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.
9th Oct 2025
Casino Royale (2006)
Corrected entry: Bond won $114 million at the casino ($115 million, less the $1 million tip to the dealer). Vesper was able to withdraw the money (extremely quickly, by the way, but that's a mistake for another day), and carry the money away in a small briefcase. $114 million on $100 dollar bills would be extremely heavy (1.14 million notes weighing one gram each), something in the order of 1,140 kilograms.
Correction: I could be incorrect, but I don't believe it's ever explicitly stated that the briefcase is filled with $114 million in cash. Just that Vesper withdrew the money somehow. Something like bearer bonds or some sort of equivalency is mostly like what's inside the case. Something that would break the money down into smaller individualized transactions, but be small and easily transportable. (In fact, a few years back, a briefcase with over $130 billion worth of counterfeit bonds - 1000X more - was found being smuggled.)
I thought about that, but the US and EU don't use bearer bonds anymore, for the same reason it was favoured by drug dealers. And you'd still have the problem that the bank would happen to have that amount of bonds ready to go so quickly... I know, movie logic, but still.
11th Sep 2025
Superman (2025)
Revealing mistake: When Krypto is playing with Superman, he says, "Sit! Stay!" and then Superman's left foot suddenly stretches out unnaturally, like an oversized clown shoe. (00:06:57)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I'm not sure this is a valid correction, but I'm also not sure this is a valid mistake. This appears to simply be a result of the camera lens creating some minor distortion at the edge of the frame, since it only happens when his foot reaches the corner of the screen. While it looks odd, I think it's dubious and debatable whether or not this is a "mistake", and opens a can of worms where any frame distortion, even intentional, could be considered a mistake. Not my decision, though.
Apparently, the effect is either a distortion caused by the curved LED wall they used or the lens. Whatever the cause, Superman's clown-shoe look was never meant to make it on screen. This site is littered with similar issues: lens distortions, colour mismatches, faulty rear projections, and more.
20th Jan 2021
Saw IV (2007)
Factual error: It would not be possible for the scalping device to scalp Brenda's hair in the manner that it does. Hair is too thin to withstand that much pressure when being pulled and would rip long before she began to bleed profusely. At worst, she would likely be bleeding a little bit in a non-fatal manner from having her hair yanked after it ripped.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually, people get scalped by having their hair get caught in machines with some frequency in real life. It's a troublingly real phenomenon. When the tension is distributed among all your hair, it can rip the skin clean off down to the muscle or bone.
13th Sep 2025
Common mistakes
Corrected entry: Villains who find out about the protagonist's actions through the media and public news, such as displaying their name or picture on TV, newspapers, and the internet. Such personal information is strictly confidential exactly for this purpose and never happens unless the protagonist provides their consent for it to be allowed, but we never see any of that being seen or implied. It's a device often used for the purpose of advancing the plot in a quick manner.
Correction: 1. Just because we haven't seen something doesn't mean it didn't take place. 2. Much of the time, this would be public information. 3. You can easily find the address or phone number of someone online (or through phone books depending on the era).
Correction: This is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, come on... there have been multiple major news stories lately regarding certain high-profile events where suspects' names and/or images have been plastered all over the media. How could you say this? Also, personal information is no longer personal. You can find anything at the click of a button. I know a guy who's a cop, and I can find his picture and address in 30 seconds with a Google search.
14th Mar 2019
Puppet Master II (1991)
Continuity mistake: When the little boy playing "Indiana Jones" picks up Torch he is a large doll (about the size of say Chucky) but in other scenes Torch is the size of all the other puppets.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think the scale might seem off because the child is so small. But he's definitely not the size of Chucky or significantly larger than he usually is. Most of the puppets are between 12-20" tall according to replicas and the boy looks about 7-8, which would probably put him somewhere around the 3.5'-4.5' height range. The scale seems to work out, since Torch is roughly half the kid's height and is one of the taller puppets.
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.
20th Jun 2025
The Thing (1982)
Corrected entry: The dogs get left alone in the cage with the new one, 'stirring' follows as it changes to the Thing, and they howl up a storm, as it cuts to Macready and keepers looking puzzled. Then heading to the dog pen to check it out, but seem too calm but concerned hearing the dog's cries as they flip on the light to see it attacking while Mcreedy stalls in firing the torch to kill it.
Correction: What exactly do you think they would be suspecting when hearing the dogs go wild and howl like that? None of the humans are suspect of the not-a-dog. They are huskies, probably not the first time they made a ruckus. When Clark goes to check on them, he is rightfully freaked out by whatever he saw and puts his own life above that of the dogs. Also, some dogs got out.
You are correct to a sense. They are huskies known for hunting/rescuing. But with the situation at hand, it just seemed poor timing in aiding the dog's obvious distress. I've been racing down that hallway in a panic that something awful had happened. And I did not see any proof that any of the dogs had escaped. The one that went chewing on the fence was killed when trying to get away, while the others either coward or got shot at or also maimed in the chaos.
I'd like to add that indeed the dogs do sound very much in distress, but when Clark comes to check it had only been a minute since they started. Adding to that the fact that Clark and the others are probably very tired and ready to go to bed, so a sense of rush probably doesn't come very quickly. But, when Clark reaches the gate of the kennel, the dogs strangely go quiet. Then, when he opens it, two dogs escape, seemingly unassimilated (however they managed that).
Correction: I don't agree with this, and the way it's written doesn't really feel like it's accurate to the movie. The dog seemed perfectly normal, and there's no way the team knew there's a "thing attacking" the other dogs. They were just barking... there could have just been an arctic hare that somehow got inside the kennel for all they knew. Clark shows up to investigate the commotion in less than 60 seconds. And the instant someone else hears it, an alarm is pulled, and things move rather quickly. At best, you could argue that Clark panicked and froze after seeing the creature, but that's not a mistake. Anyone would panic seeing that madness.
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.
18th Feb 2013
Silent Hill: Revelation (2012)
Corrected entry: When the cart falls over with the nurses, when it hits the ground, the camera shakes.
Correction: I don't think this is really a "mistake." All that happened was that the camera shakes because it's mounted on the bed and the bed fell over. It didn't cause any noticeable issues, didn't give anything away onscreen, and didn't cause any continuity problems. If this counts as a "mistake," it opens a massive can of worms in which many types of shots and camera movements could arbitrarily be considered "mistakes" by default.
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.
6th Mar 2025
Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (2024)
Corrected entry: Early on in the film, it is established that there are two keys to operate the death ray: the one given to Sonic, which is then stolen by Robotnik, and the one in the gun vault. However, only one key is ever used, and after Robotnik steals the key from Sonic, it is never seen again.
Correction: When they are about to launch the Eclipse Canon, you can actually see that Gerald hands Robotnik both keycards. Robotnik then inserts the first keycard, and the system begins to boot up. There's a shot behind the two, and you see Robotnik doing something and can hear a faint "click," which is presumably him inserting the second keycard. They just didn't bother showing it in close-up because they already showed him inserting the first one. It'd be a bit redundant.
29th Oct 2024
Alien: Romulus (2024)
Corrected entry: The dead Xenomorph on the roof where Rook is, is the very same one killed by Ripley in Alien.
Correction: I'm not really sure if this quite counts as trivia, as the movie quite literally comes right out and tells us that it's the exact same Xenomorph that Ripley ejected into space at the end of the original film, and we even see Weyland-Yutani finding it in the opening scene.
4th Mar 2025
Red Dwarf (1988)
Plot hole: When Holly discusses what the crew can do as a result of activating the self-destruct, she comes up with three options which all end with "And get blown up." Since it turns out that Holly disconnected the bomb "ages ago," wouldn't she have known that they wouldn't be blown up?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It's been a while since I've seen the show, but Holly is more than a little eccentric and silly, and if memory serves, it's implied he/she has gone a bit "senile"/glitchy due to sitting around mostly unused for three million years while Lister was in stasis. From the sound of it, it's likely just that Holly was being a bit thick and forgot in the moment about disarming the bomb.
16th Feb 2023
Batman Forever (1995)
Trivia: With Michael Keaton reprising his role as Batman in the 2023 film The Flash, this film as well as Batman and Robin are no longer considered canon to the narrative of the original Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher films.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I really think this trivia jumped the gun a bit, especially considering it was posted before "The Flash" even came out. "The Flash" was based all around multiverses, and there are also other diverging timelines based on the 1989-1997 Batman movie franchise, like the "Batman '89" comic books, which contradict not only this movie but also "The Flash." (Not to mention the George Clooney cameo in "The Flash," which is just an extra layer of confusion.) You can't necessarily just say in a vacuum that these movies are "no longer considered canon," especially because they were quite literally made to be canon. It's just going to come down to whatever specific film/TV/project you're watching and whatever it chooses to acknowledge. Unfortunately, multiverse stories have opened a weird Pandora's box where now continuity is almost meaningless.
I don't recall the source of where I got this info, but it makes me wonder if they were misled about the Schumacher films being removed from canon, if for no other reason than to keep George Clooney's cameo a surprise. If nothing else, I suppose this trivia entry can be amended to say that the Schumacher films can be considered to no longer be in the exact same continuity as the Burton films since Keaton and Clooney both appear in The Flash.
19th Jan 2025
Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (2024)
Corrected entry: Robotnik and Grandpa Robotnik are dancing through lasers. The suits reflect lasers, but their heads are completely exposed.
Correction: Gerald notes that the lasers are specifically conforming to the shape of his body, and Robotnik explains that the suits were designed to create a field that specifically attracts/distorts the lasers.
19th Sep 2004
Darkman (1990)
Corrected entry: At the carnival, you can see an African-American man staring at the camera for a while. I am unsure if he is a crew-member watching over the scene, or if he is just an extra trying to get onscreen.
Correction: I submitted this entry over twenty years ago, and now I'm going to correct it. This entry was based on an old DVD version of the movie with a mediocre transfer. I recently bought the 4K version of the film, and seeing it in a significantly higher resolution, it seems as though the man is just sort of staring off into space and not looking at the camera at all.
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.
27th Dec 2024
Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003)
Revealing mistake: In the colour version of the battle with the Crazy 88, the Bride swings herself onto the restaurant's upper story balcony. When two of the Crazy attack her and she slashes the second one, toppling him off the balcony, he is spraying water, not blood.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: About a minute earlier in the fight (in the extended colourized version), about a half-dozen Crazy 88 members are knocked into a fountain and get totally soaked. He's one of them. If you look, you can tell his entire body is still almost dripping wet when the bride slices him. So he's not "spraying water instead of blood." Rather, the water that's already on his body is simply splashing outward as he whips around. (It's a little confusing because the black-and-white version omits the fountain shot and tries to "cheat" the water as blood since you can't tell it's not red. But in the extended colour version, it really is just the water that's soaked him that's "spraying" outwards.)
Yeah, a plausible explanation. Except that 1) when the Crazy is running onto the balcony, none of his clothes look like they're soaked. His jacket is fluttering as he moves; whereas, if it were wet, it would be hanging down. 2) His hair, when he strikes and The Bride parries just before she hits him, is showing no shimmering of wetness before he "sprays." 3) As much water as he sprays when hit, he should be dripping with water when he comes onto the balcony, which he isn't.