Corrected entry: When Levi March's wife makes it clear that she will testify against him his lawyer protests that she cannot so do under spousal privilege. He should know better. Spousal privilege protects a wife from being compelled to give evidence against her husband (and vice versa). It does not prevent her from volunteering to do so, which is the case here.
Bishop73
31st Aug 2021
Law & Order (1990)
6th Sep 2021
Stargate SG-1 (1997)
Character mistake: At the end, Vala and Mitchell establish a wormhole and let Teal'c and Jackson know. Almost a minute passes before Teal'c and Jackson get back to the gate and Jackson yells "run" because they need to get through the gate right away. Obviously they're detained, but after being let go, Mitchell says they're sending the iris code now. This is something that should have been done sooner, especially after hearing gunfire, so they could be ready to go through when Teal'c and Jackson arrived.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: OR... after hearing the gunfire maybe it was smarter to wait until they verified that it was Teal'c and Jackson who prevailed. Otherwise, they risked leaving the gate open to a hostile force.
Perhaps they waited, but they still would have sent it when they saw them, which the didn't. And they've never waited like that before.
17th Jun 2020
The Incredible Hulk (1996)
Darkness and Light: Part 1 - S1-E11
Plot hole: When Hulk and Banner have been physically separated by the nutrient bath, they are both wearing tattered pants. Given that Hulk and Banner were previously occupying the same body, this should not be possible. Hulk was the one that went into the nutrient bath, so if Banner's body was separated from Hulk, then Banner should be naked.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It was done deliberately as a form of censorship. They didn't want to show Bruce's genitals.
Explaining why the mistake occurred doesn't invalidate it. Unless you're suggesting the nutrient bath also was able to duplicate the pants.
You realise a character can be drawn naked without actually showing their genitals (and/or breasts in the case of women), right? The Little Mermaid is a good example of this.
21st Feb 2019
The Predator (2018)
Continuity mistake: After the small predator kills everyone in the back of the truck he grabs a left arm that becomes a right arm. (00:37:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I agree this APPEARS to be correct, but I think it is questionable - it COULD be the left arm. The covered thumbs-up arm the Predator extended to the driver had its fingers curled toward the palm, not straight out like they were. There was a zigzag pattern on the glove's wrist, but this could be the opposite (outer) side if it also had the pattern, not the inner side. The thumb looked broken - giving the image that it might have been the right thumb, but actually the left. You MIGHT be right.
The mistake is valid, no correction needed. It's a right hand that extends through the opening and a left arm seen on the floor. A key factor is the knuckles location, so it doesn't matter if the thumb looked broken.
I watched several times and still believe it could be the left hand. The way the fingers are folded (curled) toward the palm, they look like left knuckles.
If the hand was a left hand, then you wouldn't see the knuckles.
No matter which way fingers are folded under toward the palm, there will be knuckles showing on either side. (Make a fist and see for yourself!) No further replies from me here.
27th Aug 2001
The Terminator (1984)
Corrected entry: The Terminator runs his finger down the phone book to look up the Sarah Connors. Why would a cyber with enhanced vision need to do this?
Correction: The Terminators are designed to appear and, more importantly, act, as human as possible. It would look very suspicious if he were to just open the book and pick the names out without using some means of keeping his place on the page.
I think is an overused cop out of the Terminator doing things a machine wouldn't need to do. First off, it would have to be programmed or somehow learn that's how humans look up names in a phonebook. Also, a lot of people can look up names in a phonebook without running their fingers down the page and nothing would be very suspicious if someone just opened it up and started looking for a name using just their eyes. It's done just for the audience.
Correction: He probably does not technically "need" to do this, but he also "wants" to get it right the first time (i.e, not make a mistake). The print in phone books are often quite small. So using a finger reinforces what the eyes are seeing. [The running of his finger down the page might be more for the audience to see what he is doing (looking for), but that wouldn't mean a terminator could not do it to facilitate speed and accuracy, too.].
The idea that a highly advanced machine with targeting systems, etc. needs to use its finger to help it read slightly small print which any human with 20/20 vision would have no problem with is a bit of a stretch. There's zero reason why with a futuristic CPU driving its every action it would need to validate what line it's reading with a finger. Hell, Google Lens on a smartphone can read a page of small text and accurately make the printed words machine readable, and it definitely doesn't need a finger's help to do that.
I wrote, "He probably does not technically 'need' to do this..." Need and want are two different things. Terminator 2 was more advanced. Did he need sunglasses?
It is possible that seeing so many Sarah Connors (as opposed to just the one he was looking for) caused a problem. If he was programmed to stop at Sarah Connors, using his finger enabled him to override the first and each successive one until he found the one (s) that looked most likely to be the correct Sarah Connors.
1st May 2004
Pitch Black (2000)
Corrected entry: As cool as it looks, it is impossible for a planet to have two sets of parallel rings, because rings only circle a planet's equator.
Correction: It's a sci-fi film. Anything is possible with sci-fi. I suppose getting an eyeshine and deadly creatures using sound to hunt their prey at night are impossible too? It's not supposed to be realistic. EDIT: I'm not going to engage in this conversation any further as it's starting to turn hostile. I stand by what I said 10 years ago. Good day, Gentleman.
Please don't say, "it's not supposed to be realistic." That's a cop-out. Fantasy is not supposed to be realistic. Science Fiction IS supposed to be realistic.
I agree, this is a valid mistake. The events of this movie take place in our universe, and the most fundamental laws of physics of our Universe dictate that there can not be two sets of rings around planet. It can not be explained away by saying that it is a fantasy or magic.
Science Fiction. Emphasis on "Fiction." Like I said 10 years ago, it's not possible in real life for someone to have "eyeshine" surgery like Riddick did to see in the dark, but it happened in the fictional world of this movie. A fictional planet having two sets of rings is no different.
It is very different. The inability to have eyeshine surgery in the present is a technical limitation. One hundred years ago it was impossible to fly faster than sound. We can do it now. A planet having two rings breaks a fundamental law of nature.
But this isn't nature, is it? It's a sci-fi movie that does not adhere to the laws of our world. It's not a documentary.
That is incorrect. Sci-fi adheres to the laws of nature. You're describing fantasy. Plus, planets in the galaxy and other galaxies, still adhere to laws of "our world", so it's a ridiculous statement to make.
Whether it is an error probably depends on which type of sci-fi is used. With "hard" sci-fi, the two rings are contrary to existing principles, thereby constituting an error. With "soft" sci-fi, two rings are allowed, so not an error. The movie is set in the distant future, so it is possible known principles could be revised. Sci-fi may overlap with fantasy - where do "bioraptors" fall? Soft sci-fi includes human aspects - Riddick refused then agreed to save others. The movie is SOFT SCI-FI.
24th Jan 2011
Buried (2010)
Corrected entry: When Paul is patched though to Dan with the hostage working group Dan asks Paul how much battery life is left on his phone. When Paul pulls the phone away from his head you can see the Blackberry is upside down, qwerty keyboard in his ear and screen and speaker at his mouth. When the kidnapper calls in 1 minute later the phone is instantly right side up.
This correction was made without watching the scene. After Paul checks the battery life, the keyboard is on top. He puts the phone back up to his ear and keeps talking to Dan the whole time. When Paul gets another call he checks the phone and it has now flipped so the keyboard is on the bottom. The phone has flipped instantly.
24th Aug 2009
Heat (1995)
Corrected entry: When Waingro kills the prostitute at the hotel, the girl he kills is a fair-skinned African American, but when Vincent Hanna is called out to the crime scene, the dead girl under the sheet is a darker skinned African American with braided hair, obviously not the same person. (00:54:45 - 00:58:10)
Correction: The coroner at the scene mentions there were a series of murders with the same MO, and would probably find evidence of "the same guy" in this girl. The different girls were shown to show the first girl wasn't Waingro's only victim.
Why on earth would they show a different dead girl right after the murder of this young prostitute in the hotel room? That makes no sense whatsoever. They obviously didn't bother to have continuity to the scene by showing the alive girl in the bedroom scene to be dead.
They are intentionally two different girls. Kai Soremekun is credited as "prostitute" and Rainelle Saunders is credited as "dead hooker." The scene is meant to show he's a serial killer, not a continuity mistake.
Thank you! The explanation above, about another victim being shown to show how many other victims Waingro had killed, is so ridiculously inaccurate it shouldn't have even been published. Makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.
12th Aug 2021
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Doc seemed hell-bent on destroying the DeLorean. So why did he go to the future and get a hover conversion done on the train? Why didn't he just build the train, return to his own time and then destroy the train?
Answer: He didn't return to the Old West, both of them had a desire to go to the final frontier. Their favorite author is Jules Verne, who wrote "From Earth to the Moon."
Answer: Doc was happy living in the Old West but returned to the future to collect his dog, Einstein, and he didn't want Marty to worry about him. He probably also wanted to make sure that Marty had made it safely back to his own time, to properly say goodbye, and make sure the DeLorean was never used again. He never indicated he would destroy the train, only the DeLorean. The hover conversion on the train would have been done in the Old West, not in the future.
I doubt he was able to make the train hover in the old west, whilst he could easily go to the future with it and do it there, like he did with the DeLorean. He did say he has been to the future with it, so it's logical to assume that's where he upgraded it.
Doc never says he went further into the future with the train or did the hover conversion there. If he could build a time-traveling locomotive in the 1880s, then he could create a hovering one, as he had the knowledge. Marty asks if he's going back to the future, and Doc says no because he's already been there. That could be interpreted a number of ways. It's a sci-fi movie, and there is a lot of suspension of disbelief employed here.
While the movie isn't explicit about when or where the Time Train was built, other sources do indicate its hoverconversion was done in the future. While Doc could invent a machine that was capable of time travel (the mechanics of which aren't really discussed), he had to travel to the future to convert the DeLorean and couldn't even fix the DeLorean in the past.
What 'other sources' indicate Doc travelled to the future for the hover conversion? Any fan speculation is invalid. I also don't get the argument. While Doc was unable to fix the DeLorean when Marty was in the Old West, he could, and did, in later years, build the time-travel train in the past. He could not otherwise have gone anywhere into the future to do anything. Time-travelling without the hover ability would be extremely difficult as a locomotive would be noticeable and require taking off and landing on empty train tracks. Doc would have to hide the locomotive while converting it. He would also have to know before time-travelling that the railroad tracks he took off on still existed in the future, as he could possibly arrive smashing into what became an urban development. This should be considered as both a deliberate plot hole and a plot device using "suspension of disbelief" solely intended to give the series a spectacular finale.
The comics reveal that Doc Brown traveled to 2017 in a prototype time machine and purchased materials which he brought back with him to the 1890s to use on the Time Train.
9th Feb 2012
Horrible Bosses (2011)
Corrected entry: Near the end of the movie when Jennifer Aniston closes the blinds, she isn't wearing examination gloves but when the scene goes to Dale then back to her she is wearing gloves.
Correction: Enough time goes by between shots, and she herself (since she does this for a living) could be good at getting them on and off quickly, as well as Dale recounting this in flashback. There are sufficient gaps in time to explain that.
Not enough time passes. After she closes the blinds, she's off camera for about 6 seconds, but when it cuts back to her, she's still by the door, which she had closed during that time but isn't near any gloves. Then the next time she's only off camera for about 2 seconds, but during that time has moved closer to Dale and the patient and she has gloves on.
8th Apr 2021
Common mistakes
Factual error: When a police officer finds a suspicious powder he or she puts some on his or her tongue and knows straight away what drug it is, in reality the powder would need a lab test to analyse it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not true. Generally they are tasting it to see how pure the drug is. Hard drugs are often diluted with milk sugar, so they make a bigger profit. The higher the sweet taste, the less pure the drug is.
First, law enforcement officers don't ever taste drugs, it's a good way to die if you don't know what you're ingesting. But second, the mistake isn't saying they are tasting drugs to know it's strength or purity. The mistake is explicitly about a cop tasting a drug and positively identifying what it is based on taste, which happens a lot in cop movies. Such as when the cop says "that's cocaine", not "that's half pure cocaine."
3rd Apr 2017
Beauty and the Beast (2017)
Question: I have questions about the horses in terms of their breeds. Is Gaston's horse a Friesian, Lefou's horse a Gypsy Vanner, and Belle's horse (Philippe) a Percheron?
Chosen answer: Gaston's horse was actually a Friesian cross. Incidentally, it was the same horse Luke Evans rode in "The Hobbit". Purebred Friesians were used to pull the prison wagon. Belle's horse was a Spanish horse, an Andalusian. And actually 3 different horses were used for Belle's horse, 2 of which had to be painted each day. I do believe for some of the action scenes, one of the horses was a Percheron. Lefou's horse does appear to be a Gypsy Vanner.
I don't understand why Philippe was played by Andalusian when he was Belgium draught, don't get me wrong but Andalusian are incredibly beautiful horses but Philippe identity was a Belgian draft.
Are you referring to the 1991 cartoon and asking why the change? Or are you saying in the 2017 film he is identified as a Belgium draft? There were a handful of changes made in the 2017 film that seemed to make Belle more empowered. Or the filmmakers simply may have wanted a different look. Of course, there are many mistake entries pointing out inaccurate breeds being used or named if that's what you're suggesting.
9th Jul 2021
Lucifer (2015)
Plot hole: There is a rather confusing revelation when Chloe is shown the recording Joe Fields made for his daughter to see in the event that he were to die. In the recording, Fields tells his daughter that he did not kill the cop (Chloe's father). Chloe then notices that this is true because based on the timestamp on a sign in the background of the recording, he made the video 3 minutes before her father was killed. But this would be impossible because at that point the cop in question was still alive.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That was the whole point of the episode. Joe Fields never killed Chloe's dad (officer Decker). Fields was innocent and took the fall for his murder. The time on the sign showed that Fields was too far away to have killed her dad. Her dad was in fact assassinated (arranged by Perry Smith) and not killed in a robbery attempt as previously believed.
But why would he even make a tape saying he didn't kill the cop if it hadn't even happened yet? Makes no sense. Did he go back in time?
I think you should rewatch the episode. He already agreed to take the fall for the murder. He knew the murder was going to happen. He made the tape for his daughter before he went to prison (and possibly made it before the murder as to further prove his innocent). The tape was to be given to his daughter after he died so that it wouldn't affect the deal he made.
They never made the connection that he knew the murder was going to happen, instead they went on a wild goose chase instead of going bit by bit.
But then as Bishop is saying, Joe Fields knew that the hit was going to go down. He made the video declaring his innocence so his daughter would eventually get the tape. Whether he knew that he would be exonerated is another matter. But the point remains the same. He knew that the cop was going to be killed and simply prepared for it. No mistake.
7th Aug 2021
Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020)
Plot hole: At the end, everyone was returned to their own timeline. Except for Ted's dad. He's shown still playing till the end and not disappearing like the others. However, this version of Ted's dad came from the future when he attempted to arrest his son at David Grohl's house. Therefore, he should have disappeared with the others and returned to his future timeline.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That's not what happened at the end at all. Only those whose were time-displaced returned to their own timeline. Which is why we see Kid Cudi leave, he was time-displaced and not picked up in the time machine. You can even see Ling Lun is still playing.
Incorrect. Ted's dad was time displaced as well. He never arrived by the time machine, but was sent to hell after being killed by Dennis. Therefore, he should have been sent back to his future timeline.
Ted's dad was never time-displaced, nor did I say he arrived by time-machine. He was sent to Hell in his own time line and then went with the group to 2020. Unlike Kid Cudi who was time-displaced because he popped out of his own timeline because of time and space collapsing. Just being from a different time isn't what time-displaced meant.
10th Jun 2021
Abduction (2011)
Continuity mistake: When Dr. Bennet (Sigourney Weaver) is driving with both kids escaping the hospital she gives them keys and an address and says apartment #2. When they arrive at the apartment and open the door it's #202. (00:45:06 - 00:53:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is true that "202" is on the door, but this is not necessarily an error. The first "2" refers to the apartment being on the second floor and "202" is not meant to imply that there are hundreds of apartments there. Apartment "1" would be labeled "101" to signify it is on the first floor. In her haste, Dr. Bennett simply gave an abbreviated room number but not something that Nathan would not be able to figure out when he got to the small building which obviously did not contain 202+ apartments.
Apt #202 rarely identifies it as on the 2nd floor. It commonly refers to building 2, first floor. The 2nd floor apartment in building 2 would be 222 (or even 212 depending on how many unit there are). Sometimes it could be building 7 because there are over 200 units in the complex. Even if there was just 1 apartment building, and #202 does represent the 2nd floor. What about #102, or #302, or #201?
I disagree... and "apartment" and "building" are not synonymous. Where did you get your information? Perhaps we are seeing different kinds of "structures", but (where I come from!) 100s are typically first floor and 200s are typically second floor. At hospital complexes, I typically see "building" numbers (e.g, one, two, three) as well as room or suite numbers (e.g, 101, 102 = first floor and 201, 202 = second floor). I'd need you to back up your assertion with objective data.
Then you start by backing up your correction with objective data. But even in the given scenario where #202 represents the 2nd floor because the apartment isn't a complex and has just 1 building, in what possible way does it mean apartment #2? Why isn't #102 apartment #2? Why isn't #201 apartment #2?
You challenged what I wrote, so YOU need to provide support. The "whys" you are asking may not have a specific, meaningful, or obvious answer. Why is the first house on the left side of my street 7291 and the next is 7301? I shouldn't dignify your questions, but there appeared to be TWO apartments, labeled 101 and 202. 101 is first floor, and the first apartment in the building and 202 is on the second floor and the second (of only two) apartments. I have no further comments.
23rd Feb 2016
John Wick (2014)
Other mistake: When John is talking to the club bouncer, John says that he lost weight, to which he replies (in Russian) "Twenty kilograms." The translation says "over sixty pounds," but 20 kilograms is just over 44 pounds. (00:46:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Maybe he's actually saying "Over 20 kilograms" in Russian. If you calculate the other way 60lbs is just over 27kgs.
Logically that doesn't make a lot of sense since the mistake is saying the translation says "over 60 pounds", so we have to assume by 20 he means over 27.6. Why not just just say "over 27 kg"? And you appear to just be guessing that maybe he says "over 20 kg" in Russian.
Watching it literally right now... he absolutely says "20 Killogramma".
1st Aug 2021
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993)
Question: What's the deal with the awful looking costumes in this movie? Were the costumes from the previous two no longer available?
Answer: Jim Henson's Creature Shop didn't work on the third entry, so they went with someone else.
Why would Jim Henson's Creature Shop have to specifically work on the film? There were already existing suits. Shouldn't the studio have owned the suits, or did Jim Henson's Creature Shop only provide them on a rental basis?
All Effects was the company that provided the suits for the 3rd film. They had similar technology as Jim Henson's Creature Shop but underbid Jim Henson's Creature Shop to get the job.
27th Aug 2011
The Ninth Gate (1999)
Corrected entry: Towards the beginning of the film when Dean Corso first goes to meet Boris Balkan he walks through a set of doors where Balkan is giving a speech. Corso passes a sign to his left as he opens the door. The sign mistakenly spells 'Literature' as 'Litterature'.
Correction: That is not a complete error. 'Litterature' is Literature in French. The class overseas in Europe.
Actually the lesson delivered by Boris Balkan takes place in New York (but filmed in France).
Two things; if it's meant to be French, then it's misspelled. The French word is "Littérature." Second, why would the other 3 words be in English?
4th Dec 2019
Spider-Man (1994)
Neogenic Nightmare Chapter 11: Tablet of Time - S2-E9
Factual error: When Peter is walking Alissa home, the traffic signal at the intersection they stop at goes from red to yellow to green. Not what US traffic signals do - they go straight from red to green.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not entirely true; although they are rare and may no longer exist now, I've seen traffic lights that followed the red, yellow, green pattern as recently as the mid-1990s.
Interesting. What state (s) did you see this in? I'm assuming going from red to yellow was to encourage cars to cautiously enter the intersection in case someone was running a red light?
Traffic lights in the UK do this - it's more to give you a second to get ready, in gear, etc., then as soon as the lights turn green you can go. Otherwise you get no warning of when the lights are about to change.
In Illinois; as I said, such traffic lights are rare, but they did exist at least as recently as the time this episode of the series aired, and they may still possibly exist in larger cities such as New York City.
This traffic light set-up (red to yellow to green) still exists today in the UK. From what I understand, it is to alert the driver that the light will be turning green imminently and to prepare themselves to put their car in gear, as manual cars are still pretty common in Europe. I'd wager this light cycle was phased out of North America due to the abundance of automatic cars today. Could have been different in 1994 though.
It should be noted that traffic lights that go from red to yellow before going green keep the red light illuminated so that both red and yellow are lit up. However, that's not what happens in the scene. I've never seen a traffic light operate the way it's shown. And Massachusetts still has traffic lights that go from red to yellow, however, when red and yellow are lit up together, this allows for pedestrian crossing.
17th Apr 2021
Monk (2002)
Question: Is it ever stated (in-universe or otherwise) if Natalie has a second job, or how she can afford everything, including all her new cars (I've seen her in at least 5 new cars, including an Audi)? She's always complaining she's broke, even after it's revealed she's a Davenport. But she also claims she doesn't take money from them. Plus, she's always trying to get Monk to pay her and/or pay her the full amount she's owed.
Answer: Through the entire show, I don't recall her ever mentioning another job. The two explanations I had for being able to afford those cars, was there might have been a life insurance policy after her husbands death (or Mitch left her quite a bit after he died). The other may have been she had accepted some money from her family willingly or unwillingly asked for it. But in truth, I would imagine it was for product placement in the show. Most shows like Monk tend to keep the characters moderately wealthy or financially healthy, so they can insert products or items for the characters to use. Phones, food items, cars etc.
Answer: In one of the episodes it shows her going back home and that she came from money. Her parents are wealthy. Maybe that is the answer.
But in the show after it's revealed she comes from money, she states she doesn't take money from her parents, despite still visiting them.
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: That is incorrect. In New York, the martial communications privilege is codified at CPLR §4502 (b), which states: "A husband or wife shall not be required, or, without consent of the other if living, allowed, to disclose a confidential communication made by one to the other during marriage."
LorgSkyegon
There's almost always exceptions to the rules, and the statute applies to "confidential communication." You would have to know the nature of her testimony to ascertain if the privilege will or will not protect him. (I'm not familiar with this episode, so do not know what the case is about - maybe someone could add some details about the case and nature of her testimony?).
KeyZOid
While there are exceptions, the episode didn't spend time on her testimony since Levi takes a plea. But the correction is valid because the lawyer's objection is valid, so there is no mistake. Yes, counsel would have to discuss the situation and have the judge make a decision, but the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong.
Bishop73
I might not be understanding something and/or don't have enough information to ascertain if the privilege is relevant. A spouse cannot be COMPELLED to testify about confidential communication and the husband can exert the privilege even if the wife wants to volunteer information. Beyond these basic rules, more information is needed.
KeyZOid
Actually, if we presume the lawyer was correct when he said spousal privilege applied, there is NO "factual error." The "factual error", as written, is using EXCEPTIONS to support its assertion, but there is no reason to believe exceptions are applicable. (I think I get it!). I think your wording is "off": "the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong." A lawyer would say a wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is correct. (?).
KeyZOid
You're overthinking it. You were correct when you said a wife cannot be compelled to testify... Which is why the mistake is wrong.
Bishop73
Maybe... but the last part " which is the case here" leads me to question if the person posting the error knows there was an exception because the testimony wasn't going to be about confidential information (private between spouses).
KeyZOid
Since the person posting the "factual error" did not specify what the actual case is, there is enough doubt among others to dispute the "factual error" (as presented).
KeyZOid