Question: Why did Principal McGee look so upset during ChaCha and Danny's dance?
Super Grover
26th Sep 2019
Grease (1978)
Answer: They were dancing in a very suggestive manner, and it made her uncomfortable.
So what? She could've had it broken up, them tossed out but logic's not used in musicals.
Breaking them up and tossing them out, that was not as easy as you make it sound. Before the contest started, McGee even said rule #3 was "tasteless or vulgar" dancing will be "disqualified," however she was not judging the contest. Despite McGee's uneasiness with Danny and Cha Cha's very suggestive dance moves, she chose not to have the popular pair disqualified. Rydell's dance was being televised, and at that point Danny and Cha Cha were the only two dancers left on the floor, surrounded by everyone else's exuberant enthusiastic support.
She was not judging the contest nor was she enforcing the rules, thus making her powerless in this situation.
7th Sep 2019
Top Gear (2002)
Patagonia Special: Part 1 - S21-E8
Revealing mistake: On their boat trip to Tierra del Fuego there are a number of sweeping overhead shots of the ferry upon which Clarkson, Hammond and May are travelling. Their very distinctive cars are not on deck. There is nowhere on the only deck that they could be under cover. The footage of the ferry was filmed on a different voyage.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't something they hide. Behind the scenes interviews make it quite clear that they have a B unit that films additional footage of the areas they travel in. They even take the cars back to get more shots of them on the road, since they can't predict the exact routes that will be taken in order to have camera crews ahead of them in time.
The mistake is perfectly valid. The correction is only providing an excuse as to why the mistake occurs. Most shows/films have a second unit director and crew (the "B unit") solely to film supplemental footage. This does not invalidate the point of the mistake, that "their very distinctive cars are not on deck" where they should be.
Since they cut to and from shots of Hammond, May and Clarkson standing on the deck of the boat the implication is clear - the shots are continuous. It is a glaring error.
25th May 2018
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Visible crew/equipment: After Willie spits in Indy's face it cuts to Short Round running through the mine, and just as Shorty turns his head toward the camera behind him, we can catch a glimpse of something blue which does not belong in this dark dreary environment, at the right side of the screen. There is a tall spotlight and two crew members, one is wearing a solid blue shirt and a cap, and the other a blue/white striped shirt with white pants. (01:21:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This takes place in milliseconds and there's no way to see it unless you pause the image or play it in slo-mo. It should be under trivia.
Right now I have it playing on Netflix, and there is no slow motion. The striped blue shirt is noticeable as it plays without any slo-mo. If something catches my eye onscreen, it is fair game to go back and rewatch what was noticed in the first place. And in order for me to confirm what I find, I do pause, and may take screenshots. By the way, I've seen this movie countless times over the years, and it was just a matter of catching that glimpse of the color blue because it popped out against the dreary surroundings. I'll leave it up to Jon whether to move it to trivia or not.
30th Nov 2015
Friends (1994)
The One With The Metaphorical Tunnel - S3-E4
Revealing mistake: While Chandler and Janice are in D'Agostino's, some grocery products have their names partially covered, such as Uncle Ben's and Grape Nuts.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I've seen a few of these listed as errors, but they're not. A lot of shows do this often if you pay attention. It's called "product displacement", and it is done to avoid being sued or having to pay licensing fees. Also, it is cheaper to alter logos like this than pixelate/blur them out. What is interesting though, is that one of the grape nut boxes in this picture does not have an altered logo.
Yes, it's product displacement, and this is specifically referred to as the "greeking" process. However, your correction only offers an excuse as to why this occurs. The tape or paint partially or fully covering the brand names or logos are a distraction, and it removes viewers from the fake reality of the show or movie. Originally, these types of submissions were to be listed in trivia, but instead they were placed in the mistake section.
13th Jul 2005
Jaws (1975)
Factual error: When Hooper sees the hole in the hull of Ben Gardner's boat, he uses his knife to pry out the shark tooth. The tooth is located at the bottom of the hole, with its flat root side stuck deep in the wood and its pointy side facing up. It is completely impossible for the shark's tooth to become wedged in the wood this way, while he takes a nice bite out of the wood hull. (00:49:15)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: When Hooper uses the knife to pry to tooth out, it took very little effort, suggesting that the tooth wasn't wedged into that spot, but merely just resting in that spot.
The shark tooth was inserted into the wood by the prop crew with its flat root side down, which would have been impossible to have occurred during the attack on the hull. As to the statement that the tooth was "merely just resting in that spot" then Hooper would not have needed to use the blade to remove it from the wood, plus the fact that since it was underwater it would have floated away during the hours after the attack. But it did not float away, so it must have been at the very least snugly fit into the wood hull. Still impossible.
16th Jun 2010
Hairspray (2007)
Question: One of the lines in "Without Love" states that "Without love, life is Doris Day at the Apollo". What does that mean?
Answer: First I need to explain that the Apollo Theater, an amazing music venue, is in upper Manhattan (NYC), in the predominantly black neighborhood of Harlem. The movie 'Hairspray' takes place in 1962, and at that point in time very few white musical artists had performed at the Apollo (between 1950s and early 60s), and those who did were famous rock-and-roll musicians, such as Buddy Holly and the Crickets (1957). Now as for Doris Day, by 1962 she was a lovely popular American actress/singer, who, as the saying goes, was "as white as white bread", and to imagine someone like Doris Day appearing on stage at the Apollo Theater is an amusing incongruity and just not quite right. So the words "without love, life is Doris Day at the Apollo," means life would just not be right at all without love.
Thank you. My director is making our cast look up stuff we don't know. So as Penny I felt like I needed to know so thank you for cleaning that up for me.
I hope you have fun playing Penny, and that your entire cast and crew enjoy putting on your stage production of Hairspray. Break a leg, sweetie.
16th Nov 2018
The Andy Griffith Show (1960)
Corrected entry: Barney is only a deputy but I'm sure makes a decent wage, however he lives like a poor college student, I'm sure rent can't be that expensive in a small town like Mayberry.
Correction: How much Barney makes is never discussed, so this is purely speculation.
Andy's salary isn't mentioned either but he lives a descent middle class life. Barney has to make something, but he doesn't spend it on a family or hobbies, he doesn't travel, doesn't own a car, but lives just one step above a homeless person.
This is not a plot hole. And I don't think Barney "lives just one step above a homeless person" whatsoever. We don't know Barney's salary, but he seemingly chooses to live a frugal lifestyle. We know Barney's expenses include rent, food (he eats out all the time), dates with girlfriends, etc. We see in S1 "Runaway Kid" Barney owns a car which has its own expenses. In S2 "The Clubmen" Barney says he sends his mom money every month. In S3 "Barney's First Car" (it was actually his second car on the show) Barney withdrew $300 from his bank account to buy a car, so we know he's been saving money, and we learn that some time in the past he had purchased a septic tank, which was expensive, for his parents' anniversary present.
Something else to consider, Don Knotts was born in 1924. Assuming Barney is supposed to be the same age, that means he grew up during the Great Depression. Many people from that generation tend to be very frugal.
Truthfully Law Officers are disgracefully underpaid but believe they used this fact to create Barney as a penny pincher. Barney is an excellent tightwad. He advises Thelma Lou to order "The Special" at the diner on a date. And collects from her when he picks an item up from the market for their supper. When it came to someone in need... remember how money came flying off his person to raise money to save the Lester Scobey house from foreclosure? It's only make believe.
Barney paid $5/week to Mrs. Mendelbright to stay at her boardinghouse - So $20/month. Barney would definitely be considered middle class. My Dad was a Deputy Sheriff during the early 60s to the mid 70s. To his recollection, his pay was roughly: Junior Deputy: $275/month. Senior Deputy: $325/month. Chief Deputy: $425/month. Dad said the Sheriff earned $600/month. Everyone earned an additional $125/month car allowance and an additional $1000/year for travel, uniforms and other incidentals.
23rd Nov 2018
Patton (1970)
Question: When Patton arrives at corps headquarters, a lieutenant says they have a new commander due. What is he talking about? Was their previous commanding general fired?
Answer: Patton was put in charge of the American II Corps in North Africa after the Americans were badly defeated at the 1943 Battle of the Kasserine Pass. The lieutenant apparently does not realise that Patton has been sent to replace the previous commander and will begin enforcing strict discipline into the troops.
OK, but what about the other part of the question? Was their previous commanding general fired?
The previous commanding general was not "fired" he was replaced. It was Major General Lloyd Fredendall who was in command of the II Corps, at the Battle of Kasserine Pass. He was reassigned stateside, then about three months later was promoted to lieutenant general. For the rest of the war he was in command of training assignments in the US.
He was effectively "fired", as in removed, from his commanding position, due to his weak leadership, but that did not mean to say he was fired from the U.S. Army. The term "fired" is relative here.
I feel the need to clarify the point that my original reply was to the person who asked this question: "OK, but what about the other part of the question? Was their previous commanding general fired? " Please know that my reply was not meant to come off as butting heads with your answer, raywest, I was merely answering the submitter's question and acknowledging their use of the word "fired" within their question. But since you responded directly to my original reply, I'll respond. You state in your reply to me, "He was effectively "fired", as in removed, from his commanding position, due to his weak leadership, but that did not mean to say he was fired from the U.S. Army. The term "fired" is relative here." Okay, well I really don't agree with that, because I can't see the term "fired" as being relative here, IMO. In civilian life, when a civvie is "fired" from their job it means getting laid-off, being unemployed. To say a servicemember is "fired" from the military, it would basically mean being dishonorably discharged. The OP's question was regarding Lloyd Fredendall. After his reassignment, Major General Fredendall even received a promotion and became Lieutenant General Fredendall within a few months. Anyway, those are my personal thoughts on the matter. :) Be well, raywest. With warm regards, Rikki.
Not fired, just relieved of command and transferred elsewhere.
15th Nov 2018
Girl Shy (1924)
Corrected entry: Harold Lloyd has written a manuscript for a book and is traveling by train to take the manuscript to a publisher. Jobyna Ralston, sitting next to him, grabs the manuscript and holds it in front of her. She is wearing gloves but in the close-up of the manuscript in her hands, her hands are bare. (00:24:00)
Correction: Please rewatch the scene. In the closeup of Mary holding the wrapped manuscript she is indeed wearing gloves. Note the wrinkled material and the seams, as well as her covered thumbnails.
I froze that scene and carefully studied it and it appeared that Ralston's hands were bare. Her thumbnails were visible. I shall look at it again. In addition, the background of that close-up is completely blank. Ralston's clothing and the interior of the train are nowhere to be seen.
I took a screenshot of the closeup which shows the gloves, but can't share it. I agree about the background problem in this closeup, there's nothing behind the manuscript being held up. The same thing happens in all the closeups of the manuscript when it's being held, because it was shot against a solid blank background. Submit this, since it's a valid mistake.
8th Sep 2016
Jaws (1975)
Character mistake: Captain Quint tells Hooper and Brody that the USS Indianapolis delivered "the Hiroshima bomb" in 1945. This is a myth that has persisted for decades and right up to the present. To prevent it from being lost in one piece, the Hiroshima bomb was actually delivered in pieces by various means to Tinian Island, where the parts were reassembled before it was carried aboard the Enola Gay to its target in Japan. The USS Indianapolis delivered only the detonator for the bomb. (01:29:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't a mistake since even you say it is a commonly believed and spoken of myth, so how is the captain repeating a commonly held myth a movie mistake? That would be like calling it a movie mistake if the character of King Arthur said the world was flat.
I agree with Jason, that it was correct for the character of Quint to have truly believed it. This was submitted as a "character mistake" which is appropriate. According to MM's guidelines a character mistake is "something a character wrongly states as fact... Something more significant than a minor error anyone could make."
Suggested correction: Quint likely believed the ship carried the bomb. It's unlikely he would know the details of an intricate plan to deliver the pieces separately. It may not have been factually correct, but it was correct for the character to have believed it.
13th Dec 2012
The Ewok Adventure (1984)
Other mistake: Mace's reflection can still be seen on the pond after he disappears. (00:53:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This isn't a mistake. That's him, under the water in the same pose he was in before he touched the water.
After watching the scene, the mistake is valid. When he's underwater, he's not in the same "pose." That would require him to be upside down and squatting. But that's not the pose we see him in.
We see Mace semi-kneeling and reaching out to touch the water when he vanishes, but his upside-down reflection is still in the exact same calm position even when he's gone, and in the next shot we see Mace under the water right-side up, with his arms reaching up to the surface. This is a valid mistake, the suggested correction is not right.
1st May 2018
Peter Pan (1953)
Corrected entry: During the song 'You Can Fly! You Can Fly! You Can Fly!', when Peter Pan, Wendy, John, and Michael land on the big hand of Big Ben, the bell rings 4 times, although the hour hand is on the 3.
Correction: The short "hour" hand is actually at the eight when they land on the long minute hand, which then moves toward the three, and what you're hearing are the four quarter bells that each chime in sequence at every quarter of the hour, so four chimes are correctly heard.
When you were correcting me about the hand Peter Pan and the Darling children were on, I wanted to thank you when you told me about the hour hand. (I have to work on learning the time and some other math stuff, which even includes money and so on).
You are very sweet for thanking me! There are many people who can't exactly tell the time on analog clocks, because digital is so common now. When I was teaching that was one of the things I focused on. I even used an analog clock that ran backwards together with the regular analog clock to help strengthen their skills. Kids had fun with it. I want to thank you for taking the time to reply here, and I want to wish you much success in all your journeys. :-).
25th May 2018
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Continuity mistake: When Indy tries to grab the antidote vial from the table, in the closeup just as the vial falls off the table the camera follows the vial as it lands in the empty area to the left of Lao Che's chair where Kao Kan's chair should be, but it's not, and the rug's edge with wood floor beside Lao Che's chair though it shouldn't be. Then Indy hits Kao Kan who is again seated closely to Lao Che's left, as he should be, and when Kao Kan falls backward we see the rug edge is nowhere near Lao Che's chair, also as it should be. (00:08:20)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Actually it appears the vial falls to the left of Kao Ken's chair, not Lao Che's. It appears after Indy pierces the other guy with the shishkebab, Kao Ken, off camera, takes the vial and puts on his left side. Indy jumps on the table and after missing the vial he slides further and then elbows Kao Ken who is on the right side now. The vial is still on the left side of Kao Ken's chair when it's kicked onto the wooden floor.
You're very much mistaken. Lao Che is wearing an embroidered dinner jacket and has a pinky ring on his left pinky, and Kao Kan's left hand is bandaged in gauze. After Indy skewers Chen, in the closeup of Indy's hand just as it knocks the vial off the table, it's Lao Che's hand (note the pinky ring, etc) that we see on the table next to Nurhachi's urn, the stack of money, and the vial. That is not Kao Kan's hand/arm, remember his left hand is bandaged. And as this closeup continues to pan down it follows the vial as it lands on the floor in the empty space where Kao Kan's chair should be, but it isn't.
Yep, you're right I see it. There are 2 shots of Indy trying to grab the vial off the table and the second one is followed through with the vial falling off it and that one is wrong. Alright.
4th May 2018
Doctor Who (2005)
Corrected entry: When Bill asks the Doctor to tell her if his cooperation with the Monks is a trick or an illusion while holding him at gunpoint, she's holding the pistol in a two-handed grip. When the camera cuts to the Doctor as he lies that it isn't a trick, and then back to Bill, she's suddenly holding the gun with one hand. (00:18:15)
Correction: The problem is this doesn't occur in consecutive shots. After the first closeup of Bill there's a shot facing the Doctor as he says, "It's not a trick. It's not a plan. I have joined the Monks," and in that moment Bill has ample time to simply lower her arm/hand. No continuity issue in this sequence of shots.
If you look really carefully at the shot immediately after the first one, facing the Doctor, Bill's hand, holding the gun, is visible - and she's only holding it in one hand in that shot as well.
I've got it playing now as I'm typing. I understand what you're saying, but compare this shot to the prior shot from a similar angle, right after Bill has taken the gun, just as the Doctor says, "Bill, put...put the gun down," then she replies, "I'm serious, Doctor." Here we can see Bill's right hand high on the gun's grip, with her left support hand quite a bit lower, and it's at the same height as her right sleeve at the wrist. Now if we look at the specific shot we're talking about, we really can only see Bill's right hand because the shot cuts off at the bottom of the screen, so we can't even see that sleeve or her left hand. It's offscreen.
6th May 2018
Doctor Who (2005)
Corrected entry: When Bill bursts into the toilets at the Sydney restaurant, the door is shown swinging inwards, and during her and the Doctor's subsequent conversation, the hinges are shown to make the door swing in. When Heather arrives and the two flee the toilets, as the Doctor yells for the restaurant patrons to get out, the door suddenly swings outward. (00:35:55)
Correction: Some doors swing both ways. It is common in restaurants.
Not only is this the door to a toilet, the hinges are visible on screen, and they are normal, one-way hinges, not the kind you'd find on restaurant doors.
The mistake is indeed wrong. The door hinge we see may appear like a normal hinge with knuckles and pin, but it's actually a double acting spring hinge that allows the door to swing in both directions. Also, there is no door knob hardware, only a swinging door push plate on the door. I've personally seen women's restrooms which have an outer swinging door with fully enclosed floor-to-ceiling inner cubicles (we see their "reflection" in the mirror) such as the ones shown.
Sorry, forgot to include the link: http://www.projectgalleryla.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Cafe-Door-Pivot-Hinges-Home-Depot.jpg.
Looking at the scene again, that would explain why the side of the hinge is visible in the shot where Heather bursts out of the bathroom. It's still a) not very clear on camera, and b) really weird to have that kind of door on a bathroom.
That's right, it's exactly the reason why we're able to see the barrel of this type of hinge when Heather opens the door outward. And I agree, I also think it's really weird to have that kind of a door on a bathroom. Go figure why some establishments have done that.
2nd May 2016
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)
Revealing mistake: After Poe's X-Wing is destroyed, when BB-8 leaves the village and rolls off note all the distinctive hills and sand dunes in front of BB-8. Later, when Rey hears BB-8 with Teedo and she rushes off note the sand dunes in front of her, but after she rescues BB-8 and walks in the opposite direction those same sand dunes are now in front of them, which were also the same sand dunes in front of BB-8 when he left the village the night before.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: BB-8 is heading towards a background at night, the other instances are all near where BB-8 is since they are all focused around him. Rey finds BB-8, only possible if she is near the same background. BB-8 was going towards that background so can only be closer to it than before. Same goes for Finn as they crashed near where BB-8 was, since they were looking for him. They are not the exact same locations but a couple of miles apart, which produces the same background.
When Rey rushes toward Teedo and then when she walks away in the opposite direction with BB-8 the very same sand dunes are still in front of her and BB-8. Those sand dunes are also the exact same sand dunes right in front of BB-8 when he left the village. The correction states "They are not the exact same locations but a couple of miles apart", but they are in fact the exact same sand dunes and hills, certainly not miles apart, and I do not mean the general horizon "which produces the same background" (screenshots available).
27th Aug 2001
Goldfinger (1964)
Continuity mistake: When Oddjob drives away from the golf course, Goldfinger is not in the back of the car for some reason, even though they show him in the car earlier. (00:32:00)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Goldfinger is still in the car - he has sat back in his seat and the camera angle makes it look like he's vanished. The picture shown shows Goldfinger leaning forward to talk to Bond, then he sits back when the conversation finishes.
In this instance it does not have to do with camera angle. When Goldfinger gets in the car and the door is left open, we can see the seat's upright back portion where he is sitting in relation to the rear side windows, and there is not much space between them. Goldfinger is a rather rotund fellow, so even when he leans back in the seat we should still be able see him when looking through the right side of that double window, due to his stoutness. In a medium shot Goldfinger says goodbye to Bond, then it cuts to semi-closeups of Bond and Oddjob, so when we're back to another medium shot of the car, the actor was simply not in the car during the filming of these specific takes, for this medium shot. Note, after Oddjob crushes the golfball, in the next medium shot as the car begins to drive away, all the people who had been standing on the fairway in the background in previous shots have vanished (no time for them to have walked away).
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.
Answer: They had mentioned as part of the rules that any vulgar dancing would result in disqualification, so I think her reaction wasn't just displeasure about the dance moves, but she's stressed and on the fence about whether or not to step in and disqualify them.