11th Apr 2016
One Minute - S3-E7
Other mistake: At the end, we see the gunfight between Tuco's cousins and Hank. Several shots are fired, cars smash into each other, a woman runs off screaming. So not a "quiet" attack. However, as the camera zooms out to show the carnage, 2 people who are not involved in the attack, are just stood talking in the car park. A bit odd since there has been a very clear shoot out. (00:44:50)
Suggested correction: Nobody is actually standing in the car park. People are standing around on the sidewalks talking to each other about what was going on, keeping their distance. Personally I would keep a bigger distance, but whatever distance they feel safe with.
13th Jul 2017
Factual error: The final scene of the episode, the cousins are hiding with other migrants amid a farm truck's bales of straw. One of the migrants claims they are in Texas. However, the mountains in the distance are the Manzano Mountains which are just several miles southeast of Albuquerque, more than 200 miles away from the border with Texas and Mexico. The migrant claims he has gone through this route 3 times, so it is unlikely this would simply be a character mistake.
Suggested correction: He could have just been boasting, whilst not actually knowing where he is. He is just a kid after all.
Worse than all of that, is the fact that you can't get directly from Mexico into Texas without traversing a river. There are no land routes.
There are no bridges?
20th Nov 2006
Corrected entry: Julia dies in the underwater escape trick tank because the axe couldn't get her out in time. However, if she was able to open the lid from inside the tank, get up, over, and down, then close the lid (all quickly, silently, and without assistance) when the trick goes properly, then there is no reason that the four men standing around could not have simply lifted the lid, either acting a key in the fake padlock to preserve the trick, or using a key if it's real. At this point she could have gotten her head above water and draped her hands over the side of the tank to stay up. That done, the crisis is over, and she must only wait to calm down enough to get herself down, or be assisted. Cutter built the tank, so he knew how strong the glass was. The only explanation for using the axe was to allow Julia's death, thus advancing the plot.
Correction: You can imagine a number of things. First of all, even if they were able to unlock the lid how would they get it open? You need to get high enough to be able to open it, can't do that hanging from the side of the case. She is lifted into it by chains so there is no ladder to get up there easily. It's also possible only she can open the lid from the inside. Secondly I'm sure the idea is they had tested the glass and found an axe to be sufficient to break it in time. The problem for her of course is that she is under for a minute before anyone realise there is something wrong and she hasn't got the ability to get her head above the water since her hands are tied, there is also nothing to hold on to. You can see Angiers being indecisive about what to do, he is putting most faith on Cutter breaking the glass in time. They are all basically stunned from what is happening.
27th Aug 2001
Continuity mistake: Nala's eyes change from blue to green quite often during the movie.
Suggested correction: Her eyes were green the whole time. It's just lighting making it look like they changed color.
The correction assumes these lions are filmed, but they are drawn. So if the eyes are blue, they coloured it blue and if it's green they coloured it green, on purpose.
They are colored to emulate different lighting conditions. Note that the fur is also different colors in the different shots.
A darker shade of the same color isn't the same as a whole other color.
6th Aug 2009
Continuity mistake: In the library scene Indy discovers the "X" high up on the balcony. The X is green with a grey background. When he breaks the tile to find the tomb the X has become a faint outline on the floor. (00:27:40 - 00:28:45)
Suggested correction: You still can see one "leg" of the X on the floor, it's only darker than viewed from above because the camera angle and illumination set used.
I think it is meant to be an optical illusion.
The "X" is first shown as a dark green "X" on a beige background. Next, we are shown the same dark green "X" that is barely visible over a green background. I think we are meant to understand that the beige square tiles were lifted away in a cut scene.
I see no reason why they would replace the floor just for the higher shot, it's the same floor throughout the scene. When they enter it's the same floor we see later as they are going into the hole. It's probably not a real marble floor, so they can use a styrofoam or plywood tile that Harrison can lift, one that matches the surrounding tiles. They don't shine as much as the rest of the floor. In the shot up high there is different lighting, so that could explain it. It just appears to be different. Of course, sudden different light can be seen as a revealing mistake.
Suggested correction: Not a mistake, just a different viewing angle.
It's not just the viewing angle. The "X" is gilt-colored and bright but becomes extremely muted, almost a shadow when viewed at the lower angle. Another possible reason for the different appearance is the patterned perimeter. It too appears to be a very different color and muted. It's possible that in post-production, the scene processing done by the cinematography team adjusted the lower angle scene for a change in light levels due to close-ups, the time of day, or some other factor.
30th Apr 2004
Corrected entry: When the anaconda eats Jon Voight whole, there is a movement over the other side of the room, and it slides over at incredible speed. Snakes take hours to eat their prey (especially the size of a man) and weeks to digest. During this period, they can barely move at all. Also, after it spits him out (again, not possible), he winks.
Correction: Maybe it goes for regular sized anacondas but not giant huge anacondas that they have to take hours. Also it is possible to spit out their food. On Google theres a REAL video of an anaconda spitting out an entire baby hippo.
Hippos are native to Africa, and anacondas to South America. Also, snakes regurgitate their prey only in an emergency, like being threatened by a predator. Even gigantic anacondas like the ones in the movie would still take several weeks to digest a person, and remain immobile throughout.
They don't move intentionally, to help digesting their prey. That doesn't mean they can't actually move though, they can if they have to. This big one is faster than any real snake anyway. In the footage of an anaconda regurgitating its prey, the prey is a tapir.
Hippos can be found in the wild in South America. They were the pets of Pablo Escobar. A group of hippos originally imported by Escobar to his private zoo decades ago has multiplied and, according to scientists, is now spreading through one of the country's main waterways - the River Magdalena.
1st May 2020
Corrected entry: After Billy Loomis and Stuart "Stu" Macher are revealed as the villains, they stab each other multiple times to appear as victims. Billy cuts Stu too deep, and Stu begins feeling weak and bleeding profusely from his wounds, showing that he may be dying. When Sidney (in the Ghostface costume) stabs Billy with the umbrella, Stu's rage takes over and he suddenly has the dangerous energy to battle Sidney in the living room. Stu nearly kills Sidney, until she pushes the TV on his head. If Stu was dying in the kitchen, how does he have all that energy to fight Sidney?
Correction: At this point he is fully working on adrenaline. He probably was feeling weak because he realised he might be dying and he saw all that blood and got shocked from it (he is kinda crazy), until his anger took over again. He would have probably collapsed right after, if he avoided getting killed.
29th Apr 2020
Plot hole: Lamar makes his crime look like a glitch. But the pre-cogs must show these two as two separate murders. And they should give two sets of wooden balls.
Suggested correction: A ball is created when the precogs identifies the killer and victim. However they get their visions randomly and seperately, Agatha being the most powerful one but they have to work together to identify a victim and killer. They put visions together and eventually balls with names will appear. The pre-crime team, led by Anderton, then pieces the visions together to find the location and then go after it, that's all they do, technicians are the ones that bring the visions together for processing by the pre-crime team. The visions they got were seen as "echos" and disregarded before the precogs were able to identify the killer. If they had it would put Burgess as the perpetrator. But since it looked exactly the same as the previous one they didn't allow the precogs go futher into the visions and not put them together. Agatha did have the vision of Burgess but Burgess removed those vision from the system.
But the previous "one" was not a murder so it should not justify a vision (it was only a staging). The real murder is committed by Burgess and it was premeditated, so a brown ball with Burgess' name should have popped out.
The first murder is not a "staging." Quoted from the film: "all you'd have to do is hire someone to kill Ann Lively, someone like a drifter...someone with nothing to lose." Burgess hired someone to kill her so they do have the intention to commit murder, hence the vision. He knew it would be stopped the first time and then the second time would be seen as an "echo" of the vision of the murder that was stopped and erased before a ball is produced.
Staged may have indeed not been the right word. A blame murder or false flag murder may be a better term. Planned in order to point the finger at the wrong person for the murder in any case.
Even staged murders are put in visions, same with the one Burgess tried to set up Anderton with. If someone is killed, the precogs get visions, but they don't know the context (the biggest flaw with the system of course). The visions come before the balls and if the engineers think it is a echo they will discard those visions and prevent the precogs from identifying the victim and killer. If they had the time, indeed a brown ball would be formed. Remember that premeditated murders come much earlier to the precogs in vision than emotional ones, so that was the reason why those visions showed up so soon after the staged one, adding to the idea it was an echo, perfectly calculated by Burgess.
5th Apr 2020
Corrected entry: It's very common for shows, games, or movies that take place after the end of the world to still show people using fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel in vehicles. However, with the production of gas having ended, this could not last very long. Even when properly stored, civilian gas supplies would go bad and be unusable after about a year, diesel a little longer but not by much. Private stashes of gas, like in cans, would only last about 5 months. And the military supplies of gas would, at best, last for 5 years.
Correction: Stored gasoline is typically treated with fuel stabilizer (about 2 ounces of stabilizer will treat 5 gallons of gasoline and prolong its shelf-life by years). All of my stored gasoline is treated with stabilizer, and I've used cans that are 5 years old and older. Even untreated gasoline can have a remarkably long shelf-life: Some years ago, I sold an old Volvo that had been sitting in my garage with a dead battery for 11 years; the buyer brought a fresh battery and installed it just to test the starter, to see if the engine was frozen. To everyone's amazement, the old car immediately started, revved and purred like a kitten, burning the gasoline in its tank from over a decade earlier.
Correction: This all highly depends on the quality of the gasoline and the amount of ethanol and its exposure to oxygen. I've heard about jerrycans of gasoline 25 years old still usable. It's also possible to purify the gasoline again so it's usable by filtering it. Don't need a huge refinery for small amounts.
8th Apr 2020
Factual error: In almost every movie from the introduction of sound on to present day, lightning and thunder happen simultaneously, while in reality there's always a delay between the former and the latter.
Suggested correction: Hardly always, if the lightning hits right in front of you you hear the thunder immediately. I'd say from about 100 meters you perceive it as instantly, as it's only 0.3 seconds between flash and thunder.
This is a mistake about in almost all movies, not in all thunderstorms. The common mistake in the movies is when lightning isn't hitting 100m away from the character, but the sound is still instantaneous.
I assume it's about thunderstorms in movies. Name an example.
Instant thunder (even at a considerable distance of miles from the lightning or explosion source) is, indeed, a common and probably deliberate error in most films. The reasoning for it is simple: a prolonged and realistic delay between lightning and thunder could change a 1-second shot into a 6-second shot, for example, compromising the director's intended pace and mood for the scene. Steven Spielberg films have utilized both instant and delayed thunder. In "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," for example, when the UFOs zoom out into the distant background (certainly miles away) in a wide landscape shot, they produce a lightning effect in the clouds that is simultaneously heard as thunder. But in "Poltergeist" (a Spielberg film directed by Tobe Hooper), there is a very deliberate scene of characters realistically counting the seconds between distant lightning and resulting thunder. Choosing to obey physics or not is a matter of the director's artistic license.
I posted this while I was watching Death in Paradise, episode 7 of the third season, but really, you have never seen in pretty much any horror or cheap slasher movie whenever there's a storm, the flash of a lightning coming at the *same* time as a thunder jumpscare sound? It's vastly spoofed, even, when some ugly/creepy/terrifying character makes its appearance. One example randomly picked? Dracula by Coppola, in the first 10 minutes, carriage, lightning in the distance, not even a split second after, rumble. In RL it would reach you a couple seconds later. But really, it's such a movie archetype, I am sure you can find it in any Dracula movie.
The Dracula example doesn't really show how far away the lightning is, it could right above them. It's fake as hell, I agree with that, but the fact there is lightning and thunder at the same time without actually seeing the distance is not a mistake to me. It's also highly unnatural lightning as it only happens twice and then nothing, it's not even raining. It's obviously meant to be caused by the evil surrounding the place. The idea is there is constant lightning right on top of them.
There's a scene in Judge Dredd where every few seconds, there is a flash of lightning instantly accompanied by the sound of thunder. It happens frequently in Sleepy Hollow as well.
I know the scenes you are referring to. In both those instances you have no idea about the distance of this lightning. It could be (and probably is) right on top of them. You can hear that from the typical high sharpness of the sound, only heard when the flash is very close. Thunderclouds are never very high in the air so even the rumbling within the cloud itself can be heard, sometimes you don't even see lightning when it rumbles (yet there is). It's a bit far fetched but you could hear a rumbling or the thunder from a previous flash and mistake it for the flash you see at the same time. Can happen when there are continuous flashes.
26th Apr 2020
Corrected entry: When Jack tries to stop the subway and realises he can't, he has a gun behind his back in his waistband. Why didn't he just shoot the cuffs off?
Correction: It's a common misconception that you are able to just shoot cuffs open. It's very dangerous as the bullet can ricochet off and hit a vital part of the body of either party.
27th Aug 2001
Corrected entry: Although many like to quote it, few have apparently read "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by British historian Edward Gibbons. For it clearly describes a Roman general named Maximus Quintillian. He may or may not be the person portrayed in the movie, but there was a Roman general named Maximus who defeated the Germanians and was a favourite of Marcus Aurelius. He was killed by Commodus.
Correction: Actually, if you watch the documentary on the VHS called 'Blood, Sand and Celuloid', it clearly states that Maximus was the only fictitious character in the film. If you read 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' and other related texts properly, it is quite clear that Maximus Quintillian was a favourite of Marcus Antonius Aurelius, not Marcus Aurelius. It is true that Quintillian was killed by Marcus Antonius Aurelius' son, but he was called Antonius Commodus. As such, this was an entirely different father and son, though the names are similar. There is no record of a general called Maximus at the time of the early Aurelians, the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.
Do you mean Marcus Aurelius Antoninus? The Gibbons reference about Maximus Quintilian doesn't say anything about him being a general.
There are about 14 Emperors named Marcus Aurelius. Including Commodus, being of that line.The First Marcus Aurelius full title was Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus. Commonly refered to as Marcus Aurelius. There is only one the first and that was the one portrayed in the movie. Commodus became Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Commodus Antoninus Augustus. Also portrayed in the movie.
26th Apr 2020
Factual error: When Red Queen is explaining about the T-Virus they say that fingernails and hair continue to grow after death. This is not correct, While it appears that they grow, its actually down to the tissue drying out and retracting. An article on the topic can be found here: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130526-do-your-nails-grow-after-death A super computer that is knowle. (00:56:40)
Suggested correction: The T-virus causes the hair and nails to keep growing. The nails cause scratches that can increase infection, so it benefits the T-virus.
That is not what was said at all. In the film it states that even in death, the body remains active and that hair and fingernails continue to grow, news cells are produced, and the brain holds a small electrical charge that takes months to dissipate (all of which are false). Then the T-virus provides a massive jolt to growing cells and the brain to reanimate the dead.
She says those things after they ask her what those things are. She then starts to explain how the T-virus works. She doesn't say a dead body always keeps active, she says a dead body infected with the T-virus is still active, regenerating cells, hair and fingernails continue to grow. In short, it reanimates the dead (to a degree). That's how I read it anyway.
2nd Apr 2004
Corrected entry: Surely in rooms where lethal viruses are handled and stored, even in outer rooms, you wouldn't have a ventilation system connected to the rest of the facility? (00:02:45)
Correction: The entire facility is under the control of the "Red Queen" computer program, who is the one responsible for killing everyone to prevent the infection from leaving. It's very likely she was able to shut down/manipulate the ventilation system to send the air flow to other parts of the Hive.
No, the original submitter is saying that a room handling that kind of stuff wouldn't have a vent full stop. It's actually pointed out when one of the scientists says its a sealed room.
The point is that Spence released the virus outside of that chamber, in a chamber that had vents whilst he was walking towards the exit. It's not specifically seen where he releases it. Even so, a secured chamber can still have a vent system, but one that has special filters and a closed circuit. Probably wouldn't have mattered to the Queen though.
27th Aug 2001
Corrected entry: In the scene where there is a camera on the bomb falling on the ship, it is clearly visible that the bomb in falling down vertically. It is well known that when bombs are released from bombers, they have a horizontal speed, which is the same of the bomber. Thus the trajectory is, as every high school student should know, a parabola.
Correction: A *dive bomber* released this bomb. As the name suggests, they dive towards their target before they release the bomb, therefore the bomb falls towards the target vertically.
Correction: When the bomb is released, it drops straight down relative to the aircraft. This has nothing to do with dive bombing.
The bomb that blew apart the Arizona was historically a bomb from a dive-bomber and they dropped down vertically. So there is nothing wrong with the angle of the bomb. That the bomber doesn't dive is a different matter.
That may be true, but the aircraft that dropped it in the film was not diving. Dive bombers release the bomb from an almost vertical dive then pull out of the dive. The bomb continues towards the target.
I mentioned that. I say that's a different problem.
25th Aug 2008
Character mistake: Sarah is a trained expert with predatory animals. But when her jacket is covered with blood (and not just any blood, the blood of the infant T-rex), and they're in a forest surrounded with carnivorous dinosaurs, and she knows that they need to pass through Velociraptor territory, and she thinks that the T-rex might follow them, she doesn't think to take the jacket off. And the others, who also happen to be hunters who would surely know that the blood would attract predators, don't say anything about it.
Suggested correction: While you are right, it's still not that much of a mistake because not only does it tie into the Butterfly Effect from the first movie, but also maybe Roland used it to his advantage, meaning an opportunity to shoot the Buck Rex since using its baby didn't work.
You're really grasping at straws on this one. The top priority for everyone at this point is to find safe shelter. A bunch of dinosaur experts aren't going to jeopardize that by allowing someone in their group to walk through dangerous territory with blood-soaked clothing, and Roland isn't going to risk the lives of other people to hunt the T-rex. This is just bad writing by the filmmakers, plain and simple.
What butterfly effect?
He's talking about when Ian Malcolm was explaining chaos theory and used the term "butterfly effect." But like Phaneron said, the person was really grasping as straws and this scene has nothing to do with what Malcom was talking about.
Suggested correction: I don't think this is actually a mistake. Yes Sarah's jacket is covered in blood from the baby T-Rex, but as you say they've got to pass through Velociraptor territory. In JP3 it was noted that the T-Rex pee keeps smaller dinosaurs away but actually attracts the Spinosaurus. The scent of the T-Rex blood could actually also have the same effect as the pee at keeping the smaller dinosaurs away.
12th May 2010
Corrected entry: At the end of the movie, Tony stark sits at a desk with the Initiative preliminary report before him. Before he picks up the report in the foreground for a few moments you can see a news report with an Asian female reporter. However, this report has been looped as you see the same people walk past the reporter twice and her making the same facial expressions.
Correction: Of course it's looped. This isn't live - it would be a bit too much of a coincidence for the Hulk's battle at Culver University to be being reported live at that very moment. This is an earlier report on that battle that SHIELD have recorded; as such, hardly unreasonable for it to be displayed in a looped format.
It's an extremely short loop, is my point. Like, 3 seconds.
14th Jan 2005
Continuity mistake: In the POW camp, Co Bao is discovered by a guard who points a handgun at her. Rambo shoots an arrow into the guard's forehead, who then falls back against a tree with his cap down low over his eyes. In the next shot his cap is much higher on his head, and the arrow is pointing at a different angle. How could his cap have moved up that far with the arrow holding it to his forehead? For that matter, how could the arrow have moved when it was firmly embedded in the guard's skull? (00:33:25)
Suggested correction: The arrow was able to move because upon piercing the skull, the arrow penetrated the brain, a soft matter that would not hold the arrow in place. The brain matter is much softer than flesh. Imagine shooting an arrow into a watermelon. It is not fixed, but moveable.
But the point of the arrow is sticking in the tree. If it wasn't the guard would have fallen to the ground. So it shouldn't have moved.
8th Apr 2020
Corrected entry: Why do the scientists, whom are older than Cole, not remember that the army of 12 monkeys let out the animals? It was on the radio the same morning when Cole and Reilly were in the taxi on their way to the airport. It must have been a pretty significant thing in your memory especially if the death of the human race starts almost immediately after this event. They do not realise this until Cole calls the voicemail and explain the situation 5 minutes before hell brakes loose in the airport. Where were these scientists during this quite spectacular incident? Even Cole must have remembered something about this since he just went home with his parents after the shooting in the airport. The story about the fleeing animals must have been on most of the news networks that day, so why would the grown up Cole not remember this rather important piece of information from his childhood?
Correction: Who's to say that the scientists don't remember it? Why couldn't they have released the animals from the zoo as well as releasing a devastating virus? They sent Cole back to investigate and find out more specific details.
To add to that: Cole doesn't remember these events himself nor anybody else does because right after the animals were released and the incident at the airport the virus starts to spread, taking up all the time on the news and media several days later and starting a really desperate time for all people, trying to survive it all. It's not unlikely people will not remember the time before the virus.
6th Apr 2020
Corrected entry: Hancock stops the train ramming John's car, but he's a superhero with super-strength and the ability to fly. Why not just lift the car off the tracks and out of danger?
Correction: The people around him ask him the exact same question. Answer: he is drunk as a skunk and simply doesn't care.
He isn't drunk in that scene.
One of the people around him says she can smell liquor on his breath. And he confirms he has been drinking.
He's just plain irresponsible.