Continuity mistake: The subject of the email from Barry S. first reads "we need you", but after opening it reads "RE: No subject" (00:11:00)
lionhead
18th Jul 2017
Split (2016)
4th Mar 2018
Split (2016)
Corrected entry: When Casey locks the monster inside the room where he killed the girl, the lock on the door changes style when the monster opens the door. At first it's all flat and flush with itself, but the next time there's a cylindrical part raised from the base. (01:31:45 - 01:32:55)
Correction: It's exactly the same lock. In the bottom part of the screenshot taken you see the lock when it's already bent, making it appear to be a different style. But it's the same lock, look at it before it starts bending.
18th Nov 2017
Split (2016)
Corrected entry: Near the end of the movie when Casey is shooting at the Beast, she is wearing a white sweater, it's ripped a little, then in the next scene it's shredded to bits, hanging off her. When she locks herself in the cell the white sweater is almost completely gone.
Correction: The sweater is torn and doesn't hang on her body properly anymore, torn at the collar, slowly sliding off her shoulders. It's not torn more, just falls off her body more and more. When she locks herself in the cell she even tears off the left sleeve herself after reloading as it's in the way of her holding the shotgun properly.
13th Jul 2017
Split (2016)
Corrected entry: During the newscast after the girls are taken 3 photos are shown. Casey's photo looks to be a screen shot of her in the car whilst the abduction was taken place This is an impossible photo to have on the news.
Correction: Like you say, it looks to be that. But it's just a picture taken in a car, could have been shot in any car, anytime. Nowhere in the picture do you see it's from the same moment of the abduction, at all. So there is no reason to suspect it is.
9th Jan 2019
Venom (2018)
Corrected entry: After his breakout from the Life Foundation building, and being chased by their security teams, Eddie crashes through a fallen tree and then comes to a full stop while assessing his options. Two guards with guns are right on his heels, less than 20 feet behind him. Two all-terrain vehicles with more guards are speeding towards him from both his left and his right. Both vehicles are less than 30 feet on either side of him. And yet, somehow, he manages to disappear up a tree, with 6 guards on three sides of him-all within 20-30 feet and with a clear view of him-without any of them knowing where he went. Eluding one or two guards might be explained away, but not 6 with unobstructed views from that distance. And especially not the level of security that these guys are throughout the movie. (00:38:10)
Correction: Remember he is at this point possessed by the symbiote. Remembering also that it was dark, from one moment to the next he just disappears from their view near a tree. There is no reason for them to think he climbed up, not that fast. To them, he just suddenly vanished. The symbiote just dragged him up there really rapidly, too fast to see.
6th Jan 2019
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Corrected entry: Just before Obi-Wan and Anakin begin their duel, Obi-Wan says "I will do what I must." and removes his lightsaber from his belt. As he is raising his arm above his head he "flicks" the lightsaber hilt as if he has just activated it. Anakin then says "You will try", and Obi-Wan then activates his lightsaber. Obviously it was decided that Obi-Wan should wait until after Anakin delivers his line for Obi-Wan to activate his lightsaber and the timing was simply switched, leaving an awkwardly long time for Obi-Wan to stand there holding a lightsaber in the air that isn't turned on.
Correction: The way he flicks his lightsaber in his hands doesn't really reveal anything. Nor is it a mistake for him to produce his lightsaber like that. The idea that a decision was made to make the lightsaber go on later is just guesswork and the scene doesn't reveal that at all.
21st Oct 2003
The Mummy (1999)
Other mistake: Evie explains that if Imotep was resurrected he'd bring with him the ten plagues of Egypt. This is followed by (in no particular order) a plague of Locusts, Flies, Water running to blood, the sun being eclipsed and a plague of boils. At the plague of boils Jonathan says 'last but not least, my favourite plague - boils and sores'. How does he know this is the last plague? Aren't there supposed to be 5 more? (01:23:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This may be taking the dialog too literally. It may be foreshadowing, in the sense of "uh, oh, they've got us now" or Jonathan may simply be expressing the fact that he's had enough plagues now and would like it to stop please. By the way, you forgot the fire raining from the sky, so technically Imhotep did six, not five.
The fact that Evie stated specifically 10 plagues, it makes no sense for Jonathan to say "last" on the 6th one, without considering it a mistake on the parts of writers, actor, or director.
Jonathan doesn't simply say "last", but rather "last but not least" - a statement that is regularly used on things the speaker knows for a fact to be, in fact, not the actual last. Taken as a sarcastic remark it makes perfect sense in the situation.
I know he said more than just "last", but that was the keyword to point out that the mistake is in fact valid. "Last but not least", weather said sarcastically or not, is never meant to be said about something that is in fact not last. It's always said to indicate the last item is not necessary the least, such as at Christmas when the last gift remains or when the last graduating student is given his or her diploma.
Also it's a possibility that off screen there was death of livestock, lice, raining frogs and death of first born children. Just want to show which we missing and it's obvious why, as in a movie raining frogs or dying livestock isn't all that threatening to the main characters and doesn't look cool. And for the movie showing first born children die is just stupid. And lice, that's just too much like flies.
27th Dec 2018
Common mistakes
Stupidity: Ground troops armed with semi-auto handguns, automatic rifles and even heavy artillery just keep wasting ammo, barrage-after-barrage, magazine-after-magazine, against giant robots and monsters 100 feet tall, long after it becomes obvious that the weapons have zero effect. This is an ongoing stupidity dating back to some of the earliest giant monster movies, and is still seen in giant monster and superhero films today.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Surely in the face of a no-win scenario, doing something that may or may not work is better than doing nothing and awaiting your doom. They would be doing everything they could to stop the enemy in the hopes of saving lives. Even if it takes every last round of ammunition, it may eventually be enough to wear down the monster / robot etc.
I hate to disagree. I think one of the best examples is the latest Godzilla movie where they keep firing their hand guns on it knowing it would be better to just get out, there was absolutely no point to do that. Same goes for Man Of Steel.
In everything from old Godzilla movies to modern superhero and kaiju flicks, we see military forces line up and throw every bit of small arms and heavier artillery they have at the giant monsters or giant robots, with zero effect. The military always retreats, regroups, then lines up and wastes all their ammunition again, as if they learned absolutely nothing from the first experience.
In a no-win scenario, you beat a hasty retreat and live to fight another day, hopefully better armed and better prepared next time. You don't hold your ground, futilely trying to bring down a giant monster the size of a Hilton Hotel with small arms fire.
It's strange because I can understand why filmmakers still do this, even though it makes little sense. They are trying to show that the monster, robot, whatever is unstoppable by conventional means and honestly I don't know how you would do that without these kinds of scenes. Even though they are dumb. It's extra dumb to me when you hear the General yell "Stand your ground, men!" or something like that. Or when the cop runs out of bullets and throws his gun.
I've seen too many scenes where they keep shooting, apparently to no avail, BUT there is always the chance that hitting the "monster" in a certain spot could get it to retreat. Instead of just continuing to rapidly fire with the general intent of hitting the monster, it would make much more sense to focus on a possible soft spot, such as an eye. The "just keep firing" mentality does fall under "stupidity." The military should be using a strategy that is rational, and emptying machine guns isn't.
27th Dec 2018
Constantine (2005)
Corrected entry: When Angela, played by Rachel Weisz, emerges from the bath and starts rambling, John calls her Rachel.
Correction: Right after she stops rambling the first thing he says to her is "Angela?"
27th Dec 2018
American History X (1998)
Corrected entry: How is it that the shooter knew Danny would go to the bathroom at that particular time? He was obviously waiting in the stall for him. Pretty sure he wouldn't stay in a stall just hoping Danny would use the bathroom.
Correction: Of course he can expect it, they are in the same school. A simple observation of someone's bathroom routine over 1 or 2 days gives you a pretty good idea when someone will use the restroom, even though its not 100 percent sure. Like after class for example. He can just wait for him then.
20th Dec 2018
The Mummy (1999)
Corrected entry: The Pharaoh accuses Anck Su Namun of cheating on him as soon as he sees the smudged body paint on her arm - but she could have just smudged the paint herself by scratching. As a system of checking whether she had cheated on the Pharaoh, perfect body paint would constantly fail, whenever she bumped into or leaned on anything or scratched.
Correction: She would have been trained not to smudge the paint, because smudging it would mean the death penalty. The Pharaoh is a very unreasonable man, making his wife wear body paint to make sure she isn't cheating. I don't think he cares why the paint would be smudged, he won't believe any other explanation.
Correction: It wasn't that the paint was just smudged; as another correction points out that could happen in any one of a number of ways. It was that it was smudged with fingermarks. Nobody was allowed to touch Anck Su Namun, and someone had.
14th Dec 2018
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Corrected entry: There's no way anyone could cut off their hand with a knife the way Wormtail did. The only way they could do it is if they slowly sawed it off. Even if he raised the knife and swung it hard, there's no way it would work, the bone is way too strong. But Wormtail didn't even do that, he just placed the knife on his hand and moved it down. You couldn't even cut hair like that.
Correction: Wormtail is not just "anyone" though. He understood the importance of each of the ritual's steps and getting the potion done just right. He is following Voldemort's orders and instructions. Wormtail's dagger may have been magical, or a charm could have been placed on its finely edged blade to be swift in its tasks. Also, Wormtail was in a highly charged state of mind, which only intensified the force he used to "willingly" sacrifice his hand.
Correction: He didn't cut through bone, he cut his wrist and the knife moved past the bones. If the force is strong enough and the knife sharp enough it's definitely possible to do this.
18th Jul 2004
The Butterfly Effect (2004)
Plot hole: When Evan is in jail with the religious prisoner trying to get him to help him get his journals back he goes to the scene where he is drawing that homicidal picture in kindergarten, but he gets up and puts the spikes that holds documents through his hands, creating a stigmata-style scar. The religious guy in the cell with him is so amazed because of this he thinks Evan is a prophet and he decides to help him. If Evan had gone back in time and got those scars on his hands, he would have changed the original timeline and would have arrived in jail with those scars the whole time. Some people try to correct this using the "If I can create scars, then can I fix them?" statement Evan made to defend the mistake and suggest he can create instant scars but he was using the word "scars" to refer to the negative events; not literal scars on his body. The scar he got when he burned himself in the past didn’t magically appear on him the moment he returned from the past; it became part of a new, slightly altered timeline (just like the scars on his hands should have been) and it let him know he can change history.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't necessarily a correction so much as a possible explanation. It's possible that the religious inmate (I think his name was Carlos) just simply didn't see the scars on Evan's hands when he first came to the prison in the timeline where he got the scars or Evan knew to hide them in the scar timeline (due to the fact that it was the sole purpose of him going back) and due to his fanaticism he didn't question him a second time.
Nope, after jamming those things in his hands Evan simply came into the prison with the scars already on his hands and would have never thought of showing the religious guy his powers using that particular moment in the past to convince him, or doing what he did a second time as he already had done it. It doesn't matter if the religious guy didn't see them before, they won't be the object of Evan convincing him. He would have had to try it some other way, each and ever time. That how this time travel works and its definitely a plot hole that it worked as it did, whilst it shouldn't have. Of course, it's a time travel movie and they never make sense.
13th Dec 2018
Common mistakes
Other mistake: The hero can usually knock out henchmen with one or two punches, but the main villain (as well as the hero themselves) can take much more punishment. This is practically akin to enemies in video games. In fact, heroes are so confident of their abilities that they can knock an opponent down and know that they are down for the count without even having to verify.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: How is this a mistake? Of course the main villain, the boss, is hardest to knock out. If his henchmen were just as strong or stronger, why are they just henchmen? See it like a race, the champion is hardest to beat, that's why he is champion.
Just to give an example, at the beginning of the movie "Goldeneye," James Bond knocks out a henchman sitting on a toilet with one punch. But at the end of the movie, Bond and Trevelyan are beating the crap out of each other and neither is knocked unconscious. It's certainly reasonable for someone to be a more formidable fighter than their underlings, but it wouldn't make them magically impervious to blows to the head.
The mistake is that the hero of the movie very rarely checks to see if a disabled opponent got back up. They are supremely confident that they are out, even if the hero literally just rolled them on to the floor. Makes for good movie magic, but is totally unrealistic.
This mistake has four aspects. (1) The hero knocks someone unconscious for good with just one hit. (2) The hero does this to several enemies in succession, with the same results. (3) The hero shows no signs of fatigue. (4) The hero takes on the tougher villains and takes them down too. Doing all of these requires immense superhuman strength. In films about superhumans, this is not a mistake. But there are films that deliver this and are cheeky enough to give the appearance of there being a modicum of reality in it.
It's not necessarily a measure of strength, technique has got a lot to do with it. When one goes for the throat for example or the jaw a knockout is almost always certain, if you know what you are doing. You have to if you got no time to hit someone twice because the next opponent is not waiting.
You are right. But we don't see proper technique either. I really have issues with people getting unconscious for good from a punch between their eyes, especially when John Reese does it.
I agree with you that some movies take it too easy. But is it really common? The first knock out of Goldeneye example isn't all that unlikely, he may even have hit that guy twice, but a blow to the head, a surprise blow to the head can definitely knock someone out, happens in boxing all the time. Even between the eyes, as long as the head is knocked around.
13th Dec 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Corrected entry: When Gamora stabs Thanos on Knowhere and he reveals he is using the reality stone her knife disappears, still in the chest of the fake Thanos, but on Vormir she tries to kill herself with that same knife.
8th Dec 2018
Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Corrected entry: When Black Widow, Captain America and Black Panther approach Proxima Midnight at the Wakanda barrier, Black Widow asks: "Where is the other friend?" and Proxima answers: "You will pay for his life with yours." We assume Corvus Glaive died. However, a few minutes later he appears trying to steal Vision's stone. Even if he didn't die, it doesn't make sense because he was seriously injured by Black Widow a few hours before.
Correction: She was bluffing about him being dead so that they wouldn't suspect he was already in the same room as Vision, lying in wait for Wanda to join the battle.
Next to that he is an alien, probably a dark elf and we have no idea how badly injured he actually was, and also could have been healed.
The staff he holds grants him the power of immortality. Once he dies or is injured while he holds that staff he can come back from anything. He was fatally stabbed while the staff was in his hand in the station, but the last scene where he was stabbed by Vision, he obviously didn't have the staff in his hand because he was stabbed by it. The power the staff holds is the difference.
Correction: Proxima Midnight implied that Corvus Glaive had died so that he could successfully infiltrate Wakanda and get Vision's stone. He also has the ability to survive almost any injury as long as his glaive is undamaged, so his earlier injury is irrelevant to his ability to show up in Wakanda.
Correction: Misdirection. Black Widow thought he was dead, therefore she wouldn't be expecting him to show up again. Proxima just lied, no mistake.
19th May 2014
I, Robot (2004)
Plot hole: Sonny hides among the 1000 robots in the big store room. They are all placed in very straight rows. Sonny would not be able to take over another robot's place in the grid (when he starts running we see a large robot-sized gap) without getting another robot to move. And while Will Smith is running around the rows, he would have noticed if the others moved to make room.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Sonny was already at the factory before Spooner and Calvin showed up. It's possible he moved in a robot's space, and either the robots to his sides or the ones behind him moved back a space (we never see the rows in their entirety), hence no need for any of them to move while Spooner and Calvin are in the storage room.
Suggested correction: Will Smith shot one of them, it's possible this hole in the front of the row caused that line of robots to move forward one spot, to complete the row again. As they did Sonny could have slipped in. When he spotted Sonny the first time Sonny was simply standing between 2, as Will Smith only saw them from the front at that point, when he started running it's impossible to notice a simple step forward of 1 row of robots and Sonny slipping in.
23rd Oct 2018
Venom (2018)
Corrected entry: After Eddie is being chased by Drake's henchmen he rides his bike but he never uses the key or the pedal to turn it on.
Correction: There is a cutscene between him getting on the bike and driving away with it, he turned it on in between shots. It's a real bike, they aren't using sound effects to pretend the bike is working or anything.
23rd Oct 2018
Venom (2018)
Corrected entry: When the newly formed 'Venom' breaks out of the Life Faculty (which looks like a hi-tech research faculty) they don't know who stole the organism. They could just check the security cam feed, instead of wasting time interrogating the doctor.
Correction: The facility is secret and doing some pretty unethical stuff. It's possible they intentionally don't have cameras hanging around recording all the illegal activity they are doing. Especially in the location they are testing humans. Or else Dr. Skirth wouldn't have needed Eddie to take photos and film for evidence either, just take the security camera footage.
9th Oct 2018
Venom (2018)
Plot hole: The Riot symbiote inhabits the body of the paramedic immediately after the crash at the beginning, then goes into the body of an old woman who goes to the airport and proceeds to take control of a little girl who's going on a flight to San Fransisco. Riot then takes over Carlton Drake's body. The entirety of these events would need to have taken six months, for it to be consistent with the timeline of the rest of the film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Riot only arrives at the airport as the old woman after 6 months. There is no reason given why Riot decides to stay in the body of the woman for so long, but not giving a reason doesn't make it a plot hole. It stayed in the old woman for 6 months maybe because it needed to gather strength or devise a plan.
The director has even admitted it's a plot hole. Regardless, the film does nothing to suggest it was doing anything other than traveling towards its destination, so this does constitute a plot hole.
Why does it constitute as a plot hole if it's traveling towards its destination? Why does one thing imply the other?
It's a plot hole because it's absolutely ridiculous that it would take six full months to do that. That's a few days worth of activity... maybe a week. As I said, the director even admitted it was a plot-hole.
Suggested correction: If no subject is given the first sentence of the E-mail will be displayed instead. RE: No Subject means it's a reply to an earlier E-mail that also lacked a subject.
lionhead