TV shows have a varied record when it comes to continuity - some better than others. Frasier was pretty good at continutity, having certain running jokes that lasted throughout the series.

Other shows haven't done as well. There's a thread devoted to missing characters, who often disappear without comment. Does it also bother you when entire plotlines just get dropped suddenly for no reason? Or when characters are made to do things that seem to contradict the way they have previously behaved? Or when they hint that something will happen, then we never hear about it again?

Does continuity matter more in a drama than a comedy?

Which shows do the best job at maintaining continuity, and which are the worst?

ETA on 7/8/04: Please be as specific as possible by stating examples of shows that have excellent continuity, and those that don't. I know most people have done that, so please continue to stay on topic so this thread doesn't bite the dust!

To me it depends on the level of continuity. If it is a minor thing that I probably didn't notice until I came to TWOP and found a huge discussion about... then I don't really care. But if it is a glaring continuity error, (ie the birth of Ross on Friends - was he a medical marvel or an accident?) then I have a bit more of a problem with it. I can even accept that it is sometimes hard to keep a show going for as long as some of these shows run and not have continuity errors.

Dropped plots only bother me when it was a plot I was actually kind of interested in. Otherwise, yippee! :)

I do, however, hate it when they hint at something exciting, or big, or earth shattering and then take the story in a different direction. And you're left going, wait what happened to the tiny fuzzy bear that they made a big deal about how it was the only one blah blah blah...

Continuity is vital for scifi & fantasy serieses (seri?). If you create a 'universe'-you have to follow your own rules. Or nerdlingers like me notice and act superior.

Example: Buffy, Season 7. They spend the preceding 6 seasons going on and on about how vampires don't actually breathe air- and yet Spike gets tortured by holding his head underwater.

I guess this isn't so much continuity of plot (or lack thereof) as it is continuity of concept.

I agree that the longer a show runs, the more likely it is that there will be continuity errors. It makes me think that there should be someone on a long-running show specifically assigned to avoid these errors.

The continuity problems I can think of immediately were in comedies. In Boy Meets World the mother (Amy Matthews) is sometimes depicted as having a job and other times as being a stay-at-home mom. The exact nature of the job changes without notice, from doing real estate to working at a gallery, etc. What makes this continuity problem noticeable is that a lot of attention is paid to the father's job, his frustration with it, and his ultimate decision to change careers. There is serious discussion about not quitting jobs, changing jobs, etc., without both spouses agreeing to it, but apparently this only applies to the father. The mother apparently changes jobs and employment status depending on the whim of the writers. Watching the reruns on Disney, so that I see one epi per night rather than one epi per week, this whole lack of continuity really grates.

On Sex and the City, a glaring continuity error that's been noted by many people is the appearance/disappearance of Carrie's cell phone. One episode she'll use her cell phone; a few episodes later she'll say she doesn't have one. What it seems to come down to is that if it helps advance the plot for her to have a cell phone, she does; if it helps advance the plot for her not to have one, she doesn't. So when Miranda calls to ask why Carrie's a no-show, Carrie answers on her cell phone that Big offered to cook dinner for her and so she didn't come. But when it's Carrie's birthday dinner and her friends are running late, think she's at a different restaurant, etc., suddenly Carrie no longer has a cell phone. The cell phone issue on SATC bounced back and forth so often I really think it wasn't a continuity gaffe so much as a deliberate choice by the writers to ignore continuity.

And so that's another thing to consider when there is lack of continuity: deliberate choice by the writers or just a mistake?

Ack, joane3482, I don't remember hearing anything about this. Please do enlighten me.

I agree that there should be someone who is in charge of maintaining continuity. I think that shows are getting better, as I can't rememer too many huge glaring errors (but then again, my screen-name should really be "the oblivious one").

I think Arrested Development has some of the best and funniest continuity for a half hour comedy ever. Gob's magic act with "The Final Countdown" playing and the Saddam palace thing for example. Shows like the West Wing also made great use of continuity. In the first four years of course. The years in which the show was alive. Because now, it's dead. DEAD!!!!!!!

Dallas had a few whoppers. My favorite: in the original miniseries, Ray has an affair with Jock's granddaugher Lucy, then a few years later it turns out he's Jock's son. Yes, the writers never did make it clear that their relationship never happened, but it was clearly something they were hoping people had forgotten, seeing as how the two of them had no scenes together after that, as far as I can recall.

It depends on what kind of show it is. Such shows already established as a show that doesn't rely on contrinuity. Such as animated sitcoms: Cartoon Netowrk, Disney, and Nicktoons. Obviously thye don't need any continuity besides the basic character traits and such. But shows that tend to have an arc rely on continiuty to make the show strong, but when they fail it is obvious. When such shows do have strong continuity it shows and is appreciated, and lets the show have a nice flow.

Word Escardonme, I love Arrested's Continuity. Best. Thing. Ever

Futurama was brilliant at continuity. Early on, they establish that "ax" had officially replaced "ask" by the year 3000. In almost every ep after that, Leela would say "let me ax you something" when the need arose.

Another example: in one ep, Bender the robot adopts a bunch of orphans (he learned there were gov't subsidies available. or something). Of course, by the end of the ep- he ditches them.

In an episode that shortly followed, Leela (who had been an orphan herself) mentions that all orphans are experts at brewing beer. Bender slaps his forehead in frustration.

ETA: Great 3-Toed Sloth of Ice Planet Hoth, The Pez, that's a perfect example! As is: The Prof saying "Good news, everybody!"

Oh, word on the Futurama, as well, remember the episode 'The Sting'? Fry's funeral? They had about every girl Fry has been with, even the Hermes replacement. I love the part when one of the Amazon Women said, "He make good snoo snoo," Cut to past lovers saying, "Eh."

One sitcom that really sucked at continuity is The Golden Girls. The number of kids the girls have change. The names of the kids change. Miles has a daughter who doesn’t like Rose and than a few seasons later we learn he was in the witness protection program. So how could his daughter meet Rose? One of Blanche’s daughters is fat and verbally abused by her boyfriend. The next time we see her she is thin and having a test tube baby. Rose and Charlie has sex every single night the entire time they were married. Then later, Charlie was a traveling salesman who wasn’t home much. Let’s not even mention the ages of Dorothy’s kids. It drives me crazy.

Because I'm very uppity about how I spend my television viewing time, and what I feel I deserve as a 'consumer', I feel that continuity is vital for everything.

I'll agree that if there was a shortage of it, dramas and sci-fi need it more. It's extremely crucial for sci-fi, which introduces concepts that are beyond our current reality, so a series really has to mind the definitions of it's scientific theories and technology if the audience is going to keep up.

Dramas really rely on continuity for impact. When the dots connect, and the audience or a character realizes something very weighty, that's what drama is all about. The continuity is a major chunk of why people watch. Dramas can't be good when they have a one-episode attention span (sometimes not even, and managing contradictions within the span of one episode. I'm looking at you, Mr. Abrams).

Case in point: Alias. Seasons 1 and 2 paid pretty close attention to continuity. The retcon was well timed, and they were probably the best damn two years of TV ever. Season 3, they tried to make things more episodic (amongst other travesties), and there were so many glaring errors. I could probably rattle off a half dozen or more dropped or horribly contradicted storylines right now.

On Wings, Fay was a three time widower, all three dead husbands named George. She talked about them constantly, and their natures, deaths, and the method of their burial/and or cremations varied between episodes. Otherwise, the show had excellent continuity concerning the Hackett brothers' childhood that impressed me.

Continuity depends on the show. For instance, on Spongebob sometimes the Chum Bucket is across the street and sometime nothing is across the street. It changes to suit the plot, and nobody cares. But when it's not a comedy, I hate lack of continuity. If the fans can spot it, the writers should be able to as well.

The show with the worst continuity is a cartoon called Code Lyoko. The main characters go back in time every episode so that the writers don't have to make them deal with the consequences of their actions. They are the only ones who remember everything that happen. But sometimes you'll have these huge plot points-for instance, one character admits their feelings to another character-that are never, every mentioned again. They just dissapear.

nenyadr, in TOW Rosita Dies, when Ross and his dad are talking, they mention a whole big story about Ross being a "medical miracle" because Jack and Judy didn't think they could have kids. But, in TOW Rachel's Book, when Monica and Chandler are discussing the wedding finances with the senior Gellers, the Gellers tell the story about how they got engaged - her diaphragm broke and she was pregnant.

Absolutely. A drama is all about how well you tell a consistent often-serious plot. Comedy is about the laugh pay-off. In a sitcom, I'm fine with continuity being a little wonky, as long as it sets up a good joke. Granted, I think some of the best comedies use continuity to their advantage, but minor flubs are acceptable. I also completely agree with the posters who said sci-fi shows absolutely must have continuity, especially with regards to the laws of physics, technology or magic.


Babylon 5 was excellent at maintaining continuity (mostly because JMS wrote most of the eps and had a B5 bible written out in advance). As mentioned by other posters, Arrested Development has excellent continuity, way more than any other comedy I've ever seen. Star Trek tries hard and I believe there are several "official" publications out there to guide new writers. Certain shows do have a continuity expert on staff, I believe.

One of the worst shows continuity wise was Buffy, which was constantly breaking their own established rules. For example, vamps don't breathe, but Spike "drowns" when held under water. Meanwhile, over in Angel-land, Angel spends all summer locked in a box under the sea and is fine. The magic system was wildly inconsistent as well.

Charmed has bad continuity. Sometimes you can catch it in the same episode. It is like the writers never watch any old episodes of the show. One example is in season three they centered an entire show around an invisible demon who becomes visable when exposed to cold air. He was revealed in their house because Cole turned on the air conditioner and opened the windows to make the house cold. Flash to season five when they are in the middle of a heatwave and Phoebe asks Piper why they never bothered to get an air conditioner.

Well, can you blame them?

LOL@Neko

One show that greatly suffers from conintuity is The Sheild. The show has extremly complicated flow to it that not only punishes casual veiwers, but those who watch the series regularly and yet missed one or two episodes.

I love coninutiy as much as the next guy, but I do get a kick out of "monster of the week" shows like CSI that you can just sit down and watch at any episode.

Add It Up, I agree. It is nice to watch a show where you don't need to have watched from the beginning to really understand the story and what's going on. Law & Order is like that for me. I know there is backstory to all those characters, but I don't really care what it is. I'm mostly interested in the crime... detective work... resolution.

ETA: The worst part of the Ross Friends continuity error... the two epis ajra mentions are in the same damn season! It isn't like there was one reference in season 1 and the wrong reference in season 9. I think the different stories came up in other episodes too, because I remember an episode where Jack hands Chandler a tux he wore in high school and tells Chandler to be careful with it because Ross was conceived near that tux, although that could've been the same season with Rosita.

I waver on continuity. I'd never read a thread that had a huge argument as to when is Buffy's birthday. Because really? Never a plot point. So it doesn't bother that she has more than one.

But Spike being held underwater? Grates. You're not going to scare a vampire into anything by taking away their oxygen.

Funny though, that same continuity issue did bother me at earlier point in the run. Angel doesn't have breath to give Buffy CPR when she dies, which to me is plotworthy. But Spike can drag on a cigarette to prove he's a bad guy? WTF?

On the good side of continuity though, when they introduced Dawn I was all "Hey! Unfair! Continuity fuckers!" But I thought that adding her the way they did was very respectful to continuity and the fans. Hated the character, didn't love the storyline as the plot for the whole season, but I think they came at it the right way. They made mistakes, but at least it wasn't a total Chuck Cunningham in reverse.

I loves me some continuity. Unless you are Wile E. Coyote, or a spiritual descendant, or an anthogy shorts (Twilight Zone) show, continuity counts. Comedy, drama, whatever, if there are recurring characters, there should be continuity and consistency. Even if it isn't critical to the plot, there should be some reward for the viewers who watch every episode. Continuity shapes character, it shapes the plausibility of the plots. It can even sometimes rescue you from that corner you wrote yourself into.

So, when a character has a birthdate established, it should stay established. If they have 3 sisters and a dead dad, keep it that way. If a professional learns something about how things work in their field, that knowledge should stay with them. They should not make the same damn mistakes over and over. If someone is being made to behave out of character, the reason for this should be clearly established, and, for the love of Bob, still make sense in the context of the person previously created.

If a production team loves their viewers, they will give them the true form of love: continuity. Otherwise, they are pooping on us. I hate that.

I always enjoy The Simpsons when they make fun of continuity problems. Especially after there has been complaints from fans.
The best? When Lisa kept killing her cats, and then at the end of the episode she decides to name her (5th?) cat the same as her original cat, and pretend the whole thing never happened. Principal Skinner walks by and says that would be wrong, and she says
"I guess you're right...Principal Tanzarian".
He just looks shocked and says "Carry on"

Priceless.

Big word. I was always amazed when I would watch a re-run of a first season episode and realize there were things in it that alluded to something that would happen in the 3rd or 4th season. Always cool to see.

Designing Women had some glaring continuity errors--the one that sticks in my mind is Charlene's family--in an early season, her whole family comes to see her make her country music singing debut and she runs around the room introducing all 27 of them, and all of her sister's names rhyme, Darlene, Harlene, etc, but there was NO Carlene, and yet that was the sister that became a cast member (played by Jan Hooks) later. They could've at least used one of those sister's names.

I'd respectfully disagree with that. The Spike drowning thing was bad, but originally the scene was written, and I think possibly filmed, with the Ubervamp torturing Spike with holy water. UPN objected and they had to change it to drowning at the last moment. The magic system did end up with a lot of problems, but there were also small things that were continued throughout the series, like Willow's frog fear, Anya's bunnies, Xander's military experience, and random things that were mentioned twice like Spike enjoying the onion blossom at the Bronze, that made Buffy geeks like me very happy. I think Buffy is one of those shows on which the writers tend to remember a lot of little details, but then end up changing big things for plot purposes.

E/R had a couple with Mark that were blatantly contradictory. In the first or second season he told Susan he couldn't ice-skate, but then in the seventh season he told Malucci he played hockey in high school. And in the third season he said he'd never been to Hawaii, but in the eighth, we find out he went to high school there!

I understand it's easy to make continuity gaffes, but you would think they'd pay a bit closer attention to such things.

ITA on this one. I watch relatively little tv, and I'm not willing to invest the time and energy to follow a show that needs continuity and doesn't have it. I can accept minor continuity gaffes, such as an off-screen character being referred to as "Susan" in the first season and then introduced as "Mary" in the fourth season. In such instances, I just tell myself that maybe the character's name is actually Mary Susan. But when there are continuity gaffes where something flatly contradicts an established part of the story, that bothers me tremendously, and I will stop watching shows that repeatedly ignore or rewrite parts of the storyline. The discrepancy with Mark from ER never having gone to Hawaii but also having attended school there: things like that are part of why I stopped watching ER.

IMO, most of the dramas that the Herskovitz/Zwick team have developed have made good use of continuity. In thirtysomething, for example, fairly early in the first season the character Nancy mentions that she's thought about writing a children's book. At the time, I thought this was just a way to make her character seem more interesting, because she was a stay-at-home mom who had apparently never had a paying career. I fully expected never to hear mention of her writing aspirations again. Instead, this idea was used over the course of a couple of seasons as a way in which her character begins to grow, through the process of working on the book, taking creative writing classes, getting the book published, etc. The book process wasn't front and center every episode, but it was used consistently throughout the series, instead of in that "Oh, I'm going to write a book" and two episodes later it's finished and published rapid plotline way that many series utilize.

It was in season 7, TOW They All Turn Thirty, same season as the Rosita episode. In the flashback to Monica's 30th birthday, Jack is wearing an old tux, and Chandler jokes about it being 30 years old, and Jack replies that Ross was conceived near this tux.

Speaking of Friends continuity errors, for the first couple of seasons, it was a big deal on the show that Ross was a virgin until he slept with Carol, and that he didn't sleep with anyone else until Julie in season 2. Yet we learn in the season 7 episode TOW Rachel's Assistant that Ross apparently got drunk and slept with some cleaning lady in college.

I don't mind minor gaffes about the Friends' birthdays and ages, but come on! Ross's near virginal status was a major plot point. And don't even get me started about Rachel having met Chandler four times in flashbacks...

Maybe he was a 'born again' virgin? :)

I sometimes wonder how much of the continuity issue is based on the changing of writers. (not actually knowing how often shows change writers) In my theory, the head writer is so important s/he can't possibly be expected to remember everything, right? So it is up to underling writers... and since those change maybe that's where the problem lies? (ok ok...I'm grasping I know)

That may be a part of it, but I bet they just think the audience is so stupid they don't notice continuity gaffes.

And lots of times, something that sounded like it was a joke or throwaway line could end up turning into a key plot point down the road. Delenn's "I seem to be having the strangest cramps" (or whatever it was) at first sounded like a throwaway joke, but was also setting up the idea that her plumbing down there had become rather human as well (which in turn led to David Sheridan)

There were also the bigger plot points that would be first mentioned early on, revisited only to lead to more confusion, and then finally after almost three seasons of build-up, you get to learn what happened to Babylon 4.

A big part of buying into the show was the idea that the continuity would be strong, and that the stroyline was going to unfold over several years.

Don't forget the constant mentioning of an alternet universe filled with nothing but shrimp.

And the Hellmouth in Cleveland. It was a throwaway line in "The Wish" and came back in "Chosen" four years later.

While I enjoyed the little continuity shout outs (especially the world filled with nothing but shrimp), I'd much rather have the big issues remain constant. I'm fine with a birthday changing or random plot points not being mentioned again. But facts that become major plot points should be consistent.

That reminds me of something I read in the book, 'The Making of Star Trek' (we're talking Old Skool Trek here)...

at one point in the series, Shatner was told to exit the briefing room by walking toward the camera and out of the shot. Shatner resisted- explaining that, no- the door in and out of the briefing room was 'over there' (indicating the standard door they used). The director explained that he was just trying to make it more interesting visually. Shatner still resisted- further explaining: 'the fans know this ship inside and out. They know the door is over there. If I exit the scene your way- there's gonna be a stack of complaint letters!'

Because he's a pro, Shatner relented and did what the director told him. Sure, enough- there was a stack of complaint letters immediatley following the broadcast!

(the ep in question is 'Turnabout Intruder' and yes, it looks hella weird to see Kirk exiting the briefing room by walking toward the camera & out of the frame!)

Excellent point, joanne. I also think that it's only in this past generation of shows that writers have bothered to pay attention to continuity at at all, because it's only recently that anyone's realized the importance of reruns where people are more likely to notice the gaffes. If you think about it, it's only because we see so many episodes week to week and back to back that we can detect continuity errors so easily. And it's doubtful that the makers of Friends and others at the beginning of the nineties (what I consider "this past generation" of television) would foresee how important the Internet would become, with thousands of fans like us dissecting every nuance of every second of the show. So although it was a problem with older shows, I think it'll be less of a problem in the future.

Even so, I always have to wonder why they would expect me to watch a show that the show's staff haven't even bothered watching.

First they interview a new writer for a job, and the answer is "Hey, you don't even watch the show but obviously we don't really care if people watch. So we'll take your script". Then new writer writes a mistake into the a new episode. The entire cast and crew who have worked on the previous contradicting episode then work on the new episode. Out of this group, either no one cares enough about the show to say anything to TPTB; or they're all to stupid to remember a line that was probably stated repeatedly through rehearsals and tapings; or the writers pick up on the mistake but are too lazy to change a few words. So, if the people who create the show and make a living off it are treating it with complete apathy, then why wouldn't the viewers?

King of Queens is probably the worst I've seen. First Carrie had a sister who was a central character, then she's an only child in the same season. Carrie's trying to get pregnant, then that storyline just gets dropped. Twice. Deacon gets a promotion, then the very next episode he's back to working with Doug.

dr gailey, I agree Charmed has many problems with continuity. The biggest error for me had to be when Piper healed Leo (using Leo's powers)after he died in "Love Hurts". Leo then turns around and says he can't heal the dead. WTF? Leo also tells the sisters that they can't touch darklighter's arrows, yet in later episodes they take out the arrows out of Leo like it's no problem. Not to mention, I wonder where the cleaners were in "All Hell Breaks Loose". I wish the writers would keep the same rules, instead of switching them up just to create a plot.

More Futurama coninuity; late in the seires it was revealed that it was nibbler/Future Fry that pushed fry into the cryogenics machine. On the first episode you can see the shadows of some one pushing Fry in the machine, and when Fry throws something in the trash can Nibbler's eye flutters in the can
Their is a lot more deeper continuity involved, but it takes a long time to explain.

Thanks ajra and everyone for clearing up the Ross/birthing issue.

I agree with those who say that an earlier episode makes a point that becomes increasingly important over the episodes. That is good writing right there! And it shows how much the writers, etc. care about the show ... and if they do, then I probably will also.

No wonder the newer directors love reality shows ... continuity be damned!

From what I've heard and read, this is one of those "the concept was really cool, but for whatever reason the explanation never made it to the screen" things. A few fans did ask about it, and Joss explained that vampires can force their lungs to expand and contract, but they don't breathe in the sense of sustaining life (a difference he apparently sees as an intangible one like the difference between having consciousness and having a soul). And without living breath, they can't impart life to another.

Babylon 5 has already been discussed, so I'll just briefly say that it has maybe the best continuity ever. The best part is that I still don't get all of it after many viewings. B 5 is like a good book: you can watch it many times and still get something out of it.

Many people have mentioned Charmed, but there are still some continuity errors that haven't been brought up. The evil powers' "organisation" (or whatever you call it) changes almost each season. First there seemed to be no organisation at all; then there's talk of "The Triad" and then, suddenly, "The Source". Piper's whole personality seemed to change from sweet and caring season 3 Piper to harpy bitch in season 4.

-Phoebe got pregnant with an evil spawn and the baby disappeared mysteriously, almost without explanation. Phoebe, who had been worried about losing the child before, just calmly said, "That's OK, it was never mine anyway."

-Paige moved into the manor because "The power of Three works best if they all live together", but Phoebe could freely move in with Cole. Not to mention the whole "we need the power of Three" thing, because sometimes they vanquish demons with just one of them present, sometimes it's all three, etc.

-Piper never mentioned kids before, then developed huge maternal instincts within one episode... and the list goes on and on.

There is a Charmed site that has listed some of the continuity errors (which I think they called "bloopers"), but I've lost the link. If someone has it, could they please post it? Fun stuff to read.

The Hell. Does he not know that CPR is a purely mechanical function? Has he not seen those "masks with a squeeze ball" on them that they use in some cases?

In fact, given that a Vampire doesn't use oxygen, Angel giving CPR would have been the better person for doing the breath of life thing. His air would have the normal amount of oxygen in it, not the depleted amount that Xanders would have had.

And while I'm ranting about that scene (yeah, I just watched it couple of days ago on FX), why wasn't Angel doing the chest compressions while Xander was doing the breathing thing, even if you take the lame ass Vampires have no breath thing into account. A simple "I don't know CPR" would have worked, and not broken continuity, in fact it would have helped.

Grrr...

Except vampire lungs change to evil undead air. And that's no good to breathe. Or, something.

The only violations of continuity that really bug me and the only type of continuity that I consider essential are dropped storylines. A few storylines on 24 just completely disappeared this season (Whatever happened to Palmer's doctor/girlfriend? Where did Jack's drug addiction go?). Gilmore Girls has also been bad about dropping storylines the last couple of seasons.

I hate dropped storylines because it usually signifies that one of three things happened:

1. Just plain bad writing. The writers made no attempt at all to think things through. So they either got to a point where they didn't know what to do, or they got to a point where they decided things weren't working out as well as they originally planned, so they just gave up.

2. Interference from the network suits.

3. Poor logistics planning. I always hate the excuse that the actor or actress got pulled off on something else, so the writers just had to let the storyline die. That's what contracts are for idiots! If you need the character for 12 episodes, then make sure you are casting someone who will be available for all twelve episodes!

If you're going to drop a storyline, at least have the decency to tie it up with some kind of resolution.

I like continuity, but I don't think its essential unless it's expected. People who watch The Simpsons expect stuff to change from episode to episode, and it is played for comedic effect. However, with dramas and many sitcoms, small errors are forgivable, such as phone numbers. However, I don't think that even diehard Simpsons fans would forgive, say, the bringing back of Maude (without divine intervention or mention of her death).

I think that shows dependent on long term storylines and whatnot ought to hire a "continuity fairy" to consult with the writers and directors. It would be this person's job to be the ultimate fanboy (or fangirl) on the show, to know every detail of what happened.

Exactly. A dropped storyline that I hated on Friends was the chick and the duck. They just disappeared in early season 7 and we had to wait for 3 whole seasons before the writers bothered to give us a resolution. And meanwhile, on the DVD commentaries, the writers would say, "Oh, just because you don't see the birds anymore doesn't mean they're not still alive, hanging out in Joey's bedroom." Yeah, you ass. They're in Joey's bedroom not making a sound or a mess--except they're not. They're dead and gone. Grrr.

Other dropped storylines and characters on Friends have included Carol, Susan, Ben, and Phoebe's discovered family members like her birthmom at the beach, and her dad Frank Buffay Sr. Those kind of lapses seriously bother me, because these secondary characters were important once, but now they're as good as forgotten. It's like they never even existed.

It's only been one season so far, but one of the best shows for continuity is Joan of Arcadia. They'll have a seemingly dropped storyline, and all of a sudden it will pop up again 4 eps later, but in a very natural and appropriate way. I've learned to be patient and assume that in Season 2 they will wrap up some untied ends from this year (Joe's brother, Kevin's old girlfriend...). Of course, if they are ignored in Season 2, I'll be back!

One possible defense of continuity errors on sitcoms is that the writers in season 1 or 2 probably never expect them to go for 10 seasons. So, they go for the quick pay-off storyline which will come back to bite 'em in the ass 6 seasons later when it no longer makes sense. For a long-term sitcom, Seinfeld was pretty decent at continuity, even bringing back old girl/boyfriends, relatives, etc. But as someone mentioned upthread, maybe that's because it always had Jerry to keep his eye on things, whereas other shows have writer changes.

That's crap. Craptacular, craptastic, crappity crap. But Tabbyclaw is only the messenger, so please don't take this as wrath against you :)
The ability to expand and contract lungs using muscles but not the atmosphere wouldn't allow smoke to be drawn in. And if they did use the atmosphere, that's the fucking breathing process whether their bodies process oxygen (sustain life) or not. And it's CPR worthy as mlooney said. Nice try Joss. OK, I was only mildly annoyed by the lack of continuity, but now, I'm pissed. A little, oops, we fucked up would have sufficed instead of this crap. [/rant]

Now, good continuity - in The Tick cartoon, a villan named Chairface Chippendale began carving his name in the moon with a laser beam before he was thwarted by The Tick and Arthur. And in every shot of the moon after that episode, the moon had CHA carved in it. See? It's not hard and it's fun.