FANDOM


HQ Promo Stills

HQ "5x1 - Because You Left" Promotional Stills - [1] --TheEyeland 10:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Discovery of the Wheel Chamber leads to "The Incident"

The discovery of this wheel chamber as shown in the ultrasound probably has made the DHARMA worker in the orchid, and possibly other workers curious on whats behind the rock wall, and blew it away with explosives, despite what Pierre Chang warned them against. This could very well be the case, as they did not seem to beleive Pierre Chang about time travel etc, and made the sarcastic remark about going back in time and killing Hitler. He also mentioned to Faraday "time travel? how stupid does he think we are?" This could of led to Pierre Chang not trusting any workers and something serious may of happened at the same time, we already know that the Wheel chamber is accessible when ben entered it to move the island. The pearl station probably was set up a short time after this to observe the workers in the various stations.

I will post something under theories on this subject too.--Nzoomed 00:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Promotional link

Shouldn't this be to actual ABC? Not a spoiler site? Plkrtn 14:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is it on the ABC site, though? Anyone find it? --Golden Monkey 15:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a Press Release on ABC Medianet, dated 12/31/08: [2] --Emecede 03:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Promo Video's

I remember in one of the Promo's, when Sayid throws that dude from the balcony, we can hear the 'Wilhelm Scream'. You know, the scream prominently featured in the Star Wars movies. However, in the actual episode, the scream is replaced with a 'regular'one. Anyone else noticed? Smullie 16:51, January 22

17 Episodes?

Do we know for a fact that there will only be 17 episodes this year? Did ABC release it? That's going to be lame if so, season 4 only had 14 episodes and it still costed $50-$60.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  03:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The original plan was for Seasons 4-6 to be 16 episodes each. Due to the WGA strike, season 4 was shortened to 14 episodes. The remaining 2 were spread over 5 and 6 giving them each an extra episode, uping their totals to 17. --Gluphokquen Gunih 06:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Still feels like a rip off when your used to 20+ episodes, oh well.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  11:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
You must not watch shows on HBO :). Anyway, there initially had been talk of having the same number of shows over 5 seasons instead of 6, but the producers and network agreed to spread it out of 6 seasons with fewer episodes per season. Works for me. --Makiwolf 18:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, it means less padding. When the network was making them crank out as many episodes as they could produce, the producers had to create lots of minor characters and extraneous subplots just to fill out the air time. That meant they were losing audience, because lots of people lost interest when the main story didn't move forward during episodes where characters like Nikki and Paulo had adventures that had nothing to do with anything else. Finally, before last season, the producers rebelled and insisted that they only need about 50 more episodes to finish up the show and wouldn't do any more than that. So the network backed down and agreed to let them make those episodes over a three year period. A good thing too, because if the network had gotten its way, the show would have jumped the proverbial shark, everybody would have lost interest, and it would have been cancelled without the story being finished. And I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THOSE STUPID NUMBERS MEAN!!!! Isaac32767 02:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Well... we have known what "those stupid numbers" mean for quite some time. At least if we chose to trust The Lost Experience, which in this case, there is no reason why we shouldn't. --Pierre 01:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The Valenzetti equation is only one of many places where these numbers of appeared. The fact that they are important to the equation does not explain why they keep popping up on lottery tickets, odometers, and soccer uniforms. Isaac32767 00:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
So is there any word on any Lost related content that may or may not be released after the end of the show?-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I would think that once the show is done, it's done. The most likely candidates for post-show material may be a novel series or something along those lines, perhaps another video game. --Halcohol 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Different time strings

  • We know John was on a different time string than the rest of the survivors - were any other survivors conspicuously missing from the Sawyer/Juliet/Rose/Bernard/Faraday/etc. group?--Overworkedirish 04:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was John in a different timestream? The days/nights seemed to match up, which suggests to me that they were together. Especially considering that they're definitely together by the end of "The Lie".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • No they must have been different, because when John first appeared it was raining for him, but not for anyone else. I guess you could chalk that up to different parts of the island, but considering the drug smugglers' plane crashing for John (the DISTANT past) while the main losties found the hatch already blown up (the not-so-distant past) they can't have been on the same timestream.--Overworkedirish 04:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I might be misremembering, but wasn't there a flash or two between Locke seeing the plane and when the rest made it to the Swan? -ArrantPrac 04:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No, you're right. After the first flash, John saw the plane crash, tried to climb up to get to it, got shot by Ethan. Then there was a second flash, at which point it was dark, the plane had fallen to the ground and had been overgrown. It was at this point that the other group found the hatch crater. While they were looking at it, there was another flash, and the hatch was intact. John, meanwhile, patched up with the help of Richard Alpert before the flash, found the plane back up on the cliff again. That's all I can remember at the moment. But I do believe that both Locke and the others on the island are in the same timestream. That's not the say I'm still not utterly dizzy from it all. If this is the way the whole season is going to be, I think we're really in for some head-scratching like we haven't had with this show yet. It's almost like Darlton said, "You thought 'The Constant' was confusing? Please. We'll show you confusing!" Jacob's Lather 07:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
        • People seem very easily confused by this flashes business, it doesn't say much for the average Lost viewer unfortunately. It seemed fairly clear to me, exactly as the person above put it.

TIMEFRAME 1 / Late 1990s approx : Beechcraft crashes, Locke meets ethan, sawyer etc begin walking towards hatch TIMEFRAME 2 / Anytime after 2005 : Sawyer etc finds hatch destroyed with cobwebs on, Locke meets Richard Alpert who tells him Oceanic 6 are safe home. TIMEFRAME 3 / 2001-2004 : Daniel meets Desmond inside hatch, Locke sees beechcraft back in tree TIMEFRAME 4 / 1950s approx : Fire arrow group and Jones' group attack survivors, Locke turns up and saves Juliet. Integrated (User / Talk) 02:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

after the second flash, faraday's group is at the hatch and it is already imploded. locke is at the plane and it is fallen and on the ground, but it hasn't been burned yet. correct me if i am wrong, but didn't eko and charlie burn the plane in season 2 before the swan station imploded? that is either a continuity error or else locke is going through a different time travel path than the rest of them.

It looks like it's burned to me. --Sfoskett 15:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Looked burned to me, too. I think they're on the same time strings; they just can't show them jumping simultaneously unless they resorted to split screen.--Eyeful Tower 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think TIMEFRAME 2 may be wrong, as Yemi's corpse was present in the beechcraft, but had disappeared when Locke had come to search for Eko near the Pearl Station before Eko was killed... -- shauntu 5 February 2009

Who Jumps - Who Doesn't

Assuming Cindy is with the Others, as a Flight 815 survivor, how does she stay with the Others during the time shifts? Makiwolf 22:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I had thought about this too - but since this isn't the theory page I guess we'll just have to keep our eyes open for her (note: Juliet is jumping with the Losties).--Overworkedirish 16:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's because Cindy (and the kids?) identify with the Island/Others, while Juliet has always wanted to go home and changed her allegiance to the Survivors.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It may also have to do with who visited The Temple - all the others who visited the temple may be immune to time jumping.
    • That is an excellent point. Locke and Rose are almost certainly attuned to the Island, but they are jumping. A visit to the Temple completes one's "initiation." Juliet was never attuned. If she had been with the Others when the Island moved, she would have been left behind with Locke.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial Set-up

Added the ABC Medianet summary and set up some of the article structure (headings etc.) Still needs headings for the various storylines but I think people can add them as needed as writing progresses.--TWVogels 04:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does Richard tell Locke that he has to die?

I'm not sure how valid this is, but it was obvious to me that he said this because it's Locke's funeral announcement that starts the whole chain of events we're seeing in the off-island timeline by spurring Jack into action. Maybe this is only good enough for a theory, though... :x

That's a pretty good theory. But, they all seem to know who Jeremy Bentham is. Some have even made contact with him. So, Locke dying doesn't really explain how it has motivated the others to return. Either way, probably good for the theory section. Ketamonkey 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


    • First of, omg. Its obvious that he has to die so that he can tell the oceanic 6 to return to the Island, not as Jeremy Bentham or Locke, but as a ghost. Just like charlie and christian sheppard!!

No more no less, he has to die in order to communicate with the oceanic 6 because Richard Alpert knows that John cant get of the Island. And everyone on the Island want the oceanic 6 to return, or else the islands timetraveling wont stop. --Gelsias 09:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis

I live in AU, and I am not going to see BYL or TL for about two weeks, so whoever has seen the first two episodes, could you either get the synopsis up, or get a youtube video up, or give me a link to a place that does have this information?--Dharma Intitative Agent

They should be available as streaming on the ABC site - can you get that where you live? Another alternative would be to buy the episodes from iTunes. Watch the episodes first, dude. -- WCFrancis 13:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Madder

Since unlike the press release, the actual episode credited her as a regular, I removed her from guest stars. I also added that Jin didn't appear, since I think the credits listed Daniel Dae Kim. Golden Monkey 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Chang vs. Candle

I think we should use the name "Marvin Candle" for the episode synopsis, for two reasons: firstly, because it is the name that he is referred to by in the episode, and (more importantly) the name "Pierre Chang" has not yet been used on the show. The wiki needs to be accessible to people who don't follow the bonus content from Comic-Con, so we shouldn't be using names that they will never have heard.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I think we should keep it as Pierre Chang as the comic con is considered canon and it has been accesible for months. Using Chang breaks no lostpedia regulations.
  • Personally, I think leaving it as Pierre Chang would be more informative. After episodes I usually go to this site and others to keep up with various trivia and "bonus content", so I find the inclusion of facts such as Candle's real name very useufl.
  • I agree with Chang, if only because he has so many other aliases it would be hard to agree on one of them.--Emissary23 06:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Besides, the worker who interrupts the filming refers to him as "Dr. Chang." Jacob's Lather 07:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What could be his motivation for using the fake name on the videos? --Jamesn1982 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

I removed two dealing with Hawking...since she was in The Lie, not Because You Left. Golden Monkey 05:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sayid and scotch tape

When Sayid and Hurly arrived at the safe room, Sayid noticed a piece of broken tape on the wall next to the door that revealed someone was in the room. It didn't appear that the tape bridged the door and the wall, it appeared to only be on the wall. Did I miss something?TronBlaster 06:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it was attached to the door and door frame, when he looked at it the tape wsa broken indecating that someone was in the room Torgee 07:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was a small power cabel but I could be wrong.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  08:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
FWLIW, I've never quite understood the whole "superspy deduces bad guy in room with broken tape thing". Every piece of tape I've ever come accross would just come loose rather than split.--Eyeful Tower 22:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The tape splitting, or being on one side rather than the other is not important. The important thing is that the tape is different than when he left. If he placed a piece of tape from the door to the wall, and then it was laying on the ground or just stuck to the wall, it was obviously tampered with. Ketamonkey 00:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Recurring Themes

This goes for the Lie as well as Because you left: The series of pictures for the section recurring themes is blocking the actual text. I have tried to move it so that it didn't block it but I can't, so I was wondering if was allowed to just delete the pictures all together? --Dharma Intitative Agent.

Please don't do that. I can see the pictures just fine. Maybe your browser, settings, something is giving you problems. Ketamonkey 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Flashback/centric

The second episode is listed as a Hurley flashback, presumably because of the scene on the boat. If that counts as a flashback then this episode would have to be a Dr Chang flashback by the same rationale, yes? --Jackdavinci 09:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • ...or a baby Miles flashback... ;-) --Overworkedirish 10:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Like Season Four has flash-forwards as its technique, this season is shifting gears again. Neither flashback nor flash-forward seems particularly to apply to Season Five, at least so far. Any suggestions on terminology to use instead of "flashback" in that summary box for each episode for Season Five?--Japhy Ryder 10:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • ...lol? Baby Miles? That would be too cool if Miles was the Doctor's kid. I agree, I'm not so sure that the show is focusing on a single character for the flashes in this new season. A plurality of the present time flashes are about Hurley, but enough time is spent on perspectives other than his; I'm wondering if it's really accurate to designate Hurley as this episode's featured flash character
  • On the other episode they use the term "centric" based on something a producer said, but they don't mention an exact quote so it's not clear if they just mean that it's focused heavily on Hurley or if it's actually officially a Hurley episode. I'm hoping for an in show rationale for consistancy, otherwise we won't know what to do for each episode unless the producers specifically declare it. --Jackdavinci 17:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that it will be more difficult to choose a "centric" character for episodes from now on, but I do feel that most episodes will primarily revolve around one character. In The Lie, it was clearly Hurley, and not just based on the brief flashback to the boat. We may have to start counting lines (uggh), but I still think that we'll be able to easily determine who is the "primary" character featured in each episode. If anyone, I would say that this episode was focused on Faraday: he was the big twist at the beginning, he led the Losties around in the beginning of the shift, and I would wager that he had the most lines of any character in the episode. In other words, I vote that we stay with "centric" episodes, and that this particular episode is Faraday-centric. michael_is_NOT_in_the_coffin 18:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I think you've got it. It didn't really occur to me because the episodes were aired together. I went back and checked - each episode starts off with a flashback - there's even the characteristic focusing on the centric character at the end, and then a whooshing sound. The first episode's flashback ends on Daniel's face, and the second on Hurley's face. I would argue then that ep 1 is Daniel centric and ep 2 Hurley centric. I would further say that although there's only one flashback each, they both technically qualify as standard flashback episodes (I suppose Daniel's counts as a flashforward from his perspective), and we don't yet need to resort to creating a new "centric" category. --Jackdavinci 22:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Simply put, this episode does not have a centric character. "Various" doesn't seem right either. I'd categorise this one as "Centricity: None".--Tranquility 00:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would also agree in puting this down as a Daniel centric episode due to the simple fact that we saw him in a flashback at the Orchid in the begining and we only saw one Hurley flashback at the very beginning of "The Lie," and they both were clearly the centered characters to me. --James W. 05:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to throw another two cents in here. This was an Oceanic 6 centric episode, if anything. There were a few O6 centric episodes last season as flash forwards. And this episode (I believe) spent equal amounts of time focusing on the O6. I propose that "centric" be added back to the box and that "Oceanic 6" be added into the character field.--Japhy Ryder 09:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe a Faraday/Oceanic 6/Pierre Chang-centric episode would be fine. We should also add Pierre to Centric tally as having a flashback for his POV in a non-Pierre centric episode (It's clearly not a Faraday flashback, since we see Pierre's home and we see him working and arriving in places where we don't see Faraday). Also Oceanic Six template lists "Because You Left" as an O6-centric, though the disscusion is stil up.Orhan94 10:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe that this should be a Faraday centric because the majority of the episode is spent on the island, where he is clearly the main character there. In fact every episode's centric character should be the one who has the main storyline either on island or off island depending on which area had the greater focus like Faraday in this episode or Hurley in the next.Sawyerfan08 22:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This episode is centric for nobody, as no disparate amount of screen time is used to give new insights into any of the characters. Rather, it is shown how they deal with the confusing events from last season's finale. Daniel has taken more of a leadership role among the survivors, but in no way was this his centric episode. Leave as VARIOUS. --Halcohol 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Various sounds silly. It's obviously O6-centric. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Obvious to you maybe. Others think it's Daniel-centric. I think it's neither and Various is fine, since it basically recoups both. - TheAma1 23:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thinking outside the box a little, here, how about Centric character: the island? It's the first time we see various periods of island history itself in flashback.
  • Daniel Faraday. The opening flashback/forward/whatever-it-was had Daniel, and the "present" storyline focused a lot on him as well. This matches with "The Lie" being Hurley centric and "Jughead" being Desmond centric. --phoenixautumn 18:57, 25 March 2009
  • This episode should be listed as a Daniel-centric or The Lie should be listed as no one centric, the opening scene depicts first Dr. Chang, people are using this as their argument for it not being Daniel-centric, but in The Lie, Frank is the first person depicted. The point of the flashback is to establish the episode and the season. Also, both episodes jump back and fourth between several characters, equally. Kate and Sun, Miles and Sawyer, Jack and Ben play just as much prominence in The Lie as they do Because You Left, The episodes main character though happens to be Hurley as he is given the most screen time, developed the most and has the most to do with the plot. The same can be said of Daniel Faraday in Because You Left, Hurley is visited by Ana Lucia, Daniel "visits" Desmond, Hurley has an end monologue, Daniel has several short ones explaining time travel, both episodes feature a lot of screen time of other characters that are not just the centric, so I think that Because You Left should be a Daniel centric as it is just as centric to him as The Lie is to Hurley, or they should both be non-centrics as they both feature about equal prominence of the episodes "main" character.
  • There seems to be a great deal of detail on Locke's story, and he appears both on and off island. The episode also originally had the first scene from Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham as its first scene, so it was probably intended to be Locke centric.

Regarding an unanswered question

A question in the main article asks why Richard Alpert and the rest of the others aren't affected by the timestream. We don't know this--all we know is that Alpert is aware that the shifts are taking place. Perhaps a rewording of the question is appropriate?Jacobking 14:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Actually, I'm pretty sure that when Locke said, "Where did you go?" Alpert said, "we didn't go anywhere, you did." --LOSTinDC 14:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree, the context of the show made it apparent that the Others were not affected by the time jumps.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  22:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Another unanswered question "Why doesn't Desmond remember Daniel...?" was answered. Desmond DID remember! Did whomever added this actually watch the episode?!

"Do I know you?" -- WCFrancis 15:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor Dialogue Clarification

The article says, "Faraday explains that it isn't possible. "Time is like a street""

I'm reasonably sure he said, "Time is like a string." Minor? Of course it is.

Dave b 14:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I definitely recall "street". It fits better with the rest of his analogy as well. Clamshell 15:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it was "stream". Hugo815 15:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - I thought he said "stream" as well - which also works with this analogy in that time will keep "flowing" no matter which direction you head on it--Mr. Squinty 16:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I heard "string" --LOSTinDC 15:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the closed captions - Faraday says "Time ... it's like a street, all right? We can move in reverse but we can never create a new street." --Sfoskett 15:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounded like street to me. It makes the most sense...you can't move in reverse in a stream. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I initially heard string, but i dvred it and Street seems to make the most sense to me... But i cant tell so whatever you guys think i will just go with that. Not a big deal. --Jamesn1982 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I heard "Street."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, in a Popular Mechanics article, another person believed, like I do, that he said STRING. Just another opinion.
String is the only alternative that makes sense in the analogy Daniel is using. With streams and streets there are forks so parallels are possible. Daniel is arguing that parallel universes are not possible and uses the string which can not have a fork created in it as his description. and you can move back or forward on a string - further analogy - put a ring on a length of string and it can slide back and forth but cannot leave the string at any point on its length. (The ends don't count; in this thought experiment they do not exist.) -- WCFrancis 13:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree and that's why I mentioned it. As someone said already, streets as we know them are not single paths. There's a lot of people hearing both based on a Google search. The only thing I think should be added is that CC's can be incorrect. Does anyone know if the Lost captioning is based on the original script or people simply watching like we do?
Street According to the closed captioning on the ABC.com episode player it's street. --Gluphokquen Gunih 01:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
True, but the closed captioning hasn't been the most reliable resource. Dave b 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It's 100% Street.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Street Whether it scientifically makes sense or not I don't know, but he almost definitely says street. He mentions moving forward along the street, something you wouldn't really say about string. Integrated (User / Talk) 03:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The camp and the zodiac

I'm annoyed by the apparent inconsistency of objects moving through time. The zodiac moves through time with the folks on it (Faraday, Frogurt, etc), as do the people's clothes and personal possessions. I can accept that, I guess, or they'd all drown! But the camp and the church disappeared even though Bernard and Rose (respectively) were definitely there. Wouldn't some of the camp items survive the flash? What about Juliet's bottle of rum? Where's the logic? I know, I should suspend disbelief. But it seems weirdly picky that the zodiac survived multiple flashes (the first, then they go back to it on the beach in the next episode after a few more) and yet the camp is gone. --Sfoskett 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It could be touch related, because Locke maintained the compass etc... ---User:GrumpySpyGuy
Interesting point. At first I would have chalked it up to creative license, but the 'touch' idea is intriguing. Maybe if Locke had grabbed Alpert, he could have....something :) Either way, I would say it definitely falls under the unanswered "rules" of time travel, or just creative license. Ketamonkey 00:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm. *thoughtful frown* Time travel. Logic. Time Travel and the logic of it have been explored in science fiction since H.G.Wells.
Aside: One of the most provocative and paradoxical is Heinlein's All You Zombies
I agree there should be some internal consistency. But the flash is not the cause, it is only a symptom. If you arrive somewhere before something was there, why would it be there? It hadn't arrived yet at that point in the time string/stream. I think the internal consistency is there but it hasn't been explained yet. I saw nothing to disturb my willing suspension of disbelief. "There" has extra meaning in what has been explained as four dimensions. If the time dimension is before something changed then the change would not be apparent as not having happened yet. Remember, at one point in time, they discovered the Swan station, locked hatch and all, intact. This happened just after standing next to the hatch crater when a time-shift flash occurred and they went back in time. -- WCFrancis 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
We need a copy of this book: Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. Someone want to just nip off to the future to pick one up? WCFrancis 15:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
"If you arrive somewhere before something was there, why would it be there? It hadn't arrived yet at that point in the time string/stream." That doesn't work, though, or they wouldn't have the Zodiac, as that came later in with the Freighter. It has to have something to do with possession or touch. They were riding in the Zodiac, they are wearing their clothes, Juliet was holding the bottle, Locke was holding the compass/had the bullet in him/wearing the bandages. That would be different than standing next to something (the Hatch) or inside a building (the church; although we aren't told the church disappeared). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Remember Juliet's statement, "I guess whatever we had with us is along for the ride." Touch seems to be the key, here.

Opening Scenes

I found it interesting that most of the opening scenes were done with shots that did not show the character's face at first. Which is a contrast to previous seasons where scenes were often started with the character's eye almost immediately revealing his/her identity. Is that worth adding to one of the sections on the main episode page?--Jdnosilla 15:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of episodes have begun keeping the identities of the characters secret. I was reminded most of our first sightings of Desmond going about his daily life in the hatch. Robert K S (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or did the workman in the Orchid who was lying unconscious when Chang came down look very much like Sawyer? Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
No, that's just you ^^ Jared 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone determined "when" the opening scene occurred in relation to the rest of the episodes time shifts?--Iczer 21:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the theory that the "Incident" has not happened yet at the time of the filming. Since the "Incident" was mentioned in the edited section of the Swan orientation film, it has to be before 1980 (according to my limited evidence.) It looks like they are somewhat established, with their nice filming location, cameras, "barracks," etc; so it was a while after the DI arrived. I would guess the filming about 1975. I didn't mean to go on like that :) Ketamonkey 01:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Chronologically keta is right, it would be near the beginning of the Dharma initiative. Narratively, it makes the most sense as a Daniel flashforward - that a timejump we haven't seen yet will bring him and presumably the rest of the timejumping islanders to around 1975. --Jackdavinci 04:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much my exact theory, it's something that we will see happen in the next couple episodes in order to help "fix" the islands time jumps.-- SawBucks  Talk  Contribs  22:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bloopers

It seems most of these "bloopers" should be removed or at least recatagorized as unanswered questions. For instance, Chang wears the Swan Logo lab coat in a number of other station videos. So why is it a blooper that he is wearing one in the Arrow video. Isn't it more likely that we just don't know why he is wearing that logo? --Really Bad Robot 02:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't watched it back yet, but I was pretty sure Chang's logo on his lab coat was the general Dharma logo, and not the Swan, because I was expecting that it would be the Swan, as this would have fitted with the other station videos. Either way, I agree, it's definitely NOT a blooper.Cunningmunki 09:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Chang is wearing the Swan logo, Daniel is wearing the Orchid logo, and I think the rest of the DHARMA suits we see are wearing general logos. --Halcohol 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Major pet peeve here: when they insert people in to scenes later that obviously weren't there the first time (see: Harper glaring at Juliet when Ben sends Goodwin to check out the tail section). Frogurt was NOT on the Zodiac when the Island disappeared, because we clearly see all the people on it (see: under trip 2 as only six people can go at a time). For him to show up now is a blooper/continuity error.Henry Holland 19:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this blooper since it is just based on a false assumption that he must wear the appropriate coat, whereas its contradiction is possible. BeŻet 00:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed blooper

...that talked about the beechcraft's propellers moving "in the wrong direction". What's the wrong direction? If an engine loses power as the plane flies through the air, wouldn't the propeller move in a direction counter to its powered direction? See the discussions of autorotation that were entered into regarding the helicopter crash in "There's No Place Like Home, Part 2". Robert K S (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - also, rotating objects that spin faster than our eyes can sense can often appear to spin backwards.--Jackdavinci 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. I would agree about the objects spinning faster than the eye can see, and about the helicopter. But, the plane would still be moving in a forward direction, so the wind would spin the prop in the same direction that the engine was spinning. A helicopter would be different, because the engine is pulling it upwards, then when it falls in the opposite direction (down, lol,) the propellers spin in the opposite direction. I think you should put it back in, even though it is relatively unimportant. Ketamonkey 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You can see things turn "in the wrong direction" a lot in movies. Look at the wheels of vehicles, especially when they're slowing down. In reality the pilot should have "feathered" the props when the engine failed and they should have been standing almost still.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It's an effect similar to motion under strobe lighting. Different rate of rotation than the film's frames per second can cause things to appear to be rotating the wrong way. Check out stage coaches in old westerns to see this effect at its most amusing. -- WCFrancis 13:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Lesson in aeronautics - if the propeller spins EITHER direction at rest - it could be free-wheeling. Skimming the trees and hitting can cause the prop driveshaft to snap internally. At rest in the tree - the prevailing wind will spin that prop in one direction with a headwind... it will spin the opposite direction in a tail wind. So no blooper. Rationale allows either direction spin - based on the circumstances. –DocH my edits 04:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yea! I was hoping we'd get an aviator to give us the details.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed the "blooper" about the anchor chain going in the wrong direction. This is not correct, look very closely and you can see that it is going in the correct direction; sometimes items with a pattern (like chain link) moving very quickly will appear to be going in reverse, especially when they are being filmed and the frame-rate enhances this phenomenon. Look at a fast moving car's hubcabs sometime, it can look like the wheels are moving in reverse. Sithboy 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I thought we were talking about the plane flying through the air before it crashed. Sorry about that. I couldn't think of a way for the prop to spin backwards while the plane is moving forward, quickly. Good thing that doesn't have anything to do with the covo :) Ketamonkey 02:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all you're wrong, you're simply wrong. He is even moving his hand in the wrong direction. This is understandable because the director probably did not want it to look like Desmond was struggling to pull up the anchor. Second, look at the chain immediately after he start "pulling it up", it is going into the water not coming out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrumpySpyGuy (talkcontribs) .
Maybe we need someone who actually sails, but I think that first you have to give the chain some slack, then you can reel it in.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Three years later?

Wouldn't three years later be 2008? 108 days after September 22, 2004 is in January of 2005. Three years later would be January of 2008 then, right?--Jdnosilla 21:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Its very rough. "Two and a half" wouldn't have as similar impact. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  21:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I must have missed the actual date in the "present" on the show. Where was it, please? Ketamonkey 01:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
First, it mentions the oceanic 6 returning 108 days later in previews, and then it says "3 years later" when Sun and Charles meet in the airport.--Jdnosilla 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh. KK. I see what you're saying. I still don't understand the inconsistency though. Sorry if I am missing something obvious, and sounding dumb. But, why couldn't Sun be meeting Charles, like you said, in January of 2008? Is that precluded somehow? What's with the "Two and a half" thing? I'm just curious. Thanks Ketamonkey 02:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC) People often take statements much too definitively; that see "three years" and apply "1095 days."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heathrow airport

Note that the detention room Sun is brought to features a London tube map as well as a terminal map labeled "Heathrow Terminal 1" - unambiguously they were saying she was there! --Sfoskett 21:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It was weird though that the tannoy woman spoke in French. --Nickb123 (Talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't really find it weird – it's an Internation Airport, have you ever been to one? Quite often you hear messages in other languages... BeŻet 00:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Presumably an employee of a French airline.Isaac32767 22:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
She had, she thought, finished her business with Widmore and was leaving England.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd new shot in the recap

This shot was in the recap, but it's not in "There's No Place Like Home, Part 1". I doubt they'd go through the effor to reshoot something like this, so I guess it's something from the dailies that got deleted in the original episode? Was the shot in the extended edition?--Nevermore 22:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks like what is sometimes referred to as an establishing shot. They may have shot it and felt it was not needed in the episode, but was needed for clarity in the clip show (which for perspective, I must admit I did not watch, having just watched the entire 4th season in a two day marathon.) -- WCFrancis 13:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Beechcraft

Let's play Spot The Differences: Comparison image Aside from various other details (most notably the trees), that looks like a different plane model. Can anyone verify that?--Nevermore 23:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember that it has been, what, 5 years or so from the time the Beechcraft crashed and when the Losties arrived on the Island. --Makiwolf 23:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In "Deus Ex Machina", the Beechcraft's tail hangs on the edge of the cliff, and the fuselage sits on top of a tree growing out of the side of the cliff. In "Because You Left", the Beechcraft's wings are strung up in vines or tree roots ow whatever these things are. Also, the plane certainly is not the same model.--Nevermore 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Its position might be a little different, but the plane looks almost exactly the same. The older one looks more busted up and rusty, but that's about it. Do you have a theory about a second plane? Or, are you pointing out continuity? Just curious. Ketamonkey 01:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just continuity stuff. Things about the plane that look different: Shape and size of the wings, relative position of the wings compared to the rotor engines. Do we have a plane expert here? I'm not talking a "Beechcraft vs. Cessna difference", I'm more discussing a "1960s Beechcraft vs. 1970s Beechcraft" kind of difference. Like, the old Beechcraft prop is busted up, and they couldn't get the exact same model for this episode. (Same happened with Hurley's Camaro between "The Beginning of the End" and "There's No Place Like Home, Part 2".)--Nevermore 09:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Umm, what about the fact that the Beechcraft was not burned at all and everything inside of it was also unburned. The entire thing gets set ablaze in The 23rd Psalm. Shouldn't this go under the Bloopers section?--Beema|talk|contributions 01:48, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Sawyer not mentioning Claire

Is this really a continuity error? I took it as Sawyer writing her off as a lost cause. ESachs 23:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Claire's dead. What does nobody want to accept this? Isaac32767 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
No. We don't know for sure what happened to her yet. --TheEyeland 10:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Because we have not seen her body laid out on a slab.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Claire wandered off from Sawyer and Miles and is now hanging out with her father Christian Shephard, probably lured off by him. The audience has been led to believe Christian is dead (at least as of when Flight 815 took off). This is not definitive in my view. Remember, the dead people that appear to Hurley seem to be able to physically interact (Charley slaps Hurley, Ana Lucia knocks on the window of the SUV, if these are not just part of hallucinations) in a universe that includes time travel that has characteristics still unexplained. This is in my category of Wait for the explanation. WCFrancis 13:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Christian was in a coffin in the airplane hold. Dead, dead, dead. Isaac32767 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's weird how they didn't mention her. --TheEyeland 10:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Viewers really need to write this off as a writing technique. That's all it is. There will be a big reveal later in the season with Claire and what's happening with her. It's not an error, especially not a continuity error. The writers are just making the viewers wonder (or forget) until the reveal what's really happening with her. That's all there is to it. As for theories, guess away. But it's not an error.--Japhy Ryder 09:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
How one could assume she's dead is beyond me. Last time we saw her she was perfectly alive. BETTER than alive. She was smiling, happy, and in a safe place. How can we jump from that to dead ..? Integrated (User / Talk) 03:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Her calm, "better than alive" atttitude is exactly why I think she is dead (or more "undead"). (1) She leaves Aaron out in the woods; she would never do that if she were alive-alive; (2) She appears with Christian in an ultra-calm attitude, rather than freaked out or excited about dead-dad being on the island (remember her off-island encounter with him, she didn't even want to know his name); (3) She was complaining about her head hurting and acting strange after the house blew up, and Miles seemed to know more about things than he was letting on (didn't he even make a comment to her?); (4) etc. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
"Miles seemed to know more about things than he was letting on." Where do you get that? Because he said "don't be so sure" when Claire said at least she's not dead? I took that to mean that he felt they were still in danger, which they were. Crash815 15:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. In The Shape of Things to Come, "SAWYER: You all right, sweetheart? CLAIRE: Yeah, a bit wobbly, but, uh, I'll live. MILES: Well, I wouldn't be too sure about that." Yes, it's ambiguously stated, but it's definitely a clue when taken with all the other events, again especially leaving Aaron behind. The freighter people just attacked them, blew up her house, killed Alex in front of them, and she's going to leave her baby in the middle of the jungle alone? That points to either a major sudden screw loose, or she's dead and was told that Aaron would be found by the others and be okay. Also, notice she doesn't ask anything about Aaron when Locke sees her with Christian? Contrast that with her freaking out when Charlie had Aaron by the water to baptise him. She's definitely one of the "undead". ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Christian answered for Claire by saying that Aaron was where he needed to be.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Which, again, is strange in itself. She wanted nothing to do with him at the last meeting, not even his name. She knows he wasn't one of the Losties on the plane, yet he's on the Island. She leaves Aaron, yet she doesn't mention him, regardless of what Christian says. Anyway, this isn't the theory place, so I'll stop on this. She's (un)dead though; mark my words. ;) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jin

Did I miss something here? I didn't spot Jin in this episode. Not even in the reused footage from "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3". He briefly appeared in The Lie, but not in this one.

Nope, you didn't miss something. I don't think he was in this episode. Is it because he was in the opening credits? Harold Perrineau's name appeared starting from Season 4, episode 1. --TheEyeland 10:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Production Notes

It says in the production notes for this episode that "All main characters appear, though Jin appears only in reused footage from "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3".", though wasn't that in 5x2?

  • Exactly. I fixed it.

Unanswered question

Why does Sayid instruct Hurley not to trust Ben when he spent the last years working for him?

Because he knows how Ben works and how he does things. Of course Ben wouldn't deceive Sayid, as, as the question specifies, he is working for him. So that shouldn't be down there. --Citizen91 11:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My impression of the dialogue is that Sayid admits that he had worked for Ben for three years but the use of past tense ("worked") indicates that he does not work for him now. The reason Hugo should not trust Ben is connected to the reason for the split between Sayid and Ben. I recommend replacing this question with:
"Why does Sayid no longer work for Ben?" -- WCFrancis 12:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dart Gun

Minor Blooper? The dart gun used in the safe house seems to have a rather large number of shots for such a small gun, esp. seeing the size of dart. There might have been more than one gun too but still arn't those things usually single shot.--Nasher 11:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The dart gun may be a totally fictional drug delivery system so that it doesn't matter. See these comments. That being said, it appears Nasher may be correct about the systems being single shot. See this online catalog
Just some perfunctory research Google lookup. -- WCFrancis 12:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i know its not an important point, it was just something that niggled me greatly.. one of those things that takes you out of the moment.. mind you.. the knife in the cutlery rack kill brought me right back in :D--Nasher 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It coulda been custom made because they knew how badass Sayid was and one shot wouldn't do it. What niggled me was why the first guy had a proper bullets gun, and the second guy had a tranq gun. Did they want him alive or dead?? Integrated (User / Talk) 03:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair point too. As well I noted that Sayid, to protect Hurley he has him stand back against the appartment window.. which isnt the safest place to be in an anticipated firefight. I counted 5 shots from that dart gun so even if it was and over-under it would need 3 guns to fire those shots.

Maybe the real gun was to threaten the surprised pair.. get them them to come quietly and the dart to possibly take them down once they were inside. I assume they know how much of a handful Sayid was and that he might be armed. Another thought is that someone just wanted Hurley so Sayid was expendable.. not that that makes much sense with the current information.--Nasher 15:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Or the other way around.. Hurley's expendable? Integrated (User / Talk) 01:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the real gun belonged to Sayid, he dropped it when he threw the first guy over the balcony. 06:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the real gun belonged to Sayid. We never saw the first attacker's gun clearly before he was thrown over the balcony. Robert K S (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Present Time

It seems to me that the present time would be the Oceanic 6 time, due to the fact that it always starts out with them after the flashback and when it switches to the island, it always says Three Years Earlier. So i think that in the page we should treat the headers as the Oceanic 6 being in the present and the island being Three Years Earlier. --James W. 13:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Colvin

Jeremy Colvin was credited in the press release as playing a security guard in BYL. However, he is not credited in the actual episode. Anyone spotted him? --Pierre 16:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Anagram Find

"Agostini and Norton" is an anagram for ATTAINING DONOR SON. I put this in the General section under trivia. Hope that's okay.--Eyeful Tower 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Interesting...--Japhy Ryder 09:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

... is that... relevant?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that someone is trying to ATTAIN Aaron (the SON of the mysteriously vanished Claire and the Aussie artist Thomas mysteriously linked to Charles Widmore), and that John Locke has served as a DONOR SON to his father, yes, I think it is relevant as to the identity and the motive of the person behind the attempt to get Aaron.--Eyeful Tower 20:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

.... no more than "adoring ant notions" Dave b 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

...and conflicts with the transcript that reads Agostoni & Norton.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Closed Captioning had "Agostoni", but the pronounciation clearly sounds more like "Agosteeny" than "Agostoney". The Closed Captioning is not canon, and especially not canon on spelling. "Agostoni" gets about 130K hits on Google. "Agostini" gets about 4M hits. The most likely spelling of the law firm's name is "Agostini and Norton".--Eyeful Tower 20:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • After rewatching, I agree "Agostini" is correct, although I'm not convinced the anagram is significant. I'm going to fix the transcript.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It may or may no have been intentional, but it's as relevant as any of the other major anagrams we've had. --Jackdavinci 07:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Barefoot Sawyer

Sawyer is barefoot again and being forced to run through the jungle. The first time was in the "The Brig" (in which he also was forced to stomp through the jungle, though that time because of John Locke). The writers went out of their way to show to show this when he eventually injures his foot in the next episode. It's not only a reference to the literary Tom Sawyer, but it also has become a full-blown theme for his character. Does this fall under literary techniques, culturual references, or trivia? Where else is this best placed as well?--Japhy Ryder 14:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I like what they mention on Lostcasts about someones theory that Sawyer possibly losing the toe via infection and with time travel becoming a 4 toed God to a past civilisation on the island.--Nasher 14:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting theory indeed. Maybe post it in the theory section; that toe looked freakin' nasty. Anyway, I'm going to just pick a place and dump the important info wherever it is most appropriate.--Japhy Ryder 08:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the Lostcast in question.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't hear the Lostcast in question, but I think I was the first to post this as a theory to Four-toed statue/Theories. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to think it right away. I've been watching to see which survivor is going to lose a toe ever since we saw the four-toed statue. Somehow I always knew we'd have a time-travel plot. Robert K S (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the four-toes statue foot does not look like anything has been amputated; it looks like a naturally occurring condition.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Flash at the end of the Desmond/Faraday Conversation

In the main episode synopsis, there's a line at the end of the "On-Island" section stating, "As he(daniel) is about to say his mother's name, another flash occurs, causing another timeshift." I do not believe that the flash/time-shift seen at the end of that conversation is one that affected Daniel, or any of the other characters at the beach. For one, Desmond is the one who seems to be "reacting" to the sound and blinding light, Daniel seems to react to Desmond's confused face, and does NOT appear to squint as the light get's brighter. To support this, at the end of the Locke/Ethan confrontation, John is the only one reacting to the light, while Ethan appears to see everything normally, up until the point that John Locke would appear to vanish. Finally, IF the flash would have been a valid one, that all person's experienced, then when Daniel gets back to the beach, they would have been asking questions about the "most recent" flash .. wondering if he flashed with them. The fact that they mentioned nothing, should prove that none of "them" experienced a flash at that time. My point, is that the statement at the end of the On-Island section should proably state that the Flash seen is merely to connect what Desmund just heard, to the sparking of his memory in the future. I see no proof to show that it was a flash experienced by all. Amcq1010 15:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • That's ridiculous. It was very obviously a time flash. Integrated (User / Talk) 03:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There had to be a time shift there because it's obvious that the Lie begins at a different time period, on island, than Because You Left ended. Crash815 16:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The Lie begins, on-island, with everyone at the beach, no camp, and trying to make fire. BYL ended with them leaving from the Hatch, to a beach, where they knew there would be no camp. This seems like the same time period to me... Also, as Daniel arrives on the beach, Sawyer mentions, "did you figure out when the skies gonna light up again?". This clearly shows that Sawyer has NOT experienced any flash between the time that they left the hatch, until Daniel shows up. Amcq1010 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It does NOT clearly show that. Your logic is absent. "Did you figure out when the skies gonna light up again?" is what Sawyer's been asking all along, the time flash was very clear, and they are obviously in a total different time period in "The Lie". Just because they didn't show everyone saying "Woah another flash just happened" doesn't mean it didn't happen, they must think most people are smart enough to work it out for themselves. Integrated (User / Talk) 03:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
      • How does Sawyer asking about another time shift qualify as evidence? Until they stop jumping around in time, he'll keep wondering when it'll happen again. Crash815 23:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Did not mean to offend with any use of "CaPs-lock"... So, if there was a time-shift at the end of their conversation, which affected the survivors.. then, why did Desmond also react to the light and sound? I realize that we've only seen 3-4 flashes, so, any theory (including mine) can't really be proven/disproven until we see more evidence of how it affects people, and exactly "who" it affects when only part of a group on-screen experiences a time-shift. Let's just keep the above in mind as we watch more... hopefully some future time-shifts will clear this up.Amcq1010 03:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Desmond may have noticed the shift because he's "wonderfully and uniquely different." The rules don't apply to him, according to Faraday, who certainly jumped. Also, it may be that because of Desmond's mind-jumping prowess, his "memory" or "dream" while with Penny in 2008 was actually triggered by the timeshift with Faraday on-island, which is why he didn't remember it until then.

I agree that there was no general flash affecting the Survivor population. I've built a table on The Island page; comments welcome, here or at Talk:The Island. I was tempted to add a fourth flash but did not think I had enough data to justify it. We have not seen the "beach folks" during the period between flashes two and three and don't know their status at that time. I think it's possible that the reason Bernard is still trying to start a fire is that the camp came back while Sawyer and party were on the Hatch trek, making the fire unnecessary, and then disappeared again. None of the Survivors has commented about that, yet, but that chain of events could be a contribution to Neil's ranting and whining.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Given the "Jughead" episode, we can now definitely say that there was a Time-flash at the end of their conversation. This flash definitely took them to 1954, where the events of "The Lie" and "Jughead" occur.

Dan Norton's associate

  • Anyone else notice that during the scene with the lawyer's at Kate's house the guy who doesn't talk looks at the camera a few times by accident then quickly looks away? I dunno if that's worth putting as a blooper.. but it's kinda funny if you watch him. Integrated (User / Talk) 04:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

They or They'll

7 minutes in Jack says something to the effect "They died too" / "They'll die too" -- "If I didn't come back". I found that kinda interesting.. is that saying they wont die if (Jack / the 6) come back to the island. i.e. it would change what has already happened. In which he also includes the people on the freighter! Just an interesting talking point i think. --Nasher 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think "they" applies to Sawyer, Juliet, et. al., but not to redshirts.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unstuck in Time

I think there should be references to Slaughterhouse Five and Billy Pilgrim being "unstuck" in time with this episode. This was touched upon in discussions about "Flashes" and "The Constant". But now it seems that everyone left behind is unstuck.

Also interesting: when Billy in under intense stress, he gets transported to Tralfamadore, another planet, and is put in a zoo where he is watched by unseen, presumably higher beings. It is also not a stretch to compare another planet to an island (or The Island -- especially when Sawyer and Kate are locked up in the zoo and "mate" in Season 3.)

In "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater", Tralfamadore is a thought experiment (reference: Tralfamadore Wiki), which is similar to parts of the Dharma Initiative (i.e. the Swan Station was first believed to be a thought experiment of sorts).

But what if the whole island is a thought experiment? The Losties are exposed to "bad things" to see how they react...?

That bit is conjecture, but I do think that a mention of the parallels between "unstuck" in time and "dislodged" in time should be mentioned in the episode description. --Litany42 16:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are actually "unstuck". The way I see itm, being unstuck means you travel to different points in your life. The survivors just travel to different points in the Island's life, they don't get any older or younger between jumps. Dislodged, yes. Unstuck, no.--Baker1000 17:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To become "unstuck" is for the consciousness to shift to another point in one's life, leaving the unconscious body behind. So far, the only major character we've seen become unstuck is Desmond in "The Constant"; his problem was apparently cured when he was able to identify and to speak to Penny. Daniel is a good candidate for a person who can become unstuck because of journal entry identifying Desmond as his constant; we have never seen Desmond become unstuck. Charlotte is another candidate for the condition because her nose bled the same way Minkowski's did; it's possible that she is bleeding because she does not yet know the identity of her constant (probably Daniel). Charlotte, also, has never been portrayed as being unstuck. We do not know if identifying one's constant cures consciousness shifting or only makes it possible to continue without injury. Everyone else is time travelling.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Both good points, and I agree there are some very significant differences between Desmond's experience and what the Losties are experiencing now. I wonder how Charlotte's onset of symptoms work into things? After last night's episode ("Jughead") it is pretty obvious that she is affected somehow by the jumps. Wonder why just her and not the others -- especially given that we know Daniel would likely be more susceptible to that sort of thing? --Litany42 16:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Faraday's notebook

I'm pretty certain from seeing it that Faraday's notebook is a Moleskine. Dingbatty 07:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

  • Why is Pierre Chang wearing a "Swan" station coat while recording the Orientation Film for the "Arrow" station? We've already seen that the DHARMA coats don't always match up. This question has already been raised by other episodes and it's redundant to have it here.
  • What is seen by people not jumping in time when someone in front of them does? This is not a mystery that is being presented by the show. It's just something the audience is wondering, but there's no indication that it's relevant nor that we can expect an answer.
  • How did Faraday learn all that he could about the DHARMA Initiative? Rephrased.
  • Is Claire moving through time like the rest of the Oceanic survivors? Redundant with earlier question about exactly whom is affected.
  • Was Pierre Chang's baby born on the island? If so, how? Leading question/speculation.
  • Does Ethan remember Locke from their encounter by the smuggler's plane? No indication that this is relevant.
  • Is Faraday correct in saying that changing the past is impossible? Why not? We have no reason to doubt this as it's what every other character has said. Furthermore, Darlton has specifically insisted that it is impossible to change the past in several interview and podcasts.

 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Is Pierre Changs baby Miles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smolesiuk, 13:07, 26 August 2006 (talkcontribs) .
  • Why doesn't Desmond (post Constant incident) remember meeting Faraday prior to this episode? It was his 1996 consciousness that met him so why didn't he remember meeting him? Wazoz 12:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Faraday-centric

After episode four it seems that this season each episode begins with a flash-something of the central character. This episode features Faraday prominently, but his appearance in the opening scene makes me think this episode should be marked as Faraday-centric. Mauser 13:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Except for the last seconds, the "introduction" was on Pierre Chang. Moreover, the end of the introduction leads not to Faraday but back to Jack/Ben, unlike the other real flashbacks from 502 and on. Ergo, it isn't Daniel-centric - TheAma1 23:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The very definition of centric is a point in which everything revolves. While Chang was prominent in the opening moments, he wasn't seen again for the rest of the show. Instead, the big reveal was that Daniel was there in the time period. Furthermore, Daniel, not Chang, featured prominently throughout the Island segments, where everyone was looking to him for answers, he was trying to get his point across to Desmond, etc. It most certainly was Daniel-centric according to any guideline we've used to date. Remember, now, we are using the O6 timeframe as current, while those on the Island are flashbacks/flashforwards, depending on where in time they are. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Hm, I've seen this discussion stretched out over many pages. I wish there was a way to combine them all. I've seen many good ideas. Anyways, my opinion is that for now the Island is "current" time with all flashes of the OC being flash forwards. This is why the beginning of episodes 2 and 4 this season have begun on the boat right after the island disappeared. That said, I can understand how everything is becoming relative (and very confusing in the process). It's also important to note that if a particular character appears in the beginning of an episode, it doesn't mean that it's centric to that character. The season premieres of seasons 2 and 3 had nothing to do with the centric character of that episode. --Uncertainty 16:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree the centricity thus far in season 5 really has nothing to do with flashbacks. Faraday is the character the episode focuses on the most so it should be his episode.
  • I think someone with rights should remove "centric" from Template:season5nav; we don't need it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    • And now, with This Place is Death we again decide centicity based on pure Point of View. Was the episode 5 of Sun, Jin or both? No way to tell for sure. And the season premiere didn't have many centric characters, like 1x24 or 4x13, it was clearly focused on Faraday most of the time (which is of course relative). Mauser 10:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Just popping in to mention that Wikipedia and most other sites I've seen say it's Daniel centric. The nav template should be changed to match...--Golden Monkey 22:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but it's not Faraday-centric. There was no strong push in the writing or plot with the entire plot surrounding him. Also, we haven't counted the "intro" scene as a marker for centricity before. And this should definitely have no bearing seeing as this wasn't even the first choice for the opening scene and we probably wouldn't have even seen this until later in the season. Alexisfan07
      • While I agree that, in other seasons, the intro scene shouldn't be used as a marker for centricity (2x01 is not Desmond-centric, 3x01 is not Juliet-centric, 4x01 is not Jack-centric and yeah, 5x01 is certainly not Chang-centric), I do believe that in this particular episode is Daniel-centric. The little Daniel vignette at the beginning is similar to the beginning of most of the other season 5 episodes (including the much argued about 5x05.) : There is a brief scene with the central character, and then something important happens to said character(s) during the episode ... In this case, Daniel sending Desmond off to talk to Eloise. He is also present in the majority of the on-island scenes (the only exceptions being the intro sequence, the Locke/Ethan scene and the Locke/Richard scene.) --LeoChris 04:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Ultimately I don't think it matters what the centricity is. In every other season we didn't list centricity, we listed who had the flashback or forward. And every episode this season has had a conventional flashback or flashforward, although until the Locke episode it's been one single flash at the intro instead of multiple ones throughout. We can avoid this whole hoohah about centricity and just continue listing who had the flashback or flashforward. In this case it's Daniel.--Jackdavinci 10:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
          • This episode is Daniel centric, while the fb doesnt open w/ him the episode clearly focuses on him. In "the little prince" the fb opens w/ jack not kate but its kate centric also in "this place ie death" there are no fbs but its listed as jin/sun so this clearly should be changed to daniel centric as the episode focuses primarily on him.--Czygan84 16:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
            • The FB in "The Little Prince" is clearly about Kate and her decision to pretend Aaron is hers, therefore the FB is Kate-centric and the rest of the episode focuses on her. "This Place Is Death" did start with a flashback technically, focusing on Sun. And the episode clearly focuses on her and Jin. This episode is debatable, I think it is more Daniel-centric but there isn't enough to say for sure that it is.--Baker1000 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
              • Well by your argument Baker1000 this episode is clearly Daniel centirc you say the opening fb is about kates decision and the rest of the episode focuses on her so its kate centric, well the opening of this episode is about daniel working for dharma and the rest of the epsiode foduses on him so it must be daniel centric. And this place is death didnt technically start with a fb it started from suns pov 30 seconds isnt a fb.--Czygan84 18:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
                • It's called common sense. We learned nothing more about Faraday in this episode than we did in any other episode. It's just as misleading to call this "Daniel-centric" when by the same logic you could call it "Pierre Chang-centric" (which someone actually attempted for a while). --Pyramidhead 09:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • Really common sense pyramidhead, i wouldnt call common sense saying we learned nothing of faraday in this episode. So we already knew that he knew exactly what was going to happen during the flashes, oh and we knew of his plan to have desmond contact his mom, you know what I think we all knew exactly what was going to happen in the whole episode before it even aired. cmon. --Czygan84 00:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Centricity on season 5 is much more subjective than on the previous seasons (when you just had to see who was going to be on the flashback/forward). However, most episodes seem to be told from one character's point of view, which seems to be to guideline for centricity this season. For example: on "Because You Left" Sawyer is banging on the Swan's door while Faraday tries to stop him. When Sawyer leaves, however, the camera stays in Faraday while he starts banging on the door himself. Like someone said earlier, we may have to start counting lines... Pierre's scene, like the opening scenes for seasons 2, 3 and 4, was just that: an opening scene. The same happened with Frank on "Namaste": the Ajira crash had to be shown at some point. I agree that this episode is Faraday-centric. (see Episode Centricity below) --kristbg 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture

Daniel501

Daniel

501JackBen

Ben

Ive recently been involved in an edit war over the main picture thats been going on for months and so i was hoping to get a vote on here for the main pic either Ben or Daniel

  • Daniel the ben one is ridiculous and doesnt represent the theme of the episode "Because you left" at all while the faraday pic shows what happened because you left. --Czygan84 00:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Neither, frankly. Both require that you know what's happening to evaluate the picture. Does it have to be a person? The acoustic image of the wheel says much more to me.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    • what acoustic image? --Czygan84 00:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Daniel: The opening scene of this episode with Faraday and Chang in the Orchid holds a lot of importance - much more than a picture of Ben. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 00:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Daniel, as per CTS --LeoChris 01:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Daniel: If it has to be a close up of someone's face, which is usually what it seems to be, I vote Daniel (for the reasons mentioned above). -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  21:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The Daniel pic is much more provocative. I vote for that. Marc604 00:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's look at this again. Exactly what importance does the opening scene with Daniel have for this episode? It starts out the season with a big surprise, but what then? This episode is more about the Jack and Ben beginning their efforts to convince the Oceanic 6 to get back together than it is about Faraday and the others eventually ending up in Dharma time. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
  • How bout we look one more time what is this episode more about ben and jack trying to get the o6 back or the time jumps. Yeah. --Czygan84 22:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Between 2001 and 2002

Why Desmond's scene happens between 2001 and 2002? -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 04:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode Centricity

The centricity of this episode is apparently various characters. Can we have a vote on who it is focused on? Either change the centricity to none, or add characters. 01lander 05:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

'None. The episode doesn't focus on anyone in particular, but rather all of the folks left on the Island plus all of the Oceanic 6.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Various I think it's various 'cause we see Chang on the beginning having a flashforward and then we focus on Daniel Faraday (and he's also having a flashforward). If this only one scene isn't enough, why do we consider 5x04 Kate's? -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 17:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

None. If Namaste and Follow the Leader are non-centrics, this is too. --Bish-Fiscuit 18:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

None. I used to think this was a Daniel episode, but not anymore. Various seems to apply better to episodes like "Exodus" (with several characters having flashbacks). --kristbg 14:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

None. It can't be various. There is one only scene with Chang in it and it only lasts for a few minutes; not long enough for a centric episode. Faraday had his own centric episode, "The Variable". This episode is the same as "Namaste". There is no centricity. End of Discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marko14126 (talkcontribs) 2009-05-09T14:36:46.

  • Well, there's a consensus that there's no centric character in this episode. I agree, but i want to ask: "should we mention about the flashforward character?" We didn't know if the opening scene was a flashback or flashforward, but after 5x14(The Variable) we now know that that was a flashforward of Daniel. So i think it's safe to say for this episode "Centricity: None, Flashforward: Daniel". Do you agree? -- Paintbox 16:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The first flash we see is a Pierre Chang-centric flashback. Daniel shows up at the last second in that flashback, so it doesn't make it his flash-forward. However, we do see centric flashes of the Oceanic 6 and Desmond throughout this episode, like we have been for the past several episodes, and since the main focus of this series as a whole is the linear story arc of the Oceanic Survivors on the Island, and those people still on the Island start out in the is episode in the year 2004, and those centric flashes take place in the year 2007, that means all of these centric flashes are flash-forwards, not flashbacks, and the Oceanic survivors shifting through time should be considered the present. I am not basing this on fan speculation, I am basing this on objective fact presented in the episode, based on the formula we have seen so far on this series. Just because we don't see the Oceanic 6 or Desmond on the Island, doesn't mean that the episode is non-centric for them. Based on the previously suggested logic, since we don't see Jacob on the present day Island until the last 5-10 minutes of the episode "The Incident", one could use that argument to say that episode is a non-centric/multi-centric episode, even though Jacob appears in all of the flashbacks. --Killermike2178 07:53, April 13, 2012 (UTC)Killermike2178
We don't see any flashbacks or flashforwards of the Oceanic 6 in this episode. The episode opens with a flashback of Pierre (we label such flashes Non-centric flashes because their pov doesn't match the episode's centricity) and then there's that weird ending with Desmond, but that's not enough the make it centric to either of them. I've even heard that this episode could be centric to Jack and Locke, but that didn't convince many people.
There's actually quite a good argument for calling "The Incident, Parts 1 & 2" multi-centric, since its flashes are from several different characters' povs. But we decided to call Jacob-centric, since the show evidently aimed for Jacob to be the focus of all the flashes. --- Balk Of Fametalk 08:39, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
We hear the standard "Whoosh" in and out of each of the Oceanic 6 and Desmond story bits, indicating they're supposed to be flashbacks or flash-forwards. Since they are events occurring after the Oceanic survivors on the Island's story for this episode, these are flash-forwards. They have to be. The Jacob argument was used to argue that just because we don't see any of the 2007 Oceanic 6 and Desmond aren't on the Island, that does not rule out their centricity to this episode. There have been plenty of other episodes with various centricities, so why not this episode? Were any of you mods/admins actually involved with the writing behind these early Season 5 episodes? If not, then I guess your words carry just as much weight as mine, since neither of us know the true intentions of the writers.--Killermike2178 08:53, April 13, 2012 (UTC)Killermike2178
We should keep most of this conversation in one place - let's do it here. Though this episode is interesting - all of the off-island scenes actually occur before several scenes on the Island - the scenes where Locke looks at crashed Beechraft and meets Richard, and where Daniel suggests they could be in the future.
But it doesn't matter in which year each scene occurred. Because both are threads that the season "currently" follows. The season follows two threads: off the island and on. Both have flashes, but they aren't flashes of each other. --- Balk Of Fametalk 09:12, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
Arrrrrggh!!!! This is why this was my least favorite of all the seasons. The writers needlessly complicated it with the time-traveling plot device. It made me feel like going out and getting my own bloody Constant :P Hell, I'm surprised they didn't throw aliens into the last season. It would have made just about as much sense.--Killermike2178 09:20, April 13, 2012 (UTC)Killermike2178
Damon Lindelof said that the final episode would end "Somewhere just outside the Crab Nebula, geographically." He was telling the truth, but no, no aliens. --- Balk Of Fametalk 09:27, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
Haha, when did he say that Balk? I've never heard that before. I must apologise though, it would be better to discuss this all in one place as it seems all the points raised with the exception of "316" (which is a more complicated case) are all the same.--Baker1000 19:35, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Desmond in HAZMAT suit

I just rewatched Live Together, Die Alone and Desmond said he haven't been out for two years(2001-2002). He then noticed Inman's HAZMAT suit has a rip in the leg and he follow him out. Now I will assume this is the first time he went out but it doesn't really matter here. This scene happen the day Oceanic 815 crash as Desmond follow Inman, found out Inman is lying about the infection as he take off the suit after he went out and has been fixing Des' boat to flee, Desmond got angry and accidentally kill Inman. He then ran back to the hatch and fail to push the button in time. Now in this episode when Daniel knock the hatch door, Desmond open the door and he is wearing the rip off in the leg suit. There's no reason for him to wear the suit. This can't happen before he kill Inman because Inman never let him out before and he himself stated he haven't been out for two years. Even if he did go out before Oceanic 815 crashed he or Inman himself should have realized the rip earlier not after 2 or 3 years because it seem Inman go out a lot. If the scene where Daniel meet Des happen after the crashed it would be more ridiculous because he know there is no infection and there's no need to wear the suit. So shouldn't this be note as bloopers or continuity error?--IceCrash 05:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense if Desmond wanted to do the same thing Inman did to him -- make it appear unsafe outside, then get the newcomer to push the button while he goes out to fix the boat and leave. -- Graft   talk   contributions  06:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
But he doesn't appear to go out much. If that is the case I don't think Desmond will only wait someone bang his door and do what you said. Inman went out and found Desmond at the beach not wait in the hatch for Desmond to bang his door.--IceCrash 09:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Flashforward

I realize that this episode is non-centric, but I think it should be mentioned that there is one Daniel flashforward in the beginning. This would be consistent with articles such as Dave (episode), which lists both Hurley's and Libby's flashbacks. Gefred7112 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support, There's a precedent with Dave and The Incident --LeoChris 04:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support as i said before. -- Paintbox 08:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose 100%. This isn't even a Daniel flash! He's only in it for 3 seconds. The flash focuses on Pierre Chang. As for your precedents, "Dave" was a recent change, which actually goes against what was discussed on the talk page; and "The Incident, Part 1" only gets away with it because it lists the episode as Jacob-centric and then a list of the characters who were featured in flashes (something I disagree with, but meh).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • On second though, I think there's a better way to handle the whole Hurley/Libby thing, which I brought up here. So if people want to list Desmond in "Man of Science, Man of Faith", Juliet in "A Tale of Two Cities", or Jack in "The Beginning of the End" as flashes, but as Jack, Jack and Hurley centric, then I'm fine with it. I still take issue with listing this as Daniel, though, because I don't see how you could claim its his flash when the entire thing (minus the last two seconds) is from someone else's POV.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  09:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Jim, i understand what you've said. You're right about the point of view. We watched most of this 'famous' flash from Dr.Chang's point of view. But here, in my humble opinion, there's an exception. The main purpose of this flash was to tell that Faraday lived at the same timeline with Dr.Chang, and involved in Orchid Station's construction process. So, despite it looks like very little part of this flash was from Daniel's POV, the 'apotheosis' of the short story was telling Daniel Faraday's situation. I think because of this exceptional reason, it's safe to say that was Daniel's flashforward. -- Paintbox 09:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • My feelings are that we have a certain precedent for what constitutes a centric flashback/forward and part of that precedent is that the story is told from that character's POV. While this was a hugely important flashforward, I don't really feel it was told from anyone's perspective in particular. The Chang bits were just to setup that this is DHARMA times, and then the Faraday bit is the big reveal. But without POV I don't think we should count it as Daniel-centric. It's just a non-centric flashforward, similar to the non-centric flashback in "Greatest Hits".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually i think that most of the recent definitions about the centricity slightly changed with the start of Season 5. In the first four seasons, the centric character of an episode was like a narrator. The major part of the story was being told from this character's POV. Later things changed. Please look at the early five episodes of the season 5. In none of these episodes the major part of the story was told from the centric character's point of view. The most notable episode in this term was (i'm sure we agree on it) "Follow the Leader". No part of the story was told from Richard's point at all, anyway we considered this episode a Richard centric because of his prominence in the story.
You're right, until this episode we got the flashbacks/forwards from one character's POV. But this one is told from the camera's point of view rather than a character's. If we use the same logic like in "Follow the Leader", we can say "that was a Daniel centric flash (we even couldn't understand if it was a -back or -forward until "The Variable") because of his prominence in the scene"
"Is prominence enough for centricity?" would be the right question, and i'm not sure about the answer. But if we answered positively for Richard, then we should do the same for this flashforward,too. -- Paintbox 08:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • By the way i guess this is the first flash which is not told from a character's POV. I'm not sure which flashback in "Greatest Hits" you're referring to, but if you mean Karl's outrigger in the opening scene, i don't think it was a flashback. It was more likely a real-time event which Karl starts sailing in the start of the episode,and reaches the survivors' camp in the middle of the episode. So it's not true to compare these two. -- Paintbox 08:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's a Daniel flash- forward for a few seconds. Only a few seconds. And it's a flashback from Pierre Changs POV.--Station7 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite comfortable with it being a Pierre flashback or a Daniel flashforward. While The Lie - The Little Prince all featured clear flashbacks at the start that focused in on a single character, this one...doesn't. I'd rather it be considered a non-centric scene set in 1977. See, Pierre having a flashback is problematic, given that he's not in the rest of the episode; but it being a Daniel flashforward is also problematic due to him being in it so little. But, I dunno; Cabin Fever opened with a flashback that only showed Locke for a second or two after he was born and mostly focused in on Emily Locke but it's still seen as a John Locke flashback. I would say that it being a Daniel FF is the lesser of two evils, but I'd rather it be considered just a non-centric scene set in the past...also I doubt anyone is claiming that MOSMOF is a Desmond FB, 'cause it just opens with another perspective on the present events (because season 1 picks up seconds after season 2). --Golden Monkey 22:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible compromise: Pierre flashback and Daniel flashforward?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support It's ok. -- Paintbox 17:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Centric

Um, if this is classified as a Daniel flashforward, shouldn't it be listed as Daniel centric? After all, brief flashes in The Lie, Jughead, The Little Prince, and 316 is how we determined their centricity, so...yeah, why is this different? --Golden Monkey 19:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I will tell why it's not a flash-forward of Pierre Chang. Pierre chang has lived with DHARMA in the 70's. He's dead, or at least he's not on The Island. Thay's why it's a flashback from Pierre Chang and not a flash-forward.--Station7 14:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying it is a Pierre Chang flashforward. I think we're all pretty clear that the first scene is a flashback for Pierre and a flashforward for Daniel from the present time perspective.--Baker1000 16:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I know, but it's on Pierre Changs page.--Station7 17:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand something not. Locke who was in 2001 or 2002 met Richard, who was in 2007. Locke=Jacob's Nemesis wanted him to die, wich later happened as seen in The Life And Death Of Jeremy Bentham. But how could Jacob's Nemesis already has his body since his not dead in Because you left? And how could Richard, Ben and Jacob's Nemesis already has been in 2007, while Locke is in 2001 or 2002? Someone an idea?--Station7 12:35, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. but how could Jacob's Nemesis already have his body while he(Locke) is not dead? and ben was not on the island at the time the other people(Sawyer, Locke, Juliet, Miles, Daniel, Charlotte and Jin) where.Do you get me. Maybe because of the time flashes or something else. Locke not dead= Jacob's Nemesis already body from dead Locke? --Station7 14:15, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

  • I think you need to look up the meaning of a "predestination paradox". Flocke (Dead Locke) was already in 2007 before Locke died because that's how it was supposed to happen. No matter what happened, Locke would always die, come back to the Island, and have his form taken on by Jacob's nemesis. The Locke that Richard met before meeting Locke at the plane was Locke's future self. It is the same as Kate and Sawyer asking Richard to save young Ben. Kate and Sawyer didn't time travel before they met Ben in Season 2, but their future selfs had already existed in the past and saved Ben's life. I probably haven't explained it very well, hopefully someone else can.--Baker1000 16:00, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, now I understand it.--Station7 17:10, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Season 5 DVD extras (Centricity...again)

The Season 5 DVD set had been released here in the UK. On one of the extras (Building 23 & Beyond) Michael Emerson gives a guided tour around the writers offices in Burbank, CA. Damon and Carlton take him into the room where they break episodes. In this room there is board, which Darlton explains is used to write down all of the episode names as they break them. Ok, getting to the point now, written under each title is the centric character(s) of the episodes. "Because You Left" is written as Jack/Locke centric! Interestingly, "Jughead" is said to be a Faraday/Desmond episode (not just Desmond) and "Namaste" is actually Sun. I think there was a second name on 5x04 too (Kate and someone else). Now I'm not suggesting we change everything, but I thought I should point it out. I only have the Blu-ray edition so I can't take screencaps, but when I get the DVD copy I will take screencaps if you want proof. Otherwise you can check it out for yourself when the DVD comes out in your country.--Baker1000 21:03, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh,really? So if you can find screencaps i think everybody is going to agree although it sounds crazy to say "Because You Left" is Jack/Locke centric. --Paintbox 13:43, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
    • Well DarkUFO have a video of it here, but the quality is poor and you can't see what is written on the board unless it is zoomed in on Carlton. It's about 1 minute into the second video that they start discussing the board. Hopefully the DVD will provide better screencaps. Although Blu-ray is great, there is a lack of screencapping ability on Windows.--Baker1000 20:52, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
      • That's very interesting... I think that's as "official" as it can get. Not that I feel that "Beacuse You Left" is Jack/Locke centric, but it makes much more sense than Pierre or Faraday. And "Namaste" as a Sun episode - that DOES make sense (actually I thought it was Sun/Jin, but close enough). --kristbg 22:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
        • I may have even seen it wrong on the Namaste one. I can see "Sun" under one episode and it looks too far to the right of the board to be on This Place Is Death.--Baker1000 23:25, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I have it on DVD and I have taken screenshots. I'll say right here, that this is why I love Blu-ray much more than DVD. The quality of DVD is terrible in comparison, you can hardly make out the text on the board. It's crystal clear on BD. Here's the best I could get though.
    23andbeyondboard

    Faraday/Desmond centric

    23andbeyondboard2

    Jack/Locke centric

    You will have to make them full size to see it better. The first picture shows Faraday/Desmond centric under 503. You can see the centric for 509 ("Namaste") too, but I can't seem to make it out. Anyone else know what it might say? It doesn't look like Sun to me. Also, if you look next to 503 towards 504, you can see it has two names. The first is Kate but the other name is blocked out by the light. The second image shows two names under 501, and you can't make it out on here but you'll have to trust me that it does say Jack/Locke. This is the best I can get right now, as taking screencaps from Blu-ray isn't as simple as printscreening and pasting into Paint! I'll try and take pics of the screen with my camera or something I guess.--Baker1000 23:54, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
    • I remember there was another board on the other side of the room with additional information (and, if I remember well, a "flashback" entry for all episodes... could you post screencaps for those, Baker1000? --kristbg 13:43, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
      • I think I know which board you mean. It's the one they show just after this right? It was just about all the flashbacks in the finale as far as I know, which are of course centered on different characters. I will check again to me sure though.--Baker1000 16:59, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
        • That's the one! --kristbg 17:25, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
  • Well Jack and Locke make sense for Because You Left. Sun for Namaste, I can see. So if they have Sun for Namaste, then does that mean Jin is This Place is Death, so both have there own eps. I cant see them having two Sun/Jin episodes, so I guess they gave both there own ones. This is interesting. I'm curious about This Place is Death and Follow The Leader. I wonder who the second name is for The Little Prince with Kate. I can see it being Aaron. But I suspect a character for the Island focus, maybe Sawyer. Buffyfan123 00:31, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
    • It does look like the second name begins with an S. It makes sense since there's the whole scene with him seeing Kate helping Claire give birth. And it does look like they had a centric for on and off the island for those first few episodes, so it makes me wonder why Hurley's episode is just Hurley and no one else.--Baker1000 00:50, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah I thought Sawyer because of that scene. Yeah Hurley by himself I wonder. Then again the Island stuff had Sawyer, Juliet, Charlotte, Daniel, Miles at camp-site with Rose, Bernard, Neal before the arrow attack, so there wasn't a focus on one character in the island story, and Locke shows up at the end. So I can see why its just Hurley. Yeah it seems the first 4 was focus on two characters on/off, but the second its hard to think which character for Island is centric, since until the arrow attack everyone was just at the camp. Buffyfan123 11:08, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
      • I was looking at the board on my Blu-ray version again (sorry, can't get any decent pics with my camera either!) and I have a feeling the centric for Namaste begins with a D. You can't really see it on these screencaps though. From that I conclude that it is Dharma centric. That would make sense in a way since the episode is called Namaste, and it focuses on their new recruit process quite a bit. Although Sun or Jin would make more sense, but the name on the board is more than 3 letters long. The things which both timelines in the episode have in common are the Barracks, recruitment centre and 1977 photograph, which are all related to Dharma.--Baker1000 00:22, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
  • Dharama centric I can see that. That would work. I guess its hard to really tell what the others are, especially the first 5 episodes. I'm curious about This Place is Death. Buffyfan123 07:25, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's a shame. Because of the light, you can't see 5x04, 5x05 or 5x10. Although 5x10 is clearly Sayid. I also wish they had filled in 5x15, so we can see if it really is a Richard-centric.--Baker1000 20:41, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh well. Yeah I'd like to know what they put for 5x15, and if they put Richard for that episode. I cant see who else could centric, Richard had a big role in both 1977 and 2007. I'm wondering if they gave Juliet any sort of centric all season, I cant see where you'd place her, but maybe the writers did have her somewhere, maybe. Only 5x8, I'd consider, but its all Sawyer. Buffyfan123 09:22, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
  • Baker, actually i thought that there had been a feature on the DVD version which officially lists each episode including the centric character(s). I still think this pics can be counted as canonical sources, but for other users i have some doubts. If we try to change the centric characters by addressing these screencaps, i'm sure that a lot of users are going to oppose. --Paintbox 11:04, November 10, 2009 (UTC)


Different Beechraft

I think it's a different beechraft then from Deus Es Machina. For me it looks different. And you?--Station7 19:00, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Yemi's Body in Plane on the Ground

Just before Locke talks to Richard beside the downed Beechcraft, we see Yemi's body in the plane. But his body had previously disappeared (3x05). Since this scene takes place sometime in 2007, do you think this means something, or is it just a continuity error?--ReverendAlcorn 22:43, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Blooper

In this episode, Juliet says we blew the Hatch up, indeed of saying that the survivors had blew up the Hatch. I see this as an error. And you?--Station7 22:00, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • She's referring to the survivors as a group, a group she then conciders herself a part of. No blooper according to me. --LeoChris 02:56, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Desmond as Daniel's constant

In "Episode References" it says:

"Following his note, "If anything goes wrong, Desmond Hume will be my constant", Faraday establishes Desmond as his constant. ("The Constant")".

Now, I think this may not be the case. "Constants" are people/objects that one must be attached to, if one starts traveling through time, but as a "mind-travel" (as the one in "The Constant"), not as a whole-body travel (as the one seen in this episode). So I don't think Desmond serves as his constant at all - Daniel only wants him to tell Eloise that they're in trouble. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 16:10, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Green ceramic alien head?

Is the "green ceramic alien head" really significant enough to be mentioned in the trivia section? I think it should be removed. --Celebok 23:59, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of its significance either. I say remove it.--Baker1000 00:07, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.