Eastenders and the WEIRD rain!

In tonight's episode which you can all see on Sunday, there was a scene involving Andy, and those two new blokes, relatives of Alfie. When the younger one came out of the chippy it was pouring down with rain, from another shot it wasn't, and this went on for about 1 minute. Quite incredible really that whoever is responsible for continuity could miss something so damn obvious. Did anyone else see it?

EastEnders' continuity has become appalling of late - probably a by-product of having too many episodes to script and film, the continuity (and sometimes credibility) goes out the window.

I would list other examples of bad EE continuity but to be honest I'd only bore you all to death

When DVDs or soaps start coming out you know you're in trobule!

Notice most actors never look quite at the person they talk to in soaps... they just have an autocue behind them all the time -- totally fake and if you look for it totally noticable!

In the episode the other day it appeared to be early morning but looked like 10 o'clock at night

Well it is winter!

I think he knows that.

Morning darkness and evening darkness don't look the same either on film or to the naked eye. It wasn't pitch black and it definately didn't look like early morning.

I was very confused by the timeframe they were set in and what I was watching.

There are all kind of good reasons to film at night instead of having a 3am call, but it looked bad.

Its interesting because on Fawlty Towers, during the Gourmet Night episode, Basil goes in his car to get the duck and at one shot the ground is dry but on the next shot it is wet. Quite difficult editing programmes when these things happen.

No they don't.

Dunno where you get that idea from. It certainly isn't the case with any of the British soaps I've seen being produced (EastEnders, Coronation Streat, The Bill, Casualty, Holby or Family Affairs)

Why would they have an autocue? They have scripts which they learn. Honestly, even if they aren't looking at the actor that's more poor acting than anything else.

If what you say is strictly true, then they'd need eyes in the back of their head in order to read it.

I suspect your factual accuracy is something akin to your grammatical construction.