The West Wing

Manchester: Part I - S3-E2

Continuity mistake: Pres. Bartlet is at his farm in New Hampshire, talking to Leo. In one shot he has an arm on the rail fence and the other hand on his hip. The next shot shows him with both arms on the rail fence even though he had no time to shift position. (00:41:25)

Manchester: Part II - S3-E3

Continuity mistake: Sam and Doug are talking about the President's speech and Doug is holding his notepad, which he shifts to his right hand and starts to put to his side - but the next shot shows it back in his left hand. (00:14:00)

The Two Bartlets - S3-E13

Other mistake: At the beginning of the show, the TV news program on the president's jet shows the time of 5:16 and that it is a "Live" broadcast. However, the time on the bottom of the screen, setting the context for the viewers, is 5:40.

Posse Comitatus - S3-E22

Continuity mistake: Josh and Amy are in a restaurant having breakfast and talking about the vote - the sugar dispenser can be seen next to some yellow flowers. In subsequent shots the flowers are still there but the dispenser has disappeared, even though no one touched it.

H. Con-172 - S3-E11

Audio problem: Toby enters the Oval Office at the end of a meeting the President is holding with about a half-dozen people. The meeting breaks up and Toby follows Bartlet toward the desk as the others meander toward the door. A few seconds after the camera pans away from the others, we hear the door close and the room is now silent as Toby and Bartlet begin to converse. But the door closing happens way too soon for all those people to have gotten out of the room. Two men are especially just standing there, looking as if they aren't planning to leave at all. The other doors aren't used nor heard. (00:14:15)

johnrosa

Ways and Means - S3-E4

Continuity mistake: When Doug, Toby, and Sam are talking to the President about how to handle the attempted repeal of the estate tax, they mention several times that it will be the President's first veto, and that it is something that he has never done before. However, in episode four of season two, "In This White House", in the scene where Sam is debating Ainsley Hayes on Capital Beat, the moderator asks why the President's education bill is different from the Republican proposed bill "which the President vetoed." So, the veto of the estate tax repeal was not the president's first.

Manchester: Part II - S3-E3

Continuity mistake: When Margaret goes into Leo's office to announce the arrival of Gianelli, he puts his glasses down on a bare portion of the desk. The next shot from behind him shows the glasses lying on top of books/papers. He'd had no time to move them. (00:15:40)

We Killed Yamamoto - S3-E21

Continuity mistake: Josh is getting coffee and talking to another guy about a Shakespeare production Bartlet is supposed to attend. When he goes to the coffee machine, his backpack is over his shoulder and the strap is near his collar but not covering it. When he walks away from the coffee machine, most of his collar is covered and quite dishevelled from the backpack strap. At no time did Josh adjust the backpack.

We Killed Yamamoto - S3-E21

Continuity mistake: When Josh is walking down the White House hallway in the office area, he is talking to someone, and at first there is nothing in his shirt pocket, but as the scene progresses, we can see his glasses in the pocket. He did not put them there during the scene.

Isaac and Ishmael - S3-E1

Factual error: A secret service agent goes to Leo McGarry and tells him Sharif has crossed the border from Canada into the US - he says "from Ontario into Vermont". It is about 50 miles from Ontario to the Vermont border - the only province that borders on Vermont is Quebec. At this high level of intelligence, this could not be a character error - just the West Wing writers not checking a map.

Dead Irish Writers - S3-E16

Factual error: When the British Ambassador, Lord Marbury, greets Abbey at her party, he tenders best wishes from "Her Royal Majesty", his Monarch. However, as Her official representative, Lord John should have been cognizant that the reigning British monarch is referred to strictly as "His/Her Majesty".

Gone Quiet - S3-E7

Factual error: Hal Holbrook's character is called in to assist in solving an incident where a US sub has gone missing in hostile waters. Despite being elderly, he is considered an expert in such matters, and is advising the President in that capacity. Yet while relating similar historical submarine incidents, he makes two significant errors. First, he describes the "Glomar Explorer" and the K-129 Russian sub as "two subs", but the Glomar was a surface ship, not a sub (See http://www.espionageinfo.com/images/eeis_02_img0482.jpg). Then he states the USS Gudgeon was trapped by Russian ships for four days, but the entire incident took 30 hours. He is never challenged on these facts, and his advice is unquestioned. Rather than character mistakes, as the character's meant to be an expert, this is more likely bad research and embellishment by the writers. (00:28:00)

johnrosa

The Women of Qumar - S3-E9

Factual error: When Sam is telling Leo about the couple who crashed their car after the fundraiser where the President talked about seat belts, he states, "Now she's suing him for contributory negligence!" Contributory Negligence is not something you can sue for, it is a defense to a lawsuit and is based on the plaintiff's own negligent conduct - the woman would be suing the president for just "negligence." Sam repeats the phrase at 7:45, when he claims "Contributory negligence in wrongful death is the tort equivalent of murder." This makes no sense from a legal perspective. As an attorney, Sam would know the difference - this a writing mistake. (00:01:52)

tinsmith

Manchester: Part I - S3-E2

Continuity mistake: Donna and the gang are in a restaurant/bar in New Hampshire and she has her hand up by her head as she eats. As Josh asks "are you eating the rest of the sandwich?" her hand is suddenly at her mouth. (00:32:10)

100,000 Airplanes - S3-E12

Plot hole: Joey and Kenny are led to the Oval Office by Charlie through the Presidential Secretary's (and his own) office. Charlie ends the scene saying, "Okay, you're in the Oval Office" as he sends Joey and Kenny that way. Charlie always knows the President's whereabouts and schedule. Yet moments later, Josh arrives in Leo's office where others have gathered to await the start of the same meeting - and Joey and Kenny are also here. Then everyone goes into the Oval Office to await the arrival of the President. It is as if the makers forgot Charlie led Joey and Kenny here moments earlier.

johnrosa

H. Con-172 - S3-E11

Factual error: When Leo is talking with Jordan about why he doesn't want the President to be censured, he states that this would be the first time a President was censured. This is untrue. Both Andrew Jackson and James Buchanan were censured by Congress (although Jackson's censure was later expunged). (00:11:25)

tinsmith

The U.S. Poet Laureate - S3-E17

Character mistake: Jed Bartlett is talking to Leo and Hoynes. He says 'Calvary' instead of 'Cavalry' in the line "Tell Josh that General Pulaski was a Polish Brigadier General who vanquished the Russian and Prussian military then came to the colonies and commanded our cavalry during the American revolution."

dxhutch

More quotes from The West Wing
More trivia for The West Wing

In Excelsis Deo - S1-E10

Question: This is as good a place to ask as any. In various US TV shows (including this one, and this episode), someone says "I could care less", when they always seem to mean "I couldn't care less", ie. they have no interest in what's going on. Surely if they COULD care less that means they actually care a reasonable amount? Is there any logic to this, or is it just a really annoying innate lack of sense?

Jon Sandys

Chosen answer: A really annoying innate lack of sense. My friends and family say the same thing all the time, and I'm endlessly trying to correct them. I think people just don't know any better and (ironically) couldn't care less that they're speaking incorrectly.

Answer: It's an endlessly annoying dropped negative, and it's been a common colloquialism for far too long. I believe it comes from an original (and now omitted and merely implied) "As if" preceding the statement. "As if I could care less." (Meaning "As if it were possible that I could care even less than I do.") But there's really no way to know.

More questions & answers from The West Wing

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.