Charlie's seat in the crash

jester77

Have seen the show already but watched it again last night and noticed Charlies seating... He runs to the front of the plane during the crash, falls out of the toilet and buckles himself in a seat near the front... so how does he arrive on the beach if the front of the plane landed in the forest?

Beruthiel

I did indeed wonder the same thing!

Third_Echelon

yup. I was baffled by that myself!!!!

Perhaps he was using hobbit powers?

doh.ie

We can only assume that as the plane was crashing, he must've changed seats again. Or that he was in the area after first class, say around row 8 or 9, which was actually part of the middle section (which crashed on the beach) and not the front plus cockpit (which includes first class.) I'll have to look again, but is it possible there were seats above the toilet, but curtained off? Usually, unless it's Ryanair, you don't get a toilet at the front of the plane cos that's reserved for first class use. You get the one which is at the division between first class and economy.

jester77

There weren't any seats above the toilet... When Kate and Jack were in the cockpit Kate asked where Charlie was and he popped out of the toilet behind the cockpit door! Strange one!

doh.ie

jester77 wrote:

There weren't any seats above the toilet... When Kate and Jack were in the cockpit Kate asked where Charlie was and he popped out of the toilet behind the cockpit door! Strange one!

Duh me! You're right... Has to be the uppermost toilet.

Well, we'll just have to assume he was thrown out (landed on a soft tree) or he moved seats where there was a fair chance it was going down... Or he jumped into the water, maybe. Either way, it's a bit of a goof.

Third_Echelon

There's a lot of assumption going on here....

They fooked it up in other words Bad continuity....

There's not a hope that he could have moved half-way down the plane again as they were plumeting to the ground....

tvnutz

Third_Echelon wrote:

There's a lot of assumption going on here....

They fooked it up in other words Bad continuity....

There's not a hope that he could have moved half-way down the plane again as they were plumeting to the ground....

you wish is was bad "continuity",im just sure this show is far too good for you

they are all on the island for a reason as Locke says later on,how did any of them survive such a horrible crash?those who survived did so for a reason,no matter where they were sitting.his seat was probably sucked out.

Third_Echelon

tvnutz wrote:

you wish is was bad "continuity",im just sure this show is far too good for you

Well you seem to have some sort of unhealthy addiction to this muck

tvnutz wrote:

....no matter where they were sitting.his seat was probably sucked out.

Nope. The seat he sat in was still in the same place when they returned to the cockpit part of the plane when looking for the transceiver....

Bad continuity... Sorry about dashing your hopes on this one....

doh.ie

Third_Echelon wrote:

Nope. The seat he sat in was still in the same place when they returned to the cockpit part of the plane when looking for the transceiver....

Maybe he was sucked out after the plane broke-up and the "island" caused him to get a soft landing, so he was unharmed.

Failing that, he must have just gone a lot further than we saw and when the shot resumed, he was down in the mid-section somewhere (causing him to be on the beach with everyone else).

I agree it's a pretty big gaffe, but it'll have to be "assumed" there's an explanation for it cos it's never addressed on screen again all season.

Third_Echelon

doh.ie wrote:

Maybe he was sucked out after the plane broke-up and the "island" caused him to get a soft landing, so he was unharmed.

He had his seatbelt on and the chair was in the same place attached to the floor...

doh.ie wrote:

Failing that, he must have just gone a lot further than we saw and when the shot resumed, he was down in the mid-section somewhere (causing him to be on the beach with everyone else).

Nope. He obviously sat in the seat right in front of him

doh.ie wrote:

I agree it's a pretty big gaffe, but it'll have to be "assumed" there's an explanation for it cos it's never addressed on screen again all season.

.... I wonder why :rolleyes:

Dar

The tail broke off at 10,000 feet. The plane broke into three pieces, and fell onto a bloody island. Not a single one of them should have survived. The show isnt just about them surviving on the island, it's also about why the hell any of them survived the plane crash at all.

Hyzepher

I think the details of the crash are outlined in the season finale and we get an better view of the plane crashing. So maybe this will be answered then.

Hyzepher

Third_Echelon

I'm guessing there will be a shower scene ala 'Dallas'... where Bobby steps out of the shower and it'll be all a bad dream....

Giblet

Third_Echelon you're just trolling now. You haven't seen enough of the show to comment. The final episode goes into the crash a bit more.

Third_Echelon

not at all. I'm just stating that the continuity is ridiculous 'for such a great program'

steveland?

Third_Echelon wrote:

not at all. I'm just stating that the continuity is ridiculous 'for such a great program'

6 posts on such a small plot hole (which will very possibly be explained in the final episode) when you quite obviously dislike the show constitutes trolling to me...

If you don't like Lost, don't visit the forum...

It's that simple...

Third_Echelon

steveland? wrote:

6 posts on such a small plot hole

These are the things that distinguish good programs from bad programs....

steveland? wrote:

when you quite obviously dislike the show constitutes trolling to me... If you don't like Lost, don't visit the forum... It's that simple...

Did i ever say i disliked it? Nope. I was saying it leaves a lot to be desired... I've the right to point out these plot holes and bad scripting... thats what the tv public are there for....

I'm willing to give it another few watches, but its bordering on the bad to meh category.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you've seen the pilot.

stop pretending like you know the show

Basq

Third_Echelon..

You are just coming in and spoiling threads with negative comments.. if you don't have any constructive criticism to give, don't bother!

You've only pointed out bad things about the show. If you couldn't find anything good in it, don't watch it and don't come in here spoiling threads. I'm sure you'll eventually send some wise wisdom our way such as "that dog's gay! heh heh!"

If you think it's "bordering on the bad to meh category".. then you'll probably won't enjoy any more of it! As you're already pigeon-holing it right now after just 90 minutes viewing.

Oh.. and regarding the whole Charlie's position on the plane.. never even thought of it til now. But he always struck me as quite odd first time i saw him at the crash site.... OK, he probably was meant to be drugged up to his eyeballs... but he almost looked (pardon the pun) 'lost' especially when Sayid asked him for help.

You have to remember we will see more of the crash and we never actually see the plane or inside it as they're going down. We see the tail being ripped off (etc.) but we don't see what happened between that and it landing on the beach... for example, how exactly did Jack wake in the jungle when Rose (next to him) and all the others were on the beach? I'm a feeling this season finale will explain a lot of this stuff

Third_Echelon

Mordeth wrote:

you've seen the pilot.

Yes I have.

Mordeth wrote:

stop pretending like you know the show

what?
I'm not pretending I know anything about the show. When did I say that I did? The original poster made a comment about 'charlies seat in the crash', which I agreed with and it was something that bugged me while watching it.

I merely continued the thread by replying to other peoples responses. This is how threads work... :rolleyes:

Third_Echelon

basquille wrote:

Third_Echelon..

You are just coming in and spoiling threads with negative comments.. if you don't have any constructive criticism to give, don't bother!

As I said, its not thread spoiling. I was sharing the view of the original poster. It is constructive criticism. Its a hole in the plot which i am constructively criticising. Something that could be improved on....

basquille wrote:

You've only pointed out bad things about the show.

Yes, as this is what make a show good or bad.

basquille wrote:

If you couldn't find anything good in it, don't watch it

As I said, i am going to watch it, but its a poor start IMO

basquille wrote:

and don't come in here spoiling threads.

Again... not spoiling. Agreeing with OP and elaborating.

basquille wrote:

I'm sure you'll eventually send some wise wisdom our way such as "that dog's gay! heh heh!"

Grow up :rolleyes:

basquille wrote:

If you think it's "bordering on the bad to meh category".. then you'll probably won't enjoy any more of it! As you're already pigeon-holing it right now after just 90 minutes viewing.

see above..

basquille wrote:

Oh.. and regarding the whole Charlie's position on the plane.. never even thought of it til now. But he always struck me as quite odd first time i saw him at the crash site.... OK, he probably was meant to be drugged up to his eyeballs... but he almost looked (pardon the pun) 'lost' especially when Sayid asked him for help.

Well he was after surviving a plane crash.. You'd be pretty dazed and confused after that and im sure the drugs helped.....

basquille wrote:

You have to remember we will see more of the crash and we never actually see the plane or inside it as they're going down. We see the tail being ripped off (etc.) but we don't see what happened between that and it landing on the beach... for example, how exactly did Jack wake in the jungle when Rose (next to him) and all the others were on the beach? I'm a feeling this season finale will explain a lot of this stuff

I'm sure he was flung from the plane on impact or just before impact...

Basq

Third_Echelon wrote:

As I said, its not thread spoiling. I was sharing the view of the original poster. It is constructive criticism. Its a hole in the plot which i am constructively criticising. Something that could be improved on....

Hole in the plot?

OK.. the multiple posts on this subject haven't helped you.. so read this slowly!

You know what "flashbacks" are, right?.. :rolleyes: .. OK, well (without giving too much away) in every episode of 'Lost', we get a flashback regarding a character on the Island. It tells some of their backstory and in time, some information on their circumstances on boarding the doomed flight.

The stories in 'Lost' are not told in an ascending order... so commenting on plot holes is just idiotic, to be honest with ya! As we may discovering in time that there may be an actual reason behind this so-called "plot hole".

It may be a goof by the creators... but i don't think you can declare anything as a goof in 'Lost' as even the smallest of incidents can have meaning in future episodes.

Never mind the fact you've only seen one episode and already think you're a connesieur of the show, but the circumstances surrounding the flight are being explored in episodes currently being shown in the US.

Ciaran500

Third_Echelon wrote:

As I said, its not thread spoiling. I was sharing the view of the original poster. It is constructive criticism. Its a hole in the plot which i am constructively criticising. Something that could be improved on....
As I said, i am going to watch it, but its a poor start IMO
Again... not spoiling.

"They fooked it up in other words Bad continuity...."
"Well you seem to have some sort of unhealthy addiction to this muck"
"Bad continuity... Sorry about dashing your hopes on this one...."
"not at all. I'm just stating that the continuity is ridiculous 'for such a great program'"
Real constructive :rolleyes:


"I've the right to point out these plot holes and bad scripting"
"Nope. He obviously sat in the seat right in front of him"
Examples of you acting like you have seen all the shows.

Third_Echelon wrote:

I'm sure he was flung from the plane on impact or just before impact...

How come you can assume Jack was flung from the plane but you can't assume Charlie moved before the crash. Stop bitching over a possible small plot hole. Every show has them.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

tvnutz

Its true,you are spoiling threads,as pointed out. You seem to think you know everything about the show,you dont. I dont know what else you watch but this show does not have bad writing or acting. As for these little tiny "plot holes",no tv show on the planet could meet your expectations if you are annoyed about them. Go to tvtome and for EVERY single show,there are goof guides to little mistakes made,and EVERY single show has them. Same with movies,you can see that on imdb. So your point about this little plot hole having any bearing on the show is,well,irrelevant..

Third_Echelon

basquille wrote:

Hole in the plot?

OK.. the multiple posts on this subject haven't helped you.. so read this slowly!

You know what "flashbacks" are, right?.. :rolleyes: .. OK, well (without giving too much away) in every episode of 'Lost', we get a flashback regarding a character on the Island. It tells some of their backstory and in time, some information on their circumstances on boarding the doomed flight.

someone is in a condescending mood today... you know what condescending means right????

basquille wrote:

The stories in 'Lost' are not told in an ascending order... so commenting on plot holes is just idiotic, to be honest with ya! As we may discovering in time that there may be an actual reason behind this so-called "plot hole".

it would want to be a very good reason to be honest...

basquille wrote:

Never mind the fact you've only seen one episode and already think you're a connesieur of the show, but the circumstances surrounding the flight are being explored in episodes currently being shown in the US.

I dont know where you are getting this idea that i think i'm a 'connesieur'... I haven't claimed this at any point. I'm just observant...

tvnutz

Well it is really coming off that way...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Ciaran500

Third_Echelon wrote:

someone is in a condescending mood today... you know what condescending means right????

Hilarious :rolleyes:

Third_Echelon wrote:

it would want to be a very good reason to be honest...

Why? Why would it have to be any more than, he moved.

Third_Echelon wrote:

I dont know where you are getting this idea that i think i'm a 'connesieur'... I haven't claimed this at any point. I'm just observant...

See my post above.

tvnutz

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

good point...fair city? proof? ummm...what else? anyway they both suck.