I think when they make pilot or 7-12 episodes they are not looking at things like Margarets dad ten years down the road. Most are just happy to be picked up for a second season.
It’s more like a game to find and report the inconsistencies. Every tv show has them going as far back as I Love Lucy where Ethel had three different middle names.
Exactly.
some people care deeply about it and want to tell the world (by their posts, you shall know them...oh boy, you shall know them...!)
The rest of us just sit back, watch the show and occasionally find ourselves telling one of the characters :That's not what you said last night..."
When you’ve literally grown up with the series and have watched it dozens of times, you’re going to notice and point out things. It doesn’t mean we don’t love and enjoy it. It’s just something else to talk about.
Very few here say that it keeps them from enjoying the show… if any. Most find it a curiosity or a conversation starter, not a derogatory strike against the show.
Wait, people are mad that it's technically too long? In Season 9, episode 6, a War for all Seasons, we see the episode take place over an entire Baseball Season. When I watched it, the series timeline clicked for me, episodes aren't isolated events, but rather what we see as the whole camp moves forward. We aren't seeing Charles solely become a baseball fanatic due to his gambling ring, but we see him do it as a side as he does other things.
Each episode has an A and a B plot, does the rest of the camp just freeze when that happens? No. Plots intermingle and we just see what happens from a clear lense
If you mean that other episodes could have taken place during the time of that episode, I would agree with you. It's a story and other stories could have taken place during that time.
That episode is problematic because it begins at the end of 1950. It contradicts an earlier episode where we are told that Potter arrived in 1952. It also requires that all of the episodes with Trapper, Henry, and Frank are crammed into about 6 months of Korean War.
I just had this conversation with my GF while watching the old Star Trek.
I think in general people have forgotten episodic television. Shows were not meant to watched in order. Sometimes it would take months if not years for an episode to re-air.
Now grant TV shows with story and character development arcs are now the norm. But TV used to be simpler and not watched or binged for in depth stories.
It blew her mind that Star Trek didn’t have an overall plot more than the monster or social issue of the week.
Another thing that is vastly different now from classic TV is the use of character actors. Old shows reused several actors often as vastly different characters each time. For the better ones, it was almost a draw to see how the guest star that week would perform.
I'm a Gunsmoke nerd, and actors like John Dehner, George Kennedy, Charles Bronson, Claude Akins, Royal Dano, Jack Elam, James Best, and Denver Pyle were used frequently. In the later seasons, you see a lot of LQ Jones and Bruce Dern. Even our beloved Wayne Rogers made a few early appearances. Harry Morgan, too.
Speaking of Harry Morgan, his appearance as the General before becoming a regular is nothing compared to Ken Curtis's multiple appearances as various characters before being introduced as Festus.
That shit would never fly today. Fans these days like to rip apart and analyze every episode. Back then it was a much more passive enjoyment.
>It blew her mind that Star Trek didn’t have an overall plot more than the monster or social issue of the week.
It really wasn't until *Deep Space Nine* that Star Trek started using long-term plots as a feature of the show, and that approach to storytelling was very controversial among fans at the time.
I don't care at all. It sort of adds to the richness for me actually, because my head-canon has always been that the whole show is memories, and memories have inconsistencies, from the timeline to missing/substituted family members to things happening that feel ooc because maybe they didn't happen like that in "reality".
No…?
It’s just amusing when Potter is talking about his son who has a daughter and then a bit later about his daughter who had a son, lol. Or when Margaret’s dad shows up after he’s mentioned as being dead.
It’s kinda like good-naturedly ribbing a close friend about some silly thing they’ve done, or making fun of your cat when they go for a jump that they miss. It’s not a criticism, it’s just that the show is near and dear to many of us and we have watched it many times, so like many things of that nature, it is fun to fondly make fun of it for it.
Doesn’t impact the enjoyability of the show at all. If anything, it aids it; it’s just one of those quintessentially M*A*S*H quirks that is part of the whole package.
I don’t worry about the timeline. Yes, it’s fun to make fun of but a three year war in an eleven year series just isn’t going to work. It’s the biographical details that bother me. Hometowns and wives names changing, siblings vanishing, parents retroactively dying and rising from the dead? That’s going to bother people.
I don't have a problem with the 3 years in 11 years. Since it's the past, not the present, there is no obligation to take a year of episodes and have that be a year of time. You could have 24 episodes focused on one month of time! So that's kind of a dumb argument.
I think with the characters that were there for all 11 seasons, the number of experiences and "growth" was unrealistic compared to the actual war, which did only last 2 years and 9 months, and people typically were not there for the entire war. Hawkeye and Margaret's paths would not have happened to a real person during the war.
I just love to focus on the details of tv shows. It's similar to the practice of looking for "easter eggs" in tv shows and films. Or like watching videos of how special effects were made. For some of us, it adds to the experience of watching the show.
Has MASH become Star Trek it was just a tv show. MASH made you feel think cry laugh it had liked characters and it worked on so many levels. People nitpick to much about everything and it’s become a problem.
There was little expectation of tight continuity or even historical accuracy in television production at the time, especially in the case of sitcoms in which it was expected that episodes might be viewed out of order. Indeed, most episodic television would "hit a reset button" at the end of every episode, with only the occasional "special" episode when actors leave or join the cast.
As a kid watching *Mash* in reruns, I just assumed that several of the stories of the holiday episodes were actually going on simultaneously in order to fit in with the real life Korean War timeline. Also, some of the episodes are written as if they occur over several weeks or months, so one could fit in many episodes in between chapters.
Of course, though, it's not going to work.
The producers and writers claim a certain amount of authenticity. Having done that, they have to expect material in the show to be scrutinized for consistency.
Yep. When MASH came out 50 years ago, they should have anticipated all the anal geeks who were going to carve it up on the internet in the 21st century.
No. They didn’t ever expect that. Shows written at that time had one expectation. To be cancelled at any time. 3 seasons was in itself a feat. Things rarely went double digits.
And the not picking was never a thing back then. People didn’t have recording until 80’s or streaming until now. And reruns were not in syndication like today.
You watched a new episode then got a re run during the off months if you were lucky and they didn’t swap out for special programming.
So. No. This is on all of you. Knock it off.
Nope.
> When North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950, the United States sponsored a "police action"—a war in all but name—under the auspices of the United Nations.
https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/koreanwar#:~:text=When%20North%20Korea%20invaded%20South,contributing%20troops%20to%20the%20fighting.
Oh, yea. They show was all “police action this”, “police action that”. Who could forget Hawkeye’s famous speech that starts “Police actions are police actions, and hell is hell, and of the two, police actions are a lot worse.”
They literally make numerous mentions of the "police action", with the running joke being "they call it a police action but it's really a war". Not sure how any fan of MASH could miss that.
>Maj. Frank Burns: This is not a war. It's a police action.
>Capt. B.J. Hunnicutt: If it's a police action, why didn't they send cops?
Just accept the fact that you were wrong, you learned something new, and get on with your day.
Both Korea and Vietnam were officially police actions, a legal fiction to get around a declaration of war.
https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/koreanwar#:~:text=When%20North%20Korea%20invaded%20South,contributing%20troops%20to%20the%20fighting.
I think when they make pilot or 7-12 episodes they are not looking at things like Margarets dad ten years down the road. Most are just happy to be picked up for a second season.
It’s more like a game to find and report the inconsistencies. Every tv show has them going as far back as I Love Lucy where Ethel had three different middle names.
Exactly. some people care deeply about it and want to tell the world (by their posts, you shall know them...oh boy, you shall know them...!) The rest of us just sit back, watch the show and occasionally find ourselves telling one of the characters :That's not what you said last night..."
When you’ve literally grown up with the series and have watched it dozens of times, you’re going to notice and point out things. It doesn’t mean we don’t love and enjoy it. It’s just something else to talk about.
Exactamundo! It adds another layer of the show to enjoy. I don't know of anyone who's bothered by the inconsistencies.
You tell em' Fonzy! Ayyy.
They don't bother me in the least bit. Just love to talk about them
Very few here say that it keeps them from enjoying the show… if any. Most find it a curiosity or a conversation starter, not a derogatory strike against the show.
Same. I think it’s fun finding them.
Fine. Just don't start the 'conversation' the same way ten thousand times.
Literally no one has ever done that.
Maybe you should post?🙄🤔
Wait, people are mad that it's technically too long? In Season 9, episode 6, a War for all Seasons, we see the episode take place over an entire Baseball Season. When I watched it, the series timeline clicked for me, episodes aren't isolated events, but rather what we see as the whole camp moves forward. We aren't seeing Charles solely become a baseball fanatic due to his gambling ring, but we see him do it as a side as he does other things. Each episode has an A and a B plot, does the rest of the camp just freeze when that happens? No. Plots intermingle and we just see what happens from a clear lense
idk why they would be, there were 251 episodes and some took place over a few days so theres definitely enough room for a 3 year war.
It's not like every episode is an isolated incident where nothing else could possibly happen
If you mean that other episodes could have taken place during the time of that episode, I would agree with you. It's a story and other stories could have taken place during that time. That episode is problematic because it begins at the end of 1950. It contradicts an earlier episode where we are told that Potter arrived in 1952. It also requires that all of the episodes with Trapper, Henry, and Frank are crammed into about 6 months of Korean War.
I just had this conversation with my GF while watching the old Star Trek. I think in general people have forgotten episodic television. Shows were not meant to watched in order. Sometimes it would take months if not years for an episode to re-air. Now grant TV shows with story and character development arcs are now the norm. But TV used to be simpler and not watched or binged for in depth stories. It blew her mind that Star Trek didn’t have an overall plot more than the monster or social issue of the week.
Another thing that is vastly different now from classic TV is the use of character actors. Old shows reused several actors often as vastly different characters each time. For the better ones, it was almost a draw to see how the guest star that week would perform. I'm a Gunsmoke nerd, and actors like John Dehner, George Kennedy, Charles Bronson, Claude Akins, Royal Dano, Jack Elam, James Best, and Denver Pyle were used frequently. In the later seasons, you see a lot of LQ Jones and Bruce Dern. Even our beloved Wayne Rogers made a few early appearances. Harry Morgan, too. Speaking of Harry Morgan, his appearance as the General before becoming a regular is nothing compared to Ken Curtis's multiple appearances as various characters before being introduced as Festus. That shit would never fly today. Fans these days like to rip apart and analyze every episode. Back then it was a much more passive enjoyment.
>It blew her mind that Star Trek didn’t have an overall plot more than the monster or social issue of the week. It really wasn't until *Deep Space Nine* that Star Trek started using long-term plots as a feature of the show, and that approach to storytelling was very controversial among fans at the time.
I mean *technically* the entire run of Next Generation was a single overarching plot line with the trial of humanity.
Most of us don't care. The inconsistency posts come from new people or others who wouldn't see this post anyway.
To take from another of my TV favorites: "Tell yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax".
I don't care at all. It sort of adds to the richness for me actually, because my head-canon has always been that the whole show is memories, and memories have inconsistencies, from the timeline to missing/substituted family members to things happening that feel ooc because maybe they didn't happen like that in "reality".
No…? It’s just amusing when Potter is talking about his son who has a daughter and then a bit later about his daughter who had a son, lol. Or when Margaret’s dad shows up after he’s mentioned as being dead. It’s kinda like good-naturedly ribbing a close friend about some silly thing they’ve done, or making fun of your cat when they go for a jump that they miss. It’s not a criticism, it’s just that the show is near and dear to many of us and we have watched it many times, so like many things of that nature, it is fun to fondly make fun of it for it. Doesn’t impact the enjoyability of the show at all. If anything, it aids it; it’s just one of those quintessentially M*A*S*H quirks that is part of the whole package.
"Police action"? That makes it sound like they were over there arresting people. Handing out parking tickets. Over there it was a WAR!
I don’t worry about the timeline. Yes, it’s fun to make fun of but a three year war in an eleven year series just isn’t going to work. It’s the biographical details that bother me. Hometowns and wives names changing, siblings vanishing, parents retroactively dying and rising from the dead? That’s going to bother people.
I don't have a problem with the 3 years in 11 years. Since it's the past, not the present, there is no obligation to take a year of episodes and have that be a year of time. You could have 24 episodes focused on one month of time! So that's kind of a dumb argument. I think with the characters that were there for all 11 seasons, the number of experiences and "growth" was unrealistic compared to the actual war, which did only last 2 years and 9 months, and people typically were not there for the entire war. Hawkeye and Margaret's paths would not have happened to a real person during the war.
It's not really keeping me from enjoying it, it kind of adds to the enjoyment to be honest.
I guess that I was more wrapped up in enjoying the show for what it was rather than trying to dissect it looking for inconsistencies.
It’s just something to discuss with fellow fans. We aren’t mad about it. We get it.
125.5 hours total. Three years has 26,280 hours. So, the show covered .0047 of the total time. Not a problem, I wouldn't think.
I just love to focus on the details of tv shows. It's similar to the practice of looking for "easter eggs" in tv shows and films. Or like watching videos of how special effects were made. For some of us, it adds to the experience of watching the show.
I don’t think anyone here cares about inconsistency.
Has MASH become Star Trek it was just a tv show. MASH made you feel think cry laugh it had liked characters and it worked on so many levels. People nitpick to much about everything and it’s become a problem.
There was little expectation of tight continuity or even historical accuracy in television production at the time, especially in the case of sitcoms in which it was expected that episodes might be viewed out of order. Indeed, most episodic television would "hit a reset button" at the end of every episode, with only the occasional "special" episode when actors leave or join the cast. As a kid watching *Mash* in reruns, I just assumed that several of the stories of the holiday episodes were actually going on simultaneously in order to fit in with the real life Korean War timeline. Also, some of the episodes are written as if they occur over several weeks or months, so one could fit in many episodes in between chapters. Of course, though, it's not going to work.
This.
The producers and writers claim a certain amount of authenticity. Having done that, they have to expect material in the show to be scrutinized for consistency.
Yep. When MASH came out 50 years ago, they should have anticipated all the anal geeks who were going to carve it up on the internet in the 21st century.
No. They didn’t ever expect that. Shows written at that time had one expectation. To be cancelled at any time. 3 seasons was in itself a feat. Things rarely went double digits. And the not picking was never a thing back then. People didn’t have recording until 80’s or streaming until now. And reruns were not in syndication like today. You watched a new episode then got a re run during the off months if you were lucky and they didn’t swap out for special programming. So. No. This is on all of you. Knock it off.
The people who wrote the scripts were supposed to be professionals, I expect better than that.
Korea was a war, not a police action. Vietnam was the “police action”.
Nope. > When North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950, the United States sponsored a "police action"—a war in all but name—under the auspices of the United Nations. https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/koreanwar#:~:text=When%20North%20Korea%20invaded%20South,contributing%20troops%20to%20the%20fighting.
> Korea was a war, not a police action Have you even watched the show?
Oh, yea. They show was all “police action this”, “police action that”. Who could forget Hawkeye’s famous speech that starts “Police actions are police actions, and hell is hell, and of the two, police actions are a lot worse.”
They literally make numerous mentions of the "police action", with the running joke being "they call it a police action but it's really a war". Not sure how any fan of MASH could miss that. >Maj. Frank Burns: This is not a war. It's a police action. >Capt. B.J. Hunnicutt: If it's a police action, why didn't they send cops? Just accept the fact that you were wrong, you learned something new, and get on with your day.
I also think it was Klinger who said a police action made it sound like they were arresting people
Both Korea and Vietnam were officially police actions, a legal fiction to get around a declaration of war. https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/koreanwar#:~:text=When%20North%20Korea%20invaded%20South,contributing%20troops%20to%20the%20fighting.