why is the first episode called 602 instead of 601????

Does anybody know why the first aired episode of season 6 is called 602?

Sometimes they are aired out of order. I wonder if next week's will be 601 or 603?

Rob

Go to http://www.southparkstudios.com and scroll down to the last article on the page. It goes into great detail about why they air out of order.

Actually, here's the text from the article: Wednesday Comedy Central will be airing the premire Episode 602 "Jarred Has Aides" at 10:00pm only on Comedy Central.

Part I: There are a variety of reasons why certain episodes air out of order. Some times they're extremely complicated and require extra time, like #405 "Pip" which aired after #414. Everything in "Pip" had to be built from scratch, including the new mouths with rotted out teeth that were used for most of the characters. Since Trey and Matt were looking for an entirely new look for Pip's England (in the same way that Terrance and Phillip's Canada had its own, unique look), everything had to go through a laborious approval process. In addition, "Pip" had live action sequences with the actor Malcolm McDowell, which involved casting, scheduling, additional planning, and post-production. These things take time, something we didn't have that summer. South Park had a run of consecutive episodes ending with #411 "Probably," and a hiatus for cast and crew. When a new run of episodes, "The Fourth Grade," began in September, there was time to finish the remainder of work on "Pip" in between the new episodes.

Special effects are another reason why certain episodes are delayed, like #310 "Chinpokomon" (which aired after #312) and #311 "Starvin' Marvin in Space" (which aired after #313). Other times holiday scheduling is a factor, as when #110 "Mr. Hankey, The Christmas Poo" delayed #108 "Damien" from airing for several months. #312 "Korn's Groovy Pirate Ghost Mystery" is a unique example where work on the episode began near the beginning of the season, but wasn't given an episode number because of it's late air date (Halloween). And lastly, certain episodes include the participation of special guest stars, as with #501 and Radiohead, whose busy schedules require careful planning.

CW

THX for the info!

"Combat Wombat" wrote in message news:lZRh8.15$m%1.109@sccrnsc02...

on

Has

like

from

new

approval

Malcolm

"The

of

factor,

On Thu, 07 Mar 2002 22:38:09 GMT, "Combat Wombat" wrote:

So why don't they just number them in order of when they're finished, rather than when they start them?! Everyone else seems to manage it...

andyt

"Andy Turner" wrote in message news:[email]...

Well, write them a letter with your suggestion.   But the OBVIOUS reason for
numbering when they start an episode is that the episode needs a unique id
number to refer to it by (an index field in a database).   And they probably
have multiple underway at different stages of development at any one time..

Rob

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 01:16:17 GMT, "robert w hall" wrote:

So there's a code number.. and then they're assigned an ep number on release... how difficult is that? Everyone else seems to manage it...

andyt

This difficult: they often finish the epiosdes just hours before they air, whereas other shows have their episodes in the can weeks before they air. TV Guide often wants the epiosde at least a week before an episode airs. And if that doesn't satisfy you, then call them lazy. They'll admit they are.

Whoops...

TV Guide often wants the epiosde INFO at least a week before an episode airs, and SP epiosdes just aren't finished that early.

• Will

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:08:50 GMT, "Willie Westwood" wrote:

It's not like the episodes ever contain the actual number and title anyway. So if they can tell the TV guides what episode it's going to be a week in advance, then they can just give them the episode number, by addind one to the last one they told them...

So you figure episode 405, "Great Expectations," should have been 415?

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 20:32:46 GMT, "Willie Westwood" wrote:

If it got released after 414 then yeah, why not?

In article , Andy Turner wrote:

You've not been paying attention, huh?

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 00:15:29 -0500, Howard S Shubs wrote:

Yep. Try again.

andyt

In article , Andy Turner wrote:

Happens all over the place, guy.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:28:20 -0500, Howard S Shubs wrote:

Whilst I'm sure you're right, I'd like some examples. And of course, they'd still be in the vast minority.

andyt

In article , Andy Turner wrote:

I can only speak of shows I've paid close attention to: ST:TOS and B5.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:18:20 -0500, Howard S Shubs wrote:

That's all I need to know, thanks.

No. Most shows' episodes are shown "out of order" -- at least in the context of the episode production code number. Why? Because who knows if the network is going to fuck with the scheduling? Maybe they will decide to keep suspenseful episodes for sweeps. Maybe they will decide to keep certain plot elements from being "leaked" until after the creators wanted them released. Maybe the network will decide to not show the episode at all. Ever. Or maybe they'll wait to play it in a future season than the one it was supposed to be for. You want some examples?

Futurama King of the Hill The Simpsons Malcolm in the Middle Off Centre That '70s Show Grounded For Life The Bernie Mac Show South Park Family Guy Just Shoot Me Farscape (probably shown in correct order outside U.S.; shown in order presently) Lexx (probably shown in correct order outside U.S.; shown in order presently Action! The Oblongs Strangers With Candy The Tick Undeclared

...and that is just off the top of my head. From my experience, it is the *rare* show that is shown in perfect order of production code.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:59:37 -0600, "Bao H. Lammy" wrote:

Obviously that's bollocks for any show which has running plots such as Friends and the myriad of others. Even South Park would suffer due to references. Anyhow, the point is - if they're shown out of order "in the context of the episode production code number.", then why are these numbers used in the public? *surely* the definitive episode number to the rest of the world is simply the order in which they were released...no? So they might have been started in a different order, but the public doesn't need to know that!!!!!

Because it would ruin the flow of *many* shows.

So maybe they move the timings around a bit, but showing them out of order is plain stupid, running plots could be ruined - even in South Park. Imagine seeing the Bin Laden episode before the Towelie one for example. Or how Stan&Kyle make a reference to the Scott Tenerman episode.

None of this would change the order, only the timing.

yay, cos that makes a lot of sense. If they want to muck up the order then that's their perogative, all I'm saying is that M&T can simply number them as they release them, if CC show them out of order then they're plain stupid.

Yes, but listing your favourite shows doesn't count.

I'm well aware of the concept of a extended story arc. That still doesn't stop networks from messing with it, and they mess with such frequently. Note: I never said that *all* episodes are shown out of order. Even stupid networks will play a sub-arc in its correct order usually. As for Friends, go here: http://www.epguides.com/Friends/ and you'll see that it is shown out of order as well. A lot. Moreover, sometimes a network will screw with a story arc to give the viewer the impression of a very different plotline. An example is Undeclared, where they waited until the 9th episode to air the one that should have been shown 2nd. http://www.tvtome.com/Undeclared/season1.html#ep9

In this case, FOX felt that the true 2nd episode was not that engaging relatively speaking, so they wanted to boost the viewer base. This is from: http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-2359/epid-77165/ "Bumped up two weeks from a slated October 16, 2001 airdate, displacing the intended second episode, So You Have a Boyfriend, at the last minute. Apparently, Fox didn't like what they saw from the first week ratings and went straight into panic mode."

To reduce -- internally -- confusion as to what episode is which? The shows arealready assigned a production code, and they don't bother to take the time to renumber them for the public. Why would they do that?

No doubt. And it often does. Sometimes it doesn't matter. Fans complain. The networks don't care.

Addressed.

Sometimes the timing is changed at the last second. In your system, a show gets a production code. Then it gets another episode # that is sent to the public. Then when the network decides at the last minute that they're not going to show that particular episode then, things have to be renumbered. Then when it is released in a foreign market, the order can change yet again. Now there are 4 sets of numbering schemes. epguides.com lists the most popular two: order of broadcast and production code.

Addressed.

Go to epguides.com and click on several shows. You'll see that the majority are shown out of order.

All your points refer to the network showing their supplied episodes out-of-order. That's not what we were discussing. Sorry.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:38:19 -0600, "Bao H. Lammy" wrote:

On or about Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:51:41 +0000, Andy Turner made the sensational claim that:

First off, TRIM YOUR GOD DAMN QUOTES. Second, you're an id10t. You've been whining this whole time that the episodes aren't aired in the order in which they are produced, and you turn right around and say no we weren't discussing why the shows aren't produced in the order in which they're shown.

God damn you're a fucking faggot dude.

I was about to reply again (slow day), but saved a lot of time by reading your response, LooseChanj.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 22:26:58 GMT, LooseChanj wrote:

I left the entire quote, because I referred to the entire quote. Sorry for you if you don't understand what quotes are for.

Curious that you should make a request and then call me a name (not to mention the drivel you spout at the end) and expect me to take notice of your request? hahah yeah ok...

No, no I haven't, but unfortunately you seem to have missed the point.... and you have the temerity to attempt to call me an idiot.... haha! Shall we go over this just one more time? M&T are obviously releasing episodes to CC in the wrong order, or at least they're not numbered sequentially when released - this is what I find strange. Whether CC decide to then air them in a different order to which they receive them is a *totally* different issue, and is up to CC or indeed any network which carries them. Do you see now?

Try reading the thread again, carefully this time. Ask a parent to help you.

ha, and I'm supposed to take you seriously? You gotta lot to learn girl!

Many fans are curious as to the order of production. Sometimes it gives insight. For example, 405 "Pip" being released so late tells the observant fan that "Pip" took a relatively long time to make. Keeping the original production code can also possibly show the observant fan when a given network has decided to change the order themselves. It's not definitive proof, as sometimes the episodes are completed out of order, but it is a start for "investigation."

Yes, though the point was easily lost when you started claiming that other shows kept their order just fine, like Friends. Friends is shown out of order in the U.S. -- even first-run episodes. Do they supply the network the episodes out of order? Maybe. Or does the network show them out of order, yet get them from the studio in order? Maybe. Or is the studio releasing them out of order, and then the network changes the order yet again? Maybe. I don't care enough about Friends to find out. Someone else undoubtedly does care enough and has found out.

In article , LooseChanj wrote:

He might be a troll, but he doesn't quite feel like one. Maybe he's just ignorant.

In article , "Bao H. Lammy" wrote:

The Prisoner?

The penultimate Prisoner ep was made early on -- much earlier than the series finale. That's why they shaved Leo McKern in the finale -- by then he had shaved in real life -- so for the opening they put a lot of false hair on him.

In article , "D.G. Porter" wrote:

You clearly know more about this than I do!