The Monster Isolation - S6-E17
Corrected entry: When Leonard tells Sheldon to hand over his Nintendo DS, Sheldon gives him a shiny aqua console. The Nintendo DS has never been produced in that color: the console is actually a 3DS, not a DS.
lionhead
7th Apr 2013
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
Plot hole: Elizabeth goes to drop the medallion over the side of the Pearl. Barbossa and the crew gasp and take a step forward revealing they want/need the medallion thus giving Elizabeth the upper hand in the negotiations. Why not let the medallion drop into the water below the Pearl and simply "take a walk" to get the medallion off the ocean floor? The crew can walk under water as shown later in the film so this shouldn't be an issue. (00:38:15)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Why not "simply take a walk" to retrieve that medallion? They have spent many years trying to find this bit of precious gold. If it's dropped, the underwater currents will most certainly carry it away, and if they walk underwater their feet will kick up the seabed making it even more difficult to locate. These cursed pirates have finally found their last missing piece, which would once and for all end their miserable curse, so they will not risk it being dropped into the sea.
Suggested correction: They only got startled from the idea, not realizing yet they could reclaim it easily, they are so close after all. Barbossa is not pleading to her, and they were hardly negotiating, Elizabeth was even only demanding they leave, nothing yet about the gold. All the scene does is give the dialogue needed for them to think her name is Turner, so they would keep her onboard and not just the gold. It's not an important part of the plot that they let her think she has the upper hand, if at all.
2nd Jun 2022
War of the Worlds (2005)
Corrected entry: It becomes quite obvious as the movie progresses that the aliens want to capture and use (or digest) humans, so it defies logic that the first one to appear immediately starts vaporizing every human in sight. Since the people posed no threat, the only reason to vaporize them would be if the aliens simply wanted to be rid of them - which they obviously didn't. So this initial vaporization was simply a manufactured plot device by the movie makers.
Correction: There are plenty of humans to go around. They don't need all of them. What they first wanted to do is collapse human society. That usually works if you start killing indiscriminately.
Maybe they needed 20 billion people. So we don't know that there "are plenty to go around." And again, the people they vaporized were no threat. And they didn't need to "collapse human society" (and you have no way of knowing what they "wanted" to do); they merely needed to remove threats. So, again, it defies logic to unnecessarily vaporize what's later shown to be desirable to them, if not required by them.
You don't know what the wanted to do either. Seeing them kill so many people, logically shows that they don't need all those people.
Maybe they didn't need 20 billion people. Maybe they didn't have the "human harvesting" equipment ready. Maybe they just felt like it. Who knows. Either way, I'm not sure we can't apply our concepts of logic to an alien race.
You might try reading the original novel. While I don't disagree that it defies logic, the fact is that the only person that could address the why of this was H.G. Wells. While the filmmakers changed a number of details to base the story in the present (2005), in the U.S., from a family's point of view, the tripods being buried...the basic story itself, on the aliens illogically torching lots of humans before they began harvesting them, is pretty much the same as in the novel.
Correction: Doesn't defy logic in the slightest. It seemed pretty obvious to me that the initial "invasion" (vaporizing every human in sight and starting battles) was to disrupt and take control of the human population. Thus making it easier to harvest human blood/tissue from the remaining population. (Which, from my memory at least, were implied to basically be used to fertilize their terraforming efforts/the red weed.) If you wanna take somewhere over, you can't just wander in and say "Ok, this is MINE now!" That's not how war works. You have to show force, assert dominance and then get rid of any possible opposition.
Correction: "So this initial vaporization was simply a manufactured plot device by the movie makers." This 'manufactured plot device' was written by Herbert George Wells, 110 years before the 2005 movie. While there are differences between the original novel and the 2005 movie, there are a number of similarities. One identical plot detail being that the aliens' tripods started by incinerating countless humans before harvesting them to fertilize the red weed. I can't recall if the novel explained why.
29th Apr 2004
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Corrected entry: Doesn't it strain credulity that the Enterprise is (once again) "the only ship in the quadrant"? In Star Trek terminology (all series), a quadrant covers one fourth of the galaxy (smaller regions are "sectors" and the boundary runs just about right down the middle of the Federation, right by Earth to be exact. Are we to believe that there is no other starship in that entire half of the Federation?
Correction: Before ST:TNG, "quadrant" was a term used somewhat loosely. In the Wrath of Khan, quadrant does not refer to one quarter of the galaxy.
Look up the term "quadrant." In every single applicable variation it is some form of "one quarter of a circle."
According to memory alpha, the star trek wiki, a quadrant is a major region of space encompassing a portion of a galaxy. There are apparently major and minor quadrants. The major quadrants are the 4 quadrants dividing up the milky way. Minor quadrants of course encompass a smaller part of said major quadrants. How large is seemingly quite inconsistent though. I think it has been settled upon that a minor quadrant is a couple of sectors (4) large.
Sulu also mentions that Reliant (which is in visual range, approaching at half impulse power) is in the same quadrant, which going by the post-1987 definition would be like saying the car approaching down the street is on the same continent. It's pretty clear that when they mention a "quadrant" in this movie, they are not referring to a quarter of the entire galaxy.
13th May 2022
Aliens (1986)
Other mistake: They should have had much more than only twenty-six minutes to save Newt. Bishop said that the reactor would blow in four hours after seeing the emergency venting. He said it would take forty minutes to crawl down that pipe, an hour to patch into and align the antenna, thirty minutes to prep the ship, and fifty minutes flight time. 40+60+30+50=180 minutes, gives them an hour spare.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: And how are you so sure everything went smoothly without problems? Any of those things could have taken longer, leaving only 26 minutes.
13th May 2022
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Corrected entry: The original Avengers movie showed that the Chitauri can be disabled when their control ship is destroyed. In Endgame, the only possible control ship is Thanos' ship, but we still see Chitauri on the battlefield after Captain Marvel destroys the ship.
Correction: Chitauri are linked with a neural link. The ship was destroyed, but the neural link survived. It is very small, perhaps it was even on the ground with the troops or one of the black order.
29th Apr 2022
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Stupidity: They make a big deal about how they've got the bare minimum of Pym particles left as Hank has been snapped away, but it never occurs to them to use their supply to jump back to a very safe time when Hank was around with a vast supply of them. They could bring them to their time and then have no end of attempts to get the stones without being on such a knife-edge.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The problem is that they need to steal particles, and if they fail doing that, everything fails. They never thought of doing it that way because of that. Only when they failed in the past did they have to risk that, with again the possibility of failing. They couldn't take the risk to have their only chance of reversing what Thanos did fail because they want to be leisurely about it, ironically. They could do it in one go, that was the best bet and lowest in risk.
8th Apr 2022
Alien Resurrection (1997)
Corrected entry: After Purvis screams 'What's inside me?' for the last time the camera shifts to Ripley. You can see a man behind her bobbing back and forth. Looks like he's mopping the floor. (01:01:42)
Correction: That would be Ron Perlman. I doubt he is mopping the floor.
26th Mar 2022
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Corrected entry: The whole "make everyone forget Peter is Spider-Man" spell is a massive plot hole: it is understood the spell works simply by making people forget Peter Parker. In no way is it implied it actually alters reality. Even if people forget Peter Parker, there still is a record of him being Spider-Man in TV shows, news broadcasts, papers, magazines, online videos, documents, police records, news records... There is no explanation given as to how exactly that spell eliminates those too.
Correction: The new extended edition reveals that Peter's face is obscured in photographs. It's obvious that any dead giveaways have been altered by the spell.
Correction: It's magic. If everyone is to forget who Spider-Man is, then yes, reality has to be altered to remove his identity from all those things you mention. It has to, or else it won't work. Because of this reality altering ability, tampering with it causes reality to come apart, hence the plot of the movie. Not a plot hole, but the plot.
23rd Mar 2022
Aliens (1986)
Revealing mistake: When the swarm of aliens drops through the ceiling panels, you can tell that Ripley and the marines don't have magazines in their rifles. It's especially visible when Ripley looks up before Hicks raises the panel and sees the aliens.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
26th Apr 2006
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Corrected entry: When Indy and his father come to the crossroads after having escaped the Nazis the sign says "Berlin" and "Venedig". When they leave it says "Berlin" and "Venice". It's the same side of the sign both times.
Correction: Yes, it does. And the wavery effect in the middle of the shot is meant to be a translation so that viewers can understand where Indy is driving to.
What wavery effect? Not sure if joke or false memory. Still, stuff being in English for the benefit of the viewer isn't necessarily a mistake. In fact, the previous shot was of the other side of the sign.
Correction: It is not the same side of the sign, the last shot is from the front.
22nd May 2008
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Corrected entry: After the motorcycle chase, Indiana drives past the road sign, which points to Venice and Berlin. He then talks to his dad before looking straight ahead at a sign which is behind him.
Correction: He's not looking at the sign, he's making a decision. The shot of the sign was for the audience's benefit.
The combination of the two shots is conventional movie language for him looking ahead at the sign (which, I agree, signifies his decision). But he drove PAST the sign.
If it's not in the same shot, he is not looking at the sign but towards the road ahead. The mistake is an assumption and has been corrected appropriately.
Indiana Jones is not some experimental, challenging movie, like Fellini Satyricon. It follows standard montage conventions for understandable viewing. Person looks ahead, followed up with a "subjective" shot. It's textbook stuff - it's called the Kuleshov effect ("a mental phenomenon by which viewers derive more meaning from the interaction of two sequential shots"). Also, since they drove past the post, they should then be visible in the second shot.
3rd Mar 2022
Enemy of the State (1998)
Stupidity: When Will Smith and Gene Hackman are running through the railroad yard. Gene calls Will by his real name, "Will" and not by his character's name "Robert."
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You could be a little bit more specific, but I don't hear him say "Will" at any point during that run.
25th Feb 2022
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Continuity mistake: When Harry sees into Voldemort's mind when he is Gregorovitch's wand shop, the wand Voldemort uses is the Elder wand, however Voldemort has not got the Elder wand yet. (01:07:54)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Voldemort is not carrying the Elder wand, but his own wand. You see glimpses of the Elder Wand in the hands of a young Grindelwald though, perhaps you are confusing the scenes.
25th Feb 2022
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Corrected entry: When Marty kicks the amplifier over when onstage at the dance in the first BTTF film the amp was sitting on an upside down Pepsi Cola crate. In BTTF 2 there is no crate then the amp is on the floor.
Correction: At no point in the first movie is the amplifier on a crate.
23rd Feb 2022
Aliens (1986)
Corrected entry: If you damage a fusion reactor, it doesn't explode with a thermonuclear effect. It just shuts off.
Correction: Actual fusion reactors don't exist, yet. Certainly not this size. You have no idea how this reactor works. It's not unlikely it uses fissile material to operate.
19th Feb 2022
Scream (1996)
Stupidity: Dewey and Sidney jumpscare each other at the front door. There's just no possible logical reason for a deputy (or ANYONE) to be holding the mask the way Dewey is in the scene. If he were leaning against the door, he would have lost his balance or reacted in any way to the door shifting. (00:30:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Perhaps he was going to knock on the door with the mask. And Dewey didn't call out for Sidney.
I am not sure who would almost-but-not-quite knock with his hand wrapped in a mask and holding perfectly still keeping the pose, facing the opposite direction. It's a pose completely unnatural especially looking frozen and not in the middle of something else. (I amended the part about calling out, it was wrongly phrased since I wanted to say the exact opposite, thanks!).
He was about to knock on the door and was then looking behind him, probably heard a noise. He ain't the most solid type either.
I personally think this is a good stupidity entry. The stupidity section exists for stuff that isn't technically mistakes, but is still irksome or just silly. And this fits that. It's good for a quick jump scare, but doesn't really add up. It's a piece of evidence, so he probably wouldn't be touching it anyways, the way he's holding it is completely unnatural (nobody holds a mask they just picked up off the ground like that), and it's conveniently held at exactly the right height and position to be in Sidney's face when she opens the door. The movie was flying in the face of basic logic to manufacture a quick scare. And it's effective in context... but it doesn't really make sense if you dissect the scene.
14th Feb 2022
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
Continuity mistake: In addition to the sweatshirt or turtleneck, Ock's wearing the pair of sunglasses he wore for the bank robbery. Impossible as those were broken by Aunt May. He should've had on the other pair he wore late in the movie.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When you think about it, the Doc Ock that shows up both knows who Spider-Man is and is still being controlled by the tentacles. In Spiderman 2 this happens minutes before his death, when he convinces the tentacles to listen to him now. So, he had to have been pulled out during his exchange with Spiderman, which seems highly unlikely. Or, this is an even different Doc Ock that still has that pair of sunglasses and probably found out who Spider-Man was at a different point in time.
14th Feb 2022
Wonder Woman (2017)
Plot hole: How is it possible that Diana is unaware of the concept of marriage? She has a grasp of multiple languages and cultures and can recite Socrates. Socrates often spoke of marriage, so even if her people do not marry, it makes no sense that she is completely unfamiliar with this human custom.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She has never seen a man either. She read about them, but never actually saw one. One might question why she doesn't understand a man if she read about them, and yet she doesn't. Same thing with marriage.
She had never seen a man, but she knew that they existed. She speaks multiple languages, despite never having met someone from any of those cultures. My point is, if she's so well versed in world cultures, how has she never heard of the concept of marriage?
4th Feb 2022
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: The movie takes place in the fall of 1984, but when Dana visits the Ghostbusters for the first time, Janine to kill time is intently reading her copy of People Magazine with Cher on the cover. It's the January 23 issue; it's not an absolute impossibility, but it's obviously a magazine they picked up the day of the shooting (which happened late 1983 to early 1984). (00:21:15)
Correction: I'm sorry, but this is highly far-fetched. No mistake is sight in any way. There is absolutely nothing wrong about someone reading a magazine, new or old.
To add to what the others said, I'll also add that most businesses, doctor's offices, etc. don't usually have new magazines on the magazine rack. They tend to keep old ones around for people to read instead. Weirdly enough, there's actually a reason for it - studies/polls show that places that put out new magazines tend to get most of them stolen. So they purposely just put out whatever old magazines they have lying around. Chances are, that's one of the only magazines they had sitting around the Ghostbusters HQ.
Oh absolutely, as anyone who's been to the doctor's or even the barber shop has experienced (newspapers are usually the daily ones instead, it's cheap and makes sense), but it's not as if there is a waiting room or magazine rack there, and their business freshly opened so it's not a leftover. Again, I personally find the justification of the magazine clashing with the fictional timeline but matching perfectly the one of the shooting less straightforward than the explanation, but of course it's my own view and as I said with full disclosure and honesty in the entry, it's not a complete impossibility. We don't see the whole place so there can be a waiting table somewhere with magazines from 9 months prior that one of the Ghostbusters picked up somewhere and I don't deny it.
So why post it?
This is getting a little redundant but again; simple, it's her desk, there are no other magazines or magazines rack nor a waiting room in a place that just opened for business, and I find more believable by a very good margin that they used whatever magazine they had handy when filming, which happens to be the time when that magazine is from, than thinking that it was a deliberate choice coherent with the fictional world to have her read at her desk a random old thing. I respect the objections I have read so far, but I already weighed them before posting and anyone can make their own judgement on that weighing them differently.
I think you need to look up the word mistake before posting something new. Because it makes completely no sense to post this.
Ah, well, I explained more than abundantly why I thought it relevant to post the objectively verifiable detail with a caveat and I wouldn't randomly do it whenever characters happen to read a magazines in movies - the 'meta' explanation is by far more linear, and I say it as someone who had months-old mags in their backpack when I was a teenager. I respect other people's evaluations and I don't mind if the entry is downvoted based on a disagreement about its relevancy on grounds of not being sufficiently incongruous to be a mistake. I think we can leave it at that and refrain from suggestions on what other people need to do.;).
Sure, I said it all in the entry already. There's no law of nature or man-made that forbids a secretary from bringing at work a 9 months old weekly magazine. I think the real (or less far-fetched, if you will) reason is more than apparent, but do what you want with the information.;).
The fundamental problem is that you yourself said it's not necessarily a mistake... ergo, it's not a mistake. Sure, in a meta context, it probably was just a magazine they picked up before filming... but that doesn't make it a mistake in-movie. There're many reasons why someone might be reading an old magazine, which invalidates the mistake. Case in point, we keep old newspapers and magazines at my house to re-read, because sometimes they have good articles, recipes, etc. It's totally possible and even likely she might be reading an old magazine.
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.
Correction: Semantics. To most people, "DS" is sufficient enough to specify all of the Nintendo DS consoles. The same way that "Xbox" is sufficient enough to specify the Xbox 360.
THGhost
Most people yes, but Sheldon not being pedantic?
Moose ★
He could have corrected him later. We don't get to see everything they supposedly say to each other.
lionhead
Precisely. Plus it wasn't Sheldon that simply called it a "Nintendo DS." Leonard did. He's not as pedantic as Sheldon.
THGhost