I just watched the Separate Rooms episode. I noticed two issues with this episode; one to do with continuity and the other with logic.

At the begining of the show while the boys are sitting down to breakfast, Ricky has what appear to be scabs on the left side of his face; one above his eyebrow just to the left of his nose and two others on the bridge of his nose and on the left side of his nose. When the family walks into the living room moments later Ricky no scabs, then minutes later there they are again. I assume that the scene in the living room was filmed at a different time than the scenes in the dining room.

Now the problem I have with the logic of this episode. The boys want separate rooms, but Harriet and Ozzie state that there are no other bedrooms. Looking at the size of the house and the size of the boys' bedroom and Ozzie and Harriet's bedroom, there has got to be other rooms upstairs than just those two and the bathroom. Also, in other episodes that show the hallway on the second floor, you can clearly see doors to rooms that no one goes into - rooms that are most likely other bedrooms. Sometimes we are asked to suspend belief to go along with the story, but this one was too obvious to buy.

Perhaps the differences on Rick you speak of were technical flaws--a bad copy of the ep.

In any event, your powers of observation are acute. And to the well attuned eye, glitches and incongruities can easily be found. Even in the epic Citizen Kane for example, the parrot's eye was transparent. (Critic Roger Ebert revealed this in commentary)

The early years (first two) are not my favorite part of the series. Some of the '52-'54 eps were a bit corny--but I don't hold this against them. TV was so new, everyone was still finding their way. Except for Lucy of course; who paved it.

Thanks for the thread!

The thing abt these early sitcoms is that reruns/syndication was still a "future" thing. It was easy to have no continuity, goofs, editing mistakes or just "who cares" kinda attitude abt the filming of these shows since no one was going to notice such things as scabs on a face, when the conversation is what you are going to pay attention to during a first time run show. Also, unlike now where we have the ability to TiVo, watch DVD's or just plain watch episodes over and over again, you have the luxury of noticing things aside from the dialogue. For example, I know I Love Lucy verbatim, so I can now enjoy other things to watch, like the goofs, the scenery, the set, the layout, things in the background, etc. And when someone here mentions "Did you see in that episode..." well, we can share each others views and look out for such things the next time we see the episode or pop in a DVD.

Ireneparalegal, great to see 'ya on the O&H board. And as far as Lucy is concerned, you're singing to the choir!

Whoo hoo...good to see ya Rich! And yes, I can enjoy a good convo abt O&H anytime. :wave:

Perhaps the differences on Rick you speak of were technical flaws--a bad copy of the ep.

In any event, your powers of observation are acute. And to the well attuned eye, glitches and incongruities can easily be found. Even in the epic Citizen Kane for example, the parrot's eye was transparent. (Critic Roger Ebert revealed this in commentary)

The early years (first two) are not my favorite part of the series. Some of the '52-'54 eps were a bit corny--but I don't hold this against them. TV was so new, everyone was still finding their way. Except for Lucy of course; who paved it.

Thanks for the thread!

The marks on Ricky's face do not appear to be a technical flaw as they are on the same part of his face even with a differnt camera angle. I do not hold these things against them either. Just wanted to point them out. Ireneparalegal is correct that we now have the luxury to watch these shows over and over and notice these flaws. I do not enjoy the shows any less because of them.

You've piqued my interest! I'm going to watch this ep tonight. I know you weren't being critical--just observant. I never catch technical flaws, so it'll be interesting to watch the ep and look for them..

The thing I remember most abt this ep is seeing a younger Ellen Corby (the actress who played the grandmother on the Waltsons.)

Hi, ESL.

Very nice post. I'm assuming you were addressing fans who have actually seen the ep, rather than posters with waaaay too much time on their hands.

Absolutely. Those scabs on Ricky's face suggest some fairly serious mishap. And they do disappear -- or perhaps they are covered with make-up -- in later scenes.

And of course you're right. This isn't one of the more sensible eps. Aside from the obvious extra room the Nelsons have, Ozzie moving himself out of his and Harriet's bedoorm so suddenly based on pretty much nothing is kind of silly. But there are some nice moments, as always.

And now back to The Rich P. Show!

Hi, ESL.

And of course you're right. This isn't one of the more sensible eps. Aside from the obvious extra room the Nelsons have, Ozzie moving himself out of his and Harriet's bedoorm so suddenly based on pretty much nothing is kind of silly. But there are some nice moments, as always.


Jim,

I agree, the whole issue with Ozzie sleeping in the den and so suddenly was silly. Yet this episode could have been sensible. The idea of the boys wanting separate rooms is very realistic. The boys could have tried sleeping in separate rooms only to find that they were lonely, bored, etc. by each having a room of their own and therefore could not get to sleep or something like that. And following more logically, the episode could have ended the way it did with mention of Ricky asleep under the bed in his old room.

Very nice post. I'm assuming you were addressing fans who have actually seen the ep, rather than posters with waaaay too much time on their hands. And now back to The Rich P. Show!

That is so damn rude. :rolleyes:

That is so damn rude. :rolleyes:

Actually, Irene, what is rude is some new poster showing up here and acting like he runs the show. Answering every post in sight with nonsense, acting as if he's the Hostess with the Mostest, and copping an attitude when anyone has a problem with it. (See many other forums visited by Rich.)

Funny how you didn't think all that was rude. Why is that?

Actually, I have seen most of your posts and they are directed at Rich P. in such a way that in no way merits your behavior. I can see if Rich P. started with you in some rude or nasty way, but he hasn't. He has brought to the board his interests, his opinions (whether you like shorter opinions is not for you to say) and his wit and humor. IT IS NOT NONSENSE. You are the only one that has an issue with him and yet, have no good reason for it.

Rich P. is someone who has shown his friendship and kindness. Maybe you should just lay off of him and leave him alone. I do consider this "new poster" as you called him (he's been here since 2005) a friend, and I know many here like him as well.

Rich brought this board back to life, and I really enjoy reading his posts. keep it up!

Rich brought this board back to life, and I really enjoy reading his posts. keep it up!
Exactly! Thank you Rich for doing that as well. What a contributor to this whole S.O. board. :cool: I like that instead of people whining abt how often someone posts. :rolleyes:

Actually, Irene, what is rude is some new poster showing up here and acting like he runs the show. Answering every post in sight with nonsense, acting as if he's the Hostess with the Mostest, and copping an attitude when anyone has a problem with it. (See many other forums visited by Rich.)

Funny how you didn't think all that was rude. Why is that?
It's not rude. What's rude and against the rules is bullying a member. I can't believe my eyes. There is NO rule that states a member can't post as often as they want. YOU are a bully. I'm calling you out everytime you pull this. TJ, THE OWNER, warned you, and yet you continue to harrass a member, simply for posting. If you don't like their posts, then don't read them. Meanwhile, get of Rich's case! We don't run members off the boards around here.

Rich brought this board back to life, and I really enjoy reading his posts. keep it up!
I agree. It's nice to see this board active again and I enjoy reading his posts too. :)

Rich, you keep on posting. If Jim Asher doesn't like it, he can leave. Which really wouldn't be a major loss anyway.

Rich, we got your back. Who are "We"? We're BULLY BUSTERS. Let's hear it folks! Who's a BULLY BUSTER?

http://portal.asf.edu.mx/8182081012154560/lib/8182081012154560/bully_free.jpg

Yea I never could stand bullies so Rich you post as much as you like and don't worry about anything he says. Heck this board has been dead as long as I've been a member. It's great seeing somebody actually post over here. :)

Yea I never could stand bullies so Rich you post as much as you like and don't worry about anything he says. Heck this board has been dead as long as I've been a member. It's great seeing somebody actually post over here. :)
Sonny gets his Bully Buster badge. :)

http://www.atriumsoc.org/images/BBS-LOGO72.jpg

Yea I never could stand bullies so Rich you post as much as you like and don't worry about anything he says. Heck this board has been dead as long as I've been a member. It's great seeing somebody actually post over here. :)
You said it well. :D

Rich, we got your back. Who are "We"? We're BULLY BUSTERS. Let's hear it folks! Who's a BULLY BUSTER?

http://portal.asf.edu.mx/8182081012154560/lib/8182081012154560/bully_free.jpg
This goes for the entire board!!!! Not just Ozzie & Harriet. :cool:

Rich, you keep on posting. If Jim Asher doesn't like it, he can leave. Which really wouldn't be a major loss anyway.
:yeahthat

Doesn't look like he has learned his lesson. DAMNIT!

Unfortunately most people like that never do.

Unfortunately most people like that never do.
Oh ain't that the truth. I can name a few. ;)

You go Rich P.!!!!!!!:D