Continuity?

[Artfiore1]

Hi everybody,
I have been a big fan of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" since the 1960s. It's always been one of my all-time favorite shows -- so original, well-written, expertly-directed and superbly well-performed!

But . . . don't you think somebody involved should've been playing a little closer attention to some of the little details?

Laura's maiden name was mentioned in one episode as Meeker and in about three or four other episodes as Meehan.

Alan Brady's wife's name was Barb in one show and Margaret in another.

In one episode, it was Mel who was married to Alan's sister, but in several other episodes, it was Alan who was married to Mel's sister.

In an early episode, Rob's brother Stacey was said to be married. In a later episode, he was engaged. Then, in a much later episode, he was about to *become engaged*.

These things have not kept "The Dick Van Dyke Show" from being one of the finest sitcoms in television history. It's just that I am a little surprised at such carelessness in such an otherwise remarkably well-polished production. Anyone else feel that way?

Later,
Art

[This message has been edited by Artfiore1 (edited 03-28-2001).]

[Kristen]

Originally posted by Artfiore1:
Hi everybody,
I have been a big fan of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" since the 1960s. It's always been one one of my all-time favorite shows -- so original, well-written, expertly-directed and superbly well-performed!

But . . . don't you think somebody involved should've been playing a little closer attention to some of the little details?

Laura's maiden name was mentioned in one episode as Meeker and in about three or four other episodes as Meehan.

Alan Brady's wife's name was Barb in one show and Margaret in another.

In one episode, it was Mel who was married to Alan's sister, but in several other episodes, it was Alan who was married to Mel's sister.

In an early episode, Rob's brother Stacey was said to be married. In a later episode, he was engaged. Then, in a much later episode, he was about to *become engaged*.

These things have not kept "The Dick Van Dyke Show" from being one of the finest sitcoms in television history. It's just that I am a little surprised at such carelessness in such an otherwise remarkably well-polished production. Anyone else feel that way?

Later,
Art

The bit about Laura's maiden name was not a mistake. At the beginning of the series, Mary Tyler Moore was married to Richard Meeker, which is were Laura got her name Laura Meeker Petrie, but then Mary got a divorce from him while the show was still running, so her maiden name on the show was quietly changed to Meehan. Just a correction!

Kristen

[Artfiore1]

Kristen,
Thanks for the info! That's one I should've figured out.

------------------
Later,
Art

[Richard]

Has anyone realized that Mary's real son(now dead)was named Richie?Coincidence or not?

------------------
Richard Ranke

[CCRYDER1968]

If I remember correctly,I think her autobiography said that wasn't a coincidence.

------------------
CCRYDER1968
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/youngandrestlessfans

[David VP]

BULLETIN: THREAD RESURRECTION AFTER A 38-MONTH LAYOFF ..............

These things have not kept "The Dick Van Dyke Show" from being one of the finest sitcoms in television history. It's just that I am a little surprised at such carelessness in such an otherwise remarkably well-polished production.

I agree.
But I think these small continuity errors, etc., probably only stand out to the more devoted fans (who have seen every episode 101 times -- like us here).

I, over time, have noticed many rather goofy flubs and errors that should have been corrected before the shows were ever filmed.

Such as (and feel free to add any others) ...............

> In "The Two Faces Of Rob", in the scene where Rob (aka: Dr. Bonelli) agrees to meet Laura for a date at 4:30, there's an error in the script -- because Buddy and Sally repeat the time to Rob. But neither could possibly have heard Laura say she could meet Bonelli "at 4:30". This blunder could, of course, have easily been avoided if the script had called for Rob to say to Laura: "4:30 will be fine" -- instead of the line we hear: "That will be fine".

> In "It's A Shame She Married Me", there's a major writing error. ..... Rob has just hours earlier told Sally that he's "not gonna tell her [Laura] about it" (a party with an old flame of Laura's -- Jim Darling [Robert Vaughn]). But in the next scene, what happens? Sally, out of sheer spite it would seem from the way it's written, calls up Laura and asks her what she's going to wear to the Jim Darling party. Ultra-silly. Sally, KNOWING of Rob's not wanting Laura to know of this affair, would never have made that call. It should have been Mel, or someone other than Sally, to have spilled the beans over the telephone. Having Sally make that call only makes her look stupid and just plain mean.

> In the episode "The Cat Burglar", we've got a couple of errors (IMO) -- Can anyone explain the logic of these burglars? They go to the trouble of breaking silently and undetected into the Petrie house on Bonnie Meadow Road, and are able to get out of the house unnoticed with the dining room set. So, what do these bonehead burglars decide to do? -- Do they take their loot & run for the batcave? No. Instead, they decide to LEAVE THE MERCHANDISE BEHIND (when they obviously could have just taken it off the premises at the time of the middle-of-the-night theft). They leave the dining set in the toolshed on the Petrie property so they can run the further risk of getting caught and come back later to pick it up.

Why not just steal it and take it with them? Makes no sense to me. Another odd thing about these very "neat" and orderly thieves (besides their placing cushioning, protective packing papers all around the table & chairs in the cartons they hide in the toolshed) is the fact they neatly place the dining table's tablecloth and china and silver in perfect arrangement after their crime. Can you imagine a thief taking the time to physically arrange every spoon & knife & cup/saucer perfectly on the tablecloth ON THE FLOOR after pilfering a dining table?

Then there's the somewhat odd statement made by the police detective at the end of the episode --- when he says to Rob: "The next time you lock a crook in your bedroom, make sure all the windows are locked."

I scratch my head when hearing this and say "Huh?". WHY would Rob's locking the bedroom window have prevented the crook from simply flipping the window lock and still opening the window to escape? Since when do windows lock ON THE OUTSIDE?

> One of my favorite episodes is "A Nice, Friendly Game Of Cards" (co-starring "Get Smart's" Edward Platt as the grouchy neighbor, "Lou Gregory"). But, after viewing this episode 9,413 times (approx. ), a few minor "gaffes" come to the forefront. Eg: Why would ANYBODY who is playing poker want to announce to his fellow players (as Jerry Helper does here): "I just threw away a queen; if this is another queen, I'll shoot myself"? Poker certainly isn't a "verbal" game, with a player's intentions or cards being announced to the world.

There's also the fact that Rob apparently had enough time (and was able to SEE every single card in everyone's hand) after he discovered that his "magic deck" was in the card game. HOW could he possibly have read the back of EVERY card around the table? The "spokes" that reveal each card's identity would be covered up by other cards for all but the "front" card in each player's hand. Rob couldn't possibly have read each & every card around the table. And yet we're to believe he DID in this episode. (Well, perhaps Rob has X-ray vision as well as being a magician. )

Plus -- There's also a goof with regards to Rob's last hand in the poker game. Rob admits to Jerry in the kitchen that he has "a full house, aces over kings". OK -- So WHY, then, does Rob announce "Should I keep this [ace], or throw it away?" (which, of course, alerts Rob to the "marked" deck being utilized, due to Ritchie's following remark).

WHY would any fool even consider for a second tossing an ace, when his hand is 3 Aces + 2 Kings?? Makes no logical sense at all.

Well, at least the "continuity" of this "Ace" in Rob's hand is accurate (from the poker table to the kitchen). We know he's got at least one ace when Ritchie blabs it to everyone; so that at least matches what Rob tells Jerry regarding his "Aces & Kings" Full House when they get to the kitchen.

While I'm seemingly griping about all these tiny little goofs/mistakes (which, of course, don't really amount to a small carton of Crummy Buttons in the larger scheme of these great episodes), I must also point out the GREAT writing within this "Cards" episode. And that is this (I wonder if anyone else appreciates the subtle slickness of writing like this?) .........

In order to allow Laura to accidentally place the marked deck of cards into the game, the writers have to find a way to get Rob out of the room for a minute. And they can't rely on the good old "Ritchie screaming for water" routine in this case, because Ritchie's being OUT OF BED is vital later in this episode. So, they have Rob casually excuse himself to the bedroom to put on his "lucky slippers" (because the shoes he's wearing are hurting his feet). Perfectly logical. Much better than any "Ritchie needing watered down" excuse.

> A number of episodes have other very minor goofs/errors/oddities. Such as the "Magic Piano", which only pops up as needed. And the pool table in the basement -- which can't possibly even be there in the first place, due to that huge rock prohibiting Rob from putting a pool table down there. ("Oh sure there's room! If we use chop sticks for cues!")

Plus Rob's "transportation" mystery. We know in several episodes that Rob does own a car (and sometimes TWO, including Laura's station wagon). So why then does Rob almost always have to take the train to work each day? Food (and Pontiacs) for thought.

> And the episode which is probably the most guilty of some silly boo-boos is "My Husband Is Not A Drunk". ...... First off, the whole business of a "qualified hypnotist" being the ONLY person in that room who could just say a few well-chosen words, snap his fingers, and have anyone under his power is something I don't believe for a second. But that's not the gaffe here. These are:

First off, WHY can't Ritchie get his own lazy 9-year-old body out of bed and get his own water? Other episodes have Ritchie getting up & acquiring his own beverages, without having to annoyingly bellow from the bedroom for his "servant parents" to deliver his liquids in bed. Silly on its face. However, the script here "needs" Ritchie to bellow for water, so Rob can slip out of the room.

Another thing that makes no sense (IMO) in this episode is --- WHY can't the hypnotism session be placed on "hold" for 1 minute so that Rob can get the kid water and still return to join in the full hypnotism encounter? Logically, it would seem the party could be held up for 60 seconds until Rob returned; but, the script forbids this party delay so Rob can intercept the spell in the kitchen.

Still more --- There are THREE separate cases of illogical writing regarding the actual "hypnotism" scenes themselves. ....

1.) After Millie comes out of her "spell", she (for some reason) has NO desire to learn about WHY she wakes up off the ground & in the arms of "Rock Hudson"/Jerry. It's only after Sally asks "Did Jerry really look like Rock Hudson?" does Millie even realize what she did. Illogical.

2.) Same with Jerry. After he emerges from his spell, he too doesn't ask "What happened?". He just declares he "feels great" and "feels like playing some basketball". But at no time does he even wonder what he did while "under Glenn Jameson's powers".

3.) That brings me to Laura's "blunder" while under the hypnotic trance. Now, Laura DID ask "What did I do?", which of course is what ANYBODY would want to know in that situation (if you believe, that is, in that silly kind of immediately-went-to-sleep-just-because-somebody-told-me-to-relax-and-snapped-his-finger-at-me kind of spell).

However, there's still a problem with Laura's trance too. After Rob answers Laura's "what did I do?" with: "4 score and seven years ago...", Laura SHOULD have then logically been puzzled as to WHY she said that and why she was wearing Rob's jacket. Why? Because, she couldn't have possibly known that Glenn told her to "imitate the person you most admire". Why didn't she inquire as to WHY she was impersonating Abe Lincoln. Did she just *assume* Glenn was going to say "imitate someone" before she was put under? Makes no sense to me.

This means that the reactions to ALL 3 of these "spells" were poorly written.

Still more --- The phone ringing at weird & impossible intervals (sometimes long pauses between rings just to accomodate Rob's "drunkenness"). Whose phone rings like that?

These type of things in the "Drunk" episode are things that almost never occur throughout the DvD series -- that is: setting up a situation just for the sake of a laugh, or just because we NEED this illogical piece of dialogue, etc., to "fit the script".

This type of thing is outside Carl Reiner's #1 Rule to himself & his other talented writers -- that rule being the "Realie Rule". If it couldn't really happen to the writers (Denoff, Persky, Marshall, or whoever), then don't put it in the script! "Drunk" violates this basic rule multiple times, IMO.

[pilotguy]

Many truly classic sitcoms of the 1950's and 60's had continuity errors....

On shows like "I Love Lucy" and "The Honeymooners", maiden and middle names of regular characters would often change, as would the number of years couples had been married...also where, when and how they met, etc.

What I think we need to remember is that when these shows were first produced and aired, viewers didn't have the episodes shoved at them every day in reruns, so it was easier to be foggy on details of the characters' lives.

[SawgrassSteve]

David,
Never let anyone tell you you're not good - and thorough!

Steve

[JudgeGarth]

~~~In an early episode, Rob's brother Stacey was said to be married.

When did they say Stacey was married? I don't remember it from the eps that Jerry Van Dyke appeared in. Maybe they made a fleeting reference to it in another episode?

~~~Plus Rob's "transportation" mystery. We know in several episodes that Rob does own a car (and sometimes TWO, including Laura's station wagon). So why then does Rob almost always have to take the train to work each day? Food (and Pontiacs) for thought.

When you live in the suburbs of a big city that has convenient public transportation, you use it to go downtown to work. Nobody in his right mind would want to drive into Manhattan. I live in the Chicago suburbs and I always use the train to commute to work even though I do own a car.

Other than that, I agree with all the "continuity errors."

[algebra74]

Yes, this show has its errors, as every show does, but I must say that this was the best-written and possibly has the least amount of errors of any 1960s sitcom. Please remember that this show was penultimate for its time; a time that gave way to shows like Gilligan's Island, Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, Mister Ed, My Favorite Martian, etc. These shows were silly and had mistakes everywhere. I am a Gilligan's Island fanatic, myself, and could give you at least 20 goofs per episode. In one episode, the professor is allergic to alcohol, and in another he is drinking a Martini with Gilligan, a teenager! Also, a storm drives the castways' hut into the lagoon and they walk out of the door, right into the water. May I say that a hut does not have floors!

In any case, this show had its share of mistakes, but were certainly few and far between. (Carl Reiner took major concern when he realized that Rob took his wife to the hospital to have a baby after having lived in an apartment, yet brought her home to a house). Sherwood Schwartz, on the other hand, could care less about this literally thousands of errors. I mean, could anyone get punched in the mouth and turn into a radio. I give Carl Reiner and all those who were part of the behind-the-scenes an ovation for creating the best sitcom in American History. I would also like to applaud the cast, as none of it could have been possible without them.

[David VP]

Nobody in his right mind would want to drive into Manhattan.

Yes...good point.
I guess I failed to think that one through to its logical conclusion.

Thanks.

[David VP]

I give Carl Reiner and all those who were part of the behind-the-scenes an ovation for creating the best sitcom in American History. I would also like to applaud the cast, as none of it could have been possible without them.

Amen.
I totally concur.

[David VP]

David, never let anyone tell you you're not good - and thorough!

Thank you, thank you very much.

[jon123]

Originally posted by algebra74
Yes, this show has its errors, as every show does, but I must say that this was the best-written and possibly has the least amount of errors of any 1960s sitcom. Please remember that this show was penultimate for its time; a time that gave way to shows like Gilligan's Island, Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, Mister Ed, My Favorite Martian, etc. These shows were silly and had mistakes everywhere. I am a Gilligan's Island fanatic, myself, and could give you at least 20 goofs per episode. In one episode, the professor is allergic to alcohol, and in another he is drinking a Martini with Gilligan, a teenager! Also, a storm drives the castways' hut into the lagoon and they walk out of the door, right into the water. May I say that a hut does not have floors!

In any case, this show had its share of mistakes, but were certainly few and far between. (Carl Reiner took major concern when he realized that Rob took his wife to the hospital to have a baby after having lived in an apartment, yet brought her home to a house). Sherwood Schwartz, on the other hand, could care less about this literally thousands of errors. I mean, could anyone get punched in the mouth and turn into a radio. I give Carl Reiner and all those who were part of the behind-the-scenes an ovation for creating the best sitcom in American History. I would also like to applaud the cast, as none of it could have been possible without them.

On Gilligans Island, the goofs were part of the shows absurdity and humor. (There were bigger goofs than just mentioned, how come everyone brought so many clothes for a three hour tour, and there were so many visitors to the island and still they didn't get rescued). DVD was the best sitcom of its time, so GI style goofs would not be in order, but even the best sitcom can slip up now and then (in particular the flashbacks with the baby and the two houses)

[jehobden]

Originally posted by David VP
BULLETIN: THREAD RESURRECTION AFTER A 38-MONTH LAYOFF ..............

> A number of episodes have other very minor goofs/errors/oddities. Such as the "Magic Piano", which only pops up as needed. And the pool table in the basement -- which can't possibly even be there in the first place, due to that huge rock prohibiting Rob from putting a pool table down there. ("Oh sure there's room! If we use chop sticks for cues!")

I think that the "Magic Piano" is most likely the same piano as in the writers' office. It was probably rolled from the office set across the kitchen set to the living room set when it was needed.

The two episodes where the basement appears had totally different layouts as well. When they had the pool table down there, the stairs came down parallel to the room and turned at the bottom into the basement. When they found the rock in the basement, the stairs ended straight into the basement w/ no turn. Of course the rock made its only appearance then as well. If I had a house w/ a basement w/ a bar and pool table, I would've spent a lot more time down there than Rob and Laura did.