Continuity mistake: After Arthur took off the stolen jacket and hat when talking to Wayne he places them in the sink, but in the next cut they disappear. (01:05:00)
lionhead
3rd Jan 2020
Joker (2019)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You don't see the sink containing the clothes anymore after he puts them down.
27th Dec 2019
Watchmen (2009)
Plot hole: Although this film is a virtual jigsaw puzzle of flashbacks, the dynamic between Dan, Laurie and Rorschach pretty much defines the movie's continuity in the present. However, when Rorschach is framed for murder and arrested, he goes directly to a maximum-security prison, apparently without trial, conviction or sentencing (all of which would require months of due-process, at least). Even if this lapse of time is some sort of artistic device to rapidly advance Rorschach's story, there is no corresponding lapse of months in the relationship between Dan and Laurie, which runs parallel with Rorschach's story. Either there is no due process for Rorschach in this story, or there is a glaring plot hole.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Rorschach was a famous and dangerous outlaw. We are talking about an alternate 80's here with Nixon as president and a nation-wide ban on masks (the Keene Act). Rorschach probably faced the death penalty for his long list of crimes, besides the murder he was finally captured for (not to mention to handful of cops he seriously injured whilst trying to evade capture). I don't think it's strange that his trial was quick or not fully by the book. They made sure he was locked away fast and quietly. The justice system probably works a lot faster in a world of masked vigilantes.
Yes, Rorschach was a vigilante; but, before masked superheroes were outlawed, Rorschach was also responsible for sending dozens (if not scores) of far worse criminals to prison, thus benefitting society. This much is stated in the film. His contributions to justice would certainly carry weight, and testimony in his favor would have to be considered in any legal proceedings against him. Also, after his capture, authorities were still trying to assess his mental state, which implies that some sort of due-process was still in place. Rorschach should have received a months-long trial, at the very least.
To be fair, the original, Hugo Award-winning "Watchmen" graphic novel makes the same continuity leap when it comes to Rorschach's fate. Rorschach keeps a secret diary that dates everything, but it egregiously skips over his trial and sentencing, even though the relationship between Dan and Laurie remains consistent. So, we can say that the movie is faithful to the novel, but the novel itself is flawed with a gaping plot hole.
The cops of that city don't care about his past deeds, which includes dropping the body of a criminal in front of the police station with the message "Never." They don't like him. Not even his colleagues liked him. That was a long time ago too, he's been the sole masked vigilante for a long time and I bet the cops just started disliking him more and more for his antics. Thus, a quick trial.
17th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Stupidity: The entire plot revolves around the First Order chasing the ships, waiting for the Resistance to run out of fuel. They could have easily destroyed the Resistance's fleet by sending a Star Destroyer or two around to cut them off from the other side and blast them into oblivion.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Maybe. But if the First Order does this the entire plot of the movie as it is is ruined. So, maybe both?
Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't change a character stupidity into a plot hole.
What prevents a character's stupidity from being a plot hole? Is it wrong to want competent villains? If a character is supposed to be intelligent (let's say, a naval commander or military leader) and has the capability to achieve his or her objective with an obvious decision a character of his or her stature should make but does not and it is the only reason the plot of the movie still exist, is it not both a plot hole and character stupidity? Not just Hux, Snoke, Kylo, and every other First Order officer failed to realise this. How? It does not make any sense. At the very least try to explain in the movie how the FO let the Resistance get away because they refused to let Star Destroyer make a few hyperspace jumps and cut the Resistance off.
Hux is an idiot, Snoke is a fraud and Kylo doesn't really strike me as a strategic mastermind.
Hux only really becomes an idiot because of this movie. In TFA, he is an established military officer who does come across as more feared and respected. The change in this movie is then character stupidity and/or a character mistake that creates a big plot hole from the start.
Well the new movie puts a whole new light into that. Changes the whole discussion.
So they retconned to correct this mistake? Still makes it a mistake in my opinion. Especially since it is not just Hux who could have been a better leader. Any FO military officer could have brought it up and executed that idea.
In the time it takes to switch the hyperdrive on and off again, travelling at light speed you would travel so far ahead of them you would take days to get back to them. In a quarter of a second at lightspeed you travel much farther than the length of the planet Earth.
To answer the question: a plot hole is something that contradicts something already established in the film that's done to move the plot along or resolve an issue. A stupidity is a minor plot hole, but can also be character acting contradictory to what's been established, usually to keep the plot going. A character mistake is a character making a mistake or error they shouldn't have (usually because the writers don't know the right answer). Characters acting stupid or irrationally or making human errors is not a valid movie mistake.
So by this, it is a plot hole because the Star Destroyers can jump in and out of hyperspace and could make that jump to cut the Resistance off. It is character stupidity because Hux is established as a high ranking military officer in TFA and thus should know basic military strategy along with all of his fellow officers. I think if a character acts stupid which goes against their established personality and traits without a good reason, it is very much a mistake. Hux was not pressured into an irrational decision. In fact, it is the most calming battle to ever take place in Star Wars. There is no reason for him to be this incompetent. He is only this way because Rian wrote him this way, which on your list is a character mistake too. When the general audience is a better military tactician than the FO Commander in the movie, it is a bad sign.
The problem is that we as the audience know the Resistance will find a way out of this situation. General Hux believes he has the Resistance trapped and they have no escape. In his mind, the plan was working perfectly well. There's no reason to alter the plan. It's not like they are under a time crunch and need to destroy the ships as quickly as possible. By moving the cruisers out of range and crawling away, it was clear to Hux that the Resistance had run out of options. Hux doesn't need to do anything differently in his mind, so he doesn't. It only seems stupid to us because we know the heroes will find a way out because heroes always do.
I am sure the First Order is well aware that the Resistance is doing all they can to find an escape, however unlikely it is. However, contrary to the audience, they do not know how they plan on doing so. All the more reason for the First Order to blow the Resistance to bits while they still can. What is the benefit of just waiting for the Resistance to run out of fuel in the first place? Wouldn't it just be better to end them swiftly? Also, it is not just Hux. There are other military officers and you would think there would be a few of them who would want to destroy the Resistance while the opportunity was present. Its decisions like these that make you wonder how the First Order gained so much power in the first place.
It is just Hux. The captain of the Dreadnaught makes it clear that Hux is in general command, as he is irritated that Hux did not scramble fighters as soon as Poe's X-Wing showed up. Overconfidence has been a staple of Star Wars villains from the very beginning, and if it's a movie mistake here then it's also a mistake that Tarkin doesn't evacuate the Death Star; or that Vader doesn't force choke Luke on Bespin instead of trying to trap him in carbonite; or that Jaba doesn't shoot Luke Skywalker instead of taking him to the Sarlaac pit; etc.
Comparing Tarkin's overconfidence to Hux's actions is practically insulting. The Empire believed the Death Star was indestructible until the flaw was discovered during the Rebels' attack run. Even with this flaw, the chances of the Rebels' success was incredibly slim. The Rebels have already failed multiple times and the Empire was mere seconds away from ending the Rebellion for good. The probability of the Empire ending the Rebels once and for all was almost a certainty and it was logical to take the chance. Tarkin may have been overconfident, but he had a right to be. The Vader example is dumb too. The Emperor ordered Luke to be taken to him alive. To do that, they were going to entrap him in carbonite. That was Vader's goal, not to kill him with a Force choke. Jabba is a sadistic showman, as seen when he fed Oola to the Rancor. When Luke is captured, he created a show in which he can enjoy. How Luke died was just as important to him as Luke dying.
Tarkin said he wanted to destroy the Rebellion with one swift stroke. Key word here being swift, not lazily waiting for some gas just to run out. If Tarkin was in charge of the First Order instead of Hux, the Resistance would have easily been destroyed, no questions asked. Having Hux betray what he was supposed to be from TFA by being a passive, ignorant, and incompetent leader causes the FO to be nonthreatening, terrible villains, and defeats any suspense in the plot. It's illogical for the audience to believe that a military commander could be this stupid.
Completely and entirely disagree with your assessment. Tarkin's overconfidence and Hux's overconfidence both come from the same belief: that their enemies have no means of victory. Both men believe they have already won and it is only a matter of time before they win. Tarkin is flat out told that there is a chance that the rebels will destroy them and he chooses not to evacuate. This overconfidence is a staple of every movie in this series because the major theme of an underdog triumphing over the odds demands this. I did not mean that Vader should force choke Luke to death, but once the plan to freeze him fails he certainly could have tried harder to incapacitate Luke. By not doing so he allows Luke to escape. This isn't dumb, it's just overconfident. Jabba choosing to put on a show rather than just shooting his enemies is the very definition of overconfidence, and it's honestly strange that you seem to be arguing that it isn't.
I was arguing against your assessment of Vader and Tarkin and explaining Jabba's view and how it differs from how Tarkin and Hux should go about things. Jabba is an overconfident crimelord and thus has different traits then a military leader so it is unjust to compare him to Tarkin and Hux. Tarkin was given that information mid battle a mere minute away from wiping out of the Rebellion. Here it is believable of him to assess the situation, see the Rebels have already failed multiple attempts, and that the Rebels chance for success was minuscule and waiting was the best option. Hux's ability to end the war is literally right there. Not minutes away, seconds away if he would have just commanded a ship to cut them off. There is no benefit in waiting, whereas Tarkin is operating a Death Star and must wait as it moves differently (slower, less maneuverable) than a Star Destroyer. Even if they have the same belief, Tarkin acts competently and Hux acts unbelievably moronic.
I think that's where I'm having a problem with your statements. I don't believe that Hux acted "unbelievably moronic." His plan was working perfectly fine. Just because he didn't wipe out of the ships as fast as he possibly could doesn't make him a moron, or a bad military leader. Hux had just lost Starkiller Base and his Dreadnaught, so it is perfectly reasonable for him to take a safe approach with destroying the remaining Rebel ships; picking them off one-by-one at no risk to his fleet whatsoever. His plan works absolutely fine and the few Rebels that do survive only do because Luke Skywalker projects his image across space to stall Kylo Ren. "Military leader" doesn't mean "infallable" and it certainly isn't a gap in the film's logic, especially in the Star Wars series, to have a leader make questionable decisions in hindsight.
You just said Hux was an extremely risk adverse military leader, whereas good military leaders must deliberately accept tactical risks. However, there is no risk here. Destroying the Resistance fleet would have been easy since all of their fighters and bombers were already destroyed fighting the Dreadnaught. Regular sight should have been able to see that waiting for the Resistance to think up an escape plan was a bad idea. Especially since the First Order knows the Resistance has a map to Luke Skywalker and his arrival could completely turn the tide of the battle. Logically, the First Order should destroy the Resistance fleet before Luke could arrive. The only explanation, which makes for a bad movie, is that Hux is unlike what he was represented in TFA and is an incompetent leader. From the beginning, he was never meant to be like is TFA self. He did fall for a "your mama" joke to start the movie and let a Dreadnaught die from the slowest bombers in the galaxy.
I did not say that Hux was "extremely risk averse." I said that Hux took a safe approach. Having Hux plan to defeat the Rebels before Luke Skywalker could show up would have also been out of character. The villains in the Star Wars stories consistently believe that not even a powerful Jedi could stop their plans when they have convinced themselves they've already won. Snoke says as much during this very film.
You said Hux likes playing it safe, that means he is a risk adverse military leader, or at least made a risk adverse decision when there didn't need to be one. So it is now out of character for Hux to defeat the Resistance until Luke shows up? At this point, the only reason it makes sense for Hux to act this way is what was revealed in TRoS, which would be a retcon to cover the mistake in this movie. I find your villain statement more of opinion then truth. It may only make sense in this trilogy. Palpatine is the true villain of Star Wars and his big plan to rule the galaxy found it necessary to kill all the powerful Jedi, so he obviously was not convinced he could win with them alive. As Emperor, discovering a potential Jedi in Luke was treated like an actual threat, maybe the only true threat. The Emperor wants Luke dead/capture in ESB. The Emperor tries to turn Luke in RotJ. The Emperor does believe he can turn/defeat Luke, and he would have defeated him if Vader hadn't intervened.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that Hux "likes playing it safe." I said that he took a safe approach in this particular situation.
I'm gonna say it here too, the new movie puts it all in a whole new light. So just wait till you see it. (not that it's particularly good though).
We do not know exactly when this character decided to do that. Could have been before or after these events. Most likely it occurred after Snoke died and Kylo took power. So that is just speculation. If this character's decision does occur before the events of this movie, then it is a retcon to cover this mistake, meaning the mistake exists.
Exactly. This movie's plot is very flawed and it lacks logic to the big extent. Hux was much more competent in TFA, so his behavior in TLJ was both stupidity and a plothole.
Then they should have written a better plot. Complaining that rational act ruins the plot is a writing issue with the plot. They shouldn't have written this problem in the first place. You can't hide behind the "but it will ruin the film" excuse when the writers could have written literally anything else.
Suggested correction: In the time it takes to switch the hyperdrive on and off they would have travelled so far in front of the rebels that they would be worse off than before. Even switching the drive in for .25 of a second would carry them around 400,000 kilometers if my memory serves. This is still a plot hole. The first order ships are bigger, therefore they should be faster due to larger/ more engines and the "fuel" issue is wrong because all you have to do is switch off your engine and you will not stop.
Suggested correction: Why would they need to? They easily outgun what remains of the Resistance, and they're patient enough to wait for the ships to run out of fuel. The First Order was overconfident, but they were not wrong about their plan working.
What is the benefit of the First Order waiting? It would be better to take out your enemy swiftly when given the chance. Especially since we are told this is the last of the Resistance. Destroying these few ships would then end the war and give the First Order control of the galaxy.
9th May 2009
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
Corrected entry: It is stated that the only thing which will penetrate Logan's adamantium skeleton is an adamantium bullet. Following this logic, Logan's adamantium claws should cut through Deadpool's arm blades, or vice versa.
Correction: A bullet traveling at high speeds would behave very differently than a blade, even of the same material.
Quite correct. A lead (soft) bullet will penetrate a steel (hard) plate due to its velocity. The same applies here.
Actually it's not about something softer vs something hard. Adamantium is quite indestructible even when matched against each other. But an adamantium bullet can dent an adamantium plate at least. Of course the true nature of the adamantium in the movies is not as elaborate as the comics (certainly not the origins), but I think the basic features still apply, that it is steel with an extremely high density and thus indestructible even when it's adamantium versus adamantium. This can even include Silver Samurai's adamantium in the later movie which is obviously of higher quality.
I was trying to make the point that a bullet can penetrate something as hard or harder than itself due to its velocity.
Correction: We can assume that as Weapon X has the same healing abilities as Logan, his blades are adamantium too.
11th Dec 2019
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)
Corrected entry: In the library at night, Harry escapes Filch and Snape by staying hidden under his invisibility cloak, leaving the room through a door. Harry's hand either must have been visible while operating the door handle or the handle itself must have become invisible if Harry would have touched it with his hand wrapped in the cloak. But the door opens without the door handle being pushed down at all. (01:31:35)
Correction: That's because the door wasn't fully closed. All he had to do was push.
9th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Plot hole: By having Admiral Holdo perform her infamous hyperspace ramming stunt, Rian Johnson created a continuity problem with the rest of the Star Wars universe. Since this maneuver was successful, every space battle before and since should only include a droid piloting spacecraft ramming enemy bases through hyperspace. This tactic would have been more cost effective and less risky than full on space battles seen in previous films. This tactic would no doubt have been tried in a universe filled with space battles often with disposable troops on both sides, such as in the Clone Wars. The Death Star did not need a successful trench run to be destroyed, just an X-wing with a droid ramming it at hyperspeed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think it's a one in a million shot. The damaged caused crippled the large ship but didn't fully destroy it and the other ships destroyed were caused by the debris from the bigger ship and ramming ship. That's just bad tactics. But in the case of for example the death star I doubt highly that ramming it with hyperspace jumps will cause significant damage. It's not like you are firing an armor piercing round and I'm pretty sure ships are equipped with all sorts of anti-debris protection. Plus I think it's bloody difficult even at that range to aim correctly at an enemy ship with a hyperjump.
NASA engineers have to be aware of space debris orbiting the Earth that is the size of small particles because when they are orbiting at 18,000 mph around the Earth, they can cause significant damage to spacecraft. Turn that speed up to near or past the speed of light as in hyperspace and an X-wing should be enough to significantly cripple a Death Star sized object, if not completely destroy it. Yes, ships have shields, but these are ray shields meant for cannon fire. Both RotJ and TFA show that a ship can penetrate these shields (TFA displayed it at hyperspace speeds no less). Aiming should be as easy as punching the location into a navicomputer as done for traveling. It is also easier to hit and less difficult to aim at large or close objects, like Star Destroyers, Death Stars, or planets and moons.
"The damage caused crippled the large ship but didn't fully destroy it" This is what was introduced to the fiction by the director. You can dislike that if you'd like but it is not a "mistake."
This was the outcome. Hyperspace ramming was what was introduced. The outcome was also grander than simply crippling a ship. It split the ship in two and the entire fleet or a large portion of it ended up being destroyed. Without a worthwhile explanation as to how this is possible now but not previously, it also introduces plot wholes in the previous movies.
You are talking about a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. You simply don't know. Hypespace is not as simple as going faster than the speed of light. They hardly have shields, I'm talking about armor protection, bulkheads, bulges, space armor, netting. Whatever.
Hyperspace as defined by Wookiepedia is an alternate dimension that could only be reached by traveling at or faster than the speed of light. So at this stage in the ramming stunt, it is as simple as traveling at or past light speeds as the ship has not yet entered the hyperspace lanes in the parallel dimension. So now the force the FO ship faces is the mass times acceleration and since it is traveling past lightspeed, the force would be extraordinary regardless of the mass. It would be even harder to believe an armor or anything else that could withstand that force, even on a Death Star sized space station.
To clarify, this is the hyperspace that Rian Johnson created. Before it was less clear, but the standard that has been followed since the beginning was one could not ram opposing ships with it while entering hyperspace lanes. Han Solo talks about this in A New Hope. Rogue One even has ships just entering hyperspace killing themselves on incoming Star Destroyers. This is the more faithful representation of what hyperspace travel was. Rian Johnson has completely rewritten what occurs in hyperspace which breaks Star Wars canon.
The official explanation is that the Raddus had special experimental deflector shields and that is why it worked. With normal shields it would not have worked.
Source? Is it said in the movie somewhere? So one should expect the Resistance to use these "special experimental deflector shields" and hyperspace ramming to combat the hundreds of Star Destroyers in The Rise of Skywalker, correct? Should be pretty effective. Weird that all the promos have the Resistance fighting them the old-fashioned way.
It is in the novelization of the movie.
Using a novel to correct a mistake a movie makes still makes it a movie mistake. Movies should not need books, comics, or videos games to explain their obvious flaws.
All I was saying is that it was a one in a million shot and that doing it requires a lot more than simply pointing towards the enemy and activating hyperjump. If anyone can do it and it can destroy entire fleets, then everybody would do it. But they don't, so it's not that simple. Since that is a fact, it's not a plot hole.
That is why it creates a plot hole because the movie never presents it in a way that only this ship at this time in this way can do it. It comes across as anyone can do it so why didn't anyone else do it in the thousands of years that this universe has existed through the countless wars that have taken place? Saying it is not that simple is not a fact, its an opinion. I watched it and it looked pretty simple. It comes across as anyone can do it, so everyone should have been doing it, thus the plot hole.
This scene doesn't create a plot hole since, in the film, nothing was established to show this wouldn't work. Nor would it create a plot hole unless it was previously shown that unmanned ships were used as a regular tactic to destroy bigger ships. Plot holes are when something occurs that contradicts what the story itself (usually as a plot device to further the plot along or conclude the plot).
It coming across as simple doesn't make it simple. The simple fact of the matter is that this fictional universe works that way, in the other movies it hasn't happened so it's not simple. It's as simple as that. In any case it would be a plot hole in those movies, not this one. Look, if you want everything to be logical then these movies will be nothing but automated ships ramming into each other left and right and you still want the story to be told? I don't think so. So, you want to explain why they don't ram everything and you got it. Deal with it. Otherwise the fact they use hyperdrives is a plothole then as well.
In this fictional universe, hyperspace did not work as weapons until Rian Johnson changed hyperspace for this movie's plot convenience. In doing so, Rian broke the standard canon that each previous movie followed. This is why its a plot hole in this movie and creates a discontinuity for the entire saga. Everything does not have to be understood or compared to our real world, but each fictional universe has its own set of physical laws and rules that each form of media in that universe needs to follow. Hyperdrives are not plot holes because they existed since the beginning of Star Wars and have a certain set of standards they follow that are understood. Changing these laws without a logical or worthwhile explanation in the film is ultimately disrespectful to the source material. The very idea that you brought up in that this creates plot holes in all the previous films proves that this scene is a terrible addition to the saga.
Seems to me like you just dislike the scene. Thats fine and I can understand you feel its a continuity. But it is not a plot hole for the movie.
It is more of a continuity error that creates plot holes in the previous movies, so it could be labeled better. However, if we view Star Wars as one story like George Lucas did, then it would be a plot hole for Star Wars as a whole. If it was successful in explaining how they could do it now, but not a few years ago, then it would have been fine, more or less. It failed to do so making it a mistake, no matter how visually pleasing it was.
Hyperspace always worked as a weapon. Han explained years ago that is why they had to plot a course through hyperspace. So they would not hit anything. She meant to use it as a weapon, and succeeded. This is nothing new.
If it were a one in a million shot, then Hux would not have panicked and ordered the cruiser shot down immediately. Furthermore, the Resistance could have used their two escort ships, which were going to run out of fuel and be destroyed anyway, to try the same thing.
Doesn't the one in a million argument make Holdo a traitor that attempted to flee at the rebellion's darkest hour then? Your argument is nonsense.
It was a suicide run. It was a one in a million shot to take out the main vessel, but whatever she was going to do, she was going to die.
Suggested correction: Just because it worked on this occasion, doesn't mean it would always work. It also hadn't been attempted before. It's not a plot hole that they didn't destroy the Death Star like this, since nobody in the rebellion considered it.
But why did no-one in the Rebellion consider it? It was their most desperate hour. They were in similar desperation as the Resistance in The Last Jedi, if not more so. Their were similar desperate times in the Clone Wars when both sides had troops of disposable clones and droids. They did not consider trying it then? They were wars occurring before that and no-one thought about using hyperspace as a weapon? It is illogical to think that there was no-one in the history of that universe that would never even consider using hyperspace as a weapon. The reason it was not considered was before Rian Johnson rewrote it, hyperspace did not operate like that. Plain and simple. Rian Johnson rewrote how hyperspace works, creating a plot holes and discontinuities for the entire saga.
No one rewrote Hyperspace. It has always been like that.
9th Dec 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: A human being cannot survive inside a closed refrigerator for even one hour, let alone overnight. They would suffer from a lack of oxygen and die. "Refrigerator death" is a rare occurrence but has happened on several occasions when children accidentally lock themselves in a fridge or if someone purposefully traps an individual in one.
Correction: Clearly it didn't work for him as he tried to commit suicide but was alive the next day. Maybe he got cold feet and exited quite quickly. Since the scene cuts after he closes the door you can't know what happened.
Incorrect. We see the refrigerator fully closing. When he closes it, it's night and when it cuts to the next scene it's morning, therefore he was in overnight.
Sure it closed, but you can't see he was in it all night. You can force yourself out of such types of fridge, if you have to.
So long as there is no scene specifically showing him crawl out of said refrigerator at dawn, there is no proof - implied or otherwise - he was in there overnight. As the previous entry corrected earlier, there is no way of knowing exactly how long he was inside for, and he obviously survived up until the end credits so the entire point or duration is moot.
Correction: It is possible the fridge just simply didn't seal fully. They are a poor family and likely have broken down old appliances. The airtight seals around the door could have been damaged thus letting air get inside, albeit even if just a little.
The fridge did close. Watch the scene, we here and see the fridge closing fully, it was night when he entered and the scene cuts to morning of the next day where it's daytime, so he was in the fridge overnight.
A refrigerator that is on, like the Joker's, has a fan that circulates cold air. The air comes from somewhere. A running refrigerator is not a vacuum.
There is so much wrong with this statement. First, that's not how refrigerators work. Second, asphyxiation doesn't occur in a vacuum. The mistake isn't claiming the Joker was in a vacuum.
9th Dec 2019
Elysium (2013)
Corrected entry: When Frey places her leukemia-affected daughter in the medpod at the end of the film, the machine activates and reads "regenerating atoms." There are 3 problems here: 1) You can't just "regenerate" atoms. Atoms cannot be damaged (especially not by cancer) and can only be ionised, which is definitely not damage. 2) Leukemia is a cancer of cells, and so there would be no need to regenerate the atoms if the cells were the main problem. And 3) The machine would not just regenerate the white blood cells affected by leukemia that are still in the bloodstream, as that would cause further complications with the patient. It would disperse the majority of white blood cells before attempting regeneration. Anyone who studied stem cells in high school and needed an example would know this.
Correction: It doesn't say "regenerating atoms" it said "re-atomizing." The machine basically reconstructs the body on the atomic level, totally clearing the body of any diseases including (and prioritizing) cancer. It cures all cells, bone marrow, lymphatic system. Everything.
5th Jul 2005
Toy Story (1995)
Trivia: The carpet design used in Sid's house is the same design used in the hotel featured in The Shining (1980). (00:48:55 - 00:50:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
The design is spot on. The color is just different.
So it is identical, except for how it is different?
No one said it was identical. The trivia is the pattern is the same. Color has no bearing on the trivial fact. The fact that they animated the carpet means the design was intentional. Although, it's possible they copied the design from a 70's carpet pattern that "The Shining" also used, rather than copy the design in "The Shining."
23rd Nov 2019
Total Recall (1990)
Corrected entry: After Richter and Helm attack the Last Resort, during which Helm is killed by Thumbelina, Quaid and Melina escape into the mines with Benny to meet Kuato. After Lori and Dr. Edgemar reveal their deception, it doesn't make sense that Quaid would trust Benny, since he showed up the minute Quaid and Melina were trying to escape from Richter and Helm. This was a sign that Benny was working for Cohaagen.
Correction: The main reason he trusted Benny is because he is a mutant.
When Quaid first arrives at the Hilton Hotel, Benny only offers Quaid a ride and no-one else, like he anticipated Quaid's arrival. Benny conveniently shows up when Quaid and Melina are on the run from Richter and Helm, like he already knows they are in trouble. The rebel lieutenant doesn't know Benny, and the rebels presumably know everyone in their group since outsiders can be spies working for Cohaagen. Despite these signs that Benny could be one of Cohaagen's agents, Quaid still trusts him, but he knew not to trust Edgemar, who had lied about the adventure being a dream when it was reality.
Him picking up Quaid is not weird, just a cab driver like all others offering him a ride, stealing him away from someone else even. Him being a mutant totally eliminated any doubt about him. Quaid knows nothing of the politics on Mars so follows the choices of the rebels, who don't know how coincidental him being there is. Edgemar on the other hand was human, trying to convince him it's all a dream.
11th Oct 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: Joker's left eye make up changes shape (blue messy cry smear) and size before going on the show, then is very neat on the show, and then jumps back to being smaller with the left eye crying look in the police car.
Correction: The changes are shown in between takes with a large time gap. Before going on the show he had redone his makeup and after the show he cried again smearing the makeup again when he is in the cop car.
There is a scene he is lying at the car engine, next scene he stand up, between these two scene the blue paint is dry and different.
Well firstly, no, he bleeds so that's different but the blue paint stays the same. Can't blame him for sweating either. And secondly, the original mistake doesn't talk about the scene on top of the car but in it.
22nd Oct 2019
Joker (2019)
Corrected entry: SPOILER ALERT: When the Joker kills his mom in the hospital, the heart monitor that she is connected to does not alarm as her heart rate skyrockets, then starts to fail. This would cause the nurses to come running into the room. Setting an alarm on the heart monitor is standard medical protocol in a hospital, especially in an ICU which is where she would have been with her serious condition.
Correction: He could have switched it off. Not the monitor but the alarm. He had all afternoon in her room to figure out how.
13th Nov 2019
Mortal Kombat (1995)
Revealing mistake: When Scorpion explodes, if you pay attention, the explosion doesn't really make "sense." The first "burst" looks fine, but then, midway through the shot, some of the debris in the air suddenly vanishes or fades out a few frames before the second "burst" occurs. Additionally, the way the second "burst" happens gives it away as an added effect, as it doesn't really overlap the background properly. (It looks like an explosion that was filmed on a blue-screen and then just added over top of the footage, as it doesn't interact with the environment properly).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Scorpion is an undead being fighting in another realm of existence. He doesn't necessarily have to explode in a way that "makes sense."
The mistake pertains to issues with the somewhat shoddy execution of the effects, which are a result of the film's production. I don't think him being an undead fighter from another realm of existence is really a valid way to explain this away.
15th Nov 2019
Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Corrected entry: Spider-man and Mysterio fight the first Elemental. On the bridge, the elemental beats Peter Parker and he is wet. This could not be, because the water elemental is a hologram. Spider-man couldn't get wet from a hologram. (00:21:35)
Correction: In addition to holograms, Mysterio uses drones to cause real damage. Otherwise, his con would be figured out very easily. In this case, the hologram obscures drones that blast water from the canal (or possibly even collect water and spray it) which then get Peter wet.
I don't think drones are capable of doing that, as we've seen they're only capable of firing guns.
We saw them traveling underwater toward Tower Bridge and firing causing water to spray up.
I think Spider-Man being wet is sufficient evidence that the drones are capable of more than shooting guns. Why call it a mistake when it's perfectly reasonable for it to be drones even if not explicitly shown?
But their firepower could splash water up and make Peter wet though. So he got wet from splashing water from all the firepower upon the water and bridge.
15th Nov 2019
Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995)
Corrected entry: When dump trucks show up outside train station where Charlie is and Simon introduces himself as detective Bob Thompson of the city engineers office, Charlie doesn't recognise him or the guy on the side of the dump truck, even though in a previous scene Charlie was in the van when the FBI was showing the pictures and explaining to McClane and Zeus about Simon being Peter Gruber and the other two.
Correction: He was sitting in the back, he didn't see the picture. Even if he did, then it's a character mistake, hardly a plot hole.
10th Nov 2019
The Rock (1996)
Revealing mistake: When Mason is having his hair cut, after finishing up, he is talking to Womack and turns his back on him. If you look at the back of Mason's neck, it is clear that he's not just been freshly shorn; there are whorls of hair just above his collar. (Either that, or the barber was terrible at his job).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not all barbers do neck hairs. The barber probably didn't want agitate anyone by taking too long.
4th Nov 2019
Liar Liar (1997)
Corrected entry: The power of the wish is very inconsistent. Sometimes Fletcher has to be 100% honest, but sometimes he just can't tell a blatant lie. For example, when Miranda asks Fletcher if he enjoyed their sex, he says he's had better. When the judge asks Fletcher who beat him, he describes his own physical characteristics, deliberately fooling the judge into thinking he's talking about another person. Although it's not technically a lie, it's completely dishonest. If the power was consistent, in the former scene, Fletcher could've just said he enjoyed the sex. I'm sure he did enjoy it, even if he'd had better. So he would've been able to answer without lying, but without telling the full truth, like he did in the latter scene. Or alternatively, if the power was consistent, in the latter scene, Fletcher would've had to admit he beat himself.
Correction: He accurately answers the questions 100% honest each time. He has somewhat control of it, he can't lie but he can be clever about it. The after sex scene is an exception as he wasn't prepared for it, just like in the elevator and arriving at work. It was on his mind that he had better sex so it just came out at that point, honestly. But later he figures out he can't lie so he has to be clever about it. The judge asked him who did this to him, so instead of saying it was him he describes himself. This doesn't change the rules of the curse.
3rd Nov 2019
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Corrected entry: In Transfiguration class when professor McGonagall is explaining the lesson you can see that the instructions are mirrored on the blackboard. (00:54:18)
Correction: There are two chalkboards in Professor McGonagall's classroom, both with the same chalk drawings and instructional writing, though the chalkboard on the right has everything backwards on the board. However, none of the actual shots during this scene are flipped, not the closeups, medium shots, or the long shots. Note the part in McGonagall's hair, etc., stays consistent throughout. For whatever their reasons, the filmmakers decided to have identical chalkboards at both sides of the desk, and one with the reverse writing and images as its twin.
And since it's a class about casting spells it's not unlikely McGonagall wrote it in mirror on purpose. Perhaps they need to learn to read mirror since a lot of spells and spellbooks are written like that, a common myth surrounding spells.
26th Nov 2002
Hocus Pocus (1993)
Corrected entry: The legend is that the Sandersen sisters will be brought back from the grave if a virgin lights the black flamed candle. In fact, that's what happens 300 years after they are burned at Salem. If the citizens of Salem believed in the witches' curse, then why did they leave the candle intact? Why didn't they have a non-virgin destroy it immediately?
Correction: The witches are magic. They probably made it so only a virgin could light or touch the candle.
But the candle and wick already seemed to be previously lit.
It was probably lit before the witches were burned.
Even if it has been previously lit; it's a pretty moot point unless we know it was another virgin on Halloween night who lit it as this was a very specific thing that had to happen for them to come back from the grave. So if it was somebody who tried lighting it on Christmas, wouldn't have worked for the prophecy. As to why no-one tried to destroy it; I'm sure they did but as we can see from the book the witches know magical protections spells so it's a safe bet there's one on the candle too where the flame might simply go out if someone not prophesied to light it try.
22nd Oct 2019
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Corrected entry: When Indiana Jones is told about the tablet discovery by Donovan, Indiana says the three knights who find the grail during the first Crusade are French. When Indiana meets the last knight at the end of the movie, he speaks perfect English, and with an English accent.
Correction: He's also almost 900 years old and imbued with power by God Himself. I think a simple language would be no big deal at all.
How is he imbued by power from God?
How else do you explain him being almost a thousand years old?
Drinking from the cup. How does that make him speak English?
The Grail is imbued with the power of God because it held the blood of Christ. One would think that since he is essentially the God-appointed guardian of the Grail, he would have any knowledge needed to guard it.
Thats a lot of assumptions. The cup grants immortality, that's it. It doesn't make you a polyglot.
He's the appointed guardian of the Holy Grail, an artifact that grants eternal life and is protected by miraculous and physically impossible traps. The guardian is given whatever power needed to keep the Grail in the chamber.
He doesn't have to do anything to keep the cup in the chamber. The seal does that.
I suppose you can make the case about God giving the knight the ability to speak English, but why in an English accent? I would think he'd speak in a French or American accent.
Why? An American dialect is no more neutral than an English one. People who speak with a French accent do so because they are still using rules and habits learned speaking French when trying to speak another language.
Because languages and the people who speak them change over time, especially that long of a period, by the immigration and emigration of people, influence of other languages, etc... What he would have spoken then would have been Old French, not modern French. While they do share a modicum of similarity, they are not mutually intelligible due to changes in grammar, syntax, and word use. Old French, for instance, contains far more influence from the Germanic Frankish language and Celtic Gaulish than modern French.
A French accent from 900 years ago would sound nothing like a modern French accent. In the same way, what we consider to be a modern proper English accent is actually a fairly modern phenomenon designed to distinguish upper from lower class people.
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.