Talk: Every Man for Himself

What's the source on it being Sawyer's flashback? --Minderbinder 14:59, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

It's not official, but mentioned in a Josh Holloway print interview in TV Guide a couple of weeks ago linked here. Relevant part goes "Producers have promised that Kate will choose between her two suitors – good doc Jack or bad boy Sawyer – within the first six episodes of Season 3. (Could it happen during the Sawyer-centric October 25 episode "Every Man for Himself"?)"--BrightStars1212 12:13, 15 October 2006 (PDT)
Moreso, if the flashback hasn't been confirmed by official sources yet, then why do all of the guest caracter pages state that they will appear in a Sawyer flashback?--Mighty Rearranger 12:47, 16 October 2006 (PDT)

Whats the source on this being an actual episode? Its going to be deleted unless we get a source. -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 15:01, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

ABC Medianet has officially confirmed this as an episode.--Captain Insano

And not only that, the press release is linked in the article. ;) --Minderbinder 15:13, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

fair enough :-) -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 15:08, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

I'm guessing the task that Jack has to "scrub up" for is saving the woman that Sun shot? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magick insane (talk • contribs) .

Lo, why is it unverified? --Marik7772003 10:04, 17 October 2006 (PDT)

Because ABC never explicity stated that it was a Sawyer episode ShadowUltra 15:28, 18 October 2006 (PDT)

Definitely a Sawyer flashback[]

According to ABC's press release, Kim Dickens is back playing Cassidy in this episode, so unless she crosses over into somebody else's flashback, it's a Sawyer flashback.

Its pretty much certain that its a Sawyer flashback based on that. She could still cross over into someone elses episode. After all, John Terry features in Ana-Lucia and Sawyer flashbacks with his son nowhere in sight. -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 07:14, 19 October 2006 (PDT)

According to Kristen@eonline it's a Sawyer flashback. --Amberjet11 09:55, 20 October 2006 (PDT)

The official ABC Lost podcast describes this as a Sawyer episode. --User:Lunatik 14:09, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

I think...[]

...that this is going to be the defining episode of Season 3. The lack of promotional photos must mean that a major plot twist is coming our way!--Mighty Rearranger 12:46, 23 October 2006 (PDT)

DO NOT POST SPOILERS[]

...wtf? The show's already aired. It's been over for a half hour. ~Dissonance

Someone posted spoilers during the show, I removed them, no spoilers has been removed as well. Pkal 19:21, 25 October 2006 (PDT)
- That was me, and it was about 10 minutes after the show had ended. Keep in mind that Canadians get the show one hour early than americans, and thus we can add things one hour earlier. =) ~Dissonance
- Remember this site's based in the US.
  - From the spoiler box on the main page: Lostpedia is updated based upon US Airing dates. I'd say no spoilers until events have been shown in the US broadcast. Plus it's just uncool. If you really want to get a headstart, start writing an episode summary in your word processor and paste it in the moment the show finishes in the USA. --Minderbinder 06:29, 26 October 2006 (PDT)
    - The warning "Lostpedia is updated based upon US Airing dates." is meant to tell people "hey, if you live in Europe, or Japan, or australia, you're behind, and you might be spoiled by what's on here. so if you decide to look around, here's a fair warning!" Sounds like a double standard... When people of other countries you tell them 'hey we got spoilers, and we're not removing them for your benefit, so don't look around' but meanwhile when stuff is posted before the americans get the show people delete them? Yeah, that's a bit americacentric - IMO the rule should be changed not to be based on US air dates but on whenever the show is aired first - US or otherwise. ~Dissonance

Americentric? 1) Lost is produced in the US, 2) the large majority of lostpedia readers are US-based. You are fortunate enough to view it one hour earlier in Canada, great. But where is the fire and what's the big rush, that you can't have a little more consideration for the community majority, and wait a few minutes? It's not like we're giving prizes for first to post (and many same-night posts, to be honest, aren't quality, and done in a confused frenzy). We've got to draw the line somewhere for time, and we're obviously not going to wait for Kuala Lampur to air their show before we allow edits, or we'd be behind the US by months or years... to draw the line with US airings for a US-based show sounds pretty logical to me. --Pandora X 20:08, 28 October 2006 (PDT)
The warning is so that foreign viewers know to avoid the spoilers. Since US viewers aren't aware that there is a showing before the US one, they don't know that there's a risk of spoilers. And I'd be a little more sympathetic if you had put up the spoilers as part of a first draft of an episode summary, instead of just "woot" and blurting out all the major plot points as quickly as possible. At the very least you could have put them at the bottom of the page under a spoiler warning. What is the point of posting spoilers out of context just before the show is starting? It's just going to ruin it for people, I don't see what the upside is. Be more thoughtful next time --Minderbinder 14:07, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

I think that it is worth pointing out that viewers in different time zones watch the show at different times. (Unless they have digital cable or satellite that lets them watch eastern channels.) Why is it not fair for Canadians to post "spoilers" even when people in eastern timezones of the US can after their broadcast ends? Nick2010 15:53, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

People on the US west coast know that there's a broadcast earlier, people getting the first US broadcast generally don't know that (and notice that the spoiler warning says it's based on first US broadcast, not who gets to it first). Tweaking the spoiler warning could be an option, might be worth bringing up on the talk page for the main page. But the larger issue isn't what's "fair", it's the spirit of the post. Users are never supposed to post on article pages with the intention of spoiling, and are supposed to use the spoiler template where appropriate. If you have an episode summary written before the US broadcast is over, that's one thing. But we're talking about posting the second the episode is over with only the major plot points, it's hard not to see that as intentionally trying to spoil the show for others. --Minderbinder 16:06, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

The French Chick[]

Haha that wise bitch. Okay for those of you that don't know: Okay on one of Danielle's maps she labelled a small island at the bottom of the map. Its is labelled Alex. First I thought it was a tribute to her daughter, but it isn't. She has known that is where Alex was.--Captain Insano 19:13, 25 October 2006 (PDT)

Is there an image somewhere of this "Alex" island? I was looking at the pics we have of Danielle's map on this site, but I'm missing it. -- Dreamy Perfection 17:48, 26 October 2006 (PDT)

I haven't been able to find a screenshot of it as of the present. But there was a screenshot of it then somebody upload another picture over it.--Captain Insano 11:34, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

Show screenshot...

Days on Island[]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't someone say that it had been "two days since the sky turned purple?" How does that fit into the timeline correctly, if Live Together, Die Alone was day 65 and this is day 70/71? Pkal 19:22, 25 October 2006 (PDT)

LTDA was day 68. A Tale of Two Cities was 68 as well, and The Glass Ballerina was 69. So I guess that Every Man for Himself was 70 (two days after the Discharge according to Tom). Ben woke Sawyer up the next day, which is day 71.

Then why does the page for LTDA say it is day 65? - Pkal 05:57, 26 October 2006 (PDT)

Preview[]

How about that glimpse at the end of the previews for next week of the guy on the monitor screen (in the Pearl, I believe) with the eye patch. The next two episode look to be quite interesting. --NSHS07 (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2006 (PDT)

I thought for sure it was an alien. :D --Mighty Rearranger 19:35, 25 October 2006 (PDT)
- I was thinking the same thing. My aunt actually jumped out of her chair when she saw it.--Sursum Corda 23:50, 25 October 2006 (PDT)
  - If only there were a one-eyed character in 'Lost'. Maybe his last name would begin with 'R', and may be only known as a brown stain so far. But, hey, I'm just guessing. --MZARS 02:11 10262006

Hey. You rhymed.--NotARedHerring 08:45, 28 October 2006 (PDT)

- - It could be a replay of the observation tapes from the Pearl, in which Radzinsky is seen to discover the camera monitoring the Swan, and thus figures out that he is in an experiment. This discovery leads him to commit suicide.--ASEO 06:24, 26 October 2006 (PDT)
I'd bet anything that the guy with the eye patch is connected with the glass eye found in the arrow.--nb_nmare 17:20, 28 October 2006 (GMT)

Static[]

Right before Juliet came in to ask Jack for help, there was some static on the communicator. There were definite voices; did anyone catch what they said? This was after we heard Sawyer on the comm.--NotARedHerring 20:27, 25 October 2006 (PDT)

No, but it seems that the speaker is malfunctioning and may be able to periodicly broadcast sounds from elsewhere in the station.--ASEO 06:26, 26 October 2006 (PDT)

Got some of it: "(everything?)'s under control. Yeah? You know what he's doing? (Ben? or Yeah I?) know(s?) what he's doing." Then there's something else, but i can't hear it. On the ABC post of it, it's at 21:33. Someone with better ears than me should go check it out and put it into the article somehow.--NotARedHerring 16:39, 26 October 2006 (PDT)

From some subtitles I've found in the internet: ...under control. - Yeah? You know what he's doing to Karl? You know what he's doing? - It was a mistake, bringing those two here. I can't say, who said what - was the question "You know what he's doing?" repeated twice or, as NotARedHerring wrote, was that a question and answer.

The last sentence supports the theory that the Others need Jack as a surgeon and bringing Kate and Sawyer was their mistake. --Perpetka 06:54, 28 October 2006 (PDT)

Pulp Fiction Reference[]

I have previously moved the Pulp Fiction referrence from trivia to theories. Since the statement "The movie Pulp Fiction was likely referenced" is a theory not a fact or a piece of trivia about this episode. But it just keeps on getting moved back to trivia and I was hopeing for a second or third opinion as to where this particular statment should end up. --- wilsbadkarma 02:27 EDT 26, Oct 2006

I can't imagine that there's another movie that they're referencing; it doesn't really have all that much bearing on the actual plot of hte show (except that it prooves that the Others have knowledge of the movie Pulp Fiction), so i think that the statement belongs in trivia, and the extrapolation of their knowledge of the movie belongs in theories.--NotARedHerring 23:42, 25 October 2006 (PDT)

Not Killers?[]

Ben stops Sawyer and tells him that he doesn't have a pacemaker in. He brings out the bunny labeled 8 and tells him the bunny only had a sedative and isn't dead, because they aren't killers.

Yet we know that Scott Jackson is killed, presumably by Ethan Rom and Nathan is killed by Goodwin. Both Ethan and Goodwin are from the Otherville community and were sent out by Ben. It could be that Ben does not know of these murders, or that in Ethan’s case, perhaps he didn’t kill Scott. Still, for being “good people” the others do a lot of bad things with out any (as of yet) good justification. --ASEO 07:04, 26 October 2006 (PDT)

Jack and Juliet's efforts in the operating room[]

I couldn't help notice that Jack and Juliet did not seem very enthusiastic about saving Colleen's life on the operating table.

And even AS much (or as little) as they did, they BOTH appeared to be "phoning it in". This could be in part due to the fact that Jack is apprehensive about saving the life of an Other, and Juliet appeared to have some bad blood with Colleen in the early episodes of this season...postulated that said bad blood may be over relationships with Ben or Pickett... OR that Ben and Pickett were watching from the observation room.

If you compare how "intensely" Jack worked on saving Rose, Charlie, Boone, Sawyer, etc. in his time on the island, he didn't even hammer on Colleen's chest in an attempt to restart her heart.

I'm sure neither were sad to see her go, for I suppose what are fairly obvious reasons...still, interesting to see it all go down like that.

--Frankie Viturello

Considering how rarely CPR and medical care are correctly depicted on TV, I don't think any real conclusion can be made here. --Doc 09:04, 26 October 2006 (PDT)
Also, CPR is intended to keep a patient alive until better medical care arrives (like a crash cart), or things that or more minor like a person who has stopped breating. CPR generally isn't intended to start a stopped heart, especially when it stopped because of a bullet injury with uncontrolled bleeding. --Minderbinder 10:04, 26 October 2006 (PDT)

Well, regardless of the "accuracy" of the portrayal, I still feel like neither were giving it their "best effort"...it was very subtle, but Jack and Juliet have both shown anger/frustration to greater degrees. Oh well. Colleen is dead and buried, so I guess we'll never really know.

Jack says "she was dead be for you put her on the table". I took that to mean that she was actually dead, and he realized that at the time, and thus was not putting in the full effort. Maybe they rigged the heart rate monitor to give the impression she was still alive.... but for what reason??
- Maybe he just meant "She was dying and there was no chance to save her" --Perpetka 06:58, 28 October 2006 (PDT)
  - That's usually what a cliche like that is supposed to mean... Joel Van Atta 05:39, 31 October 2006 (PST)

Theories are growing like weeds[]

Does anyone else find it a distrubing trend that the theories on particular episode are becoming longer than the actual article? I understand that theories are an important part of Lostpedia but it's starting to get out of hand. Look at the Further Instructions theories section as a good example of this. We need to pull the reigns on this problem before Lostpedia becomes Theorypedia. --scocub

I totally agree. Feel free to delete any unsupported theories and debating on the article pages, or move them to the talk pages. Go nuts. Along those lines, what about creating a section on talk pages called Speculation? And there is a Theories template on some pages, why isn't it on every page that has a theories section? --Minderbinder 10:04, 26 October 2006 (PDT)

I am starting to do some deleting. I think if we had a speculation page the server might crash... that's a joke, but seriously I feel that speculation should be saved for the Forum. Could you imagine how long the speculation page would be for "Him"? Specualtion doesn't add anything to Lostpedia, especially wild specualtion like "Sawyer was having an affair with Jack's wife." or "Eko is Walt's real father" or "Libby traveled back in time to met Hurley." these are all speculative theories that have really appeared on Lostpedia at one time. --scocub

Agreed. Theory discussion belongs on the discussion tab--ASEO 12:02, 26 October 2006 (PDT).

Totally agreed, and I made similar comments in discussion of The Glass Ballerina. Just seems like every member of the peanut gallery feels like they have to pipe up for every show, and the crazier the speculation, the better. While it may be entertaining for some, it's not the point of a wiki that's more of a canon resource, that's more for blogs and forums. I'd welcome anyone to trim them down, I try to do it when I get a chance, but frankly, I don't even like reading them when most end up being illogial and/or poorly written... --Pandora X 19:57, 28 October 2006 (PDT)

Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you. Finally, I'm not alone, cleaning these things up. It really burned me out... —X S G 10:21, 29 October 2006 (PST)

For the record, the theory section on this page is perfect. Theories are organized and all meet our theory policy. And I'm glad to see my template getting some use. —X S G 10:21, 29 October 2006 (PST)

Penelope's Letters[]

Why is there a huge photo of Penelope's letters? They have nothing to do with this episode. Can we please delete this??

Theory Discussions[]

These are theory discussions cut from the article. They're fine topics to discuss, but can clutter up the main article. This seems like a better place for them.

About Desmond's lightning rod. What if it is the cause of the lightning? My first thought was that Desmond guesses that there is a charge building now that the Swan is destroyed. No one in it would be aware of it, but placing metal high up is like reaching for the doorknob after shuffling your feet on the carpet? IanB

I like the thought, mostly because I'm not convinced that Desmond is some sort of prophet. The only problem I see with your theory is his placement of the lighting rod. If he was trying to cause lighting to release energy, wouldn't it have been considerate to place it farther away from the baby? Personally, I think he's having some kind of a Groundhog's Day experience, and had seen lighting strike the camp before. -Beardog4314 13:37, 26 October 2006 (PDT)

Clementine is not a real child, but rather Cassidy is putting the con on Sawyer.
- Sawyer may be aware of this anyway (since he is a better con than her) and wants her to have her money back since he seemed unwilling to take her money in the first place but did so in order that she would not be killed.
  - This gets my vote. He is so self-deprecating (and against the needless suffering of children in general) that he would provide a trust fund for an innocent baby. Besides, since he took Cassidy's money, he believes that he owes it to her child, whether he's the father or not. Oh, and what's this "Clementine is not a real child" business? She's obviously a real child, or else someone did a really good job in Photoshop! Do you mean not really Cassidy's child, like it was a picture that was enclosed when she bought a frame? --Amberjet11 09:31, 2 November 2006 (PST)
  - Of course, she could be an even better con than him all along and it's all some elaborate long con but that seems unlikely.
The reason for Sawyer's flashback was to show that Sawyer is willing to betray his own short-term friends for long-term goals. Just like he betrayed Munson to get out of prison, he will betray his fellow lostaways in order to be free. Knowing Sawyer's history, the Others will send him back to the camp to carry out a mission in exchange for his freedom (Michael-style redemption).
- Hence the title of this episode, "Every Man for Himself"
- It does not necessarily show a willingness to betray friends. The man he betrayed in the flashback was never a friend, he was a mark from the start. Sawyer's entire interaction with him was in order to con him into giving up the location of the money. This is a different situation from what he is in now as the losties were not set up as being marks from the start and there is no evidence that he is interacting with them towards a specific goal as he did in prison.
- His flashback also shows that he cares more about people then he's willing to admit, and his tough exterior and self sabotaging his personal relationships is him actually trying to con himself. (e.g., risked his life to try and save Walt in Season 1, gave up guns/meds when he knew it was for a legitamate need in season 2, told Jack that he was the closest thing that Sawyer has as a friend, deposited his reward in his daughters bank account this episode)
- Interesting that he left the money to the girl. He evidently believes that she is his daughter, or honestly knows that he isn't (maybe if he is sterile) but stills feels compelled to make right by her mother. This compiled with the con he abandoned when the little boy appeared shows that he has at least some level of desire not to hurt children.--ASEO 12:11, 26 October 2006 (PDT)
The idea of depositing the money in the bank for Clementine is similar to the plot of the Charles Dickens book Great Expectations. In that book, the protagonist is a poor street kid who is suddenly deposited in the house of an old matron and supported with funds from a mysterious benefactor. This benefactor insists on not being identified. When the protagonist comes of age, he learns that the benefactor is, in fact, his father and a criminal.
- Pip's (the protagonist's) benefactor was not his father, but an escaped convict that Pip met in a cemetary and showed kindness to. The two situations are not completely analogous.
  - But the criminal was revealed to be Estella's father before the novel was over! I think it's a pretty good comparison, all things considered. --Amberjet11 09:31, 2 November 2006 (PST)
- is it just me or does the view of the lostie island form hydra island not match up with the map that view the Sayid stole from Rousseau is series 1 - the one that he needed Shannons help to translate the french on it? this has led me to believe that this map is in fact rousseau's view of hydra island!! the large crater in teh middle of hte island would therefore be otherville suburbia - any one else agree?

"On the..." vs. "In the..."[]

Doesn't it seem like the section headings in the article should read "On the Hydra Island" and "On the Midsection Beach"? -- Dreamy Perfection 17:45, 26 October 2006 (PDT)

Done! I went with "On the" for a second, but it sounded silly, so I compromised with "On Hydra Island", since Hydra is a proper noun and doesn't need the extra article. Try it out, and see what you think!-Beardog4314 09:18, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

Smooth move, Kate![]

Kate's an idiot. She GOT OUT OF HER CAGE, and instead of running for help -- she would presumably be able to lead Sayid, Jin, Sun, and whoever else right into Otherville -- she climbed back in and blew her chance to save everyone. What a moron. Oh, and I hope this isn't the "Kate chooses between Jack and Sawyer" spoiler I've been hearing. That's not a real choice! What a dingbat. --Amberjet11 10:11, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

Well, aside from the fact that she can easily get out of the cage again at any time...and that it won't do her any good since she has no way of reaching Sayid, Jin, Sun, or any other lostaways because she's on a different island. If she ran, she'd get to the shore, see the other island, and realize that she's completely helpless. --Minderbinder 10:26, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

Like she can't swim? The different island isn't that far away. In fact, it looks like it's about the same distance that Manhattan Island is from mainland New York State.--Amberjet11 10:27, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

Really, i just see this turning into more evidence for the people who say that Kate is an Other.--NotARedHerring 10:56, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

It is acutally a farther distance than you think it is. Plus she would be tried from the hike to that point and the ocean has currents.--Captain Insano 11:31, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

Looking at it, it seems much farther than the average person would be able to swim, especially under ocean conditions of waves and currents. Even strong swimmers can get caught in a riptide and pulled out to see going much shorter distances than that. It might be possible, but even for an extremely strong swimmer it would be incredibly dangerous. In terms of actual distance, anyone have a photo showing a comparable view with a known distance? (and if she was really an other and didn't want to escape, wouldn't it have made much more sense to ignore the fact that the bars were wider on the top?) --Minderbinder 11:35, 27 October 2006 (PDT)

X-Ray[]

Question to English native-speakers: can we be absolutely sure that x-ray photos are of a male? I know Jack said "of a man" and then used "he", but what would he say if he just didn't recognize the sex of a patient? Wouldn't he use "man" and "he" as well? I'm not a doctor, but on those photos neither breasts nor pelvis are fully visible, so if Jack focused on a tumor, he might have not determined if they portrait male or female... --Perpetka 07:13, 28 October 2006 (PDT)

I think it's safe to say that Jack was referring to the fact that it was a man, and he wasn't using it to refer to either gender; he says "a man about 40 years old", not "a person about 40 year old". Falesaif 08:35, 28 October 2006 (PDT)

Was there some of the Pelvic region on the x-ray? That would clear it up pretty conveniently.--NotARedHerring 08:47, 28 October 2006 (PDT)

I'm not a radiologist, but I am a physician who has had training in reading standard X-rays, including spinal series. Typically, chest x-rays are easy to tell M/F by the breast shadow; soft tissue features show through. You can make a guess based on pelvic inlet proportions, but an X-ray is 2 dimensional and you are not likely to get an accurate reading from that alone. In this case, L4 is lumbar but high enough that you should be able to see some breast shadow if it were a female, and I guess that's what they're going for. Age is more difficult to get this accurate (you can get a basic idea from degree of degeneration, but not pinpoint), and I'd say the "40 yo" part was more just for TV. --Pandora X 19:53, 28 October 2006 (PDT)

Michael?[]

Did anybody take a real good look at the people that were escorting Jack to work on Colleen? I swear, one of the people is Michael. Right as they come around the corner into view, there's a black man with a dark green shirt on carrying a rifle and he looks exactly like Michael.

This guy is not clearly visible but in my opinion it's not Michael, just someone similar --Perpetka 10:52, 29 October 2006 (PST)

You're right, I looked at a higher res video and it's definitely not.

SPONTANEOUS RAIN? PROBLEM WITH THE ROOF? HMMMMM....[]

I don't know if anyone has yet mentioned this, but there's an interesting little twist to Desmond's comment about the problem with Clare's roof. OK, so he mentions that Clare has a problem with her roof. Later, Kate escapes from her cage...through a hole in the roof. There appear to be palm fronds placed on top of the cage, presumably to help keep the rain off the occupant(s), but there was a large gap on the top of hers through which she escaped. And as soon as she left the cage, it started raining. As she was starting to climb up and the tension of the scene began mounting, you could hear thunder starting to rumble. And just a second after climbing through the roof of her cage, it began downpouring. Now, granted, that's not all that unusual for the tropics, but...well...this place isn't usual. Anyway, so it starts raining intensely, but as Sawyer, torn between wanting to be with Kate and wanting her to free herself, urges her to run (Sawyer: "If you really love me, go.") there's another final rumble of thunder. Kate responds by switching her emotional state from extremely upset to becoming blank and detached from Sawyer's emotional display (Kate: "I only said that so he'd stop hitting you," referring to Pickett's attack on Sawyer). No more thunder; the emotional energy between them spent, she returns to her cage and we see that it's no longer raining. We then see that Kate and Sawyer are being monitored by Ben on black and white video monitors (like those in the Pearl." As he watches their interaction dramatically conclude, Ben flips some switches deep in thought (perhaps turning off the rain/thunder?)

Not long after (a couple of scenes), we switch back to the Losties' camp, where Desmond has been building his golf club-turned-lightning rod. Hurley offers Desmond some fruit salad from his massive cone of fruit, but Desmod declines, instead focusing his attention on his "experiment." Sure enough, we hear a loud rumble of thunder, and then it begins to pour. Presumably, this is the same storm cloud that just a few minutes before began pouring on the Hydra.

Coincidence? From a filmmaking standpoint, it seems like you'd have to deliberately mix in the sound of thunder and the rain for it to be audible. And it just seemed a little to on cue to be just happenstance. Meteorology, after all, was a subject matter of Dharma, and these cages, which presumably housed polar bears, may have been subjected to climatological testing.

-CausaMortis

P.S. And just as an afterthought, remember when Jack asked Ben "What do you want from me?" To which Ben responded "Patience." Or do you think he meant "Patients?" Hmmmmmmmmm. Again, someone probably has mentioned all this, but what the hey.

Blooper[]

I suggest removing the Blooper heading from this page. The page cites Ben's description of a pace maker as a blooper, but I disagree. With the time that the writers most likely took to even look up the information used for the dialogue, they assuredly knew that what they said was not completely true. I think that Ben simply said these things to Sawyer to scare him, as Ben later reveals. If anything, it should serve as a hint to the viewers that the procedure is erroneous and only used to control Sawyer. For something to be a blooper, it should either not fit in with continuity or be an unintended occurrence (like being wet in one scene and dry in the next). A slight misrepresentation of fact (which I think is purposeful) does not fit the description of a blooper. --Chad44 00:00, 31 August 2007 (PDT)

New Main Image[]

(Kdc2 06:32, March 30, 2010 (UTC))
- lighting is off, and the old picture is just right. ODK Talk Sandbox 17:26, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Right, so you want to change it from a picture of Sawyer looking through the bars, to a picture of Sawyer looking through the bars? The only difference is Sawyer's head is tilted slightly, which I think just looks odd. Keep the current image.--Baker1000 18:30, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
What can I say, I prefer the image where he doesn't look like a monkey. You know, mouth open and all. Otherwise the pics are, um, identical...? So it's just my preference to have a close-mouth image. --Golden Monkey 06:56, April 11, 2010 (UTC)