This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ab Aeterno 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

Title Translation

"Ab Aeterno" is Latin for "From Eternity." It carries the connotation of "since eternity past" as opposed to the concept of a timeless eternity or an eternal state that incorporates past, present, and future. --DesmondFaraday 02:16, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

  • It also means "Since the beginning of time" or (figuratively) "Since a very long time ago". --Nusent 02:59, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • "Since the beginning of time" is a more idiomatic translation, but also its more common usage. --DesmondFaraday 04:44, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Don't discuss this further. We can't allow spoilers posted as theories. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 03:01, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I hardly think that translating an episode title can be considered either a theory or a spoiler.--Emissary23 03:03, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, since when is translating Latin a spoiler? It's not telling you anything about the episode, just what the title means, and half the time the titles don't mean anything anyway (Eggtown, anyone?) --Golden Monkey 08:33, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but Eggtown meant something...I forget where I read it, but it had something to do with the old west. Maybe I read it at powell's books website. This guy J.Wood has a Lost blog, or did until he got sick, and he was extremely well-read and intelligent. --Emissary23 21:46, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
According to Carlton Cuse in the podcast, it was due to the episode being about possible pregnancy, and opening with Locke making some eggs. Which makes me think they just couldn't think of a title so they chose something random and then had to justify it. :P --Golden Monkey 19:17, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply " 'Eggtown,' itself supposedly a Depression-era euphemism for a town that doesn't offer a salesperson any good sales (nothing but eggs, which spoil quickly)" I know this is the wrong space, but I found it [1] --Emissary23 17:43, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Right. And now it's used to describe something that's considered a bad deal. That coupled with the possible pregnancy in the episode makes perfect sense. Samaeterno 15:57, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
I think discussing a title is fine, so if that means having to translate it, should be fine (as long as the user doesn't bring spoiler material to further the discussion of the title). Some titles have significance, others, not so much. Phobia27 23:18, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support It's just a translation of a title that's already posted on Lostpedia. The only thing that makes it special is that it is in another language and needs a translation. Thankfully, we get the translation of all the other titles immediately, because they're in English. --Dretzle 16:06, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Wow, a little google on the Latin shows its a reference to Prov 8:23 (removing any Lost reference from the google of course ;) )--Lucky Day 17:38, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

It could also be translated "since forever", which makes me wonder if it started out as a jokey remark about answering some questions that fans have been wondering about since forever...


  • Ilana, Richard and the Man in Black all had flashbacks in this episode... Granted, Richard's was the major one, but does having 3 different flashees qualify it as a various-centric episode? Otherwise, I guess we have another Dave on our hands. --LeoChris 02:06, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • If you look at the infor box for Dave, it lists Flashback and Centrality separately. --Gluphokquen Gunih 02:09, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply The centricity is just Richard cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:10, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Yes it was just Richard centric with flashbacks for Ilana and MIB. Clearly Richard was the only character with a clear focus on him. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:43, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support The was no Jocob flashback; he was not seen independently of Ilana and only helped tell her story.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:51, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I think he's trying to say "there was no Jacob flashback..." cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:56, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
It's just dumb to list "centricity" and "flashbacks" as if they're separate concepts, and it always has been. The only reason I added "Centric character(s)" to the template was because of certain episodes that didn't have flash-whatevers - in situations where there are, like this, just list whoever had them in order. --Pyramidhead 04:33, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly. The "centric" field exists for episodes like The Constant or This Place is Death, where there aren't any flashes but we can tell who it's centric too, or like LaFleur, where we can't quite figure out which kind of flash it should be counted as but know who it's centric too. If somebody has a flash, it's centric to them too. Inherently. --Golden Monkey 04:36, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Centric is Richard, Flashbacks are Richard, Ilana and MiB. We had this discussion on the Dave (episode) page and decided that when side-characters have flashes then we make the distinction (just as with all the non-Jacob characters in "The Incident, Part 1", Libby in Dave and a couple other minor examples. Personally, I'm against having any centricity for episodes like This Place is Death or Follow the Leader, but it was a compromise between all sides.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:33, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Couldn't centricity be Richard while additional flashbacks are Jacob? He was in both the flashbacks that didn't include Richard. (Mirth23 06:55, March 24, 2010 (UTC))
There's a clear focus on Ilana and MiB, followed by the traditional woosh, it's their flashback, not Jacob's. --LeoChris 07:01, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • If this episode is listed as Richard for centricity, than The Incident should be changed to only only Jacob. Right now The Incident has flashbacks for Jack, Kate, etc, and centricity for Jacob, yet under Jack's and Kate's centric epsiodes The Incident is listed. We should either take The Incident away from Jack, Kate, etc. or give Ilana and MiB this episode as centric. --Joshtopher27 19:05, March 26, 2010 (UTC)


  • I posted the following in the General Trivia section: "Richard was living on the island of Tenerife in the Canary Islands. In 1977 (the same year as The Incident, there was what is now known as the Tenerife airport disaster where two planes collided in midair. Not only were two planes involved (mirroring Oceanic Flight 815 and Ajira Flight 316), but the disaster was the result of the detonation of bomb by terrorists, mirroring The Incident itself." I think that this should be included in the episode page because it gives a certain historical richness to the decision to mark this island as the place where Richard comes from. Now, the writers may or may not have known of this event, but at the risk of apophenia, the many parallels of this account are too juicy to pass up. If someone agrees, please reinsert it into that section, or whichever section is applicable. Theartandsound  03:13, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting opposeThis site isnt a giant history book, we need to keep things LOST related unless there are obvious parrallels which this is not. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:16, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Sounds like a potentially legit inspiration for TPTB... I mean, that many similarities? --LeoChris 03:24, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support It's worth a mention in the trivia section--Emissary23 03:44, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   04:52, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting neutral I think it's worth an edited mention. Mentioning the Tenerife incident is useful trivia. Trying to connect it to the two flights and a terrorist bombing is weak. (Mirth23 06:59, March 24, 2010 (UTC))
* I agree completely with this, so I'm changing my vote to neutral. Pictogram voting neutral --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   07:07, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support -- on a personal note I was researching this event the night before the episode aired and it totally creeped me out when I read the parallel you posted earlier. It's either an interesting coincidence, or they put Richard there as a slight reference to this event, either way its good trivia. Might want to modify the actual statment, it was indirectly caused by a terrorist bomb (the two planes were diverted to the tenerife airport after a bomb went off at their destination airport) and the planes actually collided on the ground rather than midair. The Tenerife disaster is one of those things where it almost seems like fate because so many circumstances had to go exactly right (or wrong) for the planes to crash. One person even got off one of the planes before the crash saving her life. Fate vs. Free will in real life? (MaxMoney37 05:15, March 24, 2010 (UTC))

  • Pictogram voting oppose Disagree completely. All the things you mentioned have nothing in common with eachother on the show. You've taken the island Richard lived on, the date of the Incident, two separate airplane crashes and a bomb (none of which have anything in common) and somehow combined it to tie into a reference to a terrorist bombing which caused two airplanes to crash in midair near that Island in the same year that something else took place. That's a really big stretch. It'd be like saying "Rose and Bernard are from New York, Jack met his wife in 2001, and in 2001 in New York, two planes (mirroring Oceanic 815 and Ajira 416) crashed into the World Trade Centre." Coincidence? Yes. Just because you can combine a bunch of facts doesn't make it a valid reference.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:29, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose I am not saying that it is a reference, it is not like I am trying to place it as a Cultural Reference, or make any claim on writer's intent or motivation. Obviously, like a user above noted, this site is not a history book. However, given the synchronicities involved, this event lends thematic bearing to the show and should be placed under the catchall of general trivia. While counterarguments can be made in terms of the gravity of a particular coincidence or a set of coincidences (the Lincoln/Kennedy presidential parallels come to mind), I do stress the power that chance has played in the series. Theartandsound  08:03, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Edited version based on user comments, ready for a test drive: "Richard was living on the island of Tenerife in the Canary Islands. In 1977 (the same year as The Incident, there was what is now known as the Tenerife airport disaster where two planes collided in midair. The nature of the event (two planes, mirroring Oceanic Flight 815 and Ajira Flight 316) and the indirect cause (a bomb detonation by terrorists, mirroring The Incident) lend credence to the overarching themes of the show." Theartandsound  08:03, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • What's creeping me out, is that I've never heard of the Tenerife incident until Sunday, when it was mentioned on the season premiere of Breaking Bad (as something most people don't remember). And here I am, two and a half days later, and it comes again. Very, very, odd. Oh, and I'm Pictogram voting support on this.--Tim Thomason 08:26, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose this is a very silly idea. All the similarites are extremely tenuous. The bomb didn't cause the crash on the show, it actually prevented it. And two planes crashing in separate mid-air incidents years apart is a huge stretch to compare to one plane hitting another on a runway. And it's three crashes that have happened on the island if you count the drug smugglers. Or four if you count Henry Gales' balloon. Frankly it's insulting to the creators of the show to suggest they would be this tasteless. Beelzebubbles101 06:10, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose Tenerife was the collision of two airplanes. That was not a factor in Lost.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:08, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • How about just having this info as a "fun fact" - since Richards past is only being explained to us now, I thought it was kind of fun to read this info today. Just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NandR (talkcontribs) .
      • I don't think it is a 'fun fact', at all. My father knew the Dutch captain very well. Many people died. :-( --LOST-Hunter61 16:19, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yup how about some 'fun facts' about slavery while we're at. Sheesh... Beelzebubbles101 06:10, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
        • Didn't mean to offend, I apologize. I mean as to say, it is interesting to learn about the events, and I find learning to be fun - not airplane crashes to be fun.
  • First post, be gentle: Saw on the epi page extras about the disappearing Canary Island, and looked at where it was on the old map. Google Earth does reveal a bump in the ocean floor at that site, consistent with a small landmass that is currently underwater. Thought that was worth a mention.Whitesideistherightside 23:18, March 24, 2010 (UTC)whitesideistherightside
    • Can you please provide a link? --Leachpunk 12:50, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
      • sure. The link to the wikipedia site (with map) is already on the epi page (under cultural references) but here it is's_Island. You can magnify the map pretty large and see the island. The island in question is due west of the canary islands. As far as a link to Google Earth? you'll have to d/l the program, then search for "canary Islands" and you'll be 'taken' right there.Whitesideistherightside 15:10, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Worth noting I think, Canary Islands being in the Atlantic Ocean, heading to what we can assume is Siam gets caught up in the island. Oceanic 815 heading to LA from Sydney crosses the Pacific Ocean. Ajira 316 heading to Guam from LA also crossing the Pacific Ocean. Is it possible that we now have 2~3 sites where the island can be. Looking at the Vile Vortices map [2] it may lead one to think that these could be possible pop up locations of the island. Mysteriously, sailing from the Canary Islands to Siam(Thailand) would have taken quite some time. The routes seem extreme, either going completely around Africa, or going North of Tunisia (also a spot of one of the vile vortices) through the strait. --Leachpunk 12:51, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose The Canary Islands are in the middle of historic sea routes. Ships often stopped there to resupply, and (I believe) get citrus fruit to stave off scurvy. It would be totally natural for ships of all nationalities to stop here on the way to somewhere else. I don't think that there is any hidden meaning here, especially in relation to the plane crashes. It's just a convenient place for a ship like the Black Rock to pick up a person name Ricardo. --Litany42 00:47, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

So it WASN'T the Black Rock in 5x16

One thing that kept bugging me was the fact that the Black Rock arrived on the Island during a stormy night, and crashed the statue. In 5x16, Jacob and MIB view a ship, while the statue is still intact, and the weather is sunny. Are we to conclude the the ship in 5x16 was rather another group of visitors?  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  03:38, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Thats what i thought but I doubt it wasnt the Black Rock it might have been an error but we could assume it was nearing the end of the day and the black rock didnt come to ground until night. I just don't think they'd open up a new mystery so late in the show. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:42, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what ship we saw in 5x16. We know that Jacob has been bringing people to the Island for a long time; if it wasn't the Black Rock, it's not really a new mystery, just a rather insignificant part of the story that will never be filled in, or as I like to call it, a "Libby." --Emissary23 03:46, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
I think the case can rest that it was a different ship. Jacob talks to Richard about a previous bunch of people who are "all dead", who could have been the ship shown in The Incident, or another ship. For that ship to have been the Black Rock it would have had to go out to sea and come back during the storm... unless it had been sailing around lost much like Desmond trying to sail away in season 2, then coming in during the storm.--Pittsburghmuggle 05:58, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it was the Black Rock, but events seem different depending on your perspective when people arrive on the island. Flight 815 experienced extreme turbulence, presumably due to bad weather, but when Ben Linus saw the plane break up midair it was a clear sunny day. Also, did anyone notice how high up the statue the ship hit? It seemed to me that the island was partially submerged when they crashed, which also explains the wreck being inland. Woowoo1111 06:31, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever any reference to bad weather bringing down 815. Turbulence happens in visibly clear air... the most dangerous kind, I'd think, since it's invisible. Also, rather than the island being submerged, there was a massive storm surge, causing a large wave, cresting at a little under the height of the top of the statue. - Bryan 15:40, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
do you remember the doctor on the kHANA ship , the people on the island saw him died before he actually die , in some way the story is telling us that the island is a little bit ahead when it comes to Time , the same thing happened with the arriving of the black rock and flight 815 .Samiiii 08:07, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I think that it was the Black Rock in the beginning of The Incident Part 1, but, as another guy said earlier, it doesn't really matter that much to the overall story. I do think it's possible that Jacob could see things through a "bend" in time (demonstrated by Daniel in Season 4), explaining how Jacob could see the ship during the day but bring it over later and in completely different weather. It's also possible that the ship sailed off-course past the Island but circled back toward it. Whatever. I think that the intended implication in Season 5 was that it was the Black Rock. More important is the philosophical discussion between Jacob and MiB and that Jacob brought people over to the Island.He who waits 19:38, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
No we don't know it wasn't the Black Rock. Not yet. We can speculate, but we don't know for certain. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:08, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
I want to think that it is the Black Rock. This would be a nice link with episode 5x16. The difference in timing can be easily explained by the ship being disoriented (island/Jacob doing) and then hitting a great storm that pusses them to the island. I don't agree on the island having to be partially submerged. The boat can be riding a tsunami-like wave that tall. The option of it being another ship it's just noise in the story. What I did noticed is that the hair of the man in black (and also the beard) is much sorter in this episode. So to maintain my version I guess he cut his hair latter that day. What I can't explain is how he cut his beard shorter but not completely :O (that I will call a blooper) Finally I would like to suggest to add a new question to the episode article about this matter. Something like "Is the ship Jacob and the man in black saw in 5x16 the Black Rock? If so, why took it so long to get to the island?" Or something like that.

I want to add and remind everyone that we have seen repeated examples of storms coming up out of nowhere on a perfectly sunny day. This happens often on the Island. In season 1, John Locke seemed able to predict down to the minute when a deluge was coming and often saw it coming while it was sunny. That could have been the Black Rock...This may remain a mystery because at this point, I don't think this is important.

  • @jurrabi If you were to post such a question it would be liable for removal because it is leading. UQs should neither suggest an answer or argue their case. They should be neutral and "open ended". Perhaps there is a valid question in there, but for now the problem seems to be a blooper or our misinterpretation of something. --Charles Kane 14:04, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
@Charles Kane. I see your point. I just want to say that I think a question can be a good idea (I was expecting it when I read the article). The form and ways I leave it to more experienced people on the ways of this wiki (that is superb by the way).--jurrabi 14:08, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • @jurrabi Jump in - have a go, worst that can happen is that it is removed, meanwhile it may have stimulated someones thoughts! --Charles Kane 14:32, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • In the episode, Jacob told Richard he had brought others (small "o") to the Island before Richard. This accounts for the possibility that the vessel seen in 5x16 was not the Black Rock. Traveling by sea would have been the only way of getting to the Island back then.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:48, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I seem to recall Jacob saying the ship would land the next day even though it seemed a lot closer. It could have been anchored or trapped due to no winds when they saw it initially. If Jacob does say that I don't think there's any debate that it was the Black Rock. --Lucky Day 17:27, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason to assume the Black Rock only visited the Island once ? If the ship in The Incident was the Black Rock, how do we know it wasn't from a previous voyage that was able to leave ( or maybe didn't come ashore at all)?Beelzebubbles101 06:53, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Was it actually a wave that carried the Black Rock inland? It seems too improbable for a wave to carry a ship so high and so far inland and deposit it mostly intact. I vote for it being carried by Smokey.EdwardLost 19:19, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Your right, a wave can never get that high even in a typoon, or a tsunami and the MiB has such an easy time getting off the island. --Lucky Day 19:22, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • It's amazing that people would rather try to bend space and time than concede to the fact that there could have been two different ships in the history of FOREVER to come to the Island. Christ! There were two plane crashes within the span of 4 years. Oh! and a little tidbit of impossibly coincidental information; both planes had several of the same passengers! Holy crap! There must be a wormhole that transported the first plane into the future by a few years (that changed the paint job of course and peoples' clothes) and then brought them to the future with new memories, while freezing the rest of the passengers in suspended time....etc...etc... It's a boat. There are lots of them. It's not a mystery. No one has to "explain" anything. Case closed. I never understood why it was such a big deal to people in the first place.--DanVader228 00:38, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Occam's Razor really doesn't apply to fiction, so it's not that amazing actually.
      • Actually Occam's Razor would tell us that it was the same ship. I'm saying that there are equally reasonable explanations for it being one of a thousand ships that could have came to the Island. Even though the "mystery" of the boat is now solved, it hasn't added or detracted from the big picture in any way. The scene in "The Incident" was only important for what was happening on the beach. Seeing the ship on the horizon was just a teaser; it was never really a mystery. There was a lot of fierce debate about it over the summer. I just never really thought it merited as much speculation as it got. Now that we know it was the Black Rock that they were discussing, has it changed our lives? our perspective about the show? the importance of that scene? the impact of "Ab Aeterno"? Not really... it's just a boat.--DanVader228 22:09, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
      • Pretty darn good questions, but I have to disagree: NOW the opening scene from "the Incident" and the entire back story (ab aeterno/since the beginning of time - you're kidding?!) is set back to 1867. The mystery of this pivotal scene (100, 500, 1,000 years ago?) - GONE! The Man in Black's epic prophecy "One day I'm gonna find a loophole and kill you" is tested out the very next day with Richard and just turned from epic to trivial. Yep, it's just a boat but one with a big impact. Carlton, Damon - please belay that statement about that ship being the Black Rock (the poop deck doesn't even exist on the Black Rock jungle shipwreck)! --SokratesOne 22:44, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

The masts on the vessel in 5x16 are different than those on vessel in this episode.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:51, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed on the podcast that it is the Black Rock in both 5x16 and 6x09. It isn't night time when the BR crashes, its just a very large, very dark storm. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  11:57, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just like in CHICAGO: "Do you believe what you see with your eyes, or do you believe what we tell you?" --SokratesOne 22:53, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • I've been thinking, what if the ships we saw in both episodes were both called the Black Rock, only not the same vessel? Like, for instance, the original left in 1845 and was lost at sea, the log recovered and in the possession of the Hanso family, who clearly has been endeavoring to find this island. Along comes Magnus Hanso in 1867, and similar to how Hawking told Ben that he had to recreate as accurately as possible the circumstances that surrounded the crash of Oceanic 815 in order to return to the island on Ajira 316, perhaps the second Black Rock was a similar attempt. In particular, they had to have a very particular kind of people chained below decks to match the original ship, or else who in the world would look for English speaking condemned prisoners in the Canary Islands, when they could easily find anyone else and simply teach them English? Then possibly the first ship from "the Incident" was the original ship which Jacob brought to the island, and then 22 years later, the second ship arrives through a "loophole" involving recreating the previous ship as closely as possible, which could explain all of the perceived inconsistencies as well as fit in with things we have seen from the show in an uncontradictory way. The bigger question I think then is, who are the Hansos, who are they working for, and what do they really want?
    • I think that's a darn fine and clever approach to resolve the issue. Two Thumbs Up! As for the Hansos I can only think of Magnus Hanso as a precessor to Charles Widmore. Though we don't know much about Magnus Hanso it is obvious that he let his ship being run by a murderous sadist. Come to think of it, it almost feels like Alvar Hanso felt guilty for the actions of his ancestor and intended to do some humanitarian work as redemption (or to release his ancestor's soul from purgatory). Double Thanx --SokratesOne 07:53, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • That's the most satistfying theory I've heard in terms of storytelling credibility, it would be better than the lame-o "it's the same ship on the same visit and a storm brewed up as they were approaching the island" version that Damon implied they were going for in the 25/3 podcast ( implied, because he seemed to be talking about it as a fan theory and wandered off subject without explicitly saying it was true). I think there's wriggle room in the podcast so that something like this theory could turn out to be true , but I've got a bad feeling they're going for the lame-o version. Beelzebubbles101 19:29, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • Damon confirms that it was the Black Rock in his podcasted interview with Jay & Jack's Autism speaks podcast-a-thon. He also notes that storms can come up quickly on the island, and have done so many times. In a recent "official" Lost podcast, Darlton strongly implies that storms are important on the lsland and that we will see more of them.--Cfcincalifornia 07:21, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Some Facts:

  • In the first beach scene we see in 'The Incident pt1' Jacob and MiB great each other by saying 'morning'.
  • The ship in the distance is fairly close to the island, close enough, that if a storm of the dark as night magnitude which we see in Ab Aeterno started brewing, they could get to the island in time to land safely.
  • We know that this ship is arriving before the Black Rock did as the statue is still in-tact.
  • In Ab Aeterno Ricardo asks "Before us there were others?" Jacob answers "yes"

So Is it not logical to assume this ship seen in 'The Incident pt1' is carrying the others Jacob speaks of? --Lizziejj 18:34, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

    • Not when the MIB says that he (and almost certainly Jacob) were on the Island long before the Black Rock. Think of the 360 possible degrees for candidate names & the only double-digit numbers of the Survivors. Also the redshirt deaths of everyone but Richard indicates Jacob probably has a limited selection in mind when he brings a vessel in. Also Jacob "still" trying to prove MIB wrong in 'The Incident I' flashback. We probably won't get to see the Lighthouse/Statue/Temple getting built, but the "others" came (& all died) well before the Black Rock crashed. Duncan905 19:16, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
      • So... the Man in Black had time to get a haircut in between these episodes?--Gibbeynator 01:51, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
        • That's what I was wondering! FireBones 03:45, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • So if it was the Black Rock in 5x16, why were the slaves shocked by the statue? They would have obviously seen it during the calm morning.--Asublues 21:33, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oy people, it's TV. Think about it. HUGE tidal waves happen all the time in the day light. So, if they wanted they writers could have had the ship crash on the island during the raging sunlight. BUT, in the dark, during a raging storm just makes for a better backdrop for the story to play. And it makes the CGI a lot easier to pull off in the dark. Right? It's TV folks. Tdstom 03:56, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Luke 4

I would consider restating the cultural reference for the Bible to be more inclusive of the whole 4th chapter of Luke, not focused on verse 37. If verse 4:37 is the first verse on the right page Richard had the book opened to, then preceding verses of the chapter could have also been what he was reading at the moment on the left page. The chapter starts by describing Satan's temptation of Christ. Satan's temptations' closely parallel Man in Black's later offer to Richard that if he will kill Jacob, Richard can see his wife again. Also, Locke was assigned the number 4 on the cave cliff wall and that is the identity that MiB has assumed. A narrow focus on verse 37 seems to miss these intended references.--MixMasterMike 03:55, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • Not to mention that the first verse on the page that we see and what the camera zooms in on is verse 24. 37 is in the upper right hand corner indicating what the last verse on the page is. --LOSTinDC 12:35, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, the Bible would have been open to the majority of the whole chapter of Luke 4, the beginning of which shows Satan tempting Jesus with all the riches of the world and their splendor, if he would only bow down and worship him. Gingle87 16:21, March 24, 2010 (UTC)gingle87

      Luke 4:24.

  • can we get a screencap of the passage?--Lucky Day 16:28, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

One of you guys should go ahead and edit it. It sounds like a great edit to me, especially if LOSTinDC is correct about the camera movement. And it makes sense that a viewer would start looking at an image of an open book by focusing first on upper left hand corner, as that is what one would do in the case that (s)he is holding an actual open book. It sounds like there doesn't need to be a mention of verse 37 at all. — —   lion of dharma    talk    email   19:53, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone else first think of Jack's tattoo: "He walks among us, but is not one us" when they read Luke 4:24 ". . . No prophet is accepted in his own country." Random thought. --LOSTinDC 00:16, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

    • --Flashpot 02:44, March 25, 2010 (UTC)Luke 4:25 "three years and six months" that equals 42 months, does it not? Nice to see another appearance of the numbers.

Flashback Sections

Remember to only put that character's flashbacks in each section. MIB's flashback was at the end. That is all that goes under his section. The rest goes under Richard's, as it was his flashback. --Golden Monkey 04:07, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yep its Richard centric, but has flashbacks/POV'S for more than one person, like Dave being Hurley centric but has flashbacks for Libby too. Buffyfan123 08:57, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Not what I said at all. :) I was saying that people were putting /every/ scene involving MIB under his flashback section when only the last scene counted as a MIB flashback. Also, Dave is also Libby centric. I still can't believe people can say a episode can involve flashes from someone's POV but not say that it's centric to them. Because that's the definition of centric. --Golden Monkey 12:26, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Someone just applied a disastrous "fix" to the page which placed the present timeline into flashbacks, lost the previously on lost in the flashbacks and who knows what else. Unfortunately when I reverted it I forgot to leave my explanation. Apart from creating an unintended mess - the layout - even to picky me was more than adequate and whilst there might be some subtleties about the centricity of the flashbacks which could be better - they need to be discussed here.--Charles Kane 13:15, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why do people claim that the last scene is a MIB flashback? That seemed to take place in present day. --jmccabe
The MIB no longer looks like Titus Welliver, he looks like Terry O'Quinn. So that's definitely a flashback. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   15:27, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
But the show ends with Locke overlooking the tree where Hurley and Richard were talking. It's not Titus Welliver, it is Terry O'Quinn. The MIB flashback is earlier in the show, not the show's ending. --jmccabe
The episode ends with Titus Welliver smashing the bottle against the rock, not with Locke overlooking the tree. I'm certain of that. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   17:02, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
lionofdharma, you are completely correct. My memory of the episode was that the last moment was Locke overlooking the tree conversation. That's also how the episode was laid out in the main article, which added false weight to my memory. Sorry about the confusion. --jmccabe
  • just a thought, but Luke is the patron saint of physicians and surgeons - a reference to Jack?
  • I think it's fairly obvious that the beginning of the episode is a direct reference to the Heinz dilemma [3] --GodzillaX8 17:53, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Mark Pellegrino and Supernatural reference

In this episode, the Man in Black says that Jacob is the Devil. Mark Pellegrino, who plays Jacob on Lost, also plays Lucifer on the CW series Supernatural. Haplo781 05:17, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • I think this could be under trivia for Jacob, but not a cultural reference for Ab Aeterno, as this was likely not intended to refer to Supernatural.--Frank J Lapidus 21:03, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Bloopers and Continuity Section

This sections needs to seriously be fixed, it looks like a conversation and needs to be changed. It's too contradictory.And someone uses the term "Is this corret?" Battle it out in Discussion. The page is a mess!!--Phryrosebdeco23 05:42, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it's like people have never heard of the talk page. I don't even know where to begin with that section. I keep trying to remind myself that there's no use in getting involved in the editing process so soon after the episode has just aired. It's too much of a headache. Plus I made an edit a little while ago where I fixed someone's reference to an episode so that it was in the "ep|00x00" form, then later I realized there shouldn't have been reference to an episode at that point in the first place. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   05:47, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the former, it was my fault. Please remember, however, that some are novices at editing wikis and have not, in fact, heard of the talk page until just now.Undomiel27 23:28, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Undomiel27, it was by no means your fault; I can't tell you the number of people who have done that in the past 2 days. Anyway, I can be a real grouch sometimes. So pay little attention to my grumblings. :-) -- —   lion of dharma    talk    email   23:44, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Also in the same section: The subtitle at the beginning of Richard's flashback places the events in 1867, yet the final voyage of the Black Rock was previously stated to have occurred on 22 March 1845 now I don't have the episode here, but that log sold during the auction could have been one of the ship's logs, not the final ship's log.--Pittsburghmuggle 05:55, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • The Constant is the episode where the ledger was sold. The Auctioneer states "The Black Rock set sail from Portsmith England on March 22, 1845 on a trading mission to the kingdom of Siam, when she was tragically lost at sea. The only known artifact of this journey is the journal of the ship's first mate, which was discovered among the artifacts of pirates on the Ile Sante-Marie off the coast of Madagascar seven years later. The contents of this journal have never been made public, or known to anyone outside the family of the seller, Tovard Hanso." Which leads me to beleive that it takes 22 years to sail from England the Canary islands, or that the Autioner is wrong. Or...who knows. All I know is there are 22 years not accounted for.--Mr. Squinty 13:58, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting supportSo I've been kind of policing the bloopers section for counter arguments against bloopers being placed in the article itself instead of the talk page. Don't ask me why I've been obsessed with that in particular, because I couldn't tell you! Anyway, one of the bloopers that keeps getting contested ON THE ARTICLE PAGE (grrrr) is the one you've mentioned here Pittsburghmuggle (love your user name, btw). So I finally decided to just look into whether the argument against it being a blooper is justified, and I do believe it is. The auctioneer said that the boat was headed to Siam. Clearly they were not in Siam when they picked up Richard. Maybe they already went to Siam, maybe they hadn't gotten there yet. In in any case, maritime trips took a long long time back then. And they didn't just make a beeline to their destination. They docked at different ports, probably stayed there for several days at a time... I mean who the hell knows what happened between the time the boat left England and when it crashed on the Island. Clamshell makes a good point about that below, and then pair that with Pittsburghmuggles statement above that it's highly likely that the log in the auction was just one of many... I don't know, I just have a hard time believing they could make as huge of a blooper as that. Wish we knew for sure... any way, unless there's some indication of a great deal of protest here, I'm going to delete that as a blooper later on in the day. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   19:58, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Where did it imply that that was the same rock. I just assumed that it was a symbol of Richard. The rock in the cave being a symbol of Jacob. How is that an error? I am erasing it because it is not right.--Omgfreckles 06:22, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Removed the following as not substantiated as a blooper or continuity error:

  • In a prior episode "The Incident" the Black Rock is seen at sea while Jacob and the Man in Black are talking on the beach and it is a calm sunny day. In this episode, when the Black Rock first encounters the island it is a stormy night, soon followed by the crash with the statue.
    • Not necessarily the same ship, but if the same ship not neccessary the same day or leg of the voyage.

--Talkster 10:34, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

    • It was never confirmed the ship in [{The Incident]] was the Black Rock. The enhanced episode called it a wooden sailing ship. So the blooper referencing them as being the same ship should be removed. MoeT 21:05, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
MoeT-- this is a quote from the Ab Aeterno article: "Some confusion arose regarding the scene of a ship approaching the island under bright, sunny skies in "The Incident, Part 1" versus the Black Rocks approach to the island in a violent thunderstorm in this episode. In the Official Lost Podcast of March 24, 2010, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse confirmed they are the same ship, and that shortly after Jacob and the Man in Black's conversation, a sudden storm appeared and threw the Black Rock inland."--—   lion of dharma    talk    email   21:12, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why, since the Black Rock is visible from the Island in "The Incident, Part 1", given the larger size of the Statue on the Island in relation to the size of the ship, the slaves would have seen it clearly when there was no storm. They only discovered it when there was a storm, at night, when it would have been far less visible. This all seems too much like a "Deus Ex Machina" (a lazy writer's way out of a plot hole) and which results in what can therefore only be described as A CONTINUITY ERROR. Since that point was lost by someone who removed that particular post in the continuity / bloopers section, it is reduced here as "a topic of discussion!" -- Jodon1971 14:21, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
    • Awesome, thanks for clearing that up for me. It's been bugging me for a while, and I haven't listened to any podcasts! I appreciate it. MoeT 21:24, March 28, 2010 (UTC)


The British passed a law which abolished slavery in 1833, except in those areas owned by the East India Company, and even then those who were slaves and over the age of six became *apprentices*. It is also not impossible that a British registered ship would be shipping slaves via Las Islandes Canarias to the Americas since such trade still happened illegally anyway.Violetbeau 17:21, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

    • Although the date mentioned in this ep and the date mentioned in The Constant don't seem to match, there are possible explanations that wouldn't make this a blooper. For example, the ship was reported lost at sea in 1845 (perhaps for insurance purposes), but was in fact stolen by pirates and continued to be used by them until 1867. In other words, although I don't oppose this being mentioned as a blooper, we don't know for sure that it is. Clamshell 18:33, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • The Black Rock contains boxes of dynamite. Richard is sold into slavery soon after he kills the doctor on Tenerife. However, dynamite was only just invented in 1863 and then patented in 1867. It seems unlikely that even Magnus Hanso could have accumulated that much dynamite in such a short time.--Jesselfout 19:25, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Not that this has any evidence whatsoever, but considering the time in between, it could be possible that the black rock was storage for another group of "losties" - to hide weapons from the others, or from each other. These Black Rock dates have been bothering me all day and I just hate to think the writers have made such a huge continuity error, so I like to go with the "maybes".

"In the scene in the beginning of season 5's finale, the Man in Black asks Jacob, "You know how badly I wanna kill you?". Jacob replies, "Yes". In the scene, the Black Rock was out at sea. However, in Ab Aeterno, Jacob says to MiB, "So you tried to kill me" as if he just found out that he wanted to kill him. The Black Rock was on the island at this moment. (That ship wasn't confirmed to be the Black Rock.)"

  • MiB's earlier declaration of his intent doesn't create a continuity gap when they later discuss Richard's assassination mission. Duncan905 17:12, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting oppose In the conversation in "The Incident", the MIB and Jacob discussed the MIB's desire to kill him ("you know how badly I want to kill you?" "yes") and the fact that there were rules constraining the MIB ("I'll find my loophole"). The statue was intact and the Black Rock was seen offshore. Then just a couple days later, after Richard decided not to kill Jacob, Jacob says "So you tried to kill me" and even asks, "I guess I'm just wondering why you did it." That's a continuity error. Now, it's not a big one -- the obvious explanation is that the script writers wanted the second conversation to stand on its own, rather than assuming the audience remembered the first conversation verbatim -- but it's still inconsistent. — Lawrence King (talk) 06:13, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Richard speaks Spanish with a Cuban accent (the accent of the actor) may not necessarily be a blooper. The Cuban and Canarian varieties of Spanish are very similar, due to large migrations of Canarians to Cuba during the 19th Century. It is possible that the writers may have chosen to have Richard be Canarian so that Nestor would be able to speak the Spanish lines without having to drastically alter his accent. Whether this was the reasoning behind the decision or not, the outcome would be fairly similar. For this reason, I do not think the nearly indistinguishable accent issue is serious enough to be considered a true blooper Undomiel27 23:38, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support That is an awesome argument. I never knew that Cubans were migrating over there back then. So I agree. Give it a couple of hours and see if someone disagrees. If not, just delete it. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   23:49, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support This one has been bugging me too. Especially since on this weeks podcast, Damon and Carlton stated that Nestor Carbonell did research on the Canary Island's around the time the flashback was set, and found that their accent and dialect was very similar to the Cuban one, so he could use his natural accent when speaking Spanish. If anyone wants to keep this, they're going to have to show proof that the accent was different back then.--Baker1000 23:55, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
- I just deleted it. Podcasts trump all IMHO --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   00:00, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Just to be more specific, I mean the official podcasts of D&C. If they researched it, then it was clearly intentional and not a case of just being sloppy. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   00:03, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Removed this:
  • According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, Ricardo would not have been doomed to Hell just because he didn't have enough time to do penance before his execution. Whatever temporal punishment that would have been necessary to restore his soul would have been served in Purgatory.

The Catholic Church also frowns on priests selling parishioners into slavery. --- Balk Of Fametalk 17:20, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ilana's hospital scene makes short work of the continuity / masterplan myth

As it has already been mentioned the extra dialogue came from new footage shot after "The Incident" (Ilana's chin bandage is quite a giveaway / production / continuity error). Bear in mind that "The Incident" wasn't shot that long ago. If the statements were true, that by the end of season five, the creators had their road map, they would / could have shot the extra dialogue already, then, and merely show us the extra dialogue, now. The scene rather reveals that the whole "candidate" issue was a last-minute-addition to season six. Frankly I can't find fault with this because if somebody comes up with a great idea after you think you had it all together, it's more important to do what's good for the show instead of sticking to a narrow road map (heck, George Lucas did the same when he decided in ESB to have Darth Vader become Luke's father as he admitted in SPFX: The Making of ESB, which has conveniently been removed from circulation and attention...)--SokratesOne 23:07, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if the Talk page is the place to discuss this, but filming is a very timely and expensive process --even just to cover a few lines of dialogue. So it's quite possible that the writers had the rest of the Jacob/Ilana scene planned out (including the concept of Candidates); they just might not have had the time and budget to film extraneous scenes during the Incident. Not that I'm in the "Darlton are infallible!" camp or anything, but I reckon filming extra lines to be used nine episodes later wouldn't be a high priority, not while completing an ambitious two hour finale. --Jacknicholson 14:17, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • Sure it's the place. Anyways, you sort of shoot down part of your own argument in the first sentence - the cost. It had to add to the costs to re-stage the scene (location buildings returned to their purpose), have workers bring back in the lights & rigging, drive actors/crew back to the location - as opposed to continuing to roll the scene. If anything time might've prevented the shoot, but we're still talking an afternoon's work, right? Still, I don't think it necessarily indicates an 11th hour brainstorm. Duncan905 14:40, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
      • But given that the scripts for Season Six hadn't yet been written, they might have chosen to change the dialogue anyway, and would have to go back and reshoot. So why not play it safe and just wait.--Chocky 14:55, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
        • Scripts not written? Okay, that I did not know. Duncan905 19:18, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
          • This complaint is silly. It's virtually never the case that scenes for a later episode are shot and stored away in the can for a later episode. Just the nature of television production.  Robert K S   tell me  06:49, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
          • Agree this is silly. Also isn't it possible they had something like the complete scene in mind when making the Incident but decided not to film certain lines to reduce the risk of a major season six spoiler being leaked ?Beelzebubbles101 07:15, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

The idea of candidates was brought up in Season 5, when Ilana, Bram, and their men brought Frank Lapidis over to the Island and Bram mentioned that he might be a candidate. As Ilana didn't immediately tell him that Frank wasn't a candidate, that's either the continuity error (Frank possibly being one) or Ilana didn't want to talk about any of the candidates for their own safety. --Bwmathis 00:34, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


I'm removing these UQ as they are all provisionally answered in the episode

  • How did the Man in Black get Isabella's cross?
  • What is the darkness that the Island is keeping corked?
  • Why won't Jacob allow the Man in Black to leave?

--Charles Kane 08:05, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Here's a nagging UQ: There were several opportunities for MiB to reveal his/her name in this episode, so why not:

  • What is the Man in Black's name?
    • Why is Frankenstein's Monster never given a name in the original novel? Answer: he isn't human and he wasn't born naturally. The MiB doesn't have a name because he isn't human, i.e. the literal devil. It also sheds doubt on his anecdote concerning his "crazy mother". Uzerzero 18:48, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Talkster 09:46, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the sub-question about why everyone is going to hell is Richard doesn't kill MIB. I think it's pretty clear that if MIB gets off the Island, the whole world goes to hell. According to Jacob, that's what the Island is all about.--Emissary23 12:14, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

But that still leaves the question of what the hell "the whole world goes to hell" means. Which was unresolved, because god forbid we get any information on what the hell's the show's about halfway into the final season...--Golden Monkey 12:37, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Smokey spreads the infection Sayid and Claire have. Let's not forget the rest of the nasty business Smokey can get up to. Whether or not its right for Jacob to keep him there is the real question.--Lucky Day 15:59, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it is Lucky Day who has gone for a mass deletion of UQs. Unfortunately there was no explanation so I restored the UQs and invited discussion here. --Charles Kane 15:48, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • I was explaining my reasons at the time you restored it and your discussion here ended up blocking them--Lucky Day 15:52, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

removed a number of UQ--Lucky Day 15:52, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • How limited are Jacob's powers?
    • not important but perhaps Jacob has a kryptonite.
  • How can Richard stop The Man in Black?
    • not really addressed in the episode - the real question was what do Ilana's group do next and Richard had the answer. The answer was to stop or kill the MiB, not how and why Richard wouldn't tell them. That will be resolved in finale most likely.
  • Did Jacob really steal The Man in Black's humanity and body?
  • What is the meaning of the White stone that Jacob sent to the Man in Black via Richard?
    • they are weights that symbolize their continuous struggle.
      • I'm aware of the weights, however they are not depicted in here, and doesn't explain why would Jacob give the white stone to MiB, why MiB kept it and why did Jacob send it via Richard, looking yellowish and rough, isntead polished and white. When Jacob pointed to the stone, MiB said "Don't gloat" pointing there's a definite meaning to the act of giving and receiving the stone. I'm re-adding the questions Maokun 03:27, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
      • as I said below - It's Black and White guys. It's Jacob's little joke about opposites. We know that. We've known it for years. MiB explained it. One represents Jacob, the other MiB. There is no mystery, Jacob likes metaphors. Let it go. --Charles Kane 03:53, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes there is a definite meaning about "don't gloat" - it's not mysterious, nor is it about the stones - It means "don't gloat that I failed in my attempt to kill you" What could be clearer!--Charles Kane 03:54, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not trying to be stubborn, and probably there's not a greater meaning beyond it. However, following your own reasoning, a white stone on its own means little. Also note that is hinted that this was MiB's first attempt to kill jacob so is not like they had a score system. Also it's curious that MiB seemed to resent the fact of being given the stone, but he kept it (and apparently cleaned and polished it) while he had no second thoughts about destroying Jacob's second gift, the wine which was something that one would have more reasons to keep than a stone. As I said before, it may be nothing, but there are very minor but plentiful details (like Richard being the one who handed the stone) that make it seem something much more elaborate than a simple "Neener-Neener" prank from Jacob.Maokun 13:35, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
        • Agreed- the stones could relate to followers. Jacob gained a follower in Richard, and when the MiB threw the stone away it was because he'd stolen Sawyer from Jacob.--Chocky 20:22, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • How did Hurley catch up with Richard?
    • he walked, with Isabella's help
  • Why could Ben kill Jacob after Jacob spoke?
    • there might be something to needing to kill him in the foot of the statue and not outside of it ("no one goes in they're unless they're invited") but that is not specifically addressed - a better question might be was why did Jacob resist Albert but allow Ben to kill him, and that answer is simple: he wasn't ready for a candidate to replace him.

--Lucky Day 15:52, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

    • Also, Jacob didn't make the slightlest attempt to persuade Ben. Judging by Miles' testimony from Jacob's ashes, he wanted Ben to do the right thing on his own volition. Maokun 03:30, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Both have made it clear there was no magical power in the utterance of speech to make them invulnerable. MiB answered that definitively in this episode when he added "He can be very persuasive." When they say that, it's just because they don't want the other to persuade the person. --Dretzle 03:55, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think we should not too quickly assume that the "rules" are the same for MIB and Jacob. After all, Jacob's body did not react to the knife the same way the MIB did.FireBones 03:57, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • How do Ilana and Jacob know each other?
    • he's been like a father to her. details of this aren't addressed or implied in this episode.--Lucky Day 16:01, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I thought I was a hard man, but never mind. Regarding killing Jacob the reason definitively given in this episode is that it is not the speaking but what is said ie the persuasiveness of MiB or Jacob. --Charles Kane 16:11, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • yeah I was harsh and might be wrong on one or two. This episode is so odd for the questions it really does answer, even the open ones like you mention at the beginning of this discussion. The beautiful thing is they did it in a way that was intersting and not anti-cilmactic.--Lucky Day 16:22, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I have never seen such a rash of inappropriate questions. It's been atrocious in the last hour, despite encouragement no one is willing to come here an flag their ideas or give their arguments. It's late here in Oz, I give up. Good luck Lucky Day, don't let me get up tomorrow and find UQ diarrhea! --Charles Kane 16:41, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • I've asked to discuss it instead of getting into an edit war but a few people either didn't see or ignored my request in the history. I sent a message to Falstaff to discuss here and hopefully I've done that right. That said, my own question on the Black Rock and the debate about the slavery issue in 1867 might be too minor or even better asked ;). I'll make one more edit before I look at it again much later. As I said, I think this episode is remarkable about giving closure rather than having openings as is usual. There is simply not that many UQ's this episode. --Lucky Day 16:50, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Regarding the original post: I disagree that those three questions were answered and I'm going to re-add them. If you want to delete them again, please provide the answers you believe were offered by the episode next time, because I don't see them.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:24, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • Why does Sun declare herself as a candidate?
    • Because Ilana told her she was. I believe it was in Dr. Linus--Lucky Day 20:42, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
      • Ilana said that she was unsure whether Sun or Jin was a candidate --Beema|talk|contributions 05:45, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • Because she believes (rightly) that Ilana told her that she was a candidate. It may be that she is "jointly" a candidate but a candidate nonetheless. Charles Kane 05:51, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Father Suarez

  • Why does Father Suarez tell Richard he cannot be absolved?
    • Its a good question but this better question just for discussion IMO because its minor. Either Suarez was off in his Catholic theology, willfully ignorant or an agent of Jacob.--Lucky Day 20:46, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
      • Um, this is answered by Father Suarez - Richard must repent and make amends, which would take time, and Richard only had a day of life left. In short, Richard didn't have enough time to make up for murder, so he couldn't be absolved. I'm not a Catholic, I have no clue about the rules for penance, but this is the reason he provides, and enough to make this an answered question, not UQ. MannyF 23:21, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
        • Here's how penance works in Catholic theology. There are two distinct consequences of sin: the 'guilt' and the 'stain'. The guilt of sin is washed away by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. This is the absolution for which Ricardus asked and is not predicate on any further penance. The priest prays a prayer, the penitent prays a payer and we're done. The stain of the sin is the distorting effect of the sin on the person's soul. This is what Ricardus doesn't have time to deal with. Fortunately, Catholic theology has an answer: Purgatory. In Purgatory, the penitent works through the consequences of their actions and restores the original, created harmony to their soul. In essence, the stain is washed (Latin purgere) away. This is why Father Suarez' response contradicts Catholic dogma. The question is why? There are far easier ways to achieve the same literary effect from a theological perspective. (E.g. simply deny Ricardus access to a priest before boarding the Black Rock and have MiB tell him he's in Hell. He thinks he died with unconfessed mortal sin and there you go.) Of course, the route they chose makes a more explicit statement. Mcwebe0 18:09, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
        • By Fr. Suarez' given answer is B.S., and not Catholic teaching. So I suppose the question could better be posed: "Why does Father Suarez lie to Richard, saying that he cannot be absolved?" Danguyf 16:21, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
        • According to Catholic Theology killing the doctor might not have been a mortal sin, and therefore wouldnt damn him to hell. In order for an action to be mortal sin ALL 3 of these conditions need to be met: (1)It must be of a grave nature (ie, it needs to be a big deal, like murder)(2)the person doing it understands that the action is wrong and a big deal (3)and despite knowing it's wrong the person has to do it anyway with full consent of their will (ie, they weren't forced/tricked to do it, accedentally do it, or in the wrong frame of mind when they do it.) ichard killing the doctor was seemingly unintentional and therefore probably not a mortal sin.--Jacknisko 20:38, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Father Suarez has a side business, not necessarily with Jacob. Note that the purse went into his hand. There's a benefit to keeping a prisoner off guard, in this case by telling him he can't be forgiven.
    • I can't disagree, especially since the point of choosing Richard was because of his familiarity with English. But Jacob did admit to bringing Richard to the Island and it wouldn't be against him to use agents like this.--Lucky Day 17:31, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Jacob doesn't (if I recall) specifically say that he brought Richard. When he said 'you' I took it that he meant the Black Rock. Certainly, the way the conversation goes it seems to suggest that he isn't even bringing anyone in particular to the island at that point- just whoever is passing?--Chocky 20:24, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, isn't using the word "heretically" in reference to his refusal of absolution a little strong? Bobrk 21:15, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. That's the dictionary definition of heresy: something that is contrary to doctrine. But strangely enough, I can't find a usage of "heretically" before yours. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
  • I think the whole point of his statement about being unable to absolve Richard's sin wasn't because he was corrupt/not a priest/untheologically sound, but as a literary device for Richard's perspective of the Island. Father Suarez tells Richard that he cannot be forgiven of his sins and therefore he will go to hell, so Richard's fear now is of going to hell. If he had absolved Richard's sin and arranged for him to be sold into slavery, then Richard would be less inclined to believe the MiB. And, as it has been previously noted, the Black Smoke looks inside of people and judges them, so he would have seen Richard's peace, his knowledge of his innocence, his knowing that he will see his wife soon. There's really nothing that he could do with that. If he was afraid of hell, then the rest would follow suit. So in conclusion, the priest played a rather important role in what would happen to Richard, regardless of what his intentions were.Uzerzero 03:28, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Regardless of whether it was a plot device or not, the fact still remains that as a representation of Christianity, or even of Catholicism, Father Suarez's ideas about absolution are seriously flawed. Especially since it deals with one of the central tenets of Christianity: that anything is forgiven so long as one repents before Christ, which is what Richard was doing. Whatever the reason for introducing this plot development, it's still one hundred percent correct that Father Suarez is a lousy priest with very little understanding of his own religion. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
    • It would have to be something along those lines. Suarez could have been a corrupt jailer rather than a corrupt priest if the writers just wanted him to sell Richard into slavery. There has to be a reason why he was made a priest, and clearly it revolves around Richard wanting absolution and fearing Hell. It seems like a long ways to go just to back up Richard believing that he's in Hell, though. Could there be more to it? Danguyf 16:21, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it would be appropriate to note in the article that the ideas presented concerning absolution and penance are contratry to Catholic teaching. It may or may not be important to the story. Either way it is important that the audience knows. --Aef6259 10:46, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • @Aef6259 It is entirely inappropriate on the episode page. Lost is a work of fiction. The episode description - is just that - a precis of what we saw on screen not a commentary about it. The fictional character is a corrupt Catholic priest who says and does some things. It has nothing to do with the Catholic religion per se. Tell us about the doctrinal issue here on the talk page as others have attempted to do. Otherwise you will have to put Catholic doctrine after just about every scene. Charles Kane 11:54, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, Lost is a work of fiction, But it is very strongly drawing on a real world religion. There are a great proportion of characters who have connections with the Catholic Church. Its seems to be an increasingly important point. A Priest as an individual schooled in the doctrine of his religion would be assumed to be correct on matters of doctrine. It is a FACT that he is wrong, and should be noted to inform the reader of the depth of that converstation. Saying that the Priest is "heretically" stating something is a very precise desciption of what we saw on screen. Plus, Any time someone or a community summarizes something it is unavoidably making a commentary. I.E. how can you say a character was happy...they could have just been acting happy to deceive another character. What one chooses to report or not report in a summary is making a commentary on what is important to them. Therefore there are two options. The first is to note that the priest was wrong during the summary, or later state it as a blooper; a mistake by the makers of the show. Given the degree to which the Catholic Religion is involved in the show, it is unlikely that the makers of the show screwed up on such a central point of Catholic belief (especially considering the main themes of guilt, punishment and forgiveness). after considering that the must have chosen for the priest to be wrong and it should be noted.--Jacknisko 13:47, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you miss the point. Of course there are references, some of them important to the Catholic and to other religious beliefs, Whenever one of these comes up we do not on the episode page try to deconstruct or add a commentary about that reference. There is no issue about people being "informed of the depth of a conversation", we don't do it in any other context, we don't say that "here Jin is talking about what Jack said to Sun", or "this is refering to ancient Egytian beliefs". These may not be the best examples but I hope you get my drift. It is true that we sometimes make subjective descriptions "he happily said" or something. I've been criticised for it, but even when an editor does that it is usually something that the editor has actually seen on screen. Saying "heretical" in this context is not something I saw on screen. I saw and heard him say something - I don't need you to interpret it for me. Its a commentary or interpretation. It is irrelevant whether it is right or wrong, it's just unnecessary. Charles Kane 14:05, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • It's possible my example was too general. In these episode descriptions we call an ankh an ankh and Tawaret Tawaret because that is what they are, even though that was not made specifically clear in the episode. We know that becuase those in the community who have an expertise in Egyptian symbols and gods tell us so, that includes those who write the "enhanced" portions of an enhanced episode, as they are not canon. I am meerly suggesting we do the same for this statement. It is heretical so we should call it such to inform those less versed in Catholic teaching of the important fact that what the priest is saying is not true.--Jacknisko 17:41, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jacknisko, there is an entire article on lostpedia regarding Religion and ideologies; it think that it would be fitting to write about this there. I agree with CharlesKane, an episode page is not the appropriate place to write a commentary on the manner in which Catholicism/religion was depicted in the episode. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   18:51, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there is a compromise. rather than "stating" it we can say Fr. Suarez is "claiming" it, as is done int he Fr. Suarez article.--Jacknisko 12:57, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • what is right is right and I still think "claiming" is unnecessary but I will look the other way, I presume you have already done it. I can't resist saying this though, if you are so defensive of the accurate representation of the Catholic religion you are also probably watching the wrong show.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   13:25, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your benevolence, Charles. I can't resist replying that I watch the show because it is one of few intelligent shows on TV these days. The creators show great attention to detail, and I appreciate and enjoy that. And I think that should be and is mirrored in this wiki. And that would mean an accurate representation of all real world religions. Especially considering the shows subject matter, fate vs free will, punishment and redeption. I also think in LOST there is a special importance being placed on Ancient Egyptian beliefs (as shown by the statues and symbols) and Catholic beliefs (as shown by the promince of Latin, Catholic holy days, as well as that 14 of 23 Characters listed in the [Religion and ideologies] article are Catholic or have connections to it. Thats 60%, much higher than the general population). Since these religions are being so prominently displayed it should be done as accurately as possible, regardless of the fictional nature of the show. In fiction, writers can create fictional religions to meet their needs when necessary. The creators chose not to do so.--Jacknisko 14:19, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a great show - for those who persevere it really has something for everyone, entertainment, good "real" characters, drama, social commentary, SF, spiritual matters even some sex. We are very lucky, actually for mainstream US TV its just stunning (mind you American TV has produced so many good dramas in the last few years this is truly a Golden Age, HBO has been so creative - but then ABC supports this brilliance. My jaw drops. BTW - the religion IS portrayed "as accurately as possible", but its focus is not the set of beliefs that you are defending, but a corrupt practitioner whose every word is tainted by his corruption. That's why I don't need to be told that Suarez is wrong about an item of dogma, because the scene wasn't about Catholic beliefs - rather it was about a manipulating, deceptive, greedy wolf in sheep's clothing.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   15:17, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Someone pointed out in a comment on a blog that "Father" Suarez may be the worst of the "parent issues" bad fathers so far, worst that Anthony Cooper and even Kate's stepfather. None of them damned their child's eternal soul.--Lucky Day 20:46, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

And think about this, Fr. Suarez took Richard's Bible with him when he left Richard in his cell. (I kept yelling, "Tell him you want your Bible back!!). Later actions maybe proved that he knew Richard was learning English (the English Bible was proof to Hanso) and that presented a whole other opportunity (monetarily) to Fr. and he told Richard the worst possible news becasue he had all along planned to sell him to Hanso upon knowing he spoke English. Speaking English seemed to be pretty freakin' important when he met with his "buyer".

Someone might want to take a look at Father Suarez/Theories; I put a cleanup flag on it. A lot of its content is explanatory, rather than theoretical.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:38, April 1, 2010 (UTC)


"How was Ilana injured?" The ABC website says that she was badly burned. --Golden Monkey 18:40, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

But how was Ilana badly burned? That doesn't answer the question, it just removes it one step backward. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
She looks very pretty for someone who was badly burned. Does anyone have the name of her plastic surgeon and can I have his number? -- AlexDeLarge 13:27, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
His name is Jacob. He touched her when she was in the body cast, remember? And here is his number. — Lawrence King (talk) 16:53, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Further UAQ Cleanup

I made a new heading coz I got my big broom out. I'm going to remove some of the UAQs. For people unfamiliar with the style manual on UAQ' it can be found in the "more details" link just to the right of the UQs. I also try to keep in mind that it is possible to ask a thousand Qs for each episode. But many will be unuseful, easily explained, will never be answered, aren't central to the issues, are not relevant to the episode, we need to exercise a bit of patience etc. Here goes:

  1. "Why does the Father tells Richard Alpert that can not acquit?" This is discussed quite a bit just above. It has now taken a more technical form - (acquit? what is that?) - surely the answer is provided by the episode and with equal certainty we will never visit this time and place again. The father is corrupt and bogus. He probably hasn't been keeping up his theology lately, he may even believe what he said, he is a sadist, he will earn more money with a compliant prisoner. Take your pick of one or all.
  2. "What does it mean that Jacob stole the Man in Black's humanity and his body?" er ... it means: that Jacob stole the Man in Black's humanity and his body. Watch the last episode of Lost when it comes out!
That doesn't make any sense. You could offer that excuse for any number of UAQ's. --Beema|talk|contributions 05:47, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
  1. "Can the knife kill both Jacob and the Man in Black?" This is clearly a leading question. According to the players a knife or this knife CAN so kill. It DOES so kill in the case of Jacob. It is highly unlikely that this is about the "knife" - it is about the motives and identity of the potential killer. But the Q is leading.
  2. "Do Sun, Jin, Jack and company have eternal life because Jacob touched them?" This is a leading question. It is based on a theory and a misapprehension as to the nature of Jacob's touch. Nowhere in Lost is it said or, I believe, even implied that Jacob's touch gives eternal life (e.g. Locke). It has in one case - Ricardus. But equally he asked for THAT gift. No one else has. But I don't need to argue this issue. It is argued at length in the discussion to the theories in Episode 8. as it stands it is entirely leading.
  3. "What does the white rock that Jacob gives to the Man in black through Richard mean?" It's Black and White guys. It's Jacob's little joke about opposites. We know that. We've known it for years. MiB explained it. One represents Jacob, the other MiB. There is no mystery, Jacob likes metaphors. Let it go.
  4. "Why does Jacob tell Ilana that Richard Alpert knows what to do?". Because at the time he said that to Ilana he knew that Richard, his very long time associate, knew what to do! What answer can anyone possibly expect. He knows because he told him, has been in this situation before, is experienced, maybe even it doesn't matter - Its about Humans making choices in extremis.
  5. I hate "Why did Jacob defend himself against Richard in 1867, but not against Ben in 2007?" and "How can Richard stop the Man in Black?" but I'll let someone else argue that for the latter - we will find out - be patient, and the former - that he wasn't ready with great candidates.
  6. I'm re-adding one of my own - "How did Ilana get injured".

Also see Lucky Day's arguments etc above --Charles Kane 00:42, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

I removed "How did Ilana get injured?" and you know why? I said in my edit summary, it was a question from "The Incident, Part 1" and not this episode. We don't need to repeat the same question every time we get a repeat of that scene shown without a further explanation. Please don't add it back again.--Baker1000 01:40, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
FYI, that's also been on Ilana's character page for a while. (Mirth23 02:24, March 25, 2010 (UTC))
  • thanks - missed Ilanas page
  • removed "*How did Ben kill Jacob after he spoke to him if that is supposed to prevent people from killing him?" My response is - did you watch the show, does it need to be spelled out more clearly - it isn't some magical don't let him utter a single word , but don't let him speak because he is SO persuasive. MiB says it TWICE.
  • removed fluttering butterflies. ha ha

--Charles Kane 03:37, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • removed "why did the ankh fall to the left/right?" - the statue held an ankh in each hand. Also debris would tumble around over 150 years in the surf, given storms we've seen. Duncan905 15:08, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • removed "We know that MIB can't kill Jacob and we know that the world is doomed if Jacob is killed and MIB released so the only way Jacob can be killed is if other people are on the island and yet, he CONSTANTLY does this putting himself and the world at risk. Why?" Duncan905 18:10, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

when will the hurting stop?--Lucky Day 19:14, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • How was Ilana injured?
    • see above
  • What is the darnkess that the Island is keeping corked?
    • the MiB
      • In my opinion, nothing that Jacob said implied that the darkness and the MiB were the same. Using the word "hell" to describe the darkness makes it sound less like a person and more like something more cosmic. I think this is a valid question.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:20, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
        • I can see that, I thought it confusing initially that Jacob didn't compare hell (a supposed place) to the bottle, which would be expected given the theme of containment. He says 'what you keep calling hell', seemingly indicating the Island but continues to equate it with malevolence, evil & darkness. We've seen people get 'claimed' by darkness, which I think we're being hinted as being larger than MiB (evil/devil). On the other hand it was also told as an analogy, and while we'll probably be learning more about the darkness I don't think the bottle story itself will be getting any more screen time. Duncan905 04:30, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
        • Considering this entire season has been the conflict between Jacob and the MiB I disagree. I don't think you will get many people agree with you but I am not a mind reader and I could be wrong, but I think a few others share my opinion. I can't see letting out the magnetic field for instance or its magical mode of travel as being evil.--Lucky Day 23:05, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why won't Jacob allow the Man in Black to leave the Island?
    • because he's evil. explained in the episode, not unanswered at all.
      • Sure, Jacob feels that MiB is evil, but why is it so important that he stay on the Island? What will happen if he leaves? These are valid questions.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:20, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
        • you'd rather have that kind of evil running all over everywhere rather than contained? --Lucky Day 23:05, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • How does Ilana meet Jacob?
    • not important to the episode, though we know he met her once in the Russian hospital.
  • How can Richard stop the Man in Black?
    • how is not important to the episode - see above
  • What's the meaning behind the act of giving and receiving the white stone?
    • this has been explained twice now.

--Lucky Day 19:14, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • I've added why was the Black Rock dealing in slaves because per the discussion below because: a) an English ship should not have been dealing in slaves in 1867; and b) a lot of talk her shows its not likely a continuity error. This is a major factoid in the episode that leaves you scratching your so and it should probably go somewhere. Thoughts?--Lucky Day 19:19, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll pop it back in for you, tho I really don't think it's going to matter - it's a fun tool to get Ricardo to the island! --Charles Kane 00:35, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • removed "If the smoke monster was in the form of Isabella after the Black Rock had crashed, then how did she supposedly get attacked by the smoke monster when she ran to the upper deck?" The smoke monster examines Richard when he stares at him. He then recreates Isabella to tempt Richard much as he did with Ben and his "daughter" (note she is wearing the clothes she died in), he then makes his Smokey noises above deck. Fake Isabella escapes, smokey makes pretend "I am devouring Isabella noises", MiB comes to Richard and says I saw Smokey take her, I couldn't stop him, remember we know MiB is Smokey - he said so and we know anyway, he has now set up Richard to do his bidding.--Charles Kane 00:24, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why can't the Man in Black leave the island?
    • Because Jacob won't let him. See above and below. This is actually an AQ for this ep. not a UQ. --Lucky Day 03:29, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

UQ changed to Theories

At this writing there are no important UQ's worth mentioning. I'm not sure if this is a first for this series and this site. However, due to the need to link to the Theories sub-page I readded the theories redirection link and renamed the sub-category as Theories. Unfortunately, the title of the link says its meant for UQ's which may be causing some to erroneously remove it.--Lucky Day 05:34, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

UQ - Isabella's Cross

I'm re-adding the Isabella's Cross question to the page because nobody has discussed its removal on the talk page as far as I can tell. I asked above for a reason why it should be removed and was not offered one. If I just missed it, please repost it here.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:14, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm suggesting you take down the question, but I wanted to take a quick shot at this one.... Despite the implausibility of a slave with a gold necklace, Richard is wearing the cross while the ship is approaching the island. When he wakes up in the crashed ship, it's gone. One might be tempted to suggest that maybe Smokey stole it for his plan while Richard was unconscious, but Smokey doesn't seem to "read" Richard until later (when he saves Richard from being stabbed), so he wouldn't have known its significance before that point and would have had no reason to take it. So I think by process of elimination, the only possible answer is that the necklace was somehow swept from Richard's neck during the tidal wave and/or ensuing crash, and then Smokey found it on the jungle floor (or elsewhere on the ship) after he had met Richard and recognized its significance. Is there any other possibility that wouldn't create a continuity error?--Faraday100 00:43, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I removed the UQ - hastily as it turns out because I didn't look for a discussion here first. Sorry. But removal should stand. Not only does it not matter, the answer is either Faraday100s or this rather simpler one: R had the necklace on the ship (we see him touching it), later we don't see it around his neck, but then we don't get an unambiguous look at his neck, or if it come to that - in his pockets. We don't see him with it in the hold after the shipwreck but that doesn't mean he doesn't have it. MiB rescues R. R has been passing out for days. Hours go by while MiB roasts the pig. MiB has ample opportunity to purloin the cross. Later the same day as an ongoing "hook" he returns the precious cross. No mystery. Answer is in front of our faces. Charles Kane 00:51, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • Agreed on removal, just pointing out the moment Richard realizes it is missing is when he is facing Whitfield's sword. He does grasp it on his neck when Ignacio shouts he saw the devil before the crash. And yes, darn peculiar that a condemned criminal was allowed to keep a gold possession, let alone after being sold as property. Duncan905 01:03, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think the necklace was actually gold and neither did the doctor who wouldn't take it as payment for isabella's medicine. Jdray 01:11, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • It very much looks like gold in the close up we see of it in MiBs hand. It could be brass, but brass tends to oxidise a bit (black stains) - so I'd pump for gold, just not much of it, or the Doctor was angling for more than that bit of gold. Maybe R got tossed on the Black Rock hurriedly and got to keep the cross who knows - but as I said - is it going to matter? Charles Kane 02:19, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, they clearly thought it was worth something even more than the coins. The doctor didn't. It may have been a symbol of her immortal soul. Catholics here can remind me if there is a requirement to wear a cross at all times to show your faith.--Lucky Day 07:30, April 1, 2010 (UTC)


I think one of the keys to this episode is not the Unanswered Questions but the Answered ones:--Lucky Day 17:36, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • why is only one foot left on the statue?
  • how did the Black Rock end up in the middle of the Island?
  • did the Black Rock have any survivors and are they the Others?
  • why doesn't Richard age?
  • how did Richard learn English?
  • who is the MiB? (partially)
  • why can't the MiB leave the Island?
  • who is Jacob? (partially)
  • does Jacob bring people to the Island and if so, why? (known from EEp but Jacob admits it directly).
  • what is the Island?
  • who are the Others and why are they there?--Lucky Day | msg 01:30, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

New Category?

So here's a question, would it be worth it to have an Answered Questions category in the article's page? This could result in a remarkable amount of backtracking. The most I've seen is people removing UQ's in old episodes when a later one resolves it. I think the with old UQ's it may be better to leave it in if it is important to the episode and link to the later episode that resolves it.--Lucky Day 17:36, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • If you want to propose that, you should do it at Lostpedia:Ideas.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:11, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • thanks--Lucky Day 20:07, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I had proposed that before. Changing "pointless unanswered questions that eventually evaporate from the page for no reason once they get an answer" to a more robust "Mysteries" section, in which each general mystery topic will have either new questions or new answers. Questions that get answered won't disappear, but instead will have a link to the mystery section of the episode in which we get an answer (or clue). --Jackdavinci 06:32, March 25, 2010 (UTC)


Does the appearance of the pig on the ship explain that they came from the Black Rock?--Lucky Day 20:20, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • I seriously doubt it. That was a wild boar, not a domestic pig. I assume the boars had been on the island for a long time.EdwardLost 22:41, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe Lucky Day meant the domestic pig that MiB roasted for Richard? Quite possible it came from the Black Rock's "limited supplies" - but probably reserved for Capt. Hanso if so. Duncan905 00:23, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • Was there some more scrutiny - it's not a pig but a baby boar? Or maybe I was way off-base guessing the Black Rock had a few livestock animals. Not a huge deal to me, really, but for ease of story it eliminates the delay of a hunt. Also an opportunity for credibility to MiB's claim about finding the pendant if he went back to get a pig. Duncan905 02:21, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • We know Boars are on the island coz John Locke in his first major appearance goes and hunts for one and brings it back in about the 4th ep of season one. We also know the boars were rooting around the fuselage - maybe in the same season 1 episode - very much as the boar did in ab aeterno. The tie between Lohn Locke and Nemisis may be coincidental but maybe not - after all in that same scene John Locke said that he "looked into the eye of the Island, and it was beautiful" (we don't see it but it was Smokey). None of that proves Richard ate Boar (which really is just wild pig), but it seems pretty likely. Also we never see Nemesis eating (we do see him drink however). He certainly doesn't join Richard eating the nice roast boar.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   02:55, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think he was hungry. If anything, we know that the boars were there before Dharma came there, and that its likely there's quite a number of them now.
      • On a side note, ships during the age of discovery used to release pigs and goats on deserted islands in case anyone became stranded on them, and they would always survive because they eat any/everything. Naturally, this well meaning gesture has caused a lot of ecological damage, and in the case of pigs, swine flu among native populations.--Lucky Day 03:33, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Slavery in 1867

  • Richard was 'purchased' from the priest on Tenerife in 1867 (according to the title card at the beginning of the flashback) and asked if he spoke English and told he would be going to the New World... Where would the Black Rock be taking Richard if the final ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was in December 1865? (no other English speaking country had slavery after then)
  • Should this be added/mentioned on the main page in the General Trivia?

--Talkster 09:58, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Right... If you believe that after 1865, it didn't continue anyway, then you're being rather naive! -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  10:13, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
So we can assume Magnus Hanso was involved "in the slave trade post-abolition" as confirmed. --Talkster 10:44, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
It's important to remember that Richard was a prisoner on death row, effectively. I'm not sure what the legal framework was around hiring someone like that at the time. I imagine that even with slavery abolished it would be possible to have a convict as a 'labourer' and keep him in pretty terrible conditions--Chocky 12:34, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
If we assume that the Auctioneer in The Constant was correct, the Black Rock had set sail for Siam. Slavery wasn't abolished in Siam until 1912. The British did have a presence in Siam in the mid-19th century. It is possible that they never intended to take Richard to the new world (was it still refered to as the New World 79 years after the US Constitution was ratified?)--Mr. Squinty 14:19, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
This is one of those questions that belongs somewhere between UQ and blooper until its resolved. I posted it as a blooper before I saw this discussion. Not sure what to make of this yet. Some simple confusion could have been prevented if they set this backstory 100 or 200 years earlier. Let's hope there's an answer in next week's EP.--Lucky Day 16:10, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out above, Whitfield made his deal directly with Fr. Suarez (and the jailer), not a judge/magistrate. Richard's death sentence could easily be recorded as having been carried out. That indicates a 'black market' operation, so I agree with plkrtn. Duncan905 18:22, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

When Richard had his teeth checked just prior to being sold, I was amused that the slaver buyer didn't say "My, what a nice clean, white set of teeth this one has!"--Pittsburghmuggle 21:26, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

I also found the date and the slavery issue a little odd, not just because slavery was illegal in all the "New World" countries and English speaking countries, but also because the Canary Islands are right off the coast of Africa, and all throughout the 19th Century (from 1807 onwards) the Royal Navy very vigorously patrolled the African coast looking for slavers, and seized over 500 slaving ships. Again, it's not outside the realm of the possible, but this and other elements of Richard's origin did make it seem like they had intended it to take place earler than 1867. SpartHawg948 05:25, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Considering the great number of slaving ships that were caught, this makes me think it was very likely that slaving ships existed at the time...--Jackdavinci 06:41, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I never doubted that slave ships existed in 1867. In fact, I pretty much stated that this was the case. Why else would the British Navy be doing anti-slavery patrols? The main point was that it struck me as odd that a British slave ship (as the Black Rock's home port was Portsmouth) would be operating in and around the Canary Islands in 1867, while the British Navy was operating off those very same islands on anti-slaving patrols, especially in light of the fact that they generally reserved the harshest punishment for British vessels and crews. SpartHawg948 06:50, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Was Richard explicitly referred to as a slave? There may have been some other sort of legal workaround that makes it consistent with 1867. Indentured servitude still existed at the time, and their contracts could be sold. Since Richard was a prisoner about to be executed, he may have been forced to sign such a contract or face death. (Mirth23 05:48, March 25, 2010 (UTC))

Whatever the case, dynamite was invented/patented 7 May 1867, so at least the writers put the Black Rock on the island at the earliest time possible.... --Talkster 06:22, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

The invention of dynamite was in 1866. Inventions typically come a bit ahead of a patent being written and granted. I do agree that the timeline is tight, but it's possible. (Mirth23 06:31, March 25, 2010 (UTC))

  • since this discussion that its very likely not a continuity error (especially since the incident would have to occur after Mr Nobel invent dynamite) I've posted it as an UQ. It seems a little specific for a UQ but I think its a vital factoid and I'm not sure where else it could go.--Lucky Day 19:27, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Reversion after major reorganisation

I did the reversion. The changes were a mess (see under the timelines heading for explanation) and had mixed up many of the main divisions. Would the author of those changes please discuss such major changes here on this page first.--Charles Kane 13:18, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Richard as Tantalus

I don't know if the evidence is strong enough to include this in the Trivia section, but when Richard was still in chains and trying to drink the rain water (and failing to reach it), I immediately thought of Tantalus from Greek mythology. As his eternal punishment for murder, Tantalus was made to stand in a pool of water. Whenever he bent down to take a drink, the water receded. This also fits Richard's belief that the island is Hell. Any thoughts? Twaters 14:17, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

ah, ironic punishment. same with losing the nail. certainly the MiB was engineering it so Richard would think that. when I saw this I thought of return to the planet of the apes.--Lucky Day 16:26, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
I also thought immediately of Tantalus. The scene doesn't really do anything for the whole story, but it's a great allusion to Tantalus and IMHO a pretty deliberate one. What strikes me as even more ironic is the fact that you have to watch LOST to get a correct idea of Greek mythology, while CLASH OF THE TITANS does exactly the opposite --SokratesOne 23:13, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

"My friend"

You noticed how the Man in Black keeps calling Richard "my friend"? He also refers to himself as a friend when trying to "tempt" people (Richard, Claire). Another character noticeably kept calling everyone "my friend": Ceasar. Do you think this is meaningful? I know Ceasar and MiB apparently cannot be the same person since they were seen meeting face to face. But the way both character use this particular way to address people was clearly stressed upon in the script. I keep wondering if there's something there...--Lauridsen77 14:27, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • I had posted somewhere else early on about this because Bram and Cesar both used "my friend", and Flocke called him out on this on the beach. "You have a habit of calling people your friends, but I don't think you really see them as friends," he said something similar. This made me notice that Bram also called Miles "my friend" when he tried to bribe him not to work for Widmore. And MiB referred to Jacob as "My friend" when we first saw him. So, I was thinking this might mean that Bram and Cesar actually worked for MiB. Not sure what it means now, though, since Bram was killed by the smoke and seemed to be definitely on Jacob's side. -- Clayburn 16:27, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jacob may have at some stage pointed out to MIB that he was consistently misusing the words "my friend". After a long-held resentment to Jacob, MIB may have felt it was time to start pointing this out to other people the same way as Jacob had possibly done to him. -- Jodon1971 16:41, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

"What Hurley says to Isabella?"

I don't know if what Hurley first says to off-cameo Isabella should be on the article, too. So, here is the translation:"What will you/we do? Yes, i can help you. But, i don't know how to find him, if i don't where he went..."--Solitary rousseau 16:00, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

60-minute version of episode

In the US this was an "extended episode", airing on ABC from 9pm to 10:06pm, but in Canada it aired in a standard one-hour block on CTV. So what was deleted from CTV's broadcast of this episode? LOST-Kuzak 16:28, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

enhanced episodes air an hour earlier on ABC in the US and give explanations in subtitles regarding the previous week's show. That's wht the CTV might have meant.--Lucky Day 16:57, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
No, I am not referring to the enhanced episode. LOST-Kuzak 17:00, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
I am Canadian and I am aware of the edits Canadian broadcasters are allowed to make (ie Superbowl commercials), so yeah, it doesn't look like there was any difference in the episode you saw and the one I saw down here. I think CTV just made mistake in its listing.--Lucky Day 17:21, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Shorter adverts I'd suspect. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  18:56, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
I'm Canadian and at the end of the episode, plus the credits, a few commercials and the majority of the preview for next week, the station switched feeds (or affiliates or whatever) and the show started up again from the middle of the Hurley/Richard conversation. I suspect that's what caused the extra 6 minutes.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:40, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Where to download

I kinda missed this episode and i want to download it. where can i do that?--Cc7asan 19:29, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • the ABC website usually has links to the episode.
  • Downloading is illegal. You can stream it at or Marc604 19:46, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Downloading is not illegal, pirating is. --Leachpunk 12:37, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • I consider downloading a TV show fine. It should be legal. If you're in a country that gets it late(r) then you should be able to watch it just as USA/Canada does. It's not fair otherwise. --JimBobbo 06:59, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. A good site for download links is [4] -- Jodon1971 16:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Go to and you can watch it streamed there. — —   lion of dharma    talk    email   19:56, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • You can buy it on iTunes too Tdstom 04:14, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Ben met Richard when he was 12

Ben admits that he met Richard when he was 12, yet their meeting in ("The Man Behind the Curtain") took place when Ben was 8 or 9. Ben was 12 when Richard took him to the Temple and changed him, so is this confirmation that Ben doesn't recall anything that happened to him before the well? Marc604 19:46, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ben's page says that he was born in 1961, and ("The Man Behind the Curtain") says the meeting took place in 1973. That's 12, not 8 or 9. (Mirth23 02:31, March 25, 2010 (UTC))
  • I just fixed Ben's page. Marc604 08:22, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

flashback order

the flashbacks should be ordered chronologically. I re-edited Ilana's flash with Jacob to the end of flashbacks. please keep it that way. -- Sharon1234  Talk  Flashback  19:57, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Main image

Can we get a better picture? Someone put one up of Richard wrapped in a blanket, when he talked to Jacob on the beach but it appears someone deleted it. That one was much better, considering there wasn't another person distracting us from Richard. (Kdc2 01:39, March 25, 2010 (UTC))

I've put it back up. When I get a higher resolution version of it, I will put that up. --Joshm1995 05:08, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

That is a much better and more dramatic photo ....but the other had MiB in it which was a nice touch, still seeing the bearded and longhaired Ricardo is pretty good. --Charles Kane 05:21, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting the pic again. The editor needs to have the politeness to come here to discuss a change that has been adopted and approved over a number of days. Charles Kane 05:36, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think Kdc2 did the revert before I got there. It's just a better screen grab, the gaol has symbolic stuff going for it but they probably don't relate to Richard anyway. Much prefer the beach shot. Charles Kane 05:40, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

I kept changing it back to the prison scene, mainly because it showcases the idea of "from the beginning of time", plus it is of a higher quality and a better size. The current image is small and blurry. If anyone can find the same image in a higher and better quality, it'd be awesome. For now it just looks bad.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  05:44, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you about it being small and blurry, but in my first post a couple of lines up I said I will update it when I get a better quality one.--Joshm1995 05:50, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'll go to my copy and find the grab. Not High def tho Charles Kane 05:57, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

That'd be more than awesome :)  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  06:12, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to put it up, but honestly although I've worked it over and done a full screen grab, sharpened it, removed the watermark, fiddled with saturation etc I still don't think it cut's the mustard! Give me 5 and have a look at it. Charles Kane 06:25, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

@ ODK - maybe you have a HD version we could use? Charles Kane 06:27, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it's not quite the same grab - but side by side - at least in the thumbnail size does look better. Charles Kane 06:34, March 27, 2010 (UTC) ` Yeah, it looks really pixelated.. I'm going to try and find a better screencap. It might not be until Tuesday, though.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  18:23, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

  • Hey I just uploaded a picture that is very similar to the one that's already up, but it's of a much higher quality. I really like the actual shot that's currently up more than the one I just uploaded, but the quality of the current one is less than fabulous, as we all agree. Anyway, let me know what you think. -- —   lion of dharma    talk    email   23:44, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
    Richard abaeterno
  • Nice!--Joshm1995 02:05, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • That's fine. I think we are all agreed these beach shots are excellent - pivotal moment in the story and Ricardo/Carbonel looks stunning (and I'm male!) - guess no screen grab is going to be perfect but this looks really good and I, for one am happy - good work guys Charles Kane 03:58, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I like mine better to - I got lucky with his eyes but there is nothing I can do about the resolution, maybe you cld kick the color up a notch, sharpen a fraction, tiny bit more contrast - but really it's fine. Charles Kane 04:03, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Episode References

"To show Richard that he is alive contrary to his assertion that he is dead and in hell, Jacob grabs him and drags him into the water. Richard would later grab Ben and push him down next to Locke's corpse in a similar manner to show him that Locke is dead and not the man inside the statue. ("LA X, Part 1")" - not a direct reference, just a coincidental grabbing & frog-marching. Duncan905 02:55, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

"The Man in Black admits to being the black smoke. ("Recon")" - MiB was not referring to something he would say in the future. Coincidental dialogue or a new Regularly Spoken Phrase, but not an EpRef. Duncan905 16:57, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • follow up - although a storyline revelation, if any Ep Ref belongs it would be in 'Recon' to 'LA_X Part 2' when the admission is first made (same time period). Again, hard to directly refer to the future, at least for speeches/concepts in future episodes. Richard's compass seen in 1954 would be one of the rare examples of a direct link to a 'future' episode. Duncan905 18:05, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

"The Man in Black says he will see Jacob "sooner than you think." ("The Substitute")" - again, in 1867 MiB is not directly referring to his future quip to Richard. Coincidence or a RSP. Duncan905

  • follow up - the ER about Dogen's instructions qualifies because the knife is an object seen in a prior episode. I also agree with the entry about "Hell" since it is a storyline concept introduced at a specific point. Duncan905 17:45, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support I think the definition of an episode reference is a foggy one here. I personally never contribute to that section because I'm not exactly sure what would qualify. I think many people just post things that are similar to other episodes in the past, but the section is called episode references and not episode similarities. So I'm all for cutting the stuff you've mentioned above; you've made some good arguments. So go for it, I say. If someone has a problem with it hopefully (s)he will come discuss it here. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   18:57, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

"Isabella tells Richard to close his eyes as she lays dying, and says to remember that they will always be together. In Recon, the scene James is watching in "Little House on the Prairie" discusses death and the reassurance that people aren't really gone when they die, their memories remain.--Destinedjourney 20:09, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

"sooner than you think," is back, along with "out of those chains." - These should become new Regularly Spoken Phrases. Do they also amount to direct Episode References?

  • When MIB said "sooner than you think" behind Jacob's back/to himself he was not referring to something he would say to Richard 150 years later. If in the near future we're shown a scene in 1857 where Jacob encounters MiB and declares "Oh! I didn't expect to see you this soon!" then that event can use this conversation as a direct reference.
  • When MIB said "Good to see you..." in 1857 it is an exact quote said to the same person, so I can see the merit. Although I still think it's strange to have this conversation refer to a future conversation. Duncan905 19:35, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Recurring Themes

"The Man in Black touches Richard and revives him. (Rebirth)" - this will likely have some contention, but we weren't shown Richard to not be breathing. I think it certainly bears a prominent footnote that the expected first touch, a lingering anonymous touch on Richard's shoulder was not who was expected. But I think with the 'rebirth' tag implying reincarnation the 'revives' point should go. Until we know for sure we're in hell.  ;) Duncan905 04:34, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • If there was a "revive" as in re-en-live-n then I didn't see it. People have just got obsessed about this touch thing. Jacob touched people who later came to the Island. Only one of them may have been deceased (Locke) - that's all - no eternal life, only come to the Island. Sometime - we may have seen it - he and Richard made a deal - a job for agelessness and no death. Nothing about anyone else getting this. Nothing about being dead first. Just that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charles Kane (talkcontribs) 2010-03-25T00:05:48.
  • Removed the recurring theme suggesting we should take note that Jacob takes and sits in a "white chair" when visiting Ilana in hospital. This is too much! He has no option - there are 2 chairs available, they are the same. They have a white plastic back and seat but the rest is a tubular metal. Much else in the ward is white. It is absurd to suggest that his represents the Black and white theme and that in some way Jacob is white. In this very scene Jacob wears a Black overcoat, black gloves and black pants yet that isn't mentioned. Why? Because it is irrelevant and has no more meaning than the "white" chair or Ilana's white bandages. Charles Kane 16:22, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Cultural References

"Because I wanted them to help themselves." - is this close enough to Ben Franklin's quote? In the context Jacob had just refuted MIB's claims of being in hell & described bringing people to the Island with good intentions but not getting involved. Richard recognizes he has some power, and is surely thinking their struggle as God/Devil in his mindframe. It could also be seen as a 'contemporary' expression to the period. CR? (Ben also said "Lost time is never found again.") Duncan905 04:50, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Moved, no direct reference to this at all, only the fact that the scene is set in the Canary Islands, this is not a history book or a placy for quirky information - it must emerge out of Lost directly.
St. Brendan Island: There is a legend in the Canary Islands, which Tenerife is part of, that there exists an eighth island called St. Brendan Island. This island has allegedly been seen several times in the Canary Islands' history, and there are some ancient maps on which the eighth island is drawn. Stories about this mysterious island have been told by sailors who claim they have landed on its beaches. Saint Brendan the Navigator discovered the island, according to church histories, during a 7 year voyage aboard a coracle (a boat of leather and wood) to seek the Island of Paradise. During the voyage they encountered a snake-like sea monster. When they found the island, an angel told him to return with his crew to Ireland, that God had other plans for the island that did not include him. This island was allegedly visited in the 19th century by explorers who took photographs of it that can be found on the internet.
  • Moved this fascinating tidbit which is not a direct reference:
  • Poor Richard's Almanack: The 1737 edition of this periodical published by contemporary statesman Benjamin Franklin popularized the quote: "God helps those who help themselves." Jacob tells Richard that he hasn't helped the people he brought to the Island: "because I wanted them to help themselves." (Books)--Charles Kane 23:38, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Moved. Not a direct reference, (which is the basic prerequisite) even the reference would be subject to considerable challenge as the parallels are disparate and minor at best. (you will see what a direct reference is by looking at the other items on the page) --Charles Kane 12:30, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
*Lord of the Flies: Jacob talks about the island being a cork, keeping the evils away from the world. This is a reccuring theme in Lord of the Flies, where Simon and Raplh talk of "The darkness in mankins heart" and "Mankinds essential illness." A boar is seen on the Black Rock and Richard attempts to kill it, however fails. In the novel, in a dessperation for meat, Jack and his Choir try to capture and kill a pig, which they fail at. They later succeed severasl times after that, which is mirrored later in the episode where Richard is seen eating a boar. Literary works

then it should go in triva, no? If you have read the book you an see huge simlilatriies with the book and the episode Sanders-sama 12:51, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

@Sanders-sama - I've read the book more than once. Some of the themes are suggestive of some of the themes in Lost (or vice versa) but then so are some of the themes in hundreds of books - which is exactly the reason that the site asks that there be direct references in the episode - ie an actual mention in some direct way of in this case LotFlies. Having said that your entire entry is available here - so it is published. Charles Kane 12:58, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

not a blooper

There's a bit in the bloopers section about how the rest of the beach by the statue looks relatively untouched by the tsunami. I'm not saying it's significant, but I'm not sure it's a blooper. Unlikely, yes, but you know what else is unlikely? A plane breaks apart in the sky and 71 people survive with barely a scratch. Things are different on the Island... Remove?Emissary23 05:38, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support We are just very nit-picky ;) --Phryrosebdeco23 08:18, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose It's a blooper, they have a limited budget. What other possible reason could it have? And how do you know 71 ppl survived? --Charles Kane 08:23, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • The have a limited budget, but it's plenty big enough to create the damage properly. I'm almost sure this was intentional. And we know 71 people survived by adding up the number of survivors from the main section and the tail section as seen in seasons 1 and 2. --Gluphokquen Gunih 14:21, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
      • Hard to believe they have a limited budget when they're making tons of money! -- AlexDeLarge 13:35, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Richard said they were all dead! People usually die in catastrophic crashes. I had mt Lost tongue firmly in my Lost cheek --Charles Kane 14:27, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • and my point is WHY would it be intentional, what possible dramatic use would it serve? --Charles Kane 14:29, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • 48 from the fuselage, 23 from the tail=71. I'm not saying it's significant, but it could be. The others purged Dharma, Locke almost made a career out of destroying Dharma infrastructure. Jacob may have caused the Black Rock to destroy the statue, something about new Island dwellers wiping out traces of the old, and if that's true, Jacob would have limited the damage to the statue alone. This is all supposition on my part, I know, and I'm not sure I even believe it, I just thought that maybe it wan't really a "blooper." --Emissary23 15:47, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • "Are you on the same Island I am?" - Daniel Rousseau--Lucky Day 22:58, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

I dont think the wooden ship seen in The Incident, Part 1 was ever confirmed to be the Black Rock. So should the blooper there about them being the same be removed? --MoeT 20:51, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • In the official podcast on 24 March 2010, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse revealed that it is the Black Rock.Thezerf 21:02, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Jacob's island talk

I was just wondering if anyone was going to update the island page about what Jacob said about the island? the whole cork, evil, hell, thing? haha I dont even know where that would begin. Plus Richard saying they are all dead and in hell thing?--Phryrosebdeco23 08:39, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that you have the power to edit pages all by yourself?--Pittsburghmuggle 12:13, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Blacksmoke flashes

Do we have any images of the flashes the blacksmoke performed while scanning Richard ? I remember we has such things for Mr. Eko where we could see his childhood, can't find them on this wiki btw. --FrenchFlo 13:23, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

No images of Ricardo's past were shown.  Robert K S   tell me  06:18, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Was Isabella the Man in Black?

I see here that it is a fact that Isabella in the blackrock is in fact the black smoke, I'm sure it's right, but how is that a fact ? Have we a real confirmation somewhere ? --FrenchFlo 13:23, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

MIB, who was said by Dogen to appear to people as someone they lost in order to manipulate them, scanned Richard's memories and then somebody Richard had lost appeared to him, and then MIB used that to manipulate him. See, confirmation within the show itself. What do you want, to see Isabella becoming Smoke? --Golden Monkey 15:51, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • moved from the 'Richard' talk page:

I changed the wording about Isabella in the article (Richard/since reinstated). It can't be said conclusively that the version of Isabella who appeared to Richard immediately after the Black Rock crash was a manifestation of the Man in Black. The producers have been careful in the past to distinguish that there are "Island visions" that are NOT the monster. A good comparison would be Ben's mother. Like Isabella she was someone who did NOT die on the Island, and we do not have any evidence that MiB can appear as people who are dead and off-Island (otherwise why the elaborate plan to get Locke's body back to the Island?). Richard himself also made a direct reference to this by asking young Ben if his mother died off the Island, like Isabella. Finally, I think it's fairly evident that the Isabella who appeared to Hurley and Richard in 2007 was not the Man in Black, so it's just as likely that she was the same kind of entity as the Isabella on the Black Rock. Rodimusben 09:36, March 25, 2010 (UTC)RodimusBen

  • Perhaps this discussion belongs on the 'Ab Aeterno' page & can be applied uniformly from there? In any case I'll argue against that. We have enough previous demonstration of MiB's methods: scan as the black cloud, vanish, then appear as Dogen described - someone known to the person, someone who has died - then attempt to influence the person. With confirmed examples like Yemi, Alex & Locke, the only new aspect is that the person died off the Island, like Ben's mother. Ben had no prior interaction with his mother, who stood outside the sonic fence & spoke simply. Isabella was Richard's love of his life, and with powerful memories came a convincing apparition. I do understand there may be deliberate ambiguity with the first out-of-focus shot of Isabella, but Richard is awakening from delirium, and the next shots as she embraces him are clear. The other new aspect is MiB providing an apparition while making smoke monster noises at the same time. This seems entirely possible for a being made of wisps of smoke, which we've seen move in independent streams, to be able to 'multitask'. Isabella claims Richard & she are both dead & in hell, there is little sense to fleeing the devil in hell if he wishes to torment or ummm, kill? someone. It just doesn't make sense for Isabella to leave Richard after finding him. It sets up Richard's belief that the smoke monster took her, which MiB doesn't address until Richard can't understand being told to kill the devil if he's black smoke. Only then MiB starts stretching his story about Jacob/devil taking Isabella, where he at first says "he probably has her."
I'll add in Ben's case that given the armed battles with the Hostiles during Ben's time, there would be opportunities for MiB to visit & scan Ben - if the sonic fence even repels other suggested forms like say a butterfly/white dove/Hurleybird, which could just go over the fence. We've also seen the Monster soaring high above the trees, so my jury's out on the sonic fence as a complete barrier.
Completely agreed that Hurley spoke with Isabella's ghost. Camera shots are identical to his interactions with Jacob. Duncan905 15:41, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Good god. Do you really think they'll introduce some new ghosty thing halfway into the sixth season? It was MIB. The scene is consistent with a MIB appearance and it ties into his manipulation of Richard. In fact it only really makes sense if it's MIB. Hell, he even scanned Richard's memories before hand! It can't get more obvious than that. --Golden Monkey 15:49, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you lose the attitude. These people are free to post their thoughts without your criticism, especially when your own answers are hardly Pulitzer-worthy.

Ofc it was MIB, I never doubted about that, but that's our thought. It's not factual. I just wanted to highlights the words used "is" vs "could be" etc. What could help us in this case it an answer to my previous question too. FrenchFlo 17:18, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that Jacob pretty much FLATLY STATES that Richard seeing his wife was the MiB.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:32, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ilana said of the MiB he's "stuck like that" referring to his incarnation of John Locke. Unless she's lying or really doesn't know I don't think there's any argument that the modern ghost of Isabella was anything but her ghost. --Lucky Day 22:55, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

At that point MiB was not stuck. At that point MiB was free to appear as anyone/anything it had scanned. Unfortunately for MiB, it did get stuck later. Gteichrow 05:20, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Pretty certain Isabella on the ship was MiB, and Isabella who spoke to Hurley was the real ghost. Seems unlikely that someone who really was dead could be tricked into thinking they were in Hell. Surely they'd have a pretty clear idea if they were in hell or not ? Also she would have to be unable to tell that Richard was still alive, to believe that he was in Hell with her. Hurley's Isabella seemed to have no knowledge of the conversation on the ship, if she did she probably would have mentioned being wrong about them being in Hell last time they spoke. And if Hurley's Isaballa was MiB, why would she try to convince Richard to stop MiB leaving the island ? Beelzebubbles101 09:36, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
There are strong issues on both sides. The MIB has NEVER appeared in a form other than someone whose corpse was on the island. Richard appears to indicate this is a limitation of his given his conversation with Ben when asked about his mother. At the same time, it seems very unlikely that Isabella would say the things she said if it were really she.FireBones 00:02, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, looks like the debate's moved to the MIB talk page? Fine, so long as we keep moving toward consensus & that gets applied downstream to this & other pages. Duncan905 18:06, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • One last further point on the MiB not being able to assume someone's identity without a corpse: Dave.--Lucky Day 16:43, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

White Rabbit reference

I think what Isabella said to Richard mirrors what Locke said to Jack about looking into the island's eyes. I added it, hope it's ok. Aleunam 19:35, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Why Backgammon and Not Go?

Just a random thought: In the pilot, Locke's game of backgammon foreshadows this season's plot. Wouldn't the game of go have been a better choice, given the passing around of stones?EdwardLost 22:38, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • I've never heard of Go. Everyone has heard of Backgammon. Plus, doesn't Locke mention that it was played a long, long time ago, which is consistent with how long the Island's battle of G vs E has been around? Marc604 05:12, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Go is a really old game too. But I think Backgammon simply refer to a more occidental game, since Go is mainly played in asia.Stpinker 21:31, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably just for the familiarity of Backgammon, Go is much more obscure in Western countries. Also so far the show's mythology seems to have more connections to middle eastern civilisations than asian ones. Beelzebubbles101 09:50, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Hey look down here!! This is a GREAT place to argue against listed bloopers or continuity errors!!! Don't be Shy!

Woo hoo! -- —   lion of dharma    talk    email   22:57, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • It seems apparent that the ship seen in 'The Incident' was not the Black Rock but another ship. It should be taken off the blooper page. --LOST-The Cartographer 00:59, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • And they said it was the same ship in the podcast.Kajillion 03:53, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose Damon & Carlton said in the official Lost Podcast on the 3/24 that it was meant to be the same ship, which would make it a blooper. The chit chat between MIB and Jacob at the foot of the statue that we saw in "The Incident" last season happened several hours before the Black Rock crashed. If I were D&C, I would have said that they were different ships -- it would make a lot more sense. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   03:55, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the "properties" of the Island meant that it took the Black Rock more than the usual amount of time to traverse the "barrier" between the outside world and the Island.  Robert K S   tell me  04:45, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me that the Black Rock during the peaceful daytime waters saw the Island and tried to swim away from it, as it was not their destination, but then a storm brought them right back to it. Duh. Marc604 05:14, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, sure, but I guess it also turned into a different boat all together? What a wacky crazy island we've got here. Even wackier that I thought! --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   05:24, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed this:
  • When the Man in Black and Jacob have their conversation, the Man in Black tells Jacob that he wants to kill him, and Jacob acts as if this is new information to him. Yet earlier, the Man in Black and Jacob had a discussion about the MIB wanting to kill him ("The Incident, Part 1"), so Jacob and the MIB should have conversed as if this was already something acknowledged between the two of them. (The conversation in The Incident, Part 1 was prior to this one, since the statue was then intact; if the ship seen in that conversation was the Black Rock, this conversation was only a few days before this conversation.)
  • Reason. It may be a blooper but it's just as likeky not, and some of the authors interpretations don't align with mine. So: Jacob doesn't act as if this information is new to him at all, he acts as if this is no surprise at all and it is just an intro to a conversation, which Jacob has won a few brownie points about - ie that Richard has "chosen" good over bad. It is a conversation I can imagine MiB and Jacob having lots of times. Charles Kane 06:19, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Doubt the blooper as well. If the sighting is pre-storm timeline wise, why linger off shore? Ships of discovery will often survey an area before approaching -- for days. When a boat is your only hope of surviving, you don't risk running it on a reef. Perhaps that was a pre-storm sighting. The boat anchors offshore at night to be safe. A storm comes up. It is smashed against the statue and later is driven on-shore, apparently hundreds of yards in.Gteichrow 05:27, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Woosh - it's not just for 815'rs

  • Re: the Production Notes debate - the flashback sound effect has been used for the Freighties & Ben. It's subdued & omitted in the ep, but it's not because Richard came on a boat. Plenty of white noise wind to be found in a storm, especially if you're the one in it, or flashing back to it. Duncan905 06:44, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • I left some comments on my talk page because the author addressed me there, I wont repeat them here. Ben came on the 2nd flight - and which of the freighter crew did we have a flashback about? Charles Kane 07:06, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • All 4 (at once) and Daniel subsequently. Also Juliet, sub-sequently. ;) Just sayin.' Duncan905 13:51, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

St. Brendan's Island

I'm not even the one who originally listed this as a cultural reference, but I'm going to defend this one because I find it fascinating and I think there's a high probability that the writers were taking St. Brendan's Island into account when they decided on the location of Richard's original home. There are a multitude of places they could have chosen. The place they chose is a group of 7 islands where there is a legend of a mysterious 8th island that only a few have claimed to see. Here's a quote from the wikipedia article about a ship's captain's account of the island in 1570:

He also reported seeing hieroglyphic inscriptions and traces of human presence. At dusk the sky clouded over and a hurricane set in, at which, fearing for his ship, Velho returned aboard hurriedly, deciding to get clear of shore immediately. As he sailed, he lost sight of the island, which had seemingly vanished, but he lingered for some considerable time in the area "in the forlorn hope of finding the two men he had left behind exploring the jungle."

Hmmm, where have I heard about an island that has heiroglyphs and has been known to seemingly vanish? Oh, I know!!! That show Lost! Sarcasm aside, this is a show that has producers and writers who are well aware that fans of the show pay attention to every little detail and analyze every little thing. Even though did not directly refer to St. Brendan's Island, I'm pretty sure they took it into account when choosing the location of Richard's first home.--—   lion of dharma    talk    email   19:51, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • i mentioned above, in case you missed it, that if you go to the Canary Islands on GoogleEarth, and look at the ocean in the spot that Brendan's Island is in on the wikipage map (due west of the other 7, about an inch or two of mapspace) there's definetely a small island-sized landmass underwater but relatively much closer to the surface than the surrounding ocean floor. FWTW Whitesideistherightside 20:30, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • If St. Brendan's stays I want Poor Richard's Almanack back! :) Direct/visible references or similarities to popular culture? Duncan905 21:11, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
See, that's the thing... I actually brought this up in the talk page of Recon... what exactly are we calling direct references here? In Rencon, FST Sawyer tells Charlotte that he chose to become a cop because he was inspired by the movie Bullitt. That's a direct reference and it was listed as so in the episode's article. But did they choose Bullitt for a particular reason, or could they just have easily picked Lethal Weapon? I'd argue for the the latter. Yet for some reason it's deemed important to list Bullitt. Why? Is that really more or even equally as revelant to the theme of Lost than St. Brendan's Island is? I'd say no. And the thing is there are TONS of indirect references listed in many of the episode articles. In the article for "Because You Left" one of the cultural references listed is O.J. Simpson because when Jack was in his kitchen watching news coverage of Hurley being chased by the police, he put down a glass of orange juice next to the tv. Do I think that was intentional? Yes. Is it a direct reference? No. Is OJ Simpson at all relevant to the major themes or components of Lost? Absolutely not.
I do think that a lot of indirect references people add soon after the episode airs are far-fetched. But I also think that there are a lot of indirect references that are pretty decent but are later pulled. Many people thought that the Tenerife airport incident, which used to be listed as a direct reference, was far-fetched. But I really think that it might have been something TPTB thought about when choosing a place for Richard's origins. I mean, here's a group of 7 islands that has a fabled 8th phantom island -- oh, and on one of these 7 islands (Tenerife) the most horrific airplane disaster in history occurred. And guess what? That's the island the writers chose to have Richard living on! I just think it's way too related to the story of Lost for it not to have been intentional.
My point is that I think it should be cultural references that are relevant to the overall themes/components of Lost. Perhaps we should make a new section: Relevant indirect references to Lost.
Oh, and if you feel strongly about the Almanack, why not consider making your case for it here? -- —   lion of dharma    talk    email   22:24, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I did. I'm okay with letting it go, it was part of a conversation where Jacob's response makes perfect sense without the quote. Duncan905 22:47, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • There is just no direct reference to St Brendans Island in Lost. The information is fascinating - and it is here in great detail. It's just not on the front episode page. Otherwise the episode page could go crazy with encyclopedic references as to similarities or explanations or... Charles Kane 00:20, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

CGI Butterfly during Black Rock scene: Purpose/Meaning?

  • This butterfly is seen about half-way through the flashbacks of Black Rock, it is seen flying outside the ship and then flies into the hold. I can't remember which scene exactly but i think it began after a commercial break (yes i know that doesnt narrow it down, ha.) It's obviously intended (being manmade) and seems like it is meant to be 1. Evocative and/or 2. A shape of some Force on the Island.(Whitesideistherightside 21:25, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • Evocative:
      • Of approaching freedom or MiB arriving soon?
      • Free like a butterfly
      • The small story of Richard's gaining freedom will have much larger repercussions, ala "When a butterfly flaps its wings in Japan it could cause snow in NYC"
      • Evokes the scene when Charley and Jack are trapped in the caves, and a moth flies to the way of escape.
    • Avatar of an Island force
      • The benign nature of butterflies speaks to it being Jacob or representitive, maybe keeping watch on the situation.Whitesideistherightside 20:33, March 26, 2010
        • Couldn't have put it better. Gteichrow 05:30, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
      • Depending on what follows in the episode, could be MiB coming as Isabella?
    • A 'trademark' one of the CGI artists put in--Chocky 21:33, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
      • Two questions for you: Is that common among CGI artists in the tv-show business, and are there any other examples of the same in the rest of the show? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whitesideistherightside (talkcontribs) 2010-03-26T17:42:09.

Butterfly, Rain, Boar Just re-watched this episode. I think the butterfly is significant. And I get the feeling it is a manifestation of MIB. Watching Richard or denoting freedom. Also interesting is that it starts to rain (another sign of MIB's presence perhaps as in other episodes) and then the boar. The rain is just out of reach for Richard to drink when he would be very thirsty. The boar appears Richard would be hungry.... these could be ways of manipulating Richard into thinking he really was in hell. When MIB comes along he has the keys to the chains- ie freedom, he offers water to drink and then gives him boar to eat. I don't think it's a coincidence. Judeood 15:18, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

The doctor's medicine

  • This may sound crazy, but I haven't got a good view of the medicine so I'm just going to ask it here. When I saw the medicine, I thought it was sand (who knows from the island...). What do you guys think?--Renzoo 22:04, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • It looked like white powder to me. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   22:25, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
      • Interesting. It could have been an ancient remedy for pain management the way morphine is used today. It may have been a narcotic or hallucinogen to ease Isabella's death. What if Richard took this himself instead and hallucinated everything on the imaginary island of LOST just before he was about to be hanged??? --Jodon1971 17:10, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • It was an ordinary bottle with no label, my theory is it was something simple like saltpeter which the doctor was going to foist on Richard. He gives that "how much can I take this guy for?" look. It might even be a standard sham, I mean who's there to challenge a doctor? It did remind me of the bottle of sand that Richard shows young Locke. Duncan905 22:45, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe the vial of medicine is the same vial from the items Richard uses to test Locke as a child. It would make sense that each of those items has some kind of significance for important on-Island characters. --Bwmathis 01:15, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

From the Atlantic to the Pacific

I had thought it was interesting that Ricardo found his way onto the Island from an Atlantic origin (the Canary Islands). Now, it isn't too difficult to travel from ocean to ocean as anyone who's read Moby Dick knows, but as I was reminded by someone who keeps asking it as an UQ, was the Island in the Atlantic when the Black Rock ran aground on it? --Lucky Day 05:24, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia Section

Has the Man in Black ever been referred to as by a character before this episode? If not, then perhaps we should put something along these lines in the trivia section. Any thoughts on the above? Thezerf 20:54, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is the first time a character on the show has referred to him as "The Man in Black". I think it deserves a mention, especially as this is the only name other than "Locke" that the show has called him. MIB may be a familiar name with the online fans, but for the average viewer who doesn't visit fan sites, this is a new name.--Baker1000 20:58, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Agree, this should definitely go in the trivia section. It was pretty astounding to hear it spoken on the show (not to mention awkward).--Beema|talk|contributions 05:52, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
"Awkward" doesn't even begin to describe Jorge Garcia's delivery of that line : O AlaskaDave 07:17, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added this info to the Trivia Section Thezerf 09:06, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

FYI I added an interesting tidbit regarding dynamite to the trivia section, which I think is plenty relevant since dynamite was discovered in the Black Rock. --Beema|talk|contributions 05:57, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • and I removed it, it is not raised in any way in this episode, and further was discussed at length regarding Richard trying to blow himself up, so its old ground Charles Kane 06:01, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • Makes more sense to have it somewhere on the Ab Aeterno page, since it is the first time on the show we are given a date of 1867. There was no date in Dr. Linus, so it was not pertinent then. Seems remiss to neglect something this directly related to the show --Beema|talk|contributions 05:00, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

main image change proposal

6x09 richard jail

Glasbutton Tippfor your consideration :)-- Sharon1234  Talk  Flashback  17:44, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose - The bars cover his face in such an awkward way. I liked the image of him looking out the window which was put up the other day, but it has been removed since. I'm fine with the image right now however.--Baker1000 18:39, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose - The view of Richard is obscured, as mentioned above. Furthermore, the existing image is appropriate since it depicts a significant part of not only the episode, but of the entire show itself Thezerf 20:09, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose Not good. Current image (or a similar form of it) has gained acceptance over the week. It represents a crucial moment in the episode and is a visually pleasing, good quality image.--Charles Kane 01:06, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia section question

"Socorro, means "Help". Two planes crashed into each other in 1977 above Tenerife . It remains the deadliest airport disaster in aviation history." -- How are these facts related??? (Kdc2 18:24, March 28, 2010 (UTC))

the flashbacks

It seems to me more reasonable that it was neither Ilana's flashback nor Man in black, But Jacob's. As the man that brought Richard to the island, and the conversations that he made connected to that. with Ilana, he told her to seek ricardos, and with man in black it was after Richard delivered the white stone, and joined Jacob's cause.-- Sharon1234  Talk  Flashback  01:00, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • splitting hairs. It is about how Ilana got some information. I don't think we have ever had a Jacob flashy but even if we have - what does it matter? what it expresses is clear and no one would have difficulty understanding it. In a way they are all arbitrary.Charles Kane 01:09, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment OK. I can agree on that (not really, but as you said - it doesn't really matter), but at least you should expect to see him in the flashback section of the episode infobox. same in The Incident, Parts 1 & 2.-- Sharon1234  Talk  Flashback  02:08, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • I really don't think they are Jacob centric. We have the regular zoom in / focus on MiB/Ilana followed by the usual wooshing sound. Yes, Jacob is in both flashes, but Ilana and MiB are the ones having them. This holds up to the regular pattern of determining centricities (and also why, say, Hearts and Minds isn't Shannon centric. --LeoChris 03:16, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Jacob/MIB scene at the end - blooper or hint?

I was looking through screencaps from the episode for a good background image and came across this one:

We see the MIB holding up the bottle of wine, about to smash it on the log. Look at the log, it looks like it has already been stained by wine. I assume this is an error from previous takes? UncivilDKizzle 20:26, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram replyCertainly not a hint. maybe it's like that because of the resin, maybe because of previous takes.-- Sharon1234  Talk  Flashback  20:36, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Doesn't look intentional. Nice reflected silhouette of the crew in front of the white panels lighting the shady scene, though.  ;) Duncan905 21:15, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like the color of the timber if you ask me, not a wine stain at all. Charles Kane 05:26, March 30, 2010 (UTC)


The unanswered questions section for this page includes: "Why was the Black Rock dealing in slaves?" Am I the only one who doesn't think this is a legitimate unanswered question? Does anyone seriously expect this to be addressed within the context of the show or think it needs to be? If no one comes up with a convincing reason this should be here, I'm going to remove it tomorrow.--Faraday100 03:32, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • I suspect that people believe there is a hint that Hanso was intentionally going to the island and had a sort of proto-DHARMA thing going on. This was heightened by the fact that he is carrying a lot of the newly invented dynamite with him, with the suspicion that this is to access the electromagnetic or whatever power that lies below the island! There is also the strangeness of Jacob bringing the Black Rock to the island at all and apparently not bringing Richard specifically (he seemed not to know who he was). Given that Ricardo was about to play a leading role in the life of the Island (and of Jacob of course) I think there may be something in the question. So, everytime I think about deleting it I think "Oh. it doesn't hurt having a lonesome UQ there, at least to show that we don't think we have all the answers"! Charles Kane--Faraday100 13:42, March 30, 2010 (UTC) 03:45, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Charles -- Sorry but if that's that case then the unanswered questions should ask things like "Did Magnus Hanso know of the island?", "Was the Black Rock heading to the island on purpose?", "Who on the ship was Jacob bringing if not Richard?" etc.... but "Why was the Black Rock dealing in slaves?" That doesn't even have anything to do with the (arguably) more legitimate questions you raise in your response to me. I think the idea that in the next 9 hours they're going to explain why the Black Rock carried slaves is kind of silly and tangential. I'm removing it.--Faraday100 13:39, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Removed, and I added in more specific versions of Charles' questions.--Faraday100 13:42, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

That's much better. Just to clarify - the original was never my question and the material above was pure guesswork - but is vaguely interesting when written down - like so much else in Lost, pity "interesting" rarely means "relevant"! Charles Kane 15:43, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

There are conversations above that discuss the timeline regarding an English ship and slavery - it was illegal for the English in 1867. The debate showed that it was likely intentional and further discussion on dynamite showed why 1867 was chosen which is why it was removed as a blooper. The question was thought to be important and the only place it made sense was in UQ. A discussion on Hanso seems to be more of a theory, the UQ based on a problematic fact. --Lucky Day 18:58, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Removed UQ: "Did Magnus Hanso know of the island?", "Was the Black Rock heading to the island on purpose?" -- these are leading questions. Spiral77 19:15, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Removed leading question on Magnus Hanso again. The question is not raised or even hinted at by the episode. Goes on the theory page if anywhere. Spiral77 22:34, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Even better. No leading questions... love it. It should say that on the page template, like the way the CR section says "direct references only"--Faraday100 00:32, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Blooper: Spanish Errors?

I removed the below from the bloopers section. It is not well composed but that is not the reason for removal. I understand Carbonell as Ricardo researched the appropriate form of Spanish to use and concluded that his native Cuban would be a satisfactory approximation to the Spanish spoken at that time in the Canaries. It may be that he was incorrect or that the approximation was inaccurate, but to characterize it as a blooper is probably unfair and may actually be wrong. I left the meat of the claim in the bloopers but maybe it should all go. Charles Kane 08:35, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • Spanish dialogs from Isabella and Ricardo contains some errors from non native spanish assuming they were speaking spanish-spain (Canary Islands). When both said "mi amor" ought to use "amor mio". When Isabella said "No fue tu culpa que yo morí, Ricardo" ought to say "No fue culpa tuya que yo muriese, Ricardo" using spanih subjuntive verbal tense. Ricardo said "Te extraño, yo... Yo haría cualquier cosa para estar juntos de nuevo. [English subtitles] I miss you -- I would do anything for us to be together again. this sentence has two errors, first "I miss you" he should have said "Te echo de menos" instead of "Te extraño" and second, usage of personal pronouns (I, you, he,...)in spanish are usually dropped as by the meaning of the sentence they are implied. so, "Yo haria cualquier....." does not need the pronoun YO as it is implied in the sentence and should have said "haria cualquier cosa....".
  • I agree. It is a strange kind of spanish most of the time, and it is not only a matter of accent. They just did not made the effort to create a better dialogue - it will probably be dubbed in Spain, anyway. I wonder wether this would be considered a blooper or not if it were classic eqyptian instead of spanish :-)--Jfm1 17:10, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Literary Techniques

  • Hurley shows a new level of independence by accompanying the ghost of Isabella far into the jungle at night, without stopping to tell anyone he's tracking Richard. He had previously complained of being left behind, out of the loop and dealt with abandonment issues. (Juxtaposition)  (Irony)  (Rebirth)
    • This is character development not any of these techniques. More fitting for Hurley's own page.--Lucky Day 07:41, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • I understand Rebirth was a stretch, but this was a near 180 from his earlier issues above, doesn't Juxtaposition apply when he does the opposite (what's been done to him)? Still, Hurley had decided to go solo to the Lighthouse previously so I have to concede this wasn't the heralding event. Is there any objection to a direct Jack/Hurley juxtaposition on "Loop, dude." vs "Nothing to do with you." ? Duncan905 23:14, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

A plea for the tree

Added the forked tree behind the bench to Literary Techniques; it demonstrates the passage of time, but also has symbolism in this episode. Not a coincidence this is the place where Richard chooses one of two paths, and later returns to recant that choice. The tree itself doesn't fit to black/white or good/evil, but I think symbolism is there for "choices". They put some work into the CGI version in 2007. Duncan905 21:05, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • I think any symbolism is a bit of a stretch but I agree its a visual (not literary) technique to show the passage of time. Its the type of stuff that Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Harold LLoyd used to compete over to demonstrate facts without having saying them explicitly (ie. a woman was a man's mistress because he kept a change of clothes at her house) and hence, not literary.--Lucky Day 07:36, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • There is definitely some symbolism behind the tree. Also, notice that the tree is identical to the tree that Kate and Tom bury their time capsule under in Born to Run. It's no coincidence that Richard buries his necklace under a tree only to uncover it 100+ years later, like Kate and Tom bury their time capsule under a tree only to recover it 20 years later. Bonafide11 21:26, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • There is nothing definite in Lost. Symbolism requires that the symbol be a "placeholder" for something else entirely, it's very unlikely that that will be the case here. But it is a beautiful visual description of the passage of time - and more so an incredible looking tree. Is it real?    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   00:28, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • The 2007 tree pixelates a little when I froze it during the pan over to FLocke observing, I think it's fair to say CGI. Thing is, for the young sapling they could've brought in any prop - that one had some grooming/pruning done to make 2 clean branches. They could've had an ordinary sapling & a big CGI version. The episode was very much about the choice between 2 paths. I agree it's a visual storytelling technique, but isn't there already an abundance of these among Literary Techniques? We're watching a teleVision program after all. Duncan905 22:45, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • I may be a bit late on this conversation, but the tree is real, you can see it here in Google Street View. Beautiful Tree! --{{SUBST:ncusa367/autosig}} 23:42, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Conicidence or what?

Knowing what we now know about keeping "hell" on the island, could this be a hint of future events: in Recon Sawyer says to Kate: " and me are getting the hell off this Island." Literally?!!!!--Judeood 14:14, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Big Lebowski reference

The scene in which Jacob dunks Richard's head into the water (four times) while barking "still think you're dead?" is quite probably a reference to Mark Pellegrino's part in "The Big Lebowski," in which a character played by Pellegrino dunks Jeff Bridges's head into a toilet bowl (four times) while barking "where's the money, Lebowski?" This is surely not a coincidence and perhaps worth pointing out in the trivia or cultural references sections?--BigKahunaBurger 04:24, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • The two scenes seem about as different as they could be. The setting, the reason for the dunking, the outcome, the dialogue are all quite different. Even if there are similarities the cultural references is intended for "direct" references which this certainly is not.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   04:05, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude... --BigKahunaBurger 00:55, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • That statue really tied the whole island together. Duncan905 22:47, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • What, nobody's going to follow up with "That tapestry really tied the whole foot together?" No "4 toes" joke?  ;-) Duncan905 16:28, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Does this island look like a woman lives here?Mcwebe0 02:50, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


Why does Ilana call Richard Alpert "Ricardus"? This is the Latin form of the name "Richard", and as revealed in this episode, Richard is Spanish, not Roman. In fact, he lived in the mid-late 1800s AD, several centuries after the fall of Rome. Ilana is Russian(-American?), so there's no reason in her own background for her to use the name "Ricardus". Haplo781 21:12, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • I also found this odd. I now have a working theory that perhaps Ricardus is someone other than Richard. Richard went by 2 names - "Richard" in the present, and "Ricardo" in his early life. Jacob even refers to him as "Richard" to Hurley, I believe. When Jacob told Ilana that "Ricardus will know what to do next" perhaps it was a reference to an as yet unseen character. User:Jeffcutt72

"Ricardus" is the Latin form and Ilana used it because the Others speak Latin. Juliet did the same thing in Jughead when the losties left on the Island flashed back to the 1950s. Cerbo 21:43, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support Juliet did indeed recognize the Others using Latin in the 1950's & calls them on it. The correct response to the "shadow of the statue" question is given by Richard in Latin, which Ilana recognizes. Jacob must have prompted her with that information, and it's possible in the context of his briefing he used an older way of referring to Richard. Richard doesn't say "who's Ricardus?" he simply corrects "It's Richard, actually." The most plausible reason is a continuity gaffe on the writers' part - they may have intended Richard to come from a place/time where Latin was predominant, but this season settled on the Canary Islands & 1800's time period for other reasons. Duncan905 22:25, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • apparently for good reason we have adopted the alternate spelling "Richardus" which was used by the Lost writers and is a perfectly legit Latin spelling.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   00:24, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Just for the historical record, the recap version of "Ab Aeterno" broadcast in the US on April 27th 2010 had it spelled as "Ricardus". Hatchbanger 00:04, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • At this point I don't think we can rely on the Met|Hodder captions for canonicity on Lostpedia since there is clearly at least some reliance by them on us to write their captions. They used the word "plinth" in their captions. That was a word I used on Lostpedia to describe the statue pedestal. It's not even correct, and I've since tried to change it everywhere I used it. That word is too obscure to think they got it anywhere but Lostpedia.  Robert K S   tell me  01:54, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • Interesting about "plinth". I noticed the use of that word in the captions and at the time I thought "Hey, good choice". Wikipedia describes "plinth" thusly: "In architecture, a plinth is the base or platform upon which a column, pedestal, statue, monument or structure rests" and attributes that definition to a recognized book on architecture. Just out of curiosity, why do you feel "plinth" is not correct in this case?
Getting back to "Ricardus", elsewhere it's been stated that the recap captions come directly from scripts and production notes. I would find it disturbing if they're relying on Lostpedia discussions as their source. lol? Hatchbanger 17:38, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


Where may I put this? Trivia section?

Isabella is not a Spanish name; should be Isabel.

Chvsanchez 09:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure that should really be in the article at all. So what if her name is a different origin than her own ethnicity? "Pierre" is a French name, but Pierre is Chinese. Is that really important?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  15:42, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting oppose I am asserting the writers made a mistake, by believing wrongly that Isabella is a Spanish name; English-speakers are known to mistake Italian for Spanish.--Chvsanchez 09:19, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • considering that it is not even mainland Spain, and that there are language and usage differences between spain and the Canarys are we even sure that Isabella is not correct. We know Nestor C did research about his accent and found that Cuban Spanish was a fair approximation for Canary Spanish in the 1800s - so maybe this is right too.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   15:58, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a Spanish queen named Isabella? Golugranu 22:32, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting oppose I made that mistake too. The Anglicized name is how most of us know Queen Isabella of Spain now, but it was not how she was known in Spain. It's likely the writers either didn't research well, or decided to drop authenticity in favor of what seemed to sound more pleasing for dialogue. It's a valid criticism. Duncan905 23:36, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Did anyone say she's Spanish ? Maybe she was born in Italy, or her parents were and named her after a grandparent or something ? I'm really grasping for straws, but is it impossible ?

-edit- Or, if they initially did mean for Richard to be Ricardus, from ancient Rome or whatever, and upon changing, they just didn't bother changing his fiance's name. Donvercetti 20:21, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Enhanced episode - omitted Hurley talking to "no one"?

Being in the UK, I don't get to watch enhanced episodes, even if I wanted to. The article says the scene where Hurley talks to no one in Spanish at the start of the episode was removed. If that's true, why?! It just makes no sense why Hurley would even follow Richard otherwise. First time I watched the episode, I saw Hurley walk out of the jungle and wondered why the hell he was there, only then remembering his Spanish conversation on the beach. It's one of those moments when you think "ah, I should have seen it coming." Was anything added in, did anyone notice? It was probably done because it ran for 6 minutes longer, but that means something else was probably taken out too, because it's not a long scene. I hope this isn't a cut which will happen on the DVD version, because that would suck.--Baker1000 20:09, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not the first to notice, but they also omitted the segment where Smoke paused to "read" Richard. Something about the enhanced episodeds having to fit into an hour (including commercials).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:33, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • Another important scene, which gives the viewer some evidence that Isabella was MIB. There was a reason they extended it a little because every moment was important and they could find time to cut as much. I know it's only a repeat, but anyone watching to catch up...--Baker1000 23:04, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

New main image


I think the current main image looks a little blurry and imo isnt the best representation of the episode the new one shows richard in a situation where he appears to be noticing the island i think it embodies the episode. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  15:50, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose I prefer the image of him while he's speaking with Jacob, which to me was the crux of the episode: how did Richard become Jacob's right-hand man?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:57, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose I agree with Jimbo. The new suggested image doesn't even look like Alpert. --Celebok 23:00, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose As per above. Plus this looks like a still image, not a screenshot from the episode. Don't we usually try to use a screenshot? --LeoChris 05:10, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Gues i was wron lol the only argument i get however is leochris because hes right in most cases we dont use promo pics which this is as for jimbo this episode is about much more than how richard became jacob's number two its much more about how richard came to the island, this leads into his job status as jacob's number two, and to celebok how does this not look like alpert? -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  17:36, August 7, 2010 (UTC)