This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 316 article.
General discussion about the article's subject is permitted as a way to aid improvement of the article.
Theories about the article subject should not be discussed here.
(Instead, post your theory to this article's theory page
or discuss it on this article's theory talk page.)

  • Be polite, don't bite, have fun!
  • Admins are here to help
  • More discussion at the Forum
Article policies


I wasn't sure if I should just add this directly to the page, or if it needed to be cleared here.

Mathew Abbadon remarks "that boy has gotten big" about Walt. What is his previous experience with Walt that he's able to make such a comment? --Riddley 18:21, April 11, 2010 (UTC)


316 is the flight number for a flight in Ajira Airways. Ldude893 10:01, 12 February 2009(UTC)

It may also be the new bearing that is needed to get to the island.--Deuce Dubbington XVII 21:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The time 3:16 appears on one of the clock's that Daniel Faraday compares after the payload arrives on the island in episode "The Economist".

4x03 Clock2

Freighter clock showing 03:16:23 in episode "The Economist"

--Lankeymarlon 01:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also: The Airdate of the episode (18 February 2009) is the 49th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar and there are 316 days remaining. Probably just a coincidence but worth being mentioned ... at least in the Discussion- Section :) (Haskar 08:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Episode 5x07

Does it matter if the producers refer to this episode as 5x07? The 2/12 audio podcast on explains why, as trying to do so here could be considered a spoiler. --Makiwolf 21:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The production code will be 507, but we will still call it 5x06. They say on the podcast they've only done this once before with two season 1 episodes, although they don't specify which ones. I think they meant season 3, since "The Glass Ballerina" and "Further Instructions" were originally going to air the other way around.--Baker1000 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I actually thought that exact same thing Baker Integrated (User / Talk) 04:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Huh. According to discussions at the Fuselage, there are some indications that "Solitary" and "Raised by Another" were originally produced in reversed order. Huh.--Nevermore 23:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how could that be. Sayid comes to the caves at the end of "Raised by Another" to tell them of Rousseau, right when they're discovering the manifest discrepancy. Also, they introduced Ethan in "Solitary". If they switched those around, it must've been early in the development process - like before the scripts were completed. -- Graft   talk   contributions  20:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


Go look up the word and then think about Christian and Locke.--Deuce Dubbington XVII 21:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What has this to do with 316, and what we know of it before it screens? ∇ϕ 09:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The word "proxy" is used in the ABC podcast as a teaser to this episode.--Baker1000 14:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
John: "Are you Jacob?", Christian: "No. But I can speak on His behalf." rddswim 20:37, 17 February 2009 (EST)
Jesus was a proxy for our sin. He was the "power of attorney" so to speak for us at the cross. He took our sin upon himself and that sin was dead for us IF we have faith. This goes along perfectly with the 316 title of the episodeIyubyost 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave away his only child. Whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." -John 3:16

Ldude893 02:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well they are in a church and supposedly Locke is in there as well.--Deuce Dubbington XVII 09:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

John sacrifices himself for the island and once returned he becomes ageless like Richard Alpert.--40calgal 23:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Every one of the Oceanic 6 believed the plane would get them safely back to the island. At least three of them, and probably all, did not perish. The Bible verse is a clear parallel. Plus Locke's suicide note, Eloise Hawking and Ben all implore Jack to believe.MixMasterMike 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Items moved from theory page


Caravaggio. Doubting Thomas. 1602-1603. Oil on canvas. Sanssouci, Potsdam, Germany.

I think it's a Biblical reference: John 3:16 (New International Version) For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Or some other Biblical verses?

John was the most devout of the apostles of Jesus, and was the first to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. I would be willing to say that John Locke is the most devout of all residents of the island considering how little he knows, truly blind faith.

Genesis 3:16 16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (reference to the problems women have on the island bearing children?)

Exodus 3:16 16 "Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—appeared to me and said: I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you in Egypt. 17 And I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—a land flowing with milk and honey.' (reference to bringing the Oceanic 6 back to the island?)

Numbers 3:16 16 So Moses counted them, as he was commanded by the word of the LORD. (reference to the insistence that all 6 return to the island?)

OK, maybe I'm stretching - but I think the John 3:16 is right.

Something is wrong with the page

This is going to be unpopular, but can we please lock the article until the technical issue is resolved? All my edits keep disappearing and it's getting incredibly frustrating.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems like the best idea. Maybe just delete the page altogether and recreate it? -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  04:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I like both of these ideas...whatever works is fine with me. It's counterproductive to just keep making edits when they'll just get reverted soon after. Bloodbath 87 04:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it keeps saying I am removing edits, and I AM NOT! I am only adding to the page! --Xbenlinusx 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What's happening, best I can tell, is that when you go to edit the page, it is working off of two or three edits previous, so that when you save your edit, everything that had been done in the previous edit is ignored (and thus removed) during the save.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that what's happening? I've had a minor edit repeatedly reversed--Pennyj 04:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the SysOps protected then unprotected the page again and now it seems to be working. Thanks! :)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I guess that would explain why the episode info I provided kept getting erased. I had assumed that other users were, for whatever reason, not getting those "editing conflict" messages. I figured it had something to do with the fact that quite a few of us are constantly editing within a few seconds from each other. It does seem to be fixed now. Dman176 04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Same thing is happening now to me every time I try to make an edit.DraveShift 10:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

a rather interesting note to the Ulysses reference, i fund this quote only in german and will roughly translate it:

„Ich möchte ein Abbild von Dublin erschaffen, so vollständig, daß, wenn die Stadt eines Tages plötzlich vom Erdboden verschwände, sie aus meinem Buch heraus vollständig wieder aufgebaut werden könnte.“


„i want to create a realistic image of dublin, so complete, that if the city is one day wiped of the face of the earth, it could be fully rebuild by the words of my book."

in a way that is what john locke did with his note, because upon jack reading it the came back to the island, a place that vanished of the face of the earth right before their eyes.

there are tons of things that can be understood as juxtaposition ulysses <-> lost, for example the odysee, the finding back, even down to the naming of charakters after historical/biblical personalities.

i herby encourage everyone to read the book. and if not, at least look over the wikipedia page



Was the man who gave Jack his condolences, Tariq? Sayid's Commanding Officer. He sure did look like him. --     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email   03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Pretty sure it was a new character. (Not sure if we can mention his name yet, so I won't take any chances.) --LeoChris 03:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm pretty certain that was him. --LeoChris 03:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a different character. This is Saïd Taghmaoui. I guess all Arabs look alike though? --Pennyj 04:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, hold back the racism. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  13:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Although, funny story, he did play a Republican Guard officer in Three Kings (what's up, my main man?). Kind of a Sayid-like role, too; he was torturing Mark Wahlberg for a while. --Grahamdubya 15:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (SPOILERS REMOVED) - please don't post info about unaired episodes. --Minderbinder 22:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Cheers for that...--Baker1000 11:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The name of the man isCaesar. Hope the link works, he is the man on the photo that ben shows to sayid in Irak. He is supposed to be Nadias murderer.--Gelsias 22:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Nadia's murderer? Not according to this: Ishmael Bakir. --Minderbinder 22:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
And he's been dead for two years. Integrated (User / Talk) 23:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The plane

Would it really have that hard for the producers to pick a suitable aircraft for the flight? They went to a lot of effort to show B roll footage of a 737! Seriously. Jryden 04:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • 737-700ER has a range of 5,375nm which (barely) enough to go LAX-GUM at 5,291. In reality they probably wouldn't push it too much, but it isn't impossible. Rdicker 07:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The footage of the plane is all CGI. It would have cost a lot more to paint a plane with the Ajira Airways logo on it. Simo9852 07:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The Ajira Airways website mentions the route is LAX-HNL-GUM-(Indonesia); both LAX-HNL and HNL-GUM are operated with 737s by other airlines. It's speculative to say what kind of passenger or cargo load a typical flight would carry, but air traffic or ETOPS corridors don't follow great circles, and I'd be willing to bet nonstop LAX-GUM is impossible for any commercial 737, especially westbound.-Choster 22:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • How many people would a 737 be able to carry (# of seats)?--Mistertrouble189 22:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


The centric is definitely Jack...right? -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 04:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry; I didn't see that discussion. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 04:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it safe to say that this episode is actually a "Flashback" episode, not just merely "centric" per se? Dman176 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Flashforward, since landing on the Island takes place (essentially) after the events of the episode.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, the reason why I thought it was a flashback is because it follows the same basic format as "Flashes Before Your Eyes" and "Meet Kevin Johnson," how it basically begins in the present, then spends almost the entire episode revealing what happened to lead up to that point, then jumps back to pretty much exactly where it left off before the "flashback." The same thing happened in this episode: we saw Jack back on the island, then cut to black and said "36 Hours Ago." Dman176 06:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I felt the first scene was a flashforward. --Crash815 06:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Like every other episode this season the flash is at the beginning - in this case a Jack flash forward. --Jackdavinci 18:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you guys got it wrong. This episode is like "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham. They both start and end with a On-Island scene, and the rest of the episode is a flashback of those events. It doesn't matter the dates they're in, because what happened in 316 was prior to Jack being On Island therefor making in a FB not a FF. It's pretty linear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samus88 (talkcontribs) 2009-03-02T00:29:30.
  • It's definitely a flashback episode. We begin with Jack on the Island, then it says "36 hours later" and shows a very long flashback leading up to how he got on the Island. Marc604 00:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Copied from below: Think of Lost as having one, main, continuous plot line. It starts with Oceanic 815 crashing, through the discovery of the caves, Boone's death, opening the hatch, the Tailies, blowing up the hatch, Jack/Kate/Sawyer being captured, escaping, the Others' raid on the beach, the freighter, the mercenaries, the Orcid. All of this is the "present" timeline. Then, when Ben turns the wheel, the present timeline splits into two timelines: On-Island and Off-Island. However both of these timelines are still following the same continuous plot line, just for two series of characters. So we get:

  • Plot line A) Ben turns the wheel, the Island starts moving through time, Charlotte dies, Locke teleports off the Island; and
  • Plot line B) Ben turns the wheel, the Oceanic 6 see the Island disappear, crash, get rescued, return to the real world, decide they need to go back, board Ajira 316 and reawaken on the Island.

These two are also, "present" plot lines. (Note: It now looks like A) and B) have merged into a single plot line, which is good because it'll be less confusing hereafter.) Anyways, my point is this: Anything that takes place outside of this present plot line is either a flashback or a flashforward. If it takes place before the current position in the plot, then it's a flashback. If it takes place after the current position in the plot, it's a flashforward. The opening of "316" takes place after the current place in the plot, and thus is a flashforward. [Old sig removed]  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you make some very good points. However, one thing that I'm still hung up on. Kate saying "What happened?" while in the waterfall, which triggers the characters to remember what brought them there (presented to us in flashbacks). Sure the present has jumped forward a bit, as stated above, but when taken alone -- and that's the key -- this episode is one long flashback, bookended with two on-Island present scenes. Obviously I don't want to fight just to fight, I really think there's some valid reasons here. Marc604 11:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
But you can't take the episodes alone, you have to consider the narrative as a whole. Otherwise, any episode could have the debate of what's an flashback and what's a flashforward. Additionally, I don't buy that the off-Island sequence is Jack/Kate/Hurley remembering the events. That's a whole other debate about what the flashes are meant to signify, but I think people who had just been in a plane crash would have better things to do than to stand there for an hour gathering their recollections.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  15:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true. Okay, one more thing, and then I'll let this go. :) Last night I was thinking about this for a good while, and I think I figured out why this episode is causing such a debate. The Island scenes are in 1977, which is where the "present" is according to "LaFleur." The off-Island scenes are in 2008, which is where the "present" is according to "This Place is Death." This is indeed the episode (as stated above) where both presents finally catch up to each other. So to call it a flashback episode isn't entirely correct -- but neither is calling it a flashforward episode. Instead, it's two linear presents catching up to each other -- one in 2008 and one in 1977. I think, to simplify, "316" should be called a "Jack-centric" episode, because that's the only 100% accurate definition. Marc604 01:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
@Jimbo: Wouldn't your reasoning make The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham a Man in Black flash-forward? Evil-pineapples 00:09, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
This is Jack-centric. However, I must point something out: The main focus of this series as a whole is the linear story arc of the Oceanic survivors on the Island. Since we see Jack, Kate, Hurley, and Sayid on the Island first, this is where the main story arc for the series should be focused on for this episode, since the listing says "Ajira Crash: Day 1", while most of the episode shows the events leading up to them getting to that point in that story arc, in the same format as "Flashes Before Your Eyes", "Meet Kevin Johnson", and "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham". So, if you really stop and think about it, based on objective facts presented in the episode, and not fan-speculation, this episode should be considered a flashback, not a flash-forward.--Killermike2178 08:05, April 13, 2012 (UTC)Killermike2178
It's debatable, but this episode's off-island action seems to continue the previous several episodes' off-island narrative. The opening scene cuts away from the thread, suggesting it is a flash-forward. This is different from "Flashes Before Your Eyes" or "Meet Kevin Johnson", where the on-island action directly continued the previous episodes' story, and where a character on the island recalled/recounted events they'd earlier experienced. --- Balk Of Fametalk 08:43, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

Removed the following UQ:

1.) Is Frank on the Island? - Applies to everyone else who was on the plane.

2.) Who is the man who gives his condolences to Jack at the airport? - A new character who also a passenger on the plane.

3.) What will happen to Desmond? - This is like asking what will happen next week? Or what will happen to Jack? Or Jin? --LOSTinDC 04:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

4.) When Ben is reading the book Jack asks him "How could you read that". Ben replies "Because my mother taught me" Being that Ben's mother died while giving birth to him, is this a slip, a joke or an implication that Ben's mother will reveal herself in a future episode? -This isn't an UQ but it deserves mention in some form. Maybe as part of the minor theme of Ben's secrets and lies through the episode. --Jackdavinci 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it deserves mention. It's a cutesy stock reply but that doesn't change the fact that it couldn't possibly be true and fits Ben's essentially deceptive character. Robert K S (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a blooper

I removed the blooper about no 737 flying internationally to Guam based on "Northwest Airlines flying between Long Beach, CA and Guam, MP is a 737 with 124 seats" ([1]), so it's obviously a possiblity and, therefore, not a blooper. I'm also removing: "Also, the plane crashed while someone was in the bathroom (this time it was Ben, back then it was Charlie)" as we have no evidence that Ben, who said he was going to give Jack privacy, is in the loo. He could just as easily be sitting in a different seat when the turbulance started as we don't see him again for the rest of the episode. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI FareCompare monitors the airfare market between two airports, not service: NW does not fly nonstop LGB-GUM. NW will happily sell you a ticket LGB-GUM but you'll have to connect at least twice. -Choster 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you listen to the episode, 316 is not a direct flight to Guam. Here is the transcript: WOMAN: [Amplified voice] This is the preliminary boarding announcement for Ajira Airways Flight 316, with service to Honolulu and Guam, departing from Gate 15. So the plane would not have to fly from LA to Guam, but rather LA to Honolulu.--Eyeful Tower 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's definitely not a blooper, but rather a new mystery, as we will likely be shown what happened to Ben and/or Lapidus in later episodes.--Halcohol 06:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree! It is DEFINITELY not a direct flight from LA to Guam, yet the blooper still remains. I'm not very good at catching stuff like this, so if I caught it, its definitely not a blooper. Please change? --Srsnyder5885 00:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following blooper: Locke has grown a small amount of stubble since his previous coffin appearance. I think that after death hair on human body continues to grow for a while. So it is not necessarily a blooper.--Messenger 10:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it's more that the skin begins to recede, giving the appearance of hair (and fingernail) growth, but it's the same effect.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 04:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A Blooper?

  • When Jack and the rest of the party arrived at the church, it was night. Later we saw Jack in a bar, he made a phone call and went to see his grandfather. But in the facility we see that it's daytime. After he talked to Ray and came back to home, it's night again. We know that Jack has only 36 hours, so it's impossible to pass two nights in Los Angeles after they met Ms.Hawking. Isn't it a blooper? --Paintbox
  • Umm
First night At the church (hours : 0)
First day Jack goes to bar, then to see Ray, then back home (hours : 12)
Second night Jack sleeps with Kate (hours : 24)
Second day They board the plane in the morning (hours : 36)

Seems right to me? Integrated (User / Talk) 14:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Literary Techniques

Sayid replacing Kate as the prisoner is not juxtaposition, in fact I'm not sure what kind of literary technique it is --TeejK 05:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It is a form of irony. --Whoisjohnwayne 12:37, 19 February 2009 (EST)
  • I removed the tag because it is definitely not juxtaposition, but it's not irony either. I'm unsure how to label it. Perhaps it should be moved to the cross-reference section. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's an episode reference. Kajillion 06:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Or parallelism (pretty much the literary term for an episode reference). Littlecitadel 02:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It's an allusion. ephilei 04:41, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


Does anyone know the name of the song which plays when the airplane is taking off? (just before the Fasten your seat belt sign is switched of.. If so can you plz tell me the name. Thanks. I also uploaded that part in rapidshare :)

Anyone know the name of the music that was playing while Ben was talking to Jack in church? Is it on one of the soundtracks? --Jonnyboy88 05:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • If you're referring to the score, I think that was some iteration of Ben's theme from the Season 3 soundtrack. Dman176 06:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

On that same note, does anyone know what song was playing in the DHARMA van that Jin was driving? It sort of sounded like The Grateful Dead, but I couldn't make it out. That would be incredibly awesome if it was indeed the Dead! Dman176 05:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I couldn't find it. The lyrics sound to me like, "yeah, you kissed him, feels so right. But you had another man hold on last night". No joy on lyrics search. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Something tells me it's a Geronimo Jackson song Aranworld 06:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You could very well be right. I don't know what Geronimo Jackson sounds like, but if they have a similar sound to the Dead, then it's probably them. Plus, now that I think about it, I seem to remember a recent podcast where Damon and Carlton said we'd hear a Geronimo Jackson song this season. Dman176 06:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I've listened to it over and over again, and I am almost positive I have heard the song before. That, and the fact that Geronimo Jackson is almost certainly a fictional band as many people claim it to be, has me even more convinced that it is either a Grateful Dead song, a Jerry Garcia solo or The Jerry Garcia Band from the 70s. Either that, or the producers commissioned someone to put together a similar 70s sound. This is driving me insane that I can't figure out what song this is. Dman176 22:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
      • If it were a real song by a real band, trust me, the lyrics would give a bunch of Google results. There are tons of sites that like to make ad money from putting up lyrics and receiving Google hits. I'd be willing to bet this is a song culled from a production music library, which they can license for a much cheaper rate than commercial music. They've done this before, for example with the rap music Hurley was listening to in his Hummer in "Numbers". -- Graft   talk   contributions  23:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So, regarding the recent identification of this song, which has been posted in the article: very interesting. The Donkeys are apparently a recent band, releasing their debut album in 2006. This particular song appeared on an album they released just a few months ago. Anachronism? Or have The Donkeys been tapped to be Geronimo Jackson? --Cornprone 05:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reccuring Themes

Although a minor detail, the article currently states "A white rabbit with black spots appears during a magic show Ray is watching." The rabbit in question is actually a Dwarf Hotot, a breed characterized by being white all over except for a black ring around each eye. Must be an homage to Richard Alpert, the man of ageless eyeliner. Iburnedthemuffins 20:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, please feel free to add to article as long as you have some certainty. Informed precision should always replace uneducated guesses when it comes to description. Robert K S (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall weirdness

This might just be my fatigue talking, but did the whole episode feel kind of 'off' to anyone else? I can't really pinpoint it; it just didn't feel like any other episode we've seen before. The low budget CGI, maybe? Maybe Lapidus's lack of a beard? Still, I don't know... --Grahamdubya 06:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was the best episode of the season so far. Finally the off-Island story had something tangible to do with the Island.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo - it felt truly epic, the only (somewhat major) downside is that Penny might be dead :( Which would pretty much ruin the show for me. Integrated (User / Talk) 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was disappointed that there wasn't more of a plot twist generated from Locke's suicide note. "I wish you had believed me." Yawn.--Eyeful Tower 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yea I was seriously expecting "No matter what you do, under no circumstances return to the Island with Ben" or something. Integrated (User / Talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
LOL. That wouldn't have fit the story, but it would have seriously rocked, since Jack did everything short of burning it to avoid reading it, and only got to it ON the plane. I thought it was a great episode, and I really enjoyed it. One of my favourite lines was FrankL's deadpan, "We're not going to Guam, are we?" . ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the weirdness factor. I've felt that the entire off island story arc this season has been somewhat forced and hurried. Loved that Frank popped back up, and hope he's a larger part of the rest of the series. Can't wait to discover the circumstances as to why Kate & Hurley changed their minds, and what's going on with Prisoner Sayid.Jnorton 15:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the weirdness is the result of the choice to temporarily skip forward all over the place, starting with the beginning flash forward and continuing through with the missing Hurley/Sayid/Kate/Ben events. It's an interesting technique and it will surely pay off with some great classic flashback-style episodes later on, but it kind of came out of nowhere. It's possible they did the teaser jump forward to prepare us for a bizarrely edited Jack-POV story, but I kind of think the teaser jump was a mistake. The sudden mind-changes of Hurley and Kate may have felt more like normal twists and less like hanging plot points if we hadn't already seen them on the island. I think they should have ended this episode with the flash on the Ajira plane and left us hanging, then started the next on island episode with Jack's eye... But who knows, maybe the crazy structure will be justified by future episodes. A fascinating change of storytelling structure from the first five episodes of the season. --DesmondExMachina 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's more what I was getting at. More than anything, I think that with the exception of that first flash, this was possibly the most conventional (by general TV standards) episode I've seen. Plus, Kate, Sayid, Ben, and Hurley on board was so out of the blue I couldn't really grasp it. There was just so much left unexplained. Not that I'm complaining, either; I loved it, it just raised nearly as many questions as there were in total. --Grahamdubya 22:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the weirdness stems from the simplistic, almost magical way the Losties are getting back to the Island. Everything seems to happen just too easily. This episode was probably rushed a bit. Well, it's hard to write top notch episodes all the time.--Messenger 23:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the overall weirdness was intentional. In a way we're rebooting. S01E01 starts with Jack in the jungle and we were focused mostly on his perspective for the majority of that episode - and that first episode is pretty weird and crazy. In this episode we were seeing what was going on from his perspective again. A lot of stuff was left out. This will all be filled in as the season progresses. When we learn about how Ben, Sayid, Kate, Hurley, and 'other' characters ended up on The Island, it will make this episode look even weirder, and we'll see just how gullible and doe-in-headlights Jack Shepherd really is. - ZachsMind 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I second the weirdness and pretty much everything else said here. The openning scene really shook things up. It reminded me of my Dark Tower theory. I think the rest of the weirdness stemmed from the direction. It definitely had a "reboot" kind of feel. Mostly it was just a setup/transitional episode. I have a feeling the next episode will be as well. Then the real fun begins! --Cobblepot 08:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This was the first off-island episode that I really liked! It wasn't just O6 whining, fighting, getting depressed. It was cool with Dharma-time-traveling-island-bloody-Ben mystery!--NotAnOther 09:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I just don`t see how there could be any satisfying explanation for the O6 to return to the island. Especially Kate and Sayid. One female marshall surely isn`t enough to get Sayid to a place he refuses to go. Sun sacrificed (literary) her child in order to get to her husband? And Kate giving up on Aaron? No Way. Aulusagerius 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Is there anything beyond Jin showing up in a new looking van to make us think it is the 1970s? Is that enough to be so sure about it in the main article?--Rdicker 07:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

    • Well, there is also the fact that he's in a new looking DHARMA jumpsuit
      • Well we've seen Daniel working for Dharma. So its not beyond belief that when we saw Daniel all of the rest of the survivors were working for Dharma.--Zaggs 21:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The 1970's is a guess that makes sense, but we don't really know what year they are in when they land on the island. The article needs to include what we know and not assumptions on our part. --Minderbinder 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It's less guess than educated composite of information based on past and present evidence. We are not always going to get a calendar on the wall, or a character-driven confirmation of the date. Therefore, we need to assess the evidence and place the information accordingly. The van was new, not rusted, it was obviously DHARMA, and Jin is in a pristine uniform. It's not unreasonble to place the events, therefore, during the the pre-purge occupation of DHARMA, before the van could rust from the weather. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  • There is almost always something quite explicit to indicate what the year/time period is, and although Jin's uniform and van suggest the time period may be the 1970's, until the time period is specifically revealed I agree it should remain conjecture.--Cunningmunki 13:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The available evidence is that we are between the 1970s (based on Geronimo Jackson?) and the Purge (1992). To lock us down to 1970s is premature.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Geronimo Jackson was an auditory hallucination. Charlotte was having vivid memory recollections. I would posit this theory based on seeing Faraday at the construction of the Orchid station in Because You Left . Faraday, Jin, Sawyer and Juliet are "stuck" in whatever time period the last flash brought them to before Locke put the wheel on it's axis. They infiltrated Dharma by killing workers and assuming their identities. --Kb1pkj 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Charlotte is not an issue in this episode. If anything, Faraday, Jin, Sawyer, Miles and Juliet are stuck in the "when" effected when Locke flashed out, leaving Sawyer holding onto a rope sticking out of the ground. Locke, leaving the Island, did not go to the same "when" as our five stalwarts.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • this says 1977...a separate timeline on another discussion says 1974...where are people getting this exactitude?JEMJEM 17:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Island stopped moving?

So when Desmond turned the fail safe key, did that stop the island from moving? And Widmore was able to find it? And then when Ben turned the frozen donkey wheel, the people on it (outside of Richard's Others, I guess) got stuck moving in time while the island started moving in space and time? A measure of last resort as Ben said. So now, we're back in the '70s, and depending on how long Sawyer and that group have been there, the O6 are all three years older while they're maybe just a few months older? What a fun episode that was. --Makiwolf 07:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Richard's Others are moving, they were told to move to the temple... on the island right now there are two richard alperts, e.g. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harcourt (talkcontribs) 2009-02-20T16:52:29.

Don't get me wrong because I love that theory but it was countered by Mrs Hawking in this episode when she said, the Island is always moving why do you thing you were never rescued? --- But then what she said seems to be countered by the fact that Widmore managed to just sail a ship right on up beside it.... I just don't know what to belive (Ack! Confused.... Help meeeee......)--WhyDidntUKnow 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It has something to do with the electro magnetic energy pockets that Mrs Hawking refers to. When Desmond turned the key to the fail-safe, the caution label read, "Caution: System Termination." The white light proceeding the turning, was the electrical magnetic energy discharge from the energy pocket. When ben turned the wheel, the pocket, somehow regained its energy and began moving again. That is why Widmore was able to find them, and why Penny's team was able to detect a disturbance in the energy field. Lock must set the wheel back in place, for reasons we will undoubtedly find out soon, but that could explain why Daniel and Jin seem to be part of the Dharma Initiative. -- Hickorysmoke21 21:00 19 February (PST)

I was trying to add this to the theories page but as you know that page is messed up. Widmore most likely owns the Listening Post, which searches for electromagnetic anomalies, just like the Lamp Post. The rest follows. ∇ϕ 03:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Loose end

The loose end Ben is talking about, could it be Penny?

Given than Ben calls Jack wet, bloodied, and frazzled from a pay phone at a Marina, I think it's a pretty safe bet that Ben attempted to kill Penny. Do we know anybody else with a sailboat?--Eyeful Tower 22:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • ALmost impossible for Desmond and Penny to have sailed from London to Los Angeles in the short window of time. Although they might have chosen to rent a boat instead of a hotel room. Still, I don't view the marina location as a solid clue because Desmond and Penny had to have flown to LA. MixMasterMike 01:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The backstory for Desmond being directed to LA by Widmore is presented in Jughead. Desmond and Penny's story are the only off-Island events presented in that episode, so there is no basis for assuming that they occur on the same timeline as the O6 + Ben off-island timeline. There is zero - absolutely zero - basis for believing that Desmond, Penny, and Charlie flew to LA.--Eyeful Tower 16:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • He also calls it a "promise to an old friend", could be referring to the time he sneaked in to Widmore's bedroom and promised vengeance for the death of Alex. --Kb1pkj 13:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That is what he was referring to, yes Integrated (User / Talk) 23:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hurely & Jin: Is it juxtaposition?

I'm wondering if Jin & Hurley's meeting on the Island is a juxtaposition since Hurley was the only Oceanic 6 survivor, other than Sun who attended Jin's funeral and visited his grave. --Iimitk 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think so. A juxtaposition would be if Jin visited Hurley's grave with Sun. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hurley's comic book

Did anyone get a good look at the comic book Hurley was reading on the plane? It looked to be an issue of "Y: The Last Man" but im not sure. Just an interesting piece of tivia to add seeing as they were trying to recreate the circumstances of the original crash and Hurley was reading the Spanish language version of Green Lantern/Flash: Faster Friends when Flight 815 crashed. --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 14:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It was definitely the Spanish version of Y The Last Man (I thin it said Y El Hombre Ultimo or something), and it looked thick to me so probably one of the collected graphic novels. --Jackdavinci 18:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack waking up in Jungle

Was the spot that Jack woke up in this episode the same spot as where he did in the pilot? If so wouldn't it be a blooper because he could hear Hurley's call for help at the waterfall yet in "Whatever The Case May Be" we are told that waterfall is someway away from the camp. We know the original place Jack landed in the pilot was near the camp because we saw him run straight to the beach in the Pilot. --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 14:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Well.. it wasn't the same spot Integrated (User / Talk) 14:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It wasn't the same spot, but it was meant to be a visual callback to the similar scene in the first episode. And was that the same waterfall where they found the gun case? It looked different to me. --Jackdavinci 18:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I hope it was a waterfall familiar to Jack considering how he dove in headfirst! ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Be an interesting way to kill off Jack - he dove headfirst into a puddle Integrated (User / Talk) 15:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah that was kind of dumb diving in like that. Also, about 2 minutes later, he and Hurley discover that it IS simply a puddle and they can stand up fine. Jack should have a busted skull.Matt 22:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed Unanswered questions

  • Who took the U.S. Army Island photo? The U.S. Army perhaps?
    • Who brought it to the Lamp Post and why? They brought it there because that's the place they were trying to locate

Integrated (User / Talk) 14:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

    • How did DHARMA learn that the Island exists without knowing where it was? The photo suggests they learnt from the army

A noble effort Integrated, but it appears that we'll have to wait a week to clean up UQ. I tried the same thing last night only to have them all reappear. --LOSTinDC 16:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We have no indication that the U.S. Army was ever in control of the Lamp Post or that the DHARMA Initiative is/was affiliated with the Army. How the DI acquired that supposedly secret photo is a valid mystery. Robert K S (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Very true - a valid question would then be 'How did DHARMA obtain the photo that the U.S. Army took?' Integrated (User / Talk) 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it really important how DI acquired the photo? I do not think it is directly relevant. At least not at the moment.--Messenger 23:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, it's not an implication of affiliation to think that DI got it from the Army, any more than there was an affiliation with Tom when he got the papers about Widmore's activities to give to Michael. I agree with removing this one. Do we really need it spelled out for us? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Not really. We know they knew the island existed based on this photo and probably other evidence; how they got the photo is a totally moot point. Integrated (User / Talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
There are only a few good explanations of how DHARMA got the classified military photo. It was either declassified, or it was stolen / leaked. Since the Others took control of the US Army's equipment, there is a fairly good chance this photo was a part of it. Indeed, it is very likely if the funding from DHARMA came from a source with ulterior motives. Declassification is possible, but very unlikely. The big reason is that the US Army lost a hydrogen bomb on the Island, and the deaths of the US Soldiers had to be a cover up or at least marked as classified when dealing with relatives of the dead soldiers. 08:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jclinard (talkcontribs) 2009-03-06T03:18:26.

What is the ultimate motivation for the Others?

So I started this conversation over at the theories page for "This Place is Death." I know the Others are supposed to be protecting the Island, but at this point in the series, that answer isn't satisfying anymore. There's something else going on. The Island is mysterious with Jacob and the Monster and the Temple and the like. Richard doesn't age. It moves in time and space. There's some sort of rift between some factions of the Others (Ben vs. Widmore). But just what the hell is going on? What motivates the Others to do all the things they do? Protecting the Island may be a part of their goals, but in and of itself is not enough to explain the extremes they will go to at times. I know this is the essential question of the entire series, but now that we're about a third of the way through season five, I'd love to hear what people are thinking. Dpetley 14:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that should be discussed on the Lostpedia message boards. This space is for discussion of improvement of the "316" article only. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions, round 6

  1. Why is the man in first class of Flight 316 with the Oceanic Six? He probably bought a first-class ticket, not a major mystery.
  2. Why weren't Walt or Desmond on the plane? Desmond doesn't want to go back to the Island and wouldn't help in recreating the circumstances of the crash anyways. Walt is likely in New York where he lives and it would be impossible to get him on the plane within the alloted time.
  3. Desmond wasn't on Flight 815, so according to Eloise Hawking he wouldn't need to be on the plane to recreate the circumstances when 815 crashed.Not a question.
  4. Where are Sawyer, Juliet, Miles, and Daniel? Not presented as a major mystery.
  5. Is the church above the Lamp Post affiliated with Brother Campbell's church? Speculation.
  6. How does Eloise Hawking know that John Locke hanged himself? Not presented as a majory mystery.
  7. How does she know his true name? Ben knew and she's working with him.
  8. Is the note she gives to Jack authentically Locke's suicide note? Speculation.
  9. How does Eloise Hawking end up running The Lamp Post station? Not presented as a majory mystery, but I'll leave it for now if people disagree with me.
  10. Who is the man that Hawking says conceived the equations that predict the Island's movements?Not presented as a major mystery.
  11. What changes [Kate's] mind to return to the Island? To be with Jack.
  12. Why does she demand that Jack never ask her about Aaron? This question is somewhat redundant with "Where is Aaron?" When we know the answer to that one, we will likely know why she doesn't want Jack to know.
  13. Why doesn't anyone on the flight question [Ben's] injuries? Not a major mystery.
  14. If Charles Widmore knows Eloise Hawking's location, why can't he use The Lamp Post to find the island? Theory-baiting.
  15. When the Ajira passengers end up on the island, what year are they in? Not presented as a major mystery.
  16. Why did Ben need to "move the Island" if, as Eloise Hawking implies, it is always moving? Theory-baiting.
  17. What did Eloise mean when she told Desmond that the island was not done with him yet? Rephrased.
  18. What is the significance of Jack waking up on the island with the "I wish" portion of the suicide note in his hand? UQ's shouldn't be about metaphors.

And as always, please keep your questions in present tense as per LP:EMOS and remember that, on Lost, "Island" is spelled with a capital "I".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In the future, can you number these for easy reference? The question about where Sawyer etc. are would seem valid in some form or other; the last time we saw them, they were together as a group. It is natural to question what happened to them. How Eloise Hawking ended up in control of a DHARMA station is a major mystery. Asking who a mysterious individual might be is a mystery. I agree there may be some redundancy in the Kate/Aaron questions but I can't think of a way to rephrase them that wouldn't make assumptions or promote theories. We don't definitively know that Kate's choice to go with Jack is linked to Aaron's fate, as good a guess as it might be. The year question could be rephrased as some variant of "When are they?" (I mean, we know where they are, but as to when, we can only guess given the evidence provided.) I added the "why did Ben need to move the Island" and so I will defend it as not being theory baiting. We were given the impression that the Island needed moving. Now Eloise gives the impression that the Island was always moving (and not that it was cloaked or that there could be some other explanation for the 815 folks not being rescued). That conflict in information naturally gives rise to a question. Either the Island was moving before Ben moved it, or it wasn't. Perhaps there is a better way to phrase the question, but I think it's legit and raised by this episode. As to tense in UQs, I think that should be up for discussion. It's not clear to me that all UQs make sense when phrased in present tense. (Given the choice between "How did..." or "How does the Black Rock get in the middle of the jungle?", I think I'd go with the past tense.) Robert K S (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Where do you get "Not presented as a major mystery" as a reason that a UQ isn't valid? There's no mention of that in the manual of style. Besides, that's a matter of opinion anyway. A number of the questions you listed seem very major to me. --Minderbinder 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
From LP:UQ, "The unanswered questions section is designed to point out all mysteries that still remain to be resolved." I think Jimbo is using "major" to distinguish valid UQs ("What is the Monster?") from insignificancies or inanities ("Why does Sawyer smoke?" "Why does Christian Shephard drink?" "Why does Jack work in Los Angeles?") Robert K S (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, UQ doesn't say anything about "major mysteries". I agree that some things are completely trivial and irrelevant, but there are things that are reasonably significant and bring up obvious questions that still arguably wouldn't be "major", including things you mentioned above. --Minderbinder 21:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
And why, exactly, is "keeping a promise to an old friend" a major mystery, but the identity of the man who discovered the location of the Island is not? Of course we all know who the friend is, and what the promise is, but that can't be posed because it would be stricken as "Theory baiting" or "speculation". Honestly, I don't know what the point is of having a UQ section if the editing of it is going to be so arbitrary and heavy handed.--Eyeful Tower 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "we all know", but Lost persistently gives us reasons to be Doubting Thomases and to insist on being shown before accepting an answer definitively. I don't think we are being especially heavy-handed with UQ sections--just trying to keep a good balance between making them useful and preventing them from getting out of control. For the UQs for which the justification for inclusion is debatable, we have the debate, which is always kinda fun. Robert K S (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
So you agree it isn't even a mystery. And you seriously aren't going to put "Who discovered the Island" and "What year did the Ajira passengers return" in the same category as "Why does Jack live in LA?" or "Why does Christian drink?"--Eyeful Tower 23:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
"To be with Jack" is pure unadulterated speculation. We do not know Kate's full motivation behind returning to the Island. This is a legitimate UQ.--Eyeful Tower 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Definitely a valid question. Kate suddenly changed her mind for a reason we do not know yet.--Messenger 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the numbering, I've added it and will do so in the future. I still stand by my reasons for removing questions 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,12,13,14,15 and 18, but if people want to readd any of the other questions, I won't argue. To clarify: when I say not a major mystery it usually means one of two things: either that it is trivial like Robert suggests or that it is something which isn't presented as something we're supposed to be asking about. Saying "who took the picture?" doesn't necessarily sound like something the writers were intending us to be asking about. As for tense, it turns out I was misreading the LP:EMOS section on tense, although I still think they ought to be present-tense, but that's a discussion for a different time.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  09:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with removing 13. That is one of the major questions my family had in that part of the episode. If no one else, you'd think Jack at least would have asked why his face was all beaten up and he had his arm in a sling, and what was so bloody important that Jack had to go get Locke for Ben. Also, "to be with Jack" is most certainly a speculative answer. I think "Where are Sawyer, Juliet, Miles, and Daniel?" should be stricken, though, as we will surely find out in the next episode. We just didn't need to know this episode. I disagree that "If Charles Widmore knows Eloise Hawking's location, why can't he use The Lamp Post to find the island?" is theory-baiting. It's a very valid question since he is the one who sent Desmond there, he obviously knows about the place, and if he is so desperate to find the Island... ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Look at 13 from a storytelling point of view. If we saw the characters gather round and ask why Ben was injured, either a) he would tell them and that ruins a perfectly good mystery that the writers obviously want us to guess at, or b) he doesn't tell them and the scene serves no purpose in the narrative. And if it serves no purpose, then there's no point in keeping it in. Anyways, that's my take on it.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  10:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree, 13 is an invalid UQ. "Why doesn't this happen" and "Why didn't that happen" fall under the "Don't try to write the show" proscription: this question makes an assumption that everybody cares about Ben's welfare and has motivation to ask "Gee, how'jya break your arm?" Contrast this with the (IMO valid) UQ about why Widmore doesn't use the Lamp Post to find the Island if he knows its exact address: we know Widmore is trying to find and reclaim the Island; we don't need to make assumptions about his motivation. Robert K S (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I figured out what's bothering me about 14. While I now agree with the reasons you pointed out for this being a valid UQ, I don't think it is raised by the episode. This question should go on Widmore's page or on the page for the Lamp Post, but I don't believe it should be on the episode page since it's not even hinted at during the episode.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at--the question is a synthesis of information from different episodes--but I think we couldn't have asked the question before "316" because we didn't know until this episode that the location of the Island could be reliably guessed using the Lamp Post. (And, after all, finding and reclaiming the Island is Charles Widmore's stated objective, and Ben was certain that Widmore would "never find it" after it was moved.) Robert K S (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
But the fact that you need to take information from two different episodes, imo makes it not a question about this episode. It is, however a question about the Lamp Post/Widmore.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  09:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
While you might have a point, I can see culling information from various episodes in addition to this one can bring a valid synthesis which raises questions about this episode. IMO, the UQ belongs on the episode where those sort of questions would be raised. Before we knew about the Lamp-post, we had no reason to have that UQ, as Robert pointed out. Another UQs along that same multi-episode synthesis, for example, is the why did Ben move the Island if the Island is already moving (refs when Ben moved the Island in previous ep). The episodes build on each other, so I don't see how it's possible not to take information from multiple episodes. We do that every time we reference a character in the article, ask a question, etc. For example, asking Why Claire left Aaron in the woods has the unspoken reference to previous episodes that shows us this is out of character for Claire, or why would we bother asking if she was prone to leaving Aaron wherever he landed. Or asking why Jin is wearing a DHARMA uniform and driving a DHARMA van, because previous episodes have shown us this is not normal behaviour for Jin. The issue with the Widmore/Hawking one is only that it's more overt than covert in its connection to a previous episode. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd actually say the same things about why Ben had to move the Island as with this question. The difference between those and the other questions, however, is that they're taking information about Claire/Jin/DHARMA which has been presented over the course of the whole series and combining it with this episode, vs. combining two separate episodes into one question.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll agree to disagree and leave it up to consensus. However, can we please remove "What are the "unpredictable" results of failing to do so?" from the UQ? If the results are said to be unpredictable, then how can that question be answered (aka predicted) unless the event happened? It's a nonsense question. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's remove the question about "unpredictable results" and also the preciding question. We know that they needed to recreate the circumstances in order to get back to the Island.--Messenger 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


5x06 Barfly


Though the character "barfly" was credited by ABC Medianet's press release, I do not recollect any such character appearing in the episode (though there was a woman sitting at the bar next to Jack who resembled Pattie Hastie, she did not have a speaking role). Should we remove the character from the guest cast in the infobox? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  22:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch. It may be a good bet she had a line or two that got cut. Robert K S (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Bad luck for that actress...that happened to her once before in season two. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  23:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Locke is alive (his pulse can be seen)?

An actor-related error: when the first scene with Locke's face is shown, his pulse can be seen from his neck. --Pepeus 22:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What a pity. I thought that they would actually kill Terry O'Quinn just to add that extra level of realism. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  23:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I laughed heartily. Thanks shrodes 03:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You just made my day. Thank you.--Birchwood 20:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another UQ

  • Why did Ben say that his mother had taught him to read, when his mother died giving birth to him? This is a simple deception by Ben, we shouldn't read into it any further.--TheHunger talk My contributions 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is just a sarcastic answer by Ben. Not a mystery.--Messenger 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss this. Ben is the guy who gave us such gems as "I didn't go see him (Locke), he came to see me" and this is the show that recently gave us the hit "I said *YOU* had to move it (the FDW) John." Now we are allowing for flip remarks and ambiguity in dialog?Crabapple 16:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not that we're quick to dismiss it, it's that it doesn't fall under the category of "unanswered questions". Robert K S (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It is a legitimate UQ. Ben's mother has appeared to him in past episodes. The UQ could be more appropriately phrased - Is Ben's mom a hallucination for Ben or has she truly appeared on island as we have seen with many other supposedly dead people? Perhaps she was "around" alot for Ben in his childhood on the island. Iyubyost 16:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Robert. It's like asking: "Why did Ben say he didn't know about the Lamp Post?" Ben lies. A lot. Not to mention that to say that isn't even necessarily him deliberately lying, I took it as a more flippant remark to lighten the mood. --LOSTinDC 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm quick to dismiss it. It was just a quip. Unless one of the major revelations of later episodes is that Ben's mother's ghost came back and taught him to read?? OMG?? Integrated (User / Talk) 02:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no mystery here. The poor woman died; maybe Ben fantasized that she was there. There are a lot more important things afoot.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ben calling Jack "John"?

In the church scene, just after Ben tells Jack the story about the apostle, I'm sure that Ben actually calls Jack "John" - as in “We’re all convinced sooner or later, John.” I thought it was my hearing things until I listened to the same bit over and over again. I'm totally convinced that I wasn't just hearing things. Anyone else heard this? --Stuartgr 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! I thought the same. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  22:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, he does.--Passingtramp 23:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Ben says Jack. He says it in an unusual sounding way, but his lip movements say Jack, I feel shrodes 03:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm that through closed captioning or subtitles on I can hear it both ways. People hear what they want to hear. --Srsnyder5885 00:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Add me to the me too. I'm fairly certain he says John. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It really does sound like he says "John" but he does say "Jack" I re-watched it over and over again and he just mumbles Jack not John.--Deuce Dubbington XVII 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a flashforward

It clearly begins in the future, then flashes back 30 hours earlier so that most of the episode is a running flashback from before they returned. Thus it's a flashback. --Golden Monkey 00:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It clearly starts as a flashforward, then goes back and shows how it got to that point. You wouldn't say that "Through the Looking Glass, Part 2" takes place in 2008 and flashes back to the Island.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The thing is identyfing the present point. In "Through the Looking Glass, Part 2" it clearly was the island time, but now I think the present point has been sent to the first island action. Then, everything told us about the O6 is a flashback, in the mood of some past episodes like Flashes (...) and Meet Kevin Johnson --Comfortably.Floyd 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It does have the subtitles saying "46 Hours Earlier." I think that confirms that it's a flashback. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  00:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The caption stating when we are in time has been seen in every episode so far this season, I believe. It doesn't imply anything about flashback-y-ness, imo.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I would say it's a flashforward, just because every episode this season has begun with a short flash, so it makes more sense that this episode is the same - the flash is the short scene at the beginning of the episode again. --Jackdavinci 10:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Most of the show is obviously flashback, as the plane trip to the Island is present time (time travel when they get to the Island not withstanding). The indicator of the rest of the events happening earlier places those events as a flashback. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If the plane trip is present time as you say, then by your own logic the first scene must be a flashforward as it happens after the point in time you claim is the present (plane trip). And again by your own logic, the events of the first scene happening *after* the following events places it as a flashforward. By the narrative structure of the entire season so far, it makes more sense that the flash is at the beginning.--Jackdavinci 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Think of Lost as having one, main, continuous plot line. It starts with Oceanic 815 crashing, through the discovery of the caves, Boone's death, opening the hatch, the Tailies, blowing up the hatch, Jack/Kate/Sawyer being captured, escaping, the Others' raid on the beach, the freighter, the mercenaries, the Orcid. All of this is the "present" timeline. Then, when Ben turns the wheel, the present timeline splits into two timelines: On-Island and Off-Island. However both of these timelines are still following the same continuous plot line, just for two series of characters. So we get:

  • Plot line A) Ben turns the wheel, the Island starts moving through time, Charlotte dies, Locke teleports off the Island; and
  • Plot line B) Ben turns the wheel, the Oceanic 6 see the Island disappear, crash, get rescued, return to the real world, decide they need to go back, board Ajira 316 and reawaken on the Island.

These two are also, "present" plot lines. (Note: It now looks like A) and B) have merged into a single plot line, which is good because it'll be less confusing hereafter.) Anyways, my point is this: Anything that takes place outside of this present plot line is either a flashback or a flashforward. If it takes place before the current position in the plot, then it's a flashback. If it takes place after the current position in the plot, it's a flashforward. The opening of "316" takes place after the current place in the plot, and thus is a flashforward.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

1) As Jimbo pointed out, the caption stating "46 Hours Earlier" doesn't indicate whether it's a flash at all; "The Little Prince" had "Three Years Later" coming out of the flashback, for instance.

2) What's clear is that the episode starts at a point in the future and shows how it gets there, eventually arriving at that point at the end. There's an important distinction to make however, between "316" vs. "Flashes Before Your Eyes" and "Meet Kevin Johnson". The middle part of "316" follows on precisely after the already-established "present" of the Season 5 off-island story, while the flashbacks in the other two episodes go back before the established "present" of their respective episodes. So, if you were to find where the present is in this episode in relation to the episodes before it, you would start at the scene at the Lamppost and end on the Island. The scene at the beginning can be considered an "out of sequence" puzzle piece, and really, I would be even hesitant to call it a flashforward. Notice that unlike the other intros this season, this transition does not have a flash sound. My preferred choice would be to label it an "introduction"; my second choice would be flashforward. But not flashback. -- Graft   talk   contributions  04:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that introduction is the better choice. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with labeling the summary that way, but I'd still argue that we need that this is a Jack flashforward in the info box. That is, after all, imo, what makes it Jack-centric. (I'm in the ""This Place Is Death" was non-centric"-camp.)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hurley can swim, can't he?

Can anyone tell me why Hurley is struggling to swim out of the waterfall area? He did a cannonball in The Beginning of the End then swam out of the ocean to discuss where Charlie was.--Srsnyder5885 00:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It seemed like he was struggling to protect the guitar case. My guess is Aaron is in there to simulate a womb... but that's a little out there.Hickorysmoke21 03:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

After watching it again, I think he is definitely trying to use it as a flotation device. When he goes under and isn't trying to grab it, it just sits there and floats. When he frantically paws at it, it keeps flipping over and sending him under again. I don't want to go as far as to call this a blooper because maybe he was just panicking, but what gives?? --Srsnyder5885 04:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Doing a cannonball is one thing - materialising in the middle of a deep lake is another Integrated (User / Talk) 04:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I assumed. Knowing how to swim is not an indicator of how a person will behave when they are freaking out over coming to in the middle of deep water. Besides, how else would we get that spectacular swan dive? :P ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I guess I was just thinking it was a bigger deal than it actually was. --Srsnyder5885 17:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet another removed UQ

  • Was Ajira 316 crash caused by a similar incident on the island?

I removed this because we don't know at this time if the plane crashed. Yet. Losthound 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't? What about the debris on the beach from the plane that Juliet identified? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
What "debris"? All Juliet identified was a water bottle.--Nevermore 11:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yea no evidence as of yet that the plane crashed Integrated (User / Talk) 15:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe that debris was identified by Charlotte and was generated by the Bésixdouze Crabapple 16:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
No, right before Juliet, Sawyer, etc. get in the catamaran type craft, right before they get shot at on the open water, someone picks up a water bottle that says Ajira Air on it. This doesn't necessarily mean that the plane crashed, as Hurley appeared on the Island with the guitar case, so its possible that some items from the plane transported without the whole plane going down. --LOSTinDC 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, then I am in the Nevermore/Integrated camp... That's not debris, that is a water bottle. I've had a lot of water bottles in my day, no plane crashes yet (knock on wood)Crabapple 22:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was thinking about the debris from the camp being demolished in the same timeflash. My mistake. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've removed this because there is no context for what it is referring to (similar incident); and whatever that is would be suggesting a theory. -- Graft   talk   contributions  22:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also suggesting this for alteration:

  1. Why did Sun abandon Ji Yeon?

- This is leading; we don't know if she abandoned Ji Yeon. --LOSTinDC 13:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily a blooper

" Bloopers and continuity errors

  • When Jack goes to retrieve Locke's coffin, it's obvious that the meat locker it's in is not cold, otherwise we'd see Jack's breath as he is putting his father's shoes on Locke's body, and while he is talking to Locke's corpse. "

That's not true; I've worked in a butchers shop for nearly two years and whoever wrote this has never been in a cold room or fridge. Your breath doesn't become visible unless you stand in there and your body temperature drops, and even if you're in there long enough the fridges aren't that cold, you'd need to be in the deep-freeze section. So Jack's breath wouldn't be visible and it's not a blooper.

  • That was my addition. If you think it doesn't fit, by all means, remove it. But I beg to differ. My uncle used to take me to a butcher shop when I was a kid, and the meat lockers were always so cold I could see my breath. And yes, I have also worked in walk-in coolers, but I thank you for the criticism. Could we at least get a concensus first? Either way, accuracy is what I'm concerned about. Losthound 01:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote to remove it from the Bloopers. If it's at all possible that your breath wouldn't necessarily vaporize while standing in a certain one, then that one scene could easily just be explained as such.--Vico 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed it already. It is obviously not a blooper for the OP's stated reasons. Cold fridge doesn't necessarily mean breath will be seen. In order to see frosty breath when it is exhaled, you need both cold and humidity. If the meat locker was a cold, DRY storage, as it would be in a butcher shop, then no breath would be seen as was shown in the episode. As an interesting side note, which could be added under trivia, "Jeremy Bentham the philosopher asked for his body to be kept in a cabinet. The cabinet, with his skeleton, in his own clothes and with a wax head, is in University College, London" (source) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Episode Sound

Did anyone else have any problems with the dialogue sound going out during this episode? Specifically, the scene where Jack has just gotten his ticket for 316, and the man behind him offers his condolences. For about a minute I could hear only the MUSIC for the scene, but none of the DIALOGUE. It came back while Jack and Kate were talking. I would've thought it was just a station problem except for the presence of the music. I get my feed out of Seattle, WA, anyone else have the same issue? Sithboy 01:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I get my feed out of Seattle too, I think, but I don't remember having that problem. I just have regular cable though, so maybe if you have digital cable/satellite it had something to do with that. --Crash815 01:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I also had sound but no dialogue during the same sequence. Coincidentally, I also get my feed from Seattle. Digital signal. Losthound 02:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • What was happening was your affiliate was failing to broadcast the center channel, where all the dialogue is mixed, of the 5.1. Your station could have a bad video deck. If you ever notice it happening again, call the station and notify the engineer about the problem, otherwise, they might not pick up on it. Seriously. If my local affiliate is representative of the broadcast TV industry, they don't bother fixing anything until people call in and complain. Robert K S (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Screencap with date?

Can anyone get a screencap of the list of flights that Ms. Hawking gave Jack? Maybe we could get a date from that. It might not be completely canon, but they wouldn't show a close-up of the binder if it wasn't at least close. --Crash815 01:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  • PS: can anyone tell me why it's not automatically linking to my page when i use the four tildes things (~x4). Crash815 01:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • There's no dates on there. Flight number / Destination / Latitude / Longitude is all. shrodes 03:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Locke's death

I thought when Jack was in his flying-drunk-and-bearded days the flight attendant gave him a paper with an article - not an obituary - about Jeremy Bentham's death that said it was a suicide. Did I make this up?--Briggsy4 02:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The clipping was not meant necessarily canon. The date, for instance, has been proven to be wrong. The name was right and the cause of death was right, but obviously the clipping Jack saw didn't saw suicide, but the prop guy knew it at least. --Crash815 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lamp Post map - date clue?

I noticed that the big map on the floor of the Lamp Post has country lines. I'm wondering if it's a current world map or if possibly the creation of the station could be dated by which countries are outlined? --Jackdavinci 10:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has commented on the Trivia line that reads: "The DHARMA logo on Jin's jumpsuit is mostly obscured by his collar, but appears to be a five-pointed star/pentagram.". I'm not sure if someone can lift a clearer image, but I really can't see how you can conclude that it "appears" to look like a "five-pointed star" from the image displayed! I'll admit that it doesn't look like any of the existing logos that we know of, but a star?! That's one hell of a stretch considering how little we can see of it.--Cunningmunki 14:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree, I also think that there shouldn't be a picture of what some believe the logo to be on this article's page. --LOSTinDC 14:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed the speculative graphic. I don't think it's a star at all. It looks to have a spear or something on a stick going from lower left to upper right. But that's all theory and doesn't belong in the article. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack's apartment

Who cleaned Jack's apartment? Last time we saw it was in "Through the Looking Glass" when he called Kate and it was a complete mess. After he met her, he went to the funeral parlor and met Ben. They went to a hotel and spent the night. The next day he met with Hurley's dad and took Sayid to the hospital. He went from the hospital straight to Kate and from there to the motel with Claire's mom and then to the marina. Following this, they went to the church and the Lamp Post. The next day, after visiting his grandfather he returns to his suddenly clean apartment. So when did Jack have time to clean his apartment? I think this is a continuity error. --Jackieboy87 19:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha, cute. I guess he hurried and cleaned it before David Reyes arrived. :-) Robert K S (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sure we can assume that he hired a service with his Oceanic settlement. Sithboy 21:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It must be a side effect of shaving his beard --Jackdavinci 01:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Ben tell Jack to go home and pack after the hotel room? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I've compared the picture on the main menu of Season 4 disc 1-which is of Jack sitting on the floor of the messy apartment-and the apartment in 316. They look completely different. Not only cleaner but bigger.--Dani2066 06:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am still on this apartment issue. After just re-watching the episode The Other Woman, I noticed that Ben's kitchen (when he is making dinner for Juliet) and Jack's kitchen-when it was a mess-are very similar. Same tile on the wall, sink is in the same place and the window is above the sink. Jack's cabinets are black though and Ben's are white. Jack's apartment in this episode is different. If they were using Dharma house sets for Jack's apartment why wouldn't they use it again?--Dani2066 06:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)dani2066

  • Well, it would look bigger if it were cleaner. ;) I think it being clean is a non-issue because he could have easily had a weekly cleaning service. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • All kidding aside, I've had the chance to go back and compare the two now. In TtLG, Jack's kitchen has a dark tile backsplash, including under the window, which is adorned with blue curtains and set higher on the wall (based on the number of tile rows, and eyeballing the other things in relation to the height where the sill ends), and a microwave on the counter under the wall-hung cabinet. The 316 kitchen, however, has plain, light coloured walls with blinds on the window (I think the countertop is different also, but I can't be certain because TtLG is darkly lit), has a built-in microwave (or stove) with none on the counter, and a range cover not in the other kitchen. Now, either Jack has two completely different kitchens in his apartment, or this is not the same apartment at all. I can't get good screencaps because I'm on my laptop with different software. Maybe someone else can. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Title of next episode

Ok, in the production notes in the paragraph regarding the switch of 506 and 507, someone keeps removing the title of the next episode. Ridiculous considering the title is all over the site, not limited to but including the top of this very page, the top of every season 5 episode page, the ratings page and the main page! --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 01:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I commented out the comment that was showing on the article, but the title of the upcoming episode when it's the next one is allowed... isn't it? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is allowed. It should definitely be noted on this page, too. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 02:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

HERE'S YOUR ANSWER: One could be expected to be able to ignore the very top portion of any web page, but when a spoiler appears with in the text of an article---IT'S A SPOILER. The next episode name does not appear "all over the site" and those who would not choose to know the title can easily avoid the known locations of titles. I suggest listening to the Lostunlocked podcast. LEAVE THE EDIT BE! Would it kill you to stop using your keyboard to edit back in the nest ep name until the after it airs?? --Talkster 13:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not against the rules, as the mod has now confirmed, and secondly, yes, it might kill us, so please leave it in since it is not, in fact, a spoiler. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not have the whole "episode titles are spoilers" argument once again. You should be glad that the spoiler policy only allows the next upcoming episode title on the site. A few seasons back you could see titles from at least 5 weeks before they were aired.--Baker1000 14:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on! So it's not against the rules. Why not just wait until Feb 25th??!! Let it be, people. It's really sad you'd want to frig with those who appreciate this site, but want to be spoiler free. Leave it alone for Pete's sake! Or maybe the rules should change!--Talkster 14:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate - The title of the next immediate episode is NOT a spoiler. If theres less than a week till airing, it isn't a spoiler, if theres more than a week till airing, the episode title is a spoiler... Basically. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  16:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Now two mods have confirmed it. That should be that. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this information is not a spoiler, but a strict reading of Lostpedia:Spoiler_policy#Immediately_upcoming_episode_names indicates that placement of the immediately upcoming episode title in any episode article is indeed considered a spoiler by the current policy--even though the title appears on the nav at the top. We should consider amending the policy to make this issue clearer. Robert K S (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Then lets amend the rules to make it clearer.--Talkster 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the rules are clear. Robert, what you stated applies to all future episode names, but there is the cavet for the very next upcoming episode that follows that part, "Until an episode is the next to receive its premiere broadcast in the United States ... The episode name or number may not be added to other articles in Lostpedia". Therefore, since it is the next, it's allowed. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you read the link I provided which states, "The only information about upcoming episodes allowed on Lostpedia is the name and airdate of the immediately upcoming episode, if released by ABC Medianet, on the following articles only:" (followed by a list of pages which does not include episode articles). Robert K S (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I did read it, which is how I posted the second part I referenced, but I see with another look how someone else might find it confusing, even if I didn't. Regardless, it's not a spoiler. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
As if you care or had read the rules on a technicality. 3 Sysops have now said it is not a spoiler. Look i hate spoilers, probably as much as you. I don't even watch previews. However as someone else has said, a few years ago the episode names 4 or 5 weeks in advance were all over the site as well as who's centric it would be. Up until last summer, there was also a page for MAJOR spoilers. Thankfully all that has now stopped and it's now limited to just the title of the next episode. I do admire your determination but editing a page with things like "DO NOT PUT TITLE OF NEXT EPISODE HERE OR ELSE" in huge caps is just vandalism. Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 08:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! This is user Talkster--the one who will continue to delete the name of S5X07 until the episode officially airs. Call me a civil disobedient, or even ban/bar me from this wiki. I sincerely feel it is wrong to publish the title of the next episode WITHIN THE TEXT OF ANY ARTICLE before it officially airs on ABC TV. Call me what you'd like--there should be POLICY regarding what Lost episodes have AIRED and what Lost episodes have not. Season 5 episode 7 has not aired as of this post. The writers and producers may blog and podcast what ever they like-- but I thought Lostpedia exists to speak to those who SAW an episode, not to those who have not. Respectfully and sincerely presented: --Talkster 12:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Your latest edit is vandalism. You have been told by 3 Sysops. BTW "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" looks like it's going to be a great episode, don't ya think? --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 13:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Talkster, that sort of post proves you are just trying to stir trouble instead of conforming to what the sysops have stated plainly. Please don't vandalise the article. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
(1) Talkster has a right to feel how he wants. ([1a] Personally, I think he's wrong. Lostpedia is also for people who merely go to their DVR to set up a recording and notice the clearly published title of the upcoming episode. The title of the immediately upcoming episode is not a spoiler, and Lostpedia has operated in this fashion for years now.) However, regardless of how Talkster feels, (2) wikis are not the place to be "civilly disobedient"--they are places to be civil and arrive at consensus. If Talkster disagrees with policy, edit warring is not an effective way to achieve that consensus. The appropriate method is to talk things out on a policy talk page. A presentation of a rational argument will convince those editors who are capable of being pursuaded. (3) The rules as written put Talkster in the right. This is not an ambiguous point, contrary to what Darn has written. (4) The rules need to be amended. Let's please take up the discussion over at Lostpedia talk:Spoiler policy. Robert K S (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, of course he has the "right to feel how he wants". I was referring to the part, as you are, regarding being "civilly disobedient" and being "the one who will continue to delete the name of S5x07 until the episode officially airs", meaning he intends to continue edit warring. That's just stirring trouble. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lamp Post Pendulum

  • I'm just wondering why nobody seems to be interested where the pendulum is attached? Isn't it weird that it seems to be just floating in space, or am I just seeing it all wrong? (sorry for the lack of a screencap) -- Rotflmao 09:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Have you never been to a science museum and seen a Foucault's pendulum? Robert K S (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I know what it looks like, that's why I'm asking if it didn't look weird to you people. Because the way I saw it, the wire of the pendulum seemed to be attached to nothing. -- Rotflmao 14:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
        • The wire is very long--several stories. It's just dark up there. All Foucault's pendulums look like that. Robert K S (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If the wire travels up, is it safe to assume it is attached to the first floor of the church? :-) --Srsnyder5885 17:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

      • I'm not disagreeing with what has been said above, however, I did think that visually the wire recalled very strongly the rope in the well which Locke descended to the wheel. It may mean nothing, but the appearance of both made me wonder if there would turn out to be some connection.JEMJEM 17:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Technically, this should be called a Foucault-LIKE pendulum. A true Foucault's Pendulum swings on a lateral axis that only changes with the rotation of the earth. That is the point of a Foucault Pendulum. This pendulum is all over the place and is clearly affected by forces other than the rotation of the Earth. Frink Labs 22:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Current Island Time

Why is the time when Jack, Kate and Hurley arrive back on the island assuming that its the 1970's, isn't it more likely that it is 2008 and Jin has brought the new DHARMA van out of the 1970's like Sawyer did with The Rope or The Left Behinds did with the Ajira Airways Canoe. --Cerberus1838 13:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you needed a flux capacitor to time travel in cars. Is that van even capable of 88mph? Being serious now. While that is a good point, I think there would be no twist whatsoever if he had just taken the van and jumpsuit from the 1970's. The twist comes in that Jin appears to be working for Dharma, not that he is wearing a jumpsuit. That puts him in the 1970's. I guess we'll find out soon though.--Baker1000 14:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Jin may not know he's no longer in the 1970. kasajian 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not the 1970s. It's the 1970s through 1992. Those VWs lasted forever!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it is 2008 and the gang has spent the last 4 years restarting the Dharma Initiative for a new generation. A fresh VW bus got airdropped with the last pallet of supplies. Now that would be an awesome unexpected twist!--Znils 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Painting in Jack's apartment

5x06 jack&#039;s apartment painting

The painting size and positioning on the wall hints some significance. From the screenshot it looks as if Jack is glimpsing at it because Kate doesn't seem to be appearing from the other side. --Iimitk 18:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that it is significant. The camera passed over it at least three times that I recall. That dark rectangle on the left-hand-side has a flat and reflective texture, very different to the rest of the painting. To my eye, it also has a red shape within it, but I can't make out what it is. I'm looking forward to seeing a higher definition image of that portion of the painting if anyone has it available. On an aside, it's been remarked that the building has the shape of the state of New Mexico. It's very similar, but as far as I can see, the southern border of NM has two distinct steps (the second at El Paso) and this shape only has one. --LOST-KC 09:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have 2 very big doubts and i'm going nuts.... :-(

1. If the island has been moving always, then how did the others & Dharma crew make it to the island via submarine before (i'm specifically referring to the way Juliet and Ben were 1st brought to the island)?

2. Widmore provides Desmond the address of Eloise. This means Widmore should also know what Eloise is capable of. That brings me to an obvious question, why hasn't widmore made use of Eloise to get to the island?

I've been scratching my head since 2 days over these 2 questions...can someone shed some light on this,.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sid2109 (talkcontribs) 2009-02-21T14:55:30.

Unless you are simply pointing out these are valid Unanswered questions, discussions like this should be taken to the Lostpedia Forum. (Click the "Forum" link in the menu on the left.) This page is for discussion of how to improve the "316" article. Robert K S (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
They had an underwater beacon in the Looking Glass so they knew how to find the Island with the submarine.--Baker1000 23:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the sonar beacon was only to "guide the vessels in" once they arrived close, it wasn't detectable all over the world. Integrated (User / Talk) 02:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You could argue that the beacon is outside the "snowglobe", and once you travel past the beacon, you enter the snowglobe and go to wherever and whenever the Island is. ∇ϕ 08:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If by "snowglobe" you are postulating some kind of portal which transports you to the Island then the location of the island would be a moot point if they snowglobe never moved. I personally think what Ms Hawking meant is that it has moved many times before, it's "always moving", meaning, it 'moves a lot'. But to be honest it's hard to reconcile what she said about not being rescued, because as soon as Widmore knew the coords he went there and found it straight away. Integrated (User / Talk) 11:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But presumably Widmore only knew the coords after the Island was temporarily visible for a brief period, IIRC. This is how Penny's "listening post" found it. Which, again, if it was constantly moving, how would they know it was still there when they got there. Unless by "constantly", they didn't mean continuously, but rather sporatically. This is why the UQ proposed about Widmore and Hawking is valid (to bring it back to discussing the article, LOL). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps all of this should be filed under the "Wait and See" category?? Give it some time people. Patience is a virtue. :)--Srsnyder5885 17:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Use Seat Bottom For Floatation"


This sign turned on along with the "fasten seatbelts" sign when the turbulance was getting intense on the plane close towards the end of the episode. Does this sign generally turn on when turbulance starts up or if the "fasten seatbelts" sign turns on? If not, it could mean the plane was going down.--Mistertrouble189 19:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's weird. Trans-oceanic flights are required to carry life jackets.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it means that Frank knew they were crashing since his discovery that all of the Oceanic Six are onboard. —Iimitk 23:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably that the seats are built to float, and in addition to lifejackets, you can use the seat bottoms as well. ∇ϕ 09:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What caused the crash

It was implied that the first crash occurred because Desmond didn't punch the numbers in in time, causing a strong magnetic field pulling the airplane to the island. So it's not just flying over the island at the right time that causes the crash. Why would Hawkings assume that? kasajian 22:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, one could assume she meant that was the "right" time, as in the time when everything came together just so to lead to the events that took place as a result of Desmond missing the entering of the numbers. It's no different than a car accident caused by someone else, and the person who was hit stating they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Tentatively, because it's not just flying over the Island; it's flying over the place the Island is moving to at the moment it arrives. Desmond's failure to press the button was an aberration.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's important to note that, as of "316," we do not know that Flight 316 crashed.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this is discussing the crash of 815, not 316. We were told that Desmond caused 815 to crash when he didn't make it back to the Swan to push the button in time. Anyway, this belongs on the forum as it's not for improving the article, eh? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
We have no proof so far that 316 did indeed crash. If it is still in the air after the flash, did anyone else besides myself notice the similarities to Stephen King's "The Langoliers"? Just thought it was a bit close to the story, taking place on a plane, only certain passengers made it through the portal that is opened..--User:Sawdaddy/sig
Please re-read this section. It's the crash of 815, not any crash or non-crash of 316 that was being brought up here in relation to what Hawkings said in this episode. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Noted, but I can't find any reference to Hawking saying anything about the crash of Flight 815 during "316." She briefly referred to the reasons the Survivors were never rescued.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
kasajian was tying two different ideas together (this is a better discussion for the forum, since it doesn't add to the article), the "first crash" and how it occurred, and how that works with Hawkings' theory of how they will be able to return the second time. It's being pointed out that we were told Des caused the crash by not entering the numbers, but now Hawkings is describing how they return by simply being in the right place at the right time. That theory implies that 815 could have simply been in the wrong place at the right time, and thereby crashed without Desmond's interference. I think this is resolved by understanding that 815 might not have been in the wrong place/right time had Desmond not placed the Island in their path by not entering the numbers. Basically, I think the Island "hit" them, as it were, rather than the other way around. Again, though, this is better discussed on the forum, not in the article Talk page. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Locke's foot: not a blooper

I watched this scene many times now and it is clear that the foot moves because the coffin was moved, not because Terry Quinn messed up. You can actually even see both feet move. Remember, it's a closeup in a major TV show. If Terry had flubbed it they would have re-shot it.One08 22:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Baptism (culture references)?`

Can someone please explain to me how baptism symbolizes "that someone has accepted another person's plea for forgiveness of their past transgressions and has granted them a chance at a new and better life"? This doesn't make sense to me at all, and it's not even close to what I understand baptism as, either traditionally or metaphorically. I agree that Jack diving into the pond = his baptism, but this treatment of the theme is nonsensical. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

  • Water baptism symbolizes the washing away of past sin and the cleansing process. Once washed away, the life is cleaned/forgiven and new life in Christ begins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iyubyost (talkcontribs) 2009-02-26T16:28:31.
    • That threw me as well. The summary above is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mainer122 (talkcontribs) 2009-02-26T22:44:09.

Yet Another "Pilot, part 1" episode reference

Not sure if this was in Pilot part 1 or 2, but the conversation between Jack and Kate in his apartment prior to leaving for the airport EXACTLY mirrors their conversation in Pilot, Part 1. Prior to their first A-Mission, Kate says to Jack that she wants to help. He notices her wearing improper footwear, and tells her "she better get hiking boots" (not sure of exact quote). Kate then proceeds to take the shoes off a dead man in a 30 second scene and put them on so she can go hiking. This scene also mirrors how Jack took off Locke's shoes and put on his father's.
So really, I'm proposing two episode references to the Pilot; The conversation about hiking shoes between Jack and Kate, and the Jack removing and placing shoes on Locke. (referencing Kate taking off a dead man's shoes) Flashesb4ur8s 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice spotting. From Pilot 1's transcript, the conversation was as follows:

KATE: [coming up behind Jack] You ready?
JACK: Kate, you showed me where the smoke was.I can get there myself.
KATE: I'm coming.
JACK: [smiling] Well, you're going to need better shoes.
[Shot of a dead body's feet. Kate reaches down to take hiking boots, checks the size. She looks at Locke, who's looking at her. He gives her the "orange" smile. He keeps eating the orange and looks away. She looks slightly freaked out/disgusted.]

In that case, this is considered juxtaposition, a literay technique, rather than an episode reference. The resemblance between Kate putting on shoes of a dead man and Jack putting on his father's shoes on Locke's feet, while considerable, looks a bit stretching, IMHO. — Iimitk  T  C  22:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would agree with you on the bit of a stretch, except that they are both extended (20+ seconds) scenes of something normally mundane. Either way, i'm happy to finally contribute something worthwhile to a wiki page :-p Flashesb4ur8s 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

2nd or 3rd Episode Switch?

I just made an edit to say that this is the second time that they have switched episode order, not the third. I had seen a little argument about this before, so wanted to make sure I cited my source. In the April 6 '09 podcast the producers clarify an earlier point, reassuring us that this is only the second time they have switched the order of the episodes, despited numerous people thinking they had wrongly stated so in a podcast a couple weeks before. They explain that the supposed Glass Ballerina "switch" was not a switch. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 17:34, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Darlton was wrong on that one. The episodes in season 3 were switched, as can plainly be seen by the press releases which said "Editors Note: This episode replaces "Further Instructions" which moves to Oct. 18."[2] and "Note: "Further Instructions" had been scheduled for Oct. 11. "The Glass Ballerina" will now air on Oct. 11."[3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo the tubby (talkcontribs) .

This is definitely a strange one; I remember hearing about the "The Glass Ballerina" and "Further Instructions" switch back in the day. Is it possible that ABC originally had the wrong order and "corrected themselves"? We might end up having to state both contradicting sources in the article. -- Graft   talk   contributions  18:47, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Mike the Czech, via Dark UFO

You know the misleading casting descriptions? See this ([4]): "[MIKE] 30s-40s with Czech accent. A scientist. Very intelligent and creative. He's excited to show his boss his latest discovery. Has worked hard and knows he's on the brink of something big...GUEST STAR. MUST HAVE AN AUTHENTIC CZECH ACCENT OR BE ABLE TO DO AN IMPECCABLE CZECH ACCENT." Who is this? Who did it become? None of the guest stars are Czech, and the fact that this is credited as a guest star instead of a co-star means that this'd be a major role. So uh, who is it? Were they even in the episode? --Golden Monkey 14:26, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

  • I've been wondering about that one myself. I haven't been able to pinpoint him. Three possibilities:
    • Not a casting call for Lost, but for another series. Dark wronly informed.
    • A deliberate red herring (Radzinsky hadn't appeared yet, but had a seperate casting call as Marty Jankowsky later)
    • They've shot scenes, that we haven't seen yet

--LOST-Hunter61 15:08, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Or could be that he didn't make it to the final cut of the episode. Guest stars are sometimes in just one scene, and sometimes they cut entire scenes. (Or possibly the writers scrapped the idea after the casting call and before filming.) I wonder if this guy could've been something like an assistant to Hawking... -- Graft   talk   contributions  19:08, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
  • I would agree that he might have been some sort of assistant to Hawking. Maybe they just decided it'd complicate matters too much. Wonder why he'd have to be Czech though...--Golden Monkey 00:10, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in trivia

"Coincidentally, the number of passengers on Flight 815, subtracting those who survived and at one point escaped the Island (Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Hurley, Locke, Michael, and Walt) is 324 - 8 = 316."

Instead of editing thought I'd ask... are we not counting Aaron? He was on the flight just as much as anyone else. (Kdc2 03:57, April 3, 2010 (UTC))

  • It's one of those things that shouldn't be there in the first place. There will always be a way to make patterns out of numbers which seem significant. That doesn't make it intentional nor trivia.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:03, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

36/46 hours

Jack awakens in the middle of the jungle. He saves Hurley and Kate, and then we have a flashback of events that happened "46 hours earlier". That is, Jack in the church with Eloise. Eloise tells her there that they have only 36 hours left to go to the island. 36 hours? How come? I thought they arrived 46 hours later. Blooper, or what? --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 23:28, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • Maybe Jack woke up on the Island 10 hours after Ajira 316 took off? --Celebok 20:20, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

New picture


Pictogram voting support Let's change the image picture.

  1. This new one obeys current guidelines - a close-up of the centric character.
  2. The current photo's an obvious allusion to an earlier iconic scene, so it poorly represents this episode.
  3. The episode's more about how they returned to the island than their having returned. The current photo depicts the latter. --- Balk Of Fametalk 07:37, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Yes, I like the close up picture of Jack for this article. --Just Sayin' 15:04, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Much better. (Kdc2 18:04, July 22, 2010 (UTC))

Pictogram voting oppose Disagree completely. For starters #2 is exactly why this is the perfect image. Regarding #3, this episode is about their return to the Island which is exactly what the image of Jack on the ground represents, as opposed to some random image of him in a church. When possible, I think iconic images are best, which the shot of Jack laying in the jungle definitely is. As for point #1, I don't really think that's a rule. As long as it's a picture of the centric character, it's fine. For examples, see Pilot, Part 1, Confirmed Dead, Because You Left, LA X, What They Died For and The End.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:10, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Iconic images are best. But this is "Pilot, Part 1"'s iconic image. If we had to pick a quote from each episode, we wouldn't pick "Live together, die alone" from "The Incident, Part 2".
None of your examples have a single centric character. Except for "Pilot, Part 1", barely, and we chose that picture to match "The End" - a bad decision. --- Balk Of Fametalk 18:55, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • It's an image from this episode, and an iconic one at that. When I think of this epsiode, that shot of Jack laying in the trees is exactly what I think of. Everything you need to know about this episode is in the pictre: They make it back to the Island. It's certainly better than a random shot of Jack, looking retarded and haggard, which tells you nothing about the episode.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:36, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose I agree with Jimbo here. The current image is an iconic image from this episode, even if it is an allusion to a previous iconic scene. It represents the episode better than the alternative being put forward here. Plus I really don't like the exposure on that image. It looks very bad. I'm not sure if it's been tampered with, but it doesn't look natural.--Baker1000 19:48, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
Going with what all of you are saying, perhaps a picture of the A316 plane would be most appropriate for this episode. --Just Sayin' 19:53, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not particular about this specific picture - it's just a nice close-up that Kdc2 picked. I'm more though against choosing pictures that allude to previous episodes. Changing this picture is part of my secret plan to one day fix the "The End" pic. I agree that a photo of Jack on 316 would be better. --- Balk Of Fametalk 20:14, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Given a choice between the iconic picture of Jack in the bamboo forest and the proposed closeup of Jack in the church, I'd vote for the first one, as it better represents the episode. But I also agree with those who pointed out that the original image is iconic to "Pilot, part 1". My suggestion for a third alternative would be one of Jack boarding the Ajira plane, if possible. --Celebok 20:18, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

To reply to Jimbo: it is certainly not a random image. It's the moment Jack looks at the Doubting Thomas painting. This episode is the ultimate turning point for Jack as he went from a man of science to a man of faith. Eloise told him to simply believe; which is what the story of Thomas the Apostle is about. The current image, while a nice callback, is dark, and although we all know it is Jack, you can't see him well. I would argue the current is a much more random image that the new one. It signifies who Jack has become and who he is for the rest of the series. (Kdc2 22:25, July 22, 2010 (UTC))

  • All that is true. But how much of that can you get from the image itself? Exactly none of it. As far as just looking at the picture, it's just a picture of Jack... It could be from anywhere and he could be doing anything. The picture of him on the Island actually says something: it says "They make it back."  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:57, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
Personally, it's not what that picture of Jack in the bamboo grove says to me, especially in regard to this specific episode. To me, it does look out of place and should be left for the pilot episodes. It relates specifically to those episodes. I do like Kdc2's explanation, however, once again, it's subjective. At least the close up picture is of the same season. If we can find a picture of A316 with Jack boarding or on the plane, it at least relates to the episode. If not, I would vote for the close up of Jack. To me it fits better with the episode than the out of season and out of place, pilot picture. --Just Sayin' 23:16, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose: The current picture represents an iconic scene from "316," regardless of whether it bears resemblance to the opening scene of the Pilot. The current image of Jack represents one of the most pivotal moments of Season 5 (and the series) where Jack comes back to the Island again (in much of the same manner as when he first came). -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 00:23, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose Jack may be looking at the Doubting Thomas painting, but how are we to know that? The recommended image has no context.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:34, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply How are we to know? Probably if we've seen the episode. No context? That's ridiculous. If the proposed image has no context, we may as well change the image for nearly every episode. Because You Left? The Lie? Jughead? All are close-ups of the centric characters face at a pivotal moment. How you can say it has no context is beyond me. (Kdc2 01:05, July 23, 2010 (UTC))
Pictogram voting comment The image you propose shows Jack in front of a blurred background, indistinguishable from (probably) thousands of backgrounds from the series and (probably) a good dozen from the episode, as compared to the current image which shows him with a clear background in a moment designed to make us wonder briefly if we have returned to day one.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:31, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
"Wonder briefly if we've returned to day one." Exactly. --- Balk Of Fametalk 07:07, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Jim -- anyone who has seen this episode knows exactly what scene it is. Plain and simple. Lost fans know small details like that, especially Lostpedia users. (Kdc2 18:15, July 23, 2010 (UTC))
Kdc, nobody is saying that this image isn't evocative of the pilot. What we're saying is that it's not an issue. The return to the Island is the crux of this episode and that's why the current image is best.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:10, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Hold up a sec. I think it's a little unfair to imply you're an inferior fan if you don't recognise a close up of Jack from a specific scene. I think I know a lot of the small details that most fans don't, and I can tell you which episode most images are from, and in most cases when in the episode. I couldn't tell you what Jack was looking at in this image, and upon first glance it looks like he's outside, not in the church. I haven't seen the episode since before Season 6, but I've seen it quite a few times. Just because you know where the image is from, don't assume anyone who has seen the episode can pinpoint the exact moment.--Baker1000 19:33, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Baker1000. The context of the proposed picture is not as obvious as you think it is. If I didn't know what episode we were discussing and you just showed me that picture, I'd think it's a picture of Jack standing outside on a city street at night, looking up at some building across the street. --Celebok 23:27, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply How about you reread what I said then. Here, I'll help: "anyone who has seen this episode knows exactly what scene it is." (Kdc2 04:47, July 24, 2010 (UTC))
  • Rereading your statement just now didn't bring me any closer to believing it to be true. --Celebok 08:11, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I've seen the episode at least a dozen times and I wouldn't have been able to pinpoint it. Perhaps I might have realied it was in the church, but I probably wouldn't have remembered what he was looking at. Might be to do with the fact that I haven't seen it in 6 months, If I had watched it last week, that might have helped... Regardless, I don't like the image for other reasons than not knowing what scene it is in instantly.--Baker1000 08:43, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I started this discussion, but even I couldn't identify the pic's context. --- Balk Of Fametalk 11:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

New Picture II

Pictogram voting support I looked for plane photos. Unfortunately, "suited Jack on plane" is almost as generic as "sweaty Sayid in jungle". I picked out these three though. The third, from Jack's semi-canonical Ajira TV ad, is my favorite. --- Balk Of Fametalk 14:50, July 23, 2010 (UTC)







Pictogram voting support Nice Job Balk, My Vote is #3, #1, #2. #3 is perfect with great clarity, Jack's expression and the Ajiria logo in the background. --Just Sayin' 10:50, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose No, no and no. Theres no problem with the current so no need to change it. Not to mention every pic you put up is considerably worse then the current one. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  15:13, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

For those who missed the above talk, here's why we must change the pic:

  1. Guidelines demand we focus on the centric character's face. When we can't (i.e. multi-centrics, no centrics), we choose something else. But when we can, we always do. We can hardly see Jack's face at all now. This is the only reason you need; the next two are just my opinion.
  2. The picture now depicts a brief flash-forward that opens the episode, a scene to which the final minutes return. If the entire episode covered Jack on the island following his return, we could go with the current pic. But this episode is about the characters traveling to the island - on Flight 316. The ideal picture would therefore focus on Jack's face and provide context relating to 316. We often remember an episode's final twist or its consequence, but that image doesn't always sum up the episode. In "LaFleur", for instance, we used to include a picture of Sawyer staring at his returned friends.
  3. We like this image so much because it alludes to "Pilot, Part 1"'s opening scene. But we should highlight each episode's unique theme, not focus on callbacks. The current image is analogous to Sawyer's briefcase of money in "Recon", or Locke smiling through the sprinklers in "The Substitute". I find it especially odd that we choose this pic to represent this episode but not the original shot to represent "Pilot, Part 1". --- Balk Of Fametalk 11:36, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose All of the proposed pictures are bland. While they depict Jack, they have no identifiable context. At least in the case of the current image we have a reference to Jack in a situation.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:09, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the third picture does have context -- Jack getting a place on Ajira Airways. The current pic has more context. Unfortunately, it's the wrong context. The current pic depicts Jack on this island. "316" is no more about Jack on the island than "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" is about Locke on the island. --- Balk Of Fametalk 16:40, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Any new opinions? Again, I bet we could show the current pic to Matthew Fox himself, and he'd swear it's from the Pilot, not "316". --- Balk Of Fametalk 12:03, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support The current one is way too similar to the opening scene of te Pilot... all of the suggested ones would be better, but the third one is my favorite. --LeoChris 19:22, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support The third picture is better than the other proposed ones and more appropriate than the current one. It focuses on the face and the Ajira logo is very representative of the episode. Mhtm 16:40, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support The current one is too far away. Go with 3. Limitlessness 22:33, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Just did a head count. Is this enough of a consensus or do we have to wait for more?

Current - Czygan84, Jimmy the tubby, Gaarmyvet (3)
1st & 2nd suggestions - (0)
3rd suggestion - BalkOfFame, Just Sayin', LeoChris, Mhtmghnd, me (5) Limitlessness 22:41, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
  • I think 6 vs 3 is enough. Menot 07:38, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.