5th Apr 2005
Continuity mistake: Near the start, when Dallas is at the entrance to Mother, one of the lights to his left, the fifth one down from the ceiling, is not lit. The next shot from inside Mother looking out shows that light is now lit. This exact same thing happens a second time when Ripley is entering mother later in the movie. These two scenes must have been shot at the same time. (00:08:20 - 01:18:35)
Suggested correction: That light totally had enough time to light between the frames, because it was hidden by the sliding door for a brief moment. Lights were lit one at the time, not all at once, so this one starts to shine just a little bit later than all the others, that's it.
I consider this a valid mistake and the correction is a stretch. The lights only took about 2 seconds to light up, but she's at the door for almost 3.5 seconds after they're on and the last light did nothing. Then in the half second it took the door to open, the last light is now on.
19th Aug 2019
Question: I'm watching on Netflix. Was this edited somehow from the original? In the Netflix version Brian enlists the help of Todd and Kiersten to rescue his brother. After escaping the dungeon, it shows them rearming themselves at the school. Then there's a cutscene where Maurice is in Ronnie's room and says "oh, Ronnie." Brian, Todd, and Kiersten are see walking into Boy's room a 2nd time, then all of the sudden Ronnie is there with the battery pack, and no-one seems surprised. In the original, was Ronnie recruited the first time around and then cut in the Netflix version? In the Netflix version Boy says the line "why lose 5 lives when you can gain 4?" when there's only 4 kids and not 5. So I feel like he must have been there. If Ronnie was edited out, why? Was it just to save the run time? If Ronnie wasn't edited out, who are the 5 lives Boy is talking about?"
Answer: I'd seen the movie a lot growing up and also just picked up the new Blu-Ray. As I remember seeing it when I was younger, and indeed in the new Blu-Ray, Ronnie is recruited on the group's second attempt to rescue Eric. He was never there the first time around. Admittedly, the line about "why lose five lives when you can gain four" is confusing given there's only four kids. But I always assumed he was referring to the four kids and Maurice, who he also has held captive.
Answer: You see Brian go down with Kiersten and Todd armed with their first set of flashlights. He then says this line because he wants to keep the four kids there and turn them into monsters. But he could kill them and my guess is maybe kill Maurice as well because he didn't succeed in turning Brian into one of them.
Answer: They went back to rescue Brian's younger brother Eric. Ronnie was there after Maurice went and got him to come and help. So the five lives refers to the four kids and the one that he stole which was Eric.
That's why I'm wondering why it was edited on Netflix because Ronnie isn't there when Boy says the line. In the Netflix version, Ronnie is recruited after Boy's line.
29th Dec 2019
The Best of Both Worlds (1) - S3-E26
Question: I can't tell if this was a mistake or if there's an explanation. When the Borg are on the Enterprise's bridge, the first two are covered in the green light indicating they're being transported back to the Borg ship, but the 3rd one (the one successfully shot by Worf) has no lights, he just fades away. Why?
Answer: The Borg use technology to cause the dead to disintegrate, presumably as a security measure to prevent their technology from being captured.
But in s05e23, "I, Borg", Riker says "the Borg collect their dead" when they encounter the injured Borg. Worf says to kill it and leave no evidence they were there so that when the Borg return to collect the dead member. Plus, there were 4 dead Borg and none of them disintegrated.
I believe "collect" refers to the disintegration. We see other Borg remove specific pieces of technology from the dead borg, which causes it to disappear.
Answer: Its possible that the Borg use a special transporter for living beings (which is the one with the green glow) and a different one for non-living things (which might not have a green glow). In Star Trek the federation uses a different type of transporter when moving bulk cargo than it does when moving people.
29th Dec 2019
Question: When Laura's foot claws come out why aren't there any holes in her shoes? Only the skin can heal from wounds, not objects.
Answer: It's just a continuity mistake. The blade rips a hole in the shoe, but the hole disappears later on... that's a continuity mistake. It's definitely not a plot hole. A plot hole is more a gap or contradiction in a film's internal logic, or when a film leaves out vital information. (Ex. If a character is established as having a deadly nut allergy, but is eating nuts later on with no ill effect... that would be a plot-hole).
It would only be a plot hole if somehow the lack of holes in the shoes was written into the plot that some effect on the plot. Of course, someone would probably correct the entry by saying she could have had a 2nd pair or they bought a new pair if it was integral to the plot.
17th Dec 2019
Corrected entry: When Moss is actually on Countdown, the host calls Moss' opponent "Jeremy" once, when he asks how long his word is, and again when he asks him for the word. Moss' word is longer and the host remarks that Moss will probably win, and apologizes to the opponent but this time calls him "Jonathan." (00:01:49 - 00:02:30)
Correction: He says Jeremy. However, I do know Netflix's closed captions says "Johnathan", but that's not a character mistake for the show.
I'm not referring to closed captions on Netflix. I'm talking about what the host actually says out loud. He says Jeremy first and then "Sorry Jonathan" later.
I know what you were referring to. I listened multiple times and he says "Jeremy" every time.
27th Aug 2001
Continuity mistake: At the beginning, when Brett is initially shot by both Jules and Vincent after Jules' Ezekiel speech, we see Jules' gun becomes empty on firing the last shot. However, on returning to the same scene at the end, when Jules and Vincent shoot Brett the gun does not empty; in fact Jules is able to repeatedly shoot the guy who comes out of the bathroom afterwards and the gun still isn't empty.
Suggested correction: It's very hard to tell whether Jules' gun is empty or not, he is pointing it almost right at the viewer, and the scene is proceeding too rapidly.
It's easy to tell. You can see the slide is locked back in the first scene, indicating it's empty. If you can't see the slide is back, look at the ejection port. It's grey/silver color when the slide is forward (i.e. round in the chamber) and black when back (i.e. empty).
6th Feb 2005
Continuity mistake: When Lee Marvin hits Clint Eastwood and interrogates him about riding the same horse with Elizabeth, Marvin's chin strap alternates begins the scene tucked tightly under his chin, then is resting against the front of his face, then tucked under his chin again, yet he never touches it with his hands.
Suggested correction: The times this happens it snaps to Eastwood, who is to say he doesn't adjust then.
No, when the chin strap changes, even though the camera cuts to Eastwood, Marvin is still in frame and we see his arms down. He never moves his hands up to adjust it.
19th Dec 2019
Character mistake: Lestrade mentions that there could be some "poor sod covered with semtex on the streets somewhere" when talking about Moriarty's victims, but semtex does not go off via gunshot, much like C4. But that is what happens when one of the victims dies however, so the explosives are not semtex.
Suggested correction: The term "Semtex" is often used to refer to any plastic explosives, much like the term "Hoover" for a vacuum cleaner or "Kleenex" for a tissue.
But that doesn't negate the mistake.
17th Dec 2019
Stupidity: The entire plot revolves around the First Order chasing the ships, waiting for the Resistance to run out of fuel. They could have easily destroyed the Resistance's fleet by sending a Star Destroyer or two around to cut them off from the other side and blast them into oblivion.
Maybe. But if the First Order does this the entire plot of the movie as it is is ruined. So, maybe both?
Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't change a character stupidity into a plot hole.
What prevents a character's stupidity from being a plot hole? Is it wrong to want competent villains? If a character is supposed to be intelligent (let's say, a naval commander or military leader) and has the capability to achieve his or her objective with an obvious decision a character of his or her stature should make but does not and it is the only reason the plot of the movie still exist, is it not both a plot hole and character stupidity? Not just Hux, Snoke, Kylo, and every other First Order officer failed to realise this. How? It does not make any sense. At the very least try to explain in the movie how the FO let the Resistance get away because they refused to let Star Destroyer make a few hyperspace jumps and cut the Resistance off.
Hux is an idiot, Snoke is a fraud and Kylo doesn't really strike me as a strategic mastermind.
Hux only really becomes an idiot because of this movie. In TFA, he is an established military officer who does come across as more feared and respected. The change in this movie is then character stupidity and/or a character mistake that creates a big plot hole from the start.
Well the new movie puts a whole new light into that. Changes the whole discussion.
So they retconned to correct this mistake? Still makes it a mistake in my opinion. Especially since it is not just Hux who could have been a better leader. Any FO military officer could have brought it up and executed that idea.
In the time it takes to switch the hyperdrive on and off again, travelling at light speed you would travel so far ahead of them you would take days to get back to them. In a quarter of a second at lightspeed you travel much farther than the length of the planet Earth.
To answer the question: a plot hole is something that contradicts something already established in the film that's done to move the plot along or resolve an issue. A stupidity is a minor plot hole, but can also be character acting contradictory to what's been established, usually to keep the plot going. A character mistake is a character making a mistake or error they shouldn't have (usually because the writers don't know the right answer). Characters acting stupid or irrationally or making human errors is not a valid movie mistake.
So by this, it is a plot hole because the Star Destroyers can jump in and out of hyperspace and could make that jump to cut the Resistance off. It is character stupidity because Hux is established as a high ranking military officer in TFA and thus should know basic military strategy along with all of his fellow officers. I think if a character acts stupid which goes against their established personality and traits without a good reason, it is very much a mistake. Hux was not pressured into an irrational decision. In fact, it is the most calming battle to ever take place in Star Wars. There is no reason for him to be this incompetent. He is only this way because Rian wrote him this way, which on your list is a character mistake too. When the general audience is a better military tactician than the FO Commander in the movie, it is a bad sign.
The problem is that we as the audience know the Resistance will find a way out of this situation. General Hux believes he has the Resistance trapped and they have no escape. In his mind, the plan was working perfectly well. There's no reason to alter the plan. It's not like they are under a time crunch and need to destroy the ships as quickly as possible. By moving the cruisers out of range and crawling away, it was clear to Hux that the Resistance had run out of options. Hux doesn't need to do anything differently in his mind, so he doesn't. It only seems stupid to us because we know the heroes will find a way out because heroes always do.
I am sure the First Order is well aware that the Resistance is doing all they can to find an escape, however unlikely it is. However, contrary to the audience, they do not know how they plan on doing so. All the more reason for the First Order to blow the Resistance to bits while they still can. What is the benefit of just waiting for the Resistance to run out of fuel in the first place? Wouldn't it just be better to end them swiftly? Also, it is not just Hux. There are other military officers and you would think there would be a few of them who would want to destroy the Resistance while the opportunity was present. Its decisions like these that make you wonder how the First Order gained so much power in the first place.
It is just Hux. The captain of the Dreadnaught makes it clear that Hux is in general command, as he is irritated that Hux did not scramble fighters as soon as Poe's X-Wing showed up. Overconfidence has been a staple of Star Wars villains from the very beginning, and if it's a movie mistake here then it's also a mistake that Tarkin doesn't evacuate the Death Star; or that Vader doesn't force choke Luke on Bespin instead of trying to trap him in carbonite; or that Jaba doesn't shoot Luke Skywalker instead of taking him to the Sarlaac pit; etc.
Comparing Tarkin's overconfidence to Hux's actions is practically insulting. The Empire believed the Death Star was indestructible until the flaw was discovered during the Rebels' attack run. Even with this flaw, the chances of the Rebels' success was incredibly slim. The Rebels have already failed multiple times and the Empire was mere seconds away from ending the Rebellion for good. The probability of the Empire ending the Rebels once and for all was almost a certainty and it was logical to take the chance. Tarkin may have been overconfident, but he had a right to be. The Vader example is dumb too. The Emperor ordered Luke to be taken to him alive. To do that, they were going to entrap him in carbonite. That was Vader's goal, not to kill him with a Force choke. Jabba is a sadistic showman, as seen when he fed Oola to the Rancor. When Luke is captured, he created a show in which he can enjoy. How Luke died was just as important to him as Luke dying.
Tarkin said he wanted to destroy the Rebellion with one swift stroke. Key word here being swift, not lazily waiting for some gas just to run out. If Tarkin was in charge of the First Order instead of Hux, the Resistance would have easily been destroyed, no questions asked. Having Hux betray what he was supposed to be from TFA by being a passive, ignorant, and incompetent leader causes the FO to be nonthreatening, terrible villains, and defeats any suspense in the plot. It's illogical for the audience to believe that a military commander could be this stupid.
Completely and entirely disagree with your assessment. Tarkin's overconfidence and Hux's overconfidence both come from the same belief: that their enemies have no means of victory. Both men believe they have already won and it is only a matter of time before they win. Tarkin is flat out told that there is a chance that the rebels will destroy them and he chooses not to evacuate. This overconfidence is a staple of every movie in this series because the major theme of an underdog triumphing over the odds demands this. I did not mean that Vader should force choke Luke to death, but once the plan to freeze him fails he certainly could have tried harder to incapacitate Luke. By not doing so he allows Luke to escape. This isn't dumb, it's just overconfident. Jabba choosing to put on a show rather than just shooting his enemies is the very definition of overconfidence, and it's honestly strange that you seem to be arguing that it isn't.
I was arguing against your assessment of Vader and Tarkin and explaining Jabba's view and how it differs from how Tarkin and Hux should go about things. Jabba is an overconfident crimelord and thus has different traits then a military leader so it is unjust to compare him to Tarkin and Hux. Tarkin was given that information mid battle a mere minute away from wiping out of the Rebellion. Here it is believable of him to assess the situation, see the Rebels have already failed multiple attempts, and that the Rebels chance for success was minuscule and waiting was the best option. Hux's ability to end the war is literally right there. Not minutes away, seconds away if he would have just commanded a ship to cut them off. There is no benefit in waiting, whereas Tarkin is operating a Death Star and must wait as it moves differently (slower, less maneuverable) than a Star Destroyer. Even if they have the same belief, Tarkin acts competently and Hux acts unbelievably moronic.
I think that's where I'm having a problem with your statements. I don't believe that Hux acted "unbelievably moronic." His plan was working perfectly fine. Just because he didn't wipe out of the ships as fast as he possibly could doesn't make him a moron, or a bad military leader. Hux had just lost Starkiller Base and his Dreadnaught, so it is perfectly reasonable for him to take a safe approach with destroying the remaining Rebel ships; picking them off one-by-one at no risk to his fleet whatsoever. His plan works absolutely fine and the few Rebels that do survive only do because Luke Skywalker projects his image across space to stall Kylo Ren. "Military leader" doesn't mean "infallable" and it certainly isn't a gap in the film's logic, especially in the Star Wars series, to have a leader make questionable decisions in hindsight.
You just said Hux was an extremely risk adverse military leader, whereas good military leaders must deliberately accept tactical risks. However, there is no risk here. Destroying the Resistance fleet would have been easy since all of their fighters and bombers were already destroyed fighting the Dreadnaught. Regular sight should have been able to see that waiting for the Resistance to think up an escape plan was a bad idea. Especially since the First Order knows the Resistance has a map to Luke Skywalker and his arrival could completely turn the tide of the battle. Logically, the First Order should destroy the Resistance fleet before Luke could arrive. The only explanation, which makes for a bad movie, is that Hux is unlike what he was represented in TFA and is an incompetent leader. From the beginning, he was never meant to be like is TFA self. He did fall for a "your mama" joke to start the movie and let a Dreadnaught die from the slowest bombers in the galaxy.
I did not say that Hux was "extremely risk averse." I said that Hux took a safe approach. Having Hux plan to defeat the Rebels before Luke Skywalker could show up would have also been out of character. The villains in the Star Wars stories consistently believe that not even a powerful Jedi could stop their plans when they have convinced themselves they've already won. Snoke says as much during this very film.
You said Hux likes playing it safe, that means he is a risk adverse military leader, or at least made a risk adverse decision when there didn't need to be one. So it is now out of character for Hux to defeat the Resistance until Luke shows up? At this point, the only reason it makes sense for Hux to act this way is what was revealed in TRoS, which would be a retcon to cover the mistake in this movie. I find your villain statement more of opinion then truth. It may only make sense in this trilogy. Palpatine is the true villain of Star Wars and his big plan to rule the galaxy found it necessary to kill all the powerful Jedi, so he obviously was not convinced he could win with them alive. As Emperor, discovering a potential Jedi in Luke was treated like an actual threat, maybe the only true threat. The Emperor wants Luke dead/capture in ESB. The Emperor tries to turn Luke in RotJ. The Emperor does believe he can turn/defeat Luke, and he would have defeated him if Vader hadn't intervened.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that Hux "likes playing it safe." I said that he took a safe approach in this particular situation.
I'm gonna say it here too, the new movie puts it all in a whole new light. So just wait till you see it. (not that it's particularly good though).
We do not know exactly when this character decided to do that. Could have been before or after these events. Most likely it occurred after Snoke died and Kylo took power. So that is just speculation. If this character's decision does occur before the events of this movie, then it is a retcon to cover this mistake, meaning the mistake exists.
Exactly. This movie's plot is very flawed and it lacks logic to the big extent. Hux was much more competent in TFA, so his behavior in TLJ was both stupidity and a plothole.
Then they should have written a better plot. Complaining that rational act ruins the plot is a writing issue with the plot. They shouldn't have written this problem in the first place. You can't hide behind the "but it will ruin the film" excuse when the writers could have written literally anything else.
Suggested correction: In the time it takes to switch the hyperdrive on and off they would have travelled so far in front of the rebels that they would be worse off than before. Even switching the drive in for .25 of a second would carry them around 400,000 kilometers if my memory serves. This is still a plot hole. The first order ships are bigger, therefore they should be faster due to larger/ more engines and the "fuel" issue is wrong because all you have to do is switch off your engine and you will not stop.
Suggested correction: Why would they need to? They easily outgun what remains of the Resistance, and they're patient enough to wait for the ships to run out of fuel. The First Order was overconfident, but they were not wrong about their plan working.
What is the benefit of the First Order waiting? It would be better to take out your enemy swiftly when given the chance. Especially since we are told this is the last of the Resistance. Destroying these few ships would then end the war and give the First Order control of the galaxy.
17th Dec 2019
Question: Where exactly is Whoville located? And what year is the movie meant to take place?
Answer: Then why does it appear as a tiny speck in Horton Hears A Who?
In "Horton Hears a Who", both the book and the animated film, the speck of dust lands on a clover. In the 2000 Grinch film, the speck of dust has now landed on a snowflake because it's winter time. It should be noted that it's only the 2000 Grinch film that has Whoville as a speck similar to Whoville in "Horton Hears a Who." In the book and other adaptations, Whoville and the Whos are normal sized and probably located somewhere in Massachusetts.
Where are you getting Massachusetts from?
Dr. Suess was born in Springfield, MA and there are some that claim the drawings in the book are similar to Easthampton, MA and Mt. Tom (although others say it's La Jolla and Mt. Soledad in California). Residence of Easthampton put on an annual "Whobalation" to celebrate the legend Whoville is based on them.
Answer: According to the introduction, Whoville is located on a snowflake. Therefore they don't keep time like we do.
6th Jun 2005
Corrected entry: When the score is 8-0 guards, the cons score and go for two and get the two-point conversion. However, the scoreboard shows a score of 8-7 and this is also announced by the radio announcer. It is never corrected as more points are added. The score should have been 8-8.
Correction: Until recently, the conversions were 1 point no matter what. Since this takes place in the 70's, the score is correct.
Then why did the guards have 8?
The guards scored a touchdown and had the extra point blocked. Then they got a safety. That's 8.
The guards scored 2 on a safety.
Safety= 2 points.
While the NFL adopted the 2-point conversion in 1994, the 2-point conversion has been around long before that, and throughout the 70's. College football adopted the 2-point conversion in 1958. The AFL used the 2-point conversion in the 60's prior to the NFL/AFL merger. In the film, it was a semi-pro team and they could have chosen to adopt the 2-point conversion.
Correction: Because they had a score, missed conversion and a safety.
23rd Dec 2003
Corrected entry: Some things in the chamber of Russ change from the scene where you see the grandfather in the bed and Clarke passing through the floor. (00:29:05 - 00:33:05)
Correction: That's not very specific. Does the bed change positions? Are there different posters on the walls? Is the wallpaper a different color? At least give one example of something that changes between the two shots.
The scene itself is specific enough. When multiple things move around, it's easier to say "some things change position", especially when it's obvious. While an example would make it easier, it's not necessary in all cases. Corrections should only be made when the scene has been observed so you can validate or invalidate the mistake. If you've watched the scene and didn't see anything change, then you could suggest an example be given.
No but there's a hole in the ceiling from clot going through it and then the scene where they're in bed which is after that the ceilings were peered as a poster up another mistake in the movie.
19th Jul 2019
Factual error: Vers hit Earth at night in California. Dawn comes, and the Skrulls are coming out of the surf with the sun low on the horizon. The sun rises in the east, not over the ocean.
Suggested correction: There are west-facing bays in California.
That would still make Earth's rotation in reverse. West-facing bays always feature sunsets, not sunrises as the OP notes.
A "West-facing bay" means the bay (body of water) faces the west. Those standing on the shore looking out into the bay would then be facing East.
15th Oct 2019
Factual error: The red songbook on Rambeau's piano is Cajun and Zydeco Classics, first published in 2005, ten years after this scene is supposed to have taken place. (01:20:00)
Suggested correction: First released in 1997.
You're confusing the album (released in 1997) with the songbook (published in 2005). However, the film is set in 1995.
30th Jul 2019
Plot hole: Lois Lane and other people see Clark Kent unhurt when a taxi hits him and suffers damage, but don't draw the obvious conclusion that there's something extraordinary about him.
Suggested correction: I always took this as an intentional jab at how the people of Metropolis, and Lois in particular, were so oblivious to the fact that Clark was obviously Superman. Still a plot hole, just an intentional one.
Suggested correction: Maybe the cab-driver thinks that Clark is extraordinary, but he is shocked in the first moment, worrying about his damaged car. Later than he realises that this guy is maybe Superman, but cannot find him anymore. Just a guy of millions walking around the big apple.
13th Jan 2013
The Bakersfield Expedition - S6-E13
Corrected entry: At the end of the episode Sheldon's sat nav voice asks "Can you name the four state capitals that are not served by the interstate system?" In fact, there are five, according to the Interstate System's website. Juneau, Alaska; Dover, Delaware; Jefferson City, Missouri; Carson City, Nevada; and Pierre, South Dakota.
Correction: Although there used to be 5 state capitals not served by the interstate system, the completion of I-580 means that Carson City is now served, hence there are only four, and the sat nav was correct. 580 was completed in 2012, the episode in question aired in 2013.
What about Hawaii?
Honolulu, HI has an Interstate Highway. Not all Interstate Highways physically go from one state to another, the name just indicates it receives federal funding as part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways initially set up through the Federal Aid Highway Act.
Honolulu Hawaii is served by H1, H2 and H3, all part of the U.S. Interstate system.
5th Jul 2005
Trivia: The carpet design used in Sid's house is the same design used in the hotel featured in The Shining (1980). (00:48:55 - 00:50:10)
The design is spot on. The color is just different.
So it is identical, except for how it is different?
No one said it was identical. The trivia is the pattern is the same. Color has no bearing on the trivial fact. The fact that they animated the carpet means the design was intentional. Although, it's possible they copied the design from a 70's carpet pattern that "The Shining" also used, rather than copy the design in "The Shining."
1st Apr 2014
Corrected entry: When Jake and Elwood first walk through the lobby of the flophouse, an older man asks Elwood for his "Cheez Whiz"; Elwood then tosses him a metallic can of an aerosol cheese product. Cheez Whiz is a processed cheese spread that is sold, and always has been sold, in glass jars.
Correction: Though Cheez Whiz is a spread, the name has come to encompass any aerosol cheese products. Similar to how Band-Aid refers to any adhesive bandage products.
I disagree, Easy Cheese is the aerosol product. The words "Cheez Whiz", do make for a snappier script line, but are incorrect based on what he tosses over. If you walk into a grocery store and ask for Cheez Whiz, you will be shown a glass jar of cheese product spread. I truly believe your correction is incorrect.
Well the guy asking for the cheese isn't exactly a formal guy. To him that can is cheese wiz.
Yes what he tosses him is not the brand name cheeze whiz, but that does not matter. Aerosol cheese, somehow, became called cheeze whiz. If I ask you for a band-aid, are you going to go to the store to buy band-aid adhesive bandages, or are you going to the medicine cabinet and giving me the generic bozo brand?
Cheez Whiz also comes in a "spray" can, not just a jar.
There are internet pictures of Cheez Whiz in a can, and even if it's available today, it certainly was never available in a spray can in 1980 or before.
Cheez Whiz was never a generic term for any cheese in a can product, and certainly not in the 70's and 80's. Not only that, you can tell it's a can of Easy Cheese. Here's an article people can read to decide if this is a valid mistake. https://www.liveabout.com/blues-brothers-cheez-whiz-3974417.
14th Apr 2004
Corrected entry: While the movie is set in Montreal, many locations are in Quebec City. The worst example of this is the Chateau Frontenac, which is very much not in Montreal. They even make a point of showing Mrs Asher being put up in the Chateau.
Correction: While it is not subtitled that we are in Quebec city (like it was for Montreal the first time), it is said that Mrs. Asher lives in Quebec city and she saw her son on the ferry going to Quebec city. So all scenes involving her may take place in Quebec city (like for putting her in a hotel for her protection).
Actually, the ENTIRE movie is filmed in Quebec City, every street, every church, every hotel, etc., NONE of it was in Montreal. And I know this, because I live there!;-).
This is incorrect. Several scenes were shot in Montreal, as well as a few other cities in Quebec. Not to mention some scenes were filmed in a sound stage in Burbank California.
15th Nov 2019
The Platonic Permutation - S9-E9
Continuity mistake: In episode 16 of season 1, Penny is talking about making a cake for Leonard's birthday and states she knows his birthday because she was checking a horoscope for him. But in this episode she does not know when his birthday is, which leads to Leonard revealing he was secretly reading Penny's diary. (00:40:00)
Suggested correction: It's certainly possible to forget something you knew eight years ago.
This is perhaps true for two people who rarely have contact, but I would list this as a character mistake. Penny and Leonard are in a serious relationship and are married at this point.
This is also a couple who BOTH forgot it was their anniversary.
I forgot my wife's birthday on a number of occasions. It's one of the reasons she is now my ex-wife.
There's a difference between forgetting and not knowing.
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.