|
|
Post by Kanna on Feb 10, 2005 15:04:40 GMT
Trying to work out Gavin's age (in itself and relative to Tim). Unless there's something really wonky with my maths, Gavin aged eleven years between "Playing With Fire" and "RIP Gavin Featherleigh", which seems somewhat unlikely. ~grin~
I'm leaning towards going with 36 in season 7, partly becuase it seems more likely. (I can't quite believe Gavin is in his mid-20s in "Playing With Fire", but then I can't really believe Jenny was younger than I am, anyway.) It also works out reasonably well as far as characterisation goes - gay man in the shallow 1990s, in a body and youth-conscious job, and with what appears to be a younger boyfriend, could be very tempted to tell a few little white fibs about age, and Gavin, sweet though he is, doesn't seem the most truthful of men. And then, later, showing signs of maturing, in a stable relationship and actually looking at his career, he'd be more inclined to be truthful...
But then if I remember correctly Gordon was only 37 in season 7, and he acts as if he has quite a lot of age on Gavin, not just a year.
Gah. And tripping over the fact that in the first episode Gavin and Tim seem to be at the very beginning of a romance, but Tim said they'd been together for ten years in RIPGF...
I also wonder very much how Gavin managed to carry off the "visiting my mother on Mondays" thing when his parents seemed to have been in Fiji for years.
RIPGF couldn't mess up my sense of the chronology of the show more if it *tried.*
And I must stop posting... it's embarassing seeing my name all over the most recent posts when I'm a newbie, but it's such a relief to have somewhere to talk about these things!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jennifer on Feb 11, 2005 23:41:14 GMT
You know; none of those things, worryingly, have ever crossed my mind.
But I guess as the writers left and new ones who didn't know what the hell they were doing were draughted in, no mistakes or plot holes as obvious and stupid as that can surprise me.
|
|
|
|
Post by zephine on Feb 12, 2005 4:27:57 GMT
I'm leaning towards going with 36 in season 7, partly becuase it seems more likely. (I can't quite believe Gavin is in his mid-20s in "Playing With Fire", Weirdly, this would also mean he was "sent away to relatives" when he was in his early thirties! Ah, the joy of continuity errors!  |
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Feb 12, 2005 14:30:31 GMT
As obvious and stupid as a Christmas special set when the centre had just opened, complete with a Series 5 set, and Julie? You don't need bad writers to have continuity errors. |
|
Stuart
Colin
"I think you're lucky to be a virgin at all, actually."
Posts: 53
|
Post by Stuart on Feb 12, 2005 14:36:20 GMT
As obvious and stupid as a Christmas special set when the centre had just opened, complete with a Series 5 set, and Julie? Sorry, I've read that every-which way and I can't understand what you're referring to..... |
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Feb 12, 2005 14:41:25 GMT
In the 1994 Christmas special, they celebrate new year 1990. Julie wasn't there in Series 1, which is when this episode was supposedly set. Angie was Brittas' secretary, then.
Also, the centre blew up, it was rebuilt, they got a new restroom. And they're sitting in it in the Christmas special set in 1990. Even the sign that Laura put up in the first episode of S5 is there!
|
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Feb 12, 2005 14:43:08 GMT
Oh...AND Helen's wearing her frightening yellow oilskins.
|
|
Stuart
Colin
"I think you're lucky to be a virgin at all, actually."
Posts: 53
|
Post by Stuart on Feb 12, 2005 14:50:15 GMT
Aaaaaaaaaahhh!! I see.
It's funny though. Because the writers have to remember what ALL the cast members did at what point in time, so could be slightly forgiven for the odd continuity error. But the cast members only have to remember their own character's life story. So you'd think that if the writers overlooked something the actor would point it out... but obviously not!
|
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Feb 12, 2005 14:56:32 GMT
There are so many things wrong with the Christmas special... ...my main issue is with the spontaneously combusting locker  And, while not unheard of, it's unlikely that both of Carole's twins, AND Laura's Barney will still be at Cambridge at the ages of 27 and 25 respectively. it makes you wonder what it is that they're doing there... |
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Feb 12, 2005 15:01:06 GMT
Ooh...before I forget, now seems like as good a time as any to mention the problems with Carole's twins.
They keep changing gender and names!
When they're born, Laura tells Helen that Carole has had a little boy. Then Brittas comes along holding a second baby - the one that he helped with - which is referred to as a boy by the vet. She's had two boys.
Next thing we know, she has a boy and a girl - Tom and Emily.
THEN she has two girls - Emily and Jessica.
THEN she has Tom and Emily again.
That's bad continuity.
|
|
Stuart
Colin
"I think you're lucky to be a virgin at all, actually."
Posts: 53
|
Post by Stuart on Feb 12, 2005 15:05:47 GMT
I've just noticed Gordon's car registration number (in "The Stuff of Dreams" - S3/E6) - H59 ELP - HELP!!! I wonder if that was coincidence or someone having some fun
|
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Feb 12, 2005 15:08:50 GMT
I'm sure it was deliberate. The amount of times that car was destroyed, and the registration was the same...if it was an accident, they wouldn't have bothered transferring the plates each time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jennifer on Feb 12, 2005 22:49:12 GMT
Ooh...before I forget, now seems like as good a time as any to mention the problems with Carole's twins. They keep changing gender and names! When they're born, Laura tells Helen that Carole has had a little boy. Then Brittas comes along holding a second baby - the one that he helped with - which is referred to as a boy by the vet. She's had two boys. Next thing we know, she has a boy and a girl - Tom and Emily. THEN she has two girls - Emily and Jessica. THEN she has Tom and Emily again. That's bad continuity. That had bugged me for SOOO long! How can someone get THAT wrong as consistently as that?! |
|
|
|
Post by Kanna on Feb 13, 2005 12:55:30 GMT
Weirdly, this would also mean he was "sent away to relatives" when he was in his early thirties! Eek. Yes, yes it would. *glares at storyline trying to resolve it*. Well, I suppose it depends how serious the court case was and how urgent it was to get him away... and I know how lame that is as I write it. Damn. But I've always vaguely figured the court case was a matter of being entangled with an underaged boy, given the paranoid way such things were handled in the 1980s (and even today, sometimes), and it's far easier to see an eighteen year old Gavin with a sixteen year old than a Gavin in his thirties... Any ideas on what else he might have been in trouble for that would give getting engaged to a nice, pretty girl "a lot of advantages"? |
|
|
|
Post by Donna on Feb 13, 2005 14:22:57 GMT
Any ideas on what else he might have been in trouble for that would give getting engaged to a nice, pretty girl "a lot of advantages"? Perhaps some George Michael- esque indecent exposure? |
|
