Other mistake: Where does the fire in the gas pipes come from? Even though a lot of gas - and thereby pressure - is directed towards the power station, why do they blow up under ground far away from the power station?
TedStixon
11th Jul 2007
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The pressure caused a pipe to crack or similar, and some gas leaked out to where it shouldn't be, and it got ignited. You couldn't count on that happening, though. The idea was probably to have the pipes/valves blow out at the power station and flood it with gas.
This isn't a strong correction, especially as it admits that it likely wouldn't have worked and uses a lot of conjecture.
13th Feb 2013
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
Factual error: 0.7% of the electricity generated in West Virginia (as of 2011) is from natural gas. The plant in the movie would have been a peaking unit, only operated during the day. Shutting down a power plant that is not operating would not cause a black out. Further evidence that the unit is not operating is that only three security guards seem to be on the premises. You can not operate a power plant with three security guards.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As I understood it, the original idea was to use the power plant's computer to shut down the power grid, not the plant itself. How the explosion then accomplished the same, I have no idea.
This correction does not actually address the mistake properly.
23rd Jun 2022
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Question: After Harry discovers that Peter is really Spider-Man, he tells Peter that he murdered Norman Osborne. Why didn't Peter just say, "I didn't kill your dad. He was already dead when I brought him to you"?
Answer: As the other answer suggests, it'd be a dangerous waste of time. Additionally, Harry is literally driving himself insane believing that Spider-Man killed his father... so it's not like Harry would actually believe Peter anyway even if he tried to explain it in that moment.
But, surely before he left, he would have had just enough time to quickly say, "I didn't kill your dad. The Green Goblin did."
That's not the point. The point is, Harry wouldn't have believed him... he's too far lost in grief and revenge. This is further evidenced when Peter tells him in "Spider-Man 3," and Harry refuses to believe him.
8th May 2007
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Continuity mistake: Just before the Wicked Witch leaves Munchkinland she says to Dorothy, "just try to stay out of my way" and her broomstick is facing upwards. In the next shot it's facing downwards. (00:30:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: In between shots, in order to threaten Dorothy more, the Witch leaned down towards her more than in the first shot. Therefore, she had to lower the broom so she could do that without the broom getting in the way.
These shots are back-to-back. There's literally no time for her to have lowered the broom between shots. She would have had to have done it in 1/24th of a second... about 8 times faster than it takes you to blink your eyes once at normal speed. It's just not possible.
27th Jun 2025
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)
Question: When Lydia needs to rescue Astrid and she calls on Beetlejuice, he appears and says, "The juice is loose." If he wants to be loose, why did he not appear this way before, when Rory called him? Instead of making Rory and Lydia enter the world of the model? (This also happened in the first movie - Adam and Barbara went to the model first.)
Answer: He's just making a joke by rhyming his name. I think you're reading too far into it.
I think you don't understand the actual question. It really has nothing to do with what he said, joking or not. For someone who wants out / wants freedom (disregard the joke), why did he not leave the model the first time someone (Rory) said his name? Instead of making Rory and Lydia enter the world of model the first time?
The scope of his power and influence seems relatively limited in the real world... almost exclusively confined to a small area around whichever ghosts (or strange and unusual humans) he's interacted with. Hence, him needing to perform the marriage ritual to escape the spirit world and be able to wage true havoc on the human world. So even if he left the model the first time, I doubt it would have ended up any different. Until Lydia agreed to marry him, all he could really do was just mess with her.
11th Apr 2013
Silent Hill: Revelation (2012)
Plot hole: There is a scene where Heather pulls the mask off one of the cult-members, and the air literally poisons him, causing his skin to discolor and his throat to choke up. This never happens before or after. Vincent claims that those particular cult-members have superstitions about the air being poisonous, but there are a multitude of problems with this explanation: A) We have seen numerous other people go unaffected by the air, and B) we later see several of these same cult-members in the sanctuary, unmasked, breathing the same "poisonous" air with no adverse effects. (And Claudia had stated that even the sanctuary is no longer safe from the darkness of Silent Hill, so they are technically breathing the same "poison" air that's outside).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The air is poisonous to them because they believe it to be. Your fears are manifested there. That's why everyone's Silent Hill is different.
The problem with this correction is that it's operating by the rules of the video games where it is true that Silent Hill is different for everyone and fears are manifested. But the movies don't really use this logic. They have their own rules and continuity. Outside of a clumsy throwaway line from Leonard as a vague nod to this notion, the movies otherwise depict literally everyone ending up in the exact same few Silent Hill dimensions - the real world, the fog world and Alessa's nightmare/the Otherworld. Even random people who just got "lost in the fog" while near the town end up in these dimensions.
3rd May 2025
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Other mistake: At the library in Venice, Brody and Jones point out the Roman numerals in the library, wondering what they mean. Elsa comes over, and they show her. In front of her, behind the rail, is an obvious plate of glass. You can see her reflecting in it. The plate disappears in the next shot and never returns. The plate is not there in the longer shots. Where did it come from?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I just watched the scene about five times and could not find any glass or reflections. All I saw was their shadows against the wall. Furthermore, it would make no sense for them to set up a big glass plate for one shot and only one shot.
I re-wound it several times. It's right at the beginning of the shot when Elsa comes from the right. It's brief but there. This was on a TV version. You may be watching a fixed version on DVD or Blu-ray. I'm sure the mistake has been corrected in later releases.
I think you are mistaking a shadow for a reflection. Or possibly it's just a video artifact. As the previous correction stated, why would there be a sheet of glass there?
I'm standing by my correction in this case. It just patently makes no sense why they'd set up a big pane of glass on their set for one shot then remove it. It wouldn't serve any purpose other than to catch light, and it would have also lightly messed with the way the background looked and the shadows the actors are casting. If it was a TV version, there's no way to tell what master they're using, how old it is, how it was stored, etc. It could have video artifacting or damage that caused the "reflection." (Probably just a light "ghosting" effect.) Heck, sometimes even your TV settings can cause issues like that. If you use any sort of motion smoothing or frame interpolation, those can create weird double images sometimes because the software doesn't always work properly.
9th Apr 2025
Batman Returns (1992)
Question: What did Danny DeVito eat instead of a raw fish during the scene where Shreck pushes the Penguin to run for mayor?
Answer: He was actually eating raw fish.
Do you have a source for that? It seems unlikely.
Danny DeVito has stated in interviews that he ate fresh real bluefish (think of it like bluefish sashimi minus the soy sauce, wasabi, and ponzu).
Why would you think it seems unlikely? Lots of people eat raw fish. As long as it's treated properly to kill off bacteria (usually by flash-freezing it), it's perfectly safe. Heck, I even eat raw fish all the time. You just have to make sure it's sashimi-grade. Getting some raw bluefish seems cheaper and faster than going through a whole hullabaloo making a fake prop and concoction for the scene.
2nd Mar 2021
Blade Runner (1982)
Answer: It was probably a matter of public record or a big company she worked for would have some connections to find out.
Yes, but police addresses are not given to the public.
This response is nonsensical. I know a cop and literally just Googled him and found his address in seconds. You can find pretty much anyone's address easily today... It'd probably be even easier in a futuristic society with more advanced technology. Saying "police addresses are not given to the public" means nothing when they're literally public record.
27th Aug 2001
Flubber (1997)
Corrected entry: In the scene in which Prof Brainard and Sarah are fighting the bad guys at the mansion, Sarah has Flubber on her hands. She is slapping Wilson around, and you can clearly see that the person who is slapping Wilson is a dummy.
Correction: Sarah punches Wilson multiple times with the flubber on her hands at 01:23:13, but Sarah in this shot does not resemble a dummy or anything similar. Nor is she a dummy in the other shots where she punches Wilson.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the person who submitted the mistake was confused because the scene is lit a little weird and sped up, and she's holding pretty still. But it's painfully obvious that the actress is not a dummy.
7th Aug 2016
Ice Age (2002)
Question: The end of the movie shows Scrat and his acorn frozen in and eventually thawed from a block of ice 20,000 years later. How did he come back for the sequels?
Answer: The sequels take place before he was frozen.
That's not true. If the movies made later were prequels, how would the characters all already know each other?
Good Lord, people are overthinking this, hahaha. It's a silly animated movie series primarily aimed at children. It's OK if the Scrat character doesn't have super-concise continuity. It'd be like getting upset over the Looney Tunes not having strict continuity.
That one scene is set much later than the other films. The sequels aren't prequels.
20th Dec 2024
Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (2024)
Question: SPOILERS: When Sonic and Shadow land on the moon, they have a heart-to-heart conversation and appear to be breathing. But there's no air on the moon. Are we to assume that the Chaos Emeralds (which have given them both powers) are giving them the ability to breathe and speak in the environment?
Answer: They still have the Chaos Emerald power at that point because, immediately after, they turn gold and fly away.
Honestly, that's probably the best answer.
9th Nov 2024
Predator (1987)
Question: After the Predator gets out of the water and walks past Dutch, it sees some small animal (not sure what) and kills it. Since it kills for sport, targets experts with weapons, why kill a defenceless animal? (01:20:00)
Answer: It simply might have seen killing a different animal as yet another "trophy." Especially if it hunts for sport and is on a different planet. I know a few people who hunt for "sport," and many of their targets are non-dangerous, defenceless animals that could not realistically fight back. It's just... a thing for some people.
Except that the Yautja only kill people who have weapons. The animal was defenceless, and it wouldn't have been very, what the Yautja perceive, as being honourable.
The issue is that you're going by logic established in sequels/spin-off material and trying to retroactively connect it. Nothing in the original movie explicitly states this. Even the name you're using, "Yautja," wasn't coined until a spin-off novel that came out seven years later. Sometimes sequels and spin-offs will "rewrite the rules" and retcon from the original, thus creating small inconsistencies. You just have to accept that it's something that happened in this movie, even if it contradicts future series "lore." You can't really fault it for not lining up with sequels they didn't even know would exist when they made it.
17th Feb 2022
Happy Death Day 2U (2019)
Deliberate mistake: When Tree turns on the magnetic medical equipment, it's somehow strong enough to yank a big, heavy wheelchair up and pin Gregory in only a split-second, but not strong enough to instantly pull the screwdriver out of Tree's hand? Obviously this was done so Tree could have a cool moment where she lets go of the screwdriver and it impales Gregory... but it makes no real sense.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It does make sense. The wheelchair wasn't secured and contained lots of metal, so it was immediately pulled towards the scanner. The screwdriver had a lot less metal, and Trew was holding it very tightly, and she knew what was about to happen, so she should strengthen her grip even more, allowing her to keep hold of it.
Preposterous. Depending on how they're set, MRI magnets can yank entire hospital beds clear across the room, and even once killed a man by setting off a concealed gun he was carrying. There's no way she was holding onto that thing.
18th Jun 2022
Predator (1987)
Plot hole: After Blaine gets killed and the group hose down the forest, Poncho goes and checks for the enemy. He comes back and says he didn't find tracks or blood "We hit NOTHINGGG." Now, while he would be looking for red blood, he certainly should have noticed at least the glowing Predator blood (made from glow stick fluid - widely used by the military and public alike at the time) easily visible on the large leaf, and deduced that came from something - perhaps the enemy soldier had a glow stick.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't a plot hole. The plot of the movie isn't broken because of this. It's an assumption that he "should have noticed" the predator blood but he might not have. And if he had, and had discounted it, it would only be a character error not to have mentioned it.
A plot hole doesn't strictly need to "break" the plot to count as a plot hole. The term most often refers to instances when a film contradicts its own sense of internal logic. For example, something happening that contradicts something else that was already established, vital information being left out, or a character acting way out of character for the benefit of the plot. In this case, this absolutely could count as a plot hole.
11th Jun 2003
Scream 3 (2000)
Other mistake: On the back cover of Scream 3 in the Scream trilogy on DVD, the town of the original killings is referred to as Greensboro twice. The correct name of the town is Woodsboro, of course.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I'm not "correcting" this per se, but I'm wondering if there should be either a separate type of mistake for things like DVD/Blu-Ray cases or posters (Ex. "Multimedia and Marketing Mistakes" or something like that), or if these things would be better classified as trivia? Especially since it's not something everyone can necessarily observe watching the movie itself. (Ex. My Blu-Ray and 4K releases don't have this mistake.) If not, feel free to downvote/delete this. I've just seen a few of these mistakes over the years here, and it always seems a little off to me since it's not something wrong with the film itself.
I agree these aren't valid movie mistake if the studio wasn't involved in the mistake. It could be trivia if only certain home releases had them. These mistakes are like when episodes are aired out of order creating continuity issues,, streaming services make changes, or closed captioning (not subtitles) gets something wrong. It can't be considered a mistake of the film or TV series.
It's tricky - largely, if I'm honest, because adding new types to the site is incredibly fiddly. :-) There's also room for endless debate about what's a "mistake", whether it's about assigning specific blame or just looking for interesting stuff. Likewise things that can only be seen in slow motion, which arguably warrant a category to themselves because there are plenty of them, but then the "mistakes" section gets cluttered. Becomes a user interface issue as much as anything! Will think.
I'm not disagreeing with this post, it's the only way I can reply. But yes, for the first run of the VHS and the DVD of Scream 3, there is that typo on the back cover. Now knowing that, is that version worth more money?
While misprints can sometimes add to something's value, I don't think this would necessarily make this release more valuable. Perhaps the VHS version just because there is something of a collector's market for VHS tapes now. But the movies have been released on DVD, Blu-Ray and 4K so many times, I don't see the DVD version being worth significantly more. (Unless you find a really weird collector who would specifically want THAT version.)
Yes, there is that typo. They were the first run of the VHS.
I didn't say there wasn't a typo. I was questioning whether a typo on the cover would technically qualify as a movie mistake, since it's not part of the actual film.
9th May 2023
The Conjuring (2013)
Corrected entry: In the movie, Ed and Lorraine Warren are depicted as a younger middle-aged couple when the real Warrens were retirees who died before this film was made.
Correction: This isn't a documentary. It's a highly fictionalized retelling of their cases, which themselves are just dubious claims. This film also takes place in 1971 when the Warrens would have been in their mid-40s, and Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga weren't far off in age at the time of filming. Also, Lorraine Warren didn't die until 6 years after this film came out.
Documentary or film, makes little difference. The fact is that images of the real Warrens in the 1970s were an older couple as mentioned, while the actors in the films are considerably younger in their late 30s to 40s, where respectively age consideration should have lined up but did not.
Ed and Lorraine Warren were both around 45 in 1971 when the film takes place. Both of the actors were around 40 when the film was made and released. That's not a big difference in age. Just because they look a little bit younger doesn't make it a mistake. You're not going to be able to find actors who look EXACTLY like the real people. Also, how does the date the Warrens died have any impact on the movie? The movie takes place in 1971... not the present day.
Correction: It actually does make a difference when it comes to documentary vs. fiction, because this film isn't intended to be a true-to-life depiction, particularly as the real Warrens were con artists. This falls under artistic license. This film also features unequivocal evidence for the supernatural, including ghosts, demonic possession, and violations of laws of physics, none of which are true to the real world. Given all that, the fact that the Warrens look more youthful here isn't a movie mistake.
3rd May 2023
Saw (2004)
Question: One thing I have never understood through the entire series is Dr Gordon's test. To pass his test, Dr Gordon has to kill Adam by 6 if not his family is killed and he is left to rot. At 6 Zep calls saying he failed his test. He then cuts his foot off, shoots and wounds Adam. The film end with him having crawled to get help and jigsaw shutting the door on Adam. In Saw 7 we see Jigsaw helped him and he became an accomplice. Why did jigsaw not kill him or leave him to die as he failed his test.
Answer: The movies don't directly address this. But in my personal opinion, even though he didn't do everything on time, Jigsaw recognized that Dr. Gordon ultimately was willing to make the sacrifices he had to in order to save his family. He also spent hours in the room listening to Gordon and Adam talking, and likely realised that Gordon was a good man despite his faults. So I personally believe that even though he didn't "pass his test" per se, Jigsaw had grown enough respect for Gordon that he saved him. (And indoctrinated him).
Is Hoffman dead or alive?
That's unknown at this point in time.
It's most likely that he is dead.
20th Feb 2018
The Legend of Tarzan (2016)
Trivia: Early in the movie, when George is speaking to John, he says, "Me Tarzan, you Jane." Even though this line has been synonymous with the character Tarzan, it has actually never been said by Tarzan at all in any movie or any stories written about Tarzan's adventures. This is officially the first time the line is used.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Johnny Weissmuller said it in his Tarzan movies.
This is actually a popular misconception. Johnny Weissmuller never actually said it in any of his Tarzan movies. He said it during an interview where he was describing the character. But he never actually said it onscreen during any of the movies. So the trivia is 100% correct.
21st Oct 2023
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Question: Once cured and returned home, won't some of the villains, like the Lizard, still go to jail anyway?
Answer: More than likely... but that doesn't strictly matter. They'll still have been cured, avoided death, and "saved" in a sense. Even if they lose their freedom, they still are going to have a happier ending than they would have otherwise.
Remember that Oscorp is a corrupt company in the Amazing series. More than likely, both Connors and Dillon might be killed in prison under orders, so some happy ending.
That's a very bold assumption to make, especially considering they DIDN'T kill Connors after the events of the original "Amazing Spider-Man." At most, Connors will remain in prison. But I don't even know about Dillon. There's an exceedingly high chance he could just walk, especially presuming he'd be teleported back to around the time he was originally killed, and the world would think he's dead.