TOW Chandler in a Box vs TOW Rachel Finds Out

Okays guys, forgive me if this issue has already been done to death in my absence, but while viewing a classic episode (TOW Chandler in a Box), it occurred to me that there was (shock horror!) a bit of an oversight in this ep.

Ross was trying to swap his secret Santa assignment from Monica as he already had a Chanukah gift for her. He thought about swapping with Phoebe, but Chandler warned him not to as she had Rachel, and she was known to return everyone's gifts. As an example for her defense, Ross suggested she didn't return the necklace he gave her last year, which turned out she did in fact return it. Ross gets mad at Rachel and keeps picking at her until she grabs a bunch of knickknacks that she collected whilst going out with Ross to show him that she keeps stuff she finds important to her.

The thing that got me was that in TOW Rachel Finds Out, Rachel was clearly, strongly touched by the antique pin that Ross gives her for her birthday, which helps spark the future relationship between the two of them. There is no mention of that at any point in TOW Chandler in a Box, but surely given the circumstances it would be something that either Ross or Rachel would have used as an argument point. Are we to believe that Rachel would have returned the pin, or that it would not have occurred to Ross to ask if she returned it, or if he knew otherwise be satisfied that she does keep SOME gifts?

Okay, I aired my thoughts (they really were stuffy in here!).

nomad7 wrote:

Given Rachel's ability with jewellery (cf Monica's earrings), it's entirely possible that she lost it (and Ross knew that and wasn't going to bring THAT up again...) :)

Jac

nomad7 wrote in message news:[email]...

Would just like to comment that this ep is one of my favorites, and mostly for Chandler's performance. "Airhole! Airhole!"

None of the above. I would assume Rachel kept it for sentimental reasons, but the writers simply forgot.

And THAT, Mr. Stuart, is a continuity error! ;-) (refers to another ongoing thread).

well, i don't know about you guys, but i sure wouldn't keep expensive in SHOE BOX. Maybe it's in her jewelry box, if she has one. Anyway, the point is, rachel just grabbed a box of useless, cheap, sentimental things.

In article , "Michael Martin" wrote:

Not at all. Firstly, see Jacqui's excellent refutation. Secondly, if you were correct, that would be a plot hole, not a continuity error. Thirdly, you must try far harder to prove that an absence of something constitutes an error.

If you would like a good example of a continuity error, keep an eye on Rachel's right shoulder at the end of 222 "TOW Two Parties".

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:[email]...

Eh. I don't buy Jacqui's refutation -- rests too much on evidence not in hand. Also, I meant "story continuity" more than "there's a band aid on her head in this scene, and it's gone in the next" type. You call it a plot hole. I think we mean the same thing. And third....

Third...

OK, I'm reaching. I have no third point! How about that Gillian Anderson!

Don't have it on tape. Please share what the error is.

In article , "Michael Martin" wrote:

You have the burden of proof, not Jacqui. She doesn't need evidence in hand, she's not trying to prove that an error was made. She only needs to suggest one possible explanation to show that you have not proved your case.

Okay, I knew that really. I'm just following the IMDb rules. :)

That's very big of you. Good show. :)

I just adore red-heads, don't you? Especially when not skinny. :)

She escorts her father to the top of the stairs while Joey is kissing her mother, but then it cuts to a close-up of Sandra, and just behind her head you can just see Rachel's right shoulder.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

While in -criminal- law the burden of proof is entirely on the accuser, a large amount of other law is actually based on prima face (lat. - "at first glance"). I tend to agree that while Jacqui provided an explanation that could be possible, it is not in my eyes probable.

First of all, there is no mention of the loss of the pin up to that point, even though it was an item with great meaning to their relationship. Second, given the way Ross behaved about the necklace being returned, needling Rachel about it throughout the dinner, I would have expected him to bring up the "loss" of the pin, like "Maybe you didn't lose the pin I gave you after all.".

In article , nomad7 wrote:

That may well be so, but you can't ascribe the fact that he didn't to a continuity error (or indeed a plot hole).

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

Ross had a legitimate reason for being annoyed with Rachel; if I found out one of my friends did that with every present I'd be annoyed too. It was not the time or the place for him to badger her like that, out of respect to the others, but in the real world a person like that ought to be aware that nobody wants to give her anything because she's not a gracious recipient. Regarding the pin, as Ross bought it *because* she specifically wanted it, there's no reason for him to assume she returned that, too. By the way, I missed something. Where did we conclude, for certain, that Rachel lost the pin?

In article , Claire Abraham wrote:

Indeed. But Ross did know in advance that she had a tendency to exchange gifts, (Monica probably told him), as shown in 222 "TOW Two Parties"...

RACHEL: Thankyou for the wonderful dinner.

ROSS: Thanks for being born.

RACHEL: Thankyou for my beautiful earrings, they're perfect. I love you.

ROSS: Oh, now you can exchange them if you want, okay.

RACHEL: Now I love you even more.

This is true as well. I reckon that Rachel's problem is that she was showered with gifts as a child, so they have less meaning for her than does a keepsake or memento. By 1998 you would think her friends would just be giving her cash, or better making something personal for her.

Judging by her reaction, the pin (which I believe is what we in Britain would call a broach) had keepsake/memento status for her, so she would probably not return it.

That was just a suggestion by Jacqui of one possible explanation for Ross not mentioning it in the argument. There could be many others.

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote in message news:[email]...

Jacqui's refutation requires to assume too much that's not in evidence. And I consider it a _story_ continuity error, though you may well be correct in calling it a plot hole (two different phrases for the same thing). Third...

Well, dang, I don't have a third. Yeah, this is really reaching. :-D

Don't have it on tape. What's the error?

"Michael Martin" wrote in message news:39d9ca9e$[email]...

another good line: "You can't tell, but I'm trying to break the tension by mooning you guys"

I agree, both of the episodes are very good ones, even if there is a conflict between the two.

"Yeah, keep rubbing your head. That'll turn back time!"

Michael Martin wrote: