Factual error: A ham radio requires the person to hold down the button while talking. Numerous times in the movie they are talking without pushing the button.
Bishop73
14th Aug 2020
Frequency (2000)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is actually subtly addressed in the film. The magic which allows the radio to work across time also allows the two men to speak without pressing the button. There is a moment where Frank wonders what is going on with the radio and presses the button a few times to talk but then notices that he doesn't have to press the button to be heard.
If that was true, then it wouldn't make sense for them to continue to show Frank and John hitting the squawk bar throughout the film.
That is a separate issue. The mistake entry states that you need to hold the button to talk on a ham radio, which is true, but the magic ham radio in the film doesn't require it. If the actors continue to occasionally press the button that could be considered a character mistake but it could also simply be a force of habit by the characters.
5th Oct 2006
Mama's Family (1983)
Corrected entry: In this episode when talking to Fran, Mama states, "I used to iron with my right hand, mash potatoes with my left, with four screaming kids under me." However, Mama only had three kids on the show: Vint, Unice, and Ellen. Where did the fourth kid come from?
Correction: It's an exaggeration implying that she worked herself to the bone taking care of them as kids. (Research "Uphill Both Ways In The Snow To School" for a classic example).
It could have been Iola because she hung out at their house when she was a little girl.
The mistake isn't about her exaggerating, it's about her not knowing how many kids she had. She only had 3 kids and there's nothing to indicate she was raising someone else's kid, and the show never mentions some unnamed son out west.
She has Phillip as well? Just never in the dream sequences, which is odd to me.
Correction: She had another child, a son out west.
I don't ever remember this being said.
26th Mar 2002
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The film takes a large liberty when portraying the Titanic. The Titanic we see is complete with a huge hole in one side. The real sinking was nothing like this with small gashes made along the front of the ship, which eventually split in two. There was no large gaping hole like that made when she hit the iceberg. The Titanic was found four years before the film was made, so it was known at that time what condition the Titanic was in. (01:20:35)
Correction: It's a ghost ship, so I think we can forgive them for this, just like the ghost train in the subway scene, because it was a steam engine, which never would be in a subway tunnel like that.
This isn't a valid correction. The ghost train appearing on the subway tracks is different and had nothing to do with the way the Titanic ghost ship looked.
They are both ghost vessels, not the actual machines, it is understandable that they will look different on the etheric plane.
They aren't the actual machines sure, but there isn't any reason why a ghost ship would pick a physical appearance with severe damage that is in a different spot from the original. The explanation is not in 'the etheric plane' but in poor research (not that in a movie like this matters) or the fact that it simply is more impactful visually to show that sort of gaping hole. It is a factual error even if we understand very well why it was made - call it Deliberate Mistake if you will.
The people are the ghosts, not the ship. The ship never picked the appearance. One can assume the ghosts made the Titanic alongside themselves, from memory. Since the victims never actually saw the damage, this is what they thought it looked like.
We don't know who picked the appearance of the Titanic or the ghost train and how any of the 'supernatural' works, other than the end result is factually inaccurate. There's no reason to try to find metaphysical justifications for a clear creative liberty the art department took without giving it a second thought. Which is exactly what the original poster said; "The film takes a large liberty when portraying the Titanic."
It's just a matter of opinion whether they are allowed to take that liberty or not. If they did it intentionally, it's not a mistake.
The thing is, 99% of Factual Errors in movies are very likely to be liberties taken for convenience of the plot or better visual impact (like I said, Titanic=big hole in the hull from iceberg, the audience instantly makes that mental association and feels more real than reality). That's why as long as the observation is accurate and not strikingly obvious (such as "ghosts don't exist") I wouldn't try to read the intent in it too much.
16th Sep 2011
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Question: When the Ghostbusters went on trial, did they CHOOSE to waive their right to trial by jury and be tried by the judge? Given the obvious bias of this judge against them, if I were them, I would certainly not have waived my right to a jury trial.
Answer: Violating a restraining order is regarded as Contempt of Court, and thus is not subject to trial by jury.
But what about the other charges, willful destruction of public property, fraud, and malicious mischief? (Also, it should be noted that no-one goes to trial a day or two after they're arrested, so it seemed it was written as a bench trial just so the judge could later reverse his decision).
Louis is a tax attorney and since he got his degree in night school, it's implied that he has very little experience even being a tax attorney, let alone a criminal defense lawyer. I took it as the underlying humor in this scene being that everything went wrong, yet they still managed to save the day.
The charge that the prosecution really wants to stick them on is Ghostbusting and therefore, violating a restraining order. So that's what they're pushing for.
11th Nov 2015
Little Women (1994)
Question: When Amy is told that she cannot go to the opera with Meg and Jo, Beth tells Amy, "Evangeline and I will make you some ginger tea." The cook/maid's name is listed as Hannah in the cast credits, and she is referred to by the name of Hannah a few times in the movie. Who is Evangeline?
Chosen answer: Evangeline is their cat.
Answer: The cat is named Evangeline. She's holding her while she says that line.
So the cat named Evangeline is going to make tea for Amy?
Not literally. She was just humanizing her cat. It's something people do, just like how you can buy greeting cards "from the cat" or "from the dog."
Beth was trying to be funny by saying the cat would help make the tea.
15th Jul 2008
Frasier (1993)
Match Game - S11-E18
Corrected entry: The younger girl that Frasier goes on a date with has to be 20 years old or younger, since she mentions that cops took a fake ID from her (she wouldn't need a fake one if she were 21). Isn't it unlikely that someone that age would have been able to pay the $10,000 fee for Charlotte's dating service?
Correction: As Guy said, Charlottle was finding random women for dates. Also, it is not impossible that a twenty-year-old would have $10,000. Inheritance, lawsuit settlement, lottery ticket, large gift from a family member, a savings account that a parent once opened for her (which she might be able to access now because she is past the age of eighteen), etc.
13th Mar 2020
Wall-E (2008)
Character mistake: Captain McCrea tells the passengers that it's the 700th anniversary of the Axiom's first flight. The Axiom has been in flight for 255,642 days. Actually, 700 years is 255,675 days. That figure includes the additional day in 175 leap years.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Leap years only occur because of the earth's rotation around the sun. As the AXIOM is in space, there is no need to correct for the earth's rotation.
First, rotation is the spin of the Earth (which cause day and night). Revolution is the earth orbiting the sun (which causes years). However, this correction is not valid on the premise you're trying to present. Many films set in space still use Earth time, so a day is 24-hours, even though they're in space and there is no sunrise and sunset (although it's stated the Axiom operates on a 25-hour day). So they would use Earth's year, which takes 365.256 days. Since the Axiom isn't orbiting the Sun, it wouldn't experience a year, so they're using something else. The fact that they're slightly off suggests it's a writing mistake and there's no evidence they use an arbitrary 365.203 day year.
14th Aug 2020
Robinson Crusoe On Mars (1964)
Question: Was Robinson Crusoe On Mars scientifically plausible when it was made in 1964? Aged eight, I watched this movie on release. Even then I knew it was a movie, not a scientific documentary. Nevertheless, I understand that it was once seriously believed there were canals on the surface of Mars. (I even had a children's pictorial encyclopaedia which showed Mars criss-crossed by canals.) After crash-landing on Mars astronaut Kit Draper (Paul Mantee) discovers that the Martian canals were made by intelligent, technologically advanced beings millennia ago. Could anybody in the scientific community have believed this in 1964? Kit Draper discovers ways of creating oxygen, so he does not suffocate; he then finds water sources, vegetation he can eat and a coal like rock that burns to make fires. He witnesses extra-terrestrial aliens visiting Mars in space ships. Was this, by any stretch of the imagination, regarded as even remotely credible in 1964? Or was it pure Hollywood hokum?
Answer: This is pure Hollywood fiction, never meant to be science-based fact, and was typical of sci-fi films of that era such as: War of the Worlds, Invaders From Mars, The Martian Chronicles, and others. Many were based on early-to-mid-20th century science-fiction novels when little was scientifically known about any of the planets. Authors imagined what Mars was like purely to entertain readers. After the 1960s, as more was scientifically known about Mars, films became more realistic, although the 2012 Disney film, "John Carter," was a deliberate throwback to that earlier genre. Also, scientists never believed that there were canals on Mars. In the 1870s, Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli was mapping Mars through a telescope. He described the long, trench-like geographical features as "canali," (Italian for channels). American astronomer Percival Lowell misinterpreted this as "canals" and believed they were of intelligent origin, though other scientists debunked that. Sci-fi writers of the time (H.G. Wells, Edgar Rice Boroughs, et al) incorporated Lowell's published theories into their stories.
It should be noted "John Carter" is based on the 1912 novel "A Princess of Mars."
29th Nov 2003
The Simpsons (1989)
Lisa's Pony - S3-E8
Corrected entry: When Homer falls asleep in the car, he hits the dashboard with his fist, and the airbag pops out. If you watch in slow motion though, he doesn't hit anything at all. (00:19:30)
28th Jul 2020
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Visible crew/equipment: While the T-1000 drives the trailer, in front of him the camera crew is visible on a pick up truck.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Entry not specific enough.
How is this not specific enough?
For one, there's more than one chase scene involving a truck in this movie. This entry doesn't specify which one. Nor does he specify if we see the camera crew itself or simply a reflection of the crew on the vehicle.
I think he is referring to a truck seen just before the Freightliner runs the stop sign and hits the brown and dark blue cars. The "camera" truck though looks like it has trash cans in the back, not a film crew, at least nothing that I can see in the 1080p version to indicate it is a film crew. The reverse shot of the collision if from a fixed position camera close to the cars so wasn't shot from a truck, so again no evidence this is a film crew truck.
17th Sep 2015
Von Ryan's Express (1965)
Factual error: Sergeant Bostick tells Colonel Ryan he is from the 113th Armored Division. The U.S. Army never had a 113th Armored Division in WW2.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Is this actually an error? I believe the British Regiment who feature in this film are The Ninth Fusiliers. Well, there never has been a Ninth Fusiliers in the British army, either! For that matter, there never was a Colonel Joseph L Ryan, or a Major Eric Fincham, or a Major Battaglia. While this film is set in the Second World War, it is openly admitted that it is a wholly fictional story. Some Second World War films (A Bridge Too Far; The Longest Day; The Battle Of the Bulge) were made to recreate historical events, and so refer to soldiers and military units who existed. Other Second World War films like this one (Sahara, Escape To Victory, Ice Cold In Alex) while referencing actual events, and, showing sequences of events that are not beyond probability, are still stories. Since this is a fictional, imagined story, is it acceptable for soldiers to serve with fictional regiments or imaginary fighting units?
While some fictional accounts can be taken for granted and not counted as errors (even films based on true stories can have fictional characters), there are limits when setting films in the past. To have a 113th Armored Division is a valid mistake as the highest number in WWII was the 20th Armored Division, unlike Infantry Divisions that went into the 100's. This could almost be the same as giving a character an 8 or 11 number phone number.
The anonymous drive by hit and run "contributor" (not referring to you, Bishop73) may not have seen another post I made about Sgt. Bostick wearing a 4th Armored Division patch on his uniform: he says he is from the 113th A.D. (which never existed) but wears the 4th A.D. patch, which did exist in WW2, but did not see service until France in 1944.
16th Nov 2018
The X-Files (1993)
Hell Money - S3-E19
Question: At The End of the episode, why did Detective Chao place himself in the incinerator?
Answer: He didn't place himself there voluntarily. He mysteriously vanished from the hospital and awoke to find himself inside the incinerator. It appears this was punishment for his exposing that the lottery was rigged.
But, as a detective, it was his job to expose the rigging.
Chao didn't expose the rigged lottery as part of his job as a detective. He was already involved in the game and working for those in charge. He was paid to keep the game a secret from foreigners and his blood was found in Lo's apartment, meaning he was the mysterious figure that tells Lo he must pay. But despite Chao's involvement, he wanted the game to end. To me, it seems he smashed the vase out of anger, not because he knew it was rigged and was trying expose that fact. But regardless, that's what he seems to be punished for.
Thanks. It was really confusing.
30th Nov 2015
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 (2015)
Factual error: When Katniss approaches the gate to President Snow's mansion, just after the massacre of civilians in the large plaza, she sees her sister attending to wounded and runs toward her. There is a fiery explosion and Katniss is thrown onto her back and we see that radiant heat from the blast has caused the front of her coat to burst into flames. Flash burns are a common injury following an explosion, but Katniss has not a mark on her face, and not a trace of redness then, or shortly afterward when she is treated in a dispensary.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As is made clear in the book, the fire never touches Katniss' face.
22nd Aug 2013
Family Guy (1999)
Question: At the trial, Carter's lawyer asks Brian the star of two films he rented - Brian replies "Pauly Shore" and everyone seems shocked. Is there supposed to be a joke behind this? If so, what does this joke mean?
Chosen answer: They were shocked that anyone would rent movies starring him - he is a bad actor.
And what's the connection of that making him a bad dad?
It's just a joke that someone who would make such a bad decision in renting movies couldn't be responsible for making good decisions in raising a kid.
29th Jul 2020
The Nun (2018)
Question: At the beginning, what was the old nun trying to do with the cross key in the dark room with the door that says "God ends here"?
Answer: The nun was trying to find the relic. The deceased nuns had no actual idea where it was. That's the whole reason Irene was summoned by the Vatican because she had visions about "Mary pointing the way" also the "ghost nuns" more than likely have something to do with her clairvoyance as well.
Answer: Are you talking about before she opens the door? She's just making the sign of the cross, but using the same hand she's holding the key in.
I'm asking about what she was going to do in the dark room, what her plan was, what the cross key was for.
It was to open the chamber that kept the vial of the blood of Christ so they could try to send Valak back to Hell.
The gateway to the relic was near the state of Mary, and it wasn't located inside the chamber seeing that Burke and Irene found the relic before crossing the passage leading to the chamber with the sign "God ends here." If there's someone who must have known where the relic was, it has to be the abbess. Then, why didn't she take it if she was going to?
From everything I understood, the cross key opened the chamber that had the blood of Christ. The room with the sign "God ends here" was not the chamber I was speaking about. I was only addressing the question about what the key was for.
16th Jan 2009
Carry On Cowboy (1966)
Audio problem: When we see the can-can dancers perform on-stage, the music is played by a full band including brass and drums, despite the fact that there's only a pianist on-stage. (00:22:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This error is not unique to Carry On Cowboy. It seems that in very many western movies (and TV shows) there might be a scene in a saloon, in which a singer or some dancers are performing on a stage. In nearly all such occasions they seem to be accompanied by a full orchestra which is nowhere to be seen.
This is not a valid correction. To say the error exist in other films does not invalidate this error.
Sorry, I think I got that wrong. I was not trying to invalidate the error, far from it! What I meant to say was that I agree that this is quite an obvious error in Carry On Cowboy, and that this also seems to be a common, and rather amusing, error in many other western films as well.
Unfortunately at this time, valid mistake entries are not subject to forum discussion where one agrees or discusses the mistake. Just give the mistake a thumbs up if you agree with it.
5th Oct 2015
Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins... (1985)
Other mistake: At the carnival, the duo is told by the carny that they get seven rings for a dollar, but the only get five.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The carny never says anything about how many rings a player gets. He only tells them the way to win, by getting a ring on a bottle.
When he's leaning up against the poke he says "Here we are folks. Seven hoops for a dollar."
I stand corrected. I just rewatched the scene. He does in fact say seven for a dollar. Interestingly, it's clear he hands Chun five rings, but when the rings are shown on the bottle, SIX are shown.
21st Feb 2005
A Cinderella Story (2004)
Corrected entry: At the very end of scene two the camera zones out so you can see the whole neighborhood. The Montgomerys' neighbor's lawn (to the left) is very brown. In one of the last scenes when Fiona is being chased by the police men, you get a quick glimpse of the lawn and it is very green.
Correction: The neighbors lawn is brown in the beginning of the film because they are in the middle of a drought. the drought is over by the end of the movie when Fiona is being chased by the police men, which is why the lawn would appear to be greener.
The mistake is valid. Yes, they are in a drought, but the amount of rain seen wouldn't change the grass from dead and brown back to living and green so quickly. It's clear the initial overhead shot was edited to look like the lawns were brown and Fiona's was extra green. But in real life, the neighborhood had regular green lawns that weren't edited or changed to brown for this scene.
22nd Feb 2017
Psycho II (1983)
Question: Who was doing the killings before Norman finally snapped?
Chosen answer: The murderer is Emma Spool, Norman's biological mother. She was killing people because she didn't want anybody harming Norman.
Emma was not Norman's biological mother. She was the sister of Norma (and Norman's aunt) and jealous that Mr. Bates chose Norma over her and thought Norman should have been the son she and Mr. Bates were suppose to have. Later, while still mentally ill, she believed Norman was her son and told Norman this.
Emma Spool was, in fact, Norman's biological mother. It was revealed at the end of the movie that she is his real mother and Norma Bates is her sister who adopted Norman and raised him While Emma was institutionalized.
Again, that was just Emma being delusional and/or lying. Tracy Venable tells Norman the truth in Psycho III. Emma was never his mother.
I never knew Emma Spool was Norman's biological mother. In fact, I never heard of Emma Spool. Thanks.
4th Aug 2010
Hancock (2008)
Continuity mistake: In the scene when Mary visits Hancock for the first time at his house, she arrives from the air and crashes down on the ground, after a discussion inside they both walk outside together and Mary is shown getting into a car. In the next shot shown from above the house the car has disappeared and they both fly into the air.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: No, we see her drive up in the car, not fly in. But you are right that when we see them take off the car is missing.
You must have seen a different version of the movie I saw her land there, it's on Netflix.
You're right. I just saw the version on Netflix and she flies in, while the version from disc I have shows her drive up with a minute of dialog between them next to the car that is not in the Netflix version. I find it very surprising that there are two versions with that major of a difference.
An extended cut was released on DVD and Blu-Ray which has a couple extra scenes as well as modified scenes (including Mary driving to Hancock's). Netflix would have shown the theatrical cut version. (Or if I had to venture a guess, the UK release version as Netflix has a tendency to use those versions for some reason).
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.