Jason Hoffman

16th Aug 2010

Monsters, Inc. (2001)

Monsters, Inc. mistake picture

Other mistake: In the scaring simulation room, the alphabet wallpaper border at the top of the wall has the "J" written backwards.

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

New this month Suggested correction: The walls of the room also have nonsensical drawings like a giraffe with two heads. The implication is that the monsters designing the room didn't entirely know what kids would actually have in rooms (like they didn't know that giraffes don't actually have two heads). So they thought that humans have the J backwards.

New this month Whether or not the backwards J was intentional or as a joke, it would still seem unreasonable for the monsters to get it wrong when you see they got the pictures for each letter seen correct "jaguar", "kangaroo "pig", "quail", "rhino." I would at the very least call it a character mistake.


New this month As the original correction said, it's just an example of the monsters not understanding the human world. Not a mistake.

Jason Hoffman

New this month Yet they know the alphabet? I doubt it.


24th Sep 2019

Toy Story 2 (1999)

New this month Question: After seeing Woody with Buzz's arm unattached, why did Slinky leave Woody with everyone else at the window when earlier he believed everything Woody did was by accident?

New this month Answer: This is a scene from Toy Stoy 1, but the severed arm proves to them he has hurt Buzz, something Slinky and some others didn't believe yet. They just think that confirms it.


New this month But didn't he think he accidentally knocked him out of the window and unintentionally hurt him at the time?

New this month Yes, he along with Rex and others thought he didn't do it on purpose despite what Mr. Potatohead said. Until they saw him with the severed arm. Then Slinky went along with the group.


New this month But how would seeing Buzz's arm detached change thinking it was an accident?

New this month Slinky likely thought, quite reasonably, that Woody wouldn't be using the arm as a prop if it had been an accident.

Jason Hoffman

New this month Woody using the arm as a prop was enough to convince Slinky it wasn't an accident.

Jason Hoffman

New this month Answer: Slinky finally believed that Woody really had gone mad with jealousy about Buzz being Andy's new favorite toy and gave up on him.

1st Aug 2018

Columbo (1971)

The Most Crucial Game - S2-E3

Plot hole: In the last scene Columbo convicts Hanlon of murder by playing back the recording of Hanlon's final call to the victim Wagner (the phone-box call near the crime scene is Hanlon's alibi. He is pretending to be in his VIP-box in the football stadium, which is too far away at the time he murders Wagner). The point is that the recording is missing the loud clock chimes from a little clock inside the VIP-box, which means Hanlon's alibi is "destroyed", he was not in his VIP-box, he must be somewhere else at that moment. Problem is the missing clock chimes are not hard evidence. Hanlon could say the clock was not working that day or the battery was empty and so on. Beside that it would be much easier to catch Hanlon if Columbo would check the outgoing phone calls asking the telephone company.

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

Suggested correction: He very likely will. As we've seen, Columbo is very thorough. The missing clock chimes aren't meant to be definitive proof, just enough to warrant an arrest. Columbo will continue to work the case and gather evidence.

Jason Hoffman

Columbo will continue to work the case and gather evidence? Well with that sentence they could stop every Columbo episode after 5 minutes. Hey guys, Columbo has nearly nothing against the murderer but he will continue to work the case outside this episode be sure.

It's the detective's job to investigate the crime and gather sufficient evidence to warrant an arrest and potential conviction. Yes, this would apply to every episode, and yes it applies to all detectives. Many of Columbo's investigations result in him using circumstantial evidence to arrest the killer. In one episode he arrests a man based on how the victim's shoes were tied. That wasn't his only evidence, however. In many cases a preponderance of circumstantial evidence is enough.

Jason Hoffman

It's a TV show, Columbo was made for entertainment, not to be used as a script to prosecute a potential criminal.

18th Jun 2018

The Karate Kid (1984)

Corrected entry: When Daniel enters Mr. Miyagi's house for the first time, the door knocks into wind chimes hanging from the ceiling. When Daniel's mother finds Daniel at Mr. Miyagi's house and enters, the chimes are gone.

Correction: Given the time that passes, he easily could have taken them down.

Greg Dwyer

Nothing confirms that he was removing them.

Nothing confirms he didn't remove them either.

Jason Hoffman

Nothing confirms he wasn't either.


New this week Nothing confirms that they ate every day during the film's time frame either. Does that mean they didn't eat other than what we saw?


1st May 2014

Star Wars (1977)

Question: When C-3PO meets Luke, he says that R2-D2 claims that they are both the property of Obi-Wan Kenobi. Since both of their memories were erased at the end of Revenge of the Sith, how could R2-D2 remember belonging to Obi-Wan but C-3PO doesn't?

Answer: Only C-3PO's mind was wiped - if you listen to the dialogue, the order given specifies "the protocol droid" for memory erasure; R2-D2's memory remains intact. That being said, as neither droid in fact ever belonged to Kenobi, it's fairly clear that Artoo is simply being devious in the hope of being taken to the intended recipient of the message that he's carrying, a lie that he could have told quite readily even if his memory had been wiped at some point.

Tailkinker Premium member

Answer: At the end of Revenge of the Sith, Bail Organa said to wipe 3PO's mind. He didn't say anything about R2. In fact, R2 laughed at 3PO's reaction. Why would he do that if he was being wiped as well?

Answer: R2 D2 did not have his memory intact. Princess Leia gave him specific orders to find Obi-Wan and give the information to him and him alone. Since the information is in the Droid and it belongs to Obi-Wan, therefore he belongs to him.

This is speculation. If we consider Revenge of the Sith, it's plain R2's memory was not wiped. If we only look at what's in A New Hope, there's nothing to indicate it was wiped. In fact, R2's behavior suggests he knows far more about what's going on than C-3PO.

Jason Hoffman
Raiders of the Lost Ark mistake picture

Visible crew/equipment: After Marion supposedly dies in the truck explosion and Indy is drinking outside at the bar, watch to the left of him. You can see a man wearing a modern t-shirt and jeans walking through the crowd. (00:42:20)

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

Suggested correction: This is probably the most famous non-mistake of all time. Denim jeans date from 1871. They were first sold by Jacob Davis and Levi Strauss in 1873 and the design hasn't changed much since then! Plain white cotton T-shirts date from 1898 and were first issued by the US Navy to their sailors in 1913. The design caught on immediately and they flew off the shelves. In short, there is nothing at all unusual about a man wearing jeans and a T-shirt in the late thirties.

He's the only person wearing that outfit in Cairo. Every single other person is wearing "traditional" clothing. He's clearly not meant to be in shot.

He could have been one of the few American tourists in the area.

Noman Premium member

"There is nothing at all unusual about a man wearing jeans and a T-shirt in the late thirties." However there is a good deal unusual about a caucasian man in jeans and a tshirt in cairo in the 1930s. He is entirely out of place.

Jason Hoffman

Unusual does not mean impossible, and in order for him being there to be a mistake it has to be impossible. It isn't. Unlikely is not impossible. This is not a mistake.

That's not how it works. Say someone is wearing a jacket, is off screen for 4 seconds, then cuts back and the jacket is gone. It's technically possible they ripped it off themselves in 4 seconds on a whim, but that's not actually feasible. There's one solitary man in jeans and a T-shirt in Cairo in the 30s, when every single other person on-screen is wearing different clothing. The most likely explanation is it's a screwup.

Corrected entry: When Corbin Dallas, with the others, are trying to open the stones at the end of the movie, once they figure out how to open it, they gather around the wind stone, which is upside down from the rest.

Correction: This is intentional. Air is above you, the others aren't. It's supposed to be symbolic.

Fire and wind are indeterminate with respect to above and below so that logic fails. It's upside down.

Nonsense: it's a fictional artifact in a fictional future. You have no way of knowing whether that's the way it's supposed to be or not.

Jason Hoffman

Correction: While I agree with the concept that wind is above because it's in the sky, water would be too. As the scene plays out, there's nothing to suggest the wind stone should be upside down. It appears to be a deliberate mistake so we can see the stone opening. The mistake should be considered a valid deliberate mistake.


12th Dec 2006

Chicken Run (2000)

Other mistake: Ginger is adamant that she will not approve any plan of escape that does not get all the chickens on the farm out and to freedom. The problem is, not one of her plans gets anywhere close, and it is not that they fail to liberate the whole farm - they are never planned that way. We see her trying to escape by herself three times. The mannequin of Mrs Tweedy would (had it worked) have allowed nine chickens to escape, the upturned feed tray just seven. Even the 'crate' appears to hold not more than thirty chickens - and there must be several hundred on the farm, at least.

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

Suggested correction: Can you be sure we see the whole escape plan from start to finish or just one of the phases?


Of course we are sure. The "crate", with thirty six chickens on it, is flown away from the farm and is dismantled. They cannot go back to the farm for the rest of the chickens. Escaping by herself will achieve nothing for anyone except herself, totally contradicting her own principles. The posting is absolutely correct.

I believe the original correction makes sense. For example, we see them attempt to impersonate Mrs. Tweedy. While this would only liberate some of the chickens, we don't know that's the entire plan. It's likely they're trying it to see if it's successful, and if so the rest of the chickens would repeat it until they were all out. Similarly, digging out would leave a tunnel for the rest to use. When Ginger tries alone, she's likely trying to find a way out that she could tell the rest about.

Jason Hoffman

This isn't a chatroom so this will be my last word. The "crate" is a single use, one-off device. The chickens fly it away from the farm, escaping to their island. They cannot go back and there is absolutely no reason to think that they do. Mrs Tweedy is still in residence at the farm and now is forewarned about the ability of the chickens to organise and act intelligently. Even if they wanted to they could not fly back, and Tweedy would be waiting for them if they did. The crate holds thirty eight chickens. That's it. There is no plan in effect that will allow all of the chickens to escape - especially this one - and Ginger makes it clear she will not consider any plan unless it does. The posting is absolutely correct.

Corrected entry: At the end of the film, when he is off to find Andy, Red expresses the belief that the authorities won't care all that much about him breaking the conditions of his parole. He could not be more wrong. In the US in the Sixties he would be considered an escaped prisoner if he broke his parole, and considering he was inside for murder he would be regarded as dangerous. This is not a trivial matter and his breaking parole would be taken very, very seriously indeed. Crossing a State line would be a federal offence, bringing the FBI into play, and the US border patrol would be alerted. In short, every law enforcement agency in the country is going to be on the lookout for him, and when he tries to cross the border into Mexico he'll be arrested on multiple charges. Welcome back to Shawshank, Red.

Correction: What Red means, is not that they won't be looking for him, but that they will put in less of an effort in tracking him down than, say, a twenty-five year old serial killer. He is after all an old man who has done his time for one single offense, and had expressed sincere regret for it. The FBI would know of him, sure, but he would not rank high on their priority list. As for crossing the Mexican border, well, hundreds of people cross it undetected every day (in the opposite direction). It is not exactly air-tight. Especially in that era, before computers or similar, processing paperwork and the like would certainly allow him a window to be long gone before his absence was noticed, or certainly before that absence could be communicated to anyone likely to be in a position to stop him.


Correction: Since we see him reunited with Andy at the end of the film, he obviously wasn't arrested at the Mexican border.

Jukka Nurmi

Correction: Making a second error doesn't mean the first is invalid. Red had no chance of getting to Mexico. Given the circumstances of his breaking parole, the fact that he was in prison for murder and his crossing a number of state lines he would be arrested long before he even got to the border. The original posting is correct.

This is simply untrue. There are numerous documented cases of wanted criminals crossing the country and making it into Mexico or Canada with relative ease. Red wasn't a wanted criminal, he was a parolee, and in the 1960s it would have been just a matter of a little luck for him to make it to Mexico.

Jason Hoffman

28th May 2019

Office Space (1999)

Question: While recognizing that this film is entirely fictitious, how likely is it that an IT firm in 1999 would have allowed a former employee access to the premises after being laid off, never mind continue to send him a paycheck as with Milton Waddams? I myself was fired the following year and got the walk of shame treatment ("you have 5 minutes to clear your desk - the taxi's waiting outside") which at the time already seemed pretty standard.

Answer: They never told Milton he was fired, they just cruelly cut off his paycheck, figuring he'd eventually get fed up and leave (he'd actually been laid off years ago, but a payroll glitch kept him getting a paycheck). The management is hoping if they're cruel enough, he'll stop showing up.

Brian Katcher

This is actually the reverse of what happened. The glitch caused him to continue to receive a paycheck, even though he'd been laid off. The "Bobs" corrected the glitch, so he would no longer receive a paycheck. In an effort to avoid confrontation, they chose not to say anything to him, hoping he'd realise it and leave on his own.

Jason Hoffman

Answer: Simply because he is basically invisible to them. Anyone can walk into that place, no guard outside, no key-card required. Nobody cared. At least you got a taxi.


Continuity mistake: When Agent Carter shoots Rogers while he is holding his shield, she picks up a M1911A1 pistol. When she does, it has the hammer down, but it cuts straight from her reaching for it to her shooting it, without her cocking the hammer first, which needs to be done since the pistol is single action only.

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

Suggested correction: The Colt M1911A1 is a single-action semi-automatic pistol, meaning when the pistol has a bullet in it's chamber by cycling the slide you don't need to manually pull the hammer down to fire. It doesn't work like a single action revolver where you have to pull down the hammer manually each time to fire. You could, for a shorter trigger, but you don't have to because of the slide. In other words, the pistol Agent Carter picked up was loaded with a bullet in the chamber and ready to fire without having to manually pull down the hammer.


The correction is incorrect. A 1911 pistol is hammer fired, meaning the hammer must fall on the firing pin in order for it to fire. The hammer is down in the scene, which meant the pistol would not have fired. However, since the hammer not being down is only visible when using slow motion (the hammer is obscured by Agent Carter's hand in most of the shot), the original mistake is invalid.

Jason Hoffman

8th Nov 2003

Aliens (1986)

Corrected entry: The counter on a fully-loaded pulse rifle reads 300 rounds. However, a magazine of the size shown could never contain 300 rounds of 10mm ammunition.


Correction: I don't know where anyone in the movie said that the counter reads 300 bullets, because it certainly wasn't ever said in this film. The counter on the Pulse Rifle only goes up to 99. This is shown when Ripley loads it at 2 different parts in the movie: when Hicks is showing her how to fire it, and when she is getting ready to go find Newt in the hive. There was never any indication that the Pulse Rifle clips hold 300 rounds.


Correction: You sure? Cause, to me, they seemed more like a power source for the smart guns and not the ammo.

Sam Montgomery

The video here shows her loading a full magazine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY2wGD6-j0Y At the 59 second point, she loads the magazine and the round indicator shows 95, not 99 and definitely not 300. The round indicator only goes to 2 digits.

Jason Hoffman

Encounter at Farpoint (1) - S1-E1

Character mistake: In his exchange with Admiral McCoy, Data uses several contractions (i.e., shouldn't, I'm). For the rest of the series he doesn't, and in S3: Ep16, "The Offspring", he admits that his programming makes him incapable of using contractions. And in S4: Ep8, "Future Imperfect" Riker questions Data on when he started using contractions, knowing that Data is incapable of it.

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

Suggested correction: It is true that in later seasons he is unable to use contractions. However, since that characteristic was not introduced in the first season, this is not a mistake. His behavior is consistent with the character's behavior throughout the first season.

It's still a mistake, even if it wasn't part of season 1 scripting. Just because we only learn later that Data doesn't use contractions, doesn't make this mistake invalid. We learn Data was specifically constructed that way and hadn't been able to use contraction since being created, which means all of season 1 he shouldn't be using contractions.


Incorrect. It would be a mistake if he used a contraction after the trait was added to his character, but the mistake can't be retroactive as it wasn't a mistake for him to use it at that point in the show.

Jason Hoffman

Datalore - S1-E13

Character mistake: At the end of the episode, after Lore has been defeated, Picard asks Data if he is O.K. Data replies, "I'm fine." One of the plot points of this episode is that Data cannot use contractions.

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

Suggested correction: That characteristic was not added to the character until season two. In the first season, Data uses contractions on a number of occasions.

It's still a mistake, even if it wasn't part of season 1 scripting. Just because we only learn later that Data doesn't use contractions, doesn't make this mistake invalid. We learn Data was specifically constructed that way and hadn't been able to use contraction since being created, which means all of season 1 he shouldn't be using contractions.


It would only be a mistake if he used the contraction after the trait was established for the character.

Jason Hoffman

That's not how mistakes on this site work. It is still a valid mistake in the context of the entire show since the character trait had in fact been established. It's the same way for when shows do something like establish a character's birth-date in later seasons, but when episodes from earlier season have the character at the wrong age, it's a mistake for the earlier episodes.


Question: As Rameses is getting dressed by his servants, Nefretiri stops one servant and takes a sword from him. The shot then cuts to Rameses getting dressed and then Nefretiri comes to give him the sword. What exactly did she do with it: did she stab her dead son (who is placed on that statue), or did she do something else?

Answer: She gave the sword to Ramses and told him to bring it back with Moses' blood on it.

Answer: She didn't do anything with it. She took the sword so she could help dress her husband herself.

Answer: I have always thought she stabbed her dead son. It's obvious she does something with it other than just give it to Rameses.

She doesn't do anything other than give him the sword. She's trying to dramatically convince Ramses to kill Moses. In countless stories, one character will tell another character to kill someone while handing them a weapon.

Jason Hoffman

Revealing mistake: In the Atlanta party scene, we are supposed to believe it starts with a single long take. However there is a sneaky edit when Frank crosses the threshold of the room. He emerges at a slighty quicker pace and his hair is suddenly messed up. (01:10:35)

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

Suggested correction: There is nothing obvious in this scene that supports this. When he emerges on the other side, he bumps into his friend so suddenly that you can't tell if he was walking at a different pace. The reason his hair is messed up is because he bumps into his friend. He then yells at his friend, jerking his head around as he does so, which messes up his hair even further, which can be seen.


Even if it were true, it wouldn't qualify as a mistake. The shot may be intended to appear as a single shot, but that doesn't mean it's a mistake if it isn't.

Jason Hoffman

Question: When Korben speaks to Finger, they state that Finger was in his unit: "...sat beside you for over a thousand missions. I know how you drive." Two questions: Who does the voice of Finger, and does that not negate the 3rd reason why Korben was chosen for the mission, that no one else in his unit survived?


Chosen answer: 1. IMDB doesn't list anyone in the credits for the role of Finger. 2. Military members often serve in more than one unit over the course of their careers. I was in for four years and was with two different units and Korben was in for much longer. Finger and Korben could have been in a unit together then one of them transfered to a different unit later on.

Shannon Jackson

Answer: Finger is an uncredited voice performance by Vin Diesel.

This has never been confirmed, and is speculation at best. Also, while Finger sounds vaguely like Vin Diesel, the voices are different enough that it's unlikely to be him.

Jason Hoffman

Question: What was the whole point of the conversation between Cap and Spidey saying where they're from?


Answer: It's just the irony that 2 people are fighting each other whilst feeling connected they are from the same city.


This is also Captain America's way of letting Peter know there are no hard feelings. He understands Peter doesn't have all the facts, so he doesn't blame him.

Jason Hoffman

Character mistake: At the trial, the witness said that "With the first shot, we lost our gravitational field. I found myself weightless, and unable to function." However, the first shot caused the ship to start listing to port. It was the second shot that caused the gravitational failure.

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

Suggested correction: People misremember events all the time, especially if the events are unexpected and chaotic. At best a character mistake.

I called it a character mistake.

Movie Nut

It's also important to remember this was a "show" trial, where many things were manipulated to make Kirk and McCoy look guilty. Everything the Klingon witnesses say is suspect.

Jason Hoffman

25th Mar 2018

Star Trek (1966)

The Menagerie (2) - S1-E13

Deliberate mistake: At the very end, the Talosians send a final visual transmission of Vina and Christopher Pike, now whole and happy and reunited after 13 years, holding hands as they enter the Talosian elevator in the hillside. However, in this last shot, the elevator is still half-disintegrated, exactly as it was 13 years earlier when the Enterprise crew destroyed the hillside with a laser cannon. Within the context of "The Menagerie" storyline, this suggests that the Talosians never attempted to repair the elevator for 13 years (even though they continued using it). This incongruity is due to Gene Roddenberry cannibalizing his Star Trek pilot "The Cage," which contained zero footage of Jeffrey Hunter and Susan Oliver entering the intact elevator together (only the destroyed elevator). So, Roddenberry deliberately tried to "slip one by" the audience in this brief shot.

Charles Austin Miller
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: There are reasons why the elevator would appear damaged. As the Talosians were in control of everything shown on the ship's viewer, the entire scene could be an illusion, or at least the elevator's condition may have been, with the Talosians choosing to allow the viewers to see the elevator in the same condition they last saw it. Just as likely, however, is that the Talosians truly never did reconstruct the elevator, as the whole point of their having a menagerie of other beings was an attempt to breed a race that could physically serve them, for their concentration on their mental powers had led to a complete inability and unwillingness to perform physical tasks (like repairing an elevator).

Still, as long as the Talosians are creating the illusion of Christopher Pike and Vina in their "restored" bodies, why not create an illusion of the elevator and hillside restored, as well? One big illusion of restoration, rather than a composite of dismal reality and happy-ending illusion? Again, to the point of my original post, the obvious incongruity is due to Roddenberry using the only happy-ending footage he possessed, that of Pike and Vina entering the half-obliterated elevator as they did at the end of "The Cage." Certainly, if Roddenberry only had the foresight to shoot Jeffrey Hunter and Susan Oliver entering the intact elevator, he would have used that footage instead. Any attempt to explain away the 13-year incongruity is mere wishful thinking.

This would qualify as a question, not a mistake. It is entirely plausible that the Talosians wouldn't bother to repair the elevator. It's also possible, as the previous correction points out, that the entire scene is an illusion. Remember, Captain Kirk sees Vina and Pike together on the planet literally moments after Spock wheels Pike out of the room. It's unlikely Pike had already been beamed down.

Jason Hoffman

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.