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.
pgsgrad16
9th May 2023
The Conjuring (2013)
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.
20th Nov 2022
Ghosts (US) (2021)
Corrected entry: Hetty loses her British accent on occasion and sounds slightly Midwestern.
Correction: Hetty isn't British and never has a British accent.
Hetty is of proper English upbringing as a late baroness with a very proper slight British 'lilt' since the show's inception. That wouldn't change in the precipice unless she was narratively merging to a more midwestern-y dialect around her ghost friends in time. Being Isaac and Thor's lilts have not changed a bit.
28th Jun 2023
Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman (1993)
Character mistake: Loren mistakenly calls each pitch at the batter's mound a strike, when that is when a pitch is out of batting mounds, or the batter misses. A ball is when the batter ignores the pitch or doesn't make a swing.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: A player doesn't have to swing for a pitch to be a strike. He called them correctly.
Well unless I've missed something over the years in baseball... and Loren's obvious confusion on what to call... when a batter remains stationary during a pitch, that is a standard all-out ball. When the batter moves or swings and misses the pitch, it is a strike.
His initial hesitation had nothing to do with it being a bad call. And yes, you've missed a lot over the years. A batter can move or even check swing and still the pitch could be called a ball. When a batter remains stationary, that doesn't change a strike into a ball just because he didn't swing or attempt to swing. The poem "Casey at the Bat" is all about him not swinging on the first two pitches, and they were both called strikes.
12th May 2023
The Brady Bunch (1969)
The Impractical Joker - S2-E13
Corrected entry: Alice calls the exterminator for them to come out to the house but never gives them an address.
Correction: Alice calls the Zap-It Exterminator Co, and says, "This is the Brady residence, you did a termite inspection for us a while back," then Alice ends the call with, "Yes, I'll be waiting." So the Zap-It exterminators already have their address on file from the termite inspection.
Despite Alice telling them 'it's the Brady residence', there could have been a dozen or so residents in the area last named Brady. So there'd be no way of knowing which one was actually calling, as doubtful they had caller ID or call tracer in 1970.
But it's entirely believable that this specific exterminator might only have worked for one Brady household, and therefore knows who's calling.
19th Aug 2021
Downton Abbey (2010)
Episode #2.1 - S2-E1
Corrected entry: During discussion in the servants quarters, John's estranged wife remarks "as if!" which is a noted 80s verbiage. Not at all early European nor American. (00:42:26)
Correction: Yes, it was used heavily in the 80's, but that's not when it originated. One of the earliest written use of the phrase comes from 1903 in the book "The Pit" by Frank Norris. And usually words and phrases that appear in print originated verbally before that (unless the author is credited with creating the word or phrase).
And usually words and phrases that appear in print originated verbally before that (unless the author is credited with creating the word or phrase Can you provide an example perhaps, outside the "The Pit"? Sometimes there is assumed history in wording or verbiage from a certain period, that never is actually found or proven.
28th Feb 2023
Bones (2005)
Corrected entry: Everyone except Bones and Booth are curious over Dr. Tanaka's true gender identity, so Angela deliberately hugs Tanaka, then audibly 'informs' Hodgins, Saroyan, and Sweets standing 15 feet across at the doorway, that Tanaka is male, instead of discreetly informing them privately apart from Tanaka's presence.
Correction: Remember, when Hodgins asks Dr Tanaka about the microsil, Tanaka replies, "I believe your partly Chinese woman will be able to reconstruct the tool," then Angela walks in saying she heard Tanaka's comment. Nakamura quickly clarifies that Tanaka (who is Japanese) "means no offense" and did not mean for it to "sound so insulting" (00:31:05). At the end, Angela decides to take matters into her own hands so to speak, regarding Tanaka's physical gender. So considering Tanaka's earlier rude comment about her, and even more so, as well as Angela just being our Angela, after Angela hugs Tanaka she walks back over to her team and in a normal voice as usual Angela bluntly says, "It moved, he's a guy" (00:40:40). Angela very simply did not care if Tanaka would overhear this. This is not a "stupidity" or any other kind of mistake, whatsoever.
I would add, Angela is very outspoken through the show and has shown numerous times that she will just say whatever needs to be said rather than hide away from a topic. And if we disregard everything mentioned above, about Tanaka being rude, How is it a mistake that Angela says it out loud?
Yep, agree about Angela being outspoken, that's why I mentioned "as well as Angela just being our Angela" because yes, that's exactly her just being her :).
Tanaka wasn't rude, it was Angela who was rude and unprofessional about the former's identity. And absolutely makes it a mistake when it's a direct failure of professional protocol. One simply does not set out to embarrass a colleague by "proving" anything in a workplace, that could potentially set them up for harassment.
I'd stated that Angela (or the production) failed to use proper professional etiquette when she approached Tanaka to curiously clarify his/her gender, without any privacy of the room. So very much a mistake, considering even Bones would not have done such out of courtesy and respect to another professional. However, Angela did not care. So that was stupidity and or negligence on her part as a supposed forensics professional, in displaying such repugnant behavior. Very much a mistake.
29th Mar 2023
The Waltons (1972)
Corrected entry: Prof. "Goat" belittles Jonboy in front of the other two for wrestling with the Sophmores when it was crystal clear who started the kerfuffle.
Correction: The kerfuffle on the bridge is between sophomores and freshmen, at Boatwright University. Professor Ghote, the Chairman of the English Dept, notices Walton and says, "Walton, it occurs to me that I'd like a word with you." Next, in front of the 2 freshmen friends of Walton, Ghote wryly tells John-Boy, "Don't you think you've caused enough damage for your first day? Why don't you go home now?" Then John-Boy and his 2 freshmen friends all walk off, happily smiling. Professor Ghote didn't behave unprofessionally, and he did not embarrass, belittle, or bully John-Boy. At this point in the day, John-Boy has racked up a bit of "damage" with Ghote, personally. First, he parked in a faculty spot; second, he bumped into Ghote causing the Professor to drop and scatter his papers which had been alphabetized; third, he was asked to bring the billy goat to an office which belonged to Professor William Ghote. This is not a "character mistake" or any other type of mistake.
John-Boy had already apologized to Ghote about the parking incident and Ghote chastised both the Sophs and the Frosh for the goat prank. But with the bridge kerfuffle, Ghote is an adult professional who should have known the difference regarding the antagonism, and chose to react otherwise by embarrassing John-Boy instead of applying damage control with the Soph bullies, which was both unethical and undoing. Something even Ms. Hunter would shut down appropriately.
10th Apr 2023
Three's Company (1977)
Upstairs Downstairs Downstairs - S5-E1
Corrected entry: Jack's nurse date wears a wedding band.
Correction: Doreen is wearing a ring with a raised dark center stone - it glistens as she moves her hand. It looks like a regular ring that women wore on either hand, not a wedding band.
Explain? Alright. I watched the episode, and Doreen's ring does not look like a wedding band. It appears to be just a normal ring with at least one raised dark gemstone.
Correction: Generally the idea of seeing a character wearing a wedding ring as a mistake is because in real life the actor or actress forget to take off their wedding ring. In real life, Lee Crawford (who plays Doreen) was divorced in 1978 and wasn't married or engaged at the time of shooting the episode. So it's just a character choice to wear a ring on her left hand and doesn't mean she's married or engaged.
The very point being, that she is wearing on one on her hand, when she's supposed to be single in this episode. So the mistake stands.
No, because it's a character choice. People who are single wear rings on their left ring finger for a variety of reasons, none of which indicates it's a wedding band or that they're married.
26th Feb 2023
A League Of Their Own (1992)
Other mistake: The first time Kit is up to bat in the opening, she gets two strikes but holds on the third. Which is technically a ball that should have saved her. Yet gets called on a third strike.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The 3rd pitch wasn't technically a ball. It was called a strike by the ump, so it was technically a strike. Not to mention it was down the middle and not even a missed call.
Guess the rules differed then for baseball, because technically Kit did a ball NOT a strike. Which I realise the ump or ref could have called either way. But fairly should have been a legal ball. And just because an ump or ref calls something, doesn't make it bank nor fair. They've made calls in games before, that were not what they claim. And her bat barely moved an inch. So, yes, it should have been a ball.
Balls and strikes do not depend on if the batter swings at the ball, it depends on where the baseball crosses home plate. The pitch Kit did not swing at was in what is known as the "strike zone" meaning whether she swung or not, it was technically a strike.
I'm just curious what makes you think it was a ball?
25th Sep 2022
The Waltons (1972)
Other mistake: Maryellen wears visible eyeliner throughout the show, despite being during the depression. She wouldn't be wearing any makeup.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Why wouldn't she be wearing makeup during the depression? Especially if it was just a small amount. This isn't a mistake, just your opinion. Women continued to wear makeup during the depression, and not just starlets or the rich and famous. In fact, makeup sales overall hardly took a dip during the depression because women through the US were still buying it.
Despite that women did wear it during the Depression, part of the factor being that the Waltons wouldn't afford such a luxury, considering their very tight pockets. Otherwise, we'd see Olivia preening herself also, before she goes anywhere. But doesn't even wear lipstick. And Maryellen is never 'caught' actually putting on the eye makeup. So it's likely not any opinion.
3rd May 2022
Three's Company (1977)
Revealing mistake: When Chloe (the new hire) and Janet are talking on the couch near the end, water spots suddenly appear on Chloe's shirt, indicating the actress was lactating while filming.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Just because it was never mentioned in the storyline of the show, there is no reason Chloe couldn't have a baby at home thus causing the lactating.
Sorry, but the wording in this correction is confusing. Agreed, there was no mention in the show of Chloe having any baby at home. So very well, she may have been lactating, which explains the sudden water spots as mentioned.
22nd Mar 2021
The Karate Kid (1984)
Corrected entry: Daniel and his mother supposedly moved from Jersey to LA, but the opening travel scenes are desert, palms, and tumbleweed, nowhere near Jersey.
Correction: They first show them leaving the city in New Jersey, crossing middle American farmland, a desert area (likely the Chihuahuan Desert in southern Texas and New Mexico), the Canyon Portal Hotel (which was a real hotel in Arizona before being torn down), a mountainous desert (likely the Mohave in southeast California) and finally the apartment complex in Reseda. They travelled across the country by car. They were bound to see multiple types of landscapes, including the American deserts.
Again, this is the very opening of the film when they are DEPARTING New Jersey. Not the traveling parts following minutes later.
Here is the opening scenes for the film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK1xslvKteE&ab_channel=LightningBoyXXX You can see them traveling exactly how I described: city, farmland, sand desert, motel, mountainous desert, apartment complex.
6th Oct 2020
Clash of the Titans (1981)
Corrected entry: It's obvious the 3 blind witches have cloths covering their eyes.
Correction: Yes, they do, but what does that have to do with them being actually blind and how is it a mistake? It's like real blind people wearing dark glasses.
No it is not, as the cloths should have been better camouflaged or better makeup. But forgiveness granted for a cult film of its time.
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.
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.
Phaneron ★
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.
pgsgrad16 ★
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.
TedStixon