No, I don't mean because they're perfect and beyond criticism. I mean because they're so filled with nits to the point of ridiculousness that doing so would be a full time job. The Flintstones would be a good example, with all sorts of details about the characters, setting etc etc changing from episode to episode. Or Gold Key's Star Trek comics from the late '60s, which you could probably devote a whole website to nitpicking in regards to the source material.

There have been a few. A friend of mine let me borrow the movie Wizards by Ralph Bakshi. Lets just say that it is one of the movies you would want to be stoned or drunk to watch because then it might make sense.

Wizards Spoiler Ahead
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
So, you're saying a movie about wizards shouldn't end with shots from a Luger?

The Flintstones is already unnitpickable because of its very premise, stoneage speaking modern English, with an economic and socionomic system based on our own, living along side dinosaurs who serve as appliances *and* talk to boot (usually to say, "Boy his hands are cold" or "Hey, it's a living.) The fact the Wilma's maiden name changes is too trivial to bother with.

No, the premise doesn't make something unnittable if its internally consistent. Or perhaps a better way of putting it is where does one draw the line about what premises are exempt from nitpicking?

Would The Matrix fall under this catagory? I've seen several people make a 'watch it while high' comment about it.

Another Flinstones one is how they have a Christmas special complete with Santa despite it being in prehistoric times.

There's also the times Fred and/or Barney are running through their living room and the same background goes by a dozen times, making it look like the room is a kilometer long.

I seem to remember seeing an aricle somewhere about how Barney seemed to change jobs in every episode.

Yes, that is the case (Barney's job). From http://www.topthat.net/webrock/faq.htm:
Where does Barney work?

This question hits upon the central mystery of the Hanna-Barbera pantheon, the Holy Grail of discussion among Flintstonephiles. Where does Fred drop Barney off each morning, where does he pick him up at the end of the workday, and what does Barney do in between?

At first, it appears that Barney may work at the quarry with Fred, since he bowls on the quarry's bowling team ("The Flintstone Flyer"). The exact nature of Barney's next job is unknown, but Fred inadvertenly gets him fired from it in "No Help Wanted," the 6th episode produced. (Fred explains that he told Barney to "put his broom down"; Barney later remarks that "it wasn't much of a job"). Fred then helps Barney secure a job as a furniture repossessor, but this career is never mentioned again and appears to have been brief. Other temporary positions include travel agent, co-owner (with Fred) of "The Drive-In," and (again, with Fred) private investigator.

On one occasion we are clearly shown that he works at Pebbles Co. Rock and Gravel (which may or may not be a competitor of Slate Rock and Gravel), though we don't know what he actually does there or how long this job lasted. At times, one is again tempted to believe he works with Fred in the gravel pits; he certainly hangs out there a lot. Indeed, Barney briefly becomes a vice president at the quarry (after once again losing an unidentified job somewhere else) when he turns out to be related to Mr. Slate; once again, he does not hold the position long.

But vague, cryptic references to Barney's job are sprinkled throughout the original series, and at one point Betty (following Wilma's example of using an impressive euphemism to describe her husband's career) says that Barney is in "top secret work"--a deliberate nod to curious Barney fans? (Or is Barney merely unemployed again?)

Series and specials subsequent to 1966 (beginning with the Busch beer promotional campaign) more or less (though not always) agree that Barney does, in fact, work alongside his pal Fred at Mr. Slate's. But the nebulous nature of Barney's job over the course of the original series remains a contentious issue.

However, this question and answer attest more to the unnitpickability (!) of the show:

19. Don't the [houses/furniture/streets/cars/people] seem to change in appearance from episode to episode?

Yes, they do. Lapses in continuity, some of which are due to the practice of having several different teams working separately on different episodes simultaneously, are among the many fascinating things to watch for on the show. Joe Rockhead has had several different physical appearances, as has Arnold the paperboy. Mr. Slate (whose first name is either "Sam," "George," or "Nate," depending on the occasion) is originally a short, dark-haired, moustached man; he soon disappears and is replaced by Fred's more familiar, bald, bespectacled boss. Even the boss's surname isn't stable, as he changes from "Mr. Boulder" to "J. J. Granite" to "Joe Rockhead" (no relation to Fred's friend--or is he?) to "Mr. Slate," and Fred's regular place of employment has been identified by at least 18 different names.

The Flintstone family car, if it is indeed the same car from one episode to the next, is alternately a two- and four-seater, a roofed vehicle and a convertible, and has either a left- or right-side steering wheel. And the Flintstones' house never has the same size, furniture, or design twice.

Obviously, the real reason for these discrepancies is that we're dealing with a television program. But this hasn't stopped many people from speculating endlessly about the possible weekly rebuilding of homes, motivations behind mysterious name changes, and explanations for inexplicable lapses in characters' memories. Nor has it prevented a steady stream of creative tinkering that attempts to make Flintstones history consistent with itself.

I'm not sure what to say about the movie wizards.

How about when cartoon characters start running
indoors, and the house suddenly becomes thousands
of feet long? ;)

I'd say that certain popular cartoon show that is not allowed topics around here is pretty unnittable based on the nature of the show. Hey, maybe that's why it's not allowed topics around here.

The Chief has explained his reasoning many times. It's his site, and we play by his rules. If you want to nitpick the Simpsons, go start your own site.

I don't think HJF was criticizing that position. He brought it up as an answer to the question this board was raised for, and he did it in a way that was respectful of the policy.

I know. You need to relax, Scott.

The Chief has explained his reasoning many times.

Well, I'm a relative newbie (I still haven't managed to choose a real screen name for instance) and have never read his reasoning. Care to share it with me, or even provide a link to one of said reasonings?

It's his site, and we play by his rules.

Never said it wasn't or that we shouldn't.

If you want to nitpick the Simpsons, go start your own site.

Why would I want to nitpick a show I just said was made unnittable by its very nature, let alone start a site devoted to nitpicking an unnittable show?

I don't think HJF was criticizing that position. He brought it up as an answer to the question this board was raised for, and he did it in a way that was respectful of the policy.

Exactly. I was only saying I thought the way they do that show, it fit the criteria of being nit-proof. Then I made a joke that maybe that was why it's verboten here, since I don't know the real reason. I was in no way complaining about the situation, such that it is, merely making a joke about it.

Sorry, Homer. There have been flame wars over the Simpsons before, and I thought this was a restart.

I apologize. I was overly sensitive.

As for the Chief's reasoning, you can do a search for "Simpsons", and it's somewhere around here.

I consider "Green Acres" to be "unnittable" because you don't know if something happened accidently or deliberately.

Apology accepted, no hard feelings!

I consider 'The Pirate Movie' unnitable because it's a farcical satire of a satire - it's a remake of The Pirates of Penzanz (I know I didn't spell that correctly) by Gilbert & Sullivan, which was itself a satire of opera. It features several anachronisms, such as references to Star Wars and 1940 (the John Belushi movie). They just don't take it seriously enough to nitpick the movie. Altho there are a few places: like when Mabel jumps on a horse and, if you look quickly, you can see the mini-tramp she uses.
It's a movie not many people know about (at least, they're not willing to admit it), but I think it's hilarious!

Yes and no. First of all, there are four kinds of Nits; Plot oversights, Equipment oddidies, Changed premises, and production problems. 1 and 4 are always a possibility and there is little excuse for either (So you meant for Aquaman to be in the scene where the supervillian is telling the Superfriends he has him held prisoner?) 2 and 3 are dependent on the genre. For example, who's to say if Merlin's staff should be longer, or if visual gags in a cartoon concerning sledgehammers aren't possible? Changed premises only apply if the creators are activily maintaining a continuing story line. For example, the parts of the Simpson's house that contradict each other aren't as important as 24 getting something wrong.

Second, the whole premise behind nits is they are mistakes. Anything done on purpose cannot be a nit.

I agree it's like trying to nitpick Airplane or the chase/fight scene in Last Action Hero.

"Newhart". Or that show that took place in the autistic kid's mind?

St. Elsewhere.

I'm currently watching The Monkees on DVD and it reminded me of the original question on this page. Nitpicking it would be so ridiculous, why bother? Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream.

(Yes, I know that's a Beatle song.)

I'm not your stepping stone!

Comedians' monologues. Although, if you wanted to really heckle and annoy a comedian, nitpicking his routine would be an amusing thing to do.

Bugs Bunny cartoons and other classic cartoons.

3rd Rock from the Sun. I read the producers weren't really interested in doing Sci-Fi about aliens, they just wanted to do a comedy, and it was a funny show.

Surrealist and other forms of art, performance art, certain types of theater.