In 101 when Rachel is on the phone to Barry she says something about how some women will be very happy to be Mrs. Barry Finkle but in 224 Mindy calls Barry... Barry something else.
MINDY: Oh my God, I'm married!
RACHEL: I know.
MINDY: I'm Mrs. Dr. Barry Hunter hyphen Farber.
RACHEL: Oh honey, I'm so proud of you, Min.
"Caitrion" wrote in message news:[email]...
You are correct. In 101 its Finkle, and by 224 its Farber.
"David Buehrle" schreef in bericht news:Ik8r8.17291$[email]...
Maybe Barry Finkle hart was so broken that he went to Holland to marry John Farber. He took John Farbers last name. They divorced but because of respect he kept John's lastname. Then he married to Mindy so she became Ms Mindy Farber.
In article , "damian" wrote:
What you guys are discussing is the EXTENDED version of 101. When the episode was originally aired, the Barry Finkel part was not included, so the writers weren't bound to use that name in future episodes.
Elsewhere in the extended version of 101, Ross said that he'd broken the news (that Carol was a lesbian) to his parents the previous night; but when originally aired, Ross didn't tell them until 102.
Tennant Stuart
Do you think Friends has people on staff specifically to check for things like consistency with previous episodes?
"Steve A Simon" wrote in message news:[email]...
like
Don't get me started...
Owen
Start... I would like to see a list of inconsistant errors.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:20:03 +0100, "Owen Shiers" wrote:
I did, in fact, verify it against the EXTENDED version of 101. I can see why they cut the line in the first place--it doesn't advance the storyline, and it isn't funny, except maybe the name itself. What perplexes me is that they made a concious effort to add it back for the extended version, when they must have known it was a continuity error. Was it done to inspire us, the fanatics, to converse about it?
And yet another unexplicable continuity snafu.
In article , "David Buehrle" wrote:
I guess they added it to increase the running time, though I wish they had done that for Ross & Phoebe's duet in 715 "TOW Joey's New Brain".
No, not a continuity snafu at all. Ross did *not* talk to his parents in 101, so when it happened in 102 it was for the very first time.
Tennant
In article , Tennant Stuart writes:
"JamesS1889" wrote in message news:[email]...
a
The added dialogue being discussed here from the extended version of the pilot the reads:
ROSS: I told mom and dad last night, they, they seemed to take it pretty well.
MONICA: Oh really, so that hysterical phone call I got from a woman sobbing at 3:00 AM, "I'll never have grandchildren, I'll never have grandchildren." was what? A wrong number?
ROSS: Sorry.
By Tennants comment about "Dr. Finkle" is that if it wasn't in the final cut of the original airing of the episode, they weren't required to stick with the plot. So, then in episode two, Ross tells his parents.
ROSS: Okay! Okay. Look, I, uh- I realise you guys have been wondering what exactly happened between Carol and me, and, so, well, here's the deal. Carol's a lesbian. She's living with a woman named Susan. She's pregnant with my child, and she and Susan are going to raise the baby.
Depending what you read into it, he could just be recapping the lesbian part, but letting them in on the baby part. I realise that's a stretch. Frankly I don't buy it, but supposably some might buy it.
For me, the error was to add the lines back into the extended version of episode 1.01. People who own the DVD are WAY more numerous and likely to retain the episode for reference than those who might have recorded the original. So, to interject a continuity error into the more permanent record is poor planning IMO. In this thread we have found two such situations.
In article , [email] (JamesS1889) wrote:
No, of course not, James. The extended version of 101 is good fun, but it's not canon. Episode 102 was produced on the basis that the aired 101 was all there was - material consigned to the cutting-room floor no more took place than alternate takes or discarded versions of the script.
Tennant
In article , Tennant Stuart writes:
I got that much from your previous exchange with David, but your response to him in no way addresses his point, which is that he thinks it is silly to add this into the extended version of 101 since according to the broadcast version of 102, it violates canon.
In article , [email] (JamesS1889) wrote:
I did, I guessed that they added it to increase the running time, then I said to you that it was just for fun.
Well, sorry James.
Tennant
"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...
[email]
101
more
Eh, well, you can't please everyone all the time. ;-)
In article , Tennant Stuart writes:
That doesn't sound like addressing it to me.
In article , [email] (JamesS1889) wrote:
Why not? He said he thinks it was silly. I said why I thought they did it, and since I'm not privy to studio decisions that is the best I can do.
What do you want me to say, James?
Tennant
In article , Tennant Stuart writes:
He *knows* why they did it. The sub-text I heard from you was, "David, your argument isn't even worth responding to, so I'm going to pretend I didn't hear it."
In article , [email] (JamesS1889) wrote:
No, he said he knew why they cut the line in the first place, but what perplexed him was that they made a conscious effort to add it back for the extended version.
That might not be what David meant (although I've seen no post from him saying so); but if so, then I've simply misunderstood him, there was nothing underhanded or uncaring about my attitude.
I don't see why you're being so hard on me, James. Instead of 'reading between the lines' to see things that aren't there, why not just take me at face value? I am not bored by what you or David have to say - if I couldn't be bothered to reply then I wouldn't have said anything in the first place. Instead of attributing the meanest of intentions to me, why not simply accept that I don't know how Warner Brothers makes up its DVDs, so all I could do was give my honest opinion?
Pardon me James, but think perhaps you *see* what isn't there. :)
Tennant
In article , Tennant Stuart writes:
That's what I meant, he *knows* why they cut in the line in the first place. I guess I just didn't see any value in you repeating it, as if he didn't know it.
No, I think that is what he meant, and I took him to be saying, "Yes, I understand that it was not canon originally, but if you are watching it in extended form on the DVDs, the mention in 101 kind of screws up 102, and I don't understand why they would include that particular line in 101, given that it's contradicted by 102."
<sigh> I'm just trying my best to understand you, Tennant, which for some reason is a job and a half. I see someone question something in a context in which it seems obvious to me that they know a certain thing, and then you respond to their question by asserting that certain thing that they seem to know already, and that's it, and I wrack my brain to try to understand it. The sub-text above was the best I could come up with. If it's wrong, I'm sorry.
I'm trying to, Tennant, but I end up with a contradiction sometimes.
I didn't say you were bored by what we have to say, I guessed that you didn't think a particular assertion of David's deserved a response and I couldn't figure out why that was. If I guessed wrong, forgive me.
"Tennant Stuart" wrote in message news:[email]...
[email]
Right.
No, that's exactly what I meant. You understood correctly.
That's the way *I* interpreted it.
*see*.
This might not have anything to do with what James is saying, but I'll throw it out anyway. I think there are some that think you come off a little condescending because you correct the errors that others make. Personally, I'm grateful for knowing there is someone here who has the tools and knowledge of the show to be able to correct mistakes. It certainly helps me from looking like a fool when I go spreading false information.
Although I appreciate your facts, I reserve the right to disagree with your opinions. And I'm quite comfortable in the belief that you are okay with that as well.
David
In article , "David Buehrle" writes:
David if you are satisfied with what Tennant said, then perhaps I am misreading the situation. If that is the case, then I apologize.
I guess I thought the issue you were commenting on was worthy of discussion, and I saw it just kind of drop to the floor without response, so picked up on it, but if I am out of order, I'll drop it.
In article , [email] (JamesS1889) wrote:
Thanks, James.
Okay. :)
Well, that's what I *try* to do, though I don't always succeed. :-)
Tennant
In article , "David Buehrle" wrote:
Thanks.
Thanks again.
Okay. Good. :)
That's unfortunate, for it's certainly not how I feel.
Thanks. I'm just trying to be helpful, and once convinced I welcome people correcting the errors that I make.
Absolutely, no worries, David. :)
Tennant