Corrected entry: In the scene where Ray and Egon are in the dark room analyzing the photos they took at the museum, watch as they run the one photo through the "spectral analyzer". As they put the photo into the machine on the left side, the photo goes throught the machine at a very slow pace. You can see the photo as they are talking about what food they should get. The photo is about halfway through the machine on the left, when the entire photo magically appears on the right hand side of the machine and is finished being analyzed. When they pull the completed photo out of the right side of the machine, you can see the original photo still being analyzed on the left side. (00:56:26)
Sammo
27th Aug 2001
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
25th Jun 2008
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: Near the end when the Ghostbusters are talking with the mayor, Ray's hair is flat on his head. In the next scene when they get to Dana's building his hair is full and wavy. Would he have washed and blow dried between scenes?
Correction: Of course he washed and blow dried his hair between scenes. After speaking with the mayor, the Ghostbusters obviously had to go back to the firehouse (which isn't very far from city hall) to get Ecto 1, along with their uniforms and proton packs. While there, he did his hair. The Ghostbusters then drove Ecto 1 back to city hall to meet their escort and head to Dana's building.
Despite the usage of "of course" and "obviously", it sounds convoluted from start to finish, especially considering that they have a police escort at all times. It'd be more believable if you said they used the Mayor's shower or something (the truth is that simply they did not bother with the detail because it would have been pointless and detrimental for the movie's pacing, but that is a meta explanation).
14th Mar 2020
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: When Dana comes to the station for the first time, Ray is working on Ecto1 and it's primer gray, no light bars or equipment. In one of the following scenes they are eating dinner and cheering to their first customer. Then the alarm sounds for their first call to the Sedgwick hotel and they get in the Ecto1 that is all tuned up, painted with lights and equipment mounted. The events all appear to happen in the same day. It wouldn't be possible to do all that work to Ecto1 in the perceived span of time. (00:21:50)
Correction: The key word is, "appear." Even if there are just a few days between the events, it makes sense for Ecto-1 to look as it does.
27th Sep 2020
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: Why did the Gatekeeper and Keymaster (the dogs) have to possess Dana and Louis? From everything we see, the dog statues are at the top of the building, and the demon dogs break through. Then they go and destroy half the building to find people to possess. They wait a while, Louis gets taken to the Ghostbusters, and Dana stays in her apartment. Then even later they go back to the top of the building, and stand exactly where they were standing after changing from the statues where the lightning changes them back into the demon dogs. What was the point of them leaving, possessing people, then coming back?
Correction: This is a question, not a mistake. Just because the whole scenario seems pointless to you, it doesn't make it a plot hole.
I agree; it's a legitimate question though, so instead of sticking it in the correction section I'd say to move it in the appropriate section.
It actually is addressed in the new movie why it happens, so I thought about adding the reason in, but have held off on it in case I get some of the details or wording wrong.
9th Apr 2015
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: When the Staypuft marshmallow man is melting, we see lots of melted marshmallow cover the rear left side of ECTO 1. When the Ghostbusters get in and drive off at the end of the film, the vehicle is clean.
Correction: There are several hours between the time Ecto 1 is covered in marshmallow until the Ghostbusters drive off in it, plenty of time for a good Samaritan in the crowd to clean it off.
Several hours have passed, really? They come out of the same building, and they didn't have a change of clothes or anything. It would be minutes. You technically can't discount the fact that since apparently doomsday was postponed someone might have decided it would have been nice to give a quick sponging to the Ghostbusters' car, but seems frankly the more far-fetched explanation.
9th Nov 2004
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: Who takes 300 cc's of Thorazine with them on a date?
Correction: The same person who would unethically and unnecessarily administer electric shocks to a test subject in an attempt to impress a girl and make her think she is psychic.
I think what the person who submitted this mistake is saying is why would he need it or carry it at all. Peter was going on a date with Dana Barrett so he would have no need to take it with him at all.
I think what the person who submitted the correction was saying is he's a weirdo and a creep; that's why he brings drugs on a date.
11th Feb 2010
Ghostbusters (1984)
Question: When Venkman is on the phone with Egon, he says that he shot Dana/Zuul up with 300 cc of Thorazine. Since Thorazine is a powerful anti-psychotic drug, it's unlikely that Dana had some in her medicine cabinet. If she didn't already have some on hand, then where did Venkman get it? He said that he has a PhD in psychology, so is he able to prescribe medications for anyone?
Answer: They're all three doctors in that field, so it's not unlikely at all that they could acquire the medication. The question then becomes: why did he have it on him at the time?
Indeed, it's hilarious when you ask yourself that question, and the movie does not have any of the characters question that! Which would have been comedy gold. As the original poster said though; Venkman has a PhD in Psychology, so he can't prescribe the drug, and the other 2 are physicists, so no, I wouldn't say they are doctors in the field?
A Psychologist could have studied medicine. If you have a medical licence you can prescribe medicine to a patient. This doesn't automatically make a Venkman a psychiatrist, but he is more likely more trained in the actual clinical practise. Doesn't make it less unethical though and if anyone finds out he would have his license revoked immediately.
10th May 2003
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Dana gets out of her car with the bag of groceries (just before you see the statue on the roof crumble) all of the cars are driving on the left side of the road. The story, however, takes place in NYC.
26th Aug 2003
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: In the ballroom scene, when Egon shoots the cake, it explodes seconds before the proton beam touches it. (00:36:10)
23rd Jan 2008
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: The Ghostbusters cross their proton pack streams which results in a tremendous explosion. The next scene shows the blast pushing Mr. Sta-Puft away from the building. A second later another scene shows the explosion radiating outward from the roof. The only part of him shown over the edge of the building is his head and his right hand. To get all over the Ghostbusters, marshmallow would have to be blown in the opposite direction against the force of the blast. It makes sense that there was marshmallow all over the street, but how did it land on the Ghostbusters?
Correction: That is part of the joke. Just like part of the joke is that all of the Ghostbusters are covered in marshmallow except for Venkman, and that the explosion should have killed all of the Ghostbusters, along with Dana and Lewis in the first place. It doesn't make sense because it is not supposed to.
6th Nov 2021
Eternals (2021)
Factual error: Druig leads several warriors outside Tenochtitlan as it was sacked by the Spanish conquistadores, and they live peacefully in the nearby forest, for 500 years. The forest is of course the virgin Amazon forest, as captions say. Small problem; Tenochtitlan was in Central Mexico.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It never says that the people who live with Druig in the Amazon in the present day are descendants of the people from Tenochtitlan. Nor does it ever say that the forest outside Tenochtitlan is the Amazon. He's probably been moving around for the last five centuries just as the other Eternals have.
Never ever? He literally says "Do you remember this forest? Beautiful. It's the last place we all lived together. I've protected these people for 20 generations." They split after their argument during the sack of the town. If their base of operations exterminating the mutant space dogs in Mexico was in the Amazon forest, their logistic could use some work.
Just because the last time they fought together was in Tenochtitlan doesn't mean that was the last time they lived together. They may have spent some time living peacefully in the Amazon before moving north to do their business in Tenochtitlan. And just because he's protected the people for twenty generations doesn't mean they're descendants of the people from Tenochtitlan. He may have found them later. We don't know every detail of the Eternals' history. You're just making assumptions.
You are assuming the presence of a third party stranded for 500 years that the movie never showed before, different from the people that he led out of the city and that we have then to postulate he let go, in a location far off from the one of their last encounter. It's an assumption on entirely new details that you had to make up. My only assumption is to think that what is shown in the movie had purpose and fits, and someone just borked a caption.
Who says they're stranded? He just said he had protected them for twenty generations. They'd probably always lived there. You're making the assumption that they must be the same people because nobody said they weren't. But nobody said they were either. Nobody in the film ever made a connection between the people in Tenochtitlan and the people in the Amazon. No mistake has therefore been made in either the dialogue or the captions.
I noticed the same problem, the scene indicates the location as "Amazon" (it could be any of the Spanish speaking countries that have part of this forest), but then, Druig comes with the affirmation you pointed. It's obviously a geographical inaccuracy.
They don't speak Spanish in the Amazons.
26th Apr 2021
The Mystery of the Druids
Bug: The main character has to deal with a rather defiant coworker at the beginning of the game, detective Lowry. Lowry in particular constantly defies the laws of physics, since he sits with his butt hovering about 6 inches above his seat.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This might not even be a bug at this point. The image of Lowry here is even featured by the developers on the product page.
1st Jul 2005
Mortal Kombat (1995)
Corrected entry: During Goro's First fight with the black guy, Goro destroys his opponent. After winning the battle, Tsang says, "Flawless Victory." According to the game, in order to get a flawless victory, you have to have a full bar of energy, which usually goes down even if you have been hit once. The black guy hits Goro a couple of times, which would nullify the "Flawless Victory" comment.
10th Jul 2021
Black Widow (2021)
Question: At the end, General Ross' convoy is nearly to Natasha, intent on arresting her...then we cut to two weeks later, and she's about to embark on a prison breakout. Are we just meant to assume she escaped...somehow? Fought off everyone who was in those about 20 SUVs? Ran for it and somehow got away?
Chosen answer: It was done intentionally that way by the director to be left up to the viewer's imagination. Cate Shortland said "that was intentional, because we wanted to leave the question of how she would get away, rather than allow the audience to get exhausted by another fight." Of course, it's also possible that future films or TV shows will discuss/show her escape. Perhaps she negotiated her way out with information on the Red Dust.
I don't see why she didn't just leave with everyone else. There was no reason for her to stand there and wait. She could have flown off, as well. The convoy was cars, not planes.
Natasha activated her tracker which led Ross to her. The plan was to have Ross and his men arrest Dreykov, but basically things went sideways. Natasha stayed behind to hold Ross and his men off from pursuing the Widows. Presumably, had she left with them, Ross would still be able to track her and everyone would be in danger of being captured.
Until it is explained by one of those future shows, it really can be thought of as a plot hole. The interview, after the quoted bit, goes like this; "We wanted to leave you guys on a high with the question of how did she use her ingenuity? Because she did. And it was probably, I would say, she bargained her way out of that situation. But I don't know." So...the director says she does not know how the hell did she -really - escape that situation, just that she must have done something clever. Hilarious.
Leaving the how unanswered isn't a plot hole, even if writers or directors don't know the how. At best, it's an unexplained Deus ex machina. A plot hole is something that contradicts what's been established for the sake of the plot, but here, nothing was established.
I wouldn't say it's a DEM. Wikipedia; "Deus ex machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem in a story is suddenly and abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence."There is no occurrence here. Nothing that we (nor the director.) know of intervened between the two scenes.On the other hand,"Plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot." Natasha's situation is established and then ignored.
Which is why I said it was "unknown." An unknown occurrence happened that resolved the situation that wasn't illogical. However, I wouldn't correct you if you submitted a plot hole mistake, but others might since something not being explained isn't a plot hole.
Yes, sorry, I was splitting hairs as usual; I don't think a DEM can be "unexplained" in the sense of "unknown" because its whole point is that it is the narrative device that gives the story its twist; as absurd as it is (like a literal God appearing out of nowhere fixing things), it must be "something." Here there's nothing; we only have a statement of the director, movie-wise it's not even particularly implied that the resolution was peaceful, since Nat simply says she'll hold them off.
22nd Aug 2019
Men in Black: International (2019)
Plot hole: Spoiler. Agent M points out as highly suspicious that the twin assassins knew the location of Vungus, and High T backs her up on this, saying that only a handful of MIB officers could have leaked that information. High T also established that those aliens were part of the Hive collective. It turned out that they were not part of the Hive, and the Hive connection was made-up entirely by the villain himself...which is the Hive! What he did was absurdly counterproductive to his cause: nothing except the report he himself made up connected the Hive at all with the case.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Maybe a wrong move by High T but more like a character mistake rather than a movie mistake. High T was trying to scare the agents into overreacting to what was perceived as a high risk threat. Then it backfired on him but definitively non a plot hole.
I don't mind the proposed changes of category, or even a 'demotion' to Stupidity. But I say it's more of a Plot Hole by the definition used in the website; " Events or character decisions which only exist to benefit the plot, rather than making sense." The whole plot moves along thanks to a deliberate decision by the villain who literally fabricates evidence to implicate himself.
Sorry but it COULD make sense. We have 2 aliens from planet X (which is presumed to be a "hive" territory) that - at that point in the movie - are perceived as killers. It makes a lot of sense for HighT to reinforce in Agent H and Agent M the fear of an incoming invasion by waving the Hive scare flag in front of them. HighT could not have predicted at that point in time that the twins would say "we need that weapon for the hive" before being obliterated, Thus starting a doubt in H and M.
I fail to see why it makes sense for him to tip them off about the much larger intergalactic invasion when he just needs to send them on a wild goose chase to buy himself time for the last part of the plan. He amply demonstrates that he can fake anything about their background. Or simply not fake anything at all;they have no Hive contamination, and so they are just refugees from a dead planet. Instead, he fakes evidence that implicates his faction and is caught hiding that forgery.
Maybe Stupidity is more appropriate.
13th Jan 2021
The Mandalorian (2019)
Corrected entry: With a heavy weapon, Cara is unable to damage a sewer grate (obviously placed in the middle of a bar) of the same kind that Leia shot open with a single pistol shot in the original Star wars movie. The homage is deliberate and so has to be the difference in outcome. Still, it's not like it makes any sense. (00:07:40)
Correction: Then it's not the same kind of grate. Even if it looks the same, it's made of a different metal, one that is obviously blaster proof.
'Obviously' there is no way to compare with scientific precision the power of the weapons and the resilience of the plumbing material used in an imaginary universe, but there's nothing 'obvious' about a sewer grate in a random cantina in the most backwater planet being more resistant than all the military-grade armor in the series. Leia blasted a huge hole in the trash compactor grate with a gun that was not even 1/3 the size of Cara's.
17th Apr 2021
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021)
Corrected entry: In this version, Flash does not carry the hostages to safety; he is sort of a cheerleader/crossing guard appearing in different spots of the stairs asking if they are OK and saying "This way." What sort of role in a battle is that? How does that help in any way? It's not that he's afraid of battle like in Whedon's version and he fights nobody on the path. (01:58:25)
Correction: Flash not moving the others up the stairs could have been for their own safety. This ability has been shown to emit sparks and electricity. We're even shown earlier that simply running in trainers is enough to incinerate them and sliding across the ground is enough leave cracks on it. Moving people from one location to another could have resulted in them getting electrocuted or burned, so it was likely best to let them run up the stairs themselves to ensure each of their safeties as best as possible.
He rescues his future girlfriend and the ever important sausage without burning them and no bodily harm from the wrong amount of kinetic energy applied or anything, which could be another possible objection. It is honestly the weirdest 'heroic' sequence I have ever seen, since there are literally zero threats on that staircase. Maybe it's just intended as a full-on gag even if played straight.
The two scenarios are very different. The scene where he saves Iris, he is merely taking Iris from her car, and placing her on the ground. With the hostages, he would have to take hold of them, and move them up several flights of stairs. The distance he would be travelling is much larger than the car crash scenario, and due to the increase in kinetic energy, this might put them at much larger risk of injury.
Another thing to note: You can see that when he grabs hold of Iris' body, he has to handle her body with the utmost care, implying that he has to be extremely careful when he interacts with others while using the super speed. And even in that situation, he is only placing her on the ground. So running back and forth moving the people up the stairs might not be the safest thing.
Not even from the car, from midair; he nullifies somehow the whole momentum she has and redirects it with no trauma (same as the sausage). Of course, not referring to the theatrical cut where he just carries people.But I'm not debating physics, just pointing out that (going by what it is shown, you can tell me he pushed into oblivion 8 parademons and 20 falling bricks off-screen) the hero just spends the whole time shouting "You ok?" at people, sparking lightning bolts everywhere.That's...something.
20th Mar 2018
Justice League (2017)
Continuity mistake: When Superman is explosively resurrected by the MotherBox, it disintegrates the clothes and shoes in which he was buried, but he's still wearing pants immediately afterwards.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It disintegrates most of his clothes. What he's left with are the pants he was buried in.
So, the gigantic blast vaporized his shirt, tie, jacket, shoes and even socks, but didn't affect his pants at all? Seems unlikely.
Well although I agree you gotta know that the obvious reason for this is that they didn't want them fighting a naked Superman. He is still wearing the same pants as he was buried in though, not suddenly wearing different pants. On the other hand it would have been more logical for Superman to be naked for a second or so, then in the next scene wearing something which he got from anywhere in the city in a split second. Unfortunately for the movie makers they show him wearing them as he shoots up from the building, and it's the same pants so the plausibility gets quite lost. It's not a continuity mistake though.
Whether it's plausible or not is debatable, but the original mistake claimed his pants changed. The correction is that they're the same pants he was buried in.
Suggested correction: It's never verified that his clothes and shoes were "disintegrated." He could have removed them because they were likely tattered from blasting through the roof.
True, but it's semantics? Vaporized, tattered, sliced into cubes or deep fried, the crux is still that his magic pants are intact and the rest isn't. I mean, it's pretty obvious like lionhead said in his comment, why it happened; modesty reasons. Some (not me!) might consider pedantic or too obvious to point out such an event that falls generally under the suspension of disbelief category, however it's a fact.
19th Nov 2017
Justice League (2017)
Character mistake: At the start Wonder Woman stops a terrorist attack in London, and one of the terrorists tells her the bomb will flatten 4 blocks. This must be true as she is using her lasso of truth. But she just throws the bomb through the roof window and it explodes without damaging anything. A bomb with that blast radius would still damage nearby buildings, whether it detonated in the air or on the ground.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You are compelled to YOUR truth. He didn't build the bomb. He could have been wrong based on what he knew. Otherwise, why did the terrorists have to go through all that trouble to plant a bomb there if they could level 4 blocks just by planting it outside in the car.
Which is why it is labeled a character mistake, yes. You are right in your observation, but at the same time, the only truth the movie feeds us by exposition is that the bomb is supposed to have a certain power, and that is not true. Movies tend also to use this trope/trick a lot; the moment you throw a bomb at 'the last second', the explosion that was supposed to be uber-powerful is relatively harmless, even when the distance was not all that significant.
Depends on how high she threw the bomb. She can throw that thing high enough that it won't cause damage. Certainly if it's not as powerfull as the terrorist thought.
31st May 2019
Justice League (2017)
Continuity mistake: When Dr. Silas Stone is speaking with Victor, he is wearing a completely different set of clothes from what he was wearing at the lab in the scene just prior. It is implied that the scene happened immediately when coming home from the lab.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He changed his lab coat for a regular jacket. That's not completely unreasonable going from work to home.
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: They're analyzing all the photos. The machine is obviously capable of scanning another photo while analyzing a previously scanned photo.
Phixius ★
Ray says that he'll run "this wider shot" and Egon specifically tunes the machine for it; it'd make no sense for the machine to print a different picture from the one they are specifically discussing.
Sammo ★