Howling:Production Errors

Why is it that every time the production crew makes an error, someone has to think up a reason for it in-universe. Why can't they just accept the fact that the simple reason is someone made a mistake. Why confuse matters by spending unnecessary time thinking up an excuse that is untrue? Just accept it-the crew make mistakes and we just have to ignore or accept them. --Coop3 ☎  23:18, June 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Plain and simple: because it's fun and because no one sitting at home and watching this incessantly has anything better to do with their time, or if they do, then they obviously aren't. Also, with a universe as complex, unexplained, and wobbly-wobbly as the Whoniverse, anything might be possible. You just never know. —BioniclesaurKing4t2 - "Hello, I'm the Doctor. Basically, . . . run." 00:03, June 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Because we're fans, we're supposed to support the show where possible not pull it to pieces. Plus production errors have been called in the past and thern turned out to be no such thing. Flesh And Stone DCT ☎  12:47, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

But that's my point. We shouldn't draw attention to the errors because then they become like beacons which other people with notice next time they watch the episode which they probably wouldn't have noticed otherwise. Most people like me do not notice these are we are too involved in the plot to care for something stupid like the clock in flesh and stone. I mean the one that changes from 11:59 AM on 6/25 to 12:00 PM on 6/26. This is a simple mistake and most people wouldn't even have noticed it without being told. But these people who only watch programmes to notice these mistakes obviously would have spotted this as they don't care for the show or the story, just the mistakes. Like they wouldn't make mistakes when you take the time to think how complex each story is and how difficult it is to make one. Just be good to the writers and don't point out their mistakes. --Coop3 ☎  19:45, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Another point is the one regarding actors coming back for multi doctor stories. Why cant people just accept the doctor looks older than they did because the bloody actor has aged. Then Steven moffat(nothing against him) had to make up something stupid about time differential. It didn't need explaining as any person of normal intelligence would know the actor has simply aged. There is nothing we can do about this so why cant people just accept it. David tenant will be older(obviously) when he comes back for the 50th anniversary and the real and only reason is because it has been 3 years since he played the doctor, not because of any time related phenomenon. --Coop3 ☎  19:45, July 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * But the story being told takes place in the Whoniverse, in which untold amounts of timey-wimey things are happening all over the place, so regardless of whether or not someone cares enough about actors' age differences to need an in-universe explanation, one is bound to exist. That's even more the 'plain and simple truth' than the actors merely getting older, especially because Doctor Who is a story in which these things can actually be satisfactorily explained, unlike some other shows that are more strictly held in place by the overrated concept of 'established, guaranteed, and unchangeable reality'. —BioniclesaurKing4t2 - "Hello, I'm the Doctor. Basically, . . . run." 22:35, July 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I should point out, in case it wasn't seen, that "error" which I didn't know about, wasn't the one I was referring to.DCT ☎  12:47, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

If each of us was an island, there's a good chance that we wouldn't ever find ourselves doing this. Most people either fail to notice or can see past errors in continuity and the like.

Unfortunately we're not an island. We're surrounded by other viewers and fans, some of whom enjoy picking the show apart and purposefully researching every little detail in order to find things that conflict. When these things are found, they're usually well publicized by the fan-base, meaning that it's much harder for the rest of us to continue to ignore the problems in the future.

Knowing about a problem is very distracting and pulls you out of the experience; it turns our window to the "world of Doctor Who" into just another television program made by fallible humans. To counter this, it's only natural that some of us like to think the problems through and work-out solutions that make everything fit. Not only does doing this fix the glaring errors that are bothering you, but the amount of thought that goes into working-out a solution actually draws you deeper into the "world of Doctor Who" and it's lore and merely watching the program passively could ever manage to do. Darren.pobatti ☎  17:15, November 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not one to usually do this, but: THIS^^^^. —BioniclesaurKing4t2 - "Hello, I'm the Doctor. Basically, . . . run." 19:57, November 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that answer won't be bested. Added to prehaps, but not bested.DCT ☎  16:44, November 18, 2013 (UTC)

There's a genuine & admitted production error at the start of The Eleventh Hour which, thanks to a fan-devised explanation, has effectively ceased to be an error at all:


 * In the opening sequence of the TARDIS hurtling out of control over London, the date was meant to be 1996, the same date as the eventual crash in young Amelia Pond's garden.


 * The helicopter shots used for that sequence clearly show highly recognisable features that did not exist in 1996 -- the Millennium Wheel (London Eye) & the Millennium Dome (whatever it's called now), among them.


 * As Steven Moffat has admitted, when he saw the completed episode before transmission (but too late for correction), he spotted the error & cringed.


 * Fans, however, came up with the explanation that what was seen crashing was a time machine & she had been falling through time as well as space, so that between London & Leadworth, she'd simply fallen a few years backwards in time.


 * As Moffat recognised the moment he learned of that fan-devised explanation, it works perfectly well & turns an error into an acceptable, albeit unintended, minor detail of the story.

When I first saw the episode, not knowing that this scene had been an error, I simply assumed the "falling through time" explanation. I thought it a nice touch that they'd remembered to show the TARDIS crashing in all 4 dimensions, instead of just 3. It was only when I watched the DVD that I learned, from Moffat's remarks, that it had been a mistake.

While it's not always possible to convert errors into assets in this way, when it can be done it's useful to do it. DW is by no means the only show whose fans do this, although DW fans have more room to manoeuvre than most -- time travel helps a lot, in that respect. Occasionally, the process of retconning an error can stimulate writers into creating really good stories that just wouldn't otherwise have been written. Sure, it can be done badly -- anything can -- but when it's done well, it's valuable. --89.241.212.51talk to me 13:56, November 19, 2013 (UTC)

There are, of course, things which cannot be explained away, like how in The Bells of Saint John, when the Doctor and Clara are arguing over how you can/can't track down where the wi-fi controllers are located and pulling the laptop back and forth, the laptop is facing different directions between camera shots that it clearly was not facing a second ago. —BioniclesaurKing4t2 - "Hello, I'm the Doctor. Basically, . . . run." 14:35, November 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * BioniclesaurKing4t2: I'd be wary of making so sweeping a statement as this. Someone, somewhere, could probably devise an explanation even for that error. It might not be plausible or worth the effort but I expect it could be done. --89.243.203.110talk to me 22:47, November 19, 2013 (UTC)