Corrected entry: In the scenes set in June of 1995, "Vers" uses a Windows 95 computer to search the internet via dial-up. Windows 95 wasn't released until August 24, 1995, two months after those scenes were set.
Sammo
14th Mar 2019
Captain Marvel (2019)
Correction: The month is never specified in the film.
True Lies was released on home video on July 15th - any cardboard standee in a Blockbuster would be for an upcoming or very recent release. By late August something else would have replaced it.
When they're looking at the black box recording, there's a calendar on the wall that reads June.
Correction: The recycle bin icon on the desktop is an oval shape which was first introduced in Windows ME, which wasn't released until 14th September 2000.
The corrected entry mentions a scene searching the internet via dial-up; the computer in that scene has indeed Windows 95 with a square-shaped bin. Since then this entry has kinda been more about the plausibility of Windows 95 in a public internet cafe in June than anything else. There's a separate entry about the scene when they use a totally different computer, the one at her friend's house, which has the bin you mention and is a ME edition.
It's not, it's the rectangular bin.
6th Mar 2020
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
The Veracity Elasticity - S10-E7
Answer: She wanted room for her own things. The apartment was cluttered with so many collectables that Leonard never looked at, that he never noticed when she put some in storage.
Well if they're a couple why not talk to him about it? After all couples are supposed to compromise on things, imagine if he'd done this to her.
6th Mar 2020
Parasite (2019)
Corrected entry: The landscape bonsai is a very heavy rock. When the apartment floods the rock floats to the surface. (01:37:25)
Correction: You missed the point of the scene. The rock floating implies it's a fake reproduction. It was never real. It's kind of a microcosm of the whole story. It's supposed to bring good luck and wealth, but it's hollow and fake. Just as the Kim family's attempts to move upward and find wealth via the Park family ends up backfiring and meaning nothing in the end because it all goes to hell. (SPOILERS: The fact it's a fake also helps explain why it doesn't kill Ki-Woo when he's beaten over the head with it).
Oh. OK. But then why when it is originally found it is at the bottom of the water and not floating? At least that is what I remember. I could be wrong.
Simple answer: It's much more cinematic for it to be underwater and then rise to the top, revealing it in a dramatic way. It gives the reveal of it being a fake more impact. If he just randomly saw it floating, the moment wouldn't work as well. (But I'm sure you could also make an argument that it's being pushed around by all the debris floating around, the current in the water, etc. and it got pulled under for a few seconds).
I agree with you, but up to a point. I was referring to the fact that when he first got the rock he got it from the water and he got it from the bottom. Or am I remembering it wrong?
The mistake is 'deliberate' by account, because, quoting a page that is based on what the actor playing the son says; "In the script, the rock didn't originally float," Choi recalls. "But when we were shooting, director Bong was like, 'You know, I think it would be better if the stone floats up through the water.' I remember thinking, 'Whoa. What?' ", On the other hand, I wouldn't really extend this alleged bit of symbolism in one shot, to infer properties of the rock on other than that single scene; the rock has always been presented and described as heavy, and not the foam prop that it is, and if it were hollow the characters would have noticed and made it apparent earlier. Not even the director and commentators of this particular bit support this. As you say later in the discussion, it's just "more cinematic" to do so but it I don't believe there is reason to paint it as a reveal. Therefore I'd say this should not be corrected but rather changed as 'Deliberate mistake".
I'll agree with this. Thanks, Sammo.
19th Mar 2020
Star Trek: Picard (2020)
Character mistake: Dr. Agnes Jurati, one of the Federation leading scientists, is bored during the hyperspace travel, and so she chats a bit with the captain. While she gives her quirky speech, she casually mentions that "there are over 3 billion stars in our galaxy." She's not wrong, technically, but the number of stars in our galaxy is estimated between 100 and 400 billion. She is way off. (00:08:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Two things. You state that she's not wrong, which she isn't. The fact that she chose an odd turn of phrase doesn't make it a mistake. Plus, you reference the number of 'galaxies' in our galaxy but I am guessing this is just a typo.
21st Mar 2020
Star Trek: Picard (2020)
Remembrance - S1-E1
Stupidity: In this episode wily old battle genius Jean-Luc Picard and amazingly smart human-android Dahj act exactly by the definition of stupidity of this website ("something daft, like running upstairs with a killer behind them, instead of out of the front door"), and even surpass it, because the killers are not even chasing them yet. And why not? Because they are in a public area with a ton of people in the middle of what is basically the capital of the world; no band of kidnappers would attack at that point, or at least, it's way more unlikely. But from there, our nearly centenarian hero (steps away from official government buildings and in a world with communicators, teleports etc.) goes up a ramp of stairs leading to a desert rooftop with no exit and no witnesses, exactly where a group of evildoers would attack - and are even able to cover their tracks up exactly because of this choice. (00:31:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Picard is being led by the extremely combat-effective android. She has previously fought off these attackers with ease, and had succeeded again. It was only the exploding rifle that stopped her escaping. Picard and Dahj would rather lure attackers away from a populated area in order to protect bystanders, since the attackers were coming either way.
The slowly-exploding rifle somehow unavoidable for the super-fast android that dies from the barf that a middle-aged caretaker shrugs off would deserve a stupidity entry of its own, but back to the point: if the attackers came their way, they would have never been able to erase their traces by deleting footage, and therefore they would have been the 'stupid' ones. This is pure movie logic and plot convenience, just like the designated victim in a slasher running upstairs rather than screaming bloody murder in the street where they can be helped or dissuade the killer from getting into unfavourable situations.
21st Mar 2020
Star Trek: Picard (2020)
Corrected entry: Investigating the communications logs from Dahj's apartment, Picard reacts with extreme surprise at the notion that the message from her sister does not come from Earth. But Earth is the center of the Federation, made of hundreds of planets, with thousands of space stations, ships, where travel between planets at least in the solar system and certainly in nearby systems is a matter of mere hours if not minutes. Most messages Picard ever received in his life have been off-world messages, and he's talking with an alien in that very moment! Where does that surprised reaction come from? It could have easily been a message from a ship or a research station somewhere. It's routine. (00:14:00)
Correction: Picard wasn't shocked that Dahj's sister was not on Earth. He simply wanted to make sure Laris was certain that the messages originated from off-world before begging a Starfleet admiral to give him a ship.
Like I said, he reacts with extreme surprise, and the director cues a hilariously bit of dramatic music to it. It is a scene played as if the mere notion that a person being 'off-world' and 'nowhere on Earth' were something extremely uncommon, as if space travel wasn't the norm and Earth wouldn't be just a part of thousands of installations in space and parts of the Federation. The small-scale thinking that this show practices all the time starting with the way it treats a huge Empire that can't muster resources to evacuate its home world and somehow ceases to exist as such.
19th Mar 2020
Taxi Driver (1976)
Factual error: Travis begins the movie at 26 years old, and reports leaving the army with honorable discharge in May 1973. His first diary entry just after being hired is "May 10th." In the newspapers at the end he is still 26, and it says that he has been a taxi driver for 6 months. The movie obviously does not take place in winter, and the only months referenced (plus the timeline of a presidential nomination) are June and July. Besides, 1973 would not be the right year for a story set just before a presidential election, unlike 1976 when the movie came out.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This error is based on the assumption that he had just been discharged. I don't remember anything in the movie to indicate that as opposed to being discharged three years earlier.
The articles at the end of the movie say "Travis Bickle, 26, has been a taxi driver for six months since he came to New York upon leaving the Service where he fought in a special forces unit in Viet Nam" (sic). I think it's fairly obvious from the context too that he hasn't had much experience with 'real life' after 'Nam, surely not 3 years. The original script didn't have this discrepancy, by the way, because the date of his discharge was May 1971, which would account for just about enough months of difficult civilian life to get involved in the 1972 Presidential race.
15th Mar 2020
Death in Paradise (2011)
Episode #1.3 - S1-E3
Other mistake: Investigating the crime scene, Richard, facing away from Camille, asks what was the victim drinking. Camille is already going for the glass of rum before he asks the question. (00:03:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
I hope that watching the scene it can be clear. Camille was busy taking some notes, and he is facing away from her. All of a sudden, he says "So, what was she drinking?" and while he is at "So" Camille is literally lunging to her side to go look at the glass. Neither had any possible way to get that kind of timing, and it's not played as a "Hey, we were both thinking the same thing! Jinx!" kind of gag.
27th Feb 2020
Joker (2019)
Factual error: Following Zazie Beetz, Arthur arrives in front of the bank. The crossing is using red colored tactile paving. While technically already invented, truncated domes paving was not adopted in the US in the early 80s, but began appearing in the early 1990s at public transportation stations, and it was not until 2001 that they were used in curb cuts. (00:24:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: By the directors own admission, the date the movie is set in is never mentioned, nor is there any mention of a real city it is set in. This movie is set in Gotham City, a city that exists only in the Joker universe, where this paving could have been invented years earlier than the corresponding year in our (real) universe. This is more of a trivia than a mistake.
By the director's own movie, everything about the setting is specific to the early 80s. It's a marginal part of the urban scenery that they didn't find important (or did not think of, it's not exactly obvious) to fix for consistency. I don't see why we have to think that a movie that deliberately puts real life advertising, technology, aesthetics specific to the 1980s (Philips even mentioned specifically in interviews that he had in mind New York City of the year 1981) and flaunts the marginalization and cruelty of society would encourage leaving in deliberately something that improves quality of life for the handicapped. It's the classic mistake of something not supposed to be there that needed to be covered but was not.
27th Feb 2020
Joker (2019)
Stupidity: After one of the policemen decides to jump over the railing and right into the angry mob (!), Arthur just easily sneaks by ducking under it and takes a nice stroll that will lead him through an unlocked door. Nobody in the mob he is part of decides to do the same, and you can also see that one of the policemen is turned towards him, but does not even yell at him or move. And of course, with the theater packed with the Gotham elite basically under siege by a mob and guarded by the police, the door is unlocked and unchecked. Why not. (01:02:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The point is they were all too distracted by the tussle to notice Arthur ducking behind the barrier. No cop sees him. The angry mob is controlled by the barrier and not all that large so they haven't taken extra precautions to keep the mob at bay, yet. The door Arthur gets in is probably a fire escape and can't be locked for safety reasons.
I think that with an angry mob worth putting barriers and a big police dispatch, they'd tend to lock the door that is like a 20 feet of walk in a straight line. I mean, they have barriers in front of the stairs, but at the base of the stairs there's an unguarded, unprotected, unlocked door. It's just funny. Not even something in the back or around the corner, no; literally one step to the right of the blockade.
25th Feb 2020
Seinfeld (1990)
Corrected entry: It's just a parody/absurd sequence, but it's odd that with over two dozen bullets shot from barely a dozen feet of distance, just a couple entry wounds appear on the body of the runaway Seinfeld. Of course no blood either, but that's a necessity given the type of show. (00:08:55)
Correction: It's a dream sequence. It doesn't have to follow the rules of reality. I frequently have dreams that logically make no sense.
I know, I know, but never been a big fan of giving a free pass to dream sequences for things like continuity, poor stunts etc. If anything, it'd get a pass because it's a comedy and violence and realism are toned down by default.
The very nature of dreams give them a free pass for just about anything. I will have dreams where I'm talking to a certain person or holding a certain object, and in the next moment the person will be someone else or the object will be something else. I have dreams where I am back in high school and the layout of the building will frequently change, or the class I go into will change subjects. If you put that to film, it would be a change in continuity.
What you say is true for dream sequences played specifically with the purpose to give the viewer a sense of disorientation, experience something obviously 'off', a deliberately disjointed and creative scenario that breaks reality. As I said, I am not a fan of being unable to nitpick scenes or even movies who happen all in someone's head for trivial mistakes that are not something as amazingly obvious as the ones you explained. Your examples are something the viewer would notice and would register as deliberate choice and part of the plot, but Seinfeld wearing earbuds or 2 gunshot wounds instead of a dozen are not really something I can put in the same category. If the dream scene is played 'straight', as that one has been, I don't believe we have to just assume that any take can be edited together since continuity is not an issue, props and tricks can be visible or act weird because who knows what can happen in a dream, etc.
You make a fair point (which is also why I didn't submit a correction for your separate entry of Jerry wearing ear protection). However, the basis of this submission is that Jerry only has a couple entry wounds and no bleeding after being shot numerous times. That can just be chalked up to how his mind dreamed the scenario. I don't think a sense of disorientation or something being off needs to be established (especially when the sequence is played for laughs) for viewers to accept details like that can suddenly change within a dream since we all dream and understand that those things happen.
Not necessarily "established" but "with purpose", which can be seen in hindsight. Anything can happen in a dream, but if he imagined to be shot in such a dramatic fashion so many times and die, the fact that he dies with a cheap effect is hardly serving any narrative purpose. Again, I could see why ultimately the mistake could be seen as stating the obvious since "the scene is played for laughs", which was my first caveat posting the scene, the last being the lack of blood for censorship purposes. They didn't thoroughly cover Jerry Seinfeld with squibs and things like that just for a gag - explanation of the 'mistake' rather than justification, but fair. But as far as the dream goes, the point of that dream scene is to do something more 'violent' and unexpected than you'd see in the 'real life' scenes, not tone it down through a marginal detail that has a clear explanation.
30th Aug 2006
Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties (2006)
Continuity mistake: After Jon tells Garfield that he is going to ask Liz to marry him, Garfield knocks Liz's picture to the ground and we hear glass break. When Jon comes back into the room to turn off the stereo, the picture is suddenly back up on the table without him replacing it.
27th Aug 2001
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: When Dr. Lecter was introduced to the police in Tenn., their names were Sgts. Boyle and Petrie. When he's escaped from his cell, he said, " Ready when you are Sgt. Pembry". That name is repeated later when Sgt. Tate says "It's Jim Pembry, now talk to him". Someone should zoom in on his name tag, to see what his name really is.
Correction: Sgt. Patrick (not "Petrie") and Sgt. Pembry are two entirely different persons. Pembry is much younger than Patrick. Further evidence can be found in the end credits, which lists the actors in order of appearance: Sgt. Boyle is listed way before than Sgt. Pembry.
The original poster had it right when he said "Someone should zoom in on his name tag." With the remastered edition it is possible, and the name tag in the airport says "Pembry." The original post is correct, as definitely Boyle does not call him "Pembry" but something else that most people understand as "Petrie" or as close captions say "Patrick." It's a mistake.
8th May 2005
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: How the heck did Hannibal get ahold of the pen during his release from the mental hospital ? It was at least 4 feet away from him; he was bound and had a face plate over his mouth. Not only did he get the pen but somehow he got the internal portion of it which would have required freedom of movement to remove. This must be a mistake because aside from telekinesis, it should have been impossible.
Correction: We see Chilton leave the pen on the bed, then head for the exit to the cell, forgetting to pick it up, which is hardly implausible, given that he's rather agitated at the time. Barney then releases Hannibal, who simply picks the pen up and conceals it once his restraints have been removed.
8th Aug 2005
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Question: How did Lecter know that there was something inserted into Fredrica Bimmels' throat? He had heard about Buffalo Bill in the papers but not much information about him.
Answer: Because he knew that the dead man in the storage unit had one in his throat. He guessed that Buffalo Bill was the former patient of his who had killed the dead man in the storage unit.
12th Feb 2003
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Clarice has arrived at the hospital for the second time, it is raining. She runs to Barney, who is already waiting for her. She was in the rain for a total of about 3 seconds, so how is her hair so wet in the next scene, where she is sitting on the floor talking to Dr. Lecter? (00:27:03)
Correction: We don't know how long she had to drive, if she stopped somewhere before arriving at the hospital or how long it had been raining. Her hair could be already wet when she came out of her car. We don't see this because of the rain.
I disagree with the correction. It's true that the visual is not perfect due to the rain and darkness, but I believe the perception of the original post to be correct; her hair appears bouncy and vaporous when she is sprinting from the car to the mental hospital, it really appears much wetter indoors after time expired and she was given even chances to dry rather than getting soaked.
14th Dec 2001
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Clarice Starling has to turn over her gun and ammo, before visiting the caged Dr. Lecter, it is clearly visible that one of the bullets in the speedloader has been dropped: the nose is completely disformed. I wouldn't advise anyone to shoot such a bullet... (01:05:50)
Correction: Character mistake. Clarice should have checked her ammunition better, but she didn't. Everyone, no matter how good they are, has little slip-ups now and again.
8th Jul 2005
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Corrected entry: The "Memphis" airport, where Lector meets the Senator, is not Memphis, it is actually Lambert airport in St. Louis. The giveaway is the large neon "McDonnell Douglas" sign visible as the plane lands.
Correction: Why is this a giveaway? I have no idea of the significance of a "McDonnell Douglas" sign, and why there would not be one in Memphis as opposed to St. Louis. A typical moviegoer would never realize this as a mistake, as it seems gto rely on encyclopedic knowledge of the signage for a US Airports.
Because the sign mentioned is the McDonnell Douglas headquarters', which is by the St. Louis airport and not Memphis'? I don't think you can refute a mistake based on average moviegoer knowledge, otherwise anything that is not strikingly obvious (judged on what basis?) for a worldwide audience would not qualify.
1st Feb 2020
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: Every clock through the film is always showing 10:11.
Correction: Most of the clocks in the movie actually show 11:11 not 10:11 with the exception being the clock on "Live With Murray Franklin" towards the end which shows another time altogether (10:40).
22nd Oct 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: Dirt poor Arthur owns a VCR and answering machine, both of which were relatively new in the early 80s and too expensive for someone of his limited means.
Correction: This is assuming way too much. He could have gotten these in any number of ways from theft to gifts, to poor spending habits from him or his mother.
In the day the movie was made, VCRs, answering machines, two big television sets (his mom has a TV in her room too) are as little more than junk and don't disturb the narrative. But if the movie were set in 2020 and they'd watch Murray on their 82" screen in their living room and he'd doodle his thoughts on the latest iPhone, I kinda think that most people would raise an eyebrow about the tale of this family so down on their luck. Sure we don't have access to their bank statements and can't technically rule out that Arthur tripped over a big bag of cash some day on his way back from his beyond-minimal-wage job, but I think there's far more assumption in *denying* that this is strange, compared to just observing that it is entirely incoherent (given the time frame of the movie) with the premise of Arthur living a life without a single moment of happiness.
Correction: His mother did work for the Wayne's, maybe she saved up and bought it.
She worked for him in the 1950s and had drug habits and abusive boyfriends - no way she'd have saved that much money. That stuff was expensive at the time; a VCR was well over $1000 which for inflation at the time was like 3000 bucks today, and an answering machine was around $250, so about $750 today. That is without counting blank tapes, the expensive movie tapes and this is a very conservative estimation anyway, the equipment alone could have cost 50% more.
Even that guy who gave him a gun could have stolen a VCR and sold it cheap to Arthur.
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: A beta version of Windows 95 (probably build 347) was released before June, when this takes place. They could be using that. It included MSN, for internet access.
lionhead
Good guess. That preview version was available for $19.95 in the U.S.
FleetCommand
I think that's a reach - especially back then beta versions were much harder to come by - you couldn't just download it, you'd have to apply and receive a CD or floppies. She's in an internet cafe if memory serves, and why would they go to the hassle of installing a beta OS which most people would never have used before, and which would run the risk of having bugs, etc.?
Jon Sandys ★
Windows 95 had one of the most expensive advertisements and launch programs to this date. (Second to Windows 8's.) Microsoft had special personnel known as Evangelists who went to potential customers encouraging them to test Windows 95 and give feedback. They didn't send the 3.5" diskettes with post; the Evangelists delivered them personally. Microsoft didn't become a software giant by sitting on its behind, waiting for customers.
FleetCommand