Talk: Bloopers and continuity errors

When Ben gets shot with an arrow[]

S02E14 When Ben is sitting on the floor after being brought to the hatch by Sayid, the arrow in his shoulder is either broken, or obviously not really going through his shoulder. The back of the arrow sticks out at a strange angle which doesn't match the front of the arrow. WorseThanYoda 05:32, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Strange light shining on Michael[]

I'm not sure how to edit the template, but in "Adrift" - S02E02, when Michael and Sawyer are arguing about the shark, there is a strange red beam shining onto Michael's shirt. This is probably from a camera, maybe to do with night-time filming.WorseThanYoda 21:01, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

The line they can't cross[]

When they meet Tom in the forest and he takes their guns, they're in the middle of the forest. Later on, when Jack and Kate go out to tell The Others they have Benjamin, Jack says "we're here" and starts detailing "this is where we laid down our guns" etc. But they seem to be in a totally different place, they're in a huge clearing instead of being in the thick of the forest. WorseThanYoda 21:01, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Merge[]

Should this be integrated with Continuity errors ?

I know there's a difference but might be handier to have em all in one place. --mrnasher

Actually, the difference is not a defined and unambiguous one, so I went ahead and merged the two together. A continuity error is just a blooper to storyline or timeline, which often crosses between episodes, but not necessarily. At any rate, I took all the stuff out of the other page, taking care not to be redundent with info here, and inserted it. I also am cutting and pasting the commentary from the other discussion page at the bottom of this one, so we don't lose it; you will find it below the line if you scroll down. --Pandora X 00:16, 12 November 2006 (PST)

Adding New Topic 'Omissions' for Blatant Omissions Only[]

I am going to add 'Omissions' as a topic for this page, if there's no objection. This topic would cover subject matter such as, Jack is a physician, yet never notices accelerated healing. This isn't a blooper or a continuity error, yet is an omission that seems to be beyond what the viewers would normally expect of the character to be capable of or to react to. As a doctor, we'd normally expect that Jack would normally monitor the healing rate of the injuries that he's treating (like in the aftermath of the crash). He would be attuned to any evidence of accelerated healing in any of his patients on the island. This topic would be for blatant omissions dealing with specific plot items, any other omissions would not be valid, such as Ben has a full refrigerator with cold chicken in it, yet we never see him eating a chicken sandwich would be invalid. Even though we'd normally expect Ben to have made chicken sandwiches from his cold chicken in his refrigerator, the fact that this action is never shown to the viewers is an omission, but not a blatant omission since we wouldn't expect this to be a specific plot item that affects the show's meaning. --Vic Coutin 11:30, 13 June 2007 (PDT)

I don't know about the need for that. Many omissions will likely be addressed later. As for the specific Jack not noticing anyone healing fast thing there haven't actually been that many instances of it, and none which Jack would be able to notice. Locke can walk, but it's unclear if Jack knows about this miraculous healing. Rose BELIEVES that her cancer is cured, but Jack would have no way to confirm this. Mikhail was cured, but Jack never met Mikhail. Locke survives his gunshot wound but Jack only finds him alive at the very end of the season. Arguably Jack should have noticed that Locke's leg healed quickly but IIRC Locke only got off crutches after Jack and co left for The Door, and it wasn't miraculous enough, IMO, to warrant comment. Significantly, the people who Jack has spent the MOST time attending to have experienced no healing effect from the Island: Boone, the Marshall, and Ben seemed to not heal rapidly at all.

Shark[]

Hasn't the logo on The Shark now been confirmed as not a blooper? See The Shark. --ActiveValue 07:52, 24 May 2006 (PDT)

I've removed the blooper references as it is patently untrue. The DHARMA logo could clearly be seen on the shark's tale in the UK airing in early May 2006. --plkrtn 07:58, 24 May 2006 (PDT)
- Can we see a reference on tthe confirmation of it by the production team? -- Ramirez Selvarn
  - Confirmation of what exactly?
    - Confirmation of ActiveValue's statement that the logo was not a blooper. -- Ramirez Selvarn
      - 1. The existence of the logo on the UK airing of LOST.
      - 2. The The Shark article already claims it was debunked, and removing it from the bloopers article therefore makes sense.
      - 3. I would prefer a statement which clearly says it shouldn't be there, rather than a statement that says it should. The onus is on the people who say it shouldn't be there to prove it, much like the onus is on people who say that Scott is still alive! Plkrtn talk contribs email
- Why was this ever considered a blooper, and not an easter egg that just turned out a little more obvious than the creators had planned? I mean: How the hell would you accidentally put a DHARMA logo on a shark?
  - Originally there was a story going around that the graphics department had put it in as a joke without the producers having told them to. This later turned out not to be true, they had been asked to put it in by the producers. --Jackdavinci 16:11, 1 April 2007 (PDT)

Imagining[]

The Born to Run typo? Is it really a typo, or was it done on purpose? --plkrtn 07:59, 24 May 2006 (PDT)

I was wondering the same thing. I can't see that being a typo. It's more likely a internal allusion - it reflects the fact that a flashback occurs in one's imagination. --Cleast 12:40, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Alex/Kate Grabbyhands[]

This article is useless without pics.--Piscez 13:33, 27 May 2006 (PDT)

Houses[]

Wasn't it a photoshoped image? If you watch it again it is not there.--=Lost=Roland²-~~Hey~~05:39, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

That is so photoshop. First the Lost crew are professionals if they are supposed to be on a deserted island they would not film a scene with house's in the background. Second they can take it out with computers. So, yes it is photoshop.--Captain Insano

Well, take a look at ABC's promo shots. The houses ARE there. Lost-media.com --Jambalaya 08:57, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

They are NOT photoshop- it was a promo photo and was not aired. What was aired is the boathouse in the background.--Techiedavid 09:18, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

Re-watch the episode... they are not there--=Lost=Roland²-~~Hey~~ 11:57, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

Read my ~~lips~~ words: promo shot ;-) --Jambalaya 12:28, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

It isn't a blooper if it wasn't in the show ;-). So said lips can kiss my butt.--Captain Insano

indeed, bloopers are aired production errors. so remove at will. it's not a photoshop, though k a i n i. 12:52, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

If a blooper is strictly defined to be a mistake in the television show then yes, this photo isn't supposed to be in this article. On the other side, the photo in question is part of the official promotion material for the show. That said, I still think it should somehow be featured on LostPedia. If not, it will probably just be forgotten. And really, it IS hillarious that they somehow managed to release this flawed photograph... --Jambalaya 13:05, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

So should we remove the part that says some houses can be see? --=Lost=Roland²-~~Hey~~ 13:33, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

I think so (Your signature is kinda messing up :-p) --Jambalaya 14:47, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

Ok I'm removing it... (I know... I don't know how to fix it.)--=Lost=Roland²-~~Hey~~ 16:04, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

"On the beach, Jack asks Charlie where Kate is. As he walks off, Jack calls Charlie 'Hurley'."[]

I doubt this is true. Similar with Jack telling Locke to tell him the combination to the lock, it is clearly not a blooper but the correct person saying it.--Keyes 01:30, 17 June 2006 (PDT)

I know I mentioned this before, Jack does not call Charlie "Hurley". I've checked the DVDs and my tape of the episode. In neither place does he do so; he calls Charlie "Charlie" twice. I am removing this blooper. Tebor 12:22, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

white rabbit[]

this "blooper" is dubious (the blooper mentions background extras reappearing). Film crews simply do takes over and over, and closer and closer. Background is background, they are almost never crucially timed for continuity. Look at any crowd scene, and in nearly every one, you'll see the background extras "appearing" to teleport to various locations, disappear, or reappear. For example, carefully examine any crowded airport scene from start to finish... or compare Jack's argument with the ticket agent in Jack's flashback with Jin's flashback and you'll probably see different extras in line.
Under this criterion, we could have a blooper in almost 'every beach and flashback crowd scene. Therefore I recommend we remove this blooper.

-- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯^Talk13:19, 10 July 2006 (PDT)

Exodus - a cameraman?[]

In the scene when the raft puts out to sea, just after Vincent jumps into the water, there is some strange object visible in the water, on the right side of the screen - is this a cameraman?--Perpetka 12:15, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

Outlaws - fence[]

Just after the boar hits Sawyer, some fence is visible in the background. --Perpetka 12:22, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

Cleaning[]

I rewrote this article and cleaned it up a bit. What do you think? -- Iron Man Send a message View contributions 15:07, 18 October 2006 (PDT)

June 15, 2006[]

Who says the dates are continuity errors? Just because the first episode aired Sept.22, 2004 doesn't mean that that's when the crash was.

I think the flight's date originates from oceanic-air.com --Jambalaya 14:50, 27 February 2006 (PST)

FWIW the Channel 4 website (that's a UK TV Station for you yanks) has a film that shows a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration board, on that letter the date of take-off is clearly shown as 22 Sept 2004.

Yeah date errors have been discussed and accepted as continuity errors by the creators in official podcasts. I believe another 2 dates mentioned were: a date on a magazine in the Hatch dated 2007 and Jins CV which is dated 2009 (i've prolly not got these exactly right.. will amend when i listen to the podcasts again.)

But i have to say its nice there is so little in the way of continuity errors, big or small, I think it shows the attention to detail they put into the show.

Lets not get into the "sweatline levels on peoples shirts" that the anal people on IMDB delight in spotting.. filming anything usually requires several takes fanboys! ;) --MRNasher

Easy way around all the time continuity errors would be for the writers to set the show in the future. They've never officially said when the flight took off (even oceanic-air.com just says Sept 22... not a year). If they set the show in 2010 all the date based "continuity errors" suddenly become "easter eggs".--Isotope23 12:16, 15 May 2006 (PDT)

Not so much a continuity error, but a complete lack of local knowledge. In the Sawyer flashback ep where he first comes to Sydney and buys a gun. The view pans around from the Sydney Opera House to a dingy shack. That shot had everyone I know laughing for weeks. That dingy shack would be right in the centre of Sydney's busiest ferry terminal. Not the most incospicous place to buy a hot gun. Nice effect though.

However, the date of the crash is CLEARLY September 22, 2004 as evidenced by Desmond's response to Locke in Live Together, Die Alone Part 2. He says something to the effect of "There it is. Right there. September the 22nd, two thousand and four. I crashed your plane!!! It's all real; it's all bloody real". Plus, the printouts validate this date. --David 21:10 09 Oct 2006 (PDT)

Question[]

short question... why the error with the 2 dr. marvin candles isnt here? dr. m candle looks in the video in 2 episodes different , but i heard that that was an production error. --Cool Man 0912 17:03, 22 April 2006 (PDT)

- In LOST it is hard to tell the difference between a production error and a clue. The Dr. Marvin Candles difference is generally regarded as a clue and not an error. (Might be incorrect) --Techiedavid 13:45, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

In the rerun of Orientation was the picture of Desmond and Penny fixed? I thought it was.--=Lost=Roland²-~~Hey~~ 05:38, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

It was fixed were Penny was in the picture.--Captain Insano

shouldn't we say fixed in rerun?--=Lost=Roland²-~~Hey~~ 11:59, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

Michael's Shots[]

Anyone notice that the location of the shots in "The Hunting Party" (jungle) occur in a different place than seen in "Three Minutes" (field)? Or am I mistaken? Note that bullet casings are found in the jungle in "The Hunting Party" rather than the clearing. Tebor 12:33, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

Not an error[]

"In Live Together, Die Alone, when the timer has run out and the electromagnetic wall begins to attract everything from knives and forks to the Kitchen-sink Mr. Ekos crucifix necklace is dangling limply when only a few episodes ago it was attracted to the wall when Eko walked past it. " - I don't think this is an error. If you watch it closely, you see that it does fly off Eko after a while- most of the time, the necklace has Eko between it and the wall, and it will try to take the easiest route, which would be straight through Eko, so it had to wait until strong enough to rip it away. Not an error so I deleted it. --The Smiley-Faced Balloon 12:53, 29 September 2006 (PDT)

--It does get ripped off but there is a shot where Eko is bending over and the necklace is dangling down... with electromagnetism that strong, even if he was facing away from the wall, the necklace would be going in towards him, not dangling like it was. But I hadn't noticed that it did eventually get ripped off when I posted that original error, so I'll let it pass.--Stupot 03:17, 2 October 2006 (PDT)

Flying eastward[]

I still think this is an error or unexplained thing. When you fly eastward time is going "faster" meaning: I left Toronto at 6:00PM - I'm in Europe at 7:00AM and my flight was only 7 hours. So if they left Sydney at 3:00PM, flew for 6 hours, it'll be 9PM in Sydney, at their location it could be any time after 9PM depending on location. So unless it's a morning of a next day it should be dark and at 9PM Sydney time morning will be somewhere in Atlantic. One more thing 6*900=5400 - somewhere in the middle of Pacific. --Pasha 14:54, 2 November 2006 (PST)

This has not been debunked. It is either an error or something unexplained. If the plane crashed 8 hours after takeoff it would be dark everywhere between Sydney and LA. This is not speculation but fact. I'm not sure why this site would state something so patently false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Netjunkie9 (talk • contribs), 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Locke's Age Gaffe[]

Maybe the continuity error involving Locke and his mom's ages isn't a gaffe at all. After all if she was 6 when he was born it would explain him being put into foster care. Lol. THE MONSTER

LOL. Maybe that's why DHARMA is experimenting with children? Hah, sorry, inappropriate, but I couldn't resist. --Pandora X 06:47, 21 January 2007 (PST)

Could it be that his mom has spent time on the island? This would have made her grow up quick as Walt did and her expereinces there could have made her mentally unstable and attributed to her being in Santa Rosa THE MONSTER

The Pilot[]

C'mon guys, surely there must be ONE blooper in that entire 2 hour episode? There were a ton for LTDA (but then again, that one was filmed in something like 15 days, whereas Pilot was planned much better). --Pandora X 06:47, 21 January 2007 (PST)

Isn't that black object hitting the turbine before it explodes a blooper? People have claimed it to be the monster but I thought a podcast or something confirmed it as a CGI artifact? THE MONSTER

I was thinking about that one, but I wasn't sure if we could classify it as a blooper, since it seems more of just a bad CGI effect. I guess you could say it was sort of a blooper in that the smoke thing goes into the turbine before the explosion happens? It really did confuse an awful lot of people. --Pandora X 08:02, 21 January 2007 (PST)

I thought about it and rewatched the clip, and I think I will include it after all. --Pandora X 08:16, 21 January 2007 (PST)

LostxAngel got one for you, Pan. :) -- Lost Soul talk contribs 07:59, 21 January 2007 (PST)

Ah, the polar bear one is a good one! Thanks for the reminder... we even have those pics of Kevin Blank on his page (he is the man who they used). I'll wikify that link. --Pandora X 08:04, 21 January 2007 (PST)

Future Blooper (Spoiler below)[]

This is from Lost Moments, so I'm not going to put it down on the page yet, as it could be considered a blooper. But just as a reminder for people who are around in the future, can someone please later add that scene where Vincent (highlight below to read white text)... ...retrieves the arm with the key in it. Originally he is hanging on to a rubber arm that is floppy by one end, and as he approaches, he is holding onto a hard arm prop in the middle. Thanks. --Pandora X 07:38, 21 January 2007 (PST)

Rule to avoid duplicates?[]

I'm going to propose that maybe we only add continuity errors (spanning 2 episodes) in the later episode where the conflict is noted, rather than both. Adding them in both is good for completeness' sake, but makes the article really long with duplicates. Anyone else have thoughts? --Pandora X 20:06, 23 January 2007 (PST)

note to self[]

check the supposed screencaps here, and see if they are already in article. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯^Talk 05:05, 28 January 2007 (PST)

vehicles on the island[]

After putting the LOST puzzles together, I found that there was mention of a road system on the island that ran past the Arrow. This could easily explain why there were cars on that side of the island. --Poppin' Fresh

Outlaws - Charlie shot Ethan how many times?[]

"Charlie claims he shot Ethan four times, when actually he shot him six times."

IIRC, He fired six shots, of which four actually hit Ethan. Anyone else agree / disagree? Joel Van Atta 17:22, 21 February 2007 (PST)

That's possible... I'm wondering if we should just remove that one. --Pandora X 18:00, 21 February 2007 (PST)

Agree--Paidinfull 13:23, 14 January 2008 (PST)

More info on photography in "Dave"[]

When a picture is taken using flash and a high shooting speed, the camera tends to only capture the light reflected from the flashlight onto nearby objects. Because of the short exposure time, other light sources will look absent or dimmed down as they didn´t have enough time to burn the camera film. Nevertheless, it is true that daylight on the back window in Dave´s picture is completely absent (an extreme and improbable case of underexposure) and some of the chips on the table were factually moved/removed, confirming the continuity goof. —The preceding comment was added to the article by Cure, 02:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC), and was moved to the discussion page by PandoraX, 02:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Day/Night issue between "?" and "Two for the Road"[]

Somebody else edited this out...but I put it back in because I think it's a genuine continuity error. At the end of "Two for the Road", Locke, Jack, Kate, and Sawyer leave camp for the hatch while it is late afternoon--NOT Sunset. However, in "?", the group arrives at the hatch in the middle of a pitch black night. The hatch is only supposed to be half a mile away from the beach (as Jack said in "Man of Science, Man of Faith"). With the four of them walking slowly, a half mile would take 10 to 15 minutes at most. There is no way it could change from afternoon daylight to pitch black nighttime in just 15 minutes. The writers didn't keep the time straight.

This has happened in a couple of episodes actually, but this one is the one that jumped out at me the most when watching the Season 2 DVD.

Note: Originally I had supported this claim with Mr. Eko awakening from a sleep to indicate it had been night for a while...but since that's possible (he could have been sleeping during the day after a hard morning of working on the church) I did not add that part of the error back in.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catspasms (talk • contribs), 06:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

deleting tattoo blooper[]

I deleted the following blooper:

Jack has no tattoo on his left forearm at 2:26 from the start of the episode, but it can be clearly seen when talking to Ben at 3:33.

Unless you can show some evidence for this I think it's more likely it just wasn't in view from that angle since it's on the inside of his arm. It's the actors real tattoo and there would be no reason to cover it up except in a Jack flashback. --Jackdavinci 10:01, 23 March 2007 (PDT)

One of his tattoos are actually covered up.

On episode 9 of season 4 about a minute in you can see Jack's tattoo on his forearm while he's looking for medicine. 5 seconds later it's gone.

Bplxcn 21:06, March 28, 2012 (UTC)Brian21:06, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Paulo and Ethan timeline[]

I deleted the following error:

On day 24, Paulo suggests having Ethan help find his and Nikki's bag. However, by day 24, Ethan has already kidnapped Claire, hung Charlie, and should be a known danger in the camp.

Until it's confirmed to be an error by a cite, there's no way to know that this wasn't intentional. They went through a lot of effort to line up the timeline and went out of their way to mention Ethan in that scene. It seems much more likely that it was a deliberate plot point than an error. Please leave it out until you can find confirmation that it was definitely an error. --Jackdavinci 23:26, 31 March 2007 (PDT)

Erm the dude does have a point, look at our timeline, day 16 isnt it that Ethan goes and kidnaps them? --Lewis -Talk-Contribs 03:06, 1 April 2007 (PDT)

Did you actually read what I wrote? lol. Yes, clearly Paulo mentions Ethan as helpful *after* Ethan is shown to be evil. But the line was so deliberately placed in dialogue, and they made such a point in telling us what day it happened, that it's more logical to assume it wasn't a mistake, but rather an intentional fact. Paulo is still friends with Ethan even after Ethan comes out as an Other. Either 1) he and Nikki have been so busy looking for luggage they they have remained clueless about Ethan or more likely, 2) it's a hint that Nikki and Paulo had more dealings with Ethan than we got to see in the episode. In either case, it's not an error, it's an "unanswered question". --Jackdavinci 08:20, 1 April 2007 (PDT)

lol yeah sorry, i mis-read what you wrote, and just rewatched the episode so now i feel like a prize tit.. lol, sorry. --Lewis -Talk-Contribs 15:03, 1 April 2007 (PDT)

Rachel's Records[]

In "One of Us" we've all seen by now that the chart shown in Rachel's folder is for a 187-pound man and is heart-related. Votes on error vs. plot element? --Bastion 11:59, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

It's debatable, some would argue that is is an error, while others would say it is a plot point--Phil 11:52, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

If you put a gun to my head, I'd say I think it's a prop error. Still, though, it seems like a bizarre error to have such a completely wrong chart after having gone to the trouble to label the folder. I think I'll have another watch of that scene and see if there's some dialog and/or action that could cover the discrepancy. ... Okay, I've watched again. I'm voting prop error. The gender and weight, and the title on the edge, are only onscreen for a couple of frames in the SD broadcast. The handwritten "myocardial" at the bottom is more persistent, but still fairly hard to read. --Bastion 12:12, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

Maybe she gained weight while on medications? I did think it was odd to look at EKG results when talking about what I assumed was ovarian cancer. There was also an x-ray in the chart. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 11:56, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

If it WAS intentional, it ties neatly into the theory that Rachel's cancer never returned -- Ben lied to Juliet to make her cooperate. Still, you'd think he would have gone into a little more effort forgeing the journal, as Juliet might easily have noticed that the stats didn't add up. --DharmaAndWreck 03:20, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

A Tale of Two Cities "Error"[]

I was looking at the error regarding the SFX shot seen in 3x01, and I don't think it's right. Sawyer said the ocean was on his left, but bear in mind that the raft people weren't captured in the same place where the tailies had crashed. Not to mention they trekked within the island for quite a long time before coming to the shore which Sawyer described, meaning that this is in fact not an error since they could've easily been on the other side of the Island by the time this all happened. The crash seen closer to the Barracks is indeed the Tailies, and all the comments make sense. I'm going to remove it in a bit, but I want opinions, nonetheless. --Sauron18 12:46, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

I think I agree. It's also worth noting that the 'error' is written on the assumption that the SFX shot is looking from south to north, whereas it could be from a different orientation.--TechNic|talk|conts 18:16, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Yeah, we just know too little about both the way they travelled and the shot, so I'm eliminating it. --Sauron18 19:54, 13 April 2007 (PDT)

Unclear error description[]

"When Jack is telling the survivors about the caves, he is also seen standing to the right of Hurley, near Nikki and Paulo." I can guess what this is supposed to refer to, but the wording makes it impossible to understand what the error is supposed to be. I don't want to change it before getting confirmation on what it's supposed to refer to, though.

Really errors in Catch-22?[]

I agree that the two errors posted: the rope being at the wrong place, and Charlie being in both flashbacks (dead and alive) feels like errors. But its a long rope, could appear at different locations, and maybe Charlie was in both flashes because Desmond was supposed to rescue him? So my question is: Do we really know that this is errors? -- Staffie 21 April 2007

Sayid claiming that Nadia is dead in "Solitary"[]

I added the following error for "The Greater Good":

In "Solitary", Sayid told Rousseau that Nadia was dead because of him. Yet in this episode it is revealed that Sayid knew very well that Nadia was still alive, and living in Los Angeles - in fact, the very reason he was on the flight to begin with was because he was going to meet her.

Someone else added the following:

However, he only said that because she might as well be dead. The producers can't make a mistake like that.

I can't agree with that. First, the agents gave him photos showing Nadia being alive and well outside of Iraq. Second, doesn't this entire page prove that the producers can make many mistakes like that? "I can't believe they made such a large error" is not a valid confirmation that it's not an error.--Nevermore 09:24, 27 April 2007 (PDT)

D.O.C.[]

I don't think the timejump between Jin capturing Mikhail and Desmond shoving him up against the tree can be classified as a continuity error. Only Charlie and Desmond ran after Jin, Hurley stayed behind, yet he can be seen in the shots from when Desmond is pointing the flare gun at Mikhail, so they more than likely brought him back to where Naomi was lying - (Samuelhdiamond 05:49, 28 April 2007 (PDT)).

Agreed. It's bad editing, not a continuity error.--Nevermore 07:02, 28 April 2007 (PDT)

Another one from Expose[]

During Nikki and Paulo's flashback of the crash scene, Locke yelled "stay away from the gas", rather than gas man.

When was that? I rewatched the scene several times and never heard that line, neither from Locke nor from anyone else.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nevermore (talk • contribs), 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah I was wondering about that too. It don't hear Locke say that either, but he is doing similar shouting and waving where that moment happened in Pilot. There is no sign of Gas man in Exposé.--TechNic|talk|conts 18:31, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

Sawyer's mother[]

Okay, just watched the beginning of "Outlaws" again. Sawyer's father calls his wife's name twice; both times it's really hard to make out because he's yelling and she's talking to young James at the same time. The first time he calls her name, it sounds more like "Brooke"; the second time there's no "k" sound and it sounds more like "Laura" (actually, it's mostly just a vowel, there are no really distinct consonants to make out). So unless there's an official script that confirms her name for those two lines of dialogue, I'm going to contest "Brooke" and vote for "Laura" instead.

Gregg Nations just confirmed that Sawyer's mother's name was never said in the actual "Outlaws" episode, and "Brooke" was due to an error on behalf of the closed captioning.--Nevermore 00:45, 8 May 2007 (PDT)

Sydney Opera House location[]

In (at least) two episodes they mixed up the placement of the Sydney Opera House.

In Outlaws (season 1) before you see Sawyer walking on a pier going to a shed to buy a gun, you see the Sydney Opera House and a lot of office buildings. The buildings are situated behind the Opera House. If that was the real situation, you would also have to see the Sydney Harbour Bridge, but there is no bridge to be seen. Looking around Sydney (on Google Earth) there is no place were there is such a pier with a view to the Opera House and the office buildings.

In Expose (season 3) when Nikki en Howard leave the studio you also see a shot of the Sydney skyline. Again the placement of the Opera House and the office buildings is incorrect. You see the office building and on the right the Opera House. In real the Opera house is on the left and the office buildings on the right. Calvobbes 02:29, 12 May 2007 (PDT)

Might i just point out while we are in the subject of the Opera House, i live in Sydney and i remember seeing a flash back in season 1 (Hearts and Minds) where Boone is in his hotel room over the opera house. In actuality there is no such Hotel that close to the opera house looking a view like that at all from it's windows.--Jabadibah 05:50, 8 July 2007 (PDT)

The Opera House is the most recognizable building in Sydney. It's probable that they use it in scenes where it wouldn't actually exist just to tell us viewers that this is happening in Sydney. I'm pretty sure this is common in Hollywood and shouldn't really count as an "error".--Kgs 15:44, 28 February 2008 (PST)

Location of the Dharma van[]

I'm contesting the removal of this error from "The Man Behind the Curtain":

Roger died inside the car on a verge away from the events of Tricia Tanaka is Dead. Since Ben told Alpert specifically not to move his body, how did Roger end up in a different location?

Roger parks the van near the edge of the mesa before Ben kills him. Ben tells Alpert not to mover the body. The van is lying on its side in a place with heavy vegetation when Hurley finds it. Until we get an explanation on this, either by the producers or on the show itself, it's a contradiction.--Nevermore 15:49, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

Full Moons 44 days apart?[]

I've been watching season 2 again. In Adrift the moon was full the night the others attacted the raft. It was full again 44 days later in The Other 48 Days.--Boris42 06:21, 15 June 2007 (PDT)

In Adrift the full moon apears at 14:41 (day 44 on island). In The Other 48 Days it is shown in Day 1 (I can't get the online episode to replay now to find the exact time). It would be impossible for a full moon to be on both days.

I'm not so worried about the producers having the full moon occur on the same day it does in the real world. What bugs me is the way the moon is almost always shown as full in most every TV/Movie production.--Boris42 07:00, 17 June 2007 (PDT)

I went online and found what phase the moon was on November 5 2004, when Adrift took place, and it was supposed to be in its last quarter. As a geographical location, I used the island of Guam, which is in the general area of the 'Lost' island, but the moon's phase would be basically the same all over the world.

According to Lostpedia's timeline of November 2004, in The Other 48 Days this date is the when Sawyer and Michael wash up on the Tailies beach, day 45. But there is no way the moon is full anywhere near this date or anywhere around that time. The full moon occurred on the 28 of October that year, and would have appeared full or nearly full for several days before and after that (say a week, max). The next full moon was on November 27. Neither of these dates are anywhere near when the episodes are to take place even allowing for more than two weeks of error. This is very lame, it seems like you have hit on a HUGE blooper. Can you post what minutes of those episodes show that the moon was supposed to be full??? --Vic Coutin 11:27, 15 June 2007 (PDT)

Why is this a featured article?[]

It's full to the brim with errors, unwarranted assumptions about what is and isn't intentional, and bizarre poorly-informed inter-editor "conversations". -Silence 05:04, 16 July 2007 (PDT)

What Episode[]

What episode is this in:

“

When Jack is asking for his friends to be released, Ben replies and Jack walks off. The camera cuts to the women, then back to Ben, and Jack is by him again having walked off a few seconds earlier.

”

"The Man from Tallahassee"? Whatever it is, it's definitely not "Par Avion", as stated by the article. -- Lost Soul talk contribs 03:46, 19 July 2007 (PDT)

Born to Run[]

In "Born to Run" there is a bug on Kate's shoulder that consistently appears and disappears when the camera angle changes. I'm not sure at the exact time in the episode it appears, but I do know that it happens when Sawyer confronts her in front of Michael and the other survivors by the raft. I posted this on the "Born to Run" page as well. -- User:Sawyer540 01:53, 07.25.07 (PDT).

I found it. It starts at 29:07 and lasts all of the way through 34:00. But now, upon closer inspection, it looks to be that the way she has her hair is what changes, and that there is no bug. -- User:Sawyer540 01:58, 07.25.07 (PDT).

Not an error[]

Danielle arrived at the beginning of "Exodus" and told them that the Others were coming to take the child, who, Sawyer then comes to the conclusion in "Adrift", was actually Walt. The raft wasn't already in the water. In fact Walt, Michael, etc. were standing there when she came. Walt was even the first to notice her. -- User:Sawyer540 02:29, 07.25.07 (PDT).

Erm, watch the episode again. Danielle only says "The Others are coming". She doesn't say anything about them coming for "the boy" until after she kidnapped Aaron, and Sayid and Charlie tracked her down. The raft was already in the water by this point.--Nevermore 09:20, 5 October 2007 (PDT)

Mikhail's Lighter[]

In "Enter 77" Mikhail uses a jet lighter with a green flame to sterilize the needle he's about to use to stich up Sayid's wound. However, after only a few uses the color of the flame in such lighters begins to fade to a more bluish-green.--HeWhoLaughsLast 14:55, 30 July 2007 (PDT)

Images[]

Shouldn't the images depicted in this article be limited to screencaps that actually document a visual error, rather than merely illustrating a scene in which a dialogue or plot error occurs?--Nevermore 09:33, 5 October 2007 (PDT)

ARGH.[]

I just undid a huge number of changes by Bonefishj0e, who thought that some random speculation along the lines of "maybe someone did this and that" was enough to justify marking those errors as "deliberate anomalies or otherwise explainable". Any error is explainable with enough imagination; this doesn't really help the article, though.--Nevermore 10:16, 29 December 2007 (PST)

S.O.S.[]

Are we considering errors in geography? In SOS ("S.O.S."), the restaurant in Niagara Falls where Bernard proposes to Rose is an impossibility given the view out the back window. -- WanderingMathematician talk contribs email 11:35, 5 January 2008 (PST)

Looks like the view from the Niagara Falls Marriott ---- LOSTonthis darnisland 09:16, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

CD in 'A Tale of Two Cities'[]

I feel that the current entry for this blooper isn't really a blooper. The CD is surely a DualDisc ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Disc ), and it is facing the right way because on DualDiscs, it says "[CD/DVD] this side up", and as you can see from a screen shot of the CD that is in the episode ( http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Image:Dualdisc.jpg ), it does have those words. Anyone agree that this should be changed/removed? Apcfreak 00:32, 7 January 2008 (PST)

Charlie couldn't have swam through the whole.[]

I could be wrong, but the window tha Mikhail broke was the same size as the door window, which Charlie definitely couldn't fit through. Plus, if he could swim through that window, then his death would just be stupid. It's one thing to ignore physics to kill a character, but to ignore an easy escape?

What are you talking about, Willis?

Error?[]

"In two scenes during this episode, a short-tempered Sayid insults Sawyer (first he calls him "Ibn al-Kalb" in Arabic; later he uses the English term "son of a bitch", which has the same meaning), which is somewhat out of character for the much more level-headed Sayid we've come to know in later episodes."

Does anyone besides be think that noting a character is angry in one episode, but not in others and calling that a blooper is kind of a stretch?--Paidinfull 13:24, 14 January 2008 (PST)

"In one flashback, Hurley states he doesn't know Lenny's last name, but in a later flashback in the same episode, he refers to him as "Leonard Simms".

Why would this be an error? If we know that the second flashback is later, couldn't he have found out Lenny's last name in the meantime?--Paidinfull 13:34, 14 January 2008 (PST)

"The Solicitors' room where Michael goes is the same in which Claire was going to sign an adoption contract for Aaron. However, one room is set in Australia, the other in New York." How come this is a blooper? Can't there be rooms that look the same in New York and Sydney? Maybe they're even both part of the same international law firm.Chickenhawk 20:25, 15 January 2008 (PST)

Exodus[]

In Exodus, Part I, Sawyer mentions Christian's name when telling his story to Jack. However, in Outlaws, Christian never said his name. Would this be a plot hole?- Doctor JustPhil 19:38, 18 January 2008 (PST)

Sun's ring reguarding when she loses it[]

Alright, the episdoe before you find out Sun's ring is missing when she's burring the bottle if you look carefully at her hands the first shot she has her ring on, then she doesn't, then she does, then she doesn't. It's like when they editied her burring it they forgot about her taking her ring off and mixed them up.

Chinaman's Hat - Not a mistake IMO[]

I wonder why people think of Chinaman's Hat as an error. No one has ever stated or said "There's ONLY this island." In fact, by introducing Hydro Island they have opened the opportunity of multiple islands, and acknowledged it is likely there are many smaller islands and possibly an island group. - Mark Jensen 00:25, 21 February 2008 (PST)

The Chinaman is not the issue here. And Asian American is the prefered nomenclature. Spookyadler 22:53, 18 June 2008 (PDT)

Flashback dialogue "errors"[]

I propose that the flashback dialogue errors be removed (for example the inconsistencies of Cindy's instructions to put on seatbelts) because since these are individual's memories of the same event, they may remember the phrasing differently. Each flashback is from that one character's POV so just because the phrasing is different doesn't make it an error - indeed, wouldn't it be more unbelievable if everyone remembered the phrasing exactly the same?--Kgs 15:29, 28 February 2008 (PST)

You just speculating (you say "may"). There's no definitive word on it yet either way, that's why the section is white, not blue.--Nevermore 06:00, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Water would have filled the room[]

I would like to propose that the water would not necessarily have stopped at window level. If there was any kind of air vent in the ceiling of that room the air could have been displaced there and the water would have continued to rise. I have confirmed this with someone who has a degree in physics. Should we remove the blooper?Sleeponasunbeam 18:22, 27 March 2008 (PDT)

The person you consulted did not think the problem through. If there were an air vent in the ceiling that joined the air in Charlie's room to the air in the main chamber, then the results would be the same as if the door had not been closed. That is, when the window blew, air would have rushed out of the window, and the water level in the moon pool would have risen up to the level of the window and then stopped. At that point there would be no place for the additional air to go, and if the air isn't escaping, no more water can enter. --Bonefishj0e 04:52, 30 March 2008 (PDT)

Pictures[]

Does anyone else think that all the pictures on this article make it look very messy? Would anyone object to a gallery after each season? ~~I'll make the change, but~~ I won't argue if someone doesn't like it. -- LOSTonthis darnisland 19:38, 2 April 2008 (PDT) Add: Correction, I'll wait to make the changes since I discovered it involves going to each individual season's page. 19:39, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

(Responding more than a month later) Well, I kind of like the pictures the way they are--nice and big--but if you want to make the change, why don't you sandbox it first so we can see what you had in mind? Robert K S (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

"Solitary"[]

I don't think Sayid saying Nadia is dead because of him should be included because at the end of his flasbacks he says something about holding on to the hope she is alive. I would have thought he said that she had died in the hopes of Rousseau empathizing with his situation and earning her trust.Matthew7785 13:09, 10 April 2008 (PDT)

Boone's Hair[]

"The length of Boone's hair is longer in this episode's dream sequence than it was when he actually died."

Is this REALLY a blooper? It seems too obvious to be a mistake...

Just people being way too picky IMO Matthew7785 03:13, 13 May 2008 (PDT)

maybe Locke is insecure about his own baldness and compensated by giving Boone extra hair. Spookyadler 22:54, 18 June 2008 (PDT)

Marshal's Briefcase[]

it's listed as an error in season 1 that the briefcase was found beneath two seats though Kate said later the reason it wasn't with Mars was because he had to stow it. In episode 23 during the flashback at the airport the security agent says Mars has to stow the briefcase with "crew luggage" so that may explain the problem. I haven't edited here before so I just wanted to put that out there. Spookyadler 22:54, 18 June 2008 (PDT)

Tabula Rasa[]

I believe that when Sayid was mentioning construction, he was talking about the aforementioned tarps. I don't believe that this is an error.Axemantitan 05:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Limits of Wikia[]

Like Jack Shephard's article, this article has become too big, and has too many episode references for Wikia software to handle properly. I hoped making seasons 3 and 4 templates as well would solve the problem here, but it doesn't. When you edit the full page, the error message reads, "Warning: This page contains too many expensive parser function calls. It should have less than 300, there are now 713." This means we need to reduce the number by more than half for it to work properly (i.e., without double quotation mark sets or number templates where the title of the episodes should go), or the change more than half of them to the title name in bracketed instead of templated episode names. I vote for making a page for each season instead of one big article like this. ---- LOSTonthis darnisland 19:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, let's split it into seasons --Kemot from Poland 12:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Better yet, let's split it into episodes. Oh, wait. We already did. Seriously, there's no need to put every error in two places. We need some sort of standard for what goes on this page. Debunked errors? Confirmed errors? Notable errors? --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 08:17, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Items in the 70's episodes[]

I don't remember the episode names but in several of the episodes that take place in the 70's characters are using items that had not been invented yet, particularly Beretta 92 pistols and what appears to be a polymer holster being worn by Radzynski.Snake1911 06:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Snake1911 06:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Blood on Juliet's Face[]

Has anyone noticed the blood on Juliet's face during the final scene in "The Incident"? It has been bugging the hell out of me for ages because it just seems so blatantly obvious to me, but the blood keeps appearing and disappearing and adjusting through that entire scene with Juliet and the bomb. Take a look, it even made DVD as well as the "Previously on Lost" portion of "LA X"

Season 6[]

Where are the season 6 bloopers? Lahebo 20:39, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

"Greatest Hits" - not a blooper[]

Charlie tells Jack he's a good swimmer so that Jack will let him go - Later in the episode Des asks, "So how long can you really hold your breath for?" and Charlie replies, "Does it matter?"

Removing this as an error.

Lilmissaimz 22:18, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

MAJOR MAJOR Blooper[]

I was watching a rerun of "The Variable" on TV today, and Faraday is explaining his plan to blow up Jughead. He says "I plan to destroy that massive pocket of energy." However, I paid enough attention in Physics to know that energy can not be created or destroyed! Besides the fact that Faraday should know this being a physicist, how was the explosion successful is the entire plan was flawed to begin with? Msett 02:55, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

You can't destroy energy, but you can destroy a pocket of energy. Perhaps disperse would have been a better word, but a character using an ambiguous terminology is hardly a blooper. WorseThanYoda 21:19, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Come on, guys. This isn't a blooper. It's dramatic license with basic physics. There is no physical basis for anything going on with the Swan, Orchid, flashes, etc. Robert K S tell me 03:52, June 10, 2010 (UTC)