Trivia: The "MiG-28s" in the movie are actually all Northrop F-5E Tiger II's, an American plane used for training and sold to other countries. In reality, there is no MiG-28.
Bishop73
26th Aug 2003
Top Gun (1986)
10th Dec 2015
Home Alone (1990)
Continuity mistake: When Kevin goes outside the first time and sees the cars in the garage, the light isn't on. When it shows the garage again in the next shot, the light is on. (00:20:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The light could be motion activated. Either Kevin's movement or passing vehicles could have turned it on, regardless of the time of day. I have motion detector lights in my carport and they constantly go on and off in the daytime if it's low-light and cars pass by fast enough. People walking their dogs can also activate it if they are close enough. They sometimes stay on until I have to manually turn the power off, then on again.
That would explain it only if the light came on when Kevin "activated" it. It stays off during the first scene, and he doesn't make any motion towards the garage when the camera is on him. Nor do we see any vehicles or people pass behind him.
How likely is it that this movie - taken in 1990 - had access to the developed technology that we have today, to make automatic lights turn on?
Infrared motion sensors were around in the 80s.
3rd Jan 2009
Yes Man (2008)
Corrected entry: When Carl arrives at his apartment, it says "Allen" (his second name) on the door. However, when he comes out of his apartment later on in the movie, just as his neighbour asks to put up some shelves, the sign is gone.
Correction: This is because his mate moves in and starts living there too.
When his neighbor asks for help with the shelf, he's living alone.
23rd Sep 2018
Frasier (1993)
Corrected entry: At the cafe, the employee says that Niles' credit card was declined at the register because "cancelled by order of co-signatory." A co-signatory shouldn't be able to cancel the card without the other person.
Correction: It depends on state laws and the credit card company. A co-signor is just as liable for any accumulated debts and fees on the card, they just don't have purchasing rights. However, usually a co-signor can't just take his or her name off the account, the account has to be closed.
Are there cash registers that will reveal that a cosigner cancelled? I've been a cashier at a few places, the register always says "declined" or "insufficient funds."
I remember in the 80's and 90's instead of a card being listed as declined, the cashier (or whoever was charging the card) was instructed to call an 800-number for verification, etc. I never had to call, but certainly more information could be given over the phone.
11th Mar 2013
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
Corrected entry: In the grave yard scene. It doesn't seem possible for a virus contracted through bodily fluids (blood, saliva) to get 6 feet down into sealed coffins, infect a half decomposed corpse filled to the eyeballs with formaldehyde and methanol (typically), and make a zombie that could break out of its casket and dig up six feet with naught but bare hands, a seemingly impossible task for even the fittest, healthiest and craziest human.
Correction: This is the explanation given on IMDB: This occurrence is explained in the first film where the Red Queen (Michaela Dicker) reveals that the T-virus goes from the transition process of liquid to gas in a matter of hours. The virus was vented out through the ground after Umbrella reopened (The Hive was located under Raccoon City). As for them being able to break out of their casket, lots of zombie movies do that.
The brain liquefies when we die unless a there's a preservative. The cells are dead as well. I don't understand how a virus infects a dead cell.
Regardless of the transmission method or movie explanation, it's standard zombie lore that when the dead turn into zombies, they have minimal brain function and motor control, despite it being impossible in real life. The virus basically has supernatural powers, which isn't a valid movie mistake.
23rd Jan 2011
Sid and Nancy (1986)
Corrected entry: When Sid is being interrogated about Nancy's murder, a detective asks him "Did you call 911?" The 911 emergency number wasn't implemented in New York until 1984.
Correction: 911 became the national emergency number for the US in 1968.
Regardless of the year 911 was implemented, it was not widely used until the 1990s. It was a phase in process which took decades to complete. By 1978 only a small percentage of the US was serviced by 911.
The correction is correct and valid. The scene takes place in NYC, so it doesn't matter how wide spread in the US 9-1-1 was or wasn't at the time. In 1970, NYC was already receiving 19,000 9-1-1 calls daily, and increasing each year thereafter. Plus, the fact that people in the UK knew about 9-1-1 in 1986 negates the idea that "911 wasn't widely used until the 1990's."
6th Dec 2020
Constantine (2005)
Corrected entry: When Angela is watching the security video on her laptop of her sister committing suicide, her Sister "Izzy" is saying "Constantine." Near to zero probability that a security video is recording audio, especially on the rooftop of a clinic.
1st Dec 2020
Django Unchained (2012)
Stupidity: So he can rescue his wife from slavery, Django comes up with a plan to buy Candie's most expensive fighter and then get him to throw her in for free. Why doesn't Django just offer to buy her directly? Surely there was some amount that Candie would agree to. Even racists like money.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You missed the point of the plan. They knew if they went in asking to buy Broomhilda directly, Candie would set the price too high. They feigned interested in his best fighter and would get him to throw in Django's wife at a nominal price. They would then just pay the nominal price for Broomhilda and back out of buying the fighter. It's only when Candie is told Django and Broomhilda know each other did he raise the price for her.
Yes, Candie, not Candle. Stupid typo on my part. I disagree with the correction though in the sense of why would Candie raise the price before knowing that Broomhilda was Django's wife? You yourself said in your correction that he only did so when he found this out. They could still have offered to buy her initially.
Because if they didn't feign interest in buying a fighter, Candie wouldn't have even invited them to his place. So the plan was to get him to throw her in for free, rather than risk him setting the price too high (or not even negotiating at all). Candie even figured out what their plan was.
15th Mar 2020
Countdown (2019)
Character mistake: When they're making the protection circle they make a star of David and not a pentagram, 6 points in a star vs 5 points.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I don't think there was anything in the movie that dictated a pentagram had to be used. In the book of protection rituals they were using, the particular ritual showed a picture of the star of David they needed to create, so that's what they used (plus salt).
To add to the correction, what the mistake refers to as "Star of David" is a hexagram and the use of hexagrams in the occult are not uncommon. You can find salt protection circles that use the hexagram.
11th May 2017
What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993)
Factual error: In the grocery store where Gilbert works, loaves of Mrs. Baird's bread are seen on the shelves; Mrs. Baird's is a Texas-based bakery whose products would not be available as far away as Iowa.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You are right - the product should not be on the shelves of a store in a state that does not receive the product. I was just questioning your assertion that distance from Texas is a determining factor - states further away (e.g, Oregon, California. Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania) do sell Mrs. Baird's bread. I wasn't familiar with this brand, but I found out it is sold locally in Pennsylvania. When I was on-line, I also found out that Allen Baird, 97, recently died of COVID-19.
I'm curious what cities/stores sell Mrs. Baird's breads in PA (or OR, CA, MA).
You can go on-line, like I did. I just did a search for Mrs. Baird's bread, and that website is set up to enable you to look for locations where it is sold - by state and/or zip code.
Sorry... I didn't want to reveal the city I'm in... but I can at least tell you the bread is sold at a Walmart store.
I specifically looked on their website and no PA stores popped up, not even Walmart. Of course, the mistake is still valid since this was 27 years ago and in Iowa.
My point exactly; this mistake merely gave away the fact that this film was made in Texas rather than Iowa where it was set. Since "Errors In Geography" is not a separate category here as it is on IMDb, I submitted it as a factual error; while I'm unaware whether Mrs. Baird's products are available now in Iowa, I know that wasn't the case in the early 90s when this film was made and released.
If it's not incorporated into the plot, generally these mistakes should be considered "revealing" mistakes, it's revealing it's not really filmed where it's set.
I just searched again, and Mrs. Baird's bread is also sold at Target and Sam's Club. I was surprised to see there is a "Bimbo Bakery" less than 12 miles away. I wasn't familiar with this brand, and now I suspect the products were recently made available; I surely would have noticed the products or the bakery before now. If I Google "Where can I buy Mrs. Baird's bread?" a map showing local stores comes up. But if I go to mrsbairds.com and put my zip code under "store locater", "no stores available in this zip code" shows up.
In California, it can be found at any grocery store that sells Bimbo products. Specifically, Ralph's, Albertson's, Von's, Walmart, Smart and Final, Aldi, Superior Grocers and Jon's.
It should be noted that Bimbo Bakeries didn't buy Mrs. Baird's until 1998. But is this because you've bought it in CA or because you used google and have no personal knowledge? My aunt and Grandparents have never heard of Mrs Baird's and they've lived in CA their whole lives.
26th Nov 2020
Casino (1995)
Factual error: About a half hour into the movie, Nicky goes into the sports book to collect. There is a cigarette machine behind him and the price of a pack of cigarettes is marked $2.50 In the 70's a pack of cigarettes was more like one dollar. (00:33:04 - 00:33:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not only were vending machine prices for cigarettes higher to begin with, they simply jacked the prices up because they could. Think about how much a soda costs at a movie theater or airport.
I remember buying cigarettes out of a machine in the 80's - never needed more than 4 quarters.
There was a news report from 1988 still available online where a small pack of cigarettes from a vending machine was $3.50 (14 quarters). You must have found a super cheap machine selling very small packs and you weren't buying them in a betting parlor.
There is a huge difference between early 70's and 88.
That wasn't the point of my comment. Whoever said they never paid more than $1 in the 80's isn't remembering right or fibbing (which is why I didn't include it in my correction). The correction is still valid because the cigarettes weren't being sold in stores. Just like one time I had to paid almost $10 for a "$5 footlong" at an airport Subway or $3 for a vending machine soda at a theater when they were $1 at every other vending machine.
23rd Jun 2008
Employee of the Month (2006)
Corrected entry: When Semi is showing the security footage of the competition, he places the VHS tape into a VCR that is sitting in the podium behind Semi. When he fast forwards and rewinds, the remote he is using is pointing at the TV and away from the VCR. At the very least, the remote needs to be aimed towards the VCR if not directly at it.
Correction: This is really a character mistake- Semi points the remote towards the screen rather than the VCR because he is stupid. The infra-red beam however does NOT, as you say, have to point directly at the VCR- it can bounce off walls and other surfaces. Since the VCR was (pretty much) behind Semi the IR beam just bounced from the screen and was picked up by the VCR.
The VCR wasn't in line of sight of a "bounced off IR beam." It was under the lectern and they're standing to the side of it.
11th Sep 2007
Employee of the Month (2006)
Corrected entry: Throughout the movie, the big prize was referred to as a 2005 Newish Chevy Malibu. However, the car that they had on display in the store could not have been newer than 2003, since Chevy redesigned the Malibu in 2004.
Correction: That's why they referred to it as new"ish". In 2005, when the movie was doing principal shooting, a 2003 or older model would still be considered new"ish", like possibly leftover stock from 2003. I bought a brand "new" motorcycle in 2007. It is actually a 2006 model, built in late 2005. I could have registered it as a 2006, or 2007 due to the purchase date. I call it newish as well, even though it had less than 2 kilometers on it when I bought it.
The mistake is correct. It was a 2003 model, not a 2005. Saying "newish" just meant that it had been used and not that it was "left over stock." Glen just thought the employees would be more motivated winning a "newish car" instead of a "used car."
18th Nov 2020
The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear (1991)
Question: During the scene when Frank and Jane are making a clay pot, what caused the potter's wheel to go berserk and splatter them with clay? (00:50:18)
Answer: The foot pedal controls the speed of the wheel. Frank puts his foot on top of Jane's foot and pushes the pedal down all the way. The rapid acceleration and the fact they took their hands off the clay caused it to go everywhere.
Wouldn't that hurt Jane as Frank's foot is applying pressure to hers while pressing down on the pedal?
Not really, you can see his foot gently presses on top of hers, and both their feet cause the pedal to slope towards the floor, which would decrease the amount of pressure Frank's foot applies to Jane's. On top of that, different people have different pain thresholds.
This is not exactly related to the question asked, but part of the scene that I could never really figure out. It showed that Jane made something in the shape of a square out of a piece of clay. What did she make and how could she have made it in only seconds with her eyes closed? I also don't quite understand how the clay could've possibly gotten to where she obtained it to begin with (asking in a way of abiding by the guidelines).
The scene cuts to them shaping clay without showing any of the set up. So we don't see how it got to that point, so she didn't do it in a second with her eyes closed. It's just a parody of the scene from "Ghost." In real life, using a clay wheel makes shaping clay faster, although it takes practice. If you put your hand, or a tool, on top and press down, you create a hole (which we aren't shown). It looks like Jane is just making a vase.
I really apologize, but I was referring to after the vase was inadvertently destroyed. It was after Frank apparently had a bodybuilder's physique (which was an obvious body double joke). Then it showed Jane making something out of clay in such a short time with her eyes closed. So sorry about that. Thank you for the reply.
The fact she made it so quickly was a gag, but she makes an ashtray. I would say the joke about that is people will often smoke after sex (or there's a perceived joke they do). It seems the clay comes off Frank's body, like it was there when the clay went everywhere.
Thank you very much. Yes, I never could get that part of the joke no matter how many times I have watched it. Thanks again for the help.
Answer: It wouldn't take a lot of pressure to operate the pedal, probably less than a car's accelerator.
29th Jun 2020
The Crown (2016)
Factual error: During the intro, the pilot is talking to a British Air Traffic Controller (ATC) as he's lining up his aircraft for landing at Benson (RAF Airport) in South Oxfordshire, England. The pilot reports "We're passing through flight level one-seven, for 2,500." Flight Level (FL) one-seven is 1,700 feet. In English (no pun intended), the pilot is saying he is passing through altitude 1,700 feet to his desired altitude of 2,500 feet. This may make sense if they were increasing their altitude, but since the pilot is preparing to land, it doesn't. (00:00:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Flight level 1 7 refers to 17000 feet.
Flight Levels are in increments of hundred feet, not thousand feet. FL one-seven is 17 hundred feet (1,700). 17,000 feet would be FL one-seven-zero.
20th Aug 2009
La Bamba (1987)
Corrected entry: The bulletin of the plane crash announces J.P. Richardson (The Big Bopper) as being 29 at the time of his death. He was actually 28, and he would have turned 29 in October of that year, had he lived.
Correction: That's a common occurrence in real life. When a person has a birthday late in the year, like me, people usually take the year it is, minus the year of birth, and say that's the person's age, not taking into account being born in the autumn or winter. For example, 2009 - 1969 = 40, so most people would just assume the person born in 1969 is 40, not 39 about to turn 40.
It's not that common to do (and even less common at the start of the year in Jan or Feb). When people are discussing someone's age, especially famous people and their deaths, they say what their age actually is and not what age they would have been. For example, Chadwick Boseman is said to have died when he was 43, despite being 3 months from turning 44.
11th Jul 2017
Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
Corrected entry: The Staten Island Ferry is shown transporting motor vehicles on its lower level; this hasn't been done since the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Correction: Trying to claim a factual error two describe difference with the MCU and real life seems like a stretch. Just because in real life the ferry doesn't transport cars like that doesn't mean that service couldn't have resumed in the MCU version of New York. If this is a "factual error" as far as the film is concerned, then it is also a "factual error" to have Stark Tower in the middle of New York (it doesn't really exist), and it's a "factual error" to have alien technology drive the plot since the Battle of New York never actually happened in real life. And you might as well say it's a "factual error" every time a fictional character shows up on screen since they don't exist in real life. In other words, it's part of the story this movie is telling. Or, to put another way, had they had filmed a scene in which someone says "we reinstated the car transportation ferry, " would it still be a factual error simply because it's a fictional digression from the real world?
Despite being a very wordy correction, pretty much everything you said is wrong. Fictional places and people can exist in films set in the real word without it being a factual error. Real world places, people, historical events, etc. can also exist in fictional films, but anything that is factually wrong is a valid mistake (unless something in the film suggested otherwise, which in this case it didn't).
27th Aug 2005
Hard Day's Night (1964)
Continuity mistake: Watch the clock on a wall. Six minutes of the movie go by but that clock hasn't moved one minute. (00:39:50 - 00:46:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The clock could be broken.
This is pure speculation, not a valid correction.
While it's possible the correction was done without viewing the scene/movie, a clock not moving (or showing the wrong time) isn't a valid mistake unless the same clock is shown working in the scene. The original mistake does not indicate the clock is working or that the time changes.
6th Jan 2004
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Question: At the very end of the movie after Dorothy says "Oh, Auntie Em, there's no place like home," normally, it fades out to the credits, but once - and only once - when I was very young, I thought I remembered seeing the camera pan away from her face and down to the foot of the bed where you see the ruby slippers tucked underneath the bed, then a fade to the credits. It is obviously a black-and-white shot, but there were the glittering shoes. Has anyone else seen this version of the ending?
Answer: Another fine example of the Mandela Effect. None of the "making of" books reference this alternate ending. The original book ends with Dorothy losing the slippers on her journey back to Kansas.
I also remember this scene; however, I remember it in a television movie, and it was at the beginning, not the end, of an entirely different movie.
Chosen answer: Yes. I'm sure I've seen that version. It shows that Dorothy didn't just dream about Oz and makes for a more satisfying conclusion. This version was original but edited out because it didn't follow the book's storyline for "Return to Oz" and the other long series of Oz books. The sequel pertains that she loses the slippers in transit back to her home and falls to the gnome king who destroys Oz which in turn causes Dorothy to return. So seeing the slippers at the end of the bed, while more satisfying, wouldn't really stay true to the Oz series.
I absolutely remember that version with the shoes at her bedside, but nobody I know remembers it.
Thank you! I remember that too but everyone I know thinks I'm nuts.
I remember that version and after that I expected to see the same ending but no I never saw that ending again. I got the response that no-one I know saw that ending of the movie where the ruby slippers being on her feet in her bed. Thank you for that answer. This was a long time mystery.
I absolutely remember that scene.
I remember that too - and I've asked so many people and they said no, I must have dreamed it. Thank you.
I saw that version once when I was a little kid too! I remember it vividly. Now I know I'm not crazy.
Answer: This seems to be one of those mass examples of people remembering something that never happened. There are also other variations, like people claiming to remember the film switching to color as the shot pans down to her slipper-clad feet, or the slippers being in color against the sepia-toned B&W footage. But sadly, it seems no officially released version of the film has had such an ending. It's similar to how everyone thinks Darth Vader says "Luke, I am your father," or how everyone thinks Humphrey Bogart says "Play it again, Sam!", even though neither of those lines are real, and people are merely incorrectly remembering them. The film is so ingrained in pop-culture, that people think they know it forwards-and-back, and false memories are created.
I agree that people think they remember things that never happened, but usually for things like this, remembering a scene wrong misquoting a movie lines, it comes from parody versions and people are (correctly) remembering the parody. I've never seen "Silence of the Lambs", but I know the line "Hello, Clarice" from films like "Cable Guy" and not from a false memory of the film.
Answer: https://criticsrant.com/mythbusters-dorothys-ruby-slippers/ This website gives some confirmation it's one of those myths that spread around and get mixed up in people's memories to being convinced they have seen it despite no evidence of it existing. In a film as big as the Wizard of Oz where die hard fans have collected original scripts, notes, and "lost" imagery over the years; we certainly would have something to back this up other than eye witness memory. Especially if it supposedly made it to the final print for viewing audiences as the original Wizard of Oz footage has been carefully preserved, as it's considered one of the most important films of all time. This footage wouldn't be completely lost if it made it to final showing print. Surely somebody would have posted it by now on YouTube. It is possible somebody made a skit or parody of this though contributing to the idea that it was actually in a print of the real movie.
Answer: I remember this being part of a special that was hosted by Angela Lansbury in 1990 and they showed that this ending was considered for the movie. For many years I couldn't remember why I remembered that ending and Angela Lansbury until I looked it up. I wish that it had been left like that. Kids always want their dreams to come true.
Answer: I and a friend of mine remember seeing the ruby slippers under Dorthy's bed at the end of the movie. Glad to know we didn't imagine it.
27th Aug 2001
The Untouchables (1987)
Factual error: The film shows government agent Eliot Ness throwing Al Capone's right-hand man, gangster Frank Nitti, to his death from the roof of the Chicago courthouse in 1929. It never happened. Frank Nitti died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 1943.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The movie was not meant to be exactly like real events. The movie was loosely based on the events (aka "inspired by actual events"). There are a lot of differences between the movie and the real events, these were done on purpose, to make an exciting movie.
That's a lame excuse. There are lots of opportunities to embellish on the truth when dealing with a historic topic. The station scene with the baby is an excellent example of that. But, you can't go changing the relationships of main characters or the time and methods of their deaths. Especially ones so well documented like Capone and Nitti. Why even bother using real names? The character they called "Nitti" was just a completely made up character. Nothing about him resembled the actual Nitti. Nitti wasn't skinny and he didn't wear white suits. He wasn't a loner, often scene hanging with his crew. Nitti was an exceptionally short man with a Chaplinesque moustache. Always jovial for the cameras.
It's simply your opinion that it's a "lame" excuse. The fact is the film is highly fictionalized. It's not a documentary, it's a drama. They combine and eliminate characters, give them different names and characteristics, and show events that never happened. These are not mistakes, they're known as creative license. They would only be mistakes if they film claimed everything in the film was true and accurate to history.
While calling something a "lame excuse" isn't acceptable, the mistake is still valid. The film isn't set in an alternate timeline, so historical inaccuracies regarding real life people are considered valid mistakes. Artistic license extends to adding things that could have happened that didn't impact historical events for dramatic purposes (love interests, made up characters, etc). Historical inaccuracies regarding real life figures would be the same as pointing out anachronisms in a film set in the past, like have a car from the 40's in a film set in the 30's. And just because a screenwriter or film maker wants to change facts to make the film more exciting doesn't mean the mistake is no longer valid.
Might as well toss the whole movie with your logic. Ness was never an active agent and never had any contact with Al Capone. Like already stated, this isn't a documentary, so expect some creative license.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Suggested correction: It could be argued that in the alternate reality of Top Gun the fictional "MiG-28" was an improved reverse-engineered F-5 (VPAF gave the Soviets access to ex-VNAF F-5:s for evaluation after the fall of Saigon) explaining their similarity.
This isn't a valid correction for a trivia entry. There is no mistake being suggested, just letting viewers with limited plane experience know MiG-28 isn't a real plane.
Bishop73