Corrections

Become a member and get loads of extra features!

Quotes

John Locke: Everything happens for a reason.

When Michael thinks Jin has set fire to his raft, he punches him in the face a couple of times. When Jin is leaving Sun later on, his face is miraculously unmarked. There is no sign of any swelling or bruising. He doesn't look like a guy who's just been punched in the face. See more...

Trivia

In the DVD audio commentary, Carlton Cuse mentions that guest star Nathan Fillion had starred on "Firefly", but refers to Joss Whedon as "Josh". See more...

Picture

Movie Mistakes blog

Other great sites

The entry you are correcting is:

Title	Lost
Original entry	On the airplane, the same passengers are seen in numerous shots with different main characters, and purportedly Kate and Marshal Mars (row 25) are in the same cabin on the opposite side of Jack, Rose and Locke (rows 23 & 24), yet are not seen in shots where they should be seen - though in shots of Jack and Rose, during the turbulance, the same woman and man (behind Locke) fly up as in the Kate and marshal shot. Some examples: When Kate and the marshal are shown during the turbulance, note the red-haired man with the black shirt beside the marshal and other men behind, and in one shot of Kate and the marshal, a woman and man both fly up to the ceiling of the cabin. In some shots of the turbulance, when the red-haired man is seen, the marshal and Kate are gone, replaced by other passengers. Just before the tail section breaks off, men behind the red-haired guy have either changed seats or disappeared, and so forth. Row numbers seen on the luggage compartments overhead are inconsistent with passenger seating. Such as when the tail section breaks off, the man is pulled out from row 26, yet the number above reads 13, or when Claire boards the numbers overhead are 20, 21, 22, yet Jack is in row 23, which is the second row behind the wall. The interiors of the Oceanic airplane also significantly differ in various shots. One example - the seats on the airplane have blue square velcro coverings on the passengers' seat headrests, and long, wide magazine racks on the divider wall behind Locke, but when they carry Locke onto the airplane, they don't exist.

Title

Lost

Original entry

On the airplane, the same passengers are seen in numerous shots with different main characters, and purportedly Kate and Marshal Mars (row 25) are in the same cabin on the opposite side of Jack, Rose and Locke (rows 23 & 24), yet are not seen in shots where they should be seen - though in shots of Jack and Rose, during the turbulance, the same woman and man (behind Locke) fly up as in the Kate and marshal shot. Some examples: When Kate and the marshal are shown during the turbulance, note the red-haired man with the black shirt beside the marshal and other men behind, and in one shot of Kate and the marshal, a woman and man both fly up to the ceiling of the cabin. In some shots of the turbulance, when the red-haired man is seen, the marshal and Kate are gone, replaced by other passengers. Just before the tail section breaks off, men behind the red-haired guy have either changed seats or disappeared, and so forth. Row numbers seen on the luggage compartments overhead are inconsistent with passenger seating. Such as when the tail section breaks off, the man is pulled out from row 26, yet the number above reads 13, or when Claire boards the numbers overhead are 20, 21, 22, yet Jack is in row 23, which is the second row behind the wall. The interiors of the Oceanic airplane also significantly differ in various shots. One example - the seats on the airplane have blue square velcro coverings on the passengers' seat headrests, and long, wide magazine racks on the divider wall behind Locke, but when they carry Locke onto the airplane, they don't exist.

Please read carefully:

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Be sure you've actually seen the scene yourself and checked it's wrong, rather than just assuming something's a mistake because of how it's worded on the site.
Don't just try and think of an excuse - by and large if something looks like a mistake, it's a mistake. Yes, the character may have chosen to suddenly take a jacket off while the camera was off him for 3 seconds, or they may have decided to take all of the batteries out of their clocks, but unless you have any reason to believe that's the case, it's just a movie mistake. Corrections must be based on evidence in the movie, not just a theory.
This form is ONLY for disproving entries. If one minor part of an entry is wrong, but the overall entry is still valid, please use the "change text" option instead.
Please just write an explanation in the box as to why the entry's wrong. Don't repeat the original text.
Having a movie-making explanation isn't a valid correction. Saying "his jacket changes because they shot that scene on different days" might explain WHY the mistake occurs, but doesn't explain it within the context of the film.
If an entry says that something changes "between shots" that means it's an instant change, visible onscreen at all times, so it can't be corrected by saying "it only takes a fraction of a second to change positions".
Make sure you READ THE ENTRY CLOSELY. You'd be amazed how many people, despite a mistake saying something like "before the explosion, his hair changes", submit a correction saying "the change was caused by the explosion".
Mistake spotting isn't about assigning blame to specific people - if there's an entry relating to the subtitles or something similar, the argument "those are done by someone different, it's not the movie-makers' fault" isn't really valid. It's an inconsistency to spot relating to the movie, therefore it's worth listing on this site.
Just because something requires slow motion/pause to spot doesn't automatically invalidate it. If the mistake's significant enough then it should be listed regardless. However, minor continuity mistakes (a tiny change in someone's clothing, for example) which needs slow motion to see shouldn't be online.
If you don't like a mistake, but can't actually disprove it, just vote it down, or suggest that it should be moved to the "minor" section by selecting "minor entry" from the list of editing options.
If you're correcting trivia by saying "that's too obvious" or something similar, bear in mind not everyone may have your level of movie knowledge. Certain references like the Indiana Jones hat-grab from under a door are so well known that they shouldn't be listed, but many others are not. If something's been referenced a lot in the past, it's probably not worth listing, but something more unusual should stay online. Likewise anything interesting on-screen - if it's specifically drawn attention to (like the Ark of the Covenent in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) then it's not worth listing, but if it's something more subtle, just because you noticed it easily, don't assume everyone else did too.

Submissions become property of moviemistakes.com.