Question: Doc is quite a resourceful and clever guy. Why didn't he set to work on repairing the flying circuits which would have enabled them to use Mr Fusion to reach 88mph, instead of the engine?
Bishop73
12th Mar 2020
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
19th Aug 2019
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Back in 1885 why doesn't Doc change the letter he sent to Marty, asking him to bring a can of gas?
Answer: When Marty received the letter from Doc in 1955, as seen in the second movie, Doc wrote down that he didn't want Marty to go to 1885 to rescue him because he was happy living in the past. Instead, he wanted Marty to take the Delorean straight back to 1985 and then destroy it so it could never be used for personal gain again.
But once Marty appears in the past Doc could easily change the letter, changing things such that Marty would bring gas with him.
Answer: This would create a different timeline, not the timeline they are in.
Answer: That would not be possible as in 1885, Doc sent the letter on September 1st, and 1955 Doc sent Marty to 1885 on September 2nd so it was a day later and on the 1st, Doc was not expecting Marty to turn up. However, one CAN ask why Marty and Doc didn't go to the local Western Union office and change it (or write a new one) there since it was in their possession per the gentleman in part 2.
Changing the letter while Marty is in 1885 with Doc would accomplish nothing, because it doesn't it instantly travel to the future. Marty at the end of Part II, for his part, may receive the letter almost immediately, but the letter itself had to wait 70 years to be delivered to him.
I mean, there's no solid rules to time traveling, but just for argument's sake it seems like the letter idea could work... in the franchise, when something is set in motion, the effects usually take place immediately. Take for instance when George and Lorraine kissed at the dance in Part 1. The picture of Marty and his siblings went right back to normal, even though the kids had not been born yet. Doc and Marty changing the Western Union letter "could" have had an immediate effect and a gas can could have materialized in the Delorean, much like we've seen newspaper headlines change before our very eyes, disappearing gravestones, etc.
In your examples, the changes occur to future events. The items that changes, like the picture and newspaper, are from the future themselves. They can't change the past by changing events in the future (like they do in Bill and Ted's). This is why Doc and Marty couldn't go back to 2015 to stop old Biff from taking the DeLorean.
18th Feb 2006
Are We There Yet? (2005)
Continuity mistake: When Kevin gives the cookie to the deer, the deer eats the cookie, but in the next side shot, the deer eats the cookie again.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not a mistake as the next shot went to Lindsey, then back to the deer, in which Kevin seemed to be giving him another cookie.
The mistake is valid, the camera only cuts to Lindsey for a second and Nick is the one that had the bag of cookies. Not enough time for Nick to get another cookie out and hand it to Kevin so he could feed it to the deer. Plus, Kevin and Nick are in the same position.
8th Jun 2020
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Question: Why do so many people consider this movie to be anti-semitic? There have been many movies made about Jesus' life but, no-one says anything about them being as such.
Answer: Professor John T. Pawlikowski wrote a paper explaining in more detail about why he and others thought the script was heavily anti-Semitic ("Christian Anti-Semitism: Past History, Present Challenges Reflections in Light of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ") In part, the story line presented, Jesus being pursued by an evil cabal of Jews, has been previously rejected by the Vatican and other mainstream Christian churches. And some took offense to the way the film portrayed "evil" Jews compared to "good" Jews. Others felt that the film falsified some of the history. On top of that, many found the film to be too violent which left them "spiritually drained" compared to other films of depicting the passion of Christ that left audiences uplifted. Those that felt the film was anti-Semitic felt that the violence portrayed would fuel hatred towards the Jewish people.
Not to mention the fact that Mel Gibson has his own anti-Semitic rants in real life and many felt the film's message must reflect Gibson's personal rants.
27th Aug 2001
A Bridge Too Far (1977)
Factual error: There is a close-up of a parachutist's boot as he leaves the aircraft. It is a DMS boot. DMS boots were not issued to the army until much, much later. Late sixties, early seventies as I recall.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Expecting 1970's paratroopers to wear 1940's boots is hardly an error. There were no 1944 issued boots for the 200 odd para's to wear! Anyway I used to jump with non issued Corcoran jump boots instead of issued Army boots.
An attempt to correct this was already made. In this type of film, it is a very valid mistake, just as if cars from the 60's or 70's were seen in the film. Even if the viewer doesn't expect characters not to wear era appropriate attire, it still a mistake, which is the point of this whole website.
24th Nov 2017
Legends of Tomorrow (2016)
Character mistake: When the Legends are talking about Chicago in the 20's, during prohibition, Nate says there was "illegal drinking." But prohibition didn't make drinking alcohol illegal. It was only the production, importation, transportation, or sale of alcohol that was illegal. As a historian, Nate would know this and not make that statement.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The term "Illegal drinking" is actually in reference to people going to locations that were selling alcohol illegally to drink it, hence it is illegal drinking.
That still would not be illegal drinking.
30th May 2020
Rocky Balboa (2006)
Other mistake: Prior to the fight, it showed the champ at 33-0 with 30 KOs, but they stated pre-fight that he has never been the distance in any of his fights.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Only the ref can stop a fight. If a cornerman throws in the towel, that won't stop the fight unless the ref decides it does indeed need to be stop. When the ref stops a fight early, that's recorded as a KO for the winner's ring record.
25th Nov 2002
The Rookie (2002)
Corrected entry: In the game at the end, there is a shot of the scoreboard. If you look closely, you will see that the numbers on the scoreboard don't add up right.
Correction: The numbers on the scoreboard don't add up right, showing the Rangers scoring two runs in the first, two in the second, and one in the fifth, for a total of eight runs. But the bottom of the sixth, which was still active at the time of the shot of the scoreboard, (it's also the inning Jim Morris gets into the game) yielded three runs, which was included in the eight totals runs column but not yet in the inning-by-inning columns.
Correction: When I paused the movie on the scoreboard, Tampa Bay scored once in the 2nd and four in the 3rd. The Rangers scored once in the 1st and three in the 3rd. The announcer says "Rangers 3, Devil Rays 1 here in the bottom of the sixth." The scoreboard also shows its only the 3rd inning when the announcer says it's the 6th.
Correction: The Rangers were actually up 6-1 with two outs in the seventh. They won game by the same score.
The problem is the scoreboard shows Rangers up 8-1 at the bottom of the 8th, even though the runs only add up to 5-1. And when we're told it's the 6th inning, long shots of the field, the scoreboard shows its still the 3rd inning.
18th Aug 2013
The Natural (1984)
Other mistake: In Roy Hobbs' last at bat of the movie he takes the 1st pitch for a called strike (confirmed by closed captioning). The 2nd pitch is called a ball. The Pittsburgh manager then decides to change pitchers with the count at 1-1. The relief pitcher's 1st pitch is fouled into the press box making the count 1 ball and 2 strikes. The 2nd pitch from the relief pitcher is swung on and missed, and should be strike 3. Hobbs stays in the box and hits a long fly ball foul and hits a HR on the next pitch. Roy Hobbs should have struck out. (02:06:20 - 02:12:05)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Like most umpire calls, the ump's wording of "Ball" on the first pitch isn't obvious until you hear the difference in the first "Strike" call. The count was not 1 and 1 when they brought in the new pitcher, it was 2 and 0.
If the umpire called the first pitch a ball then why does the closed captioning say strike?
Mistake in captioning and also by the announcer. If you look at the ball as it passes Roy, it is head high and the catcher has to reach to his left to catch the ball. Clearly, Levinson called for the pitch to be a ball. Ball one.
It's not a mistake in captioning because after the Umpire calls it a Strike, you can hear the announcer say "Strike One", it's low because of the crowd noise but he says it. It's even in the Director's Cut, then magically on the next pitch the count changes and the announcer says "Ball Two"
You can also hear the radio announcer say strike.
The man calling the game over the radio said it was a strike. However, the pitch was up at eye level and a ball. The ump sounds like he's saying "ball" and the Pirates' coach looks upset at the pitcher, which seems fitting for a pitched ball.
The closed captioning always gets words wrong! Always! Gotta watch that. That being said I'm here bc I thought he had 4 as well.
The mistake seems valid. It does look like the ump says strike on the first pitch. The announcer even says "strike one" and then goes on to talk about how Hobbs has already struck out twice, so this has nothing to do with subtitles. Watching this on Netflix you can tell the word "ball" has been dubbed over the word strike on the first pitch. In the book, Hobbs strikes out on his final at-bat. It seems like the film makers were going to have him strike out, which a strike on a 1-2 count after the foul would have done, but decided to change it (maybe the ending tested poorly with audiences). Rather than reshoot the whole thing, they just dubbed over the ump to make it a 2-1 count.
Makes more sense that the manager would pull the pitcher on 2-0 count vs 1-1.
The announcer also said it was a strike.
Closed captioning gets it wrong sometimes. I notice it a lot.
The closed caption not only has the umpire calling a strike, but also has the commentary saying "strike one."
Suggested correction: When the pitcher is changed, the count is 2-0.
That is not correct. It's 1-1.
28th May 2020
Crush Crush
Character mistake: In the phone call from Nova, there is one branch of the conversation that starts with the protagonist asking "Shouldn't you have used this call to contact a lawyer or something?" But the protagonist IS a lawyer (amongst many other things).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Even lawyers will almost always hire another lawyer to do criminal defense.
This correction doesn't make sense. Nova is not a lawyer, the player (whom Nova is calling) IS a lawyer. The player isn't saying something like "why are you calling a lawyer", or "shouldn't you have called a criminal defense lawyer." Nova called a lawyer and the lawyer's response was "why didn't you call a lawyer."
20th May 2020
M*A*S*H (1972)
Baby, It's Cold Outside - S7-E9
Factual error: As Hawkeye performs CPR on the hypothermic soldier, he pumps his arms from his ellbows. CPR is done by keeping the arms stiff and pumping with the whole upper body. Hawkeye as a surgeon would know that. Fun Fact: You can perform CPR one-handed in a pinch, but only as long as you keep your arms stiff.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: True, but doing CPR the real way is going to likely seriously injure the actor it is being performed upon.
Explaining why mistakes occur does not invalidate them.
Chest compressions can definitely be performed by pumping from the elbow, one or two handed. The first documented use was in 1891, so Hawkeye would be aware of it. However, modern CPR standards, including straight arm procedures, were not developed until at least 1960 by the American Heart Association. Using straight arms and bending at the hips uses the larger muscle groups of the core and legs, which provides more control, as well as stamina. This is not an error for the Korean War era.
Additionally, what Lorg said - you don't want to hurt the actor, you can see his shoulders rise as his arms straighten, giving the illusion of compressions. There is another episode where Hawkeye is performing chest compressions similarly, and yells at the unconscious patient that his arms are getting tired, which is what would happen with bent elbow compressions, and one of the reasons modern technique uses straight arms.
15th May 2020
Top Gun (1986)
Corrected entry: The call of "going ballistic" is totally wrong. Calling "we're going ballistic" is a warning call to all other aircraft that you have no control of your airplane and it's only being controlled by the laws of physics (diving, turning etc) and not the pilot.
Correction: While you are correct technically, I don't believe Goose was referring to the technical use of the phrase/term. He was using it as a indication of excitement. "My daughter went ballistic when she saw the new puppy."
The fact that you point out the mistake is correct isn't a good way to open a correction. Plus, there's no indication he's expressing "sudden excitement." On top of that, even if he did intend to say "we're excited", it would still be a character mistake to use a specific phrase that has a specific meaning out of context like you're suggesting.
I did not point out of the "mistake" is correct at all. I pointed out that what the poster stated is true (to my knowledge) about what going ballistic means in the technical flying a plane sense. However, this is not how Goose is using it. He was absolutely expressing excitement. Maverick states that they are going vertical. Goose replies "We're going ballistic Mav, go get'em." He is not saying it to alert other craft (thus the call out specifically to Mav). This was a phrase used a lot in the 80's, but not much anymore. "Dad is going to go ballistic when he finds out", or "She is going to go ballistic when we get to Disney." It expresses anger, excitement, craziness. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/go%20ballistic.
The NATO Brevity Code manual (google it), specifically mentions "going ballistic" as a the term to be used once you have lost control of your aircraft, a warning to others. It's a term that was adopted *after* the movie for expressing excitement.
When the couples are all together at the restaurant/bar (01:01:45), Carole tells Maverick, "He told me all about the time you went ballistic with Penny Benjamin" (the Admiral's daughter). So considering his wife, Carole, uses this specific slang expression it's believable that Goose also uses the slang in this way despite its "technical" use. During the earlier training mission (00:31:55), when Goose reacted to Maverick going vertical after Jester goes vertical, Goose, perhaps inappropriately, casually used the term only while speaking directly to Maverick, so if this is to be listed as any kind of mistake it would be a character mistake. This movie was released mid 1986, and excitedly "going ballistic" (just like "going bananas") was indeed used prior to this movie's release.
Yet, they are not losing control of the aircraft in that scene, and he is not warning other aircraft since it's not happening AMD he is only talking to Maverick (the pilot who would be well aware if they were ballistic). I don't know exactly when the term hit the main stream as a term of excitement but it's pretty clear to me that he is saying it that way. Classifying this as an error would be like saying the lines "a walk in the park Kazinsky" or "the defense department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid" are errors because neither is true. He wasn't reporting to anyone that they were ballistic. He was encouraging his pilot and just happened to use an aeronautical statement in his excitement.
29th Jun 2018
Red Dwarf (1988)
Other mistake: When Lister inadvertently sets off the Auto Destruct sequence, the computer voice says the ship will detonate in 15 minutes. The computer then says "the ship will detonate" every five seconds followed by how much time until detonation, but the time in which the computer says this is inconsistent. Two seconds after the computer says 15 minutes, the computer says the ship will detonate in 14 minutes 55 seconds. Ten seconds after saying that, the computer says the ship will detonate in 14 minutes 50 seconds. (00:01:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
1st May 2020
Columbo (1971)
Character mistake: In the grocery store scene Robert Culp sits on a display of pumpkins but there are 2 signs that say watermelons.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As a retail worker of 18 years, I know that POS (signage) mistakes happen in supermarkets, for example a product is moved and the correct POS is not replaced. This scene seems to be filmed in a real supermarket meaning this is not a mistake made by the show's producers, however if this was filmed in a studio, "Character Mistake" would be the wrong category as the mistake would have been made by the set designers.
While I've never seen mislabeled items I know mistakes can happen. But since the characters aren't real, every mistake they make is the fault of someone on the crew, whether it's the actor, writer, or set designer. For example, misspellings are considered character mistakes (unless intentional), even though it would have been made by the person who created it.
18th Aug 2018
Star Trek (1966)
Continuity mistake: When the "evil" Kirk appears, the Enterprise emblem is missing from his shirt. Then later, when he gets the brandy, the insignia is there. (00:04:45 - 00:06:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When Kirk and Sulu are on the planet, they're shown not wearing the insignia. When "good" Kirk beams up, he too doesn't have the insignia. We just don't know where it came from, it could have been in their pocket.
The insignia is not removable, it's permanently attached. They wouldn't be able to remove it. The idea of a removable insignia wasn't introduced until STTNG.
While it might have been sewn on for production purposes, I saw this episode as indicating it was removable given the fact that they weren't wearing one on the planet. Plus, there have been other officers whose insignia is not sewn on in TOS.
6th May 2020
Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)
Factual error: When Llewyn is driving back to NYC from Chicago, he passes a couple signs stating that Akron, OH, is at the next exit off the highway, on US Route 80. US 80 passes exclusively through the South, from Dallas to the Atlantic Ocean in Georgia, and doesn't even come remotely close to Ohio. (01:13:58)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's Interstate 80, which does pass through Ohio, not Route 80.
The mistake is correct. It's the US Route 80 sign which has black letters on the white shield. An I-80 sign would have white letters on a red and blue shield.
28th Apr 2020
The Great Outdoors (1988)
Stupidity: John Candy was being dragged by the speedboat because he was holding the bar when the boat took off. It simply never occurred to him that letting go off the bar would have solved the problem (Of course then you wouldn't have had the speedboat scene at all but it's still pretty dumb).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Characters doing stupid things doesn't constitute a stupidity entry. That was part of the joke, that Chet spent all the time telling his son to remember to let go of the rope if something goes wrong, but then forgets his own advice in the heat of the moment. People do stupid things in real life all the time.
Well how does this not count as a Stupidity then? You just said it was and there was no need for him to stay holding onto the rope.
Stupidity is basically a minor plot hole, something small that doesn't rise to the level of an plot hole entry. Characters are still allowed to do stupid things though if it's not a plot hole (otherwise everything Lloyd and Harry do in all the Dumb and Dumber movies would be stupidity entries).
30th Oct 2017
Family Guy (1999)
Halloween on Spooner Street - S9-E4
Corrected entry: Meg goes to the party wearing a mask without her glasses on. When she's in the closet, her mask is off and she has her glasses on, even though she didn't wear them to the party. (00:06:50)
Correction: When Meg tells her mother she's dressed as a slutty cat, Meg is wearing her eyeglasses and pulls the cat mask down over her glasses, then she leaves the house. We see Meg is still wearing her glasses under her mask when Joe drives past her and her friends, right before they all enter the party.
Correction: Is it not possible that she may have had them in a pocket or somewhere and then put them on when she took the mask off?
Her costume had no pockets. It showed her leaving the house without her glasses.
But it did show her leaving with her glasses on.
Some people wear regular clothes under a costume in the event that it might have been cold. Rhode Island might be a bit cold at that time of year (I live in southern Canada and it can be very cold on Halloween) Maybe her glasses were in a pocket under the costume.
It seems like you didn't watch the scene before commenting and you're just guessing. She wasn't wearing normal clothes underneath and there were no pockets. The reason the mistake is incorrect is because, as stated, she is wearing them before she pulls her mask down and so she's wearing them under her mask when she leaves.
6th Mar 2002
The Usual Suspects (1995)
Continuity mistake: Right before they rob the police car, a Boeing 747 (four engines) is seen in shots of the plane coming into land. When the plane is shown from behind, it is a Boeing 767, with only two engines and fewer main landing gears. (00:30:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's for effect to show they were hanging out around the airport for more than a bit.
There's no evidence this was meant to be a montage scene of various planes. The cuts they did have in the first angle were of the same plane getting closer to build suspense. Same for the other angle. Plus, there's no scenes or shots of "them" waiting.
23rd Jan 2017
Cars (2006)
Question: At the beginning, what caused McQueen's rear tires to burst?
Chosen answer: Blown tires are common in NASCAR and usually the result of exactly what McQueen did, run too long, too fast, on old tires. They show him not taking new tires during the yellow caution, and then all the green pit stops, he only took gas. Excess heat from high speed driving can increase a tire's pressure, and with "old" tires, it couldn't handle the stress.
Absolutely incorrect. Tyres bursting in NASCAR is an absolute rarity, and it is usually caused by vehicle to vehicle contact. You cannot get a race tyre so hot that it bursts unless you start at ridiculously high pressures, which would make car impossible to drive anyway. The tyre probably had a puncture from running over debris.
That's why I used the word blown and not bursts. Obviously the film exaggerated a blown tire, but I thought that would be obvious to the viewer where everything is exaggerated.
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.
Answer: Mr fusion only powers the flux capacitor. The engine is needed to get the car up to 88mph whether flying or not and the only way to get the car any power is by the use of petrol, which didn't exist in 1885.
The_Iceman
At the beginning of the movie, when 1955 Doc reads the letter that 1985 Doc sent to Marty, he reads that the lightning bolt activated the time circuits and at the same time destroyed the flying circuits. Because of this, the Delorean will never fly again.
These answers are correct. Plus, to the original question: as clever as Doc is, keep in mind he got the flying conversion done in 2015. Definitely no way he would have been able to repair something so futuristic with 1885 tools at his disposal. He couldn't even get gas.
jshy7979
Yet just a few years later he had built from scratch a flying time-traveling locomotive, all with 1885 tools and parts.
jimba
There's no indication he built the flying train in 1885. It's suggested he had been time traveling with his wife and kids and says he's already been to the future. Whether this is in the DeLorean or the train it's not clear, but the dialogue suggests he's been to the future in his train with the family and could have modified his train to fly with future technology.
Bishop73
That took years, as you said. They were trying to leave 1885 in a matter of days so Doc wouldn't be shot by Buford.
jshy7979