Corrected entry: When Levi March's wife makes it clear that she will testify against him his lawyer protests that she cannot so do under spousal privilege. He should know better. Spousal privilege protects a wife from being compelled to give evidence against her husband (and vice versa). It does not prevent her from volunteering to do so, which is the case here.
Bishop73
31st Aug 2021
Law & Order (1990)
6th Sep 2021
Stargate SG-1 (1997)
Character mistake: At the end, Vala and Mitchell establish a wormhole and let Teal'c and Jackson know. Almost a minute passes before Teal'c and Jackson get back to the gate and Jackson yells "run" because they need to get through the gate right away. Obviously they're detained, but after being let go, Mitchell says they're sending the iris code now. This is something that should have been done sooner, especially after hearing gunfire, so they could be ready to go through when Teal'c and Jackson arrived.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: OR... after hearing the gunfire maybe it was smarter to wait until they verified that it was Teal'c and Jackson who prevailed. Otherwise, they risked leaving the gate open to a hostile force.
Perhaps they waited, but they still would have sent it when they saw them, which the didn't. And they've never waited like that before.
6th Sep 2021
Red Dragon (2002)
Corrected entry: Reba opens the door for Francis, but calls him "Ralph". (01:46:05)
Correction: Reba is blind and didn't know it was Francis at the door. Ralph just dropped her off, and she thought it was him.
6th Sep 2021
Gilmore Girls (2000)
Dear Emily and Richard - S3-E13
Character mistake: Lorelai calls Rory "Suki" when they are unboxing the books Emily gave to them. (00:10:08 - 00:31:11)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She calls her "sweetie."
6th Sep 2021
Bob's Burgers (2011)
Mazel-Tina - S4-E13
Corrected entry: When everyone refers to Tammy's party they're catering for, they refer to it as a bar mitzvah. Bar mitzvahs are for boys - they're called Bat mitzvahs for girls.
Correction: They say "bat mitzvah" several times throughout the episode, never "bar mitzvah" (with the exception of a play on words when it's referred to as a "brat" mitzvah).
6th Sep 2021
M*A*S*H (1970)
Factual error: The goal posts in the fifties were at the goal line, in the movie they are in back of the end zone.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The goalposts were at the back of the end zone for college football since the 20's. It was only the NFL that had the goal posts on the goal line, so the scene is accurate since it wasn't an NFL game. It should be noted too that the NFL didn't move the goalpost to the back of the end zone until 1974, 4 years after the movie came out.
6th Sep 2021
The Karate Kid (1984)
Other mistake: In the semi final match between Johnny and Duval his name is listed behind them on the board as Vidal. But you can hear him being announced as Duval.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He doesn't say "Duval", he says "Darryl Vidal." While the character isn't listed by name in the credits, only listed as "Karate Semi-finalist", he was in fact played by Darryl Vidal, who was an actual black belt at the time of the movie.
6th Sep 2021
Jumanji: The Next Level (2019)
Corrected entry: On the hanging bridge, when they were running away from the mandrills, Martha shows her tattoo and reveals that she only has one life left. However, later on, despite having only one life left, she still re-spawns after being bitten by a venomous snake.
Correction: You're mixing up the movies. Martha intentionally has herself bitten by the venomous snake at the end of the first film, "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle." The mandrill scene takes place in the sequel and she's not bitten at the end of this movie.
6th Sep 2021
North by Northwest (1959)
Corrected entry: In the final escape scene on top of Mt Rushmore 3 of the Presidents are shown, but in the wrong order. They are shown in the movie, left to right, Washington, Roosevelt and then Jefferson. On Mt Rushmore in real life, left to right, it's Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln.
Correction: I watched the scene and never saw them out of order. Before they climb down, we see Mt Rushmore in full and the order is correct. They even climb down between Washington and Jefferson.
6th Sep 2021
A Goofy Movie (1995)
Corrected entry: As Goofy and Max leave for their road trip, Max says "Goodbye hopes, Goodbye dreams, Goodbye Roxanne." Max 'pops' into a realization key pose, without any 'in-betweening' at all.
6th Sep 2021
Apocalypto (2006)
Corrected entry: The Mayan empire and civilization was abandoned by 900 AD, 600 years before the Spanish ships would have been seen.
Correction: There have been several different periods in Mayan civilization, but they were still around when the Spanish arrived. The collapse of the Classic Period did happen around 900-910 AD, but was followed by the Postclassic Period and the Mayans were still around at the time of Spanish contact with the last independent Mayan city falling around 1697.
6th Sep 2021
Superman: The Animated Series (1996)
Corrected entry: No reason is ever given as to why Detective Bowman would murder a woman for her jewelry.
Correction: It should also be pointed out that Bowman didn't murder the lady for her jewelry. While his motives were unknown (and irrelevant), he simply used the jewelry to frame Walker.
Correction: A plot hole is when there is a logical inconsistency that benefits a story despite not making any sense. A reason not being given for a character's actions is not a plot hole, nor is it any other kind of mistake.
Not only is it not known why Bowman killed the woman, no explanation is ever given as to why he chose to frame Walker so it still benefits as a plot hole.
5th Sep 2021
The Terminator (1984)
Continuity mistake: When Reese and later the Terminator go through the phone book to locate Sarah Connor, the second Sarah is listed as Sarah Ann Connor. Later, when Traxler and Vukovich are discussing the death of the second Sarah, Traxler reads the name on the police file as Sarah Louise Connor.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: A similar mistake was already corrected. When Vukovich says "girl number 2", he says she was killed earlier this afternoon, not that she was the 2nd victim. Sarah Louise Connor was shot first.
While Sarah is having pizza in a pizza place, the reporter confirms that "2 hours earlier" Sarah Ann Connor was the second victim.
17th Jun 2020
The Incredible Hulk (1996)
Darkness and Light: Part 1 - S1-E11
Plot hole: When Hulk and Banner have been physically separated by the nutrient bath, they are both wearing tattered pants. Given that Hulk and Banner were previously occupying the same body, this should not be possible. Hulk was the one that went into the nutrient bath, so if Banner's body was separated from Hulk, then Banner should be naked.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It was done deliberately as a form of censorship. They didn't want to show Bruce's genitals.
Explaining why the mistake occurred doesn't invalidate it. Unless you're suggesting the nutrient bath also was able to duplicate the pants.
You realise a character can be drawn naked without actually showing their genitals (and/or breasts in the case of women), right? The Little Mermaid is a good example of this.
4th Sep 2021
What If...? (2021)
What If... Captain Carter Were the First Avenger? - S1-E1
Other mistake: The premise of the first episode is flawed; "a single choice" should make the difference, the choice being identified as Ms. Carter not leaving the room to get in the observation booth. But in the normal timeline the booth is exactly where all the other characters were. In this reality everyone else is downstairs, with the German spy that inexplicably sets the bomb early. If anything, it's his bizarre, suicidal choice that matters.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Except it was her decision to not leave the room that delayed the procedure and gave Heinz Kruger the chance to attack. And with her in the room, she is now given the chance to volunteer to take the serum.
How did her staying delay the procedure? Besides, in OTL the spy only triggered the bomb after he saw the procedure succeed, to know it works before stealing it.
25th Jul 2005
The Simpsons (1989)
Other mistake: When Lisa checks Marge's resume, she reads it and turns it over. But there is no text on the back as there should be. (00:06:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
21st Feb 2019
The Predator (2018)
Continuity mistake: After the small predator kills everyone in the back of the truck he grabs a left arm that becomes a right arm. (00:37:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I agree this APPEARS to be correct, but I think it is questionable - it COULD be the left arm. The covered thumbs-up arm the Predator extended to the driver had its fingers curled toward the palm, not straight out like they were. There was a zigzag pattern on the glove's wrist, but this could be the opposite (outer) side if it also had the pattern, not the inner side. The thumb looked broken - giving the image that it might have been the right thumb, but actually the left. You MIGHT be right.
The mistake is valid, no correction needed. It's a right hand that extends through the opening and a left arm seen on the floor. A key factor is the knuckles location, so it doesn't matter if the thumb looked broken.
I watched several times and still believe it could be the left hand. The way the fingers are folded (curled) toward the palm, they look like left knuckles.
If the hand was a left hand, then you wouldn't see the knuckles.
No matter which way fingers are folded under toward the palm, there will be knuckles showing on either side. (Make a fist and see for yourself!) No further replies from me here.
1st Sep 2021
Wizards of Waverly Place (2007)
Rock Around the Clock - S4-E25
Continuity mistake: In episode 25 of season 4, Harper mentions still being in school and even goes to school during the 50's episode to keep her "perfect attendance." But a few episodes earlier, her and Alex both graduate, and even have an apartment. The episodes seem out of order.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Yes, episode 25 "Rock Around the Clock" was the 14th episode produced (production code 414) and occurred before they graduated the 17th episode "Wizards vs. Asteroid" (production code 418). This isn't a TV mistake since it was produced in order.
1st Sep 2021
Criminal Minds (2005)
Character mistake: Dr. Reid calls Penelope "Kristy" on a phone call.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He calls her "Garcia."
Other mistake: At the beginning of the film, Vida and Noxema (co) win the local pageant and advance to the national level, taking ChiChi with them as a passenger. At the end of the film, ChiChi wins the national pageant for which she was not a contestant.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Vida and Noxema winning the "local" contest (New York City's "Drag Queen of the Year") did not mean they "advanced" to the nationals. They simply won a paid trip to Hollywood where they could then compete in the "Miss Drag Queen of America" pageant. However, anyone could enter the pageant.
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.
Correction: That is incorrect. In New York, the martial communications privilege is codified at CPLR ยง4502 (b), which states: "A husband or wife shall not be required, or, without consent of the other if living, allowed, to disclose a confidential communication made by one to the other during marriage."
LorgSkyegon
There's almost always exceptions to the rules, and the statute applies to "confidential communication." You would have to know the nature of her testimony to ascertain if the privilege will or will not protect him. (I'm not familiar with this episode, so do not know what the case is about - maybe someone could add some details about the case and nature of her testimony?).
KeyZOid
While there are exceptions, the episode didn't spend time on her testimony since Levi takes a plea. But the correction is valid because the lawyer's objection is valid, so there is no mistake. Yes, counsel would have to discuss the situation and have the judge make a decision, but the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong.
Bishop73
I might not be understanding something and/or don't have enough information to ascertain if the privilege is relevant. A spouse cannot be COMPELLED to testify about confidential communication and the husband can exert the privilege even if the wife wants to volunteer information. Beyond these basic rules, more information is needed.
KeyZOid
Actually, if we presume the lawyer was correct when he said spousal privilege applied, there is NO "factual error." The "factual error", as written, is using EXCEPTIONS to support its assertion, but there is no reason to believe exceptions are applicable. (I think I get it!). I think your wording is "off": "the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong." A lawyer would say a wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is correct. (?).
KeyZOid
You're overthinking it. You were correct when you said a wife cannot be compelled to testify... Which is why the mistake is wrong.
Bishop73
Maybe... but the last part " which is the case here" leads me to question if the person posting the error knows there was an exception because the testimony wasn't going to be about confidential information (private between spouses).
KeyZOid
Since the person posting the "factual error" did not specify what the actual case is, there is enough doubt among others to dispute the "factual error" (as presented).
KeyZOid