Corrected entry: Cell phone service in the middle of the Amazon jungle? This scene is shown as "present day." Cell phone service in the jungle is not very probable. (01:11:20)
KeyZOid
10th Nov 2021
Eternals (2021)
6th Nov 2021
Parenthood (2010)
Fraud Alert - S5-E19
Other mistake: Julia receives a late night call from a credit card company with a Fraud Alert. Julia identified herself as Julia. The rep on the phone referred to her as Mrs. Braverman. The rep has no way of knowing if she is married or not. And, given the fact that she referred Julia as Mrs. Braverman, the rep might have inquired if her husband has access to the card.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Individuals using the term "Ms." or "Mrs." doesn't indicated they think a woman is married or unmarried. I regularly address any female teacher as "Ms.", even if I know they're married. But I know others who use "Mrs." for any teacher, even if they know the teacher is unmarried.
Suggested correction: A credit card company would have a card-holder's marital status on file from his/her application. Credit card companies also have any authorized user (s) on file, so would know her husband was not an authorized user (if that's the case).
27th Oct 2021
Married... with Children (1987)
Plot hole: In this episode Al is about to break Puggy Weaver's record. Peg decides to bowl and scores a perfect score of 300. Problem is Peg is a horrible bowler, as seen in season 2 episode 9. She never bowls with Al or even enjoys bowling, so this episode really makes no sense.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is not a plot hole, but a plot point. Yes, Peg is a horrible bowler, but it's typical Al Bundy luck that his wife would be able to put together a perfect game no matter how unlikely.
So this one and only episode she scores a perfect game? Highly unlikely. Oh and she's wearing a long evening dress too which would make it difficult to bowl. So this episode makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. In the world of the show, the universe is out to screw Al over. The worst that can possibly happen to him will happen no matter how unlikely.
It is a comedy, so having all those "strikes" against her, she still managed to bowl a perfect game - leaving Al hopeless and hapless.
22nd Oct 2021
Toy Soldiers (1991)
Factual error: The U.S. army would never intervene in a hostage situation on American soil. Legally they're never be deployed for any reason on U.S. soil unless invaded by a foreign military. The F.B.I, S.W.A.T, state and local police agencies could have easily dealt with the events at the school.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They could have been National Guard forces, called out by the Governor. However, the federal Insurrection act of 1807 does allow for The President to Federalize National Guard Troops and also call the US armed forces into service. This act has been invoked many times, the last by President George H.W. Bush in response to the 1992 L.A. Riots.
But the chances of the president deploying any type of military faction whether it be state or our military would be slim to none. Local agencies could have easily dealt with this.
Suggested correction: With the exception of a few scholarship students, the prep school students were the sons of the elite - wealthy and powerful, or "privileged" (e.g, bankers, major corporate heads, contractors, governors and even the Mafia). Even if they weren't part of the military-industrial complex, they make (and use) the rules to suit themselves. As the saying goes, rules were made to be broken. Also, loopholes can be found that enable re-interpretation and re-application to allow the use of the military.
And the heavily armed terrorists could be viewed as the functional equivalent of a foreign military, thereby justifying the use of the U.S. army.
Yep. Just like when the Army (eventually) responded to the insurrection at the Capitol in DC. As the first correction says, the rich and powerful do what they want and justify it later. Realistically, the audience would find it believable and doesn't care about the legal issues. This IS a valid legal mistake, but just barely a movie mistake.
28th Oct 2021
Growing Up Brady (2000)
Other mistake: Either there was or wasn't a 5-year contract from the onset. At first, Sherwood told Bob, "It's just a pilot episode. If we get picked up for a series." Narrator Barry Williams said his agent called to tell him "the network picked up the Brady Bunch for a full season." Season One ended but Sherwood didn't call "until the last minute" to tell the cast they "would be coming back to a second season." Later, Sherwood told Bob that he knew when he did the pilot that he signed a 5-year contract. (00:05:50 - 00:21:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Those two things are not mutually exclusive and that's not how it works in the television industry. Actors usually have to sign a test option agreement with the studio prior to the pilot being picked up (sometimes even before auditioning). This ensures the studio that the actor is committed to the project long term should the pilot be picked up, but signing the contract agreement doesn't guarantee the pilot will be picked up. A 5-year test option agreement seems pretty standard.
I'm aware of such contracts - and surely Florence Henderson would have also been required to sign a five-year agreement, but there (conveniently) was no mention of this.
27th Aug 2001
The Terminator (1984)
Corrected entry: The Terminator runs his finger down the phone book to look up the Sarah Connors. Why would a cyber with enhanced vision need to do this?
Correction: The Terminators are designed to appear and, more importantly, act, as human as possible. It would look very suspicious if he were to just open the book and pick the names out without using some means of keeping his place on the page.
I think is an overused cop out of the Terminator doing things a machine wouldn't need to do. First off, it would have to be programmed or somehow learn that's how humans look up names in a phonebook. Also, a lot of people can look up names in a phonebook without running their fingers down the page and nothing would be very suspicious if someone just opened it up and started looking for a name using just their eyes. It's done just for the audience.
Correction: He probably does not technically "need" to do this, but he also "wants" to get it right the first time (i.e, not make a mistake). The print in phone books are often quite small. So using a finger reinforces what the eyes are seeing. [The running of his finger down the page might be more for the audience to see what he is doing (looking for), but that wouldn't mean a terminator could not do it to facilitate speed and accuracy, too.].
The idea that a highly advanced machine with targeting systems, etc. needs to use its finger to help it read slightly small print which any human with 20/20 vision would have no problem with is a bit of a stretch. There's zero reason why with a futuristic CPU driving its every action it would need to validate what line it's reading with a finger. Hell, Google Lens on a smartphone can read a page of small text and accurately make the printed words machine readable, and it definitely doesn't need a finger's help to do that.
I wrote, "He probably does not technically 'need' to do this..." Need and want are two different things. Terminator 2 was more advanced. Did he need sunglasses?
It is possible that seeing so many Sarah Connors (as opposed to just the one he was looking for) caused a problem. If he was programmed to stop at Sarah Connors, using his finger enabled him to override the first and each successive one until he found the one (s) that looked most likely to be the correct Sarah Connors.
21st Sep 2021
The Book of Henry (2017)
Character mistake: Henry believed his call to the Saratoga County Help Line #1-518-555-0121 was not effective because Glenn's brother George was the Social Services Director. The genius failed to look above the county level and discover there's a STATEWIDE CPS number that he could have turned to #1-800-342-3720. A call to the State CPS hotline probably refers calls to the relevant county, but Henry could have used what he wrote in his notebook "Why Calling Child Protective Services is not a plausible option." (00:28:56 - 01:01:11)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It isn't clear what number Henry called. He had the county number underlined on the brochure, so I assumed that was the number he called. However, I replayed that part and the person who answered said "Child Protective Services." There was another number above for "National Help Line for Victim Advocacy" 1-800-555-0199, but that's not the National Child Abuse Hotline.
8th Sep 2021
Married... with Children (1987)
Master the Possibilities - S2-E16
Factual error: A credit card company doesn't send random cards to just anyone. One comes for Buck. First of all you need a social security number, proof of income etc. And looking at what Al and Peg bought, it's an unlimited card.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Decades ago (including the 1980s when this show aired), credit cards were sometimes sent to almost anyone - or "anything", such as a family's dog. People used to joke about actually getting a credit card for their cats, dogs, infant children, etc. Credit card representatives also went on campuses to lure "unemployed" students into getting credit cards by offering a free gift. They hoped college students would buy what they wanted or needed and parents would bail them out (pay the bills).
Suggested correction: It should be pointed out that credit card companies, especially in the past, do send out random cards (and offers). They buy customer information from stores from various sources, like warranty cards. People who have received credit cards for their pets (which has happened) have often filled out warranty cards with their pets' name but the rest of the information is the person's.
And some of the "less than honest" recipients of unsolicited credit cards were able to use the cards practically immediately, so went on shopping sprees and charged thousands of dollars for whatever they wanted with no intention of paying or being identified. And not all college students had parents that would bail them out, resulting in huge losses. It took a while, but the credit card companies learned from their mistakes and made drastic changes to avoid getting ripped-off in the future.
31st Aug 2021
Law & Order (1990)
Corrected entry: When Levi March's wife makes it clear that she will testify against him his lawyer protests that she cannot so do under spousal privilege. He should know better. Spousal privilege protects a wife from being compelled to give evidence against her husband (and vice versa). It does not prevent her from volunteering to do so, which is the case here.
Correction: That is incorrect. In New York, the martial communications privilege is codified at CPLR §4502 (b), which states: "A husband or wife shall not be required, or, without consent of the other if living, allowed, to disclose a confidential communication made by one to the other during marriage."
There's almost always exceptions to the rules, and the statute applies to "confidential communication." You would have to know the nature of her testimony to ascertain if the privilege will or will not protect him. (I'm not familiar with this episode, so do not know what the case is about - maybe someone could add some details about the case and nature of her testimony?).
While there are exceptions, the episode didn't spend time on her testimony since Levi takes a plea. But the correction is valid because the lawyer's objection is valid, so there is no mistake. Yes, counsel would have to discuss the situation and have the judge make a decision, but the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong.
I might not be understanding something and/or don't have enough information to ascertain if the privilege is relevant. A spouse cannot be COMPELLED to testify about confidential communication and the husband can exert the privilege even if the wife wants to volunteer information. Beyond these basic rules, more information is needed.
Actually, if we presume the lawyer was correct when he said spousal privilege applied, there is NO "factual error." The "factual error", as written, is using EXCEPTIONS to support its assertion, but there is no reason to believe exceptions are applicable. (I think I get it!). I think your wording is "off": "the mistake is saying a lawyer would never say the wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is wrong." A lawyer would say a wife couldn't be compelled to testify, which is correct. (?).
You're overthinking it. You were correct when you said a wife cannot be compelled to testify... Which is why the mistake is wrong.
Maybe... but the last part " which is the case here" leads me to question if the person posting the error knows there was an exception because the testimony wasn't going to be about confidential information (private between spouses).
Since the person posting the "factual error" did not specify what the actual case is, there is enough doubt among others to dispute the "factual error" (as presented).
1st May 2004
Pitch Black (2000)
Corrected entry: As cool as it looks, it is impossible for a planet to have two sets of parallel rings, because rings only circle a planet's equator.
Correction: It's a sci-fi film. Anything is possible with sci-fi. I suppose getting an eyeshine and deadly creatures using sound to hunt their prey at night are impossible too? It's not supposed to be realistic. EDIT: I'm not going to engage in this conversation any further as it's starting to turn hostile. I stand by what I said 10 years ago. Good day, Gentleman.
Please don't say, "it's not supposed to be realistic." That's a cop-out. Fantasy is not supposed to be realistic. Science Fiction IS supposed to be realistic.
I agree, this is a valid mistake. The events of this movie take place in our universe, and the most fundamental laws of physics of our Universe dictate that there can not be two sets of rings around planet. It can not be explained away by saying that it is a fantasy or magic.
Science Fiction. Emphasis on "Fiction." Like I said 10 years ago, it's not possible in real life for someone to have "eyeshine" surgery like Riddick did to see in the dark, but it happened in the fictional world of this movie. A fictional planet having two sets of rings is no different.
It is very different. The inability to have eyeshine surgery in the present is a technical limitation. One hundred years ago it was impossible to fly faster than sound. We can do it now. A planet having two rings breaks a fundamental law of nature.
But this isn't nature, is it? It's a sci-fi movie that does not adhere to the laws of our world. It's not a documentary.
That is incorrect. Sci-fi adheres to the laws of nature. You're describing fantasy. Plus, planets in the galaxy and other galaxies, still adhere to laws of "our world", so it's a ridiculous statement to make.
Whether it is an error probably depends on which type of sci-fi is used. With "hard" sci-fi, the two rings are contrary to existing principles, thereby constituting an error. With "soft" sci-fi, two rings are allowed, so not an error. The movie is set in the distant future, so it is possible known principles could be revised. Sci-fi may overlap with fantasy - where do "bioraptors" fall? Soft sci-fi includes human aspects - Riddick refused then agreed to save others. The movie is SOFT SCI-FI.
21st Feb 2019
The Predator (2018)
Continuity mistake: After the small predator kills everyone in the back of the truck he grabs a left arm that becomes a right arm. (00:37:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I agree this APPEARS to be correct, but I think it is questionable - it COULD be the left arm. The covered thumbs-up arm the Predator extended to the driver had its fingers curled toward the palm, not straight out like they were. There was a zigzag pattern on the glove's wrist, but this could be the opposite (outer) side if it also had the pattern, not the inner side. The thumb looked broken - giving the image that it might have been the right thumb, but actually the left. You MIGHT be right.
The mistake is valid, no correction needed. It's a right hand that extends through the opening and a left arm seen on the floor. A key factor is the knuckles location, so it doesn't matter if the thumb looked broken.
I watched several times and still believe it could be the left hand. The way the fingers are folded (curled) toward the palm, they look like left knuckles.
If the hand was a left hand, then you wouldn't see the knuckles.
No matter which way fingers are folded under toward the palm, there will be knuckles showing on either side. (Make a fist and see for yourself!) No further replies from me here.
15th Feb 2017
Home Alone (1990)
Stupidity: When a cop goes to Kevin's house after being requested by police, he simply knocks on the door and after a few seconds walks away assuming no ones home. Had he actually bothered to announce himself as a cop, Kevin would have opened the door and he would have been found safe.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Some people just aren't good at their job or are too lazy. The cop didn't like the idea of being sent on a possible fake call and didn't put in the extra effort. Or he was simply waiting for someone to ask who it was before identifying himself. Plus the cop would have had no idea Kevin was hiding and not answering the door because he was scared nor that saying he was the police would get him to answer the door, he could have simply thought a kid left alone would answer the door to anyone.
Even if he thought it was a fake call, he still should have identified himself. By doing this, he could have confirmed that Kevin was indeed left alone.
And the script could have been written a 100 different ways to prevent Kevin from being left home alone, but that doesn't mean there's a plot hole or movie mistake.
Creating series of silly explanations for obvious mistakes/plotholes never resolves them. He should have identified himself regardless of the circumstances.
Exactly.
Perhaps the officer's failure to identify himself (as well as other deficiencies in the way he responded to the call) would more accurately be classified as a "character mistake"? This may result in fewer criticisms (corrections) while not negating the "stupidity."
Maybe it should be. Because he acted much too unprofessionally for a police officer.
10th Sep 2020
Good Boys (2019)
Other mistake: Max tells the neighbor girl they were using the drone to follow a family of turtles [should be tortoises] and think the drone crashed in the back yard. The yard is fenced, which means turtles/tortoises could not be in the neighbor's yard.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Don't forget they were lying.
Okay, I'll try to remember... but are you insinuating that if they weren't lying, the turtles/tortoises could have gone through the fence and into the neighbor's yard?
8th Apr 2002
Panic Room (2002)
Corrected entry: In one scene, one of the intruders gets his hand caught in the door of the panic room as it slams shut. However, it is shown earlier in the film that the panic room door is equipped with motion sensors to avoid just such an accident.
Correction: The real estate guy put his hand in the center of the whole area so the sensors picked it up - Raul's hand was on the edge of the door so it would not be as easy for the general sensor to reach that exact spot.
Correction: The sensors are spaced quite widely - they'll stop the door slamming on a large blockage, but not a small one, like a hand.
The chap showing them the panic room in the earlier scenes demonstrated the effect of the motion sensor using his hand. Why wouldn't a hand stop it later?
When we see the guy at the beginning demonstrate it with his hand, we see the laser cross his hand, roughly at shoulder level. He then states that there is another one at ankle level. There are only two safety sensors, and Raul's hand, being roughly at knee level, does not trigger either one of them.
Hands/fingers (especially a child's) were probably most likely to be injured before the introduction of sensors; it wouldn't make sense to install a sensor incapable of sensing hands/fingers or small objects. Even a section of clothing (e.g, shirt arm) would be picked up. My garage door's sensor is sensitive to a small leaf, one black oil sunflower seed, and a bug (to name a few).
22nd Jan 2015
Mrs. Doubtfire (1993)
Other mistake: When Chris sees Mrs. Doubtfire in the bathroom she is standing up and peeing, in costume. All the scenes where Daniel is putting the costume on shows that the fat suit is a body suit, in one piece, and there's no opening in the front. So he shouldn't have been able to pee without taking off the whole suit.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Perhaps it can be assumed that he made the necessary alteration (cutting a slit in the bodysuit) before he started to wear it.
2nd Aug 2021
Abduction (2011)
Continuity mistake: When the two teenagers jump from car, the car doors are suddenly shut when the driver takes off.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The passenger side of the car is not visible - the doors were open when the teens jumped out, but it is not clear IF the doors were closed before the car peeled out. I got the impression that the "peeling out" was partly designed to give the impression that the doors flew closed from the abrupt acceleration. BUT, there was no sound to this effect, suggesting that the doors may have already been closed. Whether a continuity, audio, or deliberate mistake, "other mistake" may be more accurate.
10th Jun 2021
Abduction (2011)
Continuity mistake: When Dr. Bennet (Sigourney Weaver) is driving with both kids escaping the hospital she gives them keys and an address and says apartment #2. When they arrive at the apartment and open the door it's #202. (00:45:06 - 00:53:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is true that "202" is on the door, but this is not necessarily an error. The first "2" refers to the apartment being on the second floor and "202" is not meant to imply that there are hundreds of apartments there. Apartment "1" would be labeled "101" to signify it is on the first floor. In her haste, Dr. Bennett simply gave an abbreviated room number but not something that Nathan would not be able to figure out when he got to the small building which obviously did not contain 202+ apartments.
Apt #202 rarely identifies it as on the 2nd floor. It commonly refers to building 2, first floor. The 2nd floor apartment in building 2 would be 222 (or even 212 depending on how many unit there are). Sometimes it could be building 7 because there are over 200 units in the complex. Even if there was just 1 apartment building, and #202 does represent the 2nd floor. What about #102, or #302, or #201?
I disagree... and "apartment" and "building" are not synonymous. Where did you get your information? Perhaps we are seeing different kinds of "structures", but (where I come from!) 100s are typically first floor and 200s are typically second floor. At hospital complexes, I typically see "building" numbers (e.g, one, two, three) as well as room or suite numbers (e.g, 101, 102 = first floor and 201, 202 = second floor). I'd need you to back up your assertion with objective data.
Then you start by backing up your correction with objective data. But even in the given scenario where #202 represents the 2nd floor because the apartment isn't a complex and has just 1 building, in what possible way does it mean apartment #2? Why isn't #102 apartment #2? Why isn't #201 apartment #2?
You challenged what I wrote, so YOU need to provide support. The "whys" you are asking may not have a specific, meaningful, or obvious answer. Why is the first house on the left side of my street 7291 and the next is 7301? I shouldn't dignify your questions, but there appeared to be TWO apartments, labeled 101 and 202. 101 is first floor, and the first apartment in the building and 202 is on the second floor and the second (of only two) apartments. I have no further comments.
30th Apr 2021
Music (2021)
Factual error: No judge would award guardianship of a person with something like autism to a sibling who's a recovering alcoholic and drug dealer.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think it is POSSIBLE, but not probable. Someone on the spectrum may have poor coping skills when dealing with strangers or would not do well if placed in an unfamiliar environment. Placement with a sibling - even one as you described (recovering alcoholic and drug dealer) - may be less traumatic and disruptive than with a non-relative or stranger. A judge would have to weigh the bad against the good while considering the person's needs and the sibling's ability to meet or exceed those needs.
24th Jul 2021
The Little Things (2021)
Revealing mistake: Deacon uses "hidden" food to get the dog to come up to him. The "treat" is largely concealed - but the dog's slobber gives it away. The camera shifts after Deacon's hand goes next to the dog's mouth, giving the impression that Deacon is just petting the dog under his neck. (00:06:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He was feeding him. You can see him eating out of his hand. The food isn't "hidden" You can hear the dog sounding as if he were eating something and his face is in his hand. Those were added sound effects in post. At first glance I got the impression he was giving the dog a treat as they were pals.
Part 1: Based on the circumstances plus Deacon's actions immediately before, during, and after his encounter with the dog, I believe it was a lousy attempt at luring the dog but trying to give the impression there was no lure (food). Deacon did not have food when he came out of his house and wasn't expecting the dog to be there. Deacon even pointed his right fingers toward the dog when he said, " You [are] the one [who has] been gone for the last two weeks." Deacon stoops down and [continued].
Part 2:...makes an effort to point his right hand fingers downward, again giving the impression he wasn't holding anything (food). If feeding a hungry, cautious dog, I think he would have displayed the food in the palm of his hand (what is there to hide if actually feeding the dog?). When "sneaking" the food into the dog's mouth, a small piece can be seen falling to the ground. Deacon holds the dog under his neck, probably to keep the dog from reaching the food that has fallen.
Part 3: (The dog later picks up the piece that fell.) Taking all these odd movements into consideration, I'm sticking with my assertion - Deacon "surreptiously" lured the dog, but his actions were noticeable, thereby revealing what was actually happening. Also, if the dog was missing for two weeks, Deacon would not have been likely to bring food out for the dog that morning. Anyone wanting to view the scene and serve as a tie-breaker, start at 00:06:26, watch Deacon's right fingers @ 0:06:32+.
1st Jan 2021
Dismissed (2017)
Continuity mistake: Mr. Butler returned the paper Lucas wrote ("A Defense of Iago"), but it is back in his home office when he uses it to highlight words in it that were also in the paper he believed Lucas substituted in his application to fill a professorship position. (00:35:37)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: After watching the movie on a larger screen, it appears Lucas may have left his "B+" report on his desk in the classroom - a black cover page can be seen vertical to his desk and behind the seat in front. This means that Mr. Butler had the opportunity to take the report home again. [00:26:33].
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: I do fundamentally agree, but feels more like a minor 'stupidity' of the movie; the movie itself does address the point with Kingo asking Sersi who's their phone carrier since his is dead, and the convo does break in the end. There is a close-up of the phone during their talk, I believe the logo of the brand is not visible but I could be wrong - it would surely have been a great opportunity for product placement, with that kind of quality.
Sammo ★
Several years ago, the "TUSCAN3G" project started to give remote areas cell phone access. I'm not sure of the progress made, but it is believable (or conceivable) that there could be service there.
KeyZOid
Good point. OK.
toroscan