The film: Elf (2003)
What happened: Santa's sleigh breaks down in Central Park. Apparently, its engine runs on Christmas spirit, which is somehow generated by singing Christmas carols. Buddy (Will Ferrell) does some kind of mechanical work on the engine, but that's still not enough to keep it running. What makes the difference is that Walter, Buddy's curmudgeonly father (James Caan) has suddenly gained Christmas spirit, and Santa is able to deliver all the Christmas gifts.
Why it makes no sense: If the sleigh is powered by an engine that uses Christmas spirit as a catalyst, why does Santa need reindeer to pull the sleigh? Worse, Santa still whips the reindeer! This is animal cruelty just a notch below killing an animal with no intention of eating the animal. No wonder this film doesn't have an American Humane Association certificate.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The dog with puppy videos
The show: Family Guy
The episode: "The Man With Two Brians," first aired November 9, 2008, and rerun just this past Sunday.
What happened: After Peter gets a new dog (whom he calls "new Brian"), old Brian tries to regain the affection of the family by playing his puppy video. The video shows him coming out of a basket and doing other cute puppy stuff.
Why it doesn't quite make sense: According to "Road to Rhode Island," Brian was born in a puppy mill in Texas. He was separated from his mother early on. At some point between that time and the first season of Family Guy, Brian wound up homeless on the streets of Quahog. According to "Brian: Portrait of a Dog," Brian was an adult dog when he cleaned Peter's windshield and Peter decided to adopt him.
Now, this doesn't rule out that someone would have shot puppy videos of Brian. But how exactly would Brian manage to hold on to that footage throughout his tortuous path from Texas to Rhode Island? When he was homeless, would it have been a priority for him to protect a video tape? The only explanation is that the writers have forgotten the character's backstory and thus created a continuity breach.
In a comedy, a continuity breach is forgiven if it yields a very funny joke. The bigger the breach, the funnier the joke has to be. But this continuity breach is used exclusively for the purpose of creating schmaltz, and not for a joke. With Brian's puppy videos, Family Guy has jumped the shark.
The episode: "The Man With Two Brians," first aired November 9, 2008, and rerun just this past Sunday.
What happened: After Peter gets a new dog (whom he calls "new Brian"), old Brian tries to regain the affection of the family by playing his puppy video. The video shows him coming out of a basket and doing other cute puppy stuff.
Why it doesn't quite make sense: According to "Road to Rhode Island," Brian was born in a puppy mill in Texas. He was separated from his mother early on. At some point between that time and the first season of Family Guy, Brian wound up homeless on the streets of Quahog. According to "Brian: Portrait of a Dog," Brian was an adult dog when he cleaned Peter's windshield and Peter decided to adopt him.
Now, this doesn't rule out that someone would have shot puppy videos of Brian. But how exactly would Brian manage to hold on to that footage throughout his tortuous path from Texas to Rhode Island? When he was homeless, would it have been a priority for him to protect a video tape? The only explanation is that the writers have forgotten the character's backstory and thus created a continuity breach.
In a comedy, a continuity breach is forgiven if it yields a very funny joke. The bigger the breach, the funnier the joke has to be. But this continuity breach is used exclusively for the purpose of creating schmaltz, and not for a joke. With Brian's puppy videos, Family Guy has jumped the shark.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Let's play double jeopardy
The show: JAG
The episode: "The People v. Gunny"
What happened: Gunny Galindez (Randy Vasquez) and his old war buddy (identified for most of the episode only as "Manny," but also wearing Master Sergeant's stripes when in uniform, played by Jesse Corti) leave a noodle house next to a gay bar. A gay man, Edward Proxy (Jamison Jones), innocently bumps into Manny, who immediately assumes the gay man was making a pass at him and retaliates with force. Galindez restrains Manny with the intention of defusing the conflict, but instead Edward takes the opportunity to hit Manny some more. Galindez pushes Manny back and punches Edward back, breaking his nose and blackening both his eyes. Another man comes out of the gay bar to Edward's defense, and it turns out to be Petty Officer Tiner (Chuck Carrington). Tiner is about to punch Galindez but stops when they recognize each other.
After the opening credits, the Baltimore police comes to JAG Headquarters with the intention of arresting Galindez for the gay-bashing incident the previous night. Admiral Chegwidden (John M. Jackson) will not allow that to happen, and asserts that the military judicial system will fairly ascertain Galindez's guilt or innocence. The civilians are not surprised when the judge, Captain Sebring (Corbin Bernsen) finds Galindez innocent. Soon after Galindez leaves the military courtroom, he's arrested by the Baltimore Police Department and taken off-base to be tried in a civilian courtroom for the same gay-bashing incident.
Does it make sense legally? Anyone viewing this episode attentively will be wondering "Can they really do that? Isn't it double jeopardy?" The writers (Donald Bellisario and Larry Moskowitz) anticipated this, so they have Manny visit Galindez at the civilian courtroom and ask about double jeopardy. Galindez replies that he was told that the federal government and the state government are technically two separate sovereignties and that "it's all in the Constitution." Manny is unconvinced by this, and so am I. Neither Manny nor Galindez are lawyers, and neither am I. So I could be missing something.
One can learn something about the law from TV and films, but sometimes one will run into false information. For example, in Bruce Beresford's film Double Jeopardy, a woman is tried and convicted of killing a man who is still alive. After serving some time, she is released on parole. Many people tell her that she can go ahead and kill the man she supposedly killed earlier in broad daylight and she wouldn't go to jail again. Real life lawyer Alan Dershowitz points out that in that scenario the facts of the case would be different: killing someone today is a very different crime from killing someone years ago. Furthermore, the parole board could just revoke her parole so that she serves the rest out the rest of the sentence she got in the first place (when she hadn't yet killed the man). Of course we can't use the film Double Jeopardy to nitpick JAG, but we can certainly use real life American laws.
Let's review what the Constitution actually says. The Fifth Amendment reads:
The Tenth Amendment reads in whole: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Does that mean that an individual State has the power to try someone for something a federal court has found that person innocent? Or if Galindez is found innocent in the Maryland court, could he be taken to a Virginia court, or a Washington, D. C. court, or any other state court to be tried again and again until one of those courts finds him guilty? Or is this Amendment irrelevant to this argument?
To compare an example from real life: If O. J. Simpson was found innocent by a California jury of murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, could they have taken him to a federal court in the hopes that the federal jury would come up with a verdict more to their liking? His lawyers would immediately scream double jeopardy. To put O. J. Simpson in jail, he'd have to commit a different crime. Oh, wait a minute, he has (the Las Vegas robbery) and now he's going away to prison for at least a few years.
Anyway, trying Galindez a second time for the same offense is double jeopardy, even if it's in a different court. For what it's worth, that's my non-binding ruling on this fictional case. If you're a lawyer reading this, feel free to let me know if there's some legal subtlety I have overlooked here.
The episode: "The People v. Gunny"
What happened: Gunny Galindez (Randy Vasquez) and his old war buddy (identified for most of the episode only as "Manny," but also wearing Master Sergeant's stripes when in uniform, played by Jesse Corti) leave a noodle house next to a gay bar. A gay man, Edward Proxy (Jamison Jones), innocently bumps into Manny, who immediately assumes the gay man was making a pass at him and retaliates with force. Galindez restrains Manny with the intention of defusing the conflict, but instead Edward takes the opportunity to hit Manny some more. Galindez pushes Manny back and punches Edward back, breaking his nose and blackening both his eyes. Another man comes out of the gay bar to Edward's defense, and it turns out to be Petty Officer Tiner (Chuck Carrington). Tiner is about to punch Galindez but stops when they recognize each other.
After the opening credits, the Baltimore police comes to JAG Headquarters with the intention of arresting Galindez for the gay-bashing incident the previous night. Admiral Chegwidden (John M. Jackson) will not allow that to happen, and asserts that the military judicial system will fairly ascertain Galindez's guilt or innocence. The civilians are not surprised when the judge, Captain Sebring (Corbin Bernsen) finds Galindez innocent. Soon after Galindez leaves the military courtroom, he's arrested by the Baltimore Police Department and taken off-base to be tried in a civilian courtroom for the same gay-bashing incident.
Does it make sense legally? Anyone viewing this episode attentively will be wondering "Can they really do that? Isn't it double jeopardy?" The writers (Donald Bellisario and Larry Moskowitz) anticipated this, so they have Manny visit Galindez at the civilian courtroom and ask about double jeopardy. Galindez replies that he was told that the federal government and the state government are technically two separate sovereignties and that "it's all in the Constitution." Manny is unconvinced by this, and so am I. Neither Manny nor Galindez are lawyers, and neither am I. So I could be missing something.
One can learn something about the law from TV and films, but sometimes one will run into false information. For example, in Bruce Beresford's film Double Jeopardy, a woman is tried and convicted of killing a man who is still alive. After serving some time, she is released on parole. Many people tell her that she can go ahead and kill the man she supposedly killed earlier in broad daylight and she wouldn't go to jail again. Real life lawyer Alan Dershowitz points out that in that scenario the facts of the case would be different: killing someone today is a very different crime from killing someone years ago. Furthermore, the parole board could just revoke her parole so that she serves the rest out the rest of the sentence she got in the first place (when she hadn't yet killed the man). Of course we can't use the film Double Jeopardy to nitpick JAG, but we can certainly use real life American laws.
Let's review what the Constitution actually says. The Fifth Amendment reads:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.The words "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" seem pretty clear to me. I'm not quite so sure on whether or not the exception for "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger" applies only to the need for a grand jury indictment, or if that exception applies to the rest of the clauses in the Amendment. Because if that's the case, then the writers are wrong to have Galindez arrested by the Baltimore police and Chegwidden not once complain about double jeopardy in open court.
The Tenth Amendment reads in whole: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Does that mean that an individual State has the power to try someone for something a federal court has found that person innocent? Or if Galindez is found innocent in the Maryland court, could he be taken to a Virginia court, or a Washington, D. C. court, or any other state court to be tried again and again until one of those courts finds him guilty? Or is this Amendment irrelevant to this argument?
To compare an example from real life: If O. J. Simpson was found innocent by a California jury of murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, could they have taken him to a federal court in the hopes that the federal jury would come up with a verdict more to their liking? His lawyers would immediately scream double jeopardy. To put O. J. Simpson in jail, he'd have to commit a different crime. Oh, wait a minute, he has (the Las Vegas robbery) and now he's going away to prison for at least a few years.
Anyway, trying Galindez a second time for the same offense is double jeopardy, even if it's in a different court. For what it's worth, that's my non-binding ruling on this fictional case. If you're a lawyer reading this, feel free to let me know if there's some legal subtlety I have overlooked here.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Alice's breach of contract
The show: The L-Word
The episodes: "Let's Get This Party Started" and "Looking at You, Kid," two consecutive episodes from Season 5, now available on DVD.
What happened: Alice is invited to a super-secret party for Hollywood homosexuals. It's so secretive, Alice says guests have to sign confidentiality agreements. Alice goes with Tasha, who apparently feels comfortable enough about going to this party without giving more evidence to the U. S. Army that she's gay. Inside, Tasha identifies a famous basketball player, dancing with a man. Alice surreptitiously shoots video on her cell phone of the two men dancing.
In the next episode, the famous basketball player makes it very clear that he's not gay and will not tolerate gays on his team. Alice decides to out him by podcasting the video she shot. Alice's podcast goes viral, forcing the famous basketball player to admit to his hypocrisy, but also causing Tasha to confront Alice over her double-standard: outing a basketball player but trying to not out a soldier (Tasha).
Where is the other shoe: So I've watched the whole season except for the season finale, and I haven't seen anyone call Alice on her breach of contract. Did she not sign the contract? And with all the information that the She-bar owner is digging up on Shane on her friends (such as the fact that Jenny's film production team didn't get permits to shoot in the neighborhood, or that Ivan Aycock has a 51% stake in Kit's bar) how could she miss that Alice so clearly and publically breached her contract?
The episodes: "Let's Get This Party Started" and "Looking at You, Kid," two consecutive episodes from Season 5, now available on DVD.
What happened: Alice is invited to a super-secret party for Hollywood homosexuals. It's so secretive, Alice says guests have to sign confidentiality agreements. Alice goes with Tasha, who apparently feels comfortable enough about going to this party without giving more evidence to the U. S. Army that she's gay. Inside, Tasha identifies a famous basketball player, dancing with a man. Alice surreptitiously shoots video on her cell phone of the two men dancing.
In the next episode, the famous basketball player makes it very clear that he's not gay and will not tolerate gays on his team. Alice decides to out him by podcasting the video she shot. Alice's podcast goes viral, forcing the famous basketball player to admit to his hypocrisy, but also causing Tasha to confront Alice over her double-standard: outing a basketball player but trying to not out a soldier (Tasha).
Where is the other shoe: So I've watched the whole season except for the season finale, and I haven't seen anyone call Alice on her breach of contract. Did she not sign the contract? And with all the information that the She-bar owner is digging up on Shane on her friends (such as the fact that Jenny's film production team didn't get permits to shoot in the neighborhood, or that Ivan Aycock has a 51% stake in Kit's bar) how could she miss that Alice so clearly and publically breached her contract?
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Was electing Obama enough to atone for America's racist past?
The show: Boston Legal
The episode: "Thanksgiving," first aired November 24, 2008, the Monday before Thanksgiving 2008 on ABC.
What happened: Shirley Schmidt (Candice Bergen) invites several white attorneys to her home for Thanksgiving dinner. Edwin Poole (Larry Miller) brings his black foster child over. The issue of racism comes up during the conversation, and Alan Shore (James Spader) accuses the firm Crane, Poole & Schmidt of being systematically racist, and points out that with the exception of Edwin's foster kid, everyone at the table is white. Shirley counters that most of the lawyers at the firm voted for Barack Obama, to which Alan replies that there is no way to verify that because of ballot secrecy, and he scoffs at the idea that electing a Black man is enough to purify America of its racist past.
Musings: Just as Phil Farrand sometimes ruminates rather than nitpicks Star Trek episodes, so too will I occasionally ponder in this space larger issues raised by the episode. I don't have nits for this episode; all the discrepancies can be explained by nuances in a character's political position (it would also benefit real-life people to have nuances to their political positions, too).
At the end of last week's episode, "Kill, Baby, Kill," Alan spoke on the balcony of how wondrous was the night Obama was elected President, and how he didn't want that night to end. (By the way, doesn't it seem like for most newscasters January 20 just can't come fast enough? I don't remember there being a lot of fuss over President-elect Bill Clinton back in November 1992.) That was the episode in which he represented a woman (Cheri Oteri) who was allegedly fired from her job because she voted for John McCain. In the courtroom, Alan eloquently defended ballot secrecy. How do Alan's statements in the previous episode fit in with his statements in this episode? Alan can deem Obama's election "wondrous" but at the same time think it insufficient to atone for America's racist past. The mere election of Obama might not be enough to change the apalling statistics on African Americans (some of which Alan cites) though of course one hopes that when Obama takes office he will be able to turn at least some of those statistics around. As for ballot secrecy, a lawyer defending it in court doesn't necessarily mean that the lawyer personally believes in it. We accord more weight to Alan's statements on the balcony because they are directed to his best friend, Denny Crane (William Shatner).
Not a nit: David E. Kelley does like to recycle his actors for different characters, but occasionaly he brings back an actor to play the same character as before, and sometimes an actor does both (such as Anthony Heald, who played the same California judge transplanted to "Massa-tchu-setts" in both The Practice and Boston Legal as well as a high school principal in Boston Public). John Larroquette, who is now Carl Sack on Boston Legal, played a murderer named Joey Heric in The Practice. Heric was a recurring character who appeared in six episodes from 1997 to 2002. James Spader also appeared on The Practice, there also as Alan Shore. Alan Shore's first episode was "We the People," which first aired in 2003; meaning that there are no episodes of The Practice with both Joey Heric and Alan Shore. Because if there were, it would certainly count as a nit if Alan failed to mention, however fleetingly, the resemblance that Carl bears to Joey, that man who got away with murder on several occasions.
The episode: "Thanksgiving," first aired November 24, 2008, the Monday before Thanksgiving 2008 on ABC.
What happened: Shirley Schmidt (Candice Bergen) invites several white attorneys to her home for Thanksgiving dinner. Edwin Poole (Larry Miller) brings his black foster child over. The issue of racism comes up during the conversation, and Alan Shore (James Spader) accuses the firm Crane, Poole & Schmidt of being systematically racist, and points out that with the exception of Edwin's foster kid, everyone at the table is white. Shirley counters that most of the lawyers at the firm voted for Barack Obama, to which Alan replies that there is no way to verify that because of ballot secrecy, and he scoffs at the idea that electing a Black man is enough to purify America of its racist past.
Musings: Just as Phil Farrand sometimes ruminates rather than nitpicks Star Trek episodes, so too will I occasionally ponder in this space larger issues raised by the episode. I don't have nits for this episode; all the discrepancies can be explained by nuances in a character's political position (it would also benefit real-life people to have nuances to their political positions, too).
At the end of last week's episode, "Kill, Baby, Kill," Alan spoke on the balcony of how wondrous was the night Obama was elected President, and how he didn't want that night to end. (By the way, doesn't it seem like for most newscasters January 20 just can't come fast enough? I don't remember there being a lot of fuss over President-elect Bill Clinton back in November 1992.) That was the episode in which he represented a woman (Cheri Oteri) who was allegedly fired from her job because she voted for John McCain. In the courtroom, Alan eloquently defended ballot secrecy. How do Alan's statements in the previous episode fit in with his statements in this episode? Alan can deem Obama's election "wondrous" but at the same time think it insufficient to atone for America's racist past. The mere election of Obama might not be enough to change the apalling statistics on African Americans (some of which Alan cites) though of course one hopes that when Obama takes office he will be able to turn at least some of those statistics around. As for ballot secrecy, a lawyer defending it in court doesn't necessarily mean that the lawyer personally believes in it. We accord more weight to Alan's statements on the balcony because they are directed to his best friend, Denny Crane (William Shatner).
Not a nit: David E. Kelley does like to recycle his actors for different characters, but occasionaly he brings back an actor to play the same character as before, and sometimes an actor does both (such as Anthony Heald, who played the same California judge transplanted to "Massa-tchu-setts" in both The Practice and Boston Legal as well as a high school principal in Boston Public). John Larroquette, who is now Carl Sack on Boston Legal, played a murderer named Joey Heric in The Practice. Heric was a recurring character who appeared in six episodes from 1997 to 2002. James Spader also appeared on The Practice, there also as Alan Shore. Alan Shore's first episode was "We the People," which first aired in 2003; meaning that there are no episodes of The Practice with both Joey Heric and Alan Shore. Because if there were, it would certainly count as a nit if Alan failed to mention, however fleetingly, the resemblance that Carl bears to Joey, that man who got away with murder on several occasions.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Where is Bugglesville?
The show: Bugtime Adventures, an animated show for Christian children. The show combines old Bible stories with newer fiction about a community of bugs who witness biblical milestones. As far as I can tell, the episodes follow neither historical chronology nor Bible book order.
The episode: "A Giant Problem." This episode is available on DVD, but if you get the Trinity Broadcasting Network in your area, you could catch it on a Saturday morning. I don't know when this episode first aired, the IMDB had very little information on this show when I checked it.
What happened: Without realizing it, the Philistine giant Goliath damages a dam near Bugglesville, flooding the town where the bugs reside and threatening their lives. Golliath is more interested in the Israelites, taunting them to send a single soldier to fight him. The young David is the only one courageous enough to face Goliath. An ant and a bee witness the boy David declaring to King Saul that he will fight Goliath. This inspires the ant with the courage to go to the dam and fix the leak.
What the problem is: That the location of Bugglesville is being constantly changed for each episode. We accept that these bugs have fewer arms and eyes than the bugs God actually created, or else some of the children would be too scared to watch the show. We accept that these diverse bugs live in one community together, where in real life they'd have their own communities (e.g., ants with ants, bees with bees). We also accept that these bugs have incredible longevity: they were around during the exodus of the Israelites out of Hebrew, and the same bugs were around to witness the birth of Jesus. But to accept that their town is constantly moving is one thing too many to accept.
I talked it over with Lisa, and she agreed that to nitpick this show, the Bible may be used. As to which version I may use, she left it to me, stipulating only that it has to be in English; so I chose the King James Version. The David vs. Goliath incident, the Bible tells us, happened in Socoh, in the Vale of Terabinth, and Bugglesville has to be within short-range flying distance for a bee carrying an ant. In the episode "What's a Manna with You?", Bugglesville is located somewhere along the Exodus route. The episode "Joy to the World" is the only one to explicitly show the relocation of the town as the bugs follow Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. But in all other episodes, Bugglesville just happens to be close to whatever big biblical event is taking place.
The faults with the Bible story are far fewer and most of the discrepancies between the text and the show can be attributed to translation differences. The way that Goliath taunts the Israelites differs in wording but is essentially the same in meaning, scarcely needing comment. One discrepancy I do want to comment on is the matter of David rejecting Saul's armor. 1 Samuel 17:38 says "And Saul armed David with his armour," but in the show we just suddenly see David with Saul's armor. The next verse reads: "And David girded his sword upon his armour, and he assayed to go; for he had not proved it. And David said unto Saul, I cannot go with these; for I have not proved them. And David put them off him." In the show, David is by himself, standing outside Saul's tent, when he casts off Saul's armor and declares he'll face Goliath "dressed as a shepherd." I think this detail is important to understand the later relationship between Saul and David (though the show does not cover this).
The episode: "A Giant Problem." This episode is available on DVD, but if you get the Trinity Broadcasting Network in your area, you could catch it on a Saturday morning. I don't know when this episode first aired, the IMDB had very little information on this show when I checked it.
What happened: Without realizing it, the Philistine giant Goliath damages a dam near Bugglesville, flooding the town where the bugs reside and threatening their lives. Golliath is more interested in the Israelites, taunting them to send a single soldier to fight him. The young David is the only one courageous enough to face Goliath. An ant and a bee witness the boy David declaring to King Saul that he will fight Goliath. This inspires the ant with the courage to go to the dam and fix the leak.
What the problem is: That the location of Bugglesville is being constantly changed for each episode. We accept that these bugs have fewer arms and eyes than the bugs God actually created, or else some of the children would be too scared to watch the show. We accept that these diverse bugs live in one community together, where in real life they'd have their own communities (e.g., ants with ants, bees with bees). We also accept that these bugs have incredible longevity: they were around during the exodus of the Israelites out of Hebrew, and the same bugs were around to witness the birth of Jesus. But to accept that their town is constantly moving is one thing too many to accept.
I talked it over with Lisa, and she agreed that to nitpick this show, the Bible may be used. As to which version I may use, she left it to me, stipulating only that it has to be in English; so I chose the King James Version. The David vs. Goliath incident, the Bible tells us, happened in Socoh, in the Vale of Terabinth, and Bugglesville has to be within short-range flying distance for a bee carrying an ant. In the episode "What's a Manna with You?", Bugglesville is located somewhere along the Exodus route. The episode "Joy to the World" is the only one to explicitly show the relocation of the town as the bugs follow Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. But in all other episodes, Bugglesville just happens to be close to whatever big biblical event is taking place.
The faults with the Bible story are far fewer and most of the discrepancies between the text and the show can be attributed to translation differences. The way that Goliath taunts the Israelites differs in wording but is essentially the same in meaning, scarcely needing comment. One discrepancy I do want to comment on is the matter of David rejecting Saul's armor. 1 Samuel 17:38 says "And Saul armed David with his armour," but in the show we just suddenly see David with Saul's armor. The next verse reads: "And David girded his sword upon his armour, and he assayed to go; for he had not proved it. And David said unto Saul, I cannot go with these; for I have not proved them. And David put them off him." In the show, David is by himself, standing outside Saul's tent, when he casts off Saul's armor and declares he'll face Goliath "dressed as a shepherd." I think this detail is important to understand the later relationship between Saul and David (though the show does not cover this).
Saturday, November 22, 2008
More blog team members needed
This blog needs more team members. If you watch movies and/or TV shows with at least some degree of criticality, you qualify to write for this blog. If you want to join the team, just contact me, letting me know what kinds of movies you go see or what TV shows you watch regularly. You can post nits on anything you watch where you spot a mistake.
I'll briefly go over what sources a nitpicker can use in nitpicking. The most important source is, of course, the movie or episode itself. The most satisfying nits come directly from the movie or episode. In the case of TV shows, previous episodes are relevant for nitpicking newer episodes. If there are spinoffs (whether to movies or TV shows) these can come into play also. When a movie or TV show is an adaptation of a book (or part of a book), that book can be used for nitpicking only when there is good reason to believe that the producers of the video content tried to be as loyal as possible to the original text; otherwise one has to go on the assumption that the producers allowed themselves licenses beyond what would be strictly necessary for translating the material from the page to the screen (that is, not just compressing action and removing the less important characters and scenes from the book, but also inventing characters and scenes not in the book and making other changes along those lines). Needless to say, novelizations of movies and TV shows are not valid for nitpicking their originals.
The second most important source is your own commonsense. For after all, contradicting our commonsense without even attempting to give an explanation is one of the most important ways that a fictional story can break the suspension of disbelief. Some plot twists rely on contradicting our commonsense for their shock value, but after the shock subsides, some explanation is usually offered (for example, in lawyer shows when the real culprit is revealed and everyone realizes how and why everyone waas fooled). But when the show ends and explanation is offered for a particular affront to commonsense, there is a nit.
Episode guides and technical manuals may be consulted, but their value to a nitpicker is directly proportional to how binding they are on the writers and production staff. Episode guides are at least useful for doublechecking original airdates and the names of guest stars. Technical manuals are aimed at the most rabid fans of whom one almost wonders if they can distinguish the TV show from reality.
The next most important sources are IMDb.com and TV.com, along with the more informative fansites (such as those that offer transcripts or other data collected from the show). These may be used to doublecheck your own viewing and hearing of the movie or TV show. When these sources confirm what you saw and heard, they have fulfilled their purpose. But when they contradict what you saw and heard in a serious way (e.g., more serious than a simple misspelling) they have also served their purpose.
The least important source is Wikipedia. Vandalism and the posting of false information are now no longer a major concern; thanks to patrols, patently false information is removed within seconds. The problem with Wikipedia is that the egalitarian ideals of its founder are completely at odds with our classist society. Wikipedia has evolved a ruling class, and that ruling class places its collective ego above the quality of the content, all in the name of making an "encyclopedia." The result is that while Wikipedia barely has false information, it also lacks true information which would, in its founder's ideals, put Wikipedia at a perceptible advantage over regular encyclopedias (such as Encyclopedia Britannica, the online edition of which is almost as up-to-date as Wikipedia). Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, why don't you fix it? You can't, because it's not simply a matter of adding in the information that it lacks, it's also a matter of changing the politics of its community to something less stratifying. Wikipedia can't be used for an application as frivolous as nitpicking, much less for any application where money or even lives are at stake. When it comes to movies and TV shows in English, Wikipedia offers nothing that can't be just as easily obtained from another website.
So in a nutshell: for nitpicking a movie or a TV show, the most important source is the movie or TV show itself. Everything else falls somewhere below that.
I'll briefly go over what sources a nitpicker can use in nitpicking. The most important source is, of course, the movie or episode itself. The most satisfying nits come directly from the movie or episode. In the case of TV shows, previous episodes are relevant for nitpicking newer episodes. If there are spinoffs (whether to movies or TV shows) these can come into play also. When a movie or TV show is an adaptation of a book (or part of a book), that book can be used for nitpicking only when there is good reason to believe that the producers of the video content tried to be as loyal as possible to the original text; otherwise one has to go on the assumption that the producers allowed themselves licenses beyond what would be strictly necessary for translating the material from the page to the screen (that is, not just compressing action and removing the less important characters and scenes from the book, but also inventing characters and scenes not in the book and making other changes along those lines). Needless to say, novelizations of movies and TV shows are not valid for nitpicking their originals.
The second most important source is your own commonsense. For after all, contradicting our commonsense without even attempting to give an explanation is one of the most important ways that a fictional story can break the suspension of disbelief. Some plot twists rely on contradicting our commonsense for their shock value, but after the shock subsides, some explanation is usually offered (for example, in lawyer shows when the real culprit is revealed and everyone realizes how and why everyone waas fooled). But when the show ends and explanation is offered for a particular affront to commonsense, there is a nit.
Episode guides and technical manuals may be consulted, but their value to a nitpicker is directly proportional to how binding they are on the writers and production staff. Episode guides are at least useful for doublechecking original airdates and the names of guest stars. Technical manuals are aimed at the most rabid fans of whom one almost wonders if they can distinguish the TV show from reality.
The next most important sources are IMDb.com and TV.com, along with the more informative fansites (such as those that offer transcripts or other data collected from the show). These may be used to doublecheck your own viewing and hearing of the movie or TV show. When these sources confirm what you saw and heard, they have fulfilled their purpose. But when they contradict what you saw and heard in a serious way (e.g., more serious than a simple misspelling) they have also served their purpose.
The least important source is Wikipedia. Vandalism and the posting of false information are now no longer a major concern; thanks to patrols, patently false information is removed within seconds. The problem with Wikipedia is that the egalitarian ideals of its founder are completely at odds with our classist society. Wikipedia has evolved a ruling class, and that ruling class places its collective ego above the quality of the content, all in the name of making an "encyclopedia." The result is that while Wikipedia barely has false information, it also lacks true information which would, in its founder's ideals, put Wikipedia at a perceptible advantage over regular encyclopedias (such as Encyclopedia Britannica, the online edition of which is almost as up-to-date as Wikipedia). Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, why don't you fix it? You can't, because it's not simply a matter of adding in the information that it lacks, it's also a matter of changing the politics of its community to something less stratifying. Wikipedia can't be used for an application as frivolous as nitpicking, much less for any application where money or even lives are at stake. When it comes to movies and TV shows in English, Wikipedia offers nothing that can't be just as easily obtained from another website.
So in a nutshell: for nitpicking a movie or a TV show, the most important source is the movie or TV show itself. Everything else falls somewhere below that.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
He didn't type up all those love letters
The film: Sex and the City: The Movie
What happened: Sitting up in bed, Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) reads a book of love letters by famous men. She complains that John James "Big" Preston (Chris Noth) has never written her a love letter, and that e-mails don't count. Later on in the film, after Big ditches Carrie at the altar, Big sends Carrie an e-mail which makes no effort whatsoever to win Carrie back. Carrie orders her assistant to place all e-mails from Big into a place she won't have to look at them. After a while, Carrie decides she does want to read Big's e-mails, but her assistant is not around. So Carrie guesses her assistant's password and finds that Big has e-mailed her, one by one, all the love letters from the book she had been reading. Carrie is touched by the gesture and goes to reconcile with Big.
Why it makes no sense: So if Big is really such a big-shot, does he really have time to be typing up love letters from some book? If the book is not readily available in some electronic format he can just copy and paste from, it would either have to be scanned in and text-recognized or typed up. Big doesn't have the time to type up an entire book, nor to scan the book a page at a time (or maybe two pages at a time), but he certainly has the time to order an assistant to make it happen. Either way, the gesture is cheapened by the intrusion of a third person. I guess it really has to be the thought that counts here.
As for the easily-guessed password of Carrie's assistant, it shows a lack of tech-savvy on her part, but is entirely realistic as there are people in real-life who choose passwords that are very prone to a dictionary attack.
What happened: Sitting up in bed, Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) reads a book of love letters by famous men. She complains that John James "Big" Preston (Chris Noth) has never written her a love letter, and that e-mails don't count. Later on in the film, after Big ditches Carrie at the altar, Big sends Carrie an e-mail which makes no effort whatsoever to win Carrie back. Carrie orders her assistant to place all e-mails from Big into a place she won't have to look at them. After a while, Carrie decides she does want to read Big's e-mails, but her assistant is not around. So Carrie guesses her assistant's password and finds that Big has e-mailed her, one by one, all the love letters from the book she had been reading. Carrie is touched by the gesture and goes to reconcile with Big.
Why it makes no sense: So if Big is really such a big-shot, does he really have time to be typing up love letters from some book? If the book is not readily available in some electronic format he can just copy and paste from, it would either have to be scanned in and text-recognized or typed up. Big doesn't have the time to type up an entire book, nor to scan the book a page at a time (or maybe two pages at a time), but he certainly has the time to order an assistant to make it happen. Either way, the gesture is cheapened by the intrusion of a third person. I guess it really has to be the thought that counts here.
As for the easily-guessed password of Carrie's assistant, it shows a lack of tech-savvy on her part, but is entirely realistic as there are people in real-life who choose passwords that are very prone to a dictionary attack.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
My gynecologist is a man
The show: Scrubs
The episode: "My Fruit Cups," first aired November 14, 2002. This second season episode is available on DVD in the American Region, but it's still repeated on syndicated TV often enough that you can probably catch it almost without wanting to.
What happened: Dr. Reid feels pressured to become an obstetrician/gynecologist. Dr. Dorian, in voiceover, compares ob/gyn to a college sorority and has a fantasy in which the girls of Omicron Beta Gamma have a pillow fight. Dr. Reid does not want to choose ob/gyn as her medical specialty, but her father insists that she must. His first argument is that "Your highest income potential as a female physician is in obstetrics." Elliott is not swayed. So Dad's next argument is "I paid for your college, your medical school, your car, and now your apartment and all your living expenses." He cuts her off financially, and Elliott worries about moving her stuff out of the big apartment she currently lives in.
Why it doesn't seem right: It was J.D.'s fantasy that made me question the whole characterization of ob/gyn practitioners. However, a little research shows that this episode actually gets the facts right. It is true that a lot of ob/gyns practicing today are men. Old men. That makes Bush Jr.'s remarks "Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country" so hilarious. But to cut the moron-in-chief some slack, it should be acknowledged that it is a serious issue that "Too many good docs are getting out of business" (his previous remark in that speech, conveniently forgotten by the "liberal" media), and medical journals confirm this.
Medical journals also confirm that "Women are becoming obstetrician-gynecologists in increasing numbers," according to Drs. Erica Frank, John Rock and Daniella Sara ("Characteristics of Female Obstetrician-Gynecologists in the United States" from Obstetrics & Gynecology 94 (1999)). Dr. Frank et al predict that a greater proportion of ob/gyns will be women in the future. (Some of my girlfriends are happy enough with their current male ob/gyns that they wouldn't ditch him just to have a female ob/gyn, but I digress). Given that "53.0% of obstetrician-gynecologist residents in 1993 were female," it would seem that J.D.'s fantasy is not entirely off the mark as far as the facts are concerned. Furthermore, it goes to show that even today male doctors sometimes have trouble taking their female colleagues seriously.
As for Dad's dialogue, the first line quoted does mesh with statements in medical journals: female ob/gyns "reported higher personal and household incomes ... than other female physicians" (Frank et al). The second line quoted goes to the show's backstory, and given that this is the first appearance of Elliott's Dad, there is nothing to contradict his financial support of her in the previous episodes. I do wonder why, if the Reid family is so well off, is Dad so concerned with his daughter maximizing her earning potential? Would he be OK with his daughter forsaking a career to be the wife of the son of one of his colleagues? This line of questioning borders on speculation, so I'm afraid that after all this talking, I don't actually have any nits for this episode.
The episode: "My Fruit Cups," first aired November 14, 2002. This second season episode is available on DVD in the American Region, but it's still repeated on syndicated TV often enough that you can probably catch it almost without wanting to.
What happened: Dr. Reid feels pressured to become an obstetrician/gynecologist. Dr. Dorian, in voiceover, compares ob/gyn to a college sorority and has a fantasy in which the girls of Omicron Beta Gamma have a pillow fight. Dr. Reid does not want to choose ob/gyn as her medical specialty, but her father insists that she must. His first argument is that "Your highest income potential as a female physician is in obstetrics." Elliott is not swayed. So Dad's next argument is "I paid for your college, your medical school, your car, and now your apartment and all your living expenses." He cuts her off financially, and Elliott worries about moving her stuff out of the big apartment she currently lives in.
Why it doesn't seem right: It was J.D.'s fantasy that made me question the whole characterization of ob/gyn practitioners. However, a little research shows that this episode actually gets the facts right. It is true that a lot of ob/gyns practicing today are men. Old men. That makes Bush Jr.'s remarks "Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country" so hilarious. But to cut the moron-in-chief some slack, it should be acknowledged that it is a serious issue that "Too many good docs are getting out of business" (his previous remark in that speech, conveniently forgotten by the "liberal" media), and medical journals confirm this.
Medical journals also confirm that "Women are becoming obstetrician-gynecologists in increasing numbers," according to Drs. Erica Frank, John Rock and Daniella Sara ("Characteristics of Female Obstetrician-Gynecologists in the United States" from Obstetrics & Gynecology 94 (1999)). Dr. Frank et al predict that a greater proportion of ob/gyns will be women in the future. (Some of my girlfriends are happy enough with their current male ob/gyns that they wouldn't ditch him just to have a female ob/gyn, but I digress). Given that "53.0% of obstetrician-gynecologist residents in 1993 were female," it would seem that J.D.'s fantasy is not entirely off the mark as far as the facts are concerned. Furthermore, it goes to show that even today male doctors sometimes have trouble taking their female colleagues seriously.
As for Dad's dialogue, the first line quoted does mesh with statements in medical journals: female ob/gyns "reported higher personal and household incomes ... than other female physicians" (Frank et al). The second line quoted goes to the show's backstory, and given that this is the first appearance of Elliott's Dad, there is nothing to contradict his financial support of her in the previous episodes. I do wonder why, if the Reid family is so well off, is Dad so concerned with his daughter maximizing her earning potential? Would he be OK with his daughter forsaking a career to be the wife of the son of one of his colleagues? This line of questioning borders on speculation, so I'm afraid that after all this talking, I don't actually have any nits for this episode.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Peter still needs a Jew
The show: Family Guy
The episode: "Road to Germany," first aired October 19, 2008, on FOX.
What happened: Transported to 1939 Europe, Mort Goldman has to pretend to be a Catholic priest and administer last rites to a dying Nazi soldier. His speech is full of problems, and Brian and Stewie attempt to subtly correct him with simultaneous coughs. One of the problem statements is: "We pray in the name of You, and Your son, who died in a freak accident that, um, You can't really blame on anyone..."
Why it makes no sense: This is not the place to nitpick the idea that 1st Century Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus (as if God didn't intend His son to be crucified in order to atone for the sins of mankind). Accepting it as true for the sake of argument, why should Mort Goldman feel guilty about it? The farthest back in time he has been is 1939 (assuming he's the same age as Peter and hasn't traveled back in time any other time). The white descendants of plantation owners feel no guilt over slavery, even if they pay reparations, because it is something their ancestors did, and not they themselves. Mort Goldman would not have been involved in any of the planning to crucify Jesus, and the same is probably true of almost everyone else in the Temple in 1939. Even if sin does attach to children, doesn't the sacrifice of Jesus absolve the children of the sins of their parents? (If I'm wrong on the theology, please, don't hesitate to correct me).
But why take it seriously? Family Guy producer Seth Macfarlane got a free pass from the offensive lyrics Peter sings in the pre-cancellation episode "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein," including "Even though they killed my Lord, I need a Jew." Macfarlane's justification was "Consider the source" (listen to the commentary to that episode). Peter is an idiot and more than one episode can be offered as proof, including episodes that show he doesn't even know much about the religion he was baptized in (Catholic). The free pass Macfarlane got for Peter doesn't also apply to Jewish characters in the show, such as Mort Goldman and of course the 1939 rabbi earlier in the episode. While Mort denies anyone was responsible for the death of Jesus, he does so in a decidedly suspicious way. Take, for example, the way that Stewie vouches for Mort as "an Aryan" priest: "He's molested me many times." Then a real Catholic priest shows up and says he was held up doing "innocent, non-molesty things," in almost the same tone of obvious denial that Mort used just seconds ago for the Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus. Blanket accusations of deicide (against the Jews) and of child molestation (against Catholic priests) are very serious accusations indeed, and to try to give them validity as kernels of truth to jokes is very concerning indeed.
In order to get a free pass this time, Seth Macfarlane will have to paint Mort Goldman as very much an idiot, something that the writers of this episode have already begun to do (combined with the stereotype of Jews as hypochondriacs). An even more elaborate dance will be required to justify the rabbi's comments earlier in the episode.
The episode: "Road to Germany," first aired October 19, 2008, on FOX.
What happened: Transported to 1939 Europe, Mort Goldman has to pretend to be a Catholic priest and administer last rites to a dying Nazi soldier. His speech is full of problems, and Brian and Stewie attempt to subtly correct him with simultaneous coughs. One of the problem statements is: "We pray in the name of You, and Your son, who died in a freak accident that, um, You can't really blame on anyone..."
Why it makes no sense: This is not the place to nitpick the idea that 1st Century Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus (as if God didn't intend His son to be crucified in order to atone for the sins of mankind). Accepting it as true for the sake of argument, why should Mort Goldman feel guilty about it? The farthest back in time he has been is 1939 (assuming he's the same age as Peter and hasn't traveled back in time any other time). The white descendants of plantation owners feel no guilt over slavery, even if they pay reparations, because it is something their ancestors did, and not they themselves. Mort Goldman would not have been involved in any of the planning to crucify Jesus, and the same is probably true of almost everyone else in the Temple in 1939. Even if sin does attach to children, doesn't the sacrifice of Jesus absolve the children of the sins of their parents? (If I'm wrong on the theology, please, don't hesitate to correct me).
But why take it seriously? Family Guy producer Seth Macfarlane got a free pass from the offensive lyrics Peter sings in the pre-cancellation episode "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein," including "Even though they killed my Lord, I need a Jew." Macfarlane's justification was "Consider the source" (listen to the commentary to that episode). Peter is an idiot and more than one episode can be offered as proof, including episodes that show he doesn't even know much about the religion he was baptized in (Catholic). The free pass Macfarlane got for Peter doesn't also apply to Jewish characters in the show, such as Mort Goldman and of course the 1939 rabbi earlier in the episode. While Mort denies anyone was responsible for the death of Jesus, he does so in a decidedly suspicious way. Take, for example, the way that Stewie vouches for Mort as "an Aryan" priest: "He's molested me many times." Then a real Catholic priest shows up and says he was held up doing "innocent, non-molesty things," in almost the same tone of obvious denial that Mort used just seconds ago for the Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus. Blanket accusations of deicide (against the Jews) and of child molestation (against Catholic priests) are very serious accusations indeed, and to try to give them validity as kernels of truth to jokes is very concerning indeed.
In order to get a free pass this time, Seth Macfarlane will have to paint Mort Goldman as very much an idiot, something that the writers of this episode have already begun to do (combined with the stereotype of Jews as hypochondriacs). An even more elaborate dance will be required to justify the rabbi's comments earlier in the episode.
The photographer's flash blinded me from miles away!
The show: JAG
The episode: "Ghosts of Christmas Past," first aired December 14, 1999 on CBS. Now available on DVD as Season 5, Disc 3, Title 3.
What happened: One night close to Christmas 1969, Lt. Garcia (Randy Vasquez, normally Gunny Galindez in the present) is piloting a plane back to the aircraft carrier with Lt. Harmon Rabb, Sr. (David James Elliott, normally Rabb Jr.) when a civilian photographer on the deck of the carrier (Paul Collins, normally the Clinton-era SecNav) tries to take a picture of the plane coming in for the landing. The photographer's flash blinds Lt. Garcia (Lt. Rabb is OK because he was looking down at his instruments) and he makes a very sloppy landing that almost kills him and his copilot. Once safe on the deck, Garcia is told that the captain threw the photographer's camera overboard.
Why it makes no sense: If you've ever tried to take a picture of someone at night with a film camera, then you know that photographic flash just doesn't carry that far. In high school, one night I tried to take a picture of my friends standing on one end of a football field while I was on the other end; I thought it was going to make a great picture. The lab didn't even bother printing that one and the negative is just plain blank. My friends did see the flash, but it didn't blind them one bit (if I had put the flash two feet from their faces they would have certainly blinked).
The professionals have better stuff than the dinky cube flash on my old film camera, but for the picture I had in mind, they wouldn't have relied on any kind of flash: they would have made an elaborate lighting rig, or if they were shooting in a major league team's stadium, they would have full-power stadium lighting available to them.
So how do you light a photograph of a plane about to land on an aircraft carrier at night? You do it in the daytime, with the sun being all the lighting rig you need, and then you do a day-for-night conversion in the darkroom (you'd use Adobe Photoshop for that now, but I'm sure back in 1969 it would still have been easy). The crew of JAG ought to know this, even if they used stock footage for the plane. They would also know that not even the best photographic flash can carry across a football field, much less the runway of an aircraft carrier (at least three football fields) plus whatever distance the plane is still away from the edge.
But let's say that in the world depicted in JAG that photographic flash really can carry that far. How long would it take for America's enemies to realize that they can use off-the-shelf photographic flash to blind American pilots? They don't even have to get that close!
Maybe this incident in the story can be explained away as an allegory for how damaging the news media is on our troops by sticking their noses into what's none of their business. This is not the place to comment on whether or not JAG is right to scold the news media in this way (or in other ways in other episodes, especially the post-9/11 episodes) but at least they should pick allegories that don't strain credulity as much as this one does.
The episode: "Ghosts of Christmas Past," first aired December 14, 1999 on CBS. Now available on DVD as Season 5, Disc 3, Title 3.
What happened: One night close to Christmas 1969, Lt. Garcia (Randy Vasquez, normally Gunny Galindez in the present) is piloting a plane back to the aircraft carrier with Lt. Harmon Rabb, Sr. (David James Elliott, normally Rabb Jr.) when a civilian photographer on the deck of the carrier (Paul Collins, normally the Clinton-era SecNav) tries to take a picture of the plane coming in for the landing. The photographer's flash blinds Lt. Garcia (Lt. Rabb is OK because he was looking down at his instruments) and he makes a very sloppy landing that almost kills him and his copilot. Once safe on the deck, Garcia is told that the captain threw the photographer's camera overboard.
Why it makes no sense: If you've ever tried to take a picture of someone at night with a film camera, then you know that photographic flash just doesn't carry that far. In high school, one night I tried to take a picture of my friends standing on one end of a football field while I was on the other end; I thought it was going to make a great picture. The lab didn't even bother printing that one and the negative is just plain blank. My friends did see the flash, but it didn't blind them one bit (if I had put the flash two feet from their faces they would have certainly blinked).
The professionals have better stuff than the dinky cube flash on my old film camera, but for the picture I had in mind, they wouldn't have relied on any kind of flash: they would have made an elaborate lighting rig, or if they were shooting in a major league team's stadium, they would have full-power stadium lighting available to them.
So how do you light a photograph of a plane about to land on an aircraft carrier at night? You do it in the daytime, with the sun being all the lighting rig you need, and then you do a day-for-night conversion in the darkroom (you'd use Adobe Photoshop for that now, but I'm sure back in 1969 it would still have been easy). The crew of JAG ought to know this, even if they used stock footage for the plane. They would also know that not even the best photographic flash can carry across a football field, much less the runway of an aircraft carrier (at least three football fields) plus whatever distance the plane is still away from the edge.
But let's say that in the world depicted in JAG that photographic flash really can carry that far. How long would it take for America's enemies to realize that they can use off-the-shelf photographic flash to blind American pilots? They don't even have to get that close!
Maybe this incident in the story can be explained away as an allegory for how damaging the news media is on our troops by sticking their noses into what's none of their business. This is not the place to comment on whether or not JAG is right to scold the news media in this way (or in other ways in other episodes, especially the post-9/11 episodes) but at least they should pick allegories that don't strain credulity as much as this one does.
The start: What this blog is about
This blog is about nitpicking movies and TV shows of fictional (or fictionalized) events, originally produced in English with the exception of Star Trek and its spin-offs (those are well enough covered by Phil Farrand's NitCentral). Preferably, we should nitpick recently aired TV episodes or recently released films, but those which have been released on DVD are fair game, too. I have a very small team right now but I hope to expand it in the future.
The ground rules: For stand-alone movies, only what is shown in the film is valid for nitpicking. For movies with sequels and prequels, anything in a prior movie is valid for nitpicking the movie under consideration. For TV series, the pilot episode establishes what is valid for nitpicking that show, so for that reason TV pilots should be cut a lot of slack (this rule is due to Farrand's books). And of course TV shows that are spin-offs of other TV shows may be nitpicked with material from those shows. Shows and movies which fictionalize events from the headlines (I'm looking at you, Law & Order) open the door to being nitpicked on for real life details pertaining to common knowledge, such as basic science and non-recent history.
Lastly, this is all for fun: if a nit requires too much work, such as freeze-framing, zooming in real close and applying a sophisticated imaging algorithm, then it's not worth it. We should never call for someone to be fired over a mistake in the story, no matter how thoroughly it destroys suspension of disbelief; we simply ask them to pay more attention in the future, while being grateful for providing us fodder for this activity.
The ground rules: For stand-alone movies, only what is shown in the film is valid for nitpicking. For movies with sequels and prequels, anything in a prior movie is valid for nitpicking the movie under consideration. For TV series, the pilot episode establishes what is valid for nitpicking that show, so for that reason TV pilots should be cut a lot of slack (this rule is due to Farrand's books). And of course TV shows that are spin-offs of other TV shows may be nitpicked with material from those shows. Shows and movies which fictionalize events from the headlines (I'm looking at you, Law & Order) open the door to being nitpicked on for real life details pertaining to common knowledge, such as basic science and non-recent history.
Lastly, this is all for fun: if a nit requires too much work, such as freeze-framing, zooming in real close and applying a sophisticated imaging algorithm, then it's not worth it. We should never call for someone to be fired over a mistake in the story, no matter how thoroughly it destroys suspension of disbelief; we simply ask them to pay more attention in the future, while being grateful for providing us fodder for this activity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)