Continuity mistake: When Indy is pouring the water from the Grail onto his father's wound, we see him pour all the water out. When his father takes the Grail, there's now water left inside.
Bishop73
26th Apr 2020
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
8th Apr 2020
Common mistakes
Factual error: In almost every movie from the introduction of sound on to present day, lightning and thunder happen simultaneously, while in reality there's always a delay between the former and the latter.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Hardly always, if the lightning hits right in front of you you hear the thunder immediately. I'd say from about 100 meters you perceive it as instantly, as it's only 0.3 seconds between flash and thunder.
This is a mistake about in almost all movies, not in all thunderstorms. The common mistake in the movies is when lightning isn't hitting 100m away from the character, but the sound is still instantaneous.
I assume it's about thunderstorms in movies. Name an example.
Instant thunder (even at a considerable distance of miles from the lightning or explosion source) is, indeed, a common and probably deliberate error in most films. The reasoning for it is simple: a prolonged and realistic delay between lightning and thunder could change a 1-second shot into a 6-second shot, for example, compromising the director's intended pace and mood for the scene. Steven Spielberg films have utilized both instant and delayed thunder. In "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," for example, when the UFOs zoom out into the distant background (certainly miles away) in a wide landscape shot, they produce a lightning effect in the clouds that is simultaneously heard as thunder. But in "Poltergeist" (a Spielberg film directed by Tobe Hooper), there is a very deliberate scene of characters realistically counting the seconds between distant lightning and resulting thunder. Choosing to obey physics or not is a matter of the director's artistic license.
I posted this while I was watching Death in Paradise, episode 7 of the third season, but really, you have never seen in pretty much any horror or cheap slasher movie whenever there's a storm, the flash of a lightning coming at the *same* time as a thunder jumpscare sound? It's vastly spoofed, even, when some ugly/creepy/terrifying character makes its appearance. One example randomly picked? Dracula by Coppola, in the first 10 minutes, carriage, lightning in the distance, not even a split second after, rumble. In RL it would reach you a couple seconds later. But really, it's such a movie archetype, I am sure you can find it in any Dracula movie.
The Dracula example doesn't really show how far away the lightning is, it could right above them. It's fake as hell, I agree with that, but the fact there is lightning and thunder at the same time without actually seeing the distance is not a mistake to me. It's also highly unnatural lightning as it only happens twice and then nothing, it's not even raining. It's obviously meant to be caused by the evil surrounding the place. The idea is there is constant lightning right on top of them.
There's a scene in Judge Dredd where every few seconds, there is a flash of lightning instantly accompanied by the sound of thunder. It happens frequently in Sleepy Hollow as well.
I know the scenes you are referring to. In both those instances you have no idea about the distance of this lightning. It could be (and probably is) right on top of them. You can hear that from the typical high sharpness of the sound, only heard when the flash is very close. Thunderclouds are never very high in the air so even the rumbling within the cloud itself can be heard, sometimes you don't even see lightning when it rumbles (yet there is). It's a bit far fetched but you could hear a rumbling or the thunder from a previous flash and mistake it for the flash you see at the same time. Can happen when there are continuous flashes.
26th Apr 2020
Resident Evil (2002)
Factual error: When Red Queen is explaining about the T-Virus they say that fingernails and hair continue to grow after death. This is not correct, While it appears that they grow, its actually down to the tissue drying out and retracting. An article on the topic can be found here: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130526-do-your-nails-grow-after-death A super computer that is knowle. (00:56:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The T-virus causes the hair and nails to keep growing. The nails cause scratches that can increase infection, so it benefits the T-virus.
That is not what was said at all. In the film it states that even in death, the body remains active and that hair and fingernails continue to grow, news cells are produced, and the brain holds a small electrical charge that takes months to dissipate (all of which are false). Then the T-virus provides a massive jolt to growing cells and the brain to reanimate the dead.
She says those things after they ask her what those things are. She then starts to explain how the T-virus works. She doesn't say a dead body always keeps active, she says a dead body infected with the T-virus is still active, regenerating cells, hair and fingernails continue to grow. In short, it reanimates the dead (to a degree). That's how I read it anyway.
22nd Feb 2005
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Corrected entry: The end credits list Alfred Molina's character as "Satipo". Harrison Ford says "Adios Sapito".
Correction: Actually he said "Adios estúpido", meaning "Goodbye, fool."
He definitely doesn't say "estúpido."
Correction: Nope. I do believe Harrison Ford was meant to say "Adios Satipo" but made a mistake and said "Adios Sapito." Judge by yourselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwXAIlYlkTo&t=1m12s.
23rd Jan 2011
The Green Hornet (2011)
Corrected entry: SPOILER: In the flashback of Scanlon killing Britt's father, it is nighttime when he kills him. But Britt's father died the same day as when Britt woke up with the hot girl after the party. When Britt sees the news report about his father's death, it's daytime the same day. There was no time for Scanlon to wait till nighttime to kill him.
Correction: The flashback was shot in black and white with an angle from the top. With ample light in the scene there is not enough clues to imply that he killed his father at night. Your confusion is understandable.
You must have watched a different movie. The scene wasn't shot in black and white or from an angle from the top. The car in the background at James Reid's house has its lights on to indicate it's night.
10th Apr 2020
King of the Hill (1997)
Death of a Propane Salesman (2) - S3-E1
Question: The inspector/official Dale talks to wears a jacket with the initials RRC on it - what do they stand for?
Answer: Texas Railroad Commission. They're the agency that regulate the oil and natural gas industry, natural gas utilities, pipeline safety, and safety of the liquefied petroleum gas industry.
28th Feb 2011
Cars (2006)
Corrected entry: Lightning McQueen is trying to become the first rookie in Piston Cup history to win the Piston Cup, but Doc Hudson won the Piston Cup in 1951 the first year that Hudson Hornets were produced, which also would have made him a rookie.
Correction: This assumes that the development of this universe follows the same rules as ours.
Not only that, but Doc is supposed to be 20 years old when he becomes a rookie racer. So he wasn't born in 1951. But he is said to have won the Piston Cup as a rookie.
Correction: Darrell actually said, "And land Dinoco?" So that means Lightning is actually the first rookie to win the Piston Cup and land Dinoco.
First, Darrell made that statement before the race. But it wasn't about the first rookie to do both because McQueen says of the Piston Cup "I'll be the first rookie in history ever to win it."
12th Nov 2015
Arrow (2012)
Al Sah-Him - S3-E21
Character mistake: Diggle turns to Nyssa and says "I think what she's trying to say is, Oliver would never do anything to hurt you, Felicity," incorrectly addressing Nyssa as "Felicity." (00:14:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When Diggle is walking away from Felicity, he is still talking to her but it looks like he is talking to Nyssa.
People have already tried to correct this mistake. It is valid. In the scenes prior, Nyssa says Oliver will do what it takes to kill her and Oliver says "tonight, Nyssa Al Ghul faces justice." Nyssa is there to bring the team the news that Oliver is going to try to kill her. Felicity says "Oliver wouldn't", meaning Oliver wouldn't try to kill Nyssa. Diggle says "I think what she's [she being Felicity] trying to say to say is that Oliver would never do anything to hurt you" [you being Nyssa whom Oliver is going to try to kill]. He is meant to say "Nyssa." Otherwise the entire line means Nyssa or Laurel are there to convince Felicity that Oliver would never do anything to hurt Felicity.
2nd Dec 2003
The Simpsons (1989)
Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk - S3-E11
Continuity mistake: Before Horst wants to talk with Homer, Lenny is standing beside the donut box, who wasn't seen in the shots before and after. (00:12:15)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
27th Aug 2001
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
Revealing mistake: When Will Scarlet finds the injured Much in Sherwood Forest about three quarters of the way through the movie, a white vehicle can be seen travelling from right to left in the background. (01:27:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: No car, just light on the hilt of Scarlett's sword.
I verified the scene. It's definitely not from the light of Scarlett's sword. It occurs after Will gets off his horse and the horse is turning. To the right of the horse is a tree in the background. To the right of that is a small clearing, about level with the horse's mouth. For a fraction of a second you can see a white object go across the small clearing in the same manner as a white car driving by.
10th Apr 2020
The Dark Knight (2008)
Corrected entry: The way the Joker gets into the mafia capos meeting resembles the way Eric Draven did in The Crow.
Correction: I don't really think this constitutes trivia. Two scenes vaguely resembling each other isn't really all that interesting or notable. Plus, a character interrupting a meeting in such a manner is a pretty common trope used in a lot movies. I could probably name about a half-dozen other movies with similar scenes off the top of my head.
I agree. Without some correlation between the two films (same director, actor, etc), two similar scenes wouldn't be trivia.
5th Apr 2019
SEAL Team (2017)
Factual error: The heart cannot be restarted using a defibrillator, in fact, a defibrillator stops a fibrillating heart. The only way to restart it is chest compression.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: CPR cannot restart a heart. See below: "BE AWARE Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) will not restart a heart in sudden cardiac arrest. CPR is just a temporary measure used to continue a minimal supply of oxygen to the brain and other organs. When someone is in sudden cardiac arrest, defibrillation is the only way to re-establish a regular heartbeat." From https://www.aedauthority.com/cardiac-arrest/.
Just to be clear, "sudden cardiac arrest" occurs when the heart fibrillates, which is not the same as a stopped heart.
14th Oct 2019
Toy Story 4 (2019)
Other mistake: When Jessie pops the tire on the RV, Bonnie's dad gets upset and says "I just bought it." Throughout the rest of the film however, he says the RV is a rental.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not exactly a mistake considering he bought a rental.
Suggested correction: At best it's a character mistake. As he was exasperated as Bonnie's mother says to her "Daddy's going to use some words" apparently meaning he was going to swear.
If it's a character mistake, it's still a mistake, so no correction is needed. I think it's a valid other mistake because it's the screen writers flipping back between owning and renting, but not an actual plot hole. I've been exasperated with a rental before and never in my anger or frustration said I bought the rented item.
5th Apr 2008
The Dam Busters (1955)
Factual error: The system devised to get the height right was, in the film, said to have been thought of by the 617 Sqn crews following a visit to the theater. In reality it was devised by the 'boffins' at Farnborough.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: See many previously posted 'mistakes' of this type and the standard correction: this is not a documentary and never pretended to be. It is a war drama and many facts were changed to fit the action.
Those correction are often made in fallacy. Dramas based on historical accounts have liberty to change small or inconsequential things, like adding a person that may have never existed, or change a relationship for dramatic purposes. Despite not being a documentary, unless it's a fantasy film, changes in historical facts are mistakes (for example, a drama can't have the Eiffel Tower in London just because it's not a documentary).
Suggested correction: This was the version given in Brickhill's book. The real story wasn't published till many years after the film was made.
2nd Sep 2011
X-Men: First Class (2011)
Corrected entry: During the scene with the SR-71 Blackbird, while Erik is on the wheel assembly, Professor X yells 'Hank take my hand' several times. Hank is flying the plane. Erik is the one he is trying to save from falling.
Correction: He says Erik. Xavier's accent and the noise surrounding the scene just make it sound like he is saying Hank.
Phaneron is correct. Xavier does say "Erik." You can hear the difference, especially in the end sound where you can hear the "ik" sound instead of "ŋk" sound he makes when saying Hank's name (like he did a few minutes earlier in the scene).
He definitely says Hank. It's not even close to Erik, he's been saying Erik the whole movie and it has never sounded different due to his accent.
19th Mar 2020
M*A*S*H (1972)
The Abduction of Margaret Houlihan - S5-E6
Other mistake: As Frank cocks his gun in the Swamp, the slide locks open and he has to hit the slide release to get it to move forward. Next he fiddles with the hammer. Next we hear the shot go off. Burns' excuse later is that he was cleaning The Gun and it went off (although admittedly, Frank doesn't always stick to the truth that religiously in situations like that). The slide on a semi-automatic locks open only if the magazine is empty or missing. The Gun locking open is also a clear, unmistakable indication that the breech is empty. He would have to insert a filled mag, then pull the slide back again to chamber a round before The Gun even had the chance to go off. One never does that while cleaning a gun. One does what Frank did to begin with: Pull the slide back without a magazine inserted to make sure the breech is empty.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Frank has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he does not follow the rules of safe gun handling, so ascribing his failure to do so is not a mistake.
You are missing the point. His gun is demonstrably unloaded when we last see it. He would either have to change his mind about cleaning it and load it instead, or load it first and then try to clean it (which makes even less sense), neither of which is not supported by anything in the dialogue.
15th Nov 2003
The Simpsons (1989)
Continuity mistake: At the beginning, when the bus is driving to the school, the streetlights outside disappear/reappear between shots. (00:01:30 - 00:02:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
9th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Plot hole: By having Admiral Holdo perform her infamous hyperspace ramming stunt, Rian Johnson created a continuity problem with the rest of the Star Wars universe. Since this maneuver was successful, every space battle before and since should only include a droid piloting spacecraft ramming enemy bases through hyperspace. This tactic would have been more cost effective and less risky than full on space battles seen in previous films. This tactic would no doubt have been tried in a universe filled with space battles often with disposable troops on both sides, such as in the Clone Wars. The Death Star did not need a successful trench run to be destroyed, just an X-wing with a droid ramming it at hyperspeed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think it's a one in a million shot. The damaged caused crippled the large ship but didn't fully destroy it and the other ships destroyed were caused by the debris from the bigger ship and ramming ship. That's just bad tactics. But in the case of for example the death star I doubt highly that ramming it with hyperspace jumps will cause significant damage. It's not like you are firing an armor piercing round and I'm pretty sure ships are equipped with all sorts of anti-debris protection. Plus I think it's bloody difficult even at that range to aim correctly at an enemy ship with a hyperjump.
NASA engineers have to be aware of space debris orbiting the Earth that is the size of small particles because when they are orbiting at 18,000 mph around the Earth, they can cause significant damage to spacecraft. Turn that speed up to near or past the speed of light as in hyperspace and an X-wing should be enough to significantly cripple a Death Star sized object, if not completely destroy it. Yes, ships have shields, but these are ray shields meant for cannon fire. Both RotJ and TFA show that a ship can penetrate these shields (TFA displayed it at hyperspace speeds no less). Aiming should be as easy as punching the location into a navicomputer as done for traveling. It is also easier to hit and less difficult to aim at large or close objects, like Star Destroyers, Death Stars, or planets and moons.
"The damage caused crippled the large ship but didn't fully destroy it" This is what was introduced to the fiction by the director. You can dislike that if you'd like but it is not a "mistake."
This was the outcome. Hyperspace ramming was what was introduced. The outcome was also grander than simply crippling a ship. It split the ship in two and the entire fleet or a large portion of it ended up being destroyed. Without a worthwhile explanation as to how this is possible now but not previously, it also introduces plot wholes in the previous movies.
You are talking about a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. You simply don't know. Hypespace is not as simple as going faster than the speed of light. They hardly have shields, I'm talking about armor protection, bulkheads, bulges, space armor, netting. Whatever.
Hyperspace as defined by Wookiepedia is an alternate dimension that could only be reached by traveling at or faster than the speed of light. So at this stage in the ramming stunt, it is as simple as traveling at or past light speeds as the ship has not yet entered the hyperspace lanes in the parallel dimension. So now the force the FO ship faces is the mass times acceleration and since it is traveling past lightspeed, the force would be extraordinary regardless of the mass. It would be even harder to believe an armor or anything else that could withstand that force, even on a Death Star sized space station.
To clarify, this is the hyperspace that Rian Johnson created. Before it was less clear, but the standard that has been followed since the beginning was one could not ram opposing ships with it while entering hyperspace lanes. Han Solo talks about this in A New Hope. Rogue One even has ships just entering hyperspace killing themselves on incoming Star Destroyers. This is the more faithful representation of what hyperspace travel was. Rian Johnson has completely rewritten what occurs in hyperspace which breaks Star Wars canon.
The official explanation is that the Raddus had special experimental deflector shields and that is why it worked. With normal shields it would not have worked.
Source? Is it said in the movie somewhere? So one should expect the Resistance to use these "special experimental deflector shields" and hyperspace ramming to combat the hundreds of Star Destroyers in The Rise of Skywalker, correct? Should be pretty effective. Weird that all the promos have the Resistance fighting them the old-fashioned way.
It is in the novelization of the movie.
Using a novel to correct a mistake a movie makes still makes it a movie mistake. Movies should not need books, comics, or videos games to explain their obvious flaws.
All I was saying is that it was a one in a million shot and that doing it requires a lot more than simply pointing towards the enemy and activating hyperjump. If anyone can do it and it can destroy entire fleets, then everybody would do it. But they don't, so it's not that simple. Since that is a fact, it's not a plot hole.
That is why it creates a plot hole because the movie never presents it in a way that only this ship at this time in this way can do it. It comes across as anyone can do it so why didn't anyone else do it in the thousands of years that this universe has existed through the countless wars that have taken place? Saying it is not that simple is not a fact, its an opinion. I watched it and it looked pretty simple. It comes across as anyone can do it, so everyone should have been doing it, thus the plot hole.
This scene doesn't create a plot hole since, in the film, nothing was established to show this wouldn't work. Nor would it create a plot hole unless it was previously shown that unmanned ships were used as a regular tactic to destroy bigger ships. Plot holes are when something occurs that contradicts what the story itself (usually as a plot device to further the plot along or conclude the plot).
It coming across as simple doesn't make it simple. The simple fact of the matter is that this fictional universe works that way, in the other movies it hasn't happened so it's not simple. It's as simple as that. In any case it would be a plot hole in those movies, not this one. Look, if you want everything to be logical then these movies will be nothing but automated ships ramming into each other left and right and you still want the story to be told? I don't think so. So, you want to explain why they don't ram everything and you got it. Deal with it. Otherwise the fact they use hyperdrives is a plothole then as well.
In this fictional universe, hyperspace did not work as weapons until Rian Johnson changed hyperspace for this movie's plot convenience. In doing so, Rian broke the standard canon that each previous movie followed. This is why its a plot hole in this movie and creates a discontinuity for the entire saga. Everything does not have to be understood or compared to our real world, but each fictional universe has its own set of physical laws and rules that each form of media in that universe needs to follow. Hyperdrives are not plot holes because they existed since the beginning of Star Wars and have a certain set of standards they follow that are understood. Changing these laws without a logical or worthwhile explanation in the film is ultimately disrespectful to the source material. The very idea that you brought up in that this creates plot holes in all the previous films proves that this scene is a terrible addition to the saga.
Seems to me like you just dislike the scene. Thats fine and I can understand you feel its a continuity. But it is not a plot hole for the movie.
It is more of a continuity error that creates plot holes in the previous movies, so it could be labeled better. However, if we view Star Wars as one story like George Lucas did, then it would be a plot hole for Star Wars as a whole. If it was successful in explaining how they could do it now, but not a few years ago, then it would have been fine, more or less. It failed to do so making it a mistake, no matter how visually pleasing it was.
Hyperspace always worked as a weapon. Han explained years ago that is why they had to plot a course through hyperspace. So they would not hit anything. She meant to use it as a weapon, and succeeded. This is nothing new.
If it were a one in a million shot, then Hux would not have panicked and ordered the cruiser shot down immediately. Furthermore, the Resistance could have used their two escort ships, which were going to run out of fuel and be destroyed anyway, to try the same thing.
Doesn't the one in a million argument make Holdo a traitor that attempted to flee at the rebellion's darkest hour then? Your argument is nonsense.
It was a suicide run. It was a one in a million shot to take out the main vessel, but whatever she was going to do, she was going to die.
Suggested correction: Just because it worked on this occasion, doesn't mean it would always work. It also hadn't been attempted before. It's not a plot hole that they didn't destroy the Death Star like this, since nobody in the rebellion considered it.
But why did no-one in the Rebellion consider it? It was their most desperate hour. They were in similar desperation as the Resistance in The Last Jedi, if not more so. Their were similar desperate times in the Clone Wars when both sides had troops of disposable clones and droids. They did not consider trying it then? They were wars occurring before that and no-one thought about using hyperspace as a weapon? It is illogical to think that there was no-one in the history of that universe that would never even consider using hyperspace as a weapon. The reason it was not considered was before Rian Johnson rewrote it, hyperspace did not operate like that. Plain and simple. Rian Johnson rewrote how hyperspace works, creating a plot holes and discontinuities for the entire saga.
No one rewrote Hyperspace. It has always been like that.
28th Nov 2003
Heartbreak Ridge (1986)
Corrected entry: Gunny Highway is drunk in the other room while Mario Van Peeble is told how Highway won the "CMH" in the Korean War. He said their platoon sergeant, Stony Jackson, recommended Highway for the award. First, the award is called "The Medal of Honor." There's no "Congressional" in the title. Second, only officers can recommend soldiers for the Medal of Honor. Stony Jackson's rank was that of an NCO.
Correction: The Medal of Honor is also known as the Congressional Medal of Honor; in fact, the official organisation for recipients is called The Congressional Medal of Honor Society. See: http://www.cmohs.org/medal.htm.
The "Medal of Honor" is erroneously called "The Congressional Medal of Honor", but no military personnel would call it "CMH." Even on the Congressional Medal of Honor Society's website the NEVER call it the Congressional Medal of Honor, in every instance it's simply called "The Medal of Honor."
27th Aug 2003
Dial M for Murder (1954)
Corrected entry: Early in the film, Grace Kelly is talking to Bob Cummings about their extra-marital relationship and blurts out "Oh, Bob." even though Bob Cummings' character's name is "Mark Halliday."
Correction: I think it's Grace Kelly's accent that just sounds like she said "Bob" but she actually did say "Mark".
Correction: Tonight, I heard "Bob" for the first time. Then I checked the CC. Nothing. I played it back a couple of times: "Bob." And then I played it with my eyes closed-just listening, and it sounded like it could be "Mark." But since I wasn't thinking about it when I heard it the first time tonight, I'm leaning towards "Bob."
She does say "Mark." You can hear the "mm" at the beginning. She doesn't have a hard "k" sound at the end though, she has a very soft "k" sound like she did at the end of the word "drink."
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: Automatic refilling seems to be the least of the miracles the Grail has performed.
LorgSkyegon
There was no evidence of this, plus we never see it refill before or after. How would it be empty when they first find it if it miraculously refilled itself? This is a poor correction just to make a correction.
Bishop73