Does the Monsters, Inc. example belong? I think that one is simply a deliberate retcon; The writers knew it contradicted, but they decided to go through with it anyway.
Hide / Show Replies
It's both a retcon, and a continuity error, because it's a discrepancy without in-universe explanation.
nothing to report
I feel like the ant-man and the wasp example I found is a better page quote.Should we put it on the main page?
PSA: a cat is not a dog
The Hangry Hufflepuff
Okay, the second entry for the Red vs Blue section is wrong. In the season 4 finale, Church gives the reds an info dump about the many problems as to why he isn't putting up with any of the reds surrendering BS, one of which was Tucker being pregnant. The comment wasn't even made in passing, Grif specifically inquires about it. Andy then explains that alien was the one who impregnated Tucker with a parasitic embryo, all within ear shot of the reds. Donut even went to go see the baby (which in doing so, caused the ship to crash on him) for crying out loud!
Edited by ZBot316
I am having difficulty with the indexing for the new Literature, Live-Action TV, and Western Animation subpages.
I am sorry if this is an inconvenience to anyone, but I've always had trouble with indexes, particularly ones where the majority of the entries never existed before.
I relocated the aforementioned media-specific examples because their lists were getting very big.
The only problem is that they aren't indexed even though I edited, copied, and pasted the necessary links several times.
Hide / Show Replies
I've applied some moderator magic to make it work.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
hey, whats the story with the page quote? is it a continuity error in classic greek literature? thats really funny if it is. sorry if this is a superfluous topic i wasnt sure where else to ask
Edited by dreamedkestrel i dont know where to start secret movie club for cool ppl
Joeseph Ripken
Why are Futurama and the Simpsons listed on this page at all?
Both shows are negative continuity shows, and have episodes deliberately contradict earlier episodes for the luls.
The host of a little watched web show that explores bad tv episodes. Hide / Show Replies
Came here to say the same thing about the Simpsons. It's such a huge chunk of the article, though, that I wouldn't want to delete it without someone else agreeing to. (I did, however, delete a large amount of the Simpsons content that was repeated word-for-word within the example.)
I thought Futurama wasn't negative continuity, though?
In that case, just remove the entries entirely.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Many of the Star Trek continuity errors described in the article are not Series Continuity Errors at all, but just a case of the series ignoring non-canon literature like the Spaceflight Chronology and the FASA RPG, which both claimed that the original five-year mission took place in the 2210s instead of the 2260s, despite no onscreen evidence. Also, there's no such thing as "Roddenberry's Baton Rouge class". The Baton Rouge class first appeared in the Spaceflight Chronology, which was not written by Gene Roddenberry. The Star Trek Encyclopedia claimed that first contact with the Klingons happened in 2218, but this was never actually mentioned in any episode, so Enterprise was free to contact them in 2151 without causing any problems.
I've deleted the first few Star Trek examples.
Edited by 69.172.221.8
Goof Troop examples
Okay, the first bit of natter is not important. "Every year" was the issue.
None of the things in the movie list were continuity errors because we didn't see what happened between the show and the movies and every one of those things is plausible to change during the time frame. And two of them were just not true at all:
Pete did not develop a "completely different relationship with his son." It was flanderized a little; that's it. Pete had been distant and frequently emotionally abusive and domineering since the show's pilot with very few active signs of affection outside of Papa Wolf moments which had no chance to show up in the movies. In the same time frame, PJ was generally unhappy about his father, except when he got a glint of hope that Pete might be showing him affection, he was distracted, or he was being treated like a Satellite Character which made him equally likely to agree with his sister. Not really seeing much of a difference here. There were times where their relationship wasn’t "that" bad, but then again, there were times where it was.
Max wasn’t popular. He might not have been a very big loser, but the only episode I really saw him hanging out with kids other than PJ besides "Buddy Building," where making a new friend was part of the premise, was "Educating Goofy," which was itself a big Series Continuity Error.
The work page has picked up a lot of new examples in the meantime, and maybe already deleted these, so I’ll go ahead and replace this list with that list after the first one which is already in both places.
Edited by PPPSSC
Sadly, I have actually done this in my fanfic's most recent update. Specifically, there's this one character who lost his leg at the beginning of the plot, and in the update, I never mentioned his having to use a wheelchair or brought attention to his missing limb. In fact, I completely forgot about the missing leg! In my next update, he'll be pointing this out by exclaiming: "I had a leg for an entire chapter!"
Lampshaded in Seinfeld's The Betrayal which ends with Jerry incorrectly addressing Cosmo Kramer as "Kessler."
Justifying Tree for the first Star Wars example: It's more likely that the "thousand generations" is the right timeframe. Aside from majority evidence in the Expanded Universe, there is also the fact that Palpatine is (secretly) a champion of a set of ideals that, in their current form, have lasted a thousand years. Except those ideals aren't very Republican in nature. Nor are they Democratic; in the slightest.
Ketchum's corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced tactic is indistinguishable from blind luck.
This was deleted but...
Cut forward to "The End of Time", David Tennant's final episode playing the tenth Doctor, and it turns out that the Doctor destroyed both the Daleks and the Time Lords himself.
Umm, no, in "Dalek" he also said, or very strongly implied that he killed them both. "I saw it happen. I made it happen!" "And what of the Time Lords?" "Dead. They burned with you."
Edited by 94.9.139.139 Hide / Show Replies
I'll go back and check the scene in question, but it jumped out at me when I recently re-watched Dalek, because the Doctor tells Rose that the Daleks destroyed his people. And that clearly stands out, because having just seen "The End of Time", that's not what happened. When I first saw the End of Time, it surprised me because I had formed the impression early on that it was the Daleks who had won the Time War, and the Doctor was forced to wipe them out somehow, not that the Doctor had killed both them and his own race.
In the scene with the Dalek, the Doctor certainly claims to have made the Dalek fleet burn.
It's been awhile since I've watched some of those episodes. Where else does he discuss his part in the war? I'm wondering how well all his accounts mesh.
Edited by andersonh1
Here's how the scene in "Dalek" plays out.
Doctor: Get out of the way! Rose, get out of the way now! Rose: No, I won't let you do this. Doctor: That thing killed hundreds of people. Rose: It's not the one pointing the gun at me. Doctor: I've got to do this. I've got to end it. The Daleks destroyed my home, my people. I've got nothing left.
From "The End of the World" Doctor: There was a war. We lost.
He's being figurative and meant the Daleks forced him to kill his race. To quote from earlier on.
Dalek: You lie!
Doctor: I watched it happen! I made it happen!
Dalek: You destroyed us?
Doctor: ....I had no choice.
Dalek: And what of the Time Lords?
Doctor: Dead. They burned with you. The end of the Last Great Time War...everybody lost.
The problem here is that we get two contradictory accounts of the same event from the Doctor in the same episode. Given what we see later on in The End of Time and what we hear in other episodes, it's clear that in hindsight the Doctor was lying to Rose, possibly to justify both to her and to himself what he was about to do. But at the time the episode was written, it's clear which statement came across as direct and unambiguous, and that's the Doctor's statement to Rose that the Daleks destroyed his home and his people, not him. His statement to the Dalek, which you quote above, is open to interpretation when it comes to the fate of the Time Lords.
And then there's "The End of the World" where he tells Rose "There was a war. We lost." Again, implying that the Daleks won. It just seems to me that either the backstory changed over time for dramatic reasons, or else the authors portrayed the as Doctor simply lying out of guilt over what he had done. Either is possible.
Edited by andersonh1
BOTH sides lost. There's one survivor to his knowledge in "The End of the World". That's not a victory. I'll have to rewatch Dalek, but I can't see how the "we lost" is a SCE at all.
Edited by 94.9.179.3
It's just that the statement "The Daleks destroyed my home, my people" is so plain and forthright that it's impossible for me to read it any other way than that the Doctor is saying that the Daleks destroyed both Gallifrey and the Time Lords. When in fact, as later episodes make very clear, the Doctor did that himself. And as you say, when he talks about the Time Lords burning with the Daleks, it makes it seem like both were wiped out at the same time.
It may not be an error. It may be a deliberate case of the author writing the Doctor as lying to Rose. I'd be interested in hearing Rob Shearman's thoughts on the episode and what he was told when he was writing it.
Edited by andersonh1
Why aren't the two Star Trek (IDW) examples with the rest of Star Trek?
Otaku Unite!!!