Jump to content

It's a Little Thing, But It Bugs: A Thread for Nitpickers


  • Please log in to reply

1374 replies to this topic

#1111

DedicatedFan

DedicatedFan

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 16, 2012 @ 4:10 PM

How on earth could Phyllis have signed a lease on Mary's behalf? Small detail on the show, but I'd think it would be a pretty HUGE one IRL...


That's what I thought at first, but then I figured that since Phyllis knew that Rhoda was promised that apartment after the tenant left, Phyllis figured that if Mary didn't want the apartment, she could transfer the lease to Rhoda. Or, since she appeared to be the building manager and probably the owner, she could just tear up the lease.

Phyllis & Mary were in college together? That's news to me

Well, that's how I remember it (which might not mean a whole lot). And I'm pretty sure they were in the same sorority. But I clearly remember an episode in which Phyllis mentioned that she was a college graduate, while Mary had dropped out after two years. (In an episode I saw recently, Mary mentioned having completed only two years of college.) She said it in a way that indicated she knew about it at the time.

AFAIK Bess was Phyllis' daughter, not step-daughter.

In the 5th episode of the second season, Rhoda's mother came to visit. It was mentioned that Rhoda had siblings named Brenda and Arnold. At the end of the visit. Rhoda's mother said that she was about to visit Rhoda's sister in Chicago. It might have been Brenda, or it might have been Debbie. (It was not said that Brenda and Arnold were Rhoda's only siblings.) Soon they'll be showing the episode in which Rhoda went home for Debbie's wedding, with no sign of Brenda or Arnold. In another episode, Rhoda mentioned that her brother had had a Bar Mitzvah.

To get back to TBNS, in the 22nd episode of the second season, Howard celebrated his 40th birthday (although four episodes ago, he said that he got divorced when he was 40). And Jerry wanted to fire Carol. Five doctors met to vote on it - Jerry, Bob, Tupperman (the urologist), Phil (the plastic surgeon), and someone else. Then someone said, "What about the other six?" Bob said that he had proxies from them. So Carol worked for eleven doctors. And I doubt if any of them had secretaries, because in another episode, Carol mentioned that she did the billing for the plastic surgeon.

In the 24th episode of the second season, I found out how Emily made the transition from substitute teacher to teacher. It turned out that she had been a teacher all along! The principal remembered that she had started there as a teacher three years ago, and she had brought a hamster to school. And she had been in that schoolroom for three years. That pilot episode in which she received a call giving her a teaching assignment for that day? It never happened!

Now this definitely bugs - the last eight TBNS episodes that I taped were all "Frasier" episodes. Hallmark screwed up. Man, I hate when that happens.
  • 0

#1112

dustylil

dustylil

    Stalker

Posted Apr 16, 2012 @ 9:34 PM

And I'm pretty sure they were in the same sorority.

Now I readily admit I know little about the ins and outs of sororities, but why would Mary and Phyllis have to have been at college at the same time to have been in the same sorority?

This conversation is probably veering off-topic for this particular thread and we should likely go to the series one for any further discussion - before we're told to :)

Edited by dustylil, Apr 16, 2012 @ 11:25 PM.

  • 0

#1113

SnarkySheep

SnarkySheep

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 17, 2012 @ 2:32 PM

Something I keep seeing on various shows is people -- mainly kids and teenagers -- who flop onto their beds with their dirty sneakers on! Now, I understand that YMMV as far as wearing shoes in the house; I think there actually was a discussion about that somewhere in the TV Potluck boards. But to actually put your nasty shoe bottoms that have walked all over the streets ON your quilt?? Eww! I imagine the actors don't even stop to think about it, since A) it's just a set, not their actual bed, and B) the shoes are from the wardrobe department and they haven't actually walked too far in them. But if they want to keep things real, those are the little details people notice!
  • 0

#1114

magicdog

magicdog

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 17, 2012 @ 4:11 PM

Now I readily admit I know little about the ins and outs of sororities, but why would Mary and Phyllis have to have been at college at the same time to have been in the same sorority?


Phyllis & Mary could have belonged to the same sorority - just different initiation classes (for example: one initiated in 1950, the other initiated in 1960) and/or joined the same sorority but different colleges.
  • 0

#1115

magicdog

magicdog

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 17, 2012 @ 4:12 PM

Darn double post.

Edited by magicdog, Apr 17, 2012 @ 4:31 PM.

  • 0

#1116

selkie

selkie

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 18, 2012 @ 9:27 AM

In the House episode with the minor league hockey player, I'm not sure about him getting a contract offer while he's in the hospital with an unknown serious condition. There are always a number of 3rd and 4th line guys out there willing to take a modest paycheck by NHL standards, and it would seem easier to sign one of those healthy guys instead of someone who might not ever get medical clearance to play again. And while the club shouldn't have to count him toward the salary cap until he clears up the medical problems and is able to play again, they've also still stuck with actually paying him regardless of his condition since the usual insurers aren't going to write a policy for a guy who is already in the hospital.

On the other hand, there are a surprising number of dumb GMs out there, and Brian Burke probably would have signed someone like that so maybe...
  • 0

#1117

DedicatedFan

DedicatedFan

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 19, 2012 @ 11:22 AM

There was an episode of TBNS in which he was treating a Cubs pitcher, who wound up being traded to a Japanese team. At first, they said that it was a Japanese expansion team, but later in the episode, the team was referred to as a Japanese minor league team. I was wondering about that, since Major League Baseball doesn't do trades with Japanese teams, but someone questioned the player about it, and he said that his contract had a Far Eastern clause in it.

In the 15th episode of the third season, Bob told Carol that he was 45, even though he was 40 in a very early episode and then celebrated his 40th birthday later on in the first season.
  • 0

#1118

AtlanticVamp

AtlanticVamp

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 20, 2012 @ 12:24 PM

I'm still confused about why certain reality shows continue to refer to women as "wives" when they've never been married. It started innocently enough, with Real Housewives of Orange County's Jo. She wasn't a wife, but there she was, because she was engaged. However the engagement ended, and Jo left the show.

Now years later, we have Real Housewives of _______ franchises with regular cast members who have never been married. About half the women on Basketball Wives have never married, but were instead long-term girlfriends. Ditto most of the off-shoots from both Bravo's and VH1's wives shows.

Isn't there something else it could be called? It's annoying as hell to see so-called Wives' shows starring people who have never married.
  • 0

#1119

Bastet Esq

Bastet Esq

    Stalker

Posted Apr 20, 2012 @ 1:54 PM

Admittedly, all I know about the franchise is what I glean from references in these forums, but isn't it true that even among those who are wives, not all the women are housewives? While a passť term, it does still refer to one whose primary vocation is managing the household and any children. Yet don't many of the women featured in the various RH programs have outside careers and employ personal assistants, maids and nannies?
  • 0

#1120

SnarkySheep

SnarkySheep

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 20, 2012 @ 4:18 PM

Yeah, it's seemed to me that if there are any children involved, nowadays such women are called stay-at-home moms, not housewives; that IMO tends to evoke I Love Lucy and her ilk, more than any modern woman today...
  • 0

#1121

clear

clear

    Fanatic

Posted May 18, 2012 @ 9:26 AM

About the season finale of Community - Alan takes Pierce on as a client because Pierce owns a big company and would be a cash cow for him. But in "Digital Estate Planning" didn't Pierce give up his inheritance to Giancarlo Esposito? And earlier in the season when he was agreeing to finance Shirley's sandwich shop didn't he say his father had cut him off?

In other words, hasn't Pierce lost all his money, making him worthless to Jeff's evil former law firm?
  • 0

#1122

SnarkySheep

SnarkySheep

    Fanatic

Posted May 18, 2012 @ 10:21 AM

I totally understand that working with children, particularly babies, is incredibly difficult, there are many laws around it, they usually use twins anyways, etc.

That said, at least try to make it somewhat realistic! I watch Bones, where the two main characters had a baby girl the first week of April.

The baby they are using - not a twin - was born in September, so at the time of the season finale, she was EIGHT months old! It was quite obvious she was nowhere near the age Baby Christine is supposed to be. But, I think I could handwave that for the above reasons, if they didn't substitute her with a small doll in some scenes. For example, when Brennan was holding the baby just after the christening in the finale, she has an unmoving blanket-wrapped bundle who looks like it was literally born yesterday. Then, a scene later, you see her strapping Christine into her car seat, and it's plain this child is old enough to sit up, etc., a substantial baby!

Again, I understand the limitations in this situation for TPTB, but geez! It's incredibly jarring to see.
  • 0

#1123

Catlyn

Catlyn

    Couch Potato

Posted May 18, 2012 @ 12:33 PM

Babies on tv annoy me in more than one way, but the unmoving stiff blanket-wrapped bundle really bothers me. I understand that in a lot of scenes for one reason or another, it would be easier to use a "substitute" baby. But why get a stiff doll? Why not one that's floppy (like the old Thumbelina dolls that had soft bodies, but plastic legs, arms and head) so when you hold it, it at least gives an illusion of a real baby. Even if it isn't real, it at least moves as you adjust your holding position. Stiff babies always look like boards to me.
  • 0

#1124

Betsyb

Betsyb

    Fanatic

Posted May 18, 2012 @ 5:32 PM

About the season finale of Community - Alan takes Pierce on as a client because Pierce owns a big company and would be a cash cow for him. But in "Digital Estate Planning" didn't Pierce give up his inheritance to Giancarlo Esposito? And earlier in the season when he was agreeing to finance Shirley's sandwich shop didn't he say his father had cut him off?


I actually think that in the end Alan and Pierce agreed to split it because they both beat their father not just Alan. Alan "won" but declined to never acknowledge his heritage, because he had dignity, and lost the fortune. Then, using teamwork (the most cowardly of strategies) they both beat the father.

Beyond that I doubt all of Pierce's fortune is 100% from his father. Well, indirectly it is. But his job may have been a joke but he worked for decades and would have had stock options and such from his own high paying useless job. And Pierce didn't want to lose but he didn't seem to act as though he would be completely destroyed if he did.

Edited by Betsyb, May 18, 2012 @ 6:41 PM.

  • 0

#1125

DedicatedFan

DedicatedFan

    Fanatic

Posted May 30, 2012 @ 7:47 PM

I am totally baffled by The Bob Newhart Show episode "Motel," which first aired on September 22, 1973. The episode was about Bob and Jerry going to Peoria to watch a Packers-Bears football game on TV, because the game was blacked out in Chicago. I didn't get the impression that any of the writers, actors, or anyone else involved in the episode knew the first thing about football.

It started out with Jerry telling Bob that he failed to buy them tickets for the Packers-Bears football game. No tickets were available; even the scalpers were keeping tickets for themselves. Bob called it "the game of the century." Since the game was going to be blacked out in Chicago, meaning that they wouldn't be able to watch it on TV, Jerry got the idea that they should go to Peoria and watch the game on TV there. They decided to drive to Peoria on Saturday, check into a motel and have a nice dinner, watch the game the next day on TV, and then drive home Sunday night. Bob told Emily that he just had to watch the game, even though they already had plans that weekend with another couple, because it was a very big game - the winner would win the division championship.

First of all, I have no idea why Bob called it "the game of the century." Second of all, you say that the winner would win the division, not the division championship. Third of all, while there are times that the winner of a particular game wins the division (as happened in the final game of last season between the Cowboys and the Giants), this happens at the end of the season, not in September. Fourth of all, if the game was sold out, and there weren't any tickets available, I have no idea why the game was blacked out on TV.

Fifth of all, checkout time at a motel is usually noon. The Packers-Bears game started either at noon or 3:00 PM Chicago time - it was never said which time. So by the time the game started, they were supposed to be checked out already, yet they were still in their room. Maybe they paid for two nights, but it was never said. Their TV went on the blink, and Jerry went to the room of another motel guest, a young woman he had picked up the previous night at dinner, supposedly to watch the game, but he never turned the TV on. Bob was stuck in his room with Jerry's friend's friend, who he quickly found out was a prostitute. He decided to watch the game on the TV in the motel's bar.

I figured that he managed to watch the game in the bar, but when he got home, he immediately turned the TV on, because, as he told Emily, he wanted to watch "the taped replay of the game." The show ended before he was able to explain to Emily why he apparently hadn't watched the game earlier. And I have no idea what the taped replay of the game was. When games are blacked out, they are not shown later on on a tape-delay basis. If the game was blacked out, I have no idea what was taped. And if somehow the game was going to be shown later on, then I don't know why it was necessary for them to go to Peoria.
  • 0

#1126

corvus13

corvus13

    Stalker

Posted May 31, 2012 @ 3:38 PM

Sell outs didn't matter back in the day. Blackouts of local TV were blackouts, period, regardless of whether or not the game was sold out.
  • 0

#1127

DedicatedFan

DedicatedFan

    Fanatic

Posted May 31, 2012 @ 4:39 PM

Sorry, but I disagree with you. According to wikipedia, local football games were not blacked out, beginning in the 1973 season, if they were sold out at least 72 hours ahead of time.

http://en.wikipedia....L_on_television

If you check this out, you will see:

Since 1973, the NFL has maintained a blackout policy that states that a home game cannot be televised locally if it is not sold out 72 hours prior to its start time.


In addition:

But Congress intervened before the 1973 season anyway, passing Public Law 93-107, which eliminated the blackout of games in the home market so long as the game was sold out by 72 hours before game time. The league will sometimes change this deadline to 48 hours if there are only a few thousand tickets left unsold; much more rarely, they will occasionally extend this to 24 hours in special cases.


You will also see that some teams arranged to sell their unsold seats at a discounted price so that their game could be televised locally.

I suppose it's possible that the Packers-Bears game sold out with less than 72 hours to go, so that it was both sold out and blacked out, but neither Jerry nor Bob said anything about it. And nothing was said about how far in advance they decided to go to Peoria, so I don't know if their conversation took place more or less than 72 hours before game-time. (I had a feeling that they were going to drive to Peoria and look for a hotel or motel and find that everything was booked up, presumably with Bears fans who wanted to see the game, but that didn't happen.)

So, if the game was sold out with less than 72 hours to go, meaning that they couldn't watch it on TV at home, it would have been nice if Jerry or Bob had mentioned it. And I still don't see an explanation for:

1) Bob referring to it as "the game of the century."

2) Bob claiming that the winning team would win the division championship [sic]. I don't recall seeing a show in which a character goes to the Super Bowl, watches the Super Bowl on TV, or volunteers to work at the Super Bowl, televised in September. Those shows are televised around the time the RL Super Bowl takes place. So I don't see why a show about a football game whose winner would win the division championship [sic] would be televised in September, instead of late December/early January.

3) Bob, upon getting home, rushing to turn on the TV so that he can watch the "taped replay" of the game. If the game had been blacked out, there wouldn't have been a taped replay. (And if there had been a taped replay, then why did he go to Peoria?)

And I think that something should have been said about their having to pay for two nights at the hotel, since they left way after noon, and why Bob was unable to see the game on the TV in the motel's bar.

Edited by DedicatedFan, May 31, 2012 @ 4:40 PM.

  • 0

#1128

espie

espie

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 25, 2012 @ 2:30 AM

On Hogan's Heroes, towards the end of Season Two/beginning of Season Three, the photo of Adolf Hitler on Klink's wall changes from one place to another. This wouldn't be a big deal except that photo had a concealed microphone in it, through which the POW's listened in on Klink's conversations, and since this was well before the WiFi era, there would have to have been wires attached. So when Klink was redecorating, didn't he notice the wires and microphone attached to the photo?
  • 0

#1129

Brandi Maxxxx

Brandi Maxxxx

    Couch Potato

Posted Aug 25, 2012 @ 3:47 AM

Maybe he made the POWs do it for him. Or they insisted.
  • 0

#1130

UseYourIllusion

UseYourIllusion

    Couch Potato

Posted Aug 27, 2012 @ 7:52 PM

In the Season 5 finale of Coach, Hayden and Christine are finally married. Why am I nitpicking? Well, they were originally going to be married in that episode in a little church in the woods (after fixing it up upon seeing how run down it had become since they had last been there), only to have their priest be a no-show. Everyone leaves the church (I think with the idea that they would come back the next day, I can't remember right now), and then they see someone having car trouble on the side of the road. Sure enough, it's the priest. He decides to marry them right then and there on the side of the road, and the two of them are finally Mr. and Mrs. Hayden Fox.

The only problem? Aren't they supposed to have witnesses for it to be officially legal? It was a beautiful moment (as their two previous attempts to get married--at Christine's childhood home in Kentucky and at a Drive Thru bank turned Drive Thru Chapel in Vegas--respectively ended with Christine breaking her leg after falling over the railing into the wedding cake during her wedding march in the first one, and a freak thunderstorm during the second--this is Coach, after all), but without anyone else there with them besides the priest, I'm not sure if they could be considered legally married or not.

Edited by UseYourIllusion, Aug 27, 2012 @ 7:54 PM.

  • 0

#1131

park914

park914

    Couch Potato

Posted Oct 14, 2012 @ 12:24 PM

The only problem? Aren't they supposed to have witnesses for it to be officially legal?



Well - I don't know about MN (the state in which the show was set) but in VA you don't need witnesses. The minister or marriage celebrant is the witness (you don't even need blood tests any more!!) And VA is a very conservative state compared with MN. Things sure have changed over the years.
  • 0

#1132

janie jones

janie jones

    Stalker

Posted Oct 14, 2012 @ 4:48 PM

I haven't seen the episode of Coach in question, but it sounds as though the priest just performed a mini ceremony.&nbsp; Without signing the marriage license, isn't the marriage not legally binding, witnesses or no?<br>
  • 0

#1133

mnementh

mnementh

    Couch Potato

Posted Oct 15, 2012 @ 9:11 PM

Why does every single sitcom with a baby have a storyline that conflates being a godparent with being a guardian? They're not the same thing! A godparent's duty is to make sure that the child is raised in the faith; a guardian actually takes the child in should something happen to the parents. Guardian is legal; godparent is honorary. Yet every show makes a big deal of chosing a godparent with the idea that they will be raising the child if the parents die. It drives me batty.
  • 4

#1134

SnarkySheep

SnarkySheep

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 16, 2012 @ 7:28 AM

Also, there are invariably hurt feelings over who is chosen and who isn't -- in many shows, people actually start competing over who gets to be a godparent. While I have no doubt this might happen somewhere, as people tend to be competitive by nature over anything, I've never actually seen it happen IRL, so I'd wonder at how it seems to happen every single time in TVLand.
  • 0

#1135

braggtastic

braggtastic

    Stalker

Posted Oct 16, 2012 @ 12:37 PM

And for all the talk of godparents, you never see the family in church, either weekly or even for the baptism.
  • 0

#1136

Bastet Esq

Bastet Esq

    Stalker

Posted Oct 16, 2012 @ 1:09 PM

I know many people for whom godparent has no religious meaning, having morphed into an honorary title, with no obligations, bestowed upon someone who is close to the parent(s). I think of it as akin to celebrating a secular version of Christmas; technically, it's ridiculous, but it's so commonplace it doesn't faze me in life let alone on television. Conflating godparent with guardian really gets my goat, though.

Edited by Bastet Esq, Oct 24, 2012 @ 1:15 PM.

  • 0

#1137

biakbiak

biakbiak

    Stalker

Posted Oct 24, 2012 @ 12:23 AM

Interestingly enough The New Normal showed the difference (and some of the confusion) between godparents and guardians with the two main characters searching for someone who could offer their future child spiritual guidance. Of course they were a couple comprised of a lapsed Catholic and a non-practicing Jew the reason for them suddenly deciding that was a must choose a spiritual guardian for their baby was even born hasn't even been born was a mystery and Ryan Murphy managed to annoy me with the rest of the religious discussion but still they articulated the difference.

Edited by biakbiak, Oct 24, 2012 @ 12:53 AM.

  • 0

#1138

magicdog

magicdog

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 25, 2012 @ 1:25 PM

I found myself watching a repeat of "The Closer" in which two members of Brenda's unit attend a friend's funeral. The casket is shown as closed during the service, When it is accidentally dropped by its pallbearers on the way to the cemetary, the lid opens and an additional body pops out (a murder victim) along with the original decedent. Naturally, the team contacts the funeral home which prepared the body to inquire how another body could have been added to the coffin. The funeral home owner insists that his is the best in town since he makes sure the best experts are brought in to make the bodies of loved ones look as good as they did in life.

The nitpick?

The casket was CLOSED! The premise hinged on the casket remaining closed and both bodies buried with no one the wiser. I know some services have closed caskets if the bodies aren't in the best shape for viewing, but it was expressly stated the dead man was meant to look good for the funeral yet no one saw it at the funeral, plus the body had to be dumped in the casket at the funeral home to pull that off
Spoiler
.

Just thought of a vintage TV nitpick:

I found myself watching an old ep of Kojak (circa 1977) in which a meek, mild mannered guy was about to be brought up on charges for breaking both legs of an enforcer (who was sent to attack him on orders of the villains of the week). The would be victim used martial arts in self defense then ran off. After it's revealed who the villians were, why the guy was attacked, etc, the DA insists they have to bring charges against the would be victim despite all that happened. Kojak purposely screws up the investigation (no warrant, no Miranda, forcing a confession using threats of force and hitting the guy with a phone book during interrogation!), but apparently he, and the ADA are in a courtroom to arraign him when it's only then revealed what Kojak did would force the city to drop the case. I get why Kojak did what he did (to prevent incriminating an otherwise decent man for defending himself and risking jail and losing his reputation) but I can't help but think this wouldn't have gone in front of a judge since the ADA would have read the reports and would have automatically dropped everything to avoid looking stupid.

Must be all those L&O viewings that brought this on!
  • 0

#1139

Namaste

Namaste

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 25, 2012 @ 3:18 PM

It's not unusual for people to have a private viewing of the body prior to a closed casket service. (Or have the casket open during visitation and closed for the service.)
  • 0

#1140

taiko

taiko

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 12, 2012 @ 12:53 PM

I see Criminal Minds is about to do a Vietnam Vets story. The past mandatory retirement age of serving TV Federal Agents is my beef. The Vietnam generation has aged out of current TV plots. Grenada, Panama, The Gulf and Somalia perhaps are not large enough, or long enough in intensity to provide characters with enough anguish in the writer's minds
  • 0