Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Forum:Discontinuity revisited: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Production errors vs Discontinuity
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
::::The Waters of Mars 'errors' are debatable, they don't make sense within wider continuity, but that doesn't necessarily make them errors (they are elements of continuity that doesn't make sense), but there's nothing inherently wrong with them. Unless there is a source that can be cited that proves they were wrongly created? --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:06, March 25, 2010 (UTC) | ::::The Waters of Mars 'errors' are debatable, they don't make sense within wider continuity, but that doesn't necessarily make them errors (they are elements of continuity that doesn't make sense), but there's nothing inherently wrong with them. Unless there is a source that can be cited that proves they were wrongly created? --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:06, March 25, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::::Alright. Points noted; this is still a step forward whatever we call it. Perhaps with persistent education in several different places on the wiki, we'll bring everyone on board. Moving on to a separate issue . . . | |||
::::I would argue that the error must be ironclad and unexplainable. For instance, in ''[[An Unearthly Child]]'', the bit about the length of the caveman's shadow isn't an error. It can be explained (and currently IS explained) as having to do with the light source's position. And even if it isn't a realistic shadow, that doesn't make it an "error". It's at worst an artistic choice by the lighting director that couldn't happen in real life. It's on a par with the TARDIS being bigger on the inside than out. That couldn't happen in real life, but that doesn't make it an error. There's no question but that the shadow is what the lighting director intended. An error would be if the studio light were visible in shot, or if the light temporarily flickered without being explained by the narrative. We really can't have the section follow the old pattern of a statement followed by an italicized explanation. If there is a justification which can be entered in italics, the chances are it's not an error but an artistic choice. '''[[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>]] 16:14, March 25, 2010 (UTC) | ::::I would argue that the error must be ironclad and unexplainable. For instance, in ''[[An Unearthly Child]]'', the bit about the length of the caveman's shadow isn't an error. It can be explained (and currently IS explained) as having to do with the light source's position. And even if it isn't a realistic shadow, that doesn't make it an "error". It's at worst an artistic choice by the lighting director that couldn't happen in real life. It's on a par with the TARDIS being bigger on the inside than out. That couldn't happen in real life, but that doesn't make it an error. There's no question but that the shadow is what the lighting director intended. An error would be if the studio light were visible in shot, or if the light temporarily flickered without being explained by the narrative. We really can't have the section follow the old pattern of a statement followed by an italicized explanation. If there is a justification which can be entered in italics, the chances are it's not an error but an artistic choice. '''[[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>]] 16:14, March 25, 2010 (UTC) | ||
