Forum:Discontinuity revisited: Difference between revisions

:::Specifically labeling it as 'Production errors' would allow us to specify that the errors are, well production based, continuity wouldn't enter into it. I just feel this information is somewhat worth it (for all the jokes about wobbly sets there aren't that many ''actual'' stories with wobbly sets, the Errors section is where this info would be found). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 13:27, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

::::Oh, absolutely, TD.  Production errors are out-of-universe, and therefore obviously fair game on an out-of-universe story page. However, we do need perhaps a stronger wording, because some people will think "production errors" can include mistakes on the production team's part with respect to narrative continuity.  The problem, here, is that the word "continuity" has both a narrative significance (as in [[canon]]) and a production one, as controlled by the [[continuity supervisor]].  So what's the unmistakable phrase here?  "Production errors" could work, as long as the manual of style is altered to explain it.  But here are some alternatives to consider:  "Things that slipped past the [[continuity supervisor]]", "Behind-the-scenes gaffes", "Recording errors" or "Filming errors".  I kind of prefer one of these last two, because they clearly distance themselves from discussion of the script, which is a part of the production process.  "Recording errors" might be the better of the two, as it can be used to encompass sound as well as visual errors, and because, of course, the 1963 version was mostly not filmed, but video recorded. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]'''  [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 16:39, March 21, 2010 (UTC)