FleetCommand

20th Sep 2019

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Continuity mistake: According to the previous film, Thor: Dark World, Asgardian kings live approximately 5,000 years. (If I want to be cautious here, this statement is only valid about Odin and of unknown validity about other Asgardians.) But in this film, Thor says Odin fought Surtur 500,000 years before.

FleetCommand

12th Aug 2019

Missing Link (2019)

Factual error: A blunderbuss is fired at a safe. The shot not only bores a hole into the safe but also blasts it out of the window behind it. First, a gun can do no such thing; a cannon can. (The film already establishes that the safe is incredibly heavy.) Second, the hole on the safe is wrong. It is gouged outward as if by an explosion from within. (00:38:10)

FleetCommand

Factual error: Grewishka consistently survives falling several stories down. He is twice the size of a normal human. Assuming that he maintains the same density (weight to volume ratio), the fall must still be 8 times (2×2×2 times) harder. A scientific breakthrough that reduces density is perhaps not far-fetched in a work of sci-fi. But here, Grewishka's demonstration of brute force suggests that he actually has higher density, not lower.

FleetCommand

Factual error: Hugo detonates an incendiary device on Zapan's torso. Zapan's cloak catches fire, which he discards. The fire should burn (or at least blacken) his organic face and mohawk, but none of these happens. Zapan emerges completely unscathed. Most of his body is metallic - an excellent heat conductor. Zapan's organic parts should suffer serious damage. (01:27:25)

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

Suggested correction: Zapan is a total replacement cyborg, similar to Alita. That means that nothing on his body is organic, besides the brain inside. His skin, hair, eyes and everything else of his face is artifical. We see that when Alita cuts a part of his face off. So, we don't know how fire resistant those artificial materials are.

Even concrete walls (completely fireproof) get blackened by fire. Zapan didn't. Also, fire-resistant mohawk?

FleetCommand

Factual error: When Zapan speaks while his face is chopped off, the producers have failed to take into account the importance of mouth and tongue in producing speech. As a cyborg, Zapan could use speakers to produce a voice, but he isn't.

FleetCommand

2nd Jul 2019

The Blacklist (2013)

The Blacklist mistake picture

The Architect (No. 107) - S4-E14

Revealing mistake: Aram Mojtabai fires a high-caliber weapon, destroying a vehicle with it. But after the weapon is fired, the projectile is still in it. Instead, the weapon's lower jaw has disappeared. (00:34:35)

FleetCommand

10th May 2019

Star Trek (2009)

Factual error: USS Enterprise's onboard computer initially refuses to acknowledge Chekov's authorization code. The reason, it seems, is Chekov's Russian accent, which pronounces the letter "V" (pronounced labiodentally) like a British "W" (pronounced bilabially). Problem: Chekov pronounces his ensign authorization code in the NATO phonetic alphabet. ("Nine, Five, Victor, Victor, Two", which resolves to 95VV2) This alphabet is specifically designed to alleviate this exact same situation. The 26 code words in the NATO phonetic alphabet are assigned to the 26 letters of the English alphabet: Alfa, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, Hotel, India, Juliett, Kilo, Lima, Mike, November, Oscar, Papa, Quebec, Romeo, Sierra, Tango, Uniform, Victor, Whiskey, X-ray, Yankee, and Zulu. The slightly mispronounced "Wictor" should not be a problem. (00:42:05)

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

Suggested correction: You're applying today's standards to a fictional future. We've seen in every iteration of Star Trek that security includes both a passkey/password and voice authentication. The actual mistake here is that regardless of how Chekov speaks, the computer should recognize it as his voice because he always speaks that way.

I am afraid the computer's error message leaves no doubt that there was no voice matching at work this time; only pure speech-to-text.

FleetCommand

7th May 2019

Sherlock (2010)

The Sign of Three - S3-E3

Character mistake: While the original Sherlock Holmes is famous for making water-tight deductions, the one in this episode does not quite live up to that standard. He declares someone a "compulsive cheat," because: "Waterproof cover on his smartphone. Yet his complexion doesn't indicate outdoor work. It suggests he's in the habit of taking his phone into the shower with him, which means he often receives texts and emails he'd rather went unseen." There are far too many problems here. (1) The only type of complexion that indicates outdoor work is sunburned. We don't have water-soaked or snow-frozen complexions. So, yes, he might work outdoors. (2) Indoor work may also deal with water, e.g. plumbing, dish washing (note what the accused man is doing!), water purification, lab work, etc. (3) Some people might just purchase a waterproof cover as a precaution. Some might receive it as a gift. Some may receive it free during a bulk purchase. (4) Not everyone who takes his or her phone into the shower has fidelity problems. They might want to listen to music, be up-to-date with the stock market, or, if I may use a euphemism, might want to have some quality alone time. (00:12:35)

FleetCommand

6th May 2019

Common mistakes

Factual error: In many films and TV series that feature passwords being cracked by a "brute-force" attack, individual characters of a password are found independently of each other. (See Ocean's Eight, Under Siege 2, various episodes of Alarm für Cobra 11 - Die Autobahnpolizei, or Person of Interest.) In reality, this is impossible; most of the times the password itself is not stored anywhere. Rather, an irreversible cryptographic hash of the password is stored, and the typed password's hash is compared with that. Either the whole thing is right or no access is granted.

FleetCommand

3rd May 2019

Cashback (2006)

Cashback mistake picture

Factual error: At one point, a screencast of a computer screen shows a video of Barry Brickman on the desktop environment of Windows XP (operating system, developed by Microsoft, released in 2001). However, the app that plays the video is QuickTime for Mac (which runs on Mac OS only), not QuickTime for Windows (which runs on Windows XP). These two versions of QuickTime are almost identical in every respect, except for their title bar (the narrow horizontal area above the video). (00:19:15)

FleetCommand

Plot hole: Cereza compels Luka to take her glasses and put them on. The glasses enable Luka to see the otherwise invisible "ghosts"/Angels. For all intents and purposes, the glasses possess some magical properties. When Luka returns the glasses and asks "Your glasses, are they magic?", Cereza responds "No. They're not magic, silly. I can see the ghosts without them." This mistake is the outcome of the filmmakers having imported a lot of English dialog lines from the Bayonetta video game without proper regards to the context. In the video game, Cereza distinctly enchants the glasses before giving them to Luka, and from the context, it is clear that she means "the glasses ipso facto have no magic of their own." (00:50:30 - 00:53:30)

FleetCommand

Trivia: This film was first made in Japanese, then dubbed to English. A significant change in the dubbing was the addition of profanity to Luka's speech.

FleetCommand

Continuity mistake: Cereza takes a bath. She does not have glasses in the bath tub. Thrice during this two minute period, the film shows her glasses to be in the hotel room, on her bed, along with her dress. And yet, when Cereza comes back to the room, she has glasses on. (00:38:00 - 00:40:00)

FleetCommand

Plot hole: Luka sneaks into Bayonetta's hotel room and plants a hidden microphone. While sneaking out, he is caught. That's when he is astonished to find a child with Bayonetta who calls her "mummy." He does eventually escape the room and sits in corner with his radio, surprised that they both went to bed and he receives nothing. The problem is: One must be an idiot to plant a mic in a lone woman's hotel room in the dead of the night, unless he truly enjoys listening to her snoring! Planting the mic in her apartment or office, or on her mobile phone makes a lot more sense.

FleetCommand

8th Oct 2018

Sherlock (2010)

His Last Vow - S3-E4

Plot hole: Sherlock manages to convince Janine to let him into Magnussen's quarters after deceiving her into thinking he is going to propose. Several days later, she is enjoying her "revenge with profits" on Sherlock for his duplicity. Problem: There is no way she could have found out. She was out cold moments after letting Sherlock in, and Sherlock himself was shot by an assailant, which he had misidentified. Only Watson knew Sherlock's true intention, but we know he did not reveal it. The shooter and Magnussen did not know and had no opportunity to tell Janine anyway. (Plus, Magnussen's credibility is too low.) In fact, if I were the director, I wouldn't bother making up a motive for being a "grasping, opportunistic, publicity-hungry, tabloid whore" (film's own quote). Such a person loves "profits", not just "revenge with profits." (00:31:00 - 00:43:00)

FleetCommand

Plot hole: The man with no name kills five Rojo bandits outside the city, in the so-called small house. His gunfire is heard in the town, where other Rojos respond by riding to the place of incident. In the film time, it is daytime. Shortly afterwards, the man with no name starts a fire. It is now night in the film. A fire alarm is sounded. Many scramble to extinguish it. Rojos then toss the entire town, looking for the man. Soon after that, Rojos blow up the external fence of the Baxter residence. So much ruckus in town until this point, but not a single Baxter has reacted. They still won't react until one minute later, when Rojos have set fire to their residence. 34 Baxters die on screen. Seriously, where were all these Baxters all this time? In a soundproof chamber of some sort? In coma? (01:02:10)

FleetCommand

29th Aug 2018

Ocean's Eight (2018)

Factual error: A shot of Paul Damanian's computer's screen shows mostly a large wallpaper. At the bottom, there is a taskbar that resembles that of Windows 10. Judging from the task view icon, it is Windows 10 version 1709 or earlier. The taskbar is retouched: The Start button is missing, and the Microsoft Store icon is edited to have the Windows logo cropped out. The taskbar is missing the clock, and the Action Center icon appears before that of the Touch Keyboard icon. There are four icons on the desktop, but none have a label. The icons correspond to "This PC", "Contacts", "Documents" and "Pictures" but none are genuine Windows 10 icons. The "This PC" icon is from Windows 7, while the other three icons are edited versions of what's seen in Windows 10. There is a battery icon but this item appears on laptop computers only; this one is a Dell desktop computer. After clicking on the Search icon (Cortana seems to have been disabled) a task manager appears instead. Moreover, the task manager belongs macOS rather than Windows. No wonder the tasks shown in it moments later are running in the context of the "root" user account. Then an app is executed on that computer called "McCallister Security Visual Matrix Controller 3.1.1.5" but the window chrome indicates that it is a Linux app. (00:48:25 - 00:48:55)

FleetCommand

29th Aug 2018

Ocean's Eight (2018)

Factual error: This film repeats on of the classic mistakes that countless films have repeated since the invention of personal computers: It shows that letters in a password are discovered independent of each other. In reality, this is not possible. The computers themselves don't know the password; they only know a "hash digest" with which they can only determine if the password is 100% correct, or not. (If you need technical details, look up "Cryptographic hash function" on Wikipedia).

FleetCommand

13th May 2016

Under Siege 2 (1995)

Factual error: The film's plot violates the third of the Ten Immutable Laws of Security by Scott Culp. The premise of the law is: When one has physical access to a computer system, given enough time, he can take over the system. In the film, the reverse happens: Dane takes over an ATAC site remotely while people inside (who have complete physical access) cannot do anything to wrest the control back. In the real world, it is usually possible to simply cut the connection cable or antenna and take control back. (Even Windows XP and later have such simple lockdown provisions as part of Windows Firewall.) After the lockdown, the passcodes can be changed and other measures taken.

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

Suggested correction: They don't have physical access to the satellite. It is in orbit, it is impossible to have physical access unless they had someone on the satellite.

That would be a plausible explanation, had it been in the film. But in the film, Dane hacked into ATAC system, not the satellite. That's how he implemented bogus satellites.

FleetCommand

13th May 2016

Under Siege 2 (1995)

Factual error: The main premise of the film is ATAC's loss of control over their orbital weapon and their attempt to prevent it from doing damage. According to ATAC, they needed to know where the weaponized satellite is, so that they can lock onto it and send it a self-destruct order via radio waves. This isn't how the real world works: Radio waves emit in all directions from its transmitting source. The location of the satellite need not to be known; only it must be within the reach of the ATAC's signal.

FleetCommand

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.