Quantum Leap

Quantum Leap (1989)

2 factual errors in The Americanization of Machiko - August 4, 1953 - chronological order

★★★★☆

(7 votes)

Previous episodeNext episode

The Americanization of Machiko - August 4, 1953 - S2-E3

Factual error: In the scene where the guy is telling Machiko about the major league teams that wanted him, he mentions the Indians, Yankees, and Orioles. The episode is set in 1953 and the story is from before World War II. While there had been a minor league team called the Orioles up to that point, there was no major league team called the Orioles until 1954.

More for Quantum Leap

Mistakes

How the Tess Was Won - August 5, 1956 - S1-E5

Continuity mistake: Though he's leaped into someone else, we always see Sam as Sam, dressed in all the host's clothes (including glasses or sunglasses). His host is revealed only in reflections. But here, when he looks at his host-self in the mirror, the hat and clothes are all identical - except that the reflection is wearing glasses, and Sam isn't. (00:43:00)

Jean G

More mistakes in Quantum Leap

Quotes

Sam: Leaping about in time, I've found that there are some things in life that I can't change, and there are some things that I can. To save a life, to change a heart, to make the right choice. I guess that's what life's about, making the right choice at the right time.

More quotes from Quantum Leap

Trivia

More trivia for Quantum Leap

Questions

Star-Crossed - June 15, 1972 - S1-E3

Question: Al tells Sam that he's there to prevent the professor and his undergraduate student from having a shotgun wedding and ruining both their lives. That implies she got pregnant. Sam succeeds in keeping them apart. Um, does that mean he prevented someone from being born?

Brian Katcher

Answer: He means he's there to prevent there ever being the need for a shotgun wedding-that is, to stop the affair before there is a possibility of the girl getting pregnant.

raywest ★

Which would erase the child from history. That's my point.

Brian Katcher

Not if there was never any pregnancy to begin with. There was only the chance of one.

raywest ★

Answer: Not necessarily; it could also mean that someone such as Jamie Lee's (the student) father discovered that the professor was having a sexual relationship with her and coerced the two into getting married.

zendaddy621

This doesn't answer the question. You just described what a shotgun wedding is.

Bishop73

I think their point is that the "shotgun" aspect might not be due to a pregnancy, simply a forced attempt to legitimise an otherwise scandalous relationship.

My point was that a "shotgun wedding" doesn't always happen because an unmarried girl becomes pregnant; it can also happen because someone "stole her virtue", i.e had sex with her without being married or at least engaged to her. There's no reason to believe that Jamie Lee was, or would become, pregnant as a result of the affair or subsequent marriage.

zendaddy621

The term "shotgun wedding" means a forced marriage due to unexpected pregnancy. It's sometimes even used when the woman is pregnant but it's planned or the wedding isn't "forced." In common colloquialism (especially in the 80's when the script was written), it doesn't refer to a force marriage just because of premarital sex (which the term "make an honest woman" is used for).

Bishop73

No, in the 1926 Sinclair Lewis novel 'Elmer Gantry', they talk about shotgun weddings, when a groom is forced to marry a woman because he took her virginity. Obviously, the term usually refers to a pregnant bride, but I see zendaddys point.

Brian Katcher

More questions & answers from Quantum Leap

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.