Continuity mistake: Look carefully at the brochure Frank has about the Buffalo Chicken Wing festival, the building pictured is the same building as his daughter's school (seen earlier in the movie).
Bishop73
24th Nov 2002
Osmosis Jones (2001)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While the buildings might look similar, they are different buildings. The school has 3 levels with rectangular windows with a pyramid top while the building in the brochure only has 2 levels of non-rectangular windows and more of a dome shape on top.
1st Jul 2019
Osmosis Jones (2001)
Audio problem: When Drix and Osmosis investigate The Zit and Osmosis prompts him to "shake a tail cell" he smacks his rear but there is no sound effect.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
12th Feb 2013
Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990)
Factual error: Water causes Gremlins to multiply. But in a shot during a cooking show, the insane Gremlin (Daffy) pops up in a pot of soup, which is water based, yet he still doesn't multiply.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There have been other times when mogwais and gremlins get wet and don't multiply suggesting it's water, not water based liquids. In the first movie for example when the gremlins are drinking beer and Gizmo gets licked by the dog without multiplying.
9th Jul 2021
Lucifer (2015)
Plot hole: There is a rather confusing revelation when Chloe is shown the recording Joe Fields made for his daughter to see in the event that he were to die. In the recording, Fields tells his daughter that he did not kill the cop (Chloe's father). Chloe then notices that this is true because based on the timestamp on a sign in the background of the recording, he made the video 3 minutes before her father was killed. But this would be impossible because at that point the cop in question was still alive.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That was the whole point of the episode. Joe Fields never killed Chloe's dad (officer Decker). Fields was innocent and took the fall for his murder. The time on the sign showed that Fields was too far away to have killed her dad. Her dad was in fact assassinated (arranged by Perry Smith) and not killed in a robbery attempt as previously believed.
But why would he even make a tape saying he didn't kill the cop if it hadn't even happened yet? Makes no sense. Did he go back in time?
I think you should rewatch the episode. He already agreed to take the fall for the murder. He knew the murder was going to happen. He made the tape for his daughter before he went to prison (and possibly made it before the murder as to further prove his innocent). The tape was to be given to his daughter after he died so that it wouldn't affect the deal he made.
They never made the connection that he knew the murder was going to happen, instead they went on a wild goose chase instead of going bit by bit.
But then as Bishop is saying, Joe Fields knew that the hit was going to go down. He made the video declaring his innocence so his daughter would eventually get the tape. Whether he knew that he would be exonerated is another matter. But the point remains the same. He knew that the cop was going to be killed and simply prepared for it. No mistake.
18th Apr 2012
Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)
Factual error: It is completely implausible that Rambo, an experienced green beret would be careless enough to get his gear caught in the plane while jumping out. Also even if he had gotten got, soldiers carry their gear in different layers that are quickly releasable via strap or clip just in case they do get stuck. Rambo would not have gotten stuck, and if he did he could detached his his gear easily and without all the drama.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Isn't it possible Rambo did this himself so as to get rid of all that useless crap they had given him? He had already stated the mind was the best weapon...why rely on the hi-tech stuff they packed off with him. Not only that but isn't it also plausible that in amongst it could have been a tracking device of some sort, and he didn't want to be tracked?
28th Sep 2008
Heroes (2006)
Company Man - S1-E17
Corrected entry: According to the writers and producers, Claire is 16 in season one. In this episode we go back 14 years to when she is first given to Bennet, but the child Bennet is handed is only a few months old. Claire would have been somewhere between one and two years old at this point.
Correction: Statements by the writers and producers are irrelevant - what matters is what's stated in the series itself. If it's stated on-screen that Claire is sixteen, and this is later contradicted by something, then this is a valid continuity error. If, however, Claire's age is not stated or implied in the show itself, then no continuity error exists, as statements by the programme makers do not form part of the show itself.
Correction: Two things, in "The Fix", Claire says to get dad she's almost 16, so she's 15 at the time. Second, the newspaper article stats that baby Claire is 18-months old. So the timeline is correct. I couldn't find who played the baby in "Company Man", but the baby certainly looks older than a few months.
3rd Oct 2013
Hot Fuzz (2007)
Factual error: PC Angel's collar number is initially HF 777. Whilst a borough code of HF doesn't actually exist there would be a borough code for the Metropolitan Police as it is big enough to warrant one. I'll guess the HF to be for Hot Fuzz? Once PC Angel is promoted to sergeant and also transferred to Sandford his collar number changes to SF 777. Not only would the borough code not be required in the much smaller Sandford, but SF is a Metropolitan borough code for Finchley. The number would also change from 777. Three digit numbers are reserved for constables whilst sergeants would have either a one or two digit number, as in Martin Freeman's HF 90. The twin sergeants, Turner, both have collar number SF 101, when they should have different one or two digit numbers, likewise sergeant Fisher who has SF 137 and the later promoted sergeant Butterman, SF 128. It appears that the format of these collar codes is left to the discretion of each constabulary but the number of digits denoting rank seems to be uniformly accepted throughout the UK.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While there's a lot of details listed in the mistake, the rank of sergeant is denoted by 1, 2, or 3 digit numbers and constables are denoted by 3 or 4 digit numbers (unless of course there are too many officers and larger numbers are needed).
Suggested correction: Police forces do not routinely denote rank by number of digits. I'm sure some forces do, however, I have personally worked in two police forces where this was not the case.
3rd May 2003
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Corrected entry: John Connor in the future should have sent back a terminator that didn't resemble the first one. Since he did, it tipped off the police and nearly made an enemy of Sarah Connor, when it should have been unrecognizable and earned her trust faster.
Correction: It's probably not very easy to capture a Terminator, especially with (apparently) absolutely zero damage to it. John got what he could and sent it back. Even if he did know that it was the same model that Skynet sent back to kill Sarah (which he may not have), it's still better than nothing, and there's no evidence to suggest that he could have gotten his hands on a different Terminator.
Correction: It should be noted, the T-800's all looked alike (at least the 101 models). Plus, adult John Connor remembers being saved by this particular model and therefore sends it back, regardless if there were other models with a different look.
You are mistaken. The future John Connor that send that terminator back does not remember the events of the movie. The future changes whenever something or someone is sent back without affecting that particular timeline. So the future John Connor that send that T-800 back is from the timeline after the first movie, not this one.
That statement I made regarding John remembering the T-800 comes directly from James Cameron himself, not something I made up or fan theory.
It might have been true when T-2 was the last movie, but later movies change that. I get it if people want to hang on to the original Cameron deal, but the continuity of the franchise disregards the old rules and comes up with new ones. The events of T-2 created the events of T-3 and thus it is a different John Connor.
Many consider T3 a soft reboot and not direct sequel meaning what's established in the film doesn't specifically alter what is established in Terminator 1 and 2.
20th Feb 2008
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Corrected entry: This movie takes place in L.A. You must be at least 21 to have a motorcycle licence in California. I'm pretty sure John isn't 21.
Correction: A kid that steals money from ATMs is not likely to care whether he has a license or not.
I agree he doesn't care. Not to mention John is supposed to be 10 at the time of the movie and the actor himself (Furlong) is only 13, so he didn't have any sort of license.
Also, John was riding a dirt bike, which is illegal to ride on public roadways regardless of the age of the rider, rather than a street-legal motorcycle. And, as Sacha said, John is hardly a law-abiding 10-year-old, as evidenced when the T-1000 uses the police car's computer and finds John's extensive police record.
28th Jun 2021
Adventures in Babysitting (1987)
Factual error: In the beginning of the movie when they are in the kitchen, over on the TV you can see an episode of the Price Is Right, but it was Friday evening. The Price Is Right is on in the morning, so it could not have been playing live on the TV at that time of day.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The Price is Right did night shows in the mid 80's, specifically from 1985-86.
Either you're referring to "Nighttime" The Price is Right, which ran for one season from '85-'86 or "Primetime" The Price is Right from '86. Neither of these two are what is on the TV in the scene. "Nighttime" was hosted by Tom Kennedy and "Primetime", Bob Barker wore a tux. In the scene, we see Bob Barker in regular clothes.
13th Sep 2003
Hollow Man (2000)
Corrected entry: Gorillas are almost exclusively herbivores. They have been observed eating small insects and grubs but nothing larger. So why does Isabelle eat a rat at the beginning of the film? The serum may have turned her into a crazed killer, as it does with Sebastian, but it hasn't changed the structure of her teeth and palate, biochemistry of her digestive system and so on, all of which would be required. She might kill or torture the rat, but she'd never eat it.
Correction: This entry is wrong. Gorillas can, and do eat meat, so the actions of the gorilla are believable. From feedingnature.com: "Gorillas will sometimes eat meat. They can catch small animals such as mice, rats, or birds and will eat these animals if they lack protein in their diet. The silverback gorilla has been known to eat meat and might even attack and eat other primates." Even if you dispute this fact, most people would believe that a gorilla is certainly capable of eating a rat.
Correction: Gorillas do sometimes eat meat, especially small animals. Also, Isabelle may not be getting fed the right foods resorting to her eating a rat. Humans will resort to drinking their own urine without access to water for a period of time, it's not far fetched that a gorilla will eat something that will be harmful to its body in a similar circumstance.
Gorillas do NOT eat rats. Inventing Deus Ex Machina explanations for a factual error (Isabelle was underfed so she was desperate for food!) does not invalidate the error. The posting needs a little more detail but is absolutely correct.
Wild gorillas have been documented (on camera) feeding on freshly-killed monkeys. Like chimpanzees and humans, gorillas are omnivores and are perfectly capable of eating and digesting raw meat.
I think speculation about her eating it because she's not fed a proper diet isn't valid. But it's plausible the serum made her vicious where she ate the rat. To say her teeth and digestive system are the reason why she wouldn't/couldn't eat the rat isn't valid either. My dog once ate my sock despite not having the teeth or digestive system required to eat socks.
To add, it was noted that the gorilla's mind has been affected by being invisible for so long causing her to be more aggressive. Especially when she bit Matt's hand.
But she didn't eat it regardless so everyone is making the same mistake (she bit it, perhaps from the rage side effect?).
Nonsense. She picks up the rat, bites it in half, and swallows it. If she spat it out, we'd see it. As we see later in the film, anything ingested by an invisible creature instantly becomes invisible, so why don't we see a bloodied half rat splatter on the cage floor? Because Isabelle chewed it up and swallowed it.
17th Apr 2021
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
Factual error: When Cyborg is looking at video footage of Linda Reed, it shows her social security number (971-33-1276). But SS numbers don't start with 9, which is reserved for ITINs.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Technically correct but ITIN's are functionally used like SSN's so the point is moot.
You missed the point of the mistake. As you say, the mistake entry is correct. Using an ITIN as a social security number is different from calling it a SSN, which is what the mistake is. It would be like calling an identification card a driver's license because you can use a driver's license as an ID card.
11th Sep 2015
John Wick (2014)
Character mistake: When he called for a dinner reservation for 12 at his home it should have been 13, as he put 13 men down. (00:32:05)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually 14.
It's possible he simply miscounted in the heat of the moment. I'm not saying you're wrong was John doesn't seem like the type to make this sort of mistake but it could be let off as a character mistake rather than a movie mistake.
A character mistake is a valid movie mistake and this entry is listed as such.
26th Mar 2006
Frasier (1993)
Factual error: There are many factors concerning Niles' post-operative state which are very inaccurate. After open heart surgery it takes at least three months for the chest bone to heal, Niles would not be able to drive a car for weeks, nor would he be able to lift or twist which he does on the show. Also, he doesn't sport a scar. Your chest bone begins very high up, just below your neck, his scar should have been visible on numerous occasions.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He has a scar in season 11 episode 8. When he's naked in the cafe. A scar just like my dads from heart surgery.
While this mistake points out many different factors, I don't think this should qualify as a valid correction. The mistake is saying in season 10 he doesn't have a visible scar when he should and the correction points to seeing a scar a third of the way into season 11.
5th Apr 2021
Stargate SG-1 (1997)
Citizen Joe - S8-E15
Factual error: At the end of the episode General O'Neill is introduced to Joe's wife. He is introduced as General O'Neill, but his insignia on his dress blue uniform is a Colonel - an eagle, not a General's star.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There is no eagle insignia on his uniform. He has one star (on each shoulder) to signify General.
27th Aug 2003
Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd (2003)
Other mistake: If Harry was born in 1969 and is 18 when he attends school (based on "8 years later" then "10 years later"), then the year should be 1987, not 1986 as the movie states. (00:01:25 - 00:01:52)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't necessarily true. The +8 and +10 years don't have to literally be to the day. Maybe Lloyd hasn't had his 18th birthday yet - it could be days away, making 1987 valid. Lloyd was born in 1969, but I don't think that was indicated for Harry. Harry was "held back 3 years", so may have been born in 1968 in order to be in the same grade as Lloyd, who was held back two years. Otherwise, Lloyd would be a sophomore and Harry a freshman, which questions how they're in classes with jrs/srs?
First off, the mistake isn't focused on anyone's age, just the date. Second, we know Harry was born in 1969 since the film starts with his, so your comments don't make sense. It says 1969 and the 8 years later followed by 10 more years later, which would put it at 1987.
4th Nov 2019
Rocketman (2019)
Other mistake: When Elton visits his father late in the film, his half brothers mention that there is a Rolls Royce outside. However, Elton enters a yellow cab when he is leaving the property, and then is shown in the Rolls Royce further down the road.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That wasn't a yellow taxi, it was the Rolls Royce ('72 Silver Shadow).
27th Aug 2001
Dumb and Dumber (1994)
Continuity mistake: At the beginning of the movie, Harry's van has bucket seats, yet later on when the "gas-man" rides along, he is sitting on a bench seat in-between Harry and Lloyd. (00:38:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Mental isn't sitting on a bench seat, it's implied he's sitting on the floor of the van in between the both of them. Although hard to see, the backs of the bucket seats can still be seen behind Harry and Lloyd at certain points. You see a fair bit of it behind Harry whilst he's dancing as Lloyd sings the line "and if that mocking bird don't sing".
27th May 2011
WarGames (1983)
Corrected entry: The whole point of playing tic-tac-toe in the end was so Joshua could learn that the game would always end a tie. But take a close look at the second game he plays in the war room. Two "X"s and two "O"s are played in boxes where all Joshua would have to do is put the next X in the top middle box, and he would've won that game. A human could conceivably miss that, but since it was just established that Joshua was playing himself (of players "zero"), a computer wouldn't have missed such an easy move, especially since the reason Joshua plays anything is "to win the game".
10th Jun 2021
The Vampire Diaries (2009)
Factual error: During the flash back of 1912, one of the characters pulls an American note out for Damon, and it had the date 2016 or 2010 on. (00:13:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: That's not the date. The blue number is basically the serial number, not the date. The series date would be in too fine of print to see in the shot of the bill.
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.