers arrive at the dockside in what are American Jeeps.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: 64,000 vehicles were abandoned by the Allies during the Dunkirk evacuation. Of these, 2000 were put into service by the Germans. Doubtless there were a few jeeps in there somewhere.
America wasn't involve in the Dunkirk evacuation and the jeep wasn't produced until 1941, so where would they have come from?
The raid depicted in the film took place in December 1942. By that stage over 5,000 jeeps had been supplied to the Soviet Army, hundreds of which were captured by the invading Germans during Operation Barbarossa, which commenced in June 1941.
7th May 2010
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Corrected entry: During the scene when Hammer is about to lock Whiplash in the white room before going to the expo, in some shot Whiplash has his jacket unzipped showing his white vest underneath but in two shots his jacket is zipped up to his neck.
Correction: In between shots he had plenty of time to zip up his jacket.
In the scene the jacket goes from slightly unzipped to more unzipped to fully zipped up and back to unzipped and then back to zipped up. While he could have been zipping it up and unzipping it and zipping back up off-screen, it's unreasonable to think he was doing that and not a valid correction given he stays in the same position, isn't seen fiddling with the zipper when on screen, and we don't hear anything. In the context of the film and the spirit of the site, it's a valid mistake.
The mistake is about 1 shot. You can add a new mistake talking about the whole sequence if you want. I would be careful though, the jacket itself could simply be moving as well, without the zipper moving. At one point showing a lot of white shirt, in the next a lot less, simply by movement of the jacket. Only in the very last shot is the zipper actually up, which is the shot the mistake was about.
24th Jul 2010
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Question: How can Tony get from Malibu to Queens in 40 minutes? How fast can the suit fly?
Answer: While no upper limit on the suit's flight speed has been given, the first movie establishes that the Mark III suit was capable of supersonic velocities. With the new suit demonstrating a much higher power output that the original, as stated during the climactic battle sequence, it's reasonable to assume that Tony is capable of reaching the sort of speeds necessary to make the journey in the time available. The distance from Malibu, California to Queens, New York City is 2477 miles. This distance would require a speed of 3715 mph to cover in 40 minutes. That speed equates to Mach 5.007. The current record speed for a rocket powered manned vehicle was set by the North American X-15 at a speed of 4,519 in 1967. It would be safe to assume that a weapons manufacturer could design a flight system capable of those speeds.
10th Nov 2004
SpongeBob SquarePants (1999)
Jellyfish Hunters / The Fry Cook Games - S2-E16
Question: In "Jellyfish Hunters", when Mr. Krabs keeps saying "More" to Spongebob to get more jellyfish, there are several pictures of Mr. Krabs saying this. There is one quite disturbing picture of what looks like a mutated and rotten Mr. Krabs. Can anyone please explain what it's supposed to mean, or is it just some random joke?
Answer: More likely a random joke. Commonly in Spongebob they use awful looking pictures of the characters as a joke usually about their appearance. In one episode Mr Krabs talks about how Squidward and Spongebob are some of the finest crew mates he's ever had and then you see them looking horribly dressed, with almost mutated faces and nothing close to impressive as Krabs states. The entire show is primarily made up of visual jokes like these.
Answer: I have a better answer. This image is known as an internet meme, something [either a phrase of any actions] that are popular all over the internet.
The image became an internet meme AFTER the episode aired. It's not fan art or a meme that was subsequently used in the show, so the question of what is the reference or joke has nothing to do with it being a meme.
7th Sep 2021
Bewitched (1964)
I'd Rather Twitch Than Fight - S3-E10
Question: Darren was angry at Samantha for getting rid of his favorite coat so, why was he even angrier when he got it back?
Answer: Larry had been telling Darrin what it means psychologically that Samantha gave the coat away. Larry said giving it away meant she's happy being married but if she liked the coat it means she desires to be single and carefree. So when Darrin sees the coat, he immediately thinks Samantha doesn't want to be married and the fact that she twitched it means (in his mind) she wants to be a single, carefree witch again.
Answer: I haven't seen the episode, but generally in the show, Darrin was always suspicious that Samantha always used some kind of witchcraft for any situation (even if she didn't). He probably figured the same thing with the coat while in her possession.
You should watch the episodes in question before giving an answer so you know what you're talking about.
25th Jun 2018
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
Continuity mistake: When Claire and Franklin are in the rolling sphere, the door closes and locks. In the next shot, it closes and locks again. (00:43:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is incorrect. It shows the door closing twice because it is showing both the third person (camera behind Owen) and the first person (Claire's POV) of the door closing. It was deliberately showing what was happening from different perspectives.
This correction is wrong because it doesn't show different perspectives (which films do at times). In the first shot, the door fully closes before Owen gets to the sphere and before he raises his arms. In the next shot, Owen raises his hands before the door closes and is touching the sphere right as the door closes.
Perhaps your version was out of sync when you watched it. It was definitely just two shots from different angles, if you're watching in UHD on a big enough screen you can even see the camera that catches Owen's reaction.
8th Mar 2016
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Continuity mistake: At the start when Andy opens a bottle of alcohol, he drinks it with the same hand he opened it with. His hand is shifted after the second time we see him take a drink. (00:03:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Watch carefully he takes the cap off and palms it in his right hand and as he does, so he lowers his hand and grabs the glass bottle to have a drink.
While the mistake isn't very clear, this mistake seems to be about the second time we see him take a drink, after the cut. After he says it's inconvenient the gun was never found, he's seen lifting the bottle by the neck, then the next shot, he's holding it further down.
17th May 2005
Closer (2004)
Continuity mistake: When Daniel is just about to leave Larry's office at the end of the film, Daniel is facing away from the door. In the next shot he is facing the other way. (01:25:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: No he's not.
27th Oct 2017
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Character mistake: When Ronnie is cutting the article about Roy's encounter out of the newspaper, the title of the article begins with "UFO's...", the apostrophe making it possessive. It correctly should have been "UFOs...", with no apostrophe making it plural as intended.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You are incorrect. The article is actually correct. It is used as a contraction, not a possessive. http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/apostrophe.html.
It's not a contraction. A plural acronym is simply "s" added to the acronym. An apostrophe never indicates plurality.
Suggested correction: There is no standard on how to pluralize initialisms or acronyms and either way is acceptable, depending on a person's preference. An apostrophe does not automatically make something possessive, such as using apostrophes in contractions to replace missing letters.
Nope. In contractions joining two words, apostrophes only replace vowels (typically the letter "o," such as in "hasn't" or "wouldn't" or "isn't," and most obviously with "it's" replacing the letter "i" in "it is"). In this case, the acronym "UFOs" stands for "Unidentified Flying Objects," and there is no vowel to replace between the "t" and the "s" (in fact, an apostrophe wouldn't replace any letter at all). So, the contraction argument is invalid. Using an apostrophe for "UFO's" makes the acronym singular possessive (such as in "The UFO's movements were erratic").
It seems you missed the point of my comment. What you're stating is an opinion on how to pluralize initialisms and acronyms. While many lean towards just adding an "s", many real life publications back in the 70's did in fact use and "apostrophe s" for initialisms and acronyms. (Notice how 70's isn't possessive or a contraction. But many prefer using "70s.").
"Many publications" were wrong (especially in the late 1970s) and followed poor literary and journalistic standards. No, it's not a "matter of opinion"; throwing in apostrophes where they are not appropriate is a matter of poor education in the English language.
The question is not whether using the apostrophe is "correct" or "appropriate." It's whether it was used by publications in the '70s. It was, therefore it is not a mistake.
You should be more educated when stating opinions then, because it wasn't about being wrong. It was about no set standard. For example "The Chicago Manual of Style" would recommend UFOs while "The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage" would recommend UFO's. Of course, both would recommend using the apostrophe when making single letters plural "A's" or p's and q's."
The New York Times manual of style is predictably bogus. I'm a professor of Journalism (Southwest Texas State University 1979 to 1987). I know what is proper.
18th Jul 2017
The Railway Man (2013)
Character mistake: On the train at the beginning of the movie, Colin Firth is talking to Nicole Kidman about Warrington. He states that George Formby was from Warrington and not from Wigan or Formby as people believe. George Formby was born in Wigan.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He was born in Warrington.
Formby is buried in Warrington, but he was born in Wigan.
29th Dec 2020
A Very Brady Christmas (1988)
Trivia: All the original main cast members were in this movie except Susan Olsen ("Cindy"). Jennifer Runyon took her place. Two possible reasons that Susan/Cindy didn't participate: filming conflicted with her honeymoon to Jamaica and she was offered less money than the other cast members.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: According to all sources, it was just the first answer (the honeymoon reason). No confirmation anywhere about being paid less.
You should do some actual research before correcting people so you know what you're talking about. Olsen herself said in a 1993 interview about why she wasn't in the movie. "It came down to money and bad politics. I was asking for way less than the two other girls wanted, but they still wouldn't give it to me." Plumb and McCormick even tried to get Olsen paid a fair amount, but the show's creators wouldn't budge and started a look for a look-alike.
Yeah, right... it is never about the money.
26th Nov 2021
Titanic (1997)
Question: Pardon me for asking a "what if" question, but this confuses me: what did Rose intend to do *before* the ship sunk? She had changed her mind about Jack, choosing him instead of Cal. However, she and her mother needed the security from Cal. They were in debt. Jack was poor. If Rose married Jack, Cal and his family would be offended by the broken engagement. They would not help Rose's mother. Would Rose just marry Jack and abandon her financially-burdened mother in New York?
Answer: Rose was strong-minded and determined but was thinking "in the moment" and had no real plan or idea about what to do if she'd left with Jack, had he survived. It's unknown if they would have stayed together and married. Rose had only told Jack she was going with him. At some point she might reconnect with her mother. Cal Hoxley probably would be so humiliated by Rose deserting him for a penniless artist, that he would have hushed it up and invented some story about the broken engagement. He likely had already paid off the DeWitt Bukater debts to clean-up any lingering complications or embarrassments before marrying Rose. He probably would also have made some minimal financial arrangement for Ruth, not from compassion but for appearances sake. As we saw, Rose faired quite well on her own once she did escape Cal and her mother.
Answer: Due to historical times, the "love birds" may have lucked out (had they survived). They would not have known WWI would start in 1914 (two years after the Titanic sank), but they would have hoped that their financial situation improved. Women were needed in the labor force.
Answer: That was her plan, assuming she would have been able to follow through with it. This would have left her mother high and dry, but that didn't seem to be a very big concern for her. However, in reality, between Cal, Lovejoy, and Ruth, Rose would find it very hard to even see Jack, much less marry him, if the Titanic had made it to New York in one piece. Women had very few legal rights in 1912, so once the marriage was performed, Cal could pretty much keep her imprisoned, for all intents and purposes, and Jack could do nothing about it, even if he wasn't a penniless vagrant...which he was.
Your last statement about Cal pretty much being able to keep Rose imprisoned has no factual basis. Women still had many legal rights, and while some states had more liberal divorce laws, by 1915, 1 in 7 marriages ended in divorce. By the 1920's, it had risen to 15%. Not to mention that in 1917, New York had given women full suffrage.
"Imprisonment" might be too strong of a word to use, but cultural norms at the time (such as those regarding marriage, the role of the wife/ homemaker, and divorce - taboo) didn't give women much freedom. Divorce statistics are notoriously inaccurate and, depending on the method used to calculate the number, percent, or rate, different figures are derived. Instead of 15%, the RATE of divorce (per 1000 PEOPLE) was 1.7 in the 1920s. Women's suffrage is hardly an indication of freedom, rights, or equality. [Just think how "effective" the 14th Amendment (1868) was in granting equal legal and civil rights.].
Regardless of any restrictions on "married" women, Rose was not yet wed to Cal. They were only engaged, and he had no legal right to impose anything on her at that point. If Rose wanted to walk off the ship with Jack, there was nothing Cal or her mother could legally do to stop her. If they tried to interfere, Rose could have the ship's officers or the White Star Line's personnel intervene.
30th Jun 2004
Romy and Michele's High School Reunion (1997)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Heather says that she invented cigarette paper that burns faster, she humiliates Michele by saying that she didn't invent Post-Its, Art Fry did. The true inventor of Post-Its was Dr. Spence Silver in 1968.
Correction: Art Fry did invent the Post-It Note, Spence Silver merely invented the adhesive on the back.
Since a Post-It Note without the adhesive is just a small piece of paper, Silver deserves the credit.
They're considered co-founders, however Silver accidentally created an adhesive that stuck lightly to surfaces and didn't bond to its surface. Fry had the idea how to use the adhesive and invented Post-it Notes.
8th Jun 2020
Olympus Has Fallen (2013)
Question: As the Cerberus codes have been entered, with the time limit set prior to the missile's destruction, how did Jang expect to leave the country within what I assume was the 5 minute time limit and not feel the fallout from the nuclear missiles, or be killed or at least full of radiation, and also, why take the president then?
Answer: Kang wanted the USA to suffer famine and be a 3rd world country. His plan was to get in, set off all the warheads and plunge the USA into the dark ages. During one of the exchanges between Kang and Mike, Kang says "I just want the USA to experience poverty and famine." So he had no plans to survive his mission. He needed the president to gain the 3rd code incase it couldn't be broken by the hacker. He faked the presidents death to give himself more time with the president.
Answer: My best guess is they went in knowing it was a suicide mission.
That suggested answer doesn't make any sense. Jang idea was to capture the code to start a war presumably between N &S Korea. There is no indication that Jang's computer whiz had the ability crack the code, or was even trying, and that sounds unlikely. I think the whole story line went off the tracks at that point and they were trying to wrap up the shooting. Pretty shaky in my opinion. Just a movie with some good stars and and a lot of stuff got blown-up and the good guys won.
Answer: The Washington monument is destroyed in one scene and in a later scene, it is fully erect.
This isn't an answer, this seems to be a mistake entry.
16th Jan 2009
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Stupidity: When Riker and Worf are searching for Geordi on the holodeck, why don't they just terminate the program, instead of looking for him in the simulated jungle? Would have made it a heck of a lot easier to find him in the relatively small empty holodeck, invisible or not.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Geordi had already mutated and since one of the abilities of the mutation is invisibility, shutting off the holodeck wouldn't have helped as, without being able to see Geordi, it would be impossible to know where or if he was still in the holodeck.
The original stupidity still holds though. As the original poster said, it would be easier to find Geordi in the smaller holodeck, without the simulated jungle, "invisible or not."
No, it wouldn't. Before going to the holodeck, the computer was asked where Geordi was with the response he was no longer on board. This would indicate that any type of scanner would not be able to find him. Plus, how would shutting off the holodeck help? Geordi was now invisible, being invisible would have no shadow and shortly after Worf and Riker had even got to the holodeck, a partially mutated Geordi had already got to the transporter room and beamed himself down to the planet.
I have to agree. How would shutting down the holodeck be useful in finding Geordi since he was now invisible and the scanners on the Enterprise couldn't detect him?
Because of how the Holodeck works, turning off the program would leave him in a small room and standing on the floor, so they could at least try to physically sweep the room. Leaving the program running, he's still invisible, but now a physical sweep would be nearly impossible since he could be in trees above them or hiding below them and not on the same ground level.
20th Dec 2001
The Last Boy Scout (1991)
Continuity mistake: When Wayans and Willis are chasing the limo on the freeway, Wayans draws a picture of a bomb to hold up to the guys in the limo. He draws a large circle with about 6 lines coming out of it with the word "BOM" underneath it. When he holds the picture up at the window, there is only 1 line radiating from the circle. (01:20:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The same drawing is used, the top is slightly cropped but the lines are still visible.
It's not the same picture. In the scene (not screenshot), the top isn't cropped and you see there're fewer lines, and the circle is different. Not only that, but we see in the car "BOM" is written differently than what we see when it's against the window. Also, when he first draws the bomb, the holes in the paper are on the left, but against the window they're on the right. One could argue he flipped the page over to start again, but we already know the final drawing is different.
21st Apr 2014
Reba (2001)
Corrected entry: In the previous episode Location, Location, Location Kyra says that she wants to move in with Brock and Barbra Jean after he tells her he will try and make it up to her for her losing her trip. But in this episode, the rehash makes it appear that she asks to move in, by adding the line "Dad, there's something I have to tell you." This was never in the other episode at all, and does not make sense considering that Brock offered to make it up to her.
Correction: She does ask to move in. This entry makes no sense.
I think you missed the point of the mistake. The beginning dialog of this episode is suppose to be the ending dialog of the previous episode. But in this episode she says "Dad, there's something I have to tell you" instead of "I already thought of a way" (in response to her dad saying he'll find a way to make it up to her).
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: He explains this plainly. He knows that when the earth is being destroyed they would go to Ajak for help, Since she is dead however they will know something is wrong and will investigate the emergence. But if it was a Deviant, they will be distracted killing them to not know about the emergence before it is too late. At least, that is what he had hoped.
lionhead
"When the others realise something is happening to the Earth, they'll come to you. When they find your body, they'll know the Deviants are back. It'll keep them busy during the Emergence." It makes absolutely no sense. During the movie, none of them cares about what is happening to the planet. There's no such sense of urgency. He does all that to "keep busy" people who never met in centuries and never interfered to any world-threatening phenomenon.None of them knows about the Emergence.If they didn't find her at home, they wouldn't even know she was dead and that would have only delayed them further. He needs to stall them just for a couple days, not years.
Sammo ★
He also said he suspected that Ajak would change her mind and betray Arishem. If he hasn't killed her, she would have tried to recruit the others to stop the Emergence. The Deviants had already escaped the ice, he just lured them together to kill Ajak. His plan kind of went sideways since the group was to find her dead and seek out the Deviants, but the Deviants already attacked them. Plus, had Sersi not learned their true mission, they would be too busy to stop the Emergence.
Bishop73
Killing Ajak is the logical part. Hauling her body across the continent so the others will find it is the absurd part. Why having killed the only person who was a threat to his plan would he build a murder mystery about it? He had already won. If they didn't find Ajak at home, assuming they'd bother to go there to begin with, they would have waited for her, at most looked for her presumably in vain, and wasted time. Why stir anything?
Sammo ★
He stirs to keep them distracted, hoping they would not investigate the earthquakes for one thing, and then the sudden giant volcano for another. He knows they are attached to the Earth and it's people, would try to safe them. He tried to convince them it were the Deviants, not something else. Unfortunately for him, Sersi became their leader, whilst he expected it to be him.
lionhead
Even if they would figure out on their own that 'something was happening' (and they didn't), they didn't have the faintest idea about the dormant Celestial business. Deviants are literally the only thing that would bring them together and back to action (not even that, Gil just butchers one and does not give a damn). Ikaris states matter-of-factly that he needed to do things and certain stuff would happen only because he needs to make the movie happen. They were all 'busy' already, leading their boring lives, and they had completely insufficient data to react, especially if he didn't spoon-feed them that it was something connected to them to begin with.
Sammo ★
The Deviants did come back, after dormant in the ice. That's what brings them together, that's why Ikarus killed Ajak, that's why he needed to distract them from her death. It's not that difficult to understand. You're just not seeing the connection.
lionhead
I am simply not seeing connections that don't exist. The Deviants are not "why" he killed Ajak at all; he kills her because she wants to stop the Emergence. The Deviants are just a distraction (which is a misleading term, for the reasons I underlined in the original post, but let's go with that). They are a weak colony stranded in Alaska and unable to do any substantial damage that got free a week before; It will be Ajak's power that causes them to be able to be on the radar again and changes their target from humans to Eternals (which is something they never did before and he couldn't have anticipated).
Sammo ★
I didn't say he killed Ajak because of the deviants. He killed Ajak because the deviants would cause the Eternals to come together again, they will come to Ajak (or she to them) and she will tell them about the emergence. So, he kills Ajak but once they encounter the Deviants again and Ajak is missing, they will start to investigate and perhaps find out about the emergence. So, he puts her body to be found, so they will focus on the deviants. Alright?
lionhead
No, the others wouldn't come to Ajak (or vice versa, she didn't even know about them) because of the Deviants. The Deviants aren't back, there's just half a dozen harmless leftovers that got thawed out and that he 'feeds' (it's never said or implied that he knew that they'd become stronger and Eternal-murders, too). The others may go ask Ajak for an opinion because of the strange earthquake - and you never see a sense of urgency in this movie. This guy goes out of his way to ring a giant alarm bell, so he can tell a fake story to people who haven't been in touch in ages and may have some mild curiosity about something that does not involve them as far as they know, since they don't know about Emergence or any of that stuff.
Sammo ★