Lonelygirl15

While watching Gemma's latest video ("Daniel Is Right") the other day, I noticed a gaping error in continuity which I brought up in that video's thread (see this post if interested) but it was ignored, I think.

Basically, Gemma stated (on December 1) that it's been "nearly three weeks" since Bree and Daniel fled from Bree's house and took to a life on the road. This is so obviously inaccurate that I can't understand how it wasn't caught.

In actuality, Daniel and Bree took to the road on November 3 (exactly four full weeks before Gemma's latest video). The "On The Run" video was posted on November 7, but its events began on November 3. If you watch the video from Bree before "On The Run" (entitled "Where Are My Parents?") she states that they were about to go to her house to check on her parents. It is this event which starts off "On The Run."

Even if that event hadn't happened until November 7, though, Gemma's statement of "nearly three weeks" would be wildly off target, as it would have still been three and a half weeks by that point anyway.

I was just wondering if anybody else has an opinion on where this error came from, and if, indeed, it's an error. Would the Creators mind dropping by to explain it? Was it an intentional liberty with the plot? Is there some reason that the Creators wanted only three weeks or so to have passed in the story by that point? And if so, what kind of implications might taking these kinds of liberties with the "reality" idea have on the necessity to continue driving home the notion that this show must maintain a "natural vlogging atmosphere" throughout its lifetime (as opposed to something more like an outright tv program)?

In my opinion, if this was an error, there should be some kind of statement acknowledging it. Otherwise, we'll be forced to take Gemma at her word that it has only been three weeks since Bree and Daniel took to the road in the story -- meaning that it's only something like November 24 for them right now... in which case yesterday was Thanksgiving for them even though they were celebrating Thanksgiving more than a week ago!

Or, perhaps, does this mean that in the fictional story, the opening events of "On The Run" took place on or around November 10?

If this was just a mistake on someone's part, okay, we can deal with that -- but I think we need an official statement to acknowledge it. Otherwise we're left with a major error in continuity that would have to remain part of the story because it hasn't been "removed" by a statement from the guys in charge. If this was deliberate, then I think the Creators have a major problem on their hands in terms of maintaining the integrity of the vlogging medium for this story.

No offense intended to Miles and the others -- and certainly not to the actors. Least of all to them. I love all you guys, and appreciate what you're trying to do (new medium, etc.), but I really feel like this is a major mistake that at least needs to be addressed -- otherwise, it will undermine the story and the medium in which it's being provided.

Again, I want to stress that I appreciate the lonelygirl15 concept, creators, characters, and actors -- and it's because I appreciate them that I care to bring this to the Creators' attention if they aren't aware of it.

Opinions? Ideas? Revelations? Thanks in advance to anyone who responds.

Edit: I'm suddenly reminded of the "October 12" error from a while back in the "Following The Helper" video.

I think you need a third option in the poll: It's not relevant.

Now maybe all your stuff is right, but I imagine it's not relevant and could be explained reasonably easily. We all know that it can take some time between filming a video and editing then posting it. And many people take liberties with time if they're unsure. Haven't we all said it's "half past six" when it's really 6:23 or so? Just estimations.

Just my opinion...it's probably not relevant to the story.

I think it's just Gemma making a statement without checking the dates. She makes a lot of statements that are suspect so this would not be out of character.

I don't see it as anything sinister like compression or expansion of any timelines.

I'm the one always looking for the consiracy. I just don't see one here.

Broken Kid wrote:I think you need a third option in the poll: It's not relevant.

Okay, thanks. I added it.

Broken Kid wrote:Now maybe all your stuff is right, but I imagine it's not relevant and could be explained reasonably easily. We all know that it can take some time between filming a video and editing then posting it.

Though it's true that it can take time between filming and uploading, we know beyond any doubt that the "On The Run" video would have needed to begin on November 3, since the "Where Are My Parents?" video was uploaded on November 3. After all, Bree does say that she was going to upload "Where Are My Parents?" and then they were going to go to her house.

As far as there maybe being time between when Gemma filmed her latest video and uploaded it, we have to remember that all this stuff about Bree and Daniel going to stay at Jonas' didn't come up until the chat, which was on November 28 -- still way past three weeks later. "Daniel Is Right" was also a response to Daniel's video from before that ("Jonas?"), which was uploaded on November 30. What this means is that Gemma couldn't have made her video before December 30 at the very earliest, one day short of four weeks.

Broken Kid wrote:And many people take liberties with time if they're unsure. Haven't we all said it's "half past six" when it's really 6:23 or so? Just estimations.

Yeah, I can see it in a case like that -- but that's seven minutes. This is a whole week, you know? A week that she's just lived through right before. Generally people aren't that loose with spans of time like that.

Broken Kid wrote:Just my opinion...it's probably not relevant to the story.

Thanks for dropping by.

trainer101 wrote:I think it's just Gemma making a statement without checking the dates. She makes a lot of statements that are suspect so this would not be out of character.

I don't see it as anything sinister like compression or expansion of any timelines.

So do you think it's a mistake on Gemma's part or Jackie's? Or the writers'?

I honestly don't think that it's a big deal.

It's kind of how my mom used to tell people I was 18 when I was really only 17. That's a WHOLE YEAR off as opposed to a week or half a week. My mom sucks at estimating...maybe Gemma does too?

Well, I get a little dizzy when I see numbers. But, it seems like I've read a few posts where the number 3 keeps popping up. At the very least I see it everytime I look at P. Monkey's nose (not that I think'that' means anything. I just hate the monkey)

Also, Bree and Gemma both are famous for off the mark statements. When they do make statements that are not quite accurate or don't make sense, there's always some other message fighting to come through.

Also, time and positioning seems to be a motif with the series. I've never checked it out myself, but I'm sure I read a post of someone commenting that the Creators post Gemma's vblog's consistent with London time. So, if that's true the Creators are going out of their way here. It would be a major flub on the Creators part if it wasn't intentional.

So...I think there's a real possibility that the inaccuracy was meant to indicate ..something. No clue what it could be though. Interesting catch.

Pi

I'd say its a mistake, but not one from the Creators. Just a miscalulation on Gemma's part.

So she doesn't have a good sense of time? Oh well.

Good catch, Lurker. There's another interpretation of this interesting discrepancy, that it's a slipup by Gemma the character, subtly revealing that she's a stooge of the Order.

Gemma says, "I don't think they're watching your house any longer. It's been nearly three weeks." So what she's saying is "they haven't been watching your house for nearly three weeks." In other words, she knows that they WERE watching the house for the first week or so.

Of course, I freely admit that I believe Gemma is at a minimum playing both sides. But it is an interesting error on her part, no?