and Charlotte was born in 1979. So how could that have been the little girl Daniel saw?

So Ben said Charlotte was born in 1979.
In this episode it's apparently 1974 and little Charlotte looks to be 5 years old.

Now, I know Ben is a major liar, but what would be the point of him lying about something like that? It wouldn't accomplish anything for him... he has no reason to make a tiny unimportant fact like that up.

So... is this a major boner by the writers?

Oops. They're slipping...

I doubt if it is a boner.

I think Ben had a few things wrong about Charlotte. He was spouting off facts as given to him by Michael. Charlotte and Mom obviously left the island pre-purge, so I'm guessing that there were some fake identities made for them to assimilate with the outer world - and to protect them. A different date of birth isn't a big deal.

It may NOT be a tiny unimportant fact. Ben Lies, and he may have lied about Charlotte, I'm sure there's probabaly a reason why.

Not an error. That was Charlotte's cover story on the freighter, the only thing that Michael would have been privy to and as reported to Ben.

But it was a lie.

I think we have to ask ourselves who is Ben getting his information from about those on the freighter?

We know he's getting the names from Michael, but only names. Who is Ben relaying that information too? I think whoever that person is, is controlling the flow of info to Ben.

Obviously if given accurate information on Charlotte, he would have known she was born on the island. Also, he would have known who Daniel Faraday's mother was. That seemed to come as a shock to him as well.

I don't think it's a mistake by the writers. I think whoever Ben's source is in gathering that intelligence, is misleading him on purpose. Mrs. Hawking perhaps? Goes to show that Ben can be fooled and is not all knowning.

ETA: Wow. You type a response and go to hit post in a blank thread and your five deep by time it pops up :eek2::cool: Nice.

Well Charlotte had said her mother had tried to make her think that the Island wasn't real.....so maybe her mother lied to her about her birth date?

Ah, Merch is saying something interesting, and I like it. Michael didn't have all the information, just some, and Ben has been mislead by someone else. Nice.

Yes, Charlotte was supposed to be born in 1979, not 1972. That bugged me a lot during this episode. Could be that the girl wasn't Charlotte, but one of her two older sisters (that's what Ben said, right?). Maybe Daniel was just wrong? Although... the mom's voice sounded a lot like Rebecca Mader. Did the mom say the girl's name?

Shit. That sucks. I guess they have gotten sloppy. How could they forget when they made such a point of rhyming of her biography in S4? Disappointing.

The actress was born in 1979--but we meet the character in 2004. I think they did just use the actress's age for Ben's report and then realized that 25 was pretty young for someone to get a doctorate in anthropology, so they apparently back-dated her a decade. If caught on the inconsistency, they can just say that Ben's a liar, but I suspect a goof.

Cardie

Do we know for sure that little girl even was Charlotte?

As for Ben's story... he certainly had her birthplace wrong, so he could have had her age wrong. That little girl looked about 2 to me. Could he be off by 7 years though (1972 instead of 1979)?

This was bothering me a lot as I watched the ep.

Daniel just lost Charoltte and he sees a little red headed girl (cue the Charlie Brown music) and automatically thinks of Charlotte. It was never shown that she was in fact Charlotte.

Not an error. That was Charlotte's cover story on the freighter, the only thing that Michael would have been privy to and as reported to Ben.

But it was a lie.

That seems like the most logical explanation to me. Miles even remarked to Michael that 80% or 90% of the people on the ship were lying.

Plus it doesn't hurt that it threw us viewers off with the timeline for some theories!;)

Oh, jeez.

Not another inconsistency two weeks in a row. Or is it? Maybe that little girl wasn't Charlotte... but for some reason I can't picture two young red-headed girls being on the island. Which I know sounds crazy seeing as how crazy Lost is.

I think Ben had a few things wrong about Charlotte. He was spouting off facts as given to him by Michael. Charlotte and Mom obviously left the island pre-purge, so I'm guessing that there were some fake identities made for them to assimilate with the outer world - and to protect them. A different date of birth isn't a big deal.

That works. Thanks! :) But I didnt think he got that information from Michael...

I didn't hear the mother say the child's name. I suppose it might just have been wishful thinking on Daniel's part.........or a slip up on the part of TPTB. Gregg?

Any Mods out there want to merge this thread with my thread about the same topic?
or lock one of them or something

There is already a lot of wishful "filling-in-the-blanks" in this thread. Frankly, we don't know if it is Charlotte or not.

And think about this: The red haired kid is five in 1974. That puts her birthday sometime in 1969. That means that in 2004 she would be 35 years old. Plenty of time to get a Ph.D.

But, if Charlotte is born in 1979, the means she is 25 in 2004. To get a Ph.D. by that time is cutting it close.

And now here it comes. "She was a bright kid." Well, maybe she was and maybe she wasn't.

The bottom line is that it is more probable that Charlotte was born in 1969 than in 1979. Besides, she acted more like a 35 year old with a Ph.D than a 25 year old with a Ph.D. Trust me. There is big difference.

Ben also thought that she was born in "Essex, England". It is clear that Charlotte's mom forged their ids.

I guess if Ben got her birthplace wrong too it's possible he was just going off bad info.
I still don't think he would've been lying about that though. The only reason he mentioned that info was to prove he knew about the Freighties already, so lying about something like where/when someone was born would be pretty pointless.

This has already been discussed in another post. Please read others before you post new ones. :)

Also, Ben's info matched what Charlotte THOUGHT was her background. She didn't remember that she had lived on the island until the flashes, so her birth information, the stuff that Ben would have had access to, is fabricated. And he spits out the fabricated info as if it is true because he thinks it is.

Either that, or Ben DID kinow the real truth about Charlotte when he spits it out last season, but he, like Richard, knows that he cannot tell her (or anyone else) unitl th time in which they remember things catchs up with them.

Also, keep in mind that by the time young Ben shows up on the Island, Charlotte is gone. If the Island has a way of slowing down the aging process (Richard looks EXACTLY the same in 1954, 1974, and 2004) then Charlotte would look younger than she is when her mom takes her from the Island pre-purge.

Ah, Merch is saying something interesting, and I like it. Michael didn't have all the information, just some, and Ben has been mislead by someone else. Nice.

Thanks.

Even if Ben has someone off island gathering information for him, someone he trusts, I think Widmore, [who had a second protocol and knew about the orchid] could have surmised that Ben would attempt to gather intel on the boat. That Widmore may have known Ben had a man on it and said nothing.

If Widmore controlled the kind of information Ben's off island informant could dig up on Charlotte and Daniel, possibly Miles as well if he turns out to be the CHang baby, then Ben gains nothing by having a spy on the boat. Widmore knowing in advance Ben might be able to scout him, allows Widmore to set up decoy information to be found on the freighter science team.

I think if Ben knew Charlotte's real history or that Faraday was Hawking's mother [or Miles Chang's son possibly] it would have tipped Ben off to a larger context of what's going on at that point.

Ben also thought that she was born in "Essex, England". It is clear that Charlotte's mom forged their ids.

Her mother could have forged some documentation, Charlotte said her mom told her the island wasn't real, but again, it's who Ben gets that information from and even in trusting that person, it's a question of who could make that fake information stand up to inspection.

I would assume good forgeries would cost some money and require some kind of connection or power. Widmore have a hand in that?

I agree that it may have been fabricated info on her mother's part. I mean, she was only on the island for a few years so it's probable. I dunno. That might be an acceptable answer. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Was Charlotte definitely born on the island?? I thought she simply said she lived there when she was a little kid.

I don't know if she was born on island. We certainly didn't see it. But someone else was born on island in tonight's episode so whatever caused children to die hasn't necessarily happened yet.

We'll see (I hope!)

Well what did the doctor say to Sawyer, that the mothers are brought off island to give birth before the baby is due. That certainly could have been the case or Charlotte could have been an infant when her parents came to the island, thus also not being born on it.

We will for sure be getting more time in Seventies DHARMA to explore some of these question most likely, so that's good.

Was Charlotte definitely born on the island?? I thought she simply said she lived there when she was a little kid.

Well she did tell Dan back in TNPLH that she had been looking for the place she had been born.

http://forum.thefuselage.com/showthread.php?t=109073

Mods, please merge this thread with one already started.

I don't know whether Ben was lying or just mistaken, but I do know you guys are high if you think that toddler was 5. :P

I must have missed that post. No way that little girl could be five.

Also, what's interesting is that Charlotte remembers a crazy man [Faraday] telling her not to come back to the island, that she'll die. Memory's different for everyone, I know I have some to when I was three and four, but that little girl doesn't look like she'd remember meeting Faraday. Not well enough to relay, verbatim, what Faraday told her.

With them being in 1974, I'm think that we're going to see another three years later pop up. Heck, even just a two year (or five. Five would be good) and maybe Faraday visits a young Charlotte, but not toddler Charlotte at a point like that.

Oh, jeez.

Not another inconsistency two weeks in a row. Or is it? Maybe that little girl wasn't Charlotte... but for some reason I can't picture two young red-headed girls being on the island. Which I know sounds crazy seeing as how crazy Lost is.

What's the one from last week?

Is it the Walt thing? That Locke didn't tell him his Bentham pseudonym?

People forget that Walt went to LA to see Hurley not long after that meeting.
He could have spoke to one of the others and heard the name from them.

If it's not that what is it?

I think probably Ben was mistaken. But, here's something to ponder: if Charlotte and Ben were both children of the Dharma Initiative (granted several years apart) they probably knew each other, or at least Ben would have known who she was. It seems like a fairly small, tight-knit community...

I guess if Ben had the wrong information he wouldn't have put things together, but still makes me go, "hmm...".

I must have missed that post. No way that little girl could be five.

Also, what's interesting is that Charlotte remembers a crazy man [Faraday] telling her not to come back to the island, that she'll die. Memory's different for everyone, I know I have some to when I was three and four, but that little girl doesn't look like she'd remember meeting Faraday. Not well enough to relay, verbatim, what Faraday told her.

With them being in 1974, I'm think that we're going to see another three years later pop up. Heck, even just a two year (or five. Five would be good) and maybe Faraday visits a young Charlotte, but not toddler Charlotte at a point like that.

Actually, it's 1977. The 1974 scenes were the "three years earlier" time. It is 1977 when Goodspeed gets wasted, and James and Jin find Jack, Kate, and Hurley.

I think a young Ben has his time pretty much divided between school, a young Annie and secret meetings with Richard Alpert. While it would seem likely that he'd know about a little girl red head named Charlotte being on the island, I can also see him not knowing.

Though I think it'd be pretty hard to forget knowing of a redhead kid who for a time lived in your neighborhood. Especially since that's all it really is. It's not a town or city, it's a neighborhood ro two of people at best. And you don't forget most redheads that come across your path in life. Not to offend any potential redheads out there, but the rarity of redheads amongst a sea of brown hair and a good handful of blondes and blacks haired people, is too much a contrast for them not to stand out.

Put that with the fact that young Ben is in a small, tight knit community, it'd be hard for him not to know. But again, a young boy with a neglectful, alcoholic father, annie and secret rendevezous with Hostiles has a lot on his plate and I can completely understand if he's going through life at that point with a bit of tunnel vision.

Actually, it's 1977. The 1974 scenes were the "three years earlier" time. It is 1977 when Goodspeed gets wasted, and James and Jin find Jack, Kate, and Hurley.

In what scene was a specific year given? Didn't catch it.

What's the one from last week?

Is it the Walt thing? That Locke didn't tell him his Bentham pseudonym?

People forget that Walt went to LA to see Hurley not long after that meeting.
He could have spoke to one of the others and heard the name from them.


No, Walt specifically said to Hurley that he felt bitter that none of the O6 had seen him, so there was no way for him to find out about the Bentham alias. And claiming it came to Walt in a dream is too far-fetched.

In what scene was a specific year given? Didn't catch it.

At the end when Sawyer talked Juliet into staying. He said "It's 1974" and her other life wasn't there for her to go back to.

I missed that post too.

I'd also like to know that Brermike, if you remember the scene. It would certainly make more sense if that's the case.

In what scene was a specific year given? Didn't catch it.

I believe when Sawyer and Juliet are talking next to the submarine, he mentions that it is 1974. It then cuts to "three years later" when Sawyer picks the flower for Juliet.

Thanks

I believe when Sawyer and Juliet are talking next to the submarine, he mentions that it is 1974. It then cuts to "three years later" when Sawyer picks the flower for Juliet.

k, thanx.

In what scene was a specific year given? Didn't catch it.

I'm at a hotel so I can't rewatch, but Sawyer definitely said it, I think to Juliet? Was it when they were sitting by the submarine?

the only non-O6 that knew Locke was Bentham was Widmore, and he knew how to find Walt even though Walt wasn't O6. I think Widmore told Walt.

If Ben's lips are moving, he's lying.

"There's No Place Like Home Pt. 1": Locke, to Ben: "When have you ever been entirely truthful?" Ben doesn't answer.

"316": Jack, to Ben: "How can you read?" Ben, casually: "My mother taught me." His mother died in childbirth! He lies at will.

So, Ben lied when giving Charlotte's birth year for no other reason than that he can never be entirely truthful. And it's not like Charlotte's going to correct him on it. It might be part of the cover story. But basing any theory on what Ben says is probably going to get us nowhere.

We don't even know if her name was Charlotte on the island, it was very probably changed when she left the island with her mother.

The birthdates are too far apart, and the writers are too careful. I suspect further time shenanigans.

Probably the "Incident."

http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?pid=125388&fullsize=1 She looks 2-3 years old.

My vote's split between 1) Ben's source of information lied to him, controlling the flow of information. [It wasnt' Michael before anyone posts. Michael only got him names.]

Or 2) Widmore anticipated Ben's being able to scout and infiltrate his freighter, and was able to ensure that the information Ben's source provided to Ben about the Charlotte, Daniel, probably Miles if he's Chang's son, was doctored/altered rendering it useless. Ben thinks he has the upper hand, but infact does not.

I think Ben knowing Charlotte was on the island, that Faraday was Hawking's son and that Miles (may possibily) be Chang's son would have clued Ben in to some larger aspect of what's going on.

He11FIRe, that's a possibilty as well. A little name change and away we go. What island honey?

If Ben's lips are moving, he's lying.


So you're saying that Ben is a compulsive liar. I've never seen it that way... I've always viewed him as an opportunistic liar, but it always serves a purpose.

http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?pid=125388&fullsize=1 She looks 2-3 years old.

Ok, I was just throwing out 5 as a guess. I really have no idea of how to gauge how old little kids are. I just figured you wouldn't be running around outdoors if you were 1 or 2 or whatever.

In any case, the age of the kid in that scene doesn't matter... What matters is that there was a little Charlotte running around during that year AT ALL. The time inconsistencies still stand.

Not sure if anyone has suggested these already but...

... maybe Charlotte was on a submarine that left on the wrong heading.

... or the "incident" threw the island 10 years into the future and Charlotte's family corrected her 1969 birthdate for her age.

I think Ben had a few things wrong about Charlotte. He was spouting off facts as given to him by Michael. Charlotte and Mom obviously left the island pre-purge, so I'm guessing that there were some fake identities made for them to assimilate with the outer world - and to protect them. A different date of birth isn't a big deal.

Exactly my thinking.

I don't see how people can see something seemingly out of place in a show like this, especially one dealing with TT, and still jump to the conclusion that the writers made a mistake, there are lots of ways this could work.

What if this was one of Charlotte's older sisters? - My contrib
100%
Not sure if anyone has suggested these already but...

... maybe Charlotte was on a submarine that left on the wrong heading.

... or the "incident" threw the island 10 years into the future and Charlotte's family corrected her 1969 birthdate for her age.

These are also possibilities.

Why shouldn't the girl just be Charlotte's sister?

I go with the whole idea that Char's mother lied to her about her birthday. Perhaps her mother wanted to erase the first five years of her life, no matter how unfruitful that may be?

Why would they throw that in there unless it was Charlotte? *shakes fist at writers*

women lie about their age...helllooooooo!

Do these tiny little potential inconsistencies really bug people that much? Telling this kind of convoluted, non-linear story on TV where new scripts have to be churned out every couple of weeks is bound to leave us with an error or two.

Besides, like many people have pointed out, we can't say what's a writing error and what's a viewing error until the series is over.

Mellow out folks and try one of Rosie's brownies.

Glaring inconsistencies are annoying. They take you out of the story. Nobody's having a fit over it. Relax.

Glaring inconsistencies are annoying. They take you out of the story. Nobody's having a fit over it. Relax.

Glaring? Really?

OK, I'll chill. :)

Just out of interest - was it ever actually confirmed that it was 1974?

I mean, I know Sawyer told Richard that his meeting with Locke in 1954 was 'twenty years ago', but he could have just been rounding up.

Well, I didn't notice the Charlotte thing but I can imagine how annoying it is for people who actually keep track of not-so-minor details like when a character was born.

We don't know if the little girl was Charlotte or not, just that she reminded Daniel of her.

Let's wait before we know if it's an actual error instead of one that some people assume is one.

It's isn't so much remembering when exactly the character was born, but the realization if that were Charlotte and it were 1974, that would put her in her late 30's when she died. And yes, that would be glaring.

Glaring inconsistencies are annoying. They take you out of the story. Nobody's having a fit over it. Relax.

I think the big thing about the inconsistencies is that people make a big deal that it is a big deal in the story line. Is it an Easter Egg or not? Does it prove time travel? Is he lying? Is there an alternate reality? They are using the same props, does that mean something? They are using different props, does that mean something. The scene is in 1956 but the song is from 1957 that is a clue, it must be time travel.

I think TPTB are painting themselves into corners as the show is winding down and they need to explain these inconsistencies. The easy way is to say someone lied about something or blame a production error on time travel.

We don't know if the little girl was Charlotte or not, just that she reminded Daniel of her.

Let's wait before we know if it's an actual error instead of one that some people assume is one.

Exactamundo... plus, why couldn't Rebecca Mader's Charlotte be 30-something?

We don't know if the little girl was Charlotte or not, just that she reminded Daniel of her.

Let's wait before we know if it's an actual error instead of one that some people assume is one.

I agree. I think they only clue was her mother's voice had the same accent and sounded like Charlotte and the girl was a redhead.

It's annoying because that means last season when Ben divulged all his info on Charlotte, including her birth date, the writers didn't know that she needed to be on the island in the 70's for Daniel to meet in season 5. It reinforces my belief that they are winging it.

Hello, its Penny.

It reinforces my belief that they are winging it.

They have to be winging it. They have only ever said they know the end game - episodic TV doesn't allow them a single path to that - especially given all those years of having no clue how long the series would run.

Why does that annoy you? That seems really strange to me.

But I get the feeling all of this may have been said before on this board. :)

I think the big thing about the inconsistencies is that people make a big deal that it is a big deal in the story line. Is it an Easter Egg or not? Does it prove time travel? Is he lying? Is there an alternate reality? They are using the same props, does that mean something? They are using different props, does that mean something. The scene is in 1956 but the song is from 1957 that is a clue, it must be time travel.

I think TPTB are painting themselves into corners as the show is winding down and they need to explain these inconsistencies. The easy way is to say someone lied about something or blame a production error on time travel.

It's a distraction to the story, and the writers should be held to task on it. If Lost is going to be a show about time-travel, then you need to get these details right. A year or 2 is one thing. Five years is a huge difference. However, this episode cover 3 years! Was it '74 when Daniel saw the red-headed girl, or was it '71 then? If it was 71, then there's an even bigger problem!!

My guess is either it wasn't Charlotte and hopefully the writers will explain that.

Just out of interest - was it ever actually confirmed that it was 1974?

I mean, I know Sawyer told Richard that his meeting with Locke in 1954 was 'twenty years ago', but he could have just been rounding up.

Sawyer tells Juliet in the dock scene that it's 1974. It's also a 1974 scene in which the Lefties sit at the picnic table and Dan spots young Charlotte. The "three years later" events thus happen in 1977.

Cardie

Charlotte's sisters were younger. But she could have older sisters who were not mentioned by Ben b/c they stayed on the island. Maybe she's Penny's sister. Penny could have been the little girl on the island. Charlotte could be named after her father Charles Widmore.

It would still be inconsistent b/c if she was born in 1979 like Ben says, she wouldn't be 5 until 1985. I doubt that Daniel was still on the island in 1985 to warn her.

So for now, I'm going with it's a writing goof, and they may try to explain it by time travel.

The word is clue.

Well, here's my theory. The Charlotte we saw was roughly 3 years of age, but the age and date of birth could be explained by the method used to get off the island.

The Oceanic Six seemed to return normally without any trouble, but Locke travelled three years in the future. We don't know if this is solely because of the donkey wheel or whether time discrepancy through travel to/from the island is an effect that can happen to anyone.

For example, if Charlotte and her mum left in 197-X, but arrived in 1982, then her mother would obviously have to lie about Charlotte's identity. She can't have a 3 year old daughter in 1982 and tell everyone she's born in 1974.

Sawyer very well could've just guessed at the year ( 1974 ) based on the Dharma-ness of itall. It could've been any time though in the 70s or 80s really.

Well, here's my theory. The Charlotte we saw was roughly 3 years of age, but the age and date of birth could be explained by the method used to get off the island.

The Oceanic Six seemed to return normally without any trouble, but Locke travelled three years in the future. We don't know if this is solely because of the donkey wheel or whether time discrepancy through travel to/from the island is an effect that can happen to anyone.

For example, if Charlotte and her mum left in 197-X, but arrived in 1982, then her mother would obviously have to lie about Charlotte's identity. She can't have a 3 year old daughter in 1982 and tell everyone she's born in 1974.

Good thought but I'm not very keen on the idea that everybody's goin' round turning the donkey wheel.

Maybe when Charlotte and her mom (and possibly sisters) left the island they were shot forward a few years, like Ben and Locke when they turned the donkey wheel. Then her mom would probably tell her what to tell people about when/where she was born. They might need to lie to make her age make sense in the outer world.

So, she half told the truth to Michael about being born 1979, which is why she wouldn't correct Ben when he said it. But, he obviously only knew what story she was told was her story, since we now know that she wasn't from England origianlly.

Hey, my mom has been 35 for the last 15 years, so.....

I think people are forgetting for many there is a time fudging when they leave the Island. Locke lost 3 years remember?

We have no idea under what circumstances CS left the Island. We DO know she was near the same portal Locke and Ben went through--perhaps she investigated that place because she had been there before.

I agree with Sam that this is a clue.

Right now I think it is too early to tell what it means exactly.

We already know that Ben is not omniscient. We have seen him be surprised several times this season alone. We also already knew that the little biography that he rattled off to Charlotte was false--he said she was born in Essex, England and we soon discovered she was born on the island and remembered it. Ben thought he knew everything about her, but he didn't. There is always the possibility that he was lying, but he seemed so triumphant in that scene--much like he was when lording over his knowledge of the 815 survivors--that I think he believed he had correct information about her.

Oh, and of possible interest to this thread, in general the color theorists on "The Sewing Kit" thread have noticed that in the past, red usually means deception. We have been discussing that in light of Charlotte's red dress, and it might mean that there is something about toddler Charlotte that is not as it seems.

Off topic from the theorizing, but that kid is adorable.

Since the sub is still going back and forth at this time, I'd guess that Charlotte and any of the other Dharma children who leave do not go out by the FDW portal. There are all sorts of reasons why Charlotte's age on her bio would not have been any more truthful than the rest of it, but don't rule out writer hicuups when it comes to dates. It's happened before, as on Jin's resume.

Cardie

Why shouldn't the girl just be Charlotte's sister?

Because I believe we've heard that Charlotte had 2 younger sisters. So hat wouldn't make any sense either.

It's a distraction to the story, and the writers should be held to task on it. If Lost is going to be a show about time-travel, then you need to get these details right. A year or 2 is one thing. Five years is a huge difference. However, this episode cover 3 years! Was it '74 when Daniel saw the red-headed girl, or was it '71 then? If it was 71, then there's an even bigger problem!!

My guess is either it wasn't Charlotte and hopefully the writers will explain that.

It was '74 when Daniel saw the little red-head

The years this episode covered were '74 - '77
'74 when Sawyer et al shot the hostiles and first came across the Dharma peeps,
then
3 years later, '77 - when LaFleur went to pick up drubk Horace, Charlotte delivered Amy's baby, etc.

It is a possibility that Charlotte probably lied about year of birth or changed it at some point, so that anyone looking into her background wouldn't be able to place her on the island when she was a little girl.

Daniel thinks its Charlotte cause he'a all strung out on Charlotte right now...or then.

It might not even be Charlotte...just Daniel's goofy thinking, which is obviously shot!

SO when they leave the island...is it 1974? Or is it 2008? Given that real world time was 08/09 last time we were there...like the previous episode.

crap. That sucks. I guess they have gotten sloppy. How could they forget when they made such a point of rhyming of her biography in S4? Disappointing.

Jeez. GIve some credit to the writers. I'm pretty sure they know what they are doing before picking a clear year. Probably you just don't know what they know. Imagine that?
100%
I don't see how people can see something seemingly out of place in a show like this, especially one dealing with TT, and still jump to the conclusion that the writers made a mistake, there are lots of ways this could work.

What if this was one of Charlotte's older sisters? - My contrib
100%


These are also possibilities.

Amen. Just because Joe Viewer can't figure it out, doesn't mean the writers have made a mistake.

(Transcript from "Confirmed Dead" season 4: episode 2)

BEN: Her name is Charlotte Lewis! Charlotte Staples Lewis. Born July 02nd, 1979, Essex, England. Parents David and Jeanette. Eldest of three, all girls. She was raised in Bromsgrove. Did her undergraduate studies at Kent. Took her PhD in Cultural Anthropology at Oxford. She's here with two other team members and a pilot. Their names Daniel Faraday, Miles Straume, Frank Lapidus.
[Charlotte says nothing]



We (presumably) see a young Charlotte walk through Dharmaville in 1974. This contradicts her being born in 1979, obviously. There are two ways this could be explained on the show. The first, and easiest, is that Ben has this information from Michael (aka Kevin Johnson) which could just be wrong. Maybe Mike got the date wrong and Charlotte didn't feel the need to dispute her birthday.


The second, and more fun, is that when Charlotte and her parents fled the island in her youth, they passed through the barrier on the wrong bearing. We know that leaving on the wrong bearing can produce some unexpected results. The rocket's 31 minute difference, the dead doctor washing up on shore before his death and the helicopter losing half a day on it's first trip back to the freighter with Desmond were all examples of this. We could extrapolate that if left on a horribly wrong bearing that a difference of years may pass. When we see Charlotte in 1974, she looks about 3ish, so let's say her birthday is 1971. If they leave the island shortly after we see her in 1974 and the barrier passing goes wrong and they end up in the "real world" in 1982. Charlotte would still be a 3 year old girl, but now it's 1982 and her logical birthday would now be 1979. Her parents would adjust the year so no one wonders why a girl who "should" be 11 years old only looks like a 3 year old. This seems like the best, or at least the coolest way to "rationally" explain this glaring discrepancy.


Let me know what you think.
-Franko

I think Bens info was wrong. That little girl has gotta be Char.

It's not just the date. She also wasn't born in Essex, England.

I like the leaving-on-the-wrong-bearing idea.

http://forum.thefuselage.com/showthread.php?t=109073

Mods, please merge this thread with one already started. Done. :)

Maybe when Charlotte and her mom (and possibly sisters) left the island they were shot forward a few years, like Ben and Locke when they turned the donkey wheel.

And Charlotte did know about the well. She told Locke to look for the well. Maybe some of them had to leve via the FDW. I'm liking this idea better than thinking it was just a writing goof.

It's not just the date. She also wasn't born in Essex, England.

I like the leaving-on-the-wrong-bearing idea.

Her mom told her that the island wasn't real. Of course she would have any records list a real place as her birth place.
100%
Done. :)

Thank you for merging my thread. I couldn't find the original one, but I thought I saw something before. Appreciated. :)
100%
And Charlotte did know about the well. She told Locke to look for the well. Maybe some of them had to leve via the FDW. I'm liking this idea better than thinking it was just a writing goof.

The well couldn't be Charlotte & Mom's island exit point because Sawyer jumped in the well and it was filled with rocks in 1974. Charlotte was still on the island then.

I wonder if, for whatever reasons, her mother used the date the left the island as Charlotte's birth date. I don't know why she would do that.

(Transcript from "Confirmed Dead" season 4: episode 2)

BEN: Her name is Charlotte Lewis! Charlotte Staples Lewis. Born July 02nd, 1979, Essex, England. Parents David and Jeanette. Eldest of three, all girls. She was raised in Bromsgrove. Did her undergraduate studies at Kent. Took her PhD in Cultural Anthropology at Oxford. She's here with two other team members and a pilot. Their names Daniel Faraday, Miles Straume, Frank Lapidus.
[Charlotte says nothing]



I think Ben didn't know she was on the Island and her mother screwed the birth certificate to hide her.

I honestly love how this fan community comes up with so many witty and intriguing explanations for mysterious things on lost! However, in this case, as many of you probably already know, the explanation is simple and comes directly from TPTB:

It was a screw-up. The character was conceived to have been born in 1970. Rebecca Mader (the actress of Charlotte) was born in 1979 and asked to have the date changed, as she "could not play someone born in 1970" (i think that was the wording Carlton and Damon used). They obviously changed it without recognizing that they'd screw up their story's timeline.

Long story short: Charlotte should be a young girl in 1974, so chances are, she really is that red-head that Daniel saw.

That's as I said from the beginning. These folks make plenty of goofs. But maybe being unwilling to be thought the character's true aged boxed them in as far as continuing in the show with a living Charlotte, thus leading to her premature demise.

Cardie

It was a screw-up. The character was conceived to have been born in 1970. Rebecca Mader (the actress of Charlotte) was born in 1979 and asked to have the date changed, as she "could not play someone born in 1970" (i think that was the wording Carlton and Damon used). They obviously changed it without recognizing that they'd screw up their story's timeline.

As I understood, she asked for the change of her birthdate on the set, without ever consulting with Damon and Carlton.

As I understood, she asked for the change of her birthdate on the set, without ever consulting with Damon and Carlton.

That's how i saw it too.

***There maybe minor spoilers so you are warned.***

3/18/09 Podcast (http://ll.media.abc.com/podcast/audio/itunes/LOST_510_audio_podcast_5de8e99f-8d9b-410b-a8bb-9393a9f91e0f_2041378.mp3) 3/4 of the way through they address Charlotte's birth date.

I think, Damon, Carlton and Gregg Nations have been pretty honest in owning up to errors on the show. You don't expect actors to change dialogue, to suit themselves, without consulting someone.

After having listened to Carlton and Damon's explanation, I, too, agree that they have solved the mystery by admitting that it was something of a mistake, owing to Rebecca Mader's reticence to appear older than she is. They took responsibility for not changing the mistake in the editing room before the episode aired, and I think we can now assume that the little girl seen by Daniel was Charlotte, and she was born in 1970.

I'm not really buying this.

I don't see how the actor could change the intended date that ends up being aired.

There's editting, post-production, and all that. ;) It wouldn't take that much, IMO, for someone to have over-dubbed the year (there's a proper term that escapes me, at the moment, is it "looped"? pun intended). :22:

JMO. And I am not even a Charlotte/Rebecca fan.

In the podcast you can hear Carlton say something about "looping" but Damon cuts him off.

Tabby, I agree. The fact is, they have solved the mystery, but I'm still not 100% convinced that it is the real answer. I'm willing to go with it for now, but I think the thing that bothers me the most about it is she is wearing a bright red dress, and while there are occasionally odd things going on with the colors, something that brilliant screams "deception" to me (following LOST's color code).

I haven't seen the podcast, but if Darlton "took responsibility", maybe they were kidding about Rebecca's reticence to play older? Where's gupwalla, who seems to be very good at decoding Darlton? ;)

It just seems odd to me that a serious actor would have resistance to playing a different age; wouldn't that entail "more acting" than "just playing one's own age"?

I won't lose any sleep over it, but those kinds of "production errors" throw wrenches into the avid attempts to understand what's going on, on LOST. ;) I read that they confirmed that the little girl is Charlotte (which I had assumed), but she didn't look to be 7 y-o.

More and more, I'm going with the "miracles of television" theory to write off the problem with suspending disbelief. :biggrin:

Devera, did you mean the little Charlotte was in red (I'm pretty sure she was), or that older Charlotte died in red?

ETA: Sam, thanks for the confirmation on the "looping" term. Now, why did Damon cut him off? To discourage the loop theories? :biggrin: ;)

Devera, did you mean the little Charlotte was in red (I'm pretty sure she was), or that older Charlotte died in red?

Yes, I meant little Charlotte in bright red.

Tabby,

Why did Damon cut Carlton off? I don't think it was on purpose, I think Damon was on another track already, it's what they do.

Tabby,

Why did Damon cult Carlton off? I don't think it was on purpose, I think Damon was on another track already, it's what they do.
Oh, I know it's what they do. My reply was mostly in jest; but since I haven't seen it, I was curious if there might have been some implied other reason.

It just seems odd to me that a serious actor would have resistance to playing a different age; wouldn't that entail "more acting" than "just playing one's own age"?

I won't lose any sleep over it, but those kinds of "production errors" throw wrenches into the avid attempts to understand what's going on, on LOST. ;) I read that they confirmed that the little girl is Charlotte (which I had assumed), but she didn't look to be 7 y-o.



If you want to play young, romantic leads in movies and TV, the last thing you want to do is play someone significantly older than you are--particularly if you are a leading lady. Adding nine years to one's age for a part that doesn't involve the character aging is pretty significant for a 28-year-old. The parts available to 37-year-old women are very different from those available for 28-year-old women.

Perhaps Darlton were being gallant and deferring to Mader's wishes (and then they fired her, LOL!)

At any rate, young Charlotte is seen in 1974, when the Lefties first arrive at Dharma, so she's four, not seven. By 1977, Sawyer informs Jack, Daniel is no longer there.

Cardie

If you want to play young, romantic leads in movies and TV, the last thing you want to do is play someone significantly older than you are--particularly if you are a leading lady. Adding nine years to one's age for a part that doesn't involve the character aging is pretty significant for a 28-year-old. The parts available to 37-year-old women are very different from those available for 28-year-old women.

Perhaps Darlton were being gallant and deferring to Mader's wishes (and then they fired her, LOL!)

At any rate, young Charlotte is seen in 1974, when the Lefties first arrive at Dharma, so she's four, not seven. By 1977, Sawyer informs Jack, Daniel is no longer there.

Blame it on a brain warp! I knew that and you're right. :redface:

I have no idea of Rebecca Mader's role preferences, but I would imagine that most relatively unknown actors would jump at the chance to even appear once on LOST and moreso in a recurring role. Charlotte would love this (I think, based on your comment), but she didn't look as old as 37. If they wanted her to be a believable 37, they should have kept her in the makeup room longer, or told her to not sleep for days before the shoots. :biggrin:

Rebecca has already been the female lead in a television series, albeit one that didn't last very long, and apparently has an active film career. I doubt that she would have herself be thought nine years older just to appear on Lost. It's a great gig but I'm sure there are actors who could live without it.

There was clearly a casting error. The character's biography and Mader's age were out of sync, because to do what she had done suggested someone in her mid-thirties but she definitely looked like a 20-something.

Darlton said in the podcast that they should have changed the "correction" of Charlotte's birthdate back to 1970 in post, but they didn't catch it.

Cardie

And she probably wouldn't taken it upon herself to make the change if she had know that TT was involved. Age is all relative - being trapped by time and space.

But I completely understand why they don't give out that information ahead of time.

When you're older skipping back and forth a few years, isn't very apparent in an adult but in a child...a few years is a big difference.

The plot thickens. http://lostmediamentions.blogspot.com/2009/03/rebecca-mader-pissed-at-darlton.html

Cardie

Yeah, um...

Seriously. I'd put money on it being Damon and Carlton either being confused or lying to us. Either option sucks, but I guess we'll see how they respond to this on their next podcast. If they don't then I have no reason to believe otherwise on what Rebecca Mader has to say. After all, I think they are making more than just one mistake as of late. They seem to be getting a little sloppy, perhaps over-confident in their writing. Continuity is an issue at the moment and we'll see how it actually plays out to the end of the show Ignoring continuity problems and choosing not to resolve them will be a big issue for many fans looking for details over the course of the show once it concludes and inconsistent writing will leave many of us upset and dissapointed. It shouldn't be too terribly hard, I would think, to insert a few lines of dialog somehow that might correct this. But I guess I'm not the one doing this for a living, so we'll see how they manage to pull through their recent mistakes.
(http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=120289338)

Not an error. That was Charlotte's cover story on the freighter, the only thing that Michael would have been privy to and as reported to Ben.

But it was a lie.



nice picture;)

Charlotte Lewis was ALWAYS meant to be 28 and born in 1979.I was going to make a time travel crack about the "always", but then I realized -- 1979 + 28 = 2007. Charlotte wasn't on the Island in 2007. It was 2004.

The plot thickens further.

I'd rather not even think about it. I hope Damon and Carlton are in the right. I love them too much for them to have lied to us... hopefully this is all just one big mistake.

nice picture;)

Ha, thanks. Nice large font. ;)

I'd rather not even think about it. I hope Damon and Carlton are in the right. I love them too much for them to have lied to us... hopefully this is all just one big mistake.

Eek, I love them too, but I've been thinking for awhile that even if it *is* true that it wasn't nice of them to say that about Rebecca on the podcast. Way to make her look like a troublesome diva on the set....

I wish they had just said it was planned all along and that it's because Ben had the wrong information. It totally works within the plot! Sigh.

Yeah, whatever really happened, if Darlton were gentlemen, they would just have said that it was an error they should have caught in post, without pointing fingers or elaborating on it further.

Cardie

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/03/lost-exclusive.html

They admitted to it being their mistake.

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/03/lost-exclusive.html

They admitted to it being their mistake.
Partial quote from your link:
There were a gazillion questions about the timeline discrepancy in that young Charlotte clearly exists in 1974, but wasn't supposed to be born until 1979, per a single line of dialogue courtesy of Ben back in episode #402. When we inquired as to how this happened, the intel came back that we used Rebecca Mader's birthday, July 2, 1979 because she was actually eight years YOUNGER than the character as originally conceived/scripted. We misremembered this as having come from Rebecca herself on the set, but in fact, it came several days earlier when our continuity expert Gregg Nations pointed it out and suggested using Rebecca's actual birthday for Charlotte. And so, the mistake was OURS. Rebecca's production draft DID have the date as being 1979.
So they are officially admitting a continuity error (in addition to apologizing to Rebecca, and the fans). Before I got to the end of the page, I was asking "so are you going to do a correction podcast?", and yep, they are.

I'm glad they manned up. I wonder if this means they were originally going to send the Lefties to a later time in the DI history or if the idea of having Dan warn young Charlotte to leave wasn't a later addition that made it impossible for her to be born in 1979. If Charlotte simply died because she had been born on the island and stayed quite a few years, it wouldn't matter when she had been born and left, as long as it was before the Purge.

Cardie

I suspect this was always going to be the plan for Dan and Charlotte. I also suspect the writers' strike last year robbed us of what could have been a very interesting flashback episode, with young CS Lewis remembering her "imaginary" island and the scary man. The way she reacted to the bear collar, her expression when she arrived on the Island. It's all kind of anticlimactic the way it was wrapped up in a few sentences before she died.

Nice of the TPTB to own up, but I kinda blame Mader for putting in her own two lousy cents on how old she felt her character should have been. Thanks alot, REBECCA!

Nice of the TPTB to own up, but I kinda blame Mader for putting in her own two lousy cents on how old she felt her character should have been. Thanks alot, REBECCA!

Huh?

All she said was what HAS BEEN IN THE SCRIPT, not what her own opinion is.

Nice of the TPTB to own up, but I kinda blame Mader for putting in her own two lousy cents on how old she felt her character should have been. Thanks alot, REBECCA!

Jack Sawyer, you are misunderstanding. Darlton have corrected this erroneous idea (that they originally stated as fact) that it was Rebecca's idea. It was NOT. They will correct in an upcoming podcast. Thank goodness. What an unfortunate situation.

What apparently happened was that the original script was written with the assumption that they would cast Charlotte as someone in her mid to late thirties. But they chose the much younger Mader, and when production began, someone on set, probably the director, noted that no one was going to believe that Mader-as-Charlotte was born in 1970. So someone decided just to substitute Mader's own birthdate. It's a bit foggy whether they asked Darlton or Gregg or anyone in LA to approve this, but when the new date turned up in post, no one considered the problems the change would cause down the road. This was in the middle of the writer's strike, so it might have been easy for something to fall through the cracks.

Cardie

They are saying that Gregg caught it before Confirmed Dead, and they decided to change the age to match the actress:
We misremembered this as having come from Rebecca herself on the set, but in fact, it came several days earlier when our continuity expert Gregg Nations pointed it out and suggested using Rebecca's actual birthday for Charlotte. And so, the mistake was OURS.
But I agree - they changed the role to match the actress, same way she was originally supposed to be an American character.