Plot hole: After the President sabotages the fuel pumps, two of the bad guys go down and manage to repair the damage. They then proceed to go back upstairs and (supposedly) lock the President downstairs... Where he would be free to simply sabotage the fuel pumps again.
jimba
16th Oct 2016
Air Force One (1997)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Harrison Ford tricks the other Russian watching the conference room door and holds him at gun point to escape the cargo hold, you can't miss it.
The point by the poster is that the guys who fixed the sabotage didn't know the president had escaped, so they thought they were locking him in the lower compartment where he could then just sabotage the plane again.
13th Jan 2010
Star Wars (1977)
Question: Two questions: In the bar, Obi Wan's lightsaber is purple, not blue. Is there any particular reason for this? Also, the trivia section for this movie mentions a scene with Han Solo and Jabba the Hut that I have never seen before in the movie. Can somebody explain where the scene is and what happens in it?
Answer: The different color is likely due to the lighting of the cantina. The scene with Jabba is in the remastered version of the film and takes place as Han and Chewie are preparing the Falcon for takeoff. Han tells Jabba that he'll have the money to repay him as soon as he gets back from the job of taking Luke and Obi-Wan to Alderaan and Jabba tells him that if he doesn't, he's going to have to send Boba Fett after him.
Lucas filmed the scene during the production of Star Wars but dropped it because he didn't have the technology at the time to replace the stand-in with Jabba the way he wanted. Later during the remaster, now equipped with the right technology, they added Jabba and included the scene in the film.
30th Nov 2020
The Hunt for Red October (1990)
Corrected entry: This could be an error done on purpose to simplify the audience understanding. When the Russian Alpha fires on the Red October towards the movie's end, the torpedo's course is stated as 315. Ramius then tells Ryan to steer the sub to a course of 315 to head into the torpedo. That's wrong. If the torpedo were on a bearing of 315, the sub would need to be on a bearing of 135 to be heading directly into it.
Correction: The torpedo fired at Red October is reported at bearing 315. Then Red October seers a course of 315. That is accurate to set a collision course with the torpedo.
How? Both objects would then be on a heading of 315 thereby going in the same direction, not heading into each other. If the torpedo was traveling on a bearing of 315, the reciprocal heading would be 180° opposite, or 135.
When they detect the torpedo the Russian says there is a torpedo in the water bearing 315, meaning the torpedo is 315° from them, not that its course is 315. Ramius then orders the sub to head in the direction of 315 which is the direction they detected the torpedo as coming from.
The torpedo's bearing is 315 from the sub's position, but has a COURSE of 135, towards the sub.
11th Jul 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Did Professor Hulk bring back the original Infinity Stones with the Blip?
Answer: No, his snap simply restored all the people Thanos' snap eliminated. They discuss it before he snaps. Tony reminds him to not try to do anything other than bring the people back.
We don't know that's all he did. Considering the Ancient One's warning that removing a stone for one's universe could have disastrous affects on that universe. One would think he would return the stones.
She was talking about removing them from the timeline, nothing about destroying them. According to the comics when the stones are destroyed the powers they represent will be made physical again in a different way. This does not happen when they are removed completely, since the power inside (the energy) cannot be reassembled again.
Destroying the stones almost killed Thanos. Hulk would not have been able to bring back half the universe and the stones with no further impact.
We do know. As stated in the answer, Tony and Hulk specifically discuss ONLY bringing the people back. Since it's stated in the film, we can say with certainty that's all he did.
As stated in the film, he also tried to bring Natasha back who wasn't one of the half Thanos snapped away, so while unlikely, perhaps he did try more.
29th Nov 2010
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Corrected entry: When Marty buys the sports almanac, how does he get the money to do it? Considering a Pepsi costs 50 bucks, the almanac probably costs several hundred dollars. How many teens from the 1980's just happened to have that amount of money in their wallet at any given moment? He didn't get the money from Doc since Doc didn't even know he bought it until after the fact.
Correction: The Store also buys money, so he pays with money from his pocket the novel states this exact thing.
6th Dec 2004
Top Gun (1986)
Corrected entry: Charlie is chasing Maverick in her car to tell him how she feels. Maverick races down the road on his motorcycle, then two cars start to move out of an intersecting road and Charlie narrowly misses them. In the next shot, Maverick starts yelling at Charlie about her 'reckless' driving, but behind them, you see the highway, with no traffic lights or signals. Charlie actually had right of way.
Correction: Just as her car pulls to the curb a traffic light is visible.
The traffic light was added by the studio since there are also stop signs, and an intersection wouldn't have both. The intersection is West Laurel and Union Street in San Diego and you can see in Google StreetView that there is no light, and three of the directions have stop signs, but the uphill direction doesn't. So in real life she had the right-of-way, but the added light is to make it appear she didn't, though we don't see the uphill light, just the downhill one, so can't actually say her light was red.
14th May 2015
The Karate Kid (1984)
Corrected entry: When the referee is going over the rules to Daniel and Johnny, he tells them both that kicks to the face are illegal. However, when Daniel is in the Crane position, Johnny charges and gets kicked right in the face. This should have disqualified Daniel immediately and made Johnny the winner.
Correction: Because the referee never told both this. This affirmation is not in the movie.
28th Jul 2020
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Visible crew/equipment: While the T-1000 drives the trailer, in front of him the camera crew is visible on a pick up truck.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Entry not specific enough.
How is this not specific enough?
For one, there's more than one chase scene involving a truck in this movie. This entry doesn't specify which one. Nor does he specify if we see the camera crew itself or simply a reflection of the crew on the vehicle.
I think he is referring to a truck seen just before the Freightliner runs the stop sign and hits the brown and dark blue cars. The "camera" truck though looks like it has trash cans in the back, not a film crew, at least nothing that I can see in the 1080p version to indicate it is a film crew. The reverse shot of the collision if from a fixed position camera close to the cars so wasn't shot from a truck, so again no evidence this is a film crew truck.
5th Apr 2020
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Corrected entry: After Scott gets back from the quantum realm he leaves the warehouse without the van, but when he gets to the Avengers facility he has it.
Correction: After finding Cassie, he went back and got it since he needed to get to SHIELD HQ.
Correction: But Scott did not have money in order to get back the van.
How do you know? Being presumed dead, his money would probably have gone to Cassie, and he could have gotten from her what he needed. And that is assuming it would even take money. We don't know what the rules would have been given the situation, and it was his stuff. The storage locker may have been Cassie's in which case of course she could take stuff out, or authorized Scott to.
4th Aug 2010
Hancock (2008)
Continuity mistake: In the scene when Mary visits Hancock for the first time at his house, she arrives from the air and crashes down on the ground, after a discussion inside they both walk outside together and Mary is shown getting into a car. In the next shot shown from above the house the car has disappeared and they both fly into the air.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: No, we see her drive up in the car, not fly in. But you are right that when we see them take off the car is missing.
You must have seen a different version of the movie I saw her land there, it's on Netflix.
You're right. I just saw the version on Netflix and she flies in, while the version from disc I have shows her drive up with a minute of dialog between them next to the car that is not in the Netflix version. I find it very surprising that there are two versions with that major of a difference.
An extended cut was released on DVD and Blu-Ray which has a couple extra scenes as well as modified scenes (including Mary driving to Hancock's). Netflix would have shown the theatrical cut version. (Or if I had to venture a guess, the UK release version as Netflix has a tendency to use those versions for some reason).
25th May 2011
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Corrected entry: When Group Captain Lionel Mandrake meets Lt. Colonel "Bat" Guano for the first time, it's very clear that neither man has ANY idea who the other is. In fact, with his hands up, Mandrake looks at Guano's name tag to ascertain whom he's communicating with. The problem is that Mandrake says something to the effect of "Colonel Bat Guano, if that really is your name!" Only his last name - "Guano" - appears on his name tag. There's also absolutely nothing that can be seen on the front of his uniform (which is the only thing Mandrake could have been looking at) that says "Bat." So how does Mandrake know that Lt. Colonel Guano's nickname is "Bat"?
Correction: First, Guano is wearing shoulder flashes and a cap badge which show his rank. His name badge is far too long to just say "Guano" (in fact we never get a clear look at it - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUAK7t3Lf8s) and it almost certainly shows his name and rank.
That's not a mistake, it's a joke.
We actually can see it throughout the scene, and it says Col. "Bat" Guano, with the quotation marks. It's likely that his surname really is "Guano" and he picked up the nickname "Bat" when he was coming up through the ranks, and by the time he became colonel he'd just embraced it. I doubt it would appear on his dress uniform but his combat uniform would probably have a bit more leeway for a joke like this.
When Guano first enters the office and Mandrake identifies himself, the name patch is readable and you can read "COL BAT GUANO", so he was just reading what the patch said.
With regard to how the Peter Sellers character knows the American Colonels name, there is in fact a shot of the Colonel which is the last shot in the scene where they meet that you can see a name patch on the Colonel's uniform that reads exactly COL 'BAT' GUANO. The word BAT is slightly rumpled over the B but seen on a large screen.
If you look at publicity stills from the film you can see the word 'Bat' on the nametag.
It indeed says "Col Bat Guano." https://www.williamreesecompany.com/pages/books/WRCLIT87898/stanley-kubrick-peter-george-terry-southern-screenwriters/superb-still-portrait-of-keenan-wynn-in-dr-strangelove.
Correction: Col. Guano is a full colonel. The eagles (indicative of a colonel) are visible on his uniform.
Correction: We do get a clear look. It says "Col Bat Guano." https://www.williamreesecompany.com/pages/books/WRCLIT87898/stanley-kubrick-peter-george-terry-southern-screenwriters/superb-still-portrait-of-keenan-wynn-in-dr-strangelove.
1. That's not a clear shot. The name tag reads "Col Bat Gu -" The rest is obscured. 2. That's a publicity still and does not appear in the film itself. The posting is still total bollocks, though.
12th Mar 2020
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Question: Doc is quite a resourceful and clever guy. Why didn't he set to work on repairing the flying circuits which would have enabled them to use Mr Fusion to reach 88mph, instead of the engine?
Answer: Mr fusion only powers the flux capacitor. The engine is needed to get the car up to 88mph whether flying or not and the only way to get the car any power is by the use of petrol, which didn't exist in 1885.
At the beginning of the movie, when 1955 Doc reads the letter that 1985 Doc sent to Marty, he reads that the lightning bolt activated the time circuits and at the same time destroyed the flying circuits. Because of this, the Delorean will never fly again.
These answers are correct. Plus, to the original question: as clever as Doc is, keep in mind he got the flying conversion done in 2015. Definitely no way he would have been able to repair something so futuristic with 1885 tools at his disposal. He couldn't even get gas.
Yet just a few years later he had built from scratch a flying time-traveling locomotive, all with 1885 tools and parts.
There's no indication he built the flying train in 1885. It's suggested he had been time traveling with his wife and kids and says he's already been to the future. Whether this is in the DeLorean or the train it's not clear, but the dialogue suggests he's been to the future in his train with the family and could have modified his train to fly with future technology.
7th Jun 2004
Shrek 2 (2004)
Continuity mistake: When the door to Shrek's house is first opened (just after the honeymoon), it opens into the house. Every other time it opens to the outside. It's not a two-way door, because you can hear it hit the doorframe. (00:04:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: How is that a mistake? Lots of doors open both ways.
Doors that open both ways are called a double swinging door and use sprung hinges (or gravity) to bring it back to the center/closed position when not being pushed. It can go both ways because there is no stop casing for the door to hit against when closed (or frame is that is the design). We see Shrek's door hit a stop when slammed, and hear it hit the stop. Meaning there IS a stop, so it is impossible for the door to swing past it, meaning it is impossible to be a double swing, but we see it go in and out in different shots, which would be impossible.
15th May 2020
Top Gun (1986)
Corrected entry: The call of "going ballistic" is totally wrong. Calling "we're going ballistic" is a warning call to all other aircraft that you have no control of your airplane and it's only being controlled by the laws of physics (diving, turning etc) and not the pilot.
Correction: While you are correct technically, I don't believe Goose was referring to the technical use of the phrase/term. He was using it as a indication of excitement. "My daughter went ballistic when she saw the new puppy."
The fact that you point out the mistake is correct isn't a good way to open a correction. Plus, there's no indication he's expressing "sudden excitement." On top of that, even if he did intend to say "we're excited", it would still be a character mistake to use a specific phrase that has a specific meaning out of context like you're suggesting.
I did not point out of the "mistake" is correct at all. I pointed out that what the poster stated is true (to my knowledge) about what going ballistic means in the technical flying a plane sense. However, this is not how Goose is using it. He was absolutely expressing excitement. Maverick states that they are going vertical. Goose replies "We're going ballistic Mav, go get'em." He is not saying it to alert other craft (thus the call out specifically to Mav). This was a phrase used a lot in the 80's, but not much anymore. "Dad is going to go ballistic when he finds out", or "She is going to go ballistic when we get to Disney." It expresses anger, excitement, craziness. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/go%20ballistic.
The NATO Brevity Code manual (google it), specifically mentions "going ballistic" as a the term to be used once you have lost control of your aircraft, a warning to others. It's a term that was adopted *after* the movie for expressing excitement.
When the couples are all together at the restaurant/bar (01:01:45), Carole tells Maverick, "He told me all about the time you went ballistic with Penny Benjamin" (the Admiral's daughter). So considering his wife, Carole, uses this specific slang expression it's believable that Goose also uses the slang in this way despite its "technical" use. During the earlier training mission (00:31:55), when Goose reacted to Maverick going vertical after Jester goes vertical, Goose, perhaps inappropriately, casually used the term only while speaking directly to Maverick, so if this is to be listed as any kind of mistake it would be a character mistake. This movie was released mid 1986, and excitedly "going ballistic" (just like "going bananas") was indeed used prior to this movie's release.
Yet, they are not losing control of the aircraft in that scene, and he is not warning other aircraft since it's not happening AMD he is only talking to Maverick (the pilot who would be well aware if they were ballistic). I don't know exactly when the term hit the main stream as a term of excitement but it's pretty clear to me that he is saying it that way. Classifying this as an error would be like saying the lines "a walk in the park Kazinsky" or "the defense department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid" are errors because neither is true. He wasn't reporting to anyone that they were ballistic. He was encouraging his pilot and just happened to use an aeronautical statement in his excitement.
8th Aug 2018
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Corrected entry: Near the end, when Hermione leaves Harry to talk to Sirius in the castle, as she moves out of frame you can hear her saying "Don't help me" or something similar, presumably to a cast member. (02:03:45)
Correction: Hermione says, "Down Buckbeak," when she walks out of frame.
Why would she say that?
Buckbeak is playful and could be trying to engage with her which she doesn't want to at that time. It is similar to coming up to an excited dog or horse and saying "down boy" or "easy boy."
7th Sep 2009
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Question: When Hermione says 'I thought I just saw. Never mind' what did she think she saw?
Chosen answer: She thought she saw herself, which would have been impossible, if not for the Timeturner that Prof. McGonigall gave her. She saw a flash of the scene as it appears when she and Harry revisit that moment in time.
I have watched it several times and cannot see any part of Hermione behind the tree. What part did she see?
As we see later in the film, Hermione #2 is looking around the tree and a twig snaps, causing Hermione #1 to quickly turn around and catch a glimpse of Hermione #2 before she gets her body behind the tree. By the time the camera is showing that portion of the forest Hermione #2 is fully behind the tree so we don't see anything at that time, which is on purpose since the audience isn't supposed to know the movie's later events yet.
But when Hermione #1 turns around, what part of Hermione #2 does she see?
We don't see her, she saw herself.
But what part of herself did she see?
4th Apr 2019
Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
Plot hole: Michael uses herself as bait to trap her future self, putting her own life in jeopardy with the reasoning that her future self will come back to save her. All well and good, except they have a backup plan with the doctor to resuscitate her if needed, meaning her life isn't really at risk, or nowhere near as much as might be implied. And her future self would undoubtedly know that, having lived through it in the past, so not swoop in to save her. Or even if she did come, would also know it was a trap.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: ***SPOILER ALERT*** But, as it turns out, The Red Angel that comes to save her is NOT Michael, but her mother, who would not necessarily have known about the backup plan.
***SPOILER ALERT*** That it was her mother doesn't stop it being a plot hole since they thought The Red Angel was future Michael, and future Michael would know that present Michael wasn't really in danger so they weren't presenting a situation, _according to what they believed_, that required future Michael to act. It being the mother was a plot twist that created a motivation to act that the present people had no reason to think would exist. Basically, unless they presume a split timeline (i.e. this present is a different past than The Red Angel lived through), making a trap for future Michael that present Michael is involved in makes no logical sense.
Alternatively, Michael would have to come back, KNOWING it was a trap, to prevent the timeline unravelling.
The point of the exercise is they were setting a trap. If it didn't work, then Michael wouldn't have to come back to "prevent the timeline unravelling (sic)", even if that were a thing - it presupposes a fixed, unalterable timeline, which goes against their attempt to send the data to the future to protect it, and thereby alter the future. Even with an unalterable timeline, it would only work if future Michael had chosen to allow herself to be trapped, but in that case why wouldn't future Michael just voluntarily come back to help? Since her being trapped wasn't a certainty, there was no reason to think she would be given that the current Michael, and therefore also future Michael, knows a trap has been set, but one that doesn't actually threaten current Michael. The whole premise of the trap, under their assumption that The Red Angel was future Michael, is completely flawed and made no logical sense.
The fact that The Red Angel was in the future, and that they had a backup plan meant that The Red Angel never should have come back in time, ever. Because the backup plan would be the recorded history, thus, she never would have died. Thus, nothing to save. Face it, everything in Discovery is a plot hole.
16th Oct 2019
Jumanji (1995)
Corrected entry: At the end of the film Alan wins the game and all is reversed, Alan returns to the moment he first played the game with Sarah and he's a little boy again. So if all was reversed as if it never happened why does his shack still exist years later in the 2017 film?
Correction: 1. This is a question, not a plot hole. 2. You can't have a plot hole in a film based on what happens in another film made two decades later.
But to answer the question, while all was undone in the real world, that doesn't mean all was undone in the game world. Those are two different things.
7th Oct 2019
Captain Marvel (2019)
Corrected entry: The date on the pictures of the crash site is 06/23/1990, contradicting what Fury says (and what the movie establishes elsewhere), with the crash happening in 1989. (00:47:25)
Correction: The date on the picture is in the classification section and refers to the date of classification, not the date of the crash. The markings however are incorrect for a classified document for multiple reasons, including not including a level.
Thanks for the specification, that is interesting! However, would something of this importance be processed a whole year after the fact?
Yes. Whenever a "new" document is created, its classification date is the date that the classification was determined and formalized. If a picture wasn't processed for a year, or if a blowup was later made (transformations count as new), then those "new" documents would show the date that the classification officer did the review. I was for a few years a classification officer, and sometimes had to review older material that someone never bothered to have reviewed until later.
28th Jul 2007
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Corrected entry: In one scene in the common room the song 'Boys Will Be Boys' by 'The Ordinary Boys' is playing, released in 2006, but this film is set in the 1990s, before the song was released.
Correction: The films are separate from the books - the films have never stated what year they're set.
As far as I know, the movies don't explicitly state their years, but the years can be inferred but are a mess. For example, the graves for the Potters say they died in 1981, so if Harry was one year old when they died, it was about 1991 when the first movie starts. This date match the book's dates. It does raise a problem with the 7th movie though, since we see the Millennium Bridge collapse, which wasn't opened until 2000, and the Dursleys driving a 2008 model car. I think the producers didn't say a date so didn't worry much about consistency.
Movies are separate from the books but they are set in the same time as them.
Nope. For a start we see the Millennium Bridge in the movies, which wasn't opened until 2000.
The millennium bridge being in the movie is actually a mistake, as its supposed to be 1996. I think its listed.
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.