68,299
edits
Forum:Discontinuity revisited: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Production errors vs Discontinuity
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
::::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) | ||
:::::I'm sure I was reading one of the articles you've been editing that there weren't any 'lighting directors' back in the day?. The italic explanation I must have left by accident. As for the error itself, yes now that I read it again it isn't an error, when I left it in I was thinking of backdrops and shadows falling on them, but now remember the shot in question and it's not an error (I shall fall back on the; 'it is the very nature of a wiki that things will be edited multiple times before they're correct and everyone makes mistakes'). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:25, March 25, 2010 (UTC) | |||
