Is it clear that the acting change for Zak Adama was for casting reasons, or possibly the change from an extra to a fully fledged actor? --Radicaledward 06:21, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Linking Baltar/Adar image to this page to "adopt it" (It's not visible, but it's there). --Steelviper 09:10, 31 January 2006 (EST)
Name change[edit]
Should the name of this page be changed to "Goofs" or something as it coveres other gaffes not just continuity errors? --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 03:25, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
- You are right. It should be called something like "Production Errors". --StrayCat0 22:36, 21 July 2006 (PDT)
- No. The current name is better and more accurate. --The Merovingian (C - E) 02:11, 22 July 2006 (CDT)
- How about "Production and Continuity errors." --Talos 10:01, 22 July 2006 (CDT)
- How is Danglers, Recasting, Prop and Equipment Errors and Crew Visible Continuity error?? These are obviously production errors? Danglers aren't really errors, maybe scripting issues, maybe something they'll leave for later, they're prone to that. I like "Production and Continuity Errors". --StrayCat0 10:35, 22 July 2006 (PDT)
- How about "Production and Continuity errors." --Talos 10:01, 22 July 2006 (CDT)
- No. The current name is better and more accurate. --The Merovingian (C - E) 02:11, 22 July 2006 (CDT)
- Talos' suggestion is quite sensible, and I support it. --The Merovingian (C - E) 15:07, 22 July 2006 (CDT)
- Production errors include continuity errors, so "Production errors (RDM)" should win by virtue of concision. --Peter Farago 20:26, 22 July 2006 (CDT)
- As I recall, this article already underwent a namechange... However, that's not really the point, so I will agree with Peter's suggestion of going with "Production errors (RDM)", simply because it is inclusive of all the errors that happen on screen. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 21:13, 22 July 2006 (CDT)
- Though, 'Conituity Errors' should be in there somewhere because a continuity errors affect the story where other production errors don't necessarily. A Prop, equipment, or crew visibility error doesn't affect whats going on but the miscount in the number of months to the election does play. Maybe a separate page should be made for productions errors outside of continuity errors. --StrayCat0 21:53, 22 July 2006 (PDT)
- No. --The Merovingian (C - E) 00:43, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
- And both the number of months to the election and prop errors are both production related, hence my agreement with Peter's suggestion. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 08:06, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
- That was my main point, was that its not just continuity errors on this page. I like Peters suggestion. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 15:29, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
- After working on this some, we may want to reopen this discussion. Also, looking ahead at removing goofs/bloopers from episodes that need working on, there may be enough stuff for two articles, continuity errors and production errors, with room for the future. At least maybe consider renaming the article per Peter's suggestion. --FrankieG 17:58, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
- I think we can safely split this article into two pages (one for production errors, the other for continuity errors). Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 23:06, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- After working on this some, we may want to reopen this discussion. Also, looking ahead at removing goofs/bloopers from episodes that need working on, there may be enough stuff for two articles, continuity errors and production errors, with room for the future. At least maybe consider renaming the article per Peter's suggestion. --FrankieG 17:58, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
- That was my main point, was that its not just continuity errors on this page. I like Peters suggestion. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 15:29, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
- Though, 'Conituity Errors' should be in there somewhere because a continuity errors affect the story where other production errors don't necessarily. A Prop, equipment, or crew visibility error doesn't affect whats going on but the miscount in the number of months to the election does play. Maybe a separate page should be made for productions errors outside of continuity errors. --StrayCat0 21:53, 22 July 2006 (PDT)
- Talos' suggestion is quite sensible, and I support it. --The Merovingian (C - E) 15:07, 22 July 2006 (CDT)
Link Episode Guides To Here[edit]
Need advice on how/where to link episodes to here. In the Episode Info Template? But not all episodes have goofs/bloopers. --FrankieG 09:55, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
|goof=Y? --Shane (T - C - E) 10:30, 13 September 2006 (CDT)- I like it. It would take some smarts in the template to distinguish which series goof page to goto, but I think that's a field already (so it'd have the info to drive off of). I leave such technical matters to our template guru... --Steelviper 10:32, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
Reorganization[edit]
Plan to reorganize this page so all the errors are in episode order within each section. Make it easier to "scan". Maybe Episode Name: at the start of each errror?
- I like the overall headings, so it would have to be in both sections. Or we can always enter __NOEDITSECTION__ --Shane (T - C - E) 14:33, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
Suspending Disbelief[edit]
Characters are not perfect, they make mistakes, mishear things, or in some cases may outright lie. Billy could have misheard one thousand five hundered prisoners or there could have been static on the wireless "I have *snap, crackle, pop* five hundred prisoners". Baltar could be lieing about how long it takes for the Cylon detection to work, why not, he lied about the results and then covered up his lie when called on it after Sharon shot Adama. Both of these seem just as (if not more so) reasonable then FTL travel. Eghm 19:38, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Actually... Billy's lines were redubbed, so, yes, it's a deliberate retcon. As for Baltar's thing, the issue there is that he did find out Sharon was a Cylon, and it didn't take him 11 hours to do it. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 19:50, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- I lookuped Retcon, so I see the importance of that, I am confused as to how Retcons are Continuity Errors aren't they retoractive continuity fixes? If so I am for the renaming of the page as well. I don't follow how Baltars lieing about how long it takes is a Retcon. Eghm 19:57, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Baltar may be lying. Or he might be telling the truth (and the writer's just forgot how short a time G-Sharon's test took. Either way, it's a (possible) continuity error. I would be for adding the stipulation that "providing Baltar's not lying, the test takes 11 hours and etc., etc.". -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:10, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Given Baltar's terrified reaction to the result, I don't think he is lying. --FrankieG 20:13, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- I mean lieing about the test taking 11 hours Eghm 20:15, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- I think that he makes too big a deal about it taking him "forever" to do everyone. The writers seem to have wasted a lot of dialogue for him to just be lying. Plus, given the nature of Baltar/Internal Six relationship, she would have probably needled he about lying. --FrankieG 20:19, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- I've reworded this to account for that possibility. However, if I recall correctly, Baltar was discussing this with Internal Six, so I can't really see how it's a lie... More than likely, the writer's slipped up. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:23, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Ya, I can see your point. Then again people have been known to convince themselves that a lie isn't a lie. I guess my viewpoint is to assume good faith and give the writers a break when I can come up with (at least what seems to me) a plausable explaination. Either way could someone explain to me how this is a Retcon? Eghm 20:30, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Well, it is plausible. As for the retcon thing: it's a retcon because the "beta" test on Sharon took less time than 11 hours, and then later Baltar said that to run a complete test on a sample would take 11 hours. Also, in "Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down", Baltar is running a test on Bill Adama's sample, who interrupts that test with a demand to test Ellen Tigh's sample. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:46, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Oh I see, thanks. I guess my not being sold that Balter was telling the truth vs a writer error was preventing me from seeing a "deliberately changing previously established facts". I like your justification for saying it is 11 hours so as not to have a Cylon present when the results come in, which is probably more practical than my though that Baltar is "sandbagging" as I was assuming he is simply bored of all this repetative testing (oh whoa is poor Baltar...) and saying it takes 11 hours gives him plenty of time to do more interesting stuff. I am still interested in the more pointed bit of my last comment. Which moves me down to the NEC logo and Microsoft mouse. Along those lines shouldn't Starbuck's Hummer, the Renault in "Resistance", the chicken pot pie, and how Caprica looks like a Canadian city also be listed? I am very interested in where we draw the line on suspending disbelief vs "errors". Eghm 21:07, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Maybe Baltar's test only takes 11 hours to make a complete survey of the sample. It could've picked up Cylon stuff immediately in Boomer's sample (in other words, Baltar got lucky). --Talos 21:19, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- That wouldn't be surprising, considering how his luck runs. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 23:04, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- I wouldn't call Caprica looking like a certain Canadian city a "continuity error". Obviously, we may want to create a page called List of filming locations (RDM) for that, which would be a cool undertaking. In fact, I seem to recall some sites that do this. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 23:04, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- But you would call the other ones errors? Eghm 23:16, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- If they're blatantly obvious like the NEC logo or the Microsoft Mouse, yes. (Obviously, prop redressses wouldn't count.) Also, above this section, we're reopening the discussion in splitting this page off into two distinct entities: one for production errors and another for continuity errors, since they're different. We may want to do one for retconns as well, since they're continuity corrections, and not really errors. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 23:25, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- I don't see how the microsoft mouse (kudos to those that noticed it, BTW) is any more obvious than the hummer or renault, I've zoomed in on the image, and I can't make out the word microsoft, I just see a bit of white at the bottom. And I am not saying that I think that the hummer and renault should be included. What I am trying to say is I would really like to see is the wiki come up with a policy about these "errors" and personally I think that there should be some sort of "assume good faith" toward the writers in that policy. Eghm 00:19, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- Interesting idea, perhaps you could use our Think Tank to come up with your proposal? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 00:29, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- Okay, I've started working on a error policy proposal. Eghm 02:00, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- Interesting idea, perhaps you could use our Think Tank to come up with your proposal? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 00:29, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- I don't see how the microsoft mouse (kudos to those that noticed it, BTW) is any more obvious than the hummer or renault, I've zoomed in on the image, and I can't make out the word microsoft, I just see a bit of white at the bottom. And I am not saying that I think that the hummer and renault should be included. What I am trying to say is I would really like to see is the wiki come up with a policy about these "errors" and personally I think that there should be some sort of "assume good faith" toward the writers in that policy. Eghm 00:19, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- If they're blatantly obvious like the NEC logo or the Microsoft Mouse, yes. (Obviously, prop redressses wouldn't count.) Also, above this section, we're reopening the discussion in splitting this page off into two distinct entities: one for production errors and another for continuity errors, since they're different. We may want to do one for retconns as well, since they're continuity corrections, and not really errors. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 23:25, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- But you would call the other ones errors? Eghm 23:16, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Maybe Baltar's test only takes 11 hours to make a complete survey of the sample. It could've picked up Cylon stuff immediately in Boomer's sample (in other words, Baltar got lucky). --Talos 21:19, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Oh I see, thanks. I guess my not being sold that Balter was telling the truth vs a writer error was preventing me from seeing a "deliberately changing previously established facts". I like your justification for saying it is 11 hours so as not to have a Cylon present when the results come in, which is probably more practical than my though that Baltar is "sandbagging" as I was assuming he is simply bored of all this repetative testing (oh whoa is poor Baltar...) and saying it takes 11 hours gives him plenty of time to do more interesting stuff. I am still interested in the more pointed bit of my last comment. Which moves me down to the NEC logo and Microsoft mouse. Along those lines shouldn't Starbuck's Hummer, the Renault in "Resistance", the chicken pot pie, and how Caprica looks like a Canadian city also be listed? I am very interested in where we draw the line on suspending disbelief vs "errors". Eghm 21:07, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Well, it is plausible. As for the retcon thing: it's a retcon because the "beta" test on Sharon took less time than 11 hours, and then later Baltar said that to run a complete test on a sample would take 11 hours. Also, in "Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down", Baltar is running a test on Bill Adama's sample, who interrupts that test with a demand to test Ellen Tigh's sample. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:46, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Ya, I can see your point. Then again people have been known to convince themselves that a lie isn't a lie. I guess my viewpoint is to assume good faith and give the writers a break when I can come up with (at least what seems to me) a plausable explaination. Either way could someone explain to me how this is a Retcon? Eghm 20:30, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- I mean lieing about the test taking 11 hours Eghm 20:15, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Given Baltar's terrified reaction to the result, I don't think he is lying. --FrankieG 20:13, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- Baltar may be lying. Or he might be telling the truth (and the writer's just forgot how short a time G-Sharon's test took. Either way, it's a (possible) continuity error. I would be for adding the stipulation that "providing Baltar's not lying, the test takes 11 hours and etc., etc.". -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:10, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
- I lookuped Retcon, so I see the importance of that, I am confused as to how Retcons are Continuity Errors aren't they retoractive continuity fixes? If so I am for the renaming of the page as well. I don't follow how Baltars lieing about how long it takes is a Retcon. Eghm 19:57, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
Computer Equipment[edit]
Re-added some text that I had edited to save some space, but I believe that it makes a derived point. Give the amount of computer equipment show in the series, the production staff have usually been careful about generic-lizing it. Computers (and similiar technology) are very central to the series. However, for example, vehicles are not. --FrankieG 12:17, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
Discussion of entries[edit]
I can't recall Tigh saying "Jesus", though I've heard people talking about it. Is it possible that it was redubbed for the UK DVD? Or maybe someone can give me the rough timeindex --Serenity 09:14, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- It's roughly after Tigh and Starbuck's card fight, where Adama asks Tigh whether or not he's really going to press charges. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 10:08, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- Ok, found it. He says it very softly under his breath. Never noticed that before :) --Serenity 10:39, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- Yeah, it's not really noticeable, I missed it to when I first watched the Miniseries. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 11:31, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- Ok, found it. He says it very softly under his breath. Never noticed that before :) --Serenity 10:39, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
Would Boxy count as Dangling plot line? Eghm 12:13, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- Boxey would be more of a discarded plot line, since Ron Moore and others have come out and admitted that they felt Boxey wouldn't work out. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:16, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
Another point:
"Visual VFX gaffes" list a MkII launch sequence for "Scar". That's true for the aired version but it has been fixed on DVD! So this should probably be moved to "acknowledged errors"
"Resurrection Ship II" is also listed, but I think they use both kinds of vipers there and we only see one launch. That's no error IMO. If you want to keep both episode entries, the clarifcation about the fix could be added under "VFX gaffes" --Serenity 14:24, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
Isn't the Pyramid entry in Retcon section incorrect? I don't remember them actually ever saying the card game was named Pyramid. --FrankieG 18:14, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
- Yeah I can't recall that either. It`s an error compared to TOS maybe, but not withing TNS itself --Serenity 14:34, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- It's noted in the "Notes" section of the Pyramid page. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 14:49, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- Yeah, but that refers to TOS vs TNS. Not to the Miniseries vs Season 1. In the article it says that Pyramid was the poker game in the Mini. Maybe I'm wrong again, but I don't think that's the case -Serenity 15:07, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- I concur with Serenity; specifically, I think that although it is an error, it is not a continuity error. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 13:02, 16 September 2006 (CDT)
- Another argument: Right before Baltar's interview the TV person says "For those of you just joining us from the Pyramid game on Gemenon". While they also show Poker games on television these days, I'm sure that a ball game would be far more popular and more prime-time material. So the error was already there in the Miniseries.
But as said it's an error compared to TOS only. So if it's included at all that needs to be made clear. For now I removed it. --Serenity 13:25, 16 September 2006 (CDT)
- Another argument: Right before Baltar's interview the TV person says "For those of you just joining us from the Pyramid game on Gemenon". While they also show Poker games on television these days, I'm sure that a ball game would be far more popular and more prime-time material. So the error was already there in the Miniseries.
- I concur with Serenity; specifically, I think that although it is an error, it is not a continuity error. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 13:02, 16 September 2006 (CDT)
- Yeah, but that refers to TOS vs TNS. Not to the Miniseries vs Season 1. In the article it says that Pyramid was the poker game in the Mini. Maybe I'm wrong again, but I don't think that's the case -Serenity 15:07, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
Helo's apparant use of the word "fuck": Firstly, that episode is wrongly cited as being "Home, pt II", when in fact Roslin threatened to throw Sharon out of the airlock in "Home, pt I". Secondly, I have just watched that section a few times over, and it is quite clearly the word "frak" which Helo shouts, not "fuck". This should be removed. --Madbrood 13:29, 17 September 2006 (CDT)
F-16[edit]
- An F-16 Fighting Falcon is visible in a picture in Adama's quarters when he and Colonel Tigh discuss Starbuck striking Tigh.
Is this an error, as such? If the Colonials have Hummers, it's not unreasonable to assume they have combat aircraft. --Peter Farago 02:07, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- Combat aircraft, yes. Cambat aircraft exactly imitating a United States fighter? Possible, but insanely unlikely. --BklynBruzer 09:06, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- It might not be exactly an error, per se. It is likely that the Colonials, despite their space craft, use air craft very much similar in form and function to airplanes (or fighter planes) from Earth. They do use cars, after all, and not hovercraft. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 11:03, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- I'm not of a mind to second-guess the folks who made that mistake, but perhaps they thought it was a way of covering the fact (insofar as the show's current design goes) that the Colonials really have no atmospheric fighter capability, as Vipers don't do well at slow speeds. The suggestion that a "Colonial Python/Anaconda/Cobra/whatever" exists to fill that gap in the arsenal probably came up in the minds of someone to fix such a gaffe. Then again, it was, in likely truth, probably just done for the "filler/cool factor" reasoning.--み使い Mitsukai 11:23, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- It might not be exactly an error, per se. It is likely that the Colonials, despite their space craft, use air craft very much similar in form and function to airplanes (or fighter planes) from Earth. They do use cars, after all, and not hovercraft. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 11:03, 9 October 2006 (CDT)