12th May 2022

Speed (1994)

Question: Why did Jack think the only option available with the gap in the freeway was to jump it? Wouldn't it have made more sense for him to at least try to ring Payne and explain what was happening? A simple "We've ran out of road, could you disable the bomb whilst we turn round" - Payne could still detonate it remotely so it's not like they could use that opportunity to unload the passengers.

Answer: I'm curious why you think Payne would do anything to make it easier for Jack? He's set a bomb with the express intention of killing people if his demands aren't met...why would he give Jack even the slightest chance of escaping that? And even if he was willing to, just because Payne can detonate the bomb remotely doesn't mean he can disarm it temporarily, then turn it back on.

Because the odds of the bus making that jump intact were incredibly small - if the bus blows up because of an infrastructure issue, Payne gets nothing.

If this plan fails, just like the elevator job, then they play a different game the next day so Payne would just look for another scheme to get his money.

ctown28 Premium member

Payne had no way of knowing what way the bus was going to go. How could he have prepared for the exact circumstances that led to needing to jump the gap.

Ssiscool Premium member

Answer: Payne is a raging psychopath. As long as he's alive, he can make more bombs.

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.

Phaneron Premium member

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.


I am not. I am just explaining the reason behind this error.

Do you have a source for this explanation? If not, I would call it conjecture and while it doesn't invalidate the mistake, it does change it to a deliberate mistake if true.

ctown28 Premium member

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.

Phaneron Premium member

25th Feb 2022

The Simpsons (1989)

You Only Move Twice - S8-E2

Question: I, like Marge, don't know much about football. Why is Homer disappointed to own the Denver Broncos team? I know his first choice was owning the Dallas Cowboys, but he seems to especially dislike the Broncos.

Answer: I don't think the writers had anything particular in mind when choosing the Denver Broncos to be the butt of the joke. But I wonder if it's meant to be a clue where Springfield is. But, while this episode did air late 1996 when the Broncos had a winning season, given the amount of time needed to produce the episode, it was written when the Broncos were a mediocre team at best. From '92-'95 they had a 32-32 record and never finished higher than 3rd in their division. And the Cowboys and Broncos are in separate conferences, so they're not particularly rivals. But as Phaneron points out, the Broncos ended up winning back-to-back Super Bowls in the following 2 season after this episode aired, so Homer is a very lucky guy.


Probably also worth mentioning that by the time this episode had aired, the Broncos had an 0-4 record in the Super Bowl, and to this day I believe they hold the record for most Super Bowl losses.

Phaneron Premium member

The Buffalo Bills also had an 0-4 record at the time of airing having lost 4 straight years.

ctown28 Premium member

The Vikings are also 0-4 in the Super Bowl. The Patriots have 5 losses (although only had 1 at the time this episode aired).


True, and they would have been a funnier pick for Homer to end up owning, given that two consecutive of those four Super Bowl losses were to the Cowboys. Although Homer fantasizing about being John Elway in the episode Cape Feare makes his disdain for the Broncos rather funny.

Phaneron Premium member

17th Jun 2014

Family Ties (1982)

The Harder They Fall - S2-E3

Corrected entry: Mr. Tedesco tells Elyse he had Mallory in his class "last year." Considering Mallory is two years younger than Alex and that this was "last year", even if Alex is now a senior, Mallory would have been in the 9th grade at the time she was in Tedesco's class. Most likely she wasn't in high school quite yet, as schools in the 80's were 10th though 12th grade.

Correction: This is incorrect. I graduated in the 80's and high school was 9-12.

ctown28 Premium member

Even though nowadays it's more common to find high school as being 9th-12th grade practically everywhere, it probably depends on what area geographically in the 80s you were in. In my town, ALL high schools were 10th-12th all over the city for many years until around the late 90s when it changed. So it is a draw as if this entry was technically right or wrong.

Considering the show was set in Columbus, Ohio I'm also in Ohio, all Ohio high schools were all 9-12. This would make things even for varsity sports teams in state playoff competition.

ctown28 Premium member

OK. I'll give you that one. My high school was in California in the 80s.

Answer: Nicolas Cage or as he's credited in the cast, Nicholas Coppola.

15th Jan 2005

Family Guy (1999)

E. Peterbus Unum - S2-E18

Corrected entry: In the scene where Peter and the delegates of the UN are in the meeting room, when everyone laughs at Peter, you can see that some of the country names on the labels are spelled wrong. For example, there is "Danmark", "Maxico", and "Morrocco". Also, it looks like three of the seats are not filled. Why would there not be any UN delegates at the meeting?

Correction: The misspelling is certainly intentional.


Why would it be?

I believe it is to show that the representatives are supposed to be other people that have seceded from their countries and formed their own states. Danmerk would be Dan, Maxico would be Max and I think Morrocco would be Morris (Not sure on this one), much like Peter's is Petoria.

ctown28 Premium member

Corrected entry: At the book signing in Berlin, the camera pans from right to left and the guard at the very end of the line of soldiers (to the left) has his left hand raised in military salute to Hitler. All the other soldiers have their right hands extended.

Correction: The person in question could have an injured right arm that he simply can't lift.


Exactly. "If physical disability prevented raising the right arm, it was acceptable to raise the left." Kershaw, Ian (2001). The "Hitler Myth": Image and Reality in the Third Reich. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0192802064.

ctown28 Premium member

There's nothing about it in the script though. So between the two options, on the one hand (no pun intended!) that the creators were aware of that fact, and on the other hand, that it was a movie mistake that wasn't noticed, well... There's no possible reason why they'd put that in deliberately. Still, Jon decides, and the rules seem to be that behavioural oddities are not generally considered mistakes.

Spiny Norman

But not every single bit of background extra behaviour gets detailed in the script. The point is simply that based on what we see there's no way to decree something like this as a "mistake", because it has a perfectly reasonable in-universe explanation, and there's no point having an endless chain of bickering about it.

Jon Sandys Premium member

So just to summarise: the "perfectly reasonable explanation" is, then, that some random bystander has an extremely convincing prosthetic arm (which serves no purpose at all for he story); and NOT that one of the many "extras" simply made a mistake.

Spiny Norman

20th May 2014

Friends (1994)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: She did say something along the lines of "if they had lost."

This episode was on TBS this afternoon, I watched the scene multiple times, Monica does in fact say "If WE had lost...", this is a valid mistake.

ctown28 Premium member

21st Sep 2020

Joker (2019)

Answer: In a nutshell, it's because the film's protagonist is a mentally disturbed killer, and certain groups in America thought the film's violence would lead to copycat behavior.

Phaneron Premium member

I never got this aspect of the controversy, if anything, it goes to show what can happen when mental illness goes untreated.

ctown28 Premium member

I agree with you on that, but unfortunately, there's so many people, at least in the United States, that have no sense of nuance and are prone to knee-jerk reactions. They would rather condemn and blame different kinds of media for society's ills, rather than stop and look at the message something is trying to tell.

Phaneron Premium member

I read about the concern over possible copycat behavior in an on-line article; Phaneron's answer is correct.


Answer: Because the left thought it would encourage violence and mocked liberal run cities.The right thought the same on violence, it seemingly justified a mentally ill guy's actions, that it made white businessmen bad guys. Both sides in general only complained about Joker for attention.


22nd Feb 2017

Psycho II (1983)

Chosen answer: The murderer is Emma Spool, Norman's biological mother. She was killing people because she didn't want anybody harming Norman.

Emma was not Norman's biological mother. She was the sister of Norma (and Norman's aunt) and jealous that Mr. Bates chose Norma over her and thought Norman should have been the son she and Mr. Bates were suppose to have. Later, while still mentally ill, she believed Norman was her son and told Norman this.


Emma Spool was, in fact, Norman's biological mother. It was revealed at the end of the movie that she is his real mother and Norma Bates is her sister who adopted Norman and raised him While Emma was institutionalized.

ctown28 Premium member

Again, that was just Emma being delusional and/or lying. Tracy Venable tells Norman the truth in Psycho III. Emma was never his mother.


I never knew Emma Spool was Norman's biological mother. In fact, I never heard of Emma Spool. Thanks.

11th Jul 2020

The Sopranos (1999)

Answer: The ending is purposely ambiguous and open to interpretation. The series creator once said: "There's more than one way of looking at the ending. That's all I'll say." He's also refused to outright explain what the ending meant.


Actually, the creator of the Sopranos accidentally revealed it to be a death scene in an interview: https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a32869286/sopranos-creator-accidentally-confirms-tony-death-series-finale/.

ctown28 Premium member

21st Jun 2017

Home Alone (1990)

Factual error: Kate flies American Airlines to Scranton, but that airline did not serve Scranton in 1990. Also, a DC-10 is too big to be serviced at Scranton.


Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Air Force One, which is quite a bit larger than a DC-10, has landed at Scranton in the past (https://wnep.com/2013/08/22/air-force-one-lands-in-scranton/). Just because DC-10s don't generally land there doesn't mean they can't.

They are much more likely to make an exception for Air Force One than the are for a single family unless it was for something wrong with the flight or an emergency on the flight, not for a connecting flight to Chicago or a chance at a connecting flight.

ctown28 Premium member

The idea is that DC-10s can land there for whatever reason.

The news article is from 2013. 23 years after the film. A lot of things can change in 23 years.

Ssiscool Premium member

Kate landed at Dallas first, then flew to Scranton. This is revealed in Kate's rant at the ticket agent.

Air Force One would park at GA parking, not at the terminal. The DC-10 that lands would have very likely parked at a gate for only 737s and smaller.


10th Aug 2016

Star Wars (1977)

Stupidity: The Death Star comes equipped with a powerful tractor beam capable of capturing a ship the size and agility of the Millennium Falcon. Why don't they use it against the rebel fighters attacking them at the end of the film? Okay, Obi-Wan Kenobi turned it off earlier but I find it hard to believe that someone who has never before visited the largest, most complex space station in the Universe and who was previously unaware of its very existence can disable a fundamental security system but the people who designed, built and run the whole thing can't work out how to switch it back on. They should have no problems with this, considering the fact that Obi-Wan didn't damage it.


Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Obi Wan disrupted the battle at a critical time causing much confusion. We could chalk this oversight up to "Fog of War" - that in the heat of battle it's normal for commanders to overlook obvious things and seem to act stupidly. It would also be reasonable to assume that the fighters were too close for the tractor beam emitter to target them.

This scenario would require every single person on the Death Star who was involved in the maintenance of vital defence systems not noticing that one of them had been switched off! Not ONE person noticed? Obi Wan did not disable the tractor beam during "the heat of battle." There was a considerable time lapse between his switching off the tractor beam and the climactic final battle, during which time it would have been switched back on. When the Millenium Falcon leavs the Death Star Han Solo remarks that he hopes that "old man" succeeded in disabling the tractor beam, implying that those on the Death Star would be trying to use it. Even then, they didn't notice it had been switched off? Not sabotaged, not disabled, switched off.

Good point. This was definitely stupidity on the part of the Death Star crew, but not stupid as a plot point. It does happen in combat regularly. In 1987 the USS Stark was hit by 2 Iraqi Exocet missiles after challenging a single fighter. The ships' Close-in Weapons System should have easily shot the missiles down, but the investigation showed that no-one had noticed that the system had not been turned on.

They didn't use the tractor beam when the gang was escaping in the Falcon because they WANTED them to get away. The Empire placed a tracking beacon onboard so as to be able to find the hidden Rebel Base. As to how the Falcon was snagged originally: yes, they had just exited hyperspace, but they were not relatively fast; they were preoccupied with the TIE fighter (incapable of light speed) and the small moon right up to the point they were trapped in the tractor beam (and realizing "that's no moon!"


Suggested correction: The Falcon was travelling towards the Death Star when it was caught in the tractor beam. The tractor beam was properly turned back on by the time it travelled to Yavin. The rebel fighters are too small and quick to be held in a tractor beam and there are so many of them so it would be near impossible to trap enough to make a difference.

As I have already pointed out, assigning technical limitations to a wholly fictional piece of technology is absurd. As to "flying towards the Death Star" - the X and Y wing fighters are shown doing just that. As for being too quick, the Millenium Falcon is decelerating from superluminal speeds when it is captured in the tractor beam. That's pretty bloody fast in anyone's books.

The key phrase here is "fictional piece of technology", there is no way to understand how it works. Any explanations is pure conjecture.

ctown28 Premium member

It's flat out stated by General Dodonna in the battle briefing that the Death Star's defenses are based around repelling attacks by capital ships, not fighters. The targeting may not be exact enough.


Actually, claiming a fictional piece of equipment can't behave the way you think it should is somewhat silly. The previous explanation that the tractor beam's limitations were the reason for not using it during the battle makes perfect sense.

14th Mar 2019

Captain Marvel (2019)

Corrected entry: In the scenes set in June of 1995, "Vers" uses a Windows 95 computer to search the internet via dial-up. Windows 95 wasn't released until August 24, 1995, two months after those scenes were set.

Correction: A beta version of Windows 95 (probably build 347) was released before June, when this takes place. They could be using that. It included MSN, for internet access.


Good guess. That preview version was available for $19.95 in the U.S.


I think that's a reach - especially back then beta versions were much harder to come by - you couldn't just download it, you'd have to apply and receive a CD or floppies. She's in an internet cafe if memory serves, and why would they go to the hassle of installing a beta OS which most people would never have used before, and which would run the risk of having bugs, etc.?

Jon Sandys Premium member

Windows 95 had one of the most expensive advertisements and launch programs to this date. (Second to Windows 8's.) Microsoft had special personnel known as Evangelists who went to potential customers encouraging them to test Windows 95 and give feedback. They didn't send the 3.5" diskettes with post; the Evangelists delivered them personally. Microsoft didn't become a software giant by sitting on its behind, waiting for customers.


Correction: The month is never specified in the film.

True Lies was released on home video on July 15th - any cardboard standee in a Blockbuster would be for an upcoming or very recent release. By late August something else would have replaced it.

Jon Sandys Premium member

Not if it was a popular rental, then they would keep promoting it.

ctown28 Premium member

When they're looking at the black box recording, there's a calendar on the wall that reads June.

Brian Katcher

Correction: The recycle bin icon on the desktop is an oval shape which was first introduced in Windows ME, which wasn't released until 14th September 2000.

The corrected entry mentions a scene searching the internet via dial-up; the computer in that scene has indeed Windows 95 with a square-shaped bin. Since then this entry has kinda been more about the plausibility of Windows 95 in a public internet cafe in June than anything else. There's a separate entry about the scene when they use a totally different computer, the one at her friend's house, which has the bin you mention and is a ME edition.

Sammo Premium member

It's not, it's the rectangular bin.

Corrected entry: After the "Hot Patootie" number, when Frank is chasing Eddie into the freezer, there's already blood in the freezer as Eddie crawls in.

Correction: Ever notice that giant gaping wound on Eddie's head? The blood is in the freezer because before the movie, Frank had given Eddie a partial-lobotomy. The half of Eddie's brain that was removed was given to Rocky. I'd imagine that when a transvestite removes half of your brain, there may be some blood.

Where does it state that he was given a lobotomy or had half his brain removed? I have watched the movie a lot and haven't ever heard of this? I am currently watching it and trying to find the place where this is said.

Frank: "It's not easy having a good time... even smiling makes my face ache... and my children turn on me...Rocky's behaving just the way that Eddie did. Do you think I made a mistake, splitting his brain between the two of them?"

ctown28 Premium member

When everyone gets stuck to the lab floor (before Rose Tint my World), Frank leans against the ice box and questions if it was a bad idea splitting Eddie's brain between him and Rocky as Rocky is acting "too much like Eddie." That's why Eddie has that huge gash across his forehead.

Correction: If I remember correctly, Columbia makes reference at one point to Frank splitting the brain between Eddie and Rocky, while talking about the rocks in his head.

Dr. Frank N. Furter: "Do you think I made a mistake splitting his brain between the two of them?"

Question: This an odd question, but why are there no smartphones or smartphone-like devices in the SW universe? These are reasonably advanced pieces of technology that would be appropriate for such a time period. A few situations would also have been easier with phone communication. Smartphones were still very new when "Revenge of the Sith" was being filmed, so I understand why the original trilogy and prequels don't show them - the creators were not thinking about them.

Answer: You basically answered your own question. The Star Wars universe is in the future and its a future without any smart phones. It would be kind of weird if out of nowhere smart phones would pop up everywhere in the universe as if its a new invention, whilst its supposed to be an old invention. They simply have different ways to communicate with each other, more advanced ways are needed. For example distances between people is a lot larger, across the galaxy, so you'd need a lot more that just a smartphone to communicate with people, they use other devices on board starships and bases so the smartphone disappears as having both feels like overdoing it.


It is not set in the future, hence the very first words on the screen of each movie. A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away. Now as far as the cell phones go, they do just fine with their communication. Making interplanetary calls on cell phones is not needed.

ctown28 Premium member

You're right, I always forget that part.


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.