Continuity mistake: After Chandler makes the joke about Joey cracking show business, Joey is holding the phone in his left hand. In the next shot, it is in his right hand. (00:11:20)
Bishop73
18th Dec 2007
Friends (1994)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You can actually see him switch it to the other hand before the next scene pops up if you look close enough.
Not for the shot the mistake is talking about. Throughout the scene he's switching the phone back and forth. But after Chandler's line, Joey is just standing there with the phone in his left hand, he doesn't make any move to switch hands. In the next shot, the wide shot from the side showing everyone, you see the phone is in his right hand.
25th May 2010
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Corrected entry: I have to post this to refute the comment that denied the existence of an alternate ending. I was overjoyed to find a comment here from someone else who remembered seeing a different ending just one time in the 1960s. I've spent my whole life trying to find someone else who remembered this. In the 1960s the annual broadcast of the film had hosts. I, and two of my friends, ever since childhood always remembered that one year the movie had a different ending. I've always sensed it was the year that the hosts were Liza Minnelli and Lorna and Joey Luft. We never could remember what the different ending was, but we recalled that it was black and white and that our reaction was: It wasn't just a dream that time. Now that I've read this other person's memory of the camera's panning to the ruby slippers under the bed, in black and white, I remember that's what I saw. Another commenter says that there's no evidence that the scene ever existed. I am here to verify that someone else has never stopped wondering for over 40 years about a vague memory of a different ending from one airing in the 1960s.
Correction: https://criticsrant.com/mythbusters-dorothys-ruby-slippers/ This website gives some confirmation, it's one of those myths that get mixed up in people's memories to being convinced they have seen it. The WoZ original footage has been carefully preserved, it's not lost, if this footage made it to the final film for view; somebody would have posted it by now as the footage would still exist somewhere. It's possible you saw a skit or parody though that you mistook for the actual film. That would make sense.
Correction: This is called the "Mandela Effect" (aka 'collective false memory').
It's not a false memory, when I have never forgotten that night, only to find that someone else also remembered it. We may all be connected by our subconscious, but that's going a bit too far. Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
But the nature of a collective false memory means just because two people remember something happening, doesn't mean it did! :-).
It's also possible you saw a parody or a different adaption of WoZ one time and it mixed up in your memory as being a part of the 1939 movie. There is no evidence of this ending ever being in the 1939 version. It's not in the script, there is no surviving imagery of it, and no other record of it whether through cast/crew memories or having been noted as a cut scene. Since we do have records of cut/altered scenes from WoZ, more than likely there would be record of this ending somewhere.
That's the exact definition of The Mandela Effect...multiple people having the same memory of something, even though it never happened. There are people who swear that the line in "Snow White" is "Mirror, mirror on the wall," when in fact it is, "Magic mirror on the wall." Just as there are people who are absolutely convinced that Sinbad was in a movie called "Shazaam."
I also remember this ending and it has driven me crazy over the years! I would stake my life on seeing the slippers under her bed. You are not alone, and I am glad I am not either.
Correction: I do remember seeing a different ending where the camera pans down and slippers are under the bed after Dorothy says, "there's no place like home." I saw it in the 80's at a classmates house, we were watching a rented VHS of the film at her birthday party. I even remember her mother saying she had never seen that part before.
Hi everyone, I would also like to include that I too, in the '60s, saw The Wizard of Oz with the ruby slippers under the bed. I told people for years about this, and no one else could remember the ending. So, I decided since we have the internet today, I would see if anyone else saw this alternative ending and am pleased to see that you have.
Correction: Have you ever watched the 1925 "Wizard of Oz" film? I haven't watched it and I don't know its history of being aired on TV. But it was shot in B&W and perhaps that's the version you watched (I'm not claiming it is or isn't though).
I'd say it can't be, if you peek at it (it's available on Youtube), the ending is completely different and wouldn't fit. Fascinating discussion, anyway! To the original poster; nobody means to disparage your memory, in fact we're trying to come up with possible explanations; it's pretty certain though that it can't be an official alternate ending, because we're talking about one of the most iconic and analyzed movies ever. Now it's all about figuring out what sort of clip did they play during that TV broadcast you seem to remember. And there's a gigantic wikipedia page just about the telecast alone. Perhaps it was a wraparound credits sequence?
It's not a pseudo memory at all. I remembered the same thing from the late sixties and have tried to find out for decades why it was just the one year as well and I saw it and remembered it before I ever saw others were trying to find out about it. Very strange but I have to agree that there should be a lot more people that remember it. I'm watching the movie again now and the memory came back again. When I searched I just now saw that others DO remember that different ending.
Thank you. I appreciate your saying that you're not trying to disparage my memory, but that is exactly what the responders are doing. Instead of trying to come up with explanations, maybe people should accept that they cannot prove a negative, and that just because they don't recall it and can't find a record doesn't mean I'm wrong. I don't want to keep repeating myself, I know what I saw, and my best friend (whom I did not meet until several years after) remembers it too.
No. I've never seen it.
25th Feb 2022
Santa Clarita Diet (2017)
A Specific Form of Recklessness - S3-E7
Corrected entry: When Eric is explaining the bomb to Sheila and Joel, Sheila says to push the detonator when 50 feet away. Joel says no 50 yards. Eric says that is 500 ft. It's actually 150 feet. 3x50=150. (00:23:35)
Correction: That's not quite what he says. He said "it's 500 feet", not "that is." Both of them had the distance wrong and he was giving the correct distance to detonate the bomb.
27th Aug 2001
Commando (1985)
Continuity mistake: Rae fires a rocket at the police van, first she fires it back to front then the second time she fires it correctly only this time she is knocked back by the recoil, why wasn't she affected the first time and pushed forward? Also there should be no recoil with a rocket launch. (00:57:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She was pushed forward against the front windshield which kept her upright whereas when firing it the right way she was thrown backward into the back seat. And rocket launchers will have some measure of recoil from the propulsion of the rocket firing out of the front of the launcher, how much depends on the time and force of the rockets being firing as every weapon has some form of recoil from firing.
Rocket launchers don't have the recoil you think. The propulsion of the rocket firing out of the front is countered by the gases expelling out the back behind the shooter. But if she was pushed forward (which she's not), her waist was above the top of the windshield, so the top of her body would should still lean over, even if it didn't cause her to topple over like she does with the seat.
18th Feb 2022
Pretty Little Liars (2010)
Character mistake: Ali calls Emily "Hannah" when getting to the romantic spot that she set up.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Ali doesn't call her by any name. I think what you're hearing as "Hannah" was the line "and if" (and if this is our last chance of freedom). Or before when she said "I had a dream."
18th Feb 2022
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
Character mistake: When Tracy is about to announce that the wedding is off, she turns to Dexter for help, and he says "Two years ago..." Tracy starts the announcement "Three years ago..."
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
18th Feb 2022
Panic Room (2002)
Corrected entry: When viewing the property, Meg's mother reprimands Sarah for riding her scooter and playing with the elevator - but for some reason, both times she calls her Kim, not Sarah, as Meg does.
Correction: She doesn't say "Kim", she says "kid."
18th Feb 2022
Valentine (2001)
Trivia: As of 2022, this is the only widely-released theatrical film to feature David Boreanaz in a starring role. His only other starring film roles have been in TV-movies, limited releases and direct-to-video movies. (Although thankfully, he is an incredibly successful television actor).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Those are very narrow parameters that could describe a lot of TV actors, but how would you classify "The Mighty Macs" (2009)? He has a starring role that opened to almost 1,000 theaters its opening week and remained in theaters over a month (albeit with reducing numbers of theaters showing the film).
17th Feb 2022
Ozark (2017)
Corrected entry: Marty tells Ruth he'll pay her $1000 a week when he asks her to run the strip club. Later in the season, Ruth has demands, and says she wants to make 25k a year. Marty says "done." $1000 per week would have been $52k a year.
Correction: That's not what happened. She asked for a raise and Marty asked how much, and she says $25K. Meaning she wants $25K more, not to make just $25K.
17th Feb 2022
Foyle's War (2002)
Other mistake: Beck sometimes calls the safe breaker Harry and sometimes Malcolm, which is correct?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: His name is Harry Markham. He doesn't say Malcom.
2nd Feb 2020
Midway (2019)
Other mistake: At the end, it states "Clarence Dickinson became a 'Real' Admiral..." instead of Rear Admiral. (02:04:17)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I just had the chance to watch the movie again. It says "Rear" not "Real" as alleged in this entry.
I watched just now and my version also shows "Real" rather than "Rear." Perhaps this was fixed only in some releases.
What version did you watch? I see "Rear." Perhaps a screenshot is needed.
19th May 2015
The Walking Dead (2010)
Continuity mistake: When the Governor first attacks the prison, he is standing on the driver's side but in front of the truck. Next, Michonne aims at the truck and now the black guy who was always with Martinez is shot dead on the driver's side. Then after that, you see he's alive again on the passenger side right before the other truck comes crashing through the gates with all the walkers inside.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The man you're taking about is Shumpert aka "Bowman." He's was not shot dead. He dove for cover and is still alive. In fact, he's in at least a half dozen more episodes, including in season 4.
16th Feb 2017
The Walking Dead (2010)
Walk with Me - S3-E3
Character mistake: When Andrea asks the Governor his real name, a young girl in pink shirt is walking like a "walker" and abruptly shifts to normal gait.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She was never walking like a "walker." She was wondering around like many of the other extras. She looks like she was waiting for her family and when the boys approach, she stops wondering around and walks towards wherever they live.
9th Feb 2022
Blue Bloods (2010)
Corrected entry: It's said the illegal immigrant from Venezuela has a new born child. Yet they're still talking of deporting him. Impossible as that child was born here, she/he is an automatic citizen and can represent the whole family in getting citizenship as the law dictates.
Correction: No, it's not impossible. It's a lot more complex and there's no guarantee for immediate citizenship for the parents. There's not even a guarantee a child will be given residency in the US until he or she is old enough to live on his or her own. However, I missed the part in the episode that said anything about the child being born in America, they just said he had a "newborn."
30th May 2020
Outbreak (1995)
Character mistake: Salt states that the range of their Hughes OH-6A helicopter is 400 miles. The actual range of this model is 267 miles. (Source: FAS.ORG).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The FAS site lists 4 different ranges, but according to Boeing's own website, the range was 413 miles.
Suggested correction: The range of the OA-6 is 380 statute miles.
20th Jun 2016
The Walking Dead (2010)
Continuity mistake: When the walkers come through the cars, most shots show Carl and Sophia to be under the same car. When Sophia is attacked by the walker, Carl is not there and Sophia is shown on her own in other shots as well. (00:19:25 - 00:20:05)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They never get under the same car. When we see them first get under the cars, they are both seen getting under cars going in the same direction at the same time (they'd have to go in opposite direction to get under the same car from both sides). Then in the first close up of Sophia, we can see Carl's head in the shadow and then a strip of sunlight indicating 2 separate cars.
10th Aug 2021
The Walking Dead (2010)
Corrected entry: Many times throughout this show, some zombies have been depicted as being burnt to a crisp with barely anything left, but still moving, or having been crushed or have their chests completely destroyed. Some even being that the head is the only thing left. Yet these zombies still growl, hiss and grunt. This is not possible without lungs attached to flow air through the throat and mouth.
Correction: This is typical in most zombie-lore and shouldn't be considered a mistake given every other aspect of what zombies are shown to do that would otherwise be impossible in real life.
18th Dec 2021
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Stupidity: In the first part of the movie, Peter has to deal with the various 'visitors' and bring them too Strange. But the device Strange will use is just going to send them home no matter where they are (conveniently at the push of a button that even complete ignoramus can push) and there are visitors he does not know about, so everything up to that point has been meaningless. Then it becomes a matter of 'curing' every one of those visitors, but if -as it seems - they have been fetched moments before their deaths, 'curing' them is not going to fix anything. They are still going to die or end up in prison for life due to the horrors they committed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Part of the problem we have is that instead of just dealing with the Multiverse, they're also creating parallel or alternate realities in those universes since everyone is pulled from a different point in time in their realities, so any changes besides their death is going to create a new timeline. And I think part of the plan to send them back cured was that from their they could change their course of action or be able to reason with their Spider-Man, which would mean it's better than nothing.
Yes, that's the idea, with all the problems we underlined and the movie ignores entirely. Much like when in Avengers Endgame they don't show you how Cap brings back the stones with the precision required, they elegantly skipped showing us if and how each of them avoids being impaled, drowned, dissolved, or how does it even work for those fetched by the 'same' timeline. We'll see if they deal with these messy timelines at any point in the future.
Suggested correction: With the exception of Doc Ock - who learned Spidey's identity shortly before he died - there's nothing to suggest the other villains were fetched from their realities moments before their deaths, or that they will die upon returning to their realities. Whether or not they end up in prison after returning is irrelevant to the fact that Peter wants to help them. If he doesn't cure them, then they are free to continue causing mayhem regardless of what reality they are occupying.
It's stated in the film that BOTH Otto and Norman died while fighting Spider-Man and that both were pulled from their reality shortly before dying. Max then recounts his fight before being pulled and says "I was about to die." Then Curt asks Max if he died too, but they get interrupted before we find out.
"Shortly" is a relative term. Goblin discovered Spider-Man's identity at Thanksgiving dinner and then died a day or two later. Electro's fate was rather ambiguous, but Jamie Foxx himself implied prior to The Amazing Spider-Man 2's release that he would be appearing in more films, likely including the Sinister Six movie that never came to fruition. We know from The Amazing Spider-Man that Lizard didn't die.
"Shortly before dying" as in pulled during the fight that they died during, not a few days before. It wasn't about being pulled when they found out who Spider-Man was.
Even so, if Green Goblin is pulled from his reality 5 minutes before his death, that would be considered shortly, but it certainly wouldn't be mere moments before he died as the original entry was suggesting. The movie never explicitly states how soon before their deaths they were pulled, therefore we as viewers can reasonably assume that there could have been just enough time for them to alter their course of actions and prevent their deaths.
Also, the reason why Peter wants to 'cure' them is not because they are causing mayhem, but as he explicitly says, because he's not comfortable sending them back when 'some' of them will die - thing is, he can't know that curing their conditions will save them, the whole idea kinda comes out of nowhere. I submitted it as Stupidity because I was sure someone would object it's not a plot hole since it's just stuff the characters 'believe' and there's no proof it's true, however it's funny that 90% of the stuff Peter does in this movie is probably completely pointless.
Saying that he can't know that curing their conditions won't save them is like a doctor saying they won't give a cancer patient chemotherapy because they don't know if it will save them. Their chances of being saved are certainly better if they are cured and cease fighting Spider-Man. If Osborn is returned cured before he attempts to impale Spider-Man with his glider, then that would certainly prevent him from dying in that situation.
I absolutely respect the fact that they want Spidey to be heroic and that the moment he knows that they are going to die he wants to do something about it, that's why I say that it's just funny that there's no indication at all that it would work (by all logic it would not) but it's elegantly glossed over. Let me remind you though that he's not a doctor that wants to cure his sick patient, he's a doctor that wants to cure someone who died 1-2 decades earlier in accidents he doesn't really get into the details of.
There not being an indication that it would work does not make it a stupidity. He can't let the villains remain in his reality, or else it will cause a major multiversal catastrophe. He doesn't want to send them back to their realities and die fighting other Spider-Men, so he does what he thinks is his best option. For this to be a stupidity, there would have to be a rather obvious alternate solution that he overlooked (such as asking Strange to make everyone forget Mysterio's broadcast instead of making everyone forget Peter Parker is Spider-Man).
I don't want to make my own movie in my head, the one we got is more than enjoyable, and I don't want to say that the character is stupid (any movie would be easily solved with afterthought or cynicism, such as "let Strange do his thing"); I merely pointed out that the plot takes you for a ride forcing you to buy premises that are taken as 100% fact and logical (they never ever even imply the fact that what Peter does could be pointless or problematic - in most movies, saving dead people is not a good idea) when they are anything but that. If I know that a crazy person died driving a car into a tree, curing his craziness is one step and not even the most important (would a crazy Norman not survive, if he goes back in time at the right moment and knows what is going to happen? again, the bigger flaw being that if he remembers dying, how can I undo that?) but the movie is surely not going for the "It's most certainly useless, but aww, at least he tried" angle.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The Ghostbusters can get inside the museum when the Statue of Liberty breaks the museum's ceiling light. Good, but the whole museum was surrounded by a shell of slime that extended above it too. The Ghostbusters do nothing to open a hole in the slime, nor they could know it would open, and the Statue has nothing to do with it. (01:31:45)
Correction: I think you somehow completely missed the point of them bringing in the statue in the first place. They animate the statue and walk it through the streets to act as a symbol to bring out the positive emotions/good vibes of the people. The positivity weakens the negatively-fueled slime shell enough for them to get inside. They quite literally show people cheering in the streets and the slime "retreating" from the ceiling windows as a result. Watch this clip, it explains their plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2wtteHUGjg.
Correction: The positive slime caused the negative slime to retreat. You can see this happening when the statue bends over the museum.
As I said, they do nothing to open a hole, it just happens; the Statue is close to a whole side of the museum that is covered in goop, but does not distance itself from it. Does it react to the music speakers? To the torch's warmth? It's just random stuff that happens. Which is totally fine in a movie like this, but does not prevent from noting it. However, since the whole idea of using the statue comes to them because they need to 'crack' the barrier, I'd say you are right there; they didn't know how and if it would work perhaps, but the idea IS set up. I still think the visual representation of it is inconsistent, since I don't get why the hole would open in that area of all areas.
I didn't think it had anything to do with touching the negative slime first. The negative slime was weakened by the positive emotions of the crowd, and their positive emotions came from seeing the Statue and Ghostbusters coming down the street, and the statue came to life with the positive slime and music. In the weakened state, the negative slime started to retract without the Ghostbusters needing to do anything else. They would have seen the ceiling being uncovered and then broke in that way.
Yup, Bishop73 got it 100% correct. They state in the movie that they need a symbol to bring out the positivity to get through the slime, and the movie shows the slime retreating after the crowds outside cheer for them in the statue. (Not sure where lionhead got the idea that it was the positive slime that did it, since the movie does not indicate that at all).
Positive feedback here. It shows the positive slime is more powerful than the negative slime. That's why they hose Janosz, Ray and Vigo in the end with the positive slime. It thinks all together the positive energy of the crowd caused the positive slime to grow and become even more powerful and the negative slime to retreat. That's how I always interpreted it at least. But you can go several ways here. In any case, it's not random.
Ah I see! You see sufficient visual correlation between the crowd cheering and the slime retracting, I don't see that, so the fact that the slime opens up freeing the skylight doesn't feel visually correlated with the 'mobilization of positive energy' thingy. Later it 'weakens' reacting in a different manner.
19th Mar 2016
Star Trek (1966)
Revealing mistake: A straight and level seam connecting the top and bottom halves of the tunnel Spock is crawling through is visible.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Views of the tunnels made before the creature was wounded by Kirk and Spock appear almost perfectly smooth. It is explained that the creature exudes a powerful acid to dissolve the rock. This tunnel was made after the creature was wounded, so it is logical that the wounded portion of the creature would secrete less acid thus leaving an imperfection as the creature tunnels. This could be a case of incredible attention to detail by the set designer rather than an error revealed.
This correction is too much of a stretch to explain a perfect seam by the wounded Horta. Plus, if the Horta was secreting less corrosive substance, then that area would be less eroded, not more. If attention to detail was paid, then the area would have an outward seam, not an inward one.
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.