Charles Austin Miller

17th Aug 2021

Nobody (2021)

Factual error: The film begins and ends with Hutch handcuffed in custody, being interrogated by two police detectives. He was apprehended at the scene of a major violent crime with many fatalities, he has a gunshot wound, and he's a likely murder suspect. In real life, Hutch would be strip searched and treated for injuries under tight security, and he would not be allowed to carry personal effects into the subsequent interrogation. But during the interrogation, Hutch impossibly produces a pack of cigarettes and lighter, a can of cat food, a metal can opener and a live kitten from inside his jacket.

Charles Austin Miller

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

Suggested correction: You're missing the concept that he was a special individual. He would not be treated as you suggest, because of the uniqueness of his character.

His "special" status was unknown until the end of the film, when the two detectives simultaneously receive phone calls with orders to release him. Before that, he was still in handcuffs and being interrogated, and his identity was still a mystery to the police.

Charles Austin Miller

Factual error: In Part Two, as Diana explains to Bruce Wayne the history of the Mother Boxes on Earth, we see an extended flashback of Earthly gods and warriors in an epic battle against Darkseid. When Diana says, "A golden age of heroes fighting together," we see a close-up of an Amazon archer drawing back an arrow right-handed, leaning right, and releasing it. However, the arrow is unsupported on the bow, so she couldn't possibly aim or control the arrow. (01:03:59)

Charles Austin Miller

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

Suggested correction: It's not even a matter of how good you are. Placing the arrow on the opposite side of your dominant hand is very much a Western style draw, popularized often times in Hollywood movies. Ancient and Eastern methods used a same side draw. It's mostly determined by the grip used and type of archery you're performing.

Bishop73

Nonsense. The physics of the draw demand that the arrow is supported on the riser. Even ancient Roman archers and American Indians supported their arrows on the bow. Again, go try it yourself. You can't hit diddly releasing an unsupported arrow on the wrong side of the bow.

Charles Austin Miller

Not that this is the forum for it, but here's just 1 example. Https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9cGSpYLdH8s.

Bishop73

Yes, it's possible to shoot same-side, as long as you're supporting the arrow with the bow. However, in the Justice League shot that I cited, the Amazon archer is holding the bow right-handed hunter style, with the bow tilted to the right, which means the arrow is totally unsupported and uncontrollable. There's this inconvenient force known as GRAVITY that pulls the arrow away from your intended trajectory when the arrow is unsupported.

Charles Austin Miller

Suggested correction: Incorrect. You can place the arrow either side of the bow. It depends on how good of an archer you are.

DBase

I've been an archer for over 40 years, and you don't load your arrow on the outside of your bow. I don't care "how good an archer" you THINK you are, you can't aim or control an unsupported arrow on the wrong side of the bow. Try it. Make a video of it. You'll be embarrassed to find you can't hit the broad side of a barn with the arrow on the wrong side of the bow.

Charles Austin Miller

Firstly, it's clearly possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n5M2KHVyWI. Secondly, given the multiple "impossible" feats achieved by the Amazons given their super-physiology, "being able to accurately fire an arrow on the 'wrong' side of a bow" obviously falls under suspension of disbelief, and doesn't warrant either a mistake or the level of anger you're showing to people here.

Both videos state explicitly (especially Lars Andersen's) that yes, you CAN shoot from 'the wrong side', IF and only IF you use a particular, Eastern based grip, the thumb one. Watch the movie. She uses (which makes sense, for someone from the Greek mythology, I guess!) the 'Western style' so, left side as stated. I personally love over-analyzing this sort of things that give you so much insight and fun tidbits, rather than "Ah it's magic, who cares."

Sammo

Factual error: Although actor Gary Busey was a professional rock and roll musician portraying one of the pioneers of Rock and Roll, Busey almost never plays a rock and roll riff in the entire movie. During his biggest scene in the Apollo Theatre sequence, for example, he holds a steady chord all the way through three songs, even as the music is rocking.

Charles Austin Miller

14th Aug 2020

Justice League (2017)

Video

Factual error: The existing Justice League members realise that they cannot battle Steppenwolf without Superman, so they procure the last Motherbox to resurrect Superman from death. Unfortunately, the crippled Kryptonian spacecraft lacks sufficient power to activate the Motherbox. The Flash suggests that, given enough distance to accelerate, he can use his super speed to generate an enormous static electrical charge to activate the Motherbox. The problem with this scenario is that, although the Flash may generate a huge static electrical field at super speed, he is constantly discharging that static electricity, as we see every single time he exerts his power. As Flash races toward the Motherbox, gigantic arcs of electricity (easily hundreds of thousands of volts) pour off him, grounding to the spacecraft's bulkheads, thus neutralizing the static charge. Meaning that The Flash is not accumulating energy, he is discharging energy with every step; so, by the time he arrives at the Motherbox, he should have no more accumulated static electrical energy than if he started ten feet away from it.

Charles Austin Miller

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

Suggested correction: Under known physics, you are correct, however, The Flash can tap into the speed force, something that transcends known physics, which therefore makes his charging of the motherbox possible.

It doesn't matter what he is "tapping into" if he is still grounding-out to the ship's bulkheads and is discharging electricity the whole time.

Charles Austin Miller

Also the bulkheads are made of Kryptonian technology, being alien in nature maybe the discharged energy reacts differently and perhaps is reflected back into the Flash at a rate so fast that is imperceptible to the human eye. Like Bruce said the mother box is science beyond anything imaginable so we have to keep our mind open to possibilities regarding its properties.

Sorry but you are incorrect. According to you Barry shouldn't be able to run at all at high speed because physics. The speed force may as well be magic, as it defies physics in multiple ways i.e friction, gaining momentum the requirement for an equal opposite force to come to a rapid stop etc. Nevermind that it's canonical that they can generate and hurl lightning bolts.

Suggested correction: He said that he can "conduct a significant electrical current." At the moment he touches the cube, you can see the bolts sucking back into him and flowing into the cube. Also..."speed force."

DetectiveGadget85

Factual error: It is long-established in Star Trek canon that onboard diagnostics can detect any animate intruders on Federation vessels. Any living thing that exists upon a Federation vessel can be identified, and its location specifically noted on Federation property. How is it, then, that there are rats aboard the Regula I space station (as observed by Doctor McCoy) that haven't been eradicated?

Charles Austin Miller

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

Suggested correction: It is not established that Regula 1 has the same internal sensors that a starship has.

BaconIsMyBFF

It is definitely established, however, that the Regula 1 space station is conducting the most highly-classified technological research and development in the entire Federation: The Genesis Project, which entailed re-engineering whole worlds to create new ecosystems where no life existed before. If anything, Regula 1 should be equipped with even more sensitive and discriminating biological sensors than any starship in the Federation, for the express purpose of preventing biological contamination of their experiments. So, Regula 1 must have necessarily possessed the most sophisticated biological sensors available. As Dr. Carol Marcus emphasized, the Genesis Project couldn't risk contamination by so much as a microbe, nevermind foot-long rats creeping around the space station.

Charles Austin Miller

None of the scanning shown in the film was done by the Regula 1 station. The Reliant is what scanned the planet where Khan was found. Even if Regula 1 did have highly advanced sensors there is nothing to suggest anyone has the time or need to regularly scan for pests on the station itself. The presence of a pest in the Genesis cave itself would have been an error, but not on the station. A pest on the station has no bearing on the Genesis project itself. There are too many assumptions for this to be considered a movie mistake.

BaconIsMyBFF

The rat was not shown in the Genesis Cave, it was shown aboard the Regula space station, where the Genesis Device itself was constructed before it was beamed inside the planetoid for a test run. The point you're missing is that the space station had rats crawling around inside, but a rat infestation wouldn't be tolerated at an ultra-top-secret research and development facility for a project that was highly sensitive to biological contamination.

Regulus One was a scientific research laboratory, the rats seen roaming the passageways were lab rats that had escaped in the earlier confusion. Genesis was their current project, but I'm certain there were many other experiments going on. Bear in mind, Carol Marcus retorted that "they waited until everyone was on leave to do this." They only had a skeleton crew aboard at the time Khan boarded the station and killed those still present who were not transporting equipment to the cavern.

Suggested correction: It was most likely a lab rat that was inadvertently freed when Khan and his followers ransacked the station. The sensors probably pick it up just fine, everyone on the station is just too busy being dead to do anything about the stray rat scurrying about.

TonyPH

It's the 24th Century. After all the "animal cruelty" activism of the 20th and 21st Centuries, I very seriously doubt they are still experimenting on lab rats in the 24th Century. That practice would be deemed medieval, at best, and barbaric, at worst.

Charles Austin Miller

Suggested correction: When was this established? There are a number of episodes of the original series where the plot depends on them not being able to detect intruders. "Court Martial" for example.

"Court Martial" is probably the worst example you could use for your argument. In that episode, the vengeful Lieutenant Commander Benjamin Finney repeatedly sabotaged the Enterprise main computer (changing ship's chronological data records in order to fake his own "death" and frame Captain Kirk for a murder that never happened). Finney also sabotaged the computer and caused the Enterprise to fall out of orbit. Indeed, Spock discovered that the ship's computer was malfunctioning due to sabotage. So, Finney was more than capable of sabotaging the ship's bio-scanners, as well, to conceal himself from a whole-ship scan. In fact, they had to resort to a very sensitive audio-scan of the Enterprise, selectively eliminating the audible heartbeats of every known person aboard the ship. When all known heartbeats were eliminated, just one unknown heartbeat remained, and its owner couldn't be identified. Therefore, Finney had certainly tampered with the bio-scanner to conceal his whereabouts. It's very doubtful, however, that foot-long rats hacked the bio-scanners aboard the Regula research station to conceal their whereabouts.

Charles Austin Miller

Every time the Enterprise computer system reported an "intruder alert," and every time they asked the computer for the location of specific individuals and lifeforms anywhere aboard the ship. This was all well-established in the Original Series.

Charles Austin Miller

It's a big leap to go from that to they can detect any living being. It is explicitly established that under many circumstances they can't even detect a full grown man if they are in hiding. This is the whole basis of the plot of "Court Martial." Even as late as The Next Generation it is established that it is difficult to find someone if they're not wearing their communicator badge.

Yet they can detect single-celled organisms on a planet's surface from thousands of miles away. The technology certainly exists in the Star Trek universe, and especially for the highly-classified Genesis Experiment. In "The Wrath of Khan," Dr. Carol Marcus stipulates that the Genesis Experiment cannot be contaminated by so much as a microbe, and complete sterility is a condition for selecting a test planet. Yet they have foot-long rats scurrying around the Genesis research facility? That is a plot hole, a continuity problem and a factual error all rolled into one.

Charles Austin Miller

Reliant scanned the planet to search for any life forms. That scan was inaccurate and it read Khan's entire group (and presumably the Ceti eels) as non-specific, potential life matter. Reliant's crew speculates that it could just be some speck of matter and they are completely shocked to find multiple living humans there. If they were using these highly advanced sensors you claim they were using they would not have been surprised by the presence of humans at all. And even if they could, there is nothing to suggest they should also use those sensors for pest control on their space station.

BaconIsMyBFF

Suggested correction: Obviously the first thing the rats did was chew through the cables to the lifeform scanners.

Which would set off alarms like crazy aboard the station because preventing biological contamination of the Genesis Experiment was a No.1 priority for Dr. Carol Marcus. Undoubtedly, the station was bristling with redundant bio-scanners.

Charles Austin Miller

All of which had been also chewed through! No, you make a good point.

Suggested correction: Someone on the Reliant had a pet rat and one of Khan's henchmen brought it aboard Regula I to torment the lab techs. (Yes, this sounds silly, but the point is that strange and unlikely things actually happen quite often and it's exactly what makes stories interesting. As long as an event can be rationalized, unlikelihood alone isn't enough to qualify as a mistake. If it really bothers you, you might get more mileage putting it under "stupidity" since it's obviously just a lazy horror cliche).

TonyPH

29th Dec 2019

A Christmas Carol (1999)

Factual error: The Charles Dickens classic "A Christmas Carol" was first published in 1843; and, although Dickens never mentioned the specific year in which this story is set, it is fairly obvious that he was inspired by the severe winter of 1840, when Great Britain saw sleet, ice, snow and below-average temperatures from early December through February. This made-for-television Hallmark Entertainment production (starring Patrick Stewart) is a faithful interpretation of the Dickens novel, depicting rather severe weather for Great Britain in December, with accumulated snow on rooftops and in the streets. However, despite the snow and bitter cold that is mentioned repeatedly throughout the movie, nobody's breath condensation is ever visible when speaking, laughing, singing or shouting outdoors. This is no doubt due to the fact that the movie was produced during the spring and summer of 1999.

Charles Austin Miller

8th Nov 2019

Common mistakes

Factual error: An especially stupid but common blunder in film and TV over the decades involves a character picking up a random object from nearby and bashing a heavy padlock and steel chain a few times until the lock and chain break and fall away. Of course, steel chain and heavy padlocks are designed to withstand tons of stress that a human being couldn't possibly exert through striking alone.

Charles Austin Miller

8th Jul 2019

Brainstorm (1983)

Factual error: When the Brainstorm project is taken over by the sinister military operative Landan Marks, he begins weaponizing the brain-interface technology and testing it on the human guinea pig Gordon Forbes. As Gordon is subjected to increasingly difficult fighter-jet simulations, Landan Marks gleefully exclaims to military observers, "Now watch this! He can take a full 10-G rollout without losing control, just by thinking about it!" In the flight-simulator cockpit, Gordon grimaces, but the Brainstorm device allows him to remain conscious and maintain control despite his physical distress. But the fact is that no flight simulator in the 1980s or even today would be able to simulate extreme G-forces as described in this film. In fact, flight simulators then and now can't approximate even low G-forces. Only a giant centrifuge can produce such forces; but Gordon is not in a centrifuge for this scene. It's simply a flight simulator.

Charles Austin Miller

8th Jun 2019

Iron Man (2008)

Factual error: A tank's main gun could not blast Iron Man out of the sky, as depicted in this film, and the "lucky shot" theory holds no water. In military history, there are only a couple of instances of tanks using their main guns to shoot down aircraft by chance, and those involved tanks repeatedly firing their main guns on known flight paths until an aircraft literally ran into a tank round. However, in this movie, Iron Man comes out of nowhere on no known flight path, he's not recognizable as an aircraft, he's traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, and he's only airborne for about 4 seconds before he's hit with a tank round. The tank gunner could not possibly identify Iron Man as a new target, elevate the main gun, track him and fire in 4 seconds. Modern tanks do not have the ability to acquire and track fast-moving targets with the main gun, nevermind fast-moving aerial targets.

Charles Austin Miller

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

Suggested correction: All that might be true in the real world but in this movie we know that the forces of the Ten Rings have been supplied with advanced weapons from Stark Industries. A retrofitted tank weapon that can engage a superhero in a flying suit is no more fanciful than a hand held paralyzing noise device or an arc reactor.

Yes, it's a fantasy film. You could even fairly say that no fantasy film can be in error by virtue of its fantastical premise. That does not negate a factual error.

Charles Austin Miller

Tony Stark is an extremely intelligent inventor that makes advanced weapons for the military. A targeting system for made for tanks lies entirely within the realm of possibility presented within the world of this franchise.

Phaneron

And, yet, it is established in this first movie that the Ten Rings terrorists only possess as much Stark technology as Obediah Stane allows them (which isn't much). Obviously, the tank is not very advanced technology, as Tony merely sidesteps the second tank round and he utterly destroys the tank with a wrist-rocket. There is no indication in the film that the Tank is advanced Stark technology.

Charles Austin Miller

No one is saying that the tank itself is Stark technology, only that it's weapon can be retrofitted with a targeting system. It wouldn't be much different than retrofitting an older model car with a GPS system. The reason Iron Man is able to sidestep the second shot is because he's expecting it, and even then, he barely dodges it.

Phaneron

No way the single-shot main gun of ANY style tank would be "retrofitted" to track and fire on high-speed aerial targets. Any refit would require rebuilding and automating the tank and turret and replacing the main gun (which fires only single rounds) with an automatic repeating cannon, essentially turning it into an advanced mobile anti-aircraft platform. The tank in the movie is recognizable as a standard, slow, single-shot British Chieftain MK10, so it's not Stark industries.

Charles Austin Miller

Well you definitely know a hell of a lot more about tanks than I do, so I concede my previous points.

Phaneron

It takes a man to admit he's wrong. I doff my cap to your courage.

Charles Austin Miller

14th May 2019

Death Wish (2018)

Factual error: When Dr. Paul Kersey pays a visit to Joe Gannon, the garage mechanic, Kersey slices open Gannon's leg with a scalpel, then pours automotive brake fluid into the wound. The brake fluid sizzles and foams on contact with the blood, which is chemically impossible. Brake fluid is simply hydraulic fluid formulated for extreme temperatures. The diethylene glycol in brake fluid may be toxic and may sting slightly in open wounds, but it does not violently react with blood and sizzle like acid as depicted in this film. (01:14:45)

Charles Austin Miller

Factual error: Loosely based on the novel by Jules Verne, the entire story takes place on a remote Pacific island in the early 1860s. However, as pirates come under attack by a sea monster (in the second half of this two-part film), a modern fishing trawler or tugboat appears momentarily on the far right of the screen. (00:59:05)

Charles Austin Miller

17th Dec 2018

Hackers (1995)

Factual error: Sharp, distinct text and even graphics are shown projected from an early laptop screen onto the faces of Angelina Jolie and Jonny Lee Miller and even against a wall several feet in the background (starting 0:50:35 and throughout the rest of the movie). Of course, computer displays have never projected sharply-focused text or images onto user faces or any other nearby surfaces. (00:50:35)

Charles Austin Miller

29th Nov 2018

Europa Report (2013)

Factual error: In this relatively low-budget but extremely well-produced 2013 science fiction film, a 6-man crew travels from Earth to Europa (one of the moons of Jupiter) to search for traces of life in the vast oceans beneath Europa's icy surface. One of the astronauts dies in-transit, leaving 5 crewmembers to complete the mission. When the large "Europa One" interplanetary spacecraft arrives at its destination, all 5 surviving crewmembers descend in a small landing craft to the moon's surface, leaving the Europa One spacecraft in orbit, totally unmanned. This is an inconceivable factual blunder. The narration plainly states that this mission picked up where manned lunar missions of the 1970s left off; so, many of the same protocols are in place. Just so, no manned space mission would ever abandon the primary space vehicle in orbit, placing the mission at risk by sending the entire crew down together in a landing party. At least two astronauts should have remained aboard the orbiting Europa One just in case the landing mission went sideways (as it does in this film).

Charles Austin Miller

Factual error: During the surgical operation, Dr. Heiter makes incisions on the buttocks for the triangular flaps of connecting flesh; but the flaps are pointing outward, rather than inward. The only way to graft the buttock flesh to the face of the next subject would be with the buttock incisions pointing inward.

Charles Austin Miller

10th Sep 2018

Tom Horn (1980)

Factual error: In this poorly-researched film ("based on a true story"), Tom Horn lugs around a government-issue, lever-action 45.60 caliber rifle and even claims that he prefers the 45.60 because the ammunition is plentiful wherever he goes. However, there is no historical or biographical record of Tom Horn carrying and using a 45.60 rifle. In point of fact, the real Tom Horn's weapon of choice was the lever-action 30.30 rifle (a common range weapon of the day, often known as a "brushbuster"). When Tom Horn was arrested for murder in real life, he was carrying his 30.30 rifle, but a 45.60 cartridge was discovered in his pocket. This film fabricated its fictional plot around that 45.60 cartridge found in his possession.

Charles Austin Miller

Factual error: In his crude attempt to replicate the Human Centipede surgical procedure, Martin employs several handyman tools, including a carpenter's staple gun (using T50 staples as sutures). Problem is, carpenter's staples would never join soft human body tissues, they'd pull right out with little effort (T50 staples only join to very solid base materials, such as wood). Martin's victims, hysterical as they were, could have freed themselves from the T50 staples almost immediately.

Charles Austin Miller

21st Jul 2018

The Wave (2015)

Factual error: Although this 2015 Norwegian disaster film is far superior to the many American disaster movies that it emulates, "The Wave" still suffers the most common error found in tsunami-themed disaster flicks: Crystal-clear flood waters. Of course, tsunami flood waters in particular are always inky-black with churning sediment and debris.

Charles Austin Miller

16th Jul 2018

Planet 51 (2009)

Factual error: When Cameron melts down and starts kicking the 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California Spyder, he dents the front bumper. There is no way a human being could dent a pressed-steel, chromium-plated bumper by kicking it.

Charles Austin Miller

Factual error: During the lethal-injection scene, an executioner is plainly visible to the witnesses through a broad glass window in the death chamber. He is shown flipping toggle switches in-sequence to release the sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride that comprise the lethal drug cocktail. For one thing, in modern Western culture, an executioner is never visible to the witnesses. For another thing, there is no "executioner," per se, flipping toggle switches in the lethal-injection process. The component drugs are loaded into the death machine in advance, and it automatically releases the drugs via a pre-set timer.

Charles Austin Miller

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.