Jon Sandys

27th Jul 2017

Wonder Woman (2017)

Corrected entry: When Diana and Steve sail from Themyscira to London, the sails on the boat just hang there, indicating that there is no wind. Sailboats need wind to move and the sails need periodic adjustment depending on from which direction the wind is coming.

wizard_of_gore Premium member

Correction: In the sequence at night there's no wind, but nor are they moving much - that's sailing for you - if there's no wind you just need to wait and hope. After another scene we then see them arriving in London, with a taught rope off the bow, a steamboat in front clearly towing them, and Steve says "we got lucky, we caught a ride and made some good time".

Correction: The sailboat is attached to a steamship or similar in front. That's why Steve said they made some good time.

I just watched the film again. There is no steamship. Where would it have come from?

wizard_of_gore Premium member

As they sail into London they're being towed by a steamship.

Jon Sandys Premium member

There's no indication the boat is under any form of power other than the sails.

A Demon Premium member

Continuity mistake: In Guardians of the Galaxy, Gamora's backstory is that she is the only one of her kind left. But here we're told Thanos killed half her planet and kidnapped her, meaning half of her people are still alive.

brianjr0412
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Half her species was left alive by Thanos, but we don't know what happened after that.

People have already attempted to correct this, her people still exist and we do know what happened since then, "the children born have known nothing but full bellies and clear skies [Zen-Whoberi] is a paradise." Murdering half the planet was a small price to pay for salvation according to Thanos.

Bishop73

Thanos isn't all-knowing.

But Gamora has been with him most of the time - he'll know as much as she does, or more.

Jon Sandys Premium member

Yes. Half were left alive. That contradicts the first guardians movie, like I wrote in the first place.

brianjr0412

29th Jul 2018

Luke Cage (2016)

The Main Ingredient - S2-E10

Corrected entry: When Danny is chatting to Luke in Connie's restaurant about how he's doing, actor Finn Jones says that he has Luke's back and he also says, so does Claire and so does Jessica when in fact Jessica is the name of Jessica Henwick who plays Colleen Wing. (00:55:25)

Correction: He's referring to Jessica Jones.

Jon Sandys Premium member

27th Aug 2001

The Terminator (1984)

Corrected entry: After the car chase in which Kyle and Sarah are being chased by Arnold, Arnold's stolen cop car crashes into the parking lot wall. When the trailing police haul Sarah and Kyle away, Arnold is missing from the car he's just crashed. Kyle has clearly stated that the Terminator will absolutely not stop until Sarah is dead. Why would he flee the scene from a few cops - given his resilience - when he could have kept after Sarah and killed her right there? Was he "afraid" of doing it in front of the police? Was he concerned about getting away?

Correction: The terminator was injured in the crash as we see later when he repairs his arm and eye. He also has no way of knowing that the police don't have weapons that could damage him (he asks for a plasma rifle at the gun shop, implying he knows little of 1980s weapons).

Yet the Terminator apparently does possess a 1980s database, allowing him to instantly operate a variety of 1980s automobiles (including tractor-trailers), use telephone directories and telephones, and even select appropriate curse words of the day. He also, obviously, possesses a database of current 1980s road atlases (allowing him to track Sarah and Kyle by physical address). It would be inconceivable to equip the Terminator with all of this 1980s data and yet not equip him with full knowledge of available 1980s weaponry, given the purpose of his mission. Thus, the "plasma rifle" request at the gun shop was either a glitch in his programming or it was a plot-hole in the movie. Just as his fleeing the scene of the car wreck was a plot-hole. The Terminator had absolutely no fear of 1980s law enforcement, as is made apparent when he destroys police headquarters single-handedly.

Charles Austin Miller

Correction: I disagree with why this is in the corrections as this assessment as earlier in the film, Sarah asks Kyle "Can you stop him?" And Reese replies "with these weapons, I'm sure." So, obviously, the weapons that are carried around couldn't have stopped the terminator. Plus the terminator wasn't worried about the weapons being used as we see later on it goes into the police station to kill Sarah Connor, so this proves it wouldn't have been worried about the weapons being used. Also, Kyle has said to Sarah, the terminator will stop at nothing to kill her, so why stop here?

oobs

I think the weaponry concern was less of an issue than him being injured. With a damaged arm and eye and facing reinforcements he opted to withdraw and repair himself before trying again. Not to mention that Reese doesn't say: "With these weapons, I'm sure." He specifically says, with a doubtful tone of voice: "With these weapons, I don't know."

Jon Sandys Premium member

Exactly. Not stopping for anything doesn't mean he isn't tactical.

lionhead

15th Jul 2018

Trading Places (1983)

Continuity mistake: During the final trading scene, both Dan and Eddie (along with most of the other traders) have green badges. As the medics are wheeling out one of the Dukes after his heart attack, Dan and Eddie's name badges change to grey. And in no way is that due to lighting or camera angle.

kbt
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: It's not a continuity mistake since everyone else's badges have also taken on a grey appearance. At best it is a film processing error since it probably is a result of color correction in post-production.

jimba

Wouldn't this still qualify as a mistake since it's still an error? Cartoon mistakes, and movies/shows that use CGI, are constantly submitted when the color changes for a few frames. I know there use to be a feature to "change mistake type" if you think it's a revealing mistake, etc.

Bishop73

Yep, still a mistake - the type is a bit debatable, but I'd stick with continuity, because regardless of the reason behind it, fundamentally it's still a change between shots.

Jon Sandys Premium member

Corrected entry: In the world of Issac Asimov robots, the three laws are immutable. At the beginning Andrew makes a lavish presentation of the three laws. At the end of the film, Galatea breaks the first law (not to harm) in order to conform to the second law (obey orders). The three laws are hierarchical in that the first law takes precedence over the second. In Asimov stories, the contradiction between the laws most often causes paralysis of the robot in question.

Correction: Galatea is not causing harm. Andrew and Portia are dying anyway, and all she does is let them. Any doctor would do the same, and they also make the same promise, to, if nothing else, do no harm. There's also the fact that Galatea is very much human at that point, so who knows if she is still held to those three laws?

Hello, this is a very good response, do you mind giving me a name to put this under so I can quote you in my research project. Thanks.

I'm afraid there's no way to attribute this comment to a specific person - it's about 10 years old and even if someone claimed it was theirs I couldn't confirm it.

Jon Sandys Premium member

Show generally

Corrected entry: Bernadette says the thing she loves most about Howard is his chest hair to which the other girls say "he has a hairy chest?" and she replies "Nope, just one" but a few episodes later they are in bed and Howard has a full chest of hair.

The_Iceman

Correction: She's just making a joke.

THGhost

No she wasn't. The look on her face shows she was being serious, plus her character at that time was portrayed as weird and "kooky."

The_Iceman

Bernadette always has a serious demeanour about her when it comes to Howard. It. Is. A. Joke.

THGhost

A serious demeanour but making a joke? I get the impression you haven't even watched the scene in question.

The_Iceman

Dude, it's a joke. Move on.

THGhost

And you assume too much, I wouldn't be correcting this if I hadn't watched the scene.

THGhost

Dry humour works best when delivered deadpan.

How anyone wouldn't get that this was a joke is beyond me. Bernadette is exaggerating about Howard's chest hair because he isn't the most masculine of men.

You look at her eyes, you look at her face and you listen to her voice. Anyone can see it is an excited, almost turned on expression and tone. Your correction is based solely on your assumption and opinion of the situation. Mine is based on actual physical evidence and what is said.

The_Iceman

Watch the scene you want to correct, don't just assume based on memory.

The_Iceman

I've watched it, and there's zero difference between someone making a dry joke and someone being serious. The only distinction is factual content, and given that we see he's got a hairy chest, it's clear that she must just be making a flippant comment. She likes his chest hair, and when Penny questions it Bernadette takes the opportunity to say something that amuses herself. It's a passing aside that they move on from, and this isn't a mistake.

Jon Sandys Premium member

29th Oct 2015

Halloween (1978)

Corrected entry: There's no way Annie could have locked herself in the laundry room considering the lock is on the outside of the door.

amycamille1975

Correction: It's a figure of speech when one says 'I/you locked myself/yourself in/out'. She was alone, nobody knew that Michael was skulking around, and she got locked in the laundry room. Anyone would say they locked themselves in.

dewinela

That's pure opinion, not a correction.

Charles Austin Miller

In this scene, you can literally see her turn the lock knob which is above the handle before she tries to get out.

Correction: It's not a figure of speech since the door magically locked itself because the wind blew it shut. She tried to open it and it wouldn't open because the lock is on the outside. Why do you think she was trying to get out the window?

amycamille1975

The point is she didn't literally lock herself in - she was locked in. Personally I think it's a minor semantic difference - she may well just think she did something wrong that led to the door locking itself. Regardless it's a standard turn of phrase, if technically inaccurate.

Jon Sandys Premium member

Corrected entry: At the end of the film we learn that all of the survivors lived happily ever after and went on to enjoy hugely successful careers in their chosen fields. Haven't they forgotten something? Elliot committed a cold blooded murder, shooting dead a wounded nomad because he would have interfered with their construction plans. Self defence is one thing but shooting an injured man in the head in order to conserve water is an entirely different matter. Obviously the Chinese authorities are going to visit the site as soon as the story breaks and they are going to want to know who shot one of the citizens dead, and why. Elliot is going to face a range of serious charges and will be extradited to China to face trial.

Correction: There is no indication that any of the survivors would have told about the man Elliot killed. The nomads wouldn't have told either, as they committed several murders before that and tried to kill them after as well. Elliot also basically put him out of his misery. He was dead anyway.

Greg Dwyer

The Chinese would not have allowed the murder of one of their citizens to go unpunished. We are dealing with a legal system that executes people for crimes that would incur a suspended jail sentence anywhere else. They would not accept euthanasia as a defence, either. Elliot would be on a plane back to China whether he liked it or not.

The USA and China don't have an extradition treaty. China could ask, the US would most likely tell them tough luck, and Elliot would still get to live a happy and successful life. Couldn't ever return to China, but I'm sure he'd cope.

Jon Sandys Premium member

Wrong. If an American citizen commits a crime such as murder or assault or other violent crimes, the American citizen is going to be charged regardless of where the crimes were committed. Even if the crime was committed in a country with which the US doesn't have an extradition treaty, They have have other ways to you charge for your crimes. They don't have to extradite you for you to be charged.

Citation? Because with zero evidence the US isn't going to take China's word for it and charge him themselves. And China can charge him with a crime without him present, and...then what? The charge may technically exist, but it won't affect his life in any meaningful way. And as the original correction notes, officials may want to know what happened, but that doesn't mean they'll find out. This entry is massive conjecture at best.

Jon Sandys Premium member

If evidence to US, like a picture of the body, or a video of the person murdering someone, and you are an American then US will charge you, and sentence you to prison. The only way court would truly decide that you cannot be charged because the crime was committed outside of the US is if you are non-American. We don't know if Elliot is an American citizen.

Again... Citation? A photo of a body isn't evidence. Without evidence you can't be charged. And given the lack of info and detail in the film this is all hypothetical conjecture which still doesn't constitute a mistake.

Jon Sandys Premium member

What about a video of you murdering someone? Would that not prove your guilty?

If you want to have a detailed debate about extradition treaties and what evidence would or wouldn't exist and justify someone being charged with a crime, great, but here isn't the place. The above mistake claims Elliot would face charges and be extradited to China. There's no evidence of his crimes and no extradition treaty with China. People get away with crimes every day. The sole opportunity for evidence is eyewitness testimony, as the correction above points out, and no-one would say anything, plus it would be questionable at best. As such the "mistake" is invalid, end of story.

Jon Sandys Premium member

The Chinese government would first have to know about the murder before they could do anything about it. Given how the sand shifts during the storm after he is killed, enough to at least cover the Phoenix, there is little chance they would ever find the body.

Greg Dwyer

26th Mar 2018

Tremors 2 (1996)

Corrected entry: Kate finds a Graboid fossil and explains that the rock is from the Precambrian era (which ran from about 4.5 billion years ago through about 500 million years ago), thus making them literally the oldest complex life-forms in the history of Earth. Cool idea, but it makes no sense. Life in the Precambrian era was mostly bacterial or simplistic organisms such as sea-sponges and jellyfish late in the era. Something like the Graboids just couldn't have existed, both because they're too complex to have existed in that time-frame and also (and more importantly) because there wouldn't be an adequate food source for them to thrive. Sure, maybe they could have existed during the time of dinosaurs, but that only started about 250 million years ago, way after the end of the Precambrian era.

Correction: They retconned this in the TV series, saying that Kate had misdated the fossil, which was actually from the Devonian Period.

Greg Dwyer

I don't think a retcon validates a movie mistake.

Correction: The oldest known life forms. Graboids existed, therefore other life forms existed too, which they ate, we've just not discovered them yet.

Jon Sandys Premium member

Correction: The graboids might not have originated from earth. Like suggested they could be aliens and their species landed on Earth 5 billion years ago.

lionhead

The movie states that they are from Earth. The suggestion that they're aliens is invalidated in the film itself, as it is proven wrong by the scene in question. Ergo, this correction is invalid. Also, this correction fails to address one of the key issues brought up in the mistake - they wouldn't have a viable food source and would have died out, even if the preposterous notion that they were aliens were true.

Correction: This is speculation at best regarding creatures that don't exist in real life. There's no way to say they wouldn't have adequate food source without knowing what they needed to survive, or how they evolved.

Bishop73

Factual error: When the first assassin drives to Waterloo station to take out Simon Ross and Bourne, he is driving a BMW 3 series with a 2006 UK licence plate. However the events in this film are meant to follow on six weeks after the previous film, which make it still set in 2004.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Nowhere in either of the first 3 Bourne films indicate the year they are taking place.

aassed

Technically, there is a timeline. You may have to watch the films again, and read up on when production for each film began and wrapped. The Bourne Identity was filmed between October 2000, and Spring/Summer 2001 (Greece scenes). Supremacy (With the exception of the New York ending which was filmed two weeks prior to the release) was filmed between October 2003, and March 2004 Ultimatum was filmed between October 2006 and March 2007 (which explains the snow seen in New York) Identity takes place in the winter of 2000, while Supremacy is set two years later, with Ultimatum taking place six weeks after he escaped Moscow. Legacy takes place around the same time as Ultimatum, and the last Bourne film (Jason Bourne) is set ten years after the events of the Supremacy/Ultimatum timeline.

The year of filming can't be used as indication of when films are set.

Jon Sandys Premium member

8th Jun 2018

The Terminator (1984)

Other mistake: Why does the Terminator have a HUD (Head-up-Display) or a GUI (Graphical User Interface)? This is a stupid mistake in many movies with cyborgs or androids. A machine itself does not need a HUD. A HUD is an interface for humans to help us interact with machines. A machine does not need a graphical interface to interact with itself. A machine can interpret the reality around internally using machine code within its CPU using zeros and ones. There is no need to project a HUD in the eyes of the terminator. (of course it looks cool and the viewer gets the information that the Terminator is a machine, but in reality it would be - let's say - a stupid redundancy to build in a monitor into a camera).

Goekhan
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: The terminators are AI, since AI doesn't exist for real yet (not on that level) you don't know what it needs or how its supposed to function. Since these terminators are supposed to look and act like humans as they are infiltration units Skynet has build them to operate like humans as well. To help with thinking and acting like a human Skynet has build in a HUD in the optics so it will keep its focus on the visuals and not switch to internal sensors and computing when acting out it role as a human, that would look unnatural. With your logic its stupid for the terminator to put on sunglasses too, but it does anyway because it thinks like a human.

lionhead

Gotta disagree - the sunglasses are it trying to fit in/cover damage, not "think like a human." All "thinking" can be done internally. It's like saying modern smartphones need stats displayed on the inside of the screen which we can't see - there's zero need for them, because in order to display that information, the information has to exist in the machine already. And if it already exists, the machine already has access to it, without then displaying it on something else.

Jon Sandys Premium member

But it's not a smartphone. It's an AI, an AI built to be as human as possible. Whatever is operating its brain has external sensors and possibly an external computer telling it new data (like for example date, target location, primary objectives) which isn't directly part of its own brain. You can see that in the third movie when the Terminatrix gets confirmation about identifying its primary target, and it gets excited from it. The data it receives is coming from somewhere else and the terminator is reading from it, receiving it through an interface in the eyes. Probably in the future they have a direct link to Skynet telling them what to do and when they go to the past that link with Skynet is turned into a computer database with an interface for the terminator to communicate with.

lionhead

And how does this Skynet-upload to the terminators make the terminators more human if these information are displayed in a HUD? I am human too and never received any information into my eye as a projection (not without computers or Google glass or something like that). You are talking about simple data transfer, no need for a HUD and especially not to make the terminator more human (cause we humans do not have natural born HUDs in our eyes or brains). You are mixing up two things which really don't belong together. I was talking about recognition of environmental data in the first place and data processing of these. Still I don't see any need to HUD these information. We humans do not have HUD and are 100% humans. Your logic "HUD to become human" doesn't make any sense with or without a skynet data link.

Goekhan

It's not a simple little robot that uses sensors and act on them with a simple binary CPU, its an AI. It has optics, like I said it receives information and its displayed in the optics so it would not be distracted from acting human, turning inside itself to process it. You can give bad examples about us not having HUDs all you want but we get all outside information from our sense, 4 of them located in the head. We turn our attention to those senses when new information arrives. The Terminators get information input the same way, through the optics. They are build like a human. It can hear sound through its ears and smell from its nose. It sees with its optics, new information displayed upon them. What's so hard about that?

lionhead

Because we don't have HUDs to display all that info, and we work just fine as human. All the information is dumped directly into our brains. The Terminators would work likewise - there's literally no need to have a visual interface - it's a pointless middleman between the sensors and the processor which only exists because it looks good on film.

Jon Sandys Premium member

I see where youre going with this and I would theoretically agree if (and that's the big if) the HUD-Display would be an extra device which the Terminator puts on his head. I agree if the human-emulation-part would be mostly human and the HUD part would be a standalone extra. Problem is they put both into one machine. Which means the whole construction is not a human emulation device with the aim "developing by mimicry humans." If so then the terminator-race isn't doing well by puting non-human things into their human-emulation-machines.

Goekhan

It's just way the machine is put together. There could be many reasons for the machine to have a HUD, like power efficiency or even they were forced to do it this way since the CPU it needs was too large to fit in the skull. Instead of directly interfaced it reads external inputs through the HUD in its optics. Not because it wants to, but because it has to. Might not seem all that logical and efficient, but I'm saying there can be a reason for it. Even information concerning itself is done this way because it can't connect with itself directly. Programs, software tell it what is going on. If my computer would have optics and the ability to read its quite handy when it needs to read off other machines and programs, ones that are not necessarily connected to it. It would seem the terminator brain, the CPU, the AI, is separated from the robotic body. The only thing connecting it with the rest of the body is the optics, giving it information.

lionhead

Power efficiency? Putting information which came from "the eye" in the CPU and then back again into the CPU would cost double power and CPU size, cause you are doing anything two times. You are jumping now from "HUD for being human" to other translucent arguments. And your computer could have optics and read off other machines yes but it could do that without HUD. You only need a webcam and OCR. Reading data directly from inside other machines yes we call that bluetooth. However in none of these there is an extra machine outside the machine for the machine. It is always integrated into the machine and processing is internal.

Goekhan

Its all assumptions versus assumptions. I never said the HUD was there for the machine to "be more human", I said it was there because the terminator needs to keep its focus through the eyes to prevent it going internal whenever there is outside information. This all assuming the CPU in the brain isn't connected directly to the rest of the body, because of capacity and power issues. Again, all assumptions but what do you expect from sci-fi? Is it a mistake in the movie? Hardly.

lionhead

Corrected entry: At the end when the fuel is being refined Beckett is talking to Solo in the middle of what looks like pointed rocks coming out of the ground. On top of the rocks are metal loops - their only purpose must be for a crane to lift them into position for filming.

Correction: They're not random rocks - they've clearly been placed there, they're shaped regularly, they have smaller ones surrounding them, and they've got symbols carved onto them. At a guess it's a graveyard - as it's a specifically-arranged area it makes sense that they'd have loops on top as they'd have to be maneuvered into place somehow.

Jon Sandys Premium member

1st Feb 2018

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Corrected entry: During a mid-credit scene, while traveling in space en route to Earth, the Asgard refugees ship is ambushed by another colossal ship. This, however, should have not happened. Science fiction fans know that ships don't go gallivanting in empty space on conventional drives. Instead, they use a faster-than-light mode of travel method as "performing hyperspace jumps." Moreover, Asgard and Midgard (Earth) are two of the nine realms. There is one hyperspace jump between them. (02:04:00)

FleetCommand

Correction: Stumbling upon something is not a mistake, whether in real life or in the movies.

Correction: Asgard and Earth are not one hyperspace jump away, just because you can get to earth in one step from Asgard using the bifrost. Secondly as seen in Guardians of the Galaxy 2 a ship has to go through a jump point in order to go into hyperspace which this ship is apparently not near one yet. We have also seen that ships require fuel and we can assume that when not in a hurry they will only drift until needed. We are also not aware of what this or Thanos' ship is capable of.

I didn't say anything about Bifrost and hyperspace being that same; and the fact that there is one jump point between the Midgard and Asgard is not my inference from this film. But all of these aside, ships still don't go gallivanting in empty space on conventional drives. Sanctuary II didn't pull them out of the hyperspace either. They were in empty space, doing pretty much nothing. Sanctuary II stumbled upon them. That's a mistake.

FleetCommand

Stumbling upon something is not a mistake, whether in real life or the movies.

But gallivanting in empty space on conventional drives is a mistake, both in real life and movies.

FleetCommand

They're not "gallivanting" - as the original correction stated, GotG2 showed you need jump points to travel significant distances, and the Asgardian ship is presumably en route to one when it's intercepted by Thanos.

They don't seem to be heading for a jump point. They seem to be totally aimless. "Presumably" is a word that renders this whole site purposeless; if it looks like a mistake, it is a mistake. Plus the first Captain America film and the first Thor film state that Midgard and Asgard are part of the nine realms connected by Yggdrasil (or, as Jane Foster puts it, an Einstein-Rosen wormhole).

FleetCommand

"Presumably" is just as valid as "seems to be." :-) We have no clue as to their fuel status or intentions, beyond going to Earth...somehow. And as you repeatedly keep ignoring, GotG and indeed Thor 3 itself have demonstrated that interplanetary travel needs a jump point or a wormhole. As such at the very least they're making their way to one of those under conventional power, because what other option do they have? This isn't a mistake, it's pure conjecture. Just because space travel doesn't work in the MCU the same way it does in other sci-fi movies, that doesn't make it a mistake.

Jon Sandys Premium member

Corrected entry: I have to post this to refute the comment that denied the existence of an alternate ending. I was overjoyed to find a comment here from someone else who remembered seeing a different ending just one time in the 1960s. I've spent my whole life trying to find someone else who remembered this. In the 1960s the annual broadcast of the film had hosts. I, and two of my friends, ever since childhood always remembered that one year the movie had a different ending. I've always sensed it was the year that the hosts were Liza Minnelli and Lorna and Joey Luft. We never could remember what the different ending was, but we recalled that it was black and white and that our reaction was: It wasn't just a dream that time. Now that I've read this other person's memory of the camera's panning to the ruby slippers under the bed, in black and white, I remember that's what I saw. Another commenter says that there's no evidence that the scene ever existed. I am here to verify that someone else has never stopped wondering for over 40 years about a vague memory of a different ending from one airing in the 1960s.

moondrift

Correction: This is called the "Mandela Effect" (aka 'collective false memory').

It's not a false memory, when I have never forgotten that night, only to find that someone else also remembered it. We may all be connected by our subconscious, but that's going a bit too far. Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

moondrift

But the nature of a collective false memory means just because two people remember something happening, doesn't mean it did! :-).

Jon Sandys Premium member

Trivia: In the first take of Darth Vader and his troops entering the Rebel base, the lead troopers tripped, a stuntman stepped on the cape of David Prowse (Darth Vader), the cape tore free and Prowse fell on the troopers.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: How is something from the blooper reel considered trivia?

ctown28 Premium member

Well I for one didn't know about it, so it's interesting to know it happened. Behind the scenes stuff is generally valid trivia.

Jon Sandys Premium member

30th May 2016

The Crow (1994)

Corrected entry: When Eric tackles Tin Tin in the alley, we see him connect with Tin Tin. The shot then changes and he's about 3 foot away from Tin Tin and connects again. (00:19:00)

A Demon Premium member

Correction: It's the same action shown again from a different angle, not a continuity error. This technique is used frequently with big climactic explosions too - we're not meant to assume an object exploded more than once. We're just seeing it happen multiple times.

Phixius Premium member

Which is the basis of a continuity mistake.

A Demon Premium member

Not always - trouble is with things like this they have to be judged on a case by case basis. Some repeated actions are sloppy editing, some are a directorial decision, so not even a "deliberate" mistake, they're just showing the same thing a couple of times for impact.

Jon Sandys Premium member

15th Apr 2018

Lost in Space (2018)

Show generally

Corrected entry: The chariots are electric vehicles (they need to recharge in the sunlight), but they have rev counters. Electric vehicles don't have a rev counter, and even if they did, an electric motor moving the wheels at 9000 rpm would cause the car to move at a ridiculous speed.

Correction: Supposition: we don't know what the future's technology will bring, so mechanical improvements are certainly within possibility.

David R Turner

Regardless of any mechanical improvements, an electric motor spinning the wheels of a vehicle at 9,000 RPM (assuming the wheel's circumference is 1 meter as an understatement), the chariot would be moving at 150 m/s or 500 km/h. The specified in the show that they move at about 35 mph.

You're also entirely discounting the idea of gearing, as used in conventional engines. Without knowing the schematics and internal workings, we can't assume that the electric motor (s) are directly connected to the wheels as they are in modern electric vehicles.

Jon Sandys Premium member

It would appear you two are arguing apples and oranges. If the rev counter is measuring rotations of some undefined motor function, then gearing could make a difference. If, as the original comment states, it is measuring wheel rotation, then that would be post-gearing and the speed issue would be correct.

Looking at the dash board it has two gauges, RPM and Km/H. Also a "4W" "Diff Lock" "H4" indicators, from what I have seen so far about the tech crew of this production, they lack "tech." Those indicators are for standard single engine 4WD. I would say no attempt has been made, when designing the chariot prop, for any proper electric vehicle technology to be researched. Eg, 4 wheel motors.

4th Sep 2008

Red Dwarf (1988)

Show generally

Corrected entry: Unfortunately the whole basis of the show is one big factual error. Throughout the series we see that Red Dwarf sustains damage from collisions, explosions, and so on. Most important of all, the rocket engine nozzle - surely made from the strongest materials available - has been punctured by some kind of impact. The systems require constant maintenance by humans (painting, repairs, etc), so skutters are not enough by themselves. So, we know that Red Dwarf is not made of some sort of fictional, indestructible materials, it is made of the kind of metals, plastics and other construction materials we build space shuttles and the like out of nowadays. So, after three thousand - never mind three million! - years the whole ship would be a clump of useless, corroded junk. The rubber and plastics in seals, electronic components and furniture would have crumbled to powder. The electronics themselves would have failed after a few hundred years at most. Metals in contact with liquids in pipes or reservoirs would have oxidized, and even the oxygen in the air would have been corrosive after that amount of time. Red Dwarf is not immune from the effects of long term decay and deterioration - if it were when Lister was released from stasis he would have found rooms full of relatively intact dead bodies instead of piles of crumbled dust. After three million years in space Red Dwarf would have been a pile of scrap, fatal to anyone going near it; subject to slow, subtle but constant radioactivity in space, after three million years it would be hotter than the inside of a working reactor.

Correction: Apart from the fact you are missing the point that this is a sit-com not a science documentary, unless you can provide schematics of the Red Dwarf and a detailed list of the manufacturing process of all the things you describe, your complaint is invalid. You are basing your argument on 20th century technology, not future technology that can construct 5 mile long space ships, holographic simulations of dead people, and computers with IQs of 6000.

SoylentPurple

Read the posting again. "Throughout the series we see that Red Dwarf sustains damage from collisions, explosions, end so on. The rocket engine nozzle - surely made from the strongest materials available - has been punctured by some kind of impact. The systems require constant maintenance by humans (painting, repairs, etc), so skutters are not enough by themselves. So, we know that Red Dwarf is not made of some sort of fictional, indestructible materials." Red Dwarf is constructed from perfectly ordinary materials, and not from some science fiction super metal or similar. It is subject to damage and deterioration, which will not be selective. Science fiction sitcom or not the posting is accurate.

Material strength might be defeated by explosions and other impacts, but you're still making a leap assuming that rubber, plastics, etc. are being used as they are today. Maintenance/corrosion-free materials may well exist in order to minimise replacement - it's too big an assumption to state as fact that just because the engine nozzle has been punctured, the entire ship would fall to bits. And again...sitcom. Willing suspension of disbelief plays a part sometimes.

Jon Sandys Premium member

Nothing in this comment corrects any of the points raised in the original post. During the series are constantly shown that Red Dwarf requires perfectly ordinary manual maintenance and can be damaged in all sorts of different ways. As is pointed out, if the rocket engine exhaust bell can be punctured by some sort of impact, then Red Dwarf is not made of fictional, indestructible materials. The posting is absolutely correct.

17th Apr 2002

Blazing Saddles (1974)

Blazing Saddles mistake picture

Continuity mistake: When Waco Kid is lying down on hay bales at the end of the film, there is no horse. All of a sudden when he's invited somewhere by Sheriff Bart, a horse appears. (01:33:50)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: It is true that the horse suddenly appears, but Jim is reclined on hay bales, not boxes.

Movie Nut

For future reference, this is what the "change the entry's wording" option is for.

This entry is about the sudden appearance of a horse. It has nothing to do with The Waco Kid reclining on boxes nor does the entry say he was reclining on boxes. It says that he's reclining on bales of hay.

It did say bales of hay - I've left the correction and "change wording" comment online for a bit for informational purposes.

Jon Sandys Premium member

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.