Revealing mistake: When Mr Ha Ha is talking to Dorothy, the little boy is in the background waiting for his cue to smash the cake in Mr Ha Ha's face.
Bishop73
12th Dec 2018
The Golden Girls (1985)
5th Apr 2017
Married... with Children (1987)
Corrected entry: Peg goes dancing with Marcy. She meets Andy, who is gay and married. His husband shows up at Al's house telling him about Andy always being with Peg at the dance hall. Peg tells Andy her name is "Lola" though. So how did the husband know to go to Al's house and say, Are you Al Bundy? He has no clue of Peg's real name, let alone where she lives.
Correction: While Andy might not know Peg's real name, Pete (Andy's husband) says he's been following Andy every Tuesday and Thursday (so this has been going on for a while) to see where he goes and finds him dancing (with Al's wife). We know Pete follows Andy to see where he goes so he could easily follow Peg to where she lives. There's a number of ways for Pete to find out who lives there (ask a neighbor, looked at the mail, etc.) Andy still thinks Peg is Lola, and single, because he's not following her.
Correction: This correction makes no sense. Andy has never been to Peg's house. He doesn't even know her real name. There's no way his husband knew Al was Peg's husband at all. This entry shouldn't be corrected.
What part didn't make sense? I never stated Andy went to Peg's house. And I said Andy still thinks Peg's name is Lola.
10th Nov 2019
Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004)
Question: Within the movie itself, they introduce the fictitious ADAA instructional film reel which shows a closeup of the lead based paint Timmy is using. You can see the name 'Lead Shield' on the paint can, but does anyone know what phrase is written above the name? (00:22:22)
Answer: "You get better yield with"
Thank you! I had a feeling that's what it read, but since I figured it would be more humorous, I had to ask. Thanks again, I can now sleep at night :).
I looked to see if it was a reference to an old slogan or something, but couldn't find anything, so it seems to just be something to rhyme.
9th Nov 2019
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)
Factual error: There were no gourds in Ancient Judea, of that type. The 'gourd' mentioned in the Bible refers to a colocynth plant, which yields only a small fruit, 5 - 10cm diameter. The gourd in the film is from a pumpkin, and not from a watermelon, as others have suggested. Pumpkins originated in the Americas, and there weren't any in the rest of the world before Columbus.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is a movie where Brian falls inside a flying UFO with alien pilots. I seriously doubt that the filmmakers had any intention whatsoever to be historically accurate.
Regardless of the random UFO scene, this is still a factual mistake. It doesn't matter if a film maker sets out to intentionally make a historically accurate film or not. There's nothing to suggest this film was set in an alternate past or that it was a sight gag as if it was a Mel Brook's film.
13th Oct 2006
Hocus Pocus (1993)
Corrected entry: When the witches follow Mary into the alley after singing I Put A Spell On You, Mary Sanderson said she smelled Scrod, a bottom feeder that would be good with margarine. 300 years prior to that, butter would be the topping of choice as margarine hadn't been invented until the 1800s, when the sisters were dead.
Correction: She doesn't say margarine. She says marjoram, which is a herb.
The official subtitles on a retail copy of the movie says "margarine."
I agree she did say margarine; though it should be pointed out a subtitle should never be used as confirmation to what a line is saying. Just about every movie has incorrect subtitles at some point as the script is not used to create the subtitles. It is determined by watching and going off the audio ridiculous as it is.
The mistake is correct. She does say margarine, not marjoram. She even follows this up with "Or oil. Olive oil works", so she's talking about cooking with some sort of fat, not an herb.
Correction: Mary watched 10-30 minutes of television commercials at "The Master's" house earlier in the evening, so she could have learned about it from TV.
I half agree. Even witches can learn anything from TV. But some how they would have put something in the script to say that.
10th Oct 2019
The Birds (1963)
Trivia: Mitch's sister, Cathy Brenner, is played by a then very young Veronica Cartwright in her first horror role, who went on to star in other horrors, often alien-related: the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers as the sole surviving human, Nancy, in Alien as the character of Lambert and play a recurring abductee character on the long running series, The X-Files.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but how is this trivia? Actors and actresses star in multiple movies. The three mentioned are not related or even similar. I don't see how this is trivia.
I felt that it is trivia to know that this actress continued to stay active in the horror/thriller genre...different, important roles. Some of her fans might not have even recognized her starting out in The Birds.
This isn't a trivia about the movie itself though. Trivia about cast members is acceptable if their role reflects or references a previous work, but not future works. And simply listing a person's acting resume isn't trivia without it being relevant to the film itself. For example, if an actor from an original TV show or movie appears in the reboot, you can list that as trivia for the reboot, but it wouldn't be trivia for the original. Plus, the film "The Birds" isn't an alien-based horror film.
14th Oct 2018
Common mistakes
Character mistake: When someone gets shot and the first thing people try to do is remove the bullet, often with a knife and no anesthetic.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This commonly happens but this is not a mistake. What is wrong with removing the bullet with a knife and no anesthetic. Many times the characters don't have access to a medical facility with all the accoutrements to remove a bullet or don't want to go to a hospital where bullet wounds are reported to law enforcement.
It seems my original entry was edited to make it more brief. But in real life, bullets are not commonly removed because there's no need. The bullet is not the concern, it's the hole the bullet caused that's the concern. They (and more specific to what I was trying to suggest, they as in medical experts) are increasing the risk factors for no viable reason and are never addressing the main cause for concern. And the point of not using anesthetic is they are increasing the risk factors even more for an already pointless surgery.
21st Oct 2018
Common mistakes
Factual error: Protagonists who have been able to clear their name after being framed, but only in the process of committing several other crimes, for which they receive no punishments. The law is still the law and crimes are all separate from each other committed in that time period.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This can be true or not. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion whether to prosecute a crime of not. If you help the police solve a crime that you were originally a suspect by committing another crime, as long as that crime is not murder (it can be self-defense) the prosecutor has discretion whether to prosecute.
Plus, in the case of common mistakes, they are not working with the police to clear their name. And just because they're not murdering people doesn't mean they're not assaulting people (outside the realm of self-defense). Plus, this common mistake is especially true for police officers kicked off the case and then break all sorts of police procedures with no consequences.
The only point I am making is that prosecutors do have discretion whether to prosecute crimes. If the crime is minor AND you helped the prosecutor with other more serious crimes, they can choose to not prosecute you for the minor crimes. The OP was vague as to what kind of additional crimes they committed. If murder, then I don't see how they get away with that just because they helped solve other crimes. It would depend on what kind of other crimes the protagonist committed.
26th Jun 2003
A Fine Mess (1986)
Continuity mistake: After Dennis punches Spence in the nose the piano starts playing and Dennis just pushes it to turn it off even though every time they had to turn it on and off before then they had to use the on/off switch. (01:01:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I took it as a very movie-like "when you don't know how to fix/start/stop/do stuff to a machine, just hit it" moment. Thing is though, just mere seconds before in the same scene, Howie Mandel bumped against the piano, hitting harder than it does to stop it, and it kept going, so I do think that this entry has some merit.
This correction is unnecessary. It validates the original mistake at the end.
The original contribution points out something that, especially in movies, happens a lot: hit some device and it stops. Personally I don't see it as a mistake and I would have not reported it. But I do think it's inconsistent, that it stopped that second time and not the first. I could have submitted a new mistake entry but I did not find it necessary, or a request to change the entry's wording, but I think it is best to keep the original contribution and present a possible explanation and suggestion of a possible, slightly different, inconsistency in the same scene.
And none of that is needed. Explaining why a mistake happens is never a valid correction. And explaining the mistake in a different way isn't needed either (although one can change the wording of a mistake if one feels the mistake isn't clear enough).
2nd Apr 2019
The Good Place (2016)
Corrected entry: In this episode we learn that to earn points Eleanor needs to have the correct motivation, and doing good things so that she can get into the good place is having corrupt motivations. However when we meet Doug in a later episode he's shown to be a "model human" yet everything he does is so that he doesn't go to the bad place. This doesn't make sense, as his motivations should be corrupt by knowing about the good place at all.
Correction: I disagree, I think that because his theories weren't confirmed, he has the same chance of getting in as anyone else. There are plenty of other people that do good things because they want better treatment in the afterlife.
The episode makes it clear that Doug is convinced his theory is correct and he even says something along the lines of "I need to do good to get into the good place" (not a direct quote). To Doug his theory is confirmed and that should be enough to corrupt his motivations.
I agree. Doug's motivations for doing good things, are based on the belief that doing good things gets him into the good place. But that's all it is, a belief. Eleanor actually knows the truth and it's only after death, and after the fear of eternal torture, that she tries to be a better person. As for Doug's point total, I think he was so focused on not losing points that he became a passive hermit who rarely did anything. And by not doing anything, there were very few options to earn points.
Correction: Which explains why, as we later find out, his point total is nowhere near good enough to reach the Good Place. His good deeds are offset by his corrupted motivations.
That's not what happened at all. His good deeds aren't off-set by corrupt motivations, they're off-set by unintended consequences of good actions, which is why nobody was getting into the Good Place. Doing a good thing, like buying flowers for a loved one gave the expected positive points, but earned negative points for everything associated with the farming, raising, and selling of the flower.
No, Shaun said that because the good place was impossible to get in and it even said no-one arrived at the good place in 500 years.
Correction: The reason Eleanor's motivation is corrupt and not Doug's is because Eleanor was already dead, and knew definitely of the consequences. Though Doug's theory was correct he had no way of knowing what would truly happen if he didn't do good. It is the same with other religions, though Doug was correct in his theory, it still was only a theory that could not be proven. He went to Doug because he knew for certain Doug would be the one person on Earth whose points should have been extremely high.
27th Aug 2001
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Corrected entry: The Headless Horseman died in 1779 when the two little girls (who were about 6) make noise to get him killed. The grown up little girl (Miranda Richardson) in 1799 is much older than 26. (01:26:05)
Correction: We have no idea how old the girls actually are - many short thin people look much younger than their true age. The girls could easily be at least 10.
Even if she was 10, that would only make Lady Van Tassel 30. The mistake is saying she looks over 40, since the actress was 41 at the time of the film.
Correction: We have no idea of Katrina's stepmother's age. It was very common for an older gentleman to marry a much younger woman at that point in history.
Women also looked older and aged faster back then - hardships of life.
Mary Archer, who is known as Lady Van Tassel and is Katrina's step mom, was a little girl (around 6 according to the mistake entry) when her dad died. 18 years later, she becomes nurse to Elizabeth and 2 years after that, she marries Baltus, putting her at around 26. It should be noted, the mistake is saying Mary looks over 40 (since the actress was 41 at the time of the film).
6th Feb 2006
Benny & Joon (1993)
Revealing mistake: During the opening credits, it is obvious that the train is just a model during the initial close up shots.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is nothing in the opening shots that betray it as a model shot. Logic alone argues against it. Why would they go to the expense of building a detailed model when there is no unusual action or angles required? Especially since many of the shots are obviously not a model. Exactly how is it obviously a model?
I agree it does look like it's a model train, but that's only because of the filming techniques that make it appear to run a little choppier like it's was a light weight model. But it's real, for example in one scene that looks like it's a model, you see a real bird flying on screen.
24th Sep 2019
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Stupidity: When the parents knew Freddy was doing the killing then why didn't they watch him like a neighborhood watch so they could catch him trying it again, and thus avoid the legal technicality which threw out of the first case? It seems idiotic they broke the law to punish this lawbreaker.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The parents believed Freddy would not face justice for his crimes. They were unwilling to allow him the opportunity to kill another child, and believing the justice system had failed them they took the law into their own hands. They completely got away with their vigilante justice. The only bad thing that happened was Freddy was brought back as a vengeful demon with superpowers. There is no way the parents could have known this would happen.
It is still a stupidity. Even if they wanted him to suffer, they would try to avoid legal problems at all costs. It is good that they wanted to prevent him from killing another child but they still shouldn't act so hastily.
Stupidity entries are not meant to be stupid acts by characters. They're for minor plot holes. Without in-film evidence why the acts would be a plot hole, there is no stupidity mistake. And assuming what characters would or would not do does not make a valid mistake (not to mention revenge killings do happen in real life and in movies a lot).
No, it's not. What else were they supposed to do when he was caught and set free? It's still not their fault what happened next.
21st Jan 2007
Superman Returns (2006)
Corrected entry: When Superman is first flying toward the Genesis shuttle, a controller says an unidentified bogie (Superman) is approaching from the North, but the computer screens (one of which even shows a compass) indicate that Superman is apparently coming in from approximately the South East.
Correction: It is traditional but by no means compulsory to have north uppermost on a map or radar screen, and in orbit where 'up' and 'down' are meaningless concepts anyway the radar screen could be oriented any which way.
23rd Oct 2002
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
Continuity mistake: At the beginning of the film, we see Sully asleep in his bed and the alarm clock/radio on a bedside cabinet to the right. Later, when Boo climbs into Sully's bed, the clock/radio isn't there anymore. (00:04:50 - 00:32:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Sully may have unplugged the alarm clock and put it somewhere else, especially when there's a "dangerous" child in his home, and he wouldn't want his things to get contaminated.
This correction is a stretch. If he doesn't want his things contaminated, why not remove the pictures and lamps? Why let her sleep in his bed with his blankets?
16th Aug 2010
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
Other mistake: In the scaring simulation room, the alphabet wallpaper border at the top of the wall has the "J" written backwards.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The walls of the room also have nonsensical drawings like a giraffe with two heads. The implication is that the monsters designing the room didn't entirely know what kids would actually have in rooms (like they didn't know that giraffes don't actually have two heads). So they thought that humans have the J backwards.
Whether or not the backwards J was intentional or as a joke, it would still seem unreasonable for the monsters to get it wrong when you see they got the pictures for each letter seen correct "jaguar", "kangaroo "pig", "quail", "rhino." I would at the very least call it a character mistake.
As the original correction said, it's just an example of the monsters not understanding the human world. Not a mistake.
Yet they know the alphabet? I doubt it.
26th Sep 2019
Ad Astra (2019)
Factual error: Regarding people walking on the moon base, the movie made no attempts at recreating the moon's gravity being 1/6 of earth's. Everyone just walks around normally like on earth. Impossible.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Maybe there is some kind of artificial gravity field around the moon city, because during the moon rover chase, the gravity is apparently the normal, 1/6 Earth gravity.
There is nothing else about the technology shown in the film that would suggest such a thing is possible. All other technology shown is somewhat recognisable as an advancement on the present day. They at no point suggest the use of artificial gravity.
This correction appears to be made by someone guessing without knowledge of the film or scene. While using "maybe" in a correction could be considered valid, generally it's only when presenting a number of plausible explanations and you suggest 1 as an example. But 1 random maybe isn't acceptable, especially without in-film proof.
If the artificial gravity is developed it can be used in space travel also. But we don't see any during their space travels that they have any form of artificial gravity.
26th Jun 2019
Child's Play (2019)
Other mistake: Andy and his friends are watching "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" in one scene. However, the scenes they watch are completely out of order compared to the actual film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually this is simply a movie convention. When kids watch films onscreen, they deliberately only show the best bits of the film as oppose to just playing the film normally. Otherwise it would look dull and pointless.
Explaining why a mistake exists doesn't invalidate them. Skipping time or jump cuts is one thing, showing scenes from a movie kids are watching out of order, without a valid in-film reason, is still a mistake.
Technically no.
The issue isn't that they aren't showing the whole movie. They did the right thing by just showing clips, since it illustrates a passage of time. The issue is that the clips they show are all out of order. (You'll see one from the ending of the movie, then one from the beginning, then another from the ending, then one from the middle, etc.) They could have just as easily shown a couple clips in order from throughout the film, and it would have worked, but they chose not to for some bizarre reason.
19th Sep 2019
Jumanji (1995)
Character mistake: When young Alan is talking young Sarah, he says that he found a board game at the factory. Alan didn't find the game at the factory. He found the game across from the factory at a construction site.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The construction might very well be part of the factory, a new factory building for example.
The sign at the construction site said it was an "Executive Office Annex" that they were building.
Even though the sign said it was an Annex, construction was still being done outside of the main factory where Alan found the game. Not inside of the main factory itself.
9th May 2009
17 Again (2009)
Corrected entry: In the scene in the school gym, circa 1989, when the big game is just about to start, Ned (the little buddy) runs in late, wearing a robe and pointed hat. He says he was late because of some Harry Potter / Gryffindor activity he was doing. The problem is: the first Harry Potter book was published in 1997, and this part of the movie takes place in 1989. There is no way a character in 1989 could know about Harry Potter.
Correction: He doesn't speak about Harry Potter, he says something about what kind of wizard would he be if a quest during a battle with a hippogriff, the hippogriff is a mythical beast, he was probably playing Dungeons and Dragons.
Ned mentions being an good Dungeon Master because he didn't leave in the middle of the fight with a hippogriff. Although a hippogriff is mythological, it was created in the Harry Potter Universe which, again, didn't exist at the time.
Hippogriffs were not created by J.K. Rowling! They are ancient Roman mythical creatures first mentioned in writing by the poet Virgil (who died in 19 B.C.) They are also creatures used in D&D games.
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: In the context of the story, perhaps he was simply waiting for the conversation between Dorothy and Mr Ha Ha to end before he addressed anyone. Some people do that.
dewinela
A correction for this was already attempted. In certain instances, it's obvious that an actor (especially a child actor) is waiting for a cue, mouthing the lines, or suppose to be off-camera. Sometimes their actions can be explained as normal for the given scene, but evidence for their actions need to be based on viewing the scene, not just guessing. Bobby is making a movement to get up, and starts to lean forward waiting for his cue because he's not even looking at Dorothy and Mr. Ha Ha. And he stands up while Dorothy is talking, so he's not waiting for their conversation to end.
Bishop73
Considering that I was watching this scene when I replied, I stand by it. Mr Ha Ha was acting arrogantly towards Dorothy and the kid was close enough to overhear the conversation. Proof is when he gets up as Dorothy is talking, because that was the moment she said she couldn't do it. As soon as she said it, that's when he committed himself to do it because since Mr Ha Ha mentioned a lawyer to Dorothy he'd never have the nerve to threaten a child, and the kid knew it.
dewinela