16th Jan 2014
I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar - S2-E8
Revealing mistake: When Brian says "Well face it Peter, your attitude towards women isn't exactly enlightened", Brian's dog tag is the same color as his fur. It also stays still, even while Brian is moving his head. (00:11:10)
14th Jan 2020
All Good Things... (1) - S7-E25
Character mistake: When Picard jumps to the past, he meets Data for the first time in engineering. If you look at Data's uniform, he is wearing the rank insignia of a Lt, Junior Grade.
13th Jul 2008
Continuity mistake: During this whole episode, Jake calls his mother's boyfriend Greg. But in the 4th season when Judith is marrying the guy, he is called Herb. We know that it is not two different people because they both have the last name Melneck, and they are both Jake's pediatrician.
Suggested correction: Greg was the guy with the boat. I don't think they ever said his last name. Herb is the Dr. Two different people at two different times in the show.
The mistake is correct. The character of Judith's then boyfriend, and then eventual husband and then ex-husband, was named Greg Melnick (played by Ryan Stiles) in season 2. He actually first appeared in s02e02, "Enjoy Those Garlic Balls." Later, when he became a reoccurring character, his name was changed in the show to Herb. Although one could argue Greg was his middle name the whole time. There was another character named Greg in season 4.
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.
5th Jan 2020
Corrected entry: During the McKinley Tri-Centennial there are several references to the American Revolutionary War with red coats marching through the festival, a man reenacting Paul Revere's Ride shouting "The British are coming!" And signs reading "celebrating 300 years of freedom." However this movie was made and set in 2006, which is about 70 years too early for a tricentennial celebration.
Correction: The fictional town of McKinley was founded in 1705. The town is celebrating 300 years of its existence, not 300 years of America as a nation's existence. There are towns in America that were founded prior to the establishment of the United Stares that are still in existence. New Orleans for example celebrated their tricentennial in 2018.
27th Dec 2019
Corrected entry: Whenever the antagonist tells the protagonist to kill him/her, the protagonist doesn't do it but simply lets the antagonist live and walks away. Big mistake because the antagonist will definitely come back for revenge. If the protagonist just killed the antagonist when he/she asks to die, that would give the protagonist a quicker victory.
Correction: In most films I see this in, the protagonist is better than the antagonist and isn't a cold-blooded murderer. The protagonist is content with letting the judicial system take care of punishment. It's when the antagonist escapes police custody or is found not guilty he or she comes back for revenge. There are many movies where the protagonist then kills the antagonist, but only in self defense of life.
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.
21st Dec 2019
Corrected entry: SHIELD is shown to have obtained The Tesseract from Goose, this is a mistake as it shouldn't have even been in the movie - it should have still been frozen with Captain America.
Correction: The Tesseract wasn't frozen with Captain America. It burned its way through the plane and landed on the ocean floor away from Captain America. Howard Stark (Tony Stark's father) finds the Tesseract while trying to find Captain America.
Correction: The Tesseract fell from the Hydra plane before Captain America crashed it. At the end of Captain America: The First Avenger we see Howard Stark recover it while they were searching for Steve. It was then experimented with by the OSS and SHIELD, leading into the events of Captain Marvel.
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
Plot hole: Luke deliberately says he does not want to be found and came to Ach-To to die in The Last Jedi, but The Force Awakens is all about finding a map to Luke Skywalker. Why would Luke leave a map when he never wanted to be found?
Suggested correction: This is a question, not a plot hole. Luke went to find the first Jedi temple. The location of the temple is what they were ultimately needing to try and locate Luke. The map that has the temple was already created before Luke went to the temple, he did not create a map where to find him and then secretly hide it away.
It is a plot hole statement in the form of a question. It ultimately is a continuity error between Episodes 7 and 8. TFA never mentioned it as a map to a Jedi temple Luke might be at. The audience is told in that movie that it is a map to Luke Skywalker. It is believed by the end of TFA that Luke wants to be found if they needed him. It is only after Rian Johnson goes against what JJ Abrams planned for Luke that this error becomes prominent. If this is simply a map to the first Jedi Temple, then the Resistance is betting a lot on the chance Luke went there and still there after all these years.
In The Force Awakens, Kylo Ren refers to the map as a navigational chart recovered from the archives of the Empire. According to the spin-off books, the Empire were using it to find the first Jedi Temple and destroy it. So the map was not in fact left by Luke. Since Luke is believed to have gone looking for the first Jedi Temple, my guess is that whoever discovered the map realised where it led to, and knew that was where Luke was believed to have gone, and thus referred to it as a map to Luke.
What other choice do they have? The know where he wanted to go. If the do not find him there then the have someplace to look abound for clues as to where he went to afterwards. Also it is not like if he is not there they are stuck and cannot return to the resistance fleet.
A map to the first Jedi Temple is a perfectly fine explanation for what the map actually is and if the Resistance thought Luke was there, it was worth the risk to go there and look for him. However, the very identity of the map seems to change between movies and it is introduce in TFA as a map to Luke, not to a Jedi Temple. So in TFA it is a map to Luke and in TLJ it is now a map to a Jedi Temple Luke might be at. That is the problem, a discontinuity of the map's identity between the two films in the trilogy. This stems from the two directors' view of Luke in this trilogy also being completely different.
They think it's a map to Luke, or believe it, or someone else thought it was. It's not a discontinuity, just a semantic difference or miscommunication.
This movie or TFA should have explained this miscommunication as it comes across as a miscommunication to the audience and not to the Resistance. There is nothing in either film to show it is a map to a Jedi Temple Luke might be at. A miscommunication to the audience is poor writing, but since this occurs between two movies, it is a continuity mistake. This mistake is obviously due to the character of Luke changing when it moved on from JJ to Rian. This change makes the plot of TFA more confusing, but ultimately a continuity mistake is a much more just denotation for this than plot hole.
Since the Jedi Temple and Luke are in the same place the map is both a map to Luke and to the Jedi Temple. Someone looking for Luke will see it as a map to Luke, someone that is force sensitive may see it a a map to the temple.
This statement does not answer anything. The map was either designed to be a map to where Luke said he was or as map to a Jedi Temple where Luke may be. Not both. Both places can be the same, but the identity of what the map is remains as one or the other. Otherwise we are again back to a bad miscommunication in the Resistance and bad miscommunication to the audience that is just bad writing. Since it is stated in TFA that is is a map to Luke, the audience should believe it as such. It is never described as a map to a Jedi Temple Luke might be at. The continuity error and plot confusion comes from the fact that in TFA it is a map to Luke for when he was needed and in TLJ it is a map to a Jedi Temple that the Resistance hoped Luke would be at. Since TFA came first, it takes precedent and all of Luke's lines of not wanting to be found do not make sense.
While initially the audience is told it's a map to Luke, we find out later that the map leads to the first Jedi temple. This is nothing more than building suspense, which doesn't constitute a plot hole. While one could argue it was only after changes to the script or a director's choice that changed what the map was designed to be, the original mistake is still not valid because Luke never created a map to where he was going and then hide it as suggested.
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.
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.
12th Dec 2019
Corrected entry: When Arthur is suffocating his mother, she is still connected to the tube of oxygen that runs directly to her lungs, so she wouldn't suffocate. (01:21:05)
Correction: Hypercapnic is when there's too much carbon dioxide in your blood, even if there's a normal amount of oxygen. Hypercapnic leads to acute respiratory failure where the lungs can't release oxygen into the blood. This can result in death fairly quickly.
Arthur's mother DID NOT die from suffocation, she died from a heart attack. I was very specific in explaining how, since this was an act of passion, how his character would not remove the nasal cannula set at 6liter flow before attempting to suffocate her. Pay attention to the heart rate and O2 SATs on her monitor and how her pulse (audibly) abruptly stops. Her death is 100% accurate! I know, as I was the Medical Tech Advisor. Michael-Scott Druckenmiller (IMDb me).
Normally we should have heard the asistoly (line) and some alarms as she was connected to the monitor.
9th Dec 2019
Corrected entry: This episode started with Zelda trying to cheer Hilda up after she supposedly returned Daniel Boone to the time clock; however, she only met Daniel Boone 2 episodes later when she needed a date to Salem's Daughter's wedding. Proof she hadn't met him earlier on is that she thought he was Davy Crockett when he first came out.
Correction: This episode was simply aired out of order. "Love in Bloom" (officially episode 92) was filmed after "Salem's Daughter" (episode 91).
9th Dec 2019
Factual error: There is no Brimfield in Pennsylvania. The Lancaster Bowl employee tells Roy that Ishmael is from an Amish community in Brimfield. (00:19:39)
Suggested correction: Films, TV shows, and books regularly make up city names that don't constitute mistakes.
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.
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.