Jason Hoffman

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.

Twotall

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.

lionhead

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.

lionhead

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.

Badbird

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.

furious1116

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.

Bishop73

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.

Bishop73

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.

Bishop73

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.

Chosen 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.

jshy7979

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

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?

Chosen 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

At the end of "Revenge of the Sith", Obi-Wan said that he wanted both droids memories erased.

At the end of Revenge of the Sith, Bail Organa says "have the protocol droid's memory wiped." He doesn't say anything about wiping R2-D2's memory.

Jason Hoffman

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.

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?

TheBurts

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?

THE GAMER NEXT DOOR

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

lionhead

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-E12

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

Question: In 1955 when Doc and Marty are in the outdoor cinema and Marty is accelerating to 88mph to jump back in time to 1885, doc shouts something to him in celebration as Marty Drives past him, he also fires his gun in the air... Do you know what he shouts? The subtitles just say "shouts something in Spanish" but id love to know what he said and what it means?

TDFarthing

Chosen answer: "Vaya con dios!", Spanish for "Go with God".

Sierra1 Premium member

Answer: The subtitles are wrong! I always heard him shout "to the ends of the Earth " A reference to Jules Verne (keeping that theme running all through the third movie) and to Marty's adventures. Not only is this what I've heard every time I've watched this film, but it makes much more sense.

This is incorrect. He does in fact yell "Vaya con dios." The scene is available on Youtube and he can be seen and heard saying it at the 2:47 mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV9udBGZio4.

Jason Hoffman

29th Oct 2018

Westworld (1973)

Plot hole: There is a barely credible explanation for the fact that a guest cannot be injured or killed by being shot in Westworld, but what about the vicious fistfight we see in the bar? People are injured or killed in bar brawls all the time, and this once was incredibly violent. How do they prevent guests from being injured or killed by the cutting and stabbing weapons we see in Medieval and Roman World? Guests are supposed to fight each other, not just robots - they cannot be 'programmed' to lose! Delos is going be sued into bankruptcy within a week of the first guest arriving. Quite apart from the legal position, think about the bad publicity! Who is going to pay the huge fees demanded by the parks owners when the media is constantly reporting on the guests who wound up dead or with life changing injuries?

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

Suggested correction: The explanation given in the TV show would seem to easily apply to the original film as well: guests can be injured, but not to the point that it would leave a lasting mark. The park has access to futuristic medical techniques, so they can heal most non-life-threatening injuries easily. Also the guests almost certainly sign waivers, so in the event of serious injury the park isn't liable.

Jason Hoffman

Suggested correction: It's easy to nitpick the factual details of "Westworld," the screenplay of which was written on-the-fly on a fairly limited budget, even by early 1970s' standards. Author Michael Crichton (who also wrote "The Andromeda Strain," "The Terminal Man," "Congo," "Sphere," "Jurassic Park" and several other technological thrillers) himself acknowledged that Westworld was more a visual story (like a comic book) than a cerebral piece of science fiction, and he learned on this movie that suspension of disbelief outweighed technical or even factual details, if he wanted to expedite the story in an hour-and-a-half. Crichton said he was having more fun and devoting more time to shooting the film than actually writing it, comparing the experience to playing cowboys and indians as a child. So, yes, Westworld is not much more than an adult fantasy with a number of plot holes that we are supposed to gleefully overlook, rather than analyze.

Charles Austin Miller

Except for blatant continuity mistakes you just invalidated every single entry on this site.

Suggested correction: Westworld ensure that any interactions with the robots are entirely safe for the patrons of the park. They cannot prevent humans fighting amongst themselves, just as Disneyland can't prevent people fighting there. People are also injured or die all the time in horse-riding accidents, but that won't lead to people suing Westworld. Due to the nature of the park, all the guests likely sign a waiver stating that any injuries are not the fault of the park.

Utter rubbish. Guests who were completely innocent bystanders could be killed or injured by the actions of other guests, notably in the bar brawl or by the explosion used in the jailbreak. We see one guest smash a barstool against the back of another guest - not a robot - which could easily have broken his spine. There is no question whatever that the owners and managers of the park would be held liable in this and many other cases, just as amusement park owners and managers nowadays are held liable when roller coasters or other rides go awry, injuring or killing guests.

The most plausible explanation would be a waiver that visitors to the park have to sign. The waiver would explain that while the robots cannot harm humans, other humans can, and the park is not held responsible. In the event of death or serious injury, the guest who caused it would face criminal charges and possibly a civil lawsuit. But a waiver would protect the park. Also, the rules of the park may be similar to those in the HBO Westworld series, where the robots cannot cause a "permanent mark", meaning they can injure guests as long as the injury is repairable.

Jason Hoffman

26th Oct 2018

Logan (2017)

Question: Why was Charles mumbling about Mrs Muffet and the spider when we first see him? Is it a side effect of his disease?

THE GAMER NEXT DOOR

Answer: He's old and going senile, and is also quite sick and experiencing seizures. It would seem all the inane things he's droning on about (including Mrs. Muffet and the Spiders, and reciting a Taco Bell commerical) are just a result of that - he falls into delirious states where he acts completely insane before he gets his medicine, which calms him back down.

TedStixon

My impression, and I may be wrong, was that he was hearing random thoughts from people in the area and repeating them.

Jason Hoffman

Factual error: Gollum's body wouldn't sink into the lava if he fell in it as shown in the movie. Rather his body would burst into flames, and turn to ash. Falling in lava isn't like falling into a lake. Lava is more than three times denser than water, which prevents a human shaped body from sinking in.

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

Suggested correction: Gollum isn't human.

It doesn't matter if Gollum isn't human. Gollum is still a life form with skin organs and bones. Any life form with skin organs and bones would burst into flames and turn to ash if it fell in lava whether it was human or not.

You're talking about the properties of magical metal in a magical volcano in a fantasy movie. Who knows how it will behave?

Jason Hoffman

It says lava's density prevents a human shaped body from sinking in. It doesn't say it's lava's density prevents a human from sinking in. Gollum's body is the same shape as a human body.

15th Sep 2013

Friday the 13th (1980)

Corrected entry: When the truck driver drops off Annie, she starts walking down the road towards Crystal Lake. Yet we see the others in the red pickup drive down that same road and Annie is nowhere to be seen. It just happens to be Mrs Voorhees who picks her up.

amycamille1975

Correction: Maybe they were already further along the road when Annie was dropped off at the crossroads, so they never crossed paths with her. Another possibility is that Mrs. Voorhees drove by first. It's a back road in the country so it makes sense that Annie and the other counsellors never meet.

dewinela

Correction: Once again your personal opinion.

amycamille1975

Personal opinion or not, it's a valid explanation and entirely plausible.

Jason Hoffman

Point is, there are possible explanations, therefore your posted mistakes are not correct.

dewinela

29th Jun 2004

Frailty (2001)

Question: The dad says Fenton is a demon, but demons were only people who have killed other people in their past, and Fenton hasn't killed anyone yet. It is later in the movie he kills his dad, so how did his dad know he was a demon?

Emily

Chosen answer: Paxton is obviously mentally deranged so he can call anyone a demon and find a way to justify it.

William Bergquist

This answer is entirely incorrect. If you watch the film, you realise that it is only Fenton's belief that his father is insane. In the reality of the film, everything his father has told him is true. He is in fact a "demon killer." Since there is no explanation in the film as to what actually makes someone a demon, it's safe to assume the angel knew Fenton would grow up to become a serial killer. The father refused to believe his own son would be a demon, and so tried to force him to "see" the truth.

Jason Hoffman

Question: It's been stated that Elsa and Donovan knew how to get through the path to the Grail because Henry was talking about the way as he lay dying. But I'm still confused about when they get across the cliff. Indy threw some sand and stones across the path he 'believed' was there, but would they still be sitting there, basically in mid air for the bad guys to get across? Did they truly believe in the Grail as much as Indy and Henry did and so could walk across the non-existant path?

jenn_s_h85

Chosen answer: The way I see it, the bridge is there, but is invisible. The true test is to step out into mid-air when you don't know there's a bridge there, trusting in God to rescue you. Indy passed this test, then threw the stones to see whether it really was a bridge there all along, or if it was a matter of faith in the moment you step out (or just to mark his way back). The pebbles stayed, proving the bridge was physical and real, only invisible. When Ilsa and Donovan came along, they could see the pebbles in mid-air, and figured out this as well. Originally, you would have to believe and trust in God to step on to the bridge, but Indy effectively "disarms" this trap by proving that there is a way to cross safely for anyone.

Twotall

As stated previously, the bridge is not invisible. It is simply camouflaged so that it's not visible from the position Indy had to stand. This is demonstrated in the film when the camera angle changes and shows that the reason Indy can't see it is the marbling of the stone lines up perfectly from one angle. He throws the pebbles onto it once he's across to make it easier for him to see when he returns.

Jason Hoffman

But the camouflage is only going to work from one direction (the approach). Going in the opposite direction (the retreat), the bridge would stand out like a sore thumb, pebbles or not.

Charles Austin Miller

However, in the film, Indy turns around and throws the pebbles on the bridge, which is not visible until the pebbles are there.

Jason Hoffman

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the original builders altered the vertical stone walls in the "coming back" direction so that the bridge blended from this reverse perspective as well.

Okay, he didn't actually mean invisible, more like "invisible from a certain perspective"

Answer: The bridge was actually camouflaged into rock looking as if it was invisible (you can see this in movie).

Of course, any "camouflage" would only work from one perspective (from the doorway at one end of the bridge). As soon as Indy took a step out onto the bridge, the "camouflage" would be revealed, as it would no longer be aligned to the background from his new perspective. Viewed from the opposite end of the bridge, the "camouflage" wouldn't work at all and the bridge would be perfectly visible.

Charles Austin Miller

Not necessarily. They could have fashioned the stonework so it rendered the bridge invisible from both directions.

The sand and pebbles broke the camouflage of the bridge so when Donovan and Elsa came they would see through the illusion and just see a bridge.

lionhead

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.