FANDOM


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

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

Episode title

Not sure what the 'rules' are wrt to posting future episodes, but I was glad to learn there is an upcoming episode with this title. "Everyone Loves Hugo" is clearly a play on Season 2, Episode 4 "Everybody Hates Hugo" and it mirrors Kate's development in the two episodes entitled "What Kate Did/Does" (Year 2; Episode 9 and Year 6; Episode 3). I recall Sawyer saying 'everyone loves Hugo' in one of the early episodes. I don't see any harm in signaling that an upcoming episode shifts focus to Hurley. --Cassandra4815162342 01:49, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • I see no harm either, but the Lostpedia spoiler policy forbids it, so if certain people see this they will delete the article and/or ask you to delete it and not post more future ep titles or get banned. I revealed the titles of episodes 6, 7 and 12 in a recent blog and the above happened to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtozier (talkcontribs) 2010-02-21T09:39:10.
    • What I was allowed to do on my account page during Season 5 was to hide the episodes in the html code. That way if people wanted to know the episode titles they would have to click the edit button to reveal the code. However, if you just looked at the page as is, you would not see the titles. Use the <!-- --> brackets to hide the titles. Check out my example by clicking edit on this page. As you will note, it does not appear on the live version of the page. Writerstix 20:05, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh please please PLEASE tell me Brad Garret is going to have a cameo appearance in this episode.--Gibbeynator 11:08, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Seriously? I thought the lostipedia policy allowed the title of the upcoming episode in the United States. Given the previews shown at the end of Happily Ever After don't we also know the focus or central character of the upcoming episode as well? Is it considered a spoiler to mention a certain character is going to make an appearance in the upcoming episode? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cabeckett (talkcontribs) 2010-04-07T10:26:58.
  • yes it is a spoiler so share the centric character of the up coming episode. it is also a spoiler to share who will be appearing in an episode too.Omggivemaafningusername 00:58, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Curious again: Spoiler policy overrides Episode Title for upcoming episodes? Cabeckett 14:23, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • The title doesn't necessarily reveal the centric character, even when it seems blatantly obvious. Normally yes, but since "Sundown" we can't really be so sure...--Golden Monkey 06:05, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • The only thing I can think of when I see this episode title is "Everyone Loves Raymond." --Creamstar 01:35, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Press release

Here it is. [1]  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:12, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

  • One question, why do they credit everyone by their first name or nickname, except for Richard Alpert and Frank Lapidus? This is the first time I noticed that. --Orhan94 17:26, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it's because, as you can see, guest stars are generally billed with their full name and when they were promoted they were lazy and copied them over from the guest star lists of past press releases. --Golden Monkey 06:03, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Chang

What kind of anti-aging formula is Dr. Chang using? Because, it's working, he doesn't look a day older than he did back in 1977!--Gibbeynator 02:08, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • On the fence with this one... despite the fact Dr. Chang doesn't appear to be much older, I'd assume that even if he were to be using some sort of common anti-aging products (i.e. wrinkle cream, hair dye, etc.) He seems to be about 30 years out of place here. Could this elude to the fact that whatever split caused the FST happened as before the OST time-flash (2nd Iteration) Incident? Also, if in the FST, would Chang be the correct age to be Miles' father? He seems far to young to be miles dad even if he's in his late 40's, as Miles could be no younger than his early 30's at this point. Even if Miles were in his mid 20's, his father could only be mid 40's at the ealiest. If Chang were in his mid 20's with Dharma (circa 1975), he'd be easily in his mid 50's currently. Could they be unrelated in the FST? sorry... that's what time travel does to your brain! Crash 04:21, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • What I'm thinking is likely is that there was a miscommunication between the set designers and the costume designers. The way the scene was lit probably made whatever makeup job they did to Francois Chau seem insignificant, if not invisible. We'll see if Dr. Chang shows up in another episode.--Gibbeynator 13:41, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • It does seem they didn't age him enough. He'd still be alive, though. Granted, he was old in 1977, at least 30. Probably closer to 40. So, he's probably around 60. I think they did try to make him look older by adding white into his hair, but the lighting made that hardly noticeable. Also, Asians generally don't get a lot of white hair as they age. I doubt there's anything suspicious here, just not great artificial aging techniques with the production. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 06:20, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • "Asians generally don't get a lot of white hair as they age" - excuse me! Not only is that completely erroneous but it is also racial stereotyping which is transparently ridiculous.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   09:34, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
      • Racial stereotyping? Maybe misinformation, but not racial stereotyping.--Pittsburghmuggle 09:56, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
        • It might be racial stereotyping, but that doesn't mean it is "racist" or that it is wrong. Unless you are willing to completely disregard the concept of "race" there isn't anything wrong with making general comments about races. The "wrongness" comes from people making value statements based on those generalizations. Clayburn didn't say "Asians don't get a lot of white hair as they age, and that makes them inferior." He made a general statement, which may or may not be factually correct (I'm not sure it is btw), but his isn't being a racist.Cabeckett 18:53, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't want to take it further than this, but when you generalize about a huge and disparate group ("Asians") and then assign them a certain generalized characteristic ("don't get a lot of white hair as they age") - that is a perfect example of racial stereotyping. When you add to that the completely obvious absurdity of the claim it reinforces the danger in any sort of stereotyping about anyone (All WASPS are idiots!).   Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:17, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
        • Charles, you're being over-sensitive. It's not stereotyping. Profiling, maybe. The odds of him having a lot of white hair or maybe even being bald are lower than if he were, say, Jewish. I'm not saying no Asians go bald or get white hair. In fact, I'm pretty sure his hair was peppered. But Asian men are more likely to have darker hair for longer. Of course, considering Miles is his son, who already had gray in his sideburns at 30ish, makes it somewhat likely Chang's hair would be whiter than it was. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 16:02, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
          • Um, he is not over-sensitive. The comment was 100% non-debatable stereotyping. NandR 16:06, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
            • Maybe more research would prove me right, or maybe it would prove me wrong. 1 2 Either way, it's at the very least debatable. And I have a point, even if you disagree. I think for now the evidence is slightly in my favor. If the answer isn't genetics, then perhaps diet is responsible (which of course isn't race-based, but is often culture and location based). Or maybe it's a bit of both. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 16:17, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
              • We can do without the absurd kneejerk fingerpointing responses ("mention racial characteristic = racist"), but I don't think the theory holds up. Do a Google image search for "elderly asian" and you will see mostly grey and white hair.Beelzebubbles101 21:33, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, like how people of Asian-descent generally have epicanthic folds or people of African-descent generally have higher eumelanin concentration in their skin. Stupid racial stereotyping. You'd have to be an idiot wasp to think that people of Northern European ancestry should be more careful going out in the sun because they generally burn more easily, and are at higher risk for skin cancer.Walpurgisborn 13:53, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • Isn't "idiot wasp" a racist remark? -- Jodon1971 14:01, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm also pretty sure that Dr. Chang looked older than he does in 2004 when he made the Swan video. Anyone to confirm?--Gibbeynator 10:58, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • The Swan video was recorded in 1980. I think we're over thinking this. They wanted to use the same actor; they added grey to his hair to make him look older; he was on screen for maybe twenty seconds. He's not the new Richard, he's the FST Chang. --LOSTinDC 15:55, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't believe it myself, but I'll toss out that maybe Chang is taking Richard's place in this universe?--Pittsburghmuggle 07:12, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Get over it people...enough with the political correctness. who cares? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ugafan (talkcontribs) 2010-04-14T14:28:35.

We're having a problem with people continuing to add this as a UQ when clearly there is some debate.--Lucky Day 06:29, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • Unless Jacob "touched" Dr. Chang, and gave him the ability not to age, then i think this is a fare enough UQ.-- Nzoomed  talk  contributions  09:37, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • Until there is further clarification from the show this is EITHER a fair unanswered question OR a blooper/production error. There should be a consensus as to which category this gets placed rather than a willy nilly placement at each editor's whim.Cabeckett 12:49, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • This is either a production error or an unanswered question. I mean, look at the huge age difference of Eloise in 1977 and flash-sideways Eloise. Look at teenage Ben in 1977 compared to 40-year-old Ben in the flash-sideways. Look at how they aged Roger Linus, and look at Charles Widmore. For Pierre Chang to look the exact same is a definite question. Marc604 07:15, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • They did' age him. He has white in his hair. He doesn't look as old as Widmore, Hawking or Linus because of genetics. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 00:13, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not think this should be listed in the article as a blooper or an unanswered question. Jdray 03:20, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Cultural References

Sealab

  • Would anyone else agree that Hurley's "bizzaro alternate universe" comment was a reference to Adult Swim's Sealab episode "I Hate the Bizarros?"--Slimeham 02:44, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • Nope. (mostly.) Any use of the word Bizarro is first and foremost a Superman reference. So many shows, movies, and books have referred to it or had some Bizarro-verse of their own, and it all comes from Superman. If we're going to add Bizarro to the refs section, it should only mention Superman. Even the Seinfeld reference is not really direct, even if the earlier Seinfeld reference is. --Frakkin Toaster 03:44, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. It's not even a reference to Superman. Superman is just the origin of the word "Bizarro" which has since entered the language in general. --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:00, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
      • You could make the argument that the term is so widespread that the reference is general, and not specific to Superman. I accept that, but if it's to be included in this section at all, it should be as Superman.--Frakkin Toaster 04:51, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
        • If you make that argument that the term is widespread and well-known, then it is even more important to credit its source, in this case Superman.Artemisstrong 16:13, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting oppose adding "o" to a word to make a colloquialism is as old as "Groucho" & "Harpo"; which was the precedent for the Superman character's name. It's common parlance now, not worth a CR. That would be lame-o. Duncan905 17:50, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Definitely a Supes reference, just as Sealab 2021 was. Hurley is a big comic fan, even when they are in Spanish. Its a shout out to nerd culture.--Lucky Day 21:16, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Neither Seinfeld reference is direct, both should be deleted.--Faraday100 03:59, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • as for Seinfeld is there anywhere else those references would be about? For that matter the title is taken from Everybody Loves Raymond.--Lucky Day 21:16, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • The title does not come from Everybody Loves Raymond. The title comes from Everybody Hates Hurley. In the same manner as What Kate Did/Does. Jdray 19:25, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

An awesome cultural reference

A user made note of a cultural reference that I too noticed and thought was completely awesome, but I had to delete it because it took part during the preview after the end of the episode, and discussion of the content of previews is considered to be a spoiler. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   02:59, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • I think that this is a unique bit of info that we may wish to include in the Production Notes section, though. Just the mere fact of stating that a song is played during the preview has nothing to do with the preview itself. I vote to keep the "Cultural Reference" piece about Willy Wonka, but locate it in the "Production Notes" area. --   Atomic Mystro    talk    contribs   03:03, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I mean, I certianly would love to do so... I was practically jumping up and down in excitement when I noticed it. I think one of the SyOps should probably weigh in on this since they're the ones who came up with the spoiler policy. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   03:07, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Also, if nothing else, we can add it once next week's episode airs. It should *definitely* be added eventually —   lion of dharma    talk    email   03:14, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Logically, I think it should be added, but we should definitely wait and put it in the 6.13 article. InflatableBombshelter 03:44, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Lionofdarma - I was the one that posted the original Wonka reference. I appreciate the kind words. I understand why it was deleted, even I thought it was a bit shaky but apropos to be mentioned somewhere. I put in in the cultural section for lack of a better place. User:Nevermore1974/sig

  • How about each episode gets a Trivia point *after* it airs, which notes that the music/audio in the promo did not appear in the episode itself. This is the case for "Bird on a Wire" for Recon and "Amazing Grace" on bagpipes for Happily Ever After. Duncan905 17:55, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Definitely, though I think InflatableBombshelter makes a good point that it might be better to put it in the article for the episode that it is a promo for. For example, instead of mentioning in the HEA article that Amazing Grace was used in the promo for the next episode, mention in this article for ELH that the promo for this very episode contained Amazing Grace. An argument against this might be that they are clearly using clips from episodes other than the next one. The preview at the end of HEA had a ton of clips that weren't from ELH. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   18:32, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

    • Did I get confused? I thought for sure "Amazing Grace" was played after the end of The Package, as part of the promo for HEA. (you're right, they did also use outrigger footage that still hasn't aired) Duncan905 21:02, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Talking about cultural references, Joe Kickass removed the references I posted about the names of the restaurant (Johnny Spanish) and the name of the girl (Rosalita) Hugo is waiting for: they are both contained in an album of Bruce Springsteen (the first is a character of the song "Incident on 57th street" and the second the title of a song). Joe Kickass alleged that this was "not a direct reference, coincidence at best". However, isn't that such a big coincidence?--Macaja 18:58, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
I definitely believe that it is not a coincidence: using this meter of judgement, both DC Comics and Seinfeld references could also be tagged as coincidences.--Macaja 19:39, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
I had posted these in the main article as cultural references as well and they have been removed. Wasn't aware they had been there already. I strongly believe that by referencing Spanish Johnny and Rosalita in a single flash sideways, there was intent to do so, not a mere coincidence. I would like to see the reference restored and maintained in the main article. --MixMasterMike 02:39, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that in the Widmore Corporation page, the Widmore Corporation is located in E 57th Street in NY; the song about Johnny Spanish is "Incident in 57th Street". More coincidences? --Macaja 16:40, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Springsteen fans?

Did anyone catch the possible cultural reference of ROSALITA meeting Hugo at SPANISH JOHNNY'S? LA is a long way from Jersey, but these names must have been written by a fan of "The Wild, the Innocent, and the E street Shuffle"..great early Springsteen. Somebody 'fess up.......

I will admit that when I heard the name Rosalita I started singing the song - then giggled when I saw Spanish Johnny's thinking of the Boss. NandR 19:40, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Is this enough for a cultural reference?--Lucky Day 21:22, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

The Man Who Was Thrown Down a Well

  • I had added a cultural reference about this ancient Chinese folk tale. It is about a man who is thrown down a well and encounters spirits who have been unable to find peace in the afterlife. Someone removed it, so I'd like to know if there are any thoughts about it. --MixMasterMike 02:44, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Josef of the Old Testament (a son of Jacob) is thrown down a well too. Then he is sold to slave traders, later he is interpreting dreams for a political leader and finally becomes a mighty man. Anyway, this is no direct reference. Gfrast 09:03, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references: Seinfeld/Superman/Springsteen references

Argh, I am so annoyed. This is a huge battle that goes on for every. single. episode. It's the battle of the cultural references. Everybody has a different idea about whether certain references are direct or not. Technically the rule is that the cultural thing in mind must be referenced to directly, as in, "are you talking about a bizarro universe like they have in Superman or Sienfeld?" Not just, oh look, Hurley used the word bizarro and that was also used in Superman and Sienfeld! That said, these references may have been intentional. However intentional doesn't always mean direct. I'm at a total loss. It would be great if we could agree on this once and for all. I'll all for including indirect yet intentional references IF they are RELEVANT to the overarching themes of Lost. For example, the bunny in HEA was named Angstrom, a clearly intentional reference to ANgstrom the physicist who did probably 99% of his research on electromagnetic energy. And science/electromagnetic energy is a *huge* theme of Lost. Anyway, I'm really not much of a fan of Springsteen, so I really couldn't say whether Rosalita and whatever the name of that mexican restaurant was (something having to do with Johnny) are references to Bruce's music. However, I will say that Springsteen is not at all relevant to any of the overarching themes of Lost. Now if we had actually *heard* one of Bruce's songs, then we would definitely note that because it would be a direct reference. I don't know. It's frustrating and annoying. Please weigh in if you'd like. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   22:02, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with you about everything but the Superman reference. Up, up and awayyyyy! (Superman fly up, up and away so Bizarro fly down, down but stay here, therefore he move planet and stay still. yay!)--Lucky Day 22:14, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well I am a Springsteen fan, and my opinion is that it was a reference. Those two names (which come from songs on the same album) probably aren't a coincidence, especially since the producers are Springsteen fans (anyone remember "Born to Run"?). The Big X 22:28, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Good Lord, Lion O'Dharma, I'm sorry I called it a cultural reference (I wrote the Springsteen fans? comment). Perhaps I should have called it a ' 'connection' '. It's just so obvious to an old Springsteen fan, that it made me smile that a writer was too. I am new to this forum and am learning about the rabidity of proper adherence to THE RULES!--Mcsnebber 22:27, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

    • My condolences, friend - enter "Lostpedia" at your peril. Every newbie encounters the same "rabidity", as did I. -- Jodon1971 14:21, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you guys are right, let's just make it a free-for-all! Who cares if someone says that "Ab Aeterno" was a reference to Lord of the Flies just because Richard saw a boar? Or hey, when Kate saw a black horse, that was clearly a reference to the book The Black Stallion. And in "Dead is Dead," when we first see FLocke on the beach, he walks away from the water and he grabs his shoes, which he then takes in his hands and taps 3 times together in order to get the sand off of them; this is CLEARLY a reference to The Wizard Of Oz, because the MiB is tapping his shoes together just like Dorothy did and has returned to the Island, his "home."
All those examples I've mentioned up there have actually been written, by the way. If you actually read what I read above, you'll see that I wasn't telling anybody that (s)he was definitely wrong and that whatever reference was added has no place being there. I was actually trying to start a discussion. But if you really want to interpret it as rabidity, then go right ahead. You can join in on the discussion and try to argue your position, or you pout and talk about how it's not fair and people are so mean around here. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   17:14, April 15, 2010 (UTC)[[File:]]

deleted by--Mcsnebber 18:54, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • I left you a message on your talk page, Mcsnebber. But I just realized that even though I wrote on your talk page that I've never kissed a girl, that's not completely true, because I've kissed my mom and both of my grandmas. No tongue, though. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   18:08, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


  • Mcsnebber, I'm not at all scolding anyone. I'm just saying that this type of battle happens every episode and it's frustrating. I'm saying that the current policy is too strict, but that mention of just any old thing that people see as a reference is too lax. In the Springsteen and the Seinfeld reference I'd say no. Even though they may be intentional, they're not relevant to any of the overarching themes of Lost. Not to mention that we really have no idea whether they were truly intentional unless it's confirmed by the producers. It's a really grey area. I do know that there's an editor that's not on here right now, and I'm certain that he will delete any mention of Sprinsteen or Seinfeld if he sees it. He likes to go by the books. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   22:41, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm reluctantly pro-Superman (as I think Bizarro is typically used to refer to that instance of the concept), I'm iffy on the Human Fund Seinfeld (if that's really what was said; I haven't checked), and I'm against the Springsteen (because New Jersey, seriously?). -- Clayburn talk contributions email 03:00, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

To the person who keeps adding the "Human Fund" Sienfeld reference without coming here to discuss it — STOP. I have 2 cats; their names are George and Cosmo. I am a huge Seinfeld fan. That said, your claim that this is a *direct* reference to Seinfeld is one hell of a stretch. We have absolutely *no way* of knowing whether this is an intentional reference to Seinfeld. In any case, it is most certainly not direct, not to mention that Seinfeld has absolutely no relevance to Lost in general. Also, by the way, have you ever seen [this] website? Go check it out and stop adding the Seinfeld reference unless there is a consensus or majority rule that decides that the reference is appropriate. By the way, my vote is NO. Pictogram voting oppose  lion of dharma    talk    email   04:16, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • The fact that the real Human Fund helps underprivileged children lends credence to the argument that it's not a Seinfeld reference. Mr. Cluck's foundation also helps kids. T-Bone! T-Bone! T-Bone!
  • For what it's worth, the word Bizarro was coined for the Superman character, and only subsequently entered the English language. —Josiah Rowe 00:15, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • The "real" Human Fund was not founded until August of 2005, according to their website. The FST is taking place in 2004, so it seems impossible that it is a reference to that charitable organization in Ohio. Absent any other explanation, I think this is indeed a Seinfeld reference. -Callmejer


From the [Lostpedia Episode Manual of Style]

As a rule of thumb, most interesting comments class as trivia, but under sections such as cultural references, the connections must be direct. For instance, adding that a scene from the show resembles a similar scene from popular culture should be deleted, as it is not a direct inspiration. However, if a character is wearing a movie T-shirt, that is a direct recognition and so is acceptable. Note that if there is citation for a more obscure reference (e.g. it is stated on the Official Lost podcast), then the reference shall be allowed as long as the source is added.

  lion of dharma    talk    email   06:12, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


Just an fyi for the Springsteen fans... there is now an article for Spanish Johnny's. Have a look and you'll see that the Springsteen references have been included. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   17:48, April 19, 2010 (UTC)


Ok. Adam Horowitz wrote in to Springsteen fansite Backstreets.com and said that Rosalita/Spanish Johnny's WAS a deliberate reference to the Springsteen album in question. Here is the link to the Backstreets news page. Scroll down three or four articles to the one titled "Everybody Loves Bruce": http://www.backstreets.com/news.html . Does this finally count as a citation? Can we add this back to the reference section? --JDMCMAMC 11:12, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

  • No, because pretty well no one ever doubted the homage that was given to the Springsteen stuff, its just that it isn't a direct reference (like where they play the album, or show it). That is not to ignore it. It has heaps of discussion here and is referred to on the Spanish Johnny's page. It just isn't appropriate for the summary page which is about Lost!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   11:31, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Centricity

Are we going to need to have a Flash sideways box and a Centric box? Because the last flash was kind of Desmond/John centric, and the whole episode was Hugo. (Kdc2 02:52, April 14, 2010 (UTC))

Pictogram replyYes, I'm not arguing with that -- take "Ab Aeterno" for example. A Richard centric episode, however Ilana and The Man in Black got their own flashback as well. The flashsideways at the end of the episode was not from Hurley's perspective. So shouldn't we note that? (Kdc2 03:03, April 14, 2010 (UTC))
  • Shouldn't Locke and Desmond only be included in the episode infobox for the flashsideways?--Slimeham 03:01, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Yes it should be Hugo centric with fs for desmond and locke. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:02, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
I can see the argument for Desmond (and I actually agree with it) but where does Locke come from? Do any of the transitions from one timeline to the other focus on Locke? --LeoChris 03:36, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
The last. The transition from when Hugo's group arrives at Locke's camp. It goes MIBs face to Locke in his wheelchair. (Kdc2 03:42, April 14, 2010 (UTC))
Pictogram reply Alright then, guess I missed that one... I did notice the Desmond one at Mr. Cluck's though. (Not that anyone cares what I've noticed or not :P )--LeoChris 03:56, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Considering that the 'Flash' definition has somewhat mutated over the years, and the fact that the producers have said this season would not follow the flashback or flash forward styles, I'm assuming that we are going to see alot more multi-centric episodes, or at least a little sharing. The way that they said they are changing could be a reference to us seeing less and less single-centric episodes. In the same way that timelines are starting to bleed together, we will also see character connections bleed together. Not so much in a way that a character doesn't get their 'own' episode, but in a way that the story lines are becoming so entangled that it's entirely necessary to show more than one perspective at a time. We have learned since really season 1 that these people have some kind of intrinsic fate-defying ties, and this season will enforce that in a way that shows it's not only fate vs free will, but also kind of a 'it's not what you know, but who you know' kind of setting for the endgame. Crash 04:32, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • People have a mistaken idea that the divisions are somehow definitive. They are not proof of anything. They are merely a convenient way to break up the narrative into easily discernible chunks. They work fine without complicating the issue with whether or not Desmond is in a particular universe or not or whether we see the centric character through his/her experience or someone else's. Let's not make this harder or more complicated than necessary.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   09:40, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • If we are debating the centricity of the episode shouldn't we consider them all. I mean Libby got as much OT screen time as could reasonably be expected (she is dead in the OT afterall) so, I'd vote for her being included. This is clearly a Hurley episode with considerable time (or other major plot points) spent on several other characters.Cabeckett 19:02, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Desmond
Libby
MiB/FS Locke
Michael
Pictogram replyNo. Libby was featured a lot, yes, but there was no flash from her perspective. The last, with Desmond hitting Locke, wasn't from Hurley's, so that's why their names are included. And Michael? No way. He was in two scenes. (Kdc2 20:10, April 14, 2010 (UTC))
  • Indeed, I agree. I'm just pointing out that to include John and Desmond in some kind of flash sideways box notation that opens up a completely other kind of box (pun intended). The flash sideways(plural) have as much to do with Libby than they do with Desmond and Locke. I pointed out Michael because he gives us a canon answer for what the whispers are, i.e. major plot points. So, instead of muddying the waters with all kinds of info box addenda lets just leave it as Hurley Centric.Cabeckett 21:33, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Libby was a major part, and Michael answered a big question, but regardless -- the last scene was a flashsideways that was not from Hurley's perspective. It was either Desmond or Locke, or, I think, both. But that's another story. So, the way it is now, is correct. Hurley, Des, and John all had flashes from their perspective, while the centricity was Hugo. (Kdc2 00:40, April 15, 2010 (UTC))
Some of you guys sound insane, centric is simply the main foucs of the episoe which is clearly Hugo so its Hugo centric only. As for the flash sideways they have nothing to do with who the camera is on when the flash takes place, all that matters is POV, every fs is from hugos pov until we see desmond watching Hugo/Libby, then from Desmonds pov we se him watching Locke, that flash ends from Locke's POV as Desmond drives off and is long gone. So fs take place from hugos POV lockes POV and Desmonds POV. How in the world people got MIB and Michael centric is beyond me. Its simple people. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:20, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Teenage Boy

I noticed in the Co-Starring box for this ep, someone put Kenton Duty as the teenage boy, but I am 100% positive that this was a distinctly different boy. The main give-away for me was the hair color. Kenton has dirty blond hair where this boy we saw in this ep had distinctly brown hair. We need to get this straight, but I wanted to clarify it with someone before I did it myself, just so I don't get yelled at. --   Atomic Mystro    talk    contribs   03:06, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • The press release lists Kenton Duty. Gefred7112 03:09, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

One time he's got light hair, one time dark... get it? Light/Dark....--Faraday100 03:57, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

    • Or his hair will go light, dark and then silver......just like MIB.
Teenageboy

Gefred - please don't be 100% positive about anything. Kenton Duty is credited for his part in both The Substitute and Everybody Loves as the Teenage Boy. The two are very similar. The boy in the Substitute does look rather younger than the boy in Everybody Loves and his hair is much darker. If I didn't see the cast list I'd say one is the sibling to the other, maybe just a year apart. Bit odd that one. (They do bear a considerable likeness to Jacob if you ask me!)    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   16:59, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • He really does look so much older than he did in The SUbstitute, but teenage boys grow like ragweeds, so it's possible that the kid just grew a whole hell of a lot between tapings. Now that I'm seeing the 2 screenshots together I'm struck at how his hair looks so much darker the second time. The early blondness might just have been highlights from hanging out in the sun a lot more during the summer though, and then the lack of blonde highlights would stand out a lot more without direct sun shining on his head in this episode like it was earlier. Or perhaps the color difference is intentional. We'll see I guess. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   18:41, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody think like I do that the boy is actually the real rapidly aging regenerated and resurrected John Locke (Like Star Trek II & III)? Which explains why the "Man In Black" is so afraid of him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Looselycult (talkcontribs) 2010-04-14T09:48:59.

Please keep discussion of theories to the Theory Talk pages. Thanks.  Robert K S   tell me  18:00, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it is two boys, one with dark hair and one with light hair, plus the height difference and I think the mood of this older boy was different. Smiling instead of you know the stern and bloody arms (lol.)--Phryrosebdeco23 07:52, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

The trivia section states he had dark hair in this one and light hair in the substitute. Is that fact? I didn't see a difference myself, just that the actor was perhaps lit differently Hawkdeath 10:10, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • I went thru all the vid again, the screen grab above is pretty clear but I can confirm that even with the lighting the boy's hair color is very different and generally he looks a deal older and probably bigger.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   13:51, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the difference is primarily lighting. He has dishwater blonde hair with possible frosted highlights. In the first scene he was in the sun, and it made the blondest parts really pop. In the second scene he was in the shade, and the darker parts were more obvious. He may also have had a little extra gel or something. (Mirth23 23:39, April 21, 2010 (UTC))

Phryrosebdeco23, I'm not sure if you're saying that you think it's supposed to be 2 different boys (i.e., the producers are intending us to think it's 2 different boys)? Or are you saying that there are actually 2 different human beings? Because it is absolutely the same kid both times. The same exact actor is credited as playing the boy in both episodes. If you look closely, you can tell that it's the same kid. He is just a bit older and bigger the 2nd time around. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   16:42, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

    • You can't say that it's "absolutely" the same kid. Credited the same, yes. But as soon as that kid came on the screen with the brown hair, I could tell he looked much different than the blonde boy. And clearly, everyone here noticed the boy looked different as well. This was done intentionally for a reason, as the differences between the two are very obvious. Maybe in the end MIB and Jacob will be brother, who knows!? Until then, maybe we should let the story play out, instead of jumping to so many conclusions as people often tend to do on this wiki MoeT 11:40, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

A link to apophenia seems appropriate here.  :-) Spiral77 22:11, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Episode References

I put in two episode references and I was wondering why they were deleted. I put "Ilana gets blown up by dynamite from the Black Rock." as a reference to "Exodus," and "Libby tells Hurley she thought that he was also at the mental institution" as a reference to "Dave." Why were they deleted? Djr7 03:51, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete the Libby one, but I did delete the Black Rock one — that section is for direct references to other episodes, not similarities to other episodes. If Hurley had said something like "Dude, she just blew up Artz style," then that would be a direct reference. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   04:06, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

These sorts of thing belong in the Recurring Themes section. But come on folk, if something is in the wrong section, try to put it where it belongs rather than just out and out delete it. --Jackdavinci 06:56, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

If I had known it belonged in the Recurring Themes section then I would have put it in there. Just trying to be helpful by cleaning up the Episode Reference section. No scolding necessary. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   08:45, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • TBH I don't think it belongs there either because so far its only happened twice. Its a clear reference to the incident with Artz and no one will disagree with I think this but it was not direct. This has been a debate for a few weeks now with significant things said and done that were similar but not exact.--Lucky Day 21:10, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Reflections

I've watched it twice now, and I'm pretty certain that Hurley did not see a reflection in his flash sideways. Also looking back at The Package Sun was the only one to see her reflection, Jin did not. But Desmond and Ben both saw their reflections in their centric episodes. So it makes me wonder, do the reflections actually mean they may be the true candidates? That even the writing on the walls or the lighthouse may not even be correct? Or could it mean that maybe Hurley is the embodiment of Jacob and in fact the chosen one? Leachpunk 03:55, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • Jin did not notice his own reflection in "The Package," but it is shown in a shiny surface in the walk-in freezer when he is tied up. So a reflection of Hurley isn't seen in this episode? That's interesting. I didn't pick up on that. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   04:00, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • I suppose it's a stretch, but Hugo was surrounded by photographs of himself when he was eating the Family-size bucket of chicken at Mr. Clucks. I mean, the pictures were everywhere. Not technically a "relection", but it gives the effect.--DanVader228 08:25, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
      • Has to be a deliberate omission after all the prior set up. Duncan905 17:58, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

UQ

"Was Desmond aware of the Man in Black's real identity, despite calling him John?"

  • No. John clearly recognizes that he wasn't lying and kept Desmond away from his group in order to keep this fact from him. He clearly saw his ignorance as an opportunity (and threw him down the well). Des in the FST may be aware of both timelines and may be taking some sort of revenge on the real John Locke for this but at this point this is only a theory and will have to be confirmed yay or nay at a later date.--Lucky Day 20:42, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • None of that was clear to me. Desmond knew Flocke wasn't Locke, but he gave a distinct non-answer. Flocke did see an opportunity, but it wasn't based on a belief in Desmond's ignorance.Cabeckett 01:36, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • MiB does not need to keep Des away from the group because everyone in the group knows that it is someone else in Locke's body. Messenger 13:33, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
      • Again, this is why was needed - to keep him ignorant. Its further evidence. Didn't he also tell Sayid to keep silent about Des? --Lucky Day 15:52, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • I still think this is a valid question because, 1) Des does not seem to be surprised when he first sees an alive Locke, and 2) Des somehow time-travels and he may know more than anyone else. Furthermore, MiB's question "why are you not afraid" hints at Des' unusual behavior. Messenger 13:33, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • I wondered that to..however, The only time Des could have known that John was dead was when he went to LA to deliver what he was told to Eloise and then ran of storming. There was never any time or effort made to tell him. Regardless, only Sawyer, the greatest liar the MiB ever met, and Charles Widmore were ever able to realize the MiB was not John Locke. He even had Ben and Richard fooled. The look on Flocke's face as he reads Des' mind is a further indicator that he believes him. And the fact that Des is not afraid only strengthens my point: if he wasn't afraid of Sayid or Widmore why would he be afraid of the MiB to lie to him? Finally, Desmond said so. Until we can get some confirmation that Des was lying you have to go by that statement until there is direct evidence to the contrary.--Lucky Day 15:20, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


"What was in the small bag Hugo looked into?"

Kind of unnecessary, weren't those just Jacob's ashes? (Kdc2 04:04, April 14, 2010 (UTC))

Were they? Why did they jingle like Scrabble tiles?--Jackdavinci 06:58, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some contention over whether this was Jacob's ashes or Nikki and Paulo's diamonds. Can anyone confirm based on the style of bag? I don't think it's either:
  1. Miles would have held onto his bag, and either he or Ilana would have held onto the ash bag and not stashed the away somewhere.
  2. The bag jingled, uncharacteristically for a bag of ashes.
  3. He found them in a tent stash, under an aura of mystery. I think it's something new...--Jackdavinci 09:01, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that they sounded like tiles. I thought maybe they were Locke's backgammon pieces --Torchy 15:08, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the stones that Adam and Eve had?--Pittsburghmuggle 07:31, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • It was Ilana's stash (russian book) and when they left the big foot, Ilana clearly scooped up the ashes and put them into a bag just like that. The jingling (which I don't remember) could lbe the bones or teeth? Bobrk 15:22, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • It was jingling like that, I just thought it was the diamonds that Miles stole from Nikki and Paulo's grave.--Gibbeynator 19:52, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • Can we get screenshots of both and maybe a sound object of it clinking? It certainly was important as did make a point of hiding it.--Lucky Day 19:19, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment Confirmed as Jacob's ashes in the ABC episode recap. -- Graft   talk   contributions  20:29, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe the episode guide is not canon. For the purposes of UQ it should not be there because the only likely explanation is that it is Jacob's ashes. For the purpose of the episode summary I have put it back to a "small pouch" because that is all we saw.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   02:01, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
The episode recaps are written by Gregg Nations and based off of the scripts; we use them to verify things every so often. And anyway, it does look exactly like Ilana's pouch from "The Substitute" and "Dr. Linus". As for the "jangling" claim, there wasn't even very much jangling sound; it was enough to account for the two beads at the end of the draw-strings. Plus, the Russian book is there in the stash, linking it to Ilana. Lost-media doesn't have any really good clear caps of it, but you can get the idea from these shots, [2][3] and see even better if you watch the episodes. It's clearly the same pouch — but the ABC recap is sufficient confirmation anyway. -- Graft   talk   contributions  05:43, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • @Graft. I think you missed my point. I was very careful in the edit I made. You will see from all my comments that I personally have never doubted that this was the Jacob's Ashes pouch. What I attempted to do was write the summary based purely on what we saw not on what we surmised (even if the non-canon recap says it is Jacob's ashes). Thus it would not be possible to say that it was the ashes, especially as the scene did imply some mild mystery by not making it clearer as to what it was.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   07:28, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • But anybody who has been watching the show has seen that that's the bag Ilana was using to hold Jacob's ashes in. Thus, it wasn't implying any mystery because the contents of the bag have already been firmly established.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:52, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that the black and white stones that Jack pulled off Adam and Eve were in that pouch?--Withac 17:13, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

The "Why did Desmond run over Locke?" question isn't really needed. We know why. It was to show him the other life. That's Desmond's sole purpose now in the FST. I'd like to suggest adding something about Jack's weird look he gave MiB at the end. It seemed like Jack was experiencing something bad. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 05:48, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree that it seems likely that Desmond ran over Locke to show him the OT but it's not certain. I think it's a valid UQ.--Slimeham 06:47, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • (I was adding this to my above message, but got a conflict due to your response) Okay, so apparently there's a lot of speculation on this. I still feel that it's in line with his purpose of "showing them" something, though. To me it's obvious, but people want to speculate other motivations. It'll be interesting if that's the case. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 06:50, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know if it's a valid UQ but I thought he tried to kill the bastard, not show him anything.   Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   09:21, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • That was the first time that Jack had seen "Locke" since he had put the real Locke's body onto the plane. Hawkdeath 10:23, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree that the question isn't needed. We don't know what Desmond's purpose is, just that one of the things he is doing is showing people the OT. It could have been because Locke just through him down the well in the OT. It could have been to connect him with Jack. It could have been because he was trying to kill or otherwise thwart the MIB. We don't know yet. (Mirth23 17:40, April 27, 2010 (UTC))

"Why did the Man in Black push Desmond down the well?" - isn't that kind of obvious - to get rid of him so he can't do whatever Widmore brought him to the Island to do. Any reason not to delete?    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:45, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • If he was just trying to get rid of Desmond, why not kill him? He's not a candidate, so any rules that exist about killing candidates shouldn't apply.--Torchy 15:24, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • If Desmond survived, then he probably can't kill him because of the rules. Even if he's not a candidate, he might be something. The question should be "Why didn't he kill Desmond?" The reason he tried to kill him or tossed him in a well was surely to neutralize him. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 15:54, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • i don't get you guys! Since when is pushing someone headfirst down a 100 foot deep well not trying to kill them? I'm pretty sure our Desmond survived in some shape or form (people falling down shafts doesn't always seem fatal on the Island (Locke, Juliet), and who knows - there's almost certainly something of interest down there (a wheel perhaps?)    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   16:22, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree, Charles, if it was someone other than Not Locke. It seems uncharacteristic of him to try to kill someone in a very "human" way. He usually turns into smokey for his killings, right?--Torchy 16:37, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • It would have been trying to kill him if it weren't that Flocke did it. If he wanted to kill Desmond, he could have smoke raped him. He didn't, probably because he knows he can't die for whatever reason. That's why I suspect Flocke was merely neutralizing him by stranding him in the bottom of a well. But yes, if Flocke ever faces charges back home, he'll likely be convicted of attempted murder. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 16:29, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
      • There's a lot of mysteries around Dez' and candidates ability to survive. Dez did not know the Smoke Monster was Locke, but MiB may know that he could live regardless of what he did. The well seems like a good way to get him out the way for now. I also think (and I'm betting most people here do) its related Dez running over John Locke. If Dez sees both timelines (which is likely) and doesn't know Flocke from John Locke, its a good act of revenge. I think both questions are both open enough to be an important mystery.--Lucky Day 17:47, April 14, 2010 (UTC)


Posted two questions that I am not surprised are gone:

Do people always die when the Island is done with them?

  • Probably could be worded differently. This has been a speculation and even the writers pointed this out, especially at Charlie's death. I thought this was a worthy question simply because Ben actually said it.

Does Desmond have a son (in the FST).

  • He claimed to with Ben Linus without hesitation and he has as son named Charlie in the OT.--Lucky Day 15:51, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • It's unlikely FST Desmond has a son given the attention given to FST Desmonds lack of attachments. Either he lied to Ben and just came up with the name Charlie in the same way that FST Claire came up with the name Aaron, or FST Desmond is aware enough of the OT to know that he has a son there. But it seems very unlikely that FST Desmond has a son. --Balthazor 19:55, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Chang

The UQ section asks why Pierre Chang's arm isn't severed, but is this really an UQ? We're told the sideways-universe is what would have happened if 815 didn't crash on the island... If there was no crash there were no time-skipping Losties in 1977 to attack the swan and cause the damage to Chang's arm (all that happened in the original universe, not the sideways one). So why would his arm be damaged? Isn't that the whole point of the sideways? If the questioner is just assuming the sideways isn't really what we're told, then doesn't belong in theories rather than UQs?--Faraday100 13:22, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • It's probably more likely that Miles changed something when he lifted the scaffolding off of Pierre's hand. As a result, he never lost his arm in the incident.--Gibbeynator 13:37, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think a better question is why didn't he look a day older than he did in 1977? Gefred7112 15:53, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, this seems like a valid question to me. It relates to the question as to whether events before the 1977 explosion happened as normal. Keep in mind we only saw the hand damaged and not the whole arm. Did we see his whole hand or arm in this episode? And we are assuming this was the incident that caused this to happen in the OT still. --Lucky Day 06:33, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


Why does Pierre Chang appear to have not aged since 1977?

  • See first topic on Chang. No one is certain yet whether this was just bad lighting.--Lucky Day 21:12, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, this question looks like its becoming a problem. Its turning into an edit war without discussion.--Lucky Day 23:15, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • The culprit is one MAK14, a new user. I've made it clear he should stop and even left a message on his talk page but he continues to revert. What next? Contact a sysop?--Lucky Day 05:59, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
      • It should be listed somewhere, if not under unanswered questions, then as a possible blooper. It's a valid observation, and I don't know what your obsession with striking it from existence is. And if you'll notice there are others who agree. You're the only one undoing the edits.--MAK14
        • It is somewhere. Its in the discussion page (again see link above) and until this is resolved whether its intentional, a blooper, or a lighting problem items that are still left open are left out of the article until they can be explicitly confirmed as being one or the other. The UQ section is problematic from the amount of unnecessary questions it get's and its a lot of work to be kept clean. That said, welcome to Lostpedia.--Lucky Day 07:18, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
          • "That said, Welcome to Lostpedia"?? Man, some people on this wiki are so ignorant. Give a guy a break MoeT 11:52, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • There is nothing to resolve. We cannot assume Chang is any age because it is in the FST. So there is no question to ask. We either will or will not be told more about Chang and until then we will have to wait. And it is therefore not a blooper because we were intentionally shown a man (who we saw) called Chang. There was no mistake. Its not a blooper. If you wish to assert that Chang should be the same age as he was in the OT, then it is still not a blooper because we just couldn't determine age from what we saw, especially as there is some secondary evidence that he had makeup on which was "obscured" by the lighting. There is no need to get upset tho. We have discussed it here! It doesn't HAVE to be on the Episode page because we have talked about it here!! People get very precious about it being on the episode page. Really that is for the Episode precis (doh!) and some resolved issues. The rest goes here just like it should. That way the main article remains clean and authoritative.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   13:39, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Who are the other whisperers on the island?
    • Ghosts stuck there on the Island as Hurley and Michael said. See below.--Lucky Day 02:17, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

AQ's

Why do the people in the FST not remember events on the Island?

  • A near death experience is not necessary to remember those events. Hurley remembered when he kissed Libby and she remembered when she saw Hurley on the news. Intense romantic attachments continue to be the common link.--Lucky Day 17:50, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

What is Widmore's purpose with the Island? Why is there a rivalry between him and the MiB?

  • The MiB tells Desmond that Widmore's only interest in the Island is to gain personal power. This is the second time this accusation has been laid against him. This doesn't explain why he should care about what Widmore's goal is if the MiB's only purpose is just to leave.--Lucky Day 21:27, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't Sayid kill Zoe?

  • Sayid argued to the MiB that since he had what he came for (Desmond) he didn't see the sense in it.--Lucky Day 22:20, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

What is the package?

  • Sayid confirms Desmond is "what he came for" to the MiB.--Lucky Day 20:33, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

The Whispers Explained!

Finally! I likes the direst answer as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Defimatr (talkcontribs) 2010-04-14T00:17:14.

  • And I was hoping it was a bunch of rich guys in a room somewhere drinking MacCutcheon, smoking Cubans, watching it on TV and placing bets.--Frakkin Toaster 06:03, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • It wasn't a very shocking/unexpected explanation, but on a show where keeping the truth hidden is par for the course having an answer tossed right out to us like a bone is a shock in and of itself.--Pittsburghmuggle 07:15, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you get trapped on the island post mortem if you have committed a mortal sin, such as murder, as Michael has. If this is true we could figure out who else could be in this situation, such as Eko, Ethan, etc... It then raises the question if Christian has not been MiB all along, but instead is trapped on the island for killing a patient on his operating table by being drunk- a conscious decision he made. Let's not forget that Kate has committed a mortal sin, as well as Sawyer. Should they die they would also be trapped. Hugo has only committed a venial sin- I believe he buried Nikki and Rocco alive but he was unaware of his actions... Although he did plow over some Others in the VW van didn't he... --Madmachinery 07:24, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • It still doesn't full explain why the whispers have prefaced the arrival of so many Others. True, many of them could be dead others, like Harper. But it often announced the arrivals of Others that clearly weren't dead. --Jonahwriter 10:56, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • The whispers are the dead Others, they probably just hang out around alive ones cuz they knew them while being alive ex. a dead Horace could be around Ethan so whenever we heard Whipsers while seeing Ethan we would hear the Whispers of Horace. --Orhan94 11:07, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree, this was a really cheap explanation...I hope that's not a precedent for things to come. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ugmoe (talkcontribs) 2010-04-14T06:40:12.
    • Perhaps it is only PARTIALLY explained and the Whispers could have other aspects to them. After all, it was just an expository bit of dialogue, in which Hurley made a surmise and Michael - never a reliable narrator, even when alive - said yes to. Michael may not be trustworthy, even in death! But it's probably the final answer we'll get at any rate.... I like it, I just wish there was more to it.--Jonahwriter 22:38, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe the others, knowing of the whispers, found a way to trigger them, or to make "fake whispers" (My Name is not Roy 18:59, April 15, 2010 (UTC))
  • I think it was originally intended to be the Others but as they became less mysterious for their benevolence this explanation is better. Keep in mind now there are many ghosts that visited Hurley off the Island.--Lucky Day 17:42, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • How is it that Walt appeared and was whispering if he clearly got off the island and isn't stuck like Michael and the others.
    • Not only is Tall Walt still alive but at the time, Mr Blank, the MiB hadn't been stuck in the identity of Locke yet. It was clearly Jacob's nemesis in disguise. Where he got the idea to appear tall will probably never be answered in the next five episodes.--Lucky Day 16:06, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


Didn't Darlton refute the theory ages ago the the Island was purgatory (Someone please confirm this)? Isn't Purgatory a "place for lost souls who have died after having sinned"? If this is actually the case, who knows what other theories Lost fans came up with and were officially refuted at the time by the writers, but still might come true. --Jodon1971 14:34, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

    • Because there are "lost souls" on the island does not mean the island itself is purgatory. There could be a lost soul in my back yard, does that make my back yard purgatory? MoeT 11:56, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, quite possibly. It might not do any harm to check it out... -- Jodon1971 19:34, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe Hugo really didn't see a dead Michael, maybe he's just crazy. Or, that might not actually be Michael, it might be another "protector" of the island.--Ugmoe 15:17, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd go with that explanation, thanks. It would resolve the plot hole error I inferred above. -- Jodon1971 19:34, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Tito?

  • Was he the man seen sitting at Hurley's table along with Carmen and another woman at the ceremony? Or were his scenes cut? --LeoChris 04:05, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • The flashsideways article for Tito says he was credited in the press release but not in the episode... so should we really include him in "Co-starring"? (Kdc2 18:44, April 14, 2010 (UTC))
      • Who was it that sitting at Hurley's table? Hispanic guy, no speaking lines. For some reason he stood out to me.--Lucky Day 21:07, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Carmen Reyes/Lillian Hurst

Is it just me or did she not look that well this episode? She's certainly lost a lot of weight.--Lucky Day 21:18, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ilana a Redshirt?

She seems to be the most developed redshirt yet; at least since Dr Artz. Anyone disagree she's a redshirt? She's not listed in the episode summary but someone jumped on the redshirt page already. Even Oscar and Seammus didn't make that hallowed list. Maybe you have to be important to be in that group. (irony)--Lucky Day 21:33, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • She is definitely not a redshirt, as she was a main character. Not everybody who dies is a redshirt. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   21:39, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't necessarily disagree, but Ben seemed to. He is renewing his cynicism towards the Island thanks to her death. Her only purpose seemed to a) get Sayid to the Island, b) tell them that they are candidates, c) get them to do what Richard told them to do. Once the Island was done with her...--Lucky Day 21:55, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well it's ironic if Ben felt she was a red shirt, because she played a huge part in his redemption arc. In any case, Ilana was a major character, there's no arguing that. ANd red shirts by definition aren't major characters. The sole use of a redshirt in a storyline is to have someone to kill. I actually think Nikki and Paulo should be removed from that redshirt article as well, but I hated them, so I won't be the one to remove them from the article. :D —   lion of dharma    talk    email   22:09, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • If you check out the writers notes on the subject concerning "meatbags" you'll note they like to play with this idea of a character seeming like they are a importantbut they're the ones killed, with their non-speaking escorts coming back alive instead. She lasted longer than her partner, Oscar, sure, but when did actually do anything a main character would do?--Lucky Day 22:18, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well as I mentioned before, she played a huge role in Ben's redemption arc. In addition she provided extremely important information about Jacob's list. Also, the actress's name was part of the opening credits, which means that she was considered by the producers themselves to be a main character. That is actually the one defining thing needed in order to be labeled a major character for the season. Frank and Miles are also considered major characters this season. They are all in the Last Supper promo shot for Season 6. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   22:46, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

    • OK, I give. Turned her into the weakest main character I've ever seen. Too bad though. I hope we'll find out what those bandages were all about. On a side note, that redshirt page needs some serious updating. --Lucky Day 23:24, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Hurley changed his shirt, now it's brown. Ilanawas dispatched by Ben ( my opinion: aint nobody [except perhaps Sayid] ever shoots, aims to kill, knifes MR Linus who does not receive Ben's attention. Besides now we have Zoe. Sayid tells her to run for a reason; she is to pick up Ilana's role. --The mortal veil 11:57, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well(s)

Did Flocke say "This is the only well" or "This isn't the only well"? --Orhan94 04:40, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't know if anyone else read that stupid book 1412 - the year China discovered America. In it the author makes the claim that the fleet mapped South America because they were looking for magnetic south.--Lucky Day 19:25, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to say that the set designers did a really bad job on this well. I have read others complaining about sets before but they never looked bad to me, always good. But this looked like something out of a high school play. Annarboral 00:22, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree Annarboral that is the worst bit of set construction ever seen on Lost. It is SO bad it actually distracted from the scene. I'm very sorry to see the production values slipping so dramatically this season. Despite what a lot of people say around here all indications are that the show is on a pretty tight budget and is not rolling in cash. Audience figures are low and that can't be good for advertising revenue. If Australia is any indication then the non-US franchises aren't paying big money for this show anymore (in Oz it has no promotion and screens very very late at night). There is quite a lot lacking I reckon - the camera work has been pretty ordinary recently, and since the gorgeous disk in the lighthouse there hasn't been anything fascinating to look at.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   02:02, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting support wow was that ever bad. I could practically pick the foam off of it. they could have lit a little darker and that would have helped. it goes to show the budget may be getting axed like the 3rd season of Star Trek seeing that the run of the show is over and there's no political clout in the network to save it from the accountants. I would if we can put this in the production notes.--Lucky Day 02:21, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • I noticed that too, well was not done very, uh, well. I can't say I've really noticed an overall drop in production values this season though. There was certainly nothing shabby about Richard Alpert's episode. Hatchbanger 17:03, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, I've figured it out. Don't forget the well was made by people who had to use their hands. It was an obvious inside reference to the prop designers.--Lucky Day 16:03, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Character Development

Last week it was pointed out how Hurley was gaining confidence in his decisions. This week we see him lieing, something he absolutely despised doing in the past. As well, now we see Jack taking a back seat, something he has stated he always hated doing. In fact, he knew Hurley was lieing but followed him anyway. It made me realize Jack has always done this in spite of himself. I knew this but it was never so clear to me before. I've always known him to be impulsive but his fights with his father and Sawyer (especially at Dharma) now make a lot more sense. He claims its from his drive to always fix things.--Lucky Day 22:32, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • not sure what show you have been watching because from the first pilot Jack's desire to fix everything, and his inability to let go has been his defining characteristic. Hurley's new assertiveness is playing very uncomfortable all round, very different from the assertiveness we see in the successful businessman in FST. To see his brazen dishonesty and bad judgment with people actually following him is very jarring. Bit like the ready acceptance that people have been showing all season to "Locke's" dishonesty and scheming.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   02:09, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • its his insistence on leading that I hadn't noticed as much. in early episodes he was just the natural leader everyone turned to in spite of what he wished. he didn't want to lead initially but it just fell on him. in this he says it straight out he is compelled to lead and it kills him not to.--Lucky Day 02:24, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Added the RSP, hopefully the paraphrase fits. An alright moment for Jack, I thought. Hurley resorting to that lie isn't such a stretch, given Richard's consistent urgency - and having people's lives on the line with Hurley leading's very much the point. Baptism by fire. If Hurley had started by saying anything other than "Umm..." to MiB then it wouldn't be Hurley. Duncan905 06:46, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • Chuck may be right and I am just blind (probably some sibling rivalry theory can be thrown in here), but yeah, its at least noteworthy because they made a point of having Jack say it.--Lucky Day 16:02, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

In a similar vein I noticed that with Ilana gone and blowed up Ben is reverting to his old cynical self with that comment he made. His redemption is short lived since the person he chose to now follow has been killed by the Island.--Lucky Day 16:02, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Bloopers and continuity errors

  • Re: The license plate number on Desmond's car in the flash-sideways timeline changes after he sees Hurley and Libby together on the beach to when he runs over Locke.

- Not sure if this is a blooper. It'd make enough sense for Desmond to change his plates before committing a very public crime. The episode also gave us a semi-close up of his second set of plates, which might suggest that the powers-that-be wanted us to notice this. But who knows. --Jacknicholson 06:36, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • I wondered about this too, and went back and watched all those sequences. The only thing different about the cars are the plates. The car is identitical, down to the greyed out BMW emblems and the small oval patch on the rear bumper.Bobrk 15:16, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Haha, Charles, I love how you are one step ahead. It seems like the Bloopers section is always such a battleground. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   09:06, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • 1st plate: 4PCI264, 2nd: 2FAN321 - place 1st over 2nd and you have all The Numbers: 42, 16 (P), 15 (F+I), 4 (C+A), 23, 8 (6+2), 5 (4+1). Only this 14 (N) just blows my mind :) Qbex74 19:50, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • It's kind of schizo; Sometimes numbers represent The Numbers, sometimes it's a letter, and sometimes it's multiple letters. It is definitely grasping at straws. Kajillion 00:23, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • The new argument is that the first license was seen as he pulls into the school. I don't recall him pulling into the school, just parking and having to explain himself to a teacher that actually does something about creeps instead of waiting 45 minutes for the cops to get there. Screenshots?--Lucky Day 07:06, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


  • Also I'm about to pull the Ilana lighting and rain one. I just reviewed it and I can't see it. I've already taken out Chang looking the same. I don't wish to be rude but that strikes me as absurd. Not only do we only see him for a second, but it is also deliberate, or he ages well, or he has makeup on or who knows? (Hi Lionofdharma - good to knw we are all sticking with this monster!)    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   09:16, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • I thought Pierre had a problem with makeup, as seen in the Orchid outtakes video.--Gibbeynator 12:10, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to remove this "Locke tells Desmond that the people "long ago" had compasses. He follows this by saying that the people didn't have any digging tools which is a paradox. " For starters I don't see how a paradox being mothed by a person who lies as a matter of course could be a blooper. But anyhow there are so many rational interpretations of what Locke said which don't lead to any error of any sort that this is not even close to blooper.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:26, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Ilana and inconsistent rain is back. I don't see it. There's a bit of rain just before she detonates, but rain does tend to be inconsistent so how that can be bad continuity I don't know. Can the author or anyone explain this one better?    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:33, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • I originally added it (I was not the one who re-added it), on second view through I can still spot rain in certain shots but its so minimal and out of focus that I don't think its necessary. You defiantly need an HDtv to see it and even then it is very faint. For Torgee 17:41, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • This is now a confirmed blooper by Jorge Garcia on his podcast so you were wrong to remove it --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 10:51, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • The blooper section refers to The Man in Black cutting only one strand of the bonds around Desmond's wrists, but all four strands being removed. But unless there's a reason to believe that four individual pieces of rope were used to bind Desmond's hands, one cut is all that would have been needed to remove a single rope that had been wrapped multiple times around his wrists. Whether or not there are multiple ropes or a single rope is difficult to discern, but there is a logical explanation for his ability to remove the bindings with a single cut.--Jbryant0007 18:56, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • Nevermind - there is a visual problem with the scene, the ropes should not come loose the way they do.--Jbryant0007 19:05, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • That one was mine. My 2nd ever blooper submission. (I've removed lots tho!). I watched it in slo mo a number of times and there is clearly a problem with how they set up the cut and then pulling the ropes away. I'm still a bit hesitant about it as what the director did was obviously intentional and simply provided a dramatic way of dealing with the untying in a suitable dramatic way. We don't want to see endless unwinding around tree, nor hacking at four strands of rope. We could just as well ask where the hell did Sayid find the rope in the first place! In general I don't like much that I see in the blooper continuity section for exactly that reason. Three drops of rain in the wrong place! PPhhhuutt!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   00:56, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Something I saw.

About 18 minutes into the episode, just as Richard and Co. reach the Black Rock, there's a distinct electric crackle and a flash of light in the trees. What the heck is that? I've rewatched it numerous times. It's definitely there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Linzmerica (talkcontribs) 2010-04-14T01:56:49.

I didn't notice it, but given the context it must have been Hurley lighting a fuse. --Jackdavinci 07:00, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
It was a dinosaur hed --Jcsf 07:02, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't notice it either, but the guy over at lostisagame.com has an explanation for you.--Frakkin Toaster 12:28, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
what the heck are you talking about? i didnt see that! Johnistrippin 17:00, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Could it be a bug zapper and a possible blooper? That's what it looks and sounds like. They probably use them on the set shooting in the jungle and all.--Linzmerica 18:51, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Chang's credit

Was Chau really credited on this episode? If so, it should be noted in the production notes as the first time he has ever been credited for his performance. --Golden Monkey 15:09, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Section "The Man in Black's Group"

There are references to MIB, Locke, and "Locke" when referring to the same character. Ugh. I'm sure this is not the first time someone has quibbled about this issue but it just seems sloppy to me. Sorry. Hatchbanger 16:56, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • We have discussed this over and over. We settled on using the three. The idea was to use "Locke" early in the text to clarify that we are talking about Nemesis using Locke's appearance. Since all of the characters still use the original name for the man looking like Locke we then use Locke. Where nemesis has some particular behavior as Nemesis or where he is separate from the Locke nomenclature or where absolute clarity as to who we are talking about is required we use the Man in Black (not MiB or MIB). No one thought this a perfect solution. Using The Man in Black each time was both awkward and often was different to what the characters were calling him, so most of the time was just not appropriate. (As of this ep I would go further and say that he shares so many characteristics with original Locke that it is easier to cope with and may even be sort of reverse prophetic!).    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:12, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no doubt everyone is sick of discussing this issue but I stubbornly maintain there must be a better way to do it than to randomly drop different names in like that. Maybe the AKAs about to be used interchangeably need a quick explanation at the start of a first major paragraph. Could be as simple as "MIB (aka Locke or "Locke")... " I will stop now and never raise the issue again. Hatchbanger 17:29, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sick of talking about it too. As I explained it is not dropping in "random" names. If they'd just tell us his real name .....    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:36, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed. We must stop blaming ourselves for this confusion. The responsibility for this rests squarely with Lost's creators. We've done our best with what we've been given. This begs the question if and when we do find out his real name, will there be thousands of re-edits done in Lostpedia to change his name from MIB / Flocke / Nemesis etc. to his real name? -- Jodon1971 14:50, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't wait till the episode they finally give the entity a name. After all this, it better be a blummin' good name. Hawkdeath 14:52, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
      • NO We should not do thousands of re-edits in Lostpedia to change his name to his real name. We only reveal information in the articles when that information is revealed in the episode. Before we had on screen confirmation that he was not the real john locke we always referred to him as john locke. Like in the beginning of Because You Left we don't refer to Pierre as Pierre until the paragraph in which his face is shown on screen. Until then he is simply referred to as a man. Jdray 02:37, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
        • Please correct me if I am wong about the above post. But also I would like to add that I think we should remove Locke from the list and only use "Locke" or MIB. Locke should only be used for the real Locke. (except for before he was actually revealed in show not to be the real Locke that is.) Jdray 02:53, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Storyline Analysis

Factions

The MiB discussed with Jacob about there always being conflict between settlers on the Island. With the divisions that keep popping up I don't think the current system is very good anymore (or hasn't been for at least two seasons). For example, I noticed a new one, S-Missions for Widmore's new group instead of F-Missions. We've now seen the new A-Team break off into two groups, Locke's group is ready to split with Sawyer and Kate on one side and now the A-Team possibly joining to them. --Lucky Day 17:57, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

    • On top of Widmore's group now having two names there is another, more current case in point. We have four factions now and one faction can't be easily labelled with what we have or could be a second version of the Others. Both Richard's team and the MiB could both be called O-Missions seeing that the MiB's team is largely made up of O-Team refugees.--Lucky Day 15:40, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • So far it is fine. Lets not find problems and create complexity. The divisions in the summary are not definitive of anything and aim at simplicity. Just a way to break up the narrative into the chunks presented on screen and give them a name as a sort of pointer or guide. Obviously there will be occasional overlaps. Giving the titles a code name immediately locks out non-experts which is exactly why we don't use "MIB" or the like. Almost always two or three headings in each timeline easily serves the purpose. This week for example the two headings in the OT are perfectly clear. There may be a tiny bit of overlap but things are easy to find. Ditto in the FST. Adopting the arrow of time approach (ie just following what we saw onscreen) is fine. It doesn't try to unravel theories - that is for the theory pages (I'm talking about the Desmond stuff). Lets see what we need to bring to the table next week!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   15:54, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Depth of Well

As of now, the article says "Locke drops a torch down the well and shows that it is very deep." I think the point of dropping the torch down this well was to show that it isn't very deep. What do you all think?BrouhaJoe 13:12, April 14, 2010

Perhaps someone can time it and do the calculation. It's all relative of course, point being that a fall of that size should kill a man. I was guessing 100 feet.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:15, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • 9.8 meters per second at sea level. The torch was in free fall and not pushed. It would make a good trivia addition to its page.--Lucky Day 17:52, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • It was less than 3 seconds. Say 2.5. That's about 24.5 meters or about 80 feet.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:59, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • done. maybe the producers will borrow that. Incidentally, does anyone know the likelihood of someone surviving such a drop?--Lucky Day 21:36, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • 9.8 meters per second per second. That's acceleration, not velocity. It's how much faster you go every second. So zeroth second, 0 meters/s, first second, 9.8 m/s, second second, 19.6 m/s, etc. Bobrk 21:57, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • thanks for the correction. I was always bad at physics. What's the real distance then? I noticed the fix on the well page but not the real answer.--Lucky Day 21:53, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • 2.05 seconds by my stopwatch. He held it at shoulder height, initial velocity was zero. One half acceleration times time squared is roughly 19.6 meters. Terry O'Quinn is 1.87 meters his shoulder would be in the neighborhood of 1.6 meters. I'd say this well was approximately 18 meters deep from ground level to the bottom. Which is not one of the significant numbers as I thought it was originally. Drat! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groupthinker1984 (talkcontribs) 2010-04-14T20:15:36.
  • Y'all are spending waaaaay too much time thinking about this.  :-) Spiral77 20:28, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • Your right about spending too much time thinking about it. I wonder how close it is to how far Locke fell out of that building? Or how far Juliet fell down the swan hatch? Or how deep the frozen wheel at the orchid was? Jdray 02:45, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • Don't tell me what I can or cannot do! --   Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   02:51, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • There's just NO WAY that anyone on the crew bothered to calculate that. Why would they?--DanVader228 12:19, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well they did make a point of showing that it was deep by dropping the torch in the first place. Beside, they have Widmore's new science team to confirm it.--Lucky Day 16:12, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
      • Given that the Island "isn't done" with Desmond according to Charles Widmore, I would lay money that we'll see Mr. Hume again. Lots of foreshadowing in the previous episode that has not yet been paid off. Spiral77 17:58, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

According to this article: [what height can you survive a dive into water?] it would take a 14 second drop into water to kill you. This is called terminal velocity. However, the Golden Gate bridge, long infamous for the number of suicides performed there, is 246 feet from the road portion. This is only 3.9 seconds.--Lucky Day 16:12, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • The article said it's 14S to reach terminal velocity. Technically you never actually reach terminal velocity (you just get asymptotically close), but long before 14S you'll be going to too fast to survive with any significant probability. If Desmond were destined to die he would most likely hit his head on the side and be dead before reaching the water.EdwardLost 01:44, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

New main image

6x12 EvenLibbyLovesHugo

1

HiLibby

2

Hurley6x12

3

Memory

4

6x12-hugowave

5

Pictogram voting supportCurrent would be fine without Libby's head. One of these? (Kdc2 18:41, April 14, 2010 (UTC))

I definitely think he needs to be shown happy. Or at the very least not sad. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   18:43, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram replyWhy? Hurley at this point in the story isn't very happy. On and off island. Plus, I think the current image is the only time he smiles in the whole thing. (Kdc2 19:08, April 14, 2010 (UTC))
  • maybe A sad Hurley would add irony. A nervous leader Hurley would also be accurate. I really like the one we got if it 'twernt for Libby's big head in the way.--Lucky Day 19:17, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose Current image shows Hurley reciprocating Libby's love. Perfect fit, don't change it! Duncan905 20:28, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose - I don't get the constant need to question every main image. The current image shows Hurley happy, with Libby accepting his date. It has Libby loving Hurley. How does that not symbolize the episode?  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  21:05, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram replyLets be honest here ODK you "dont get the need to question every image" becuase you always put up the first image. Be honest you dont like this because sometimes your image choice isnt the best. I like the new way of doing things, giving us a choice instead of just putting one up. Id say we keep doing this. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:11, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Look, I was being honest. I never object to the change of an image unless it makes no sense. With 6x11, for example, I like the new image of smiling Des. With 6x09, I like the image of Richard. In this case, I don't see why we need to change a picture that shows Hurley happy and starting to have feelings for Libby - this entire episode revolved around Hurley, how people love him, and his relationship with Libby. The episode is titled "Everybody Loves Hugo"! I can't see why a picture of Hurley in front of a grave, Hurley looking at an unknown thing or Hurley shocked after a kiss is a good example of the episode. Despite what you may think, ego and knowing that "oh, my choice is the main image" plays absolutely no part in my picture picking. I've been here ever since season 2 aired, and I've experienced enough changes, in both images and contents, to know that ego has no part in a wikia project. I simply choose and defend my choices if other choices do not makes any sense, simply because I want the main image to represent the article. And this, Czygan84, is why I find your comment rude.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  21:22, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
W/e i dont wanna argue I simply pointed out that your quote "dont get the need to question every image" is ridiculous, you may be right w/ the image for this ep but your not right a lot to so we should question every image. Everyones opinion should be counted-- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:58, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well my vote is for #1 at this time. If any new ones are put up I may change my vote. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   21:23, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • Nix on 2. Hurley's hands are.. um... set up to be made fun of.--Pittsburghmuggle 21:38, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Didn't even notice that, pittsburghmuggle, til now... and ODK, unknown thing? It's Libby's grave. Granted, that's not my favorite image, but still. I read something a while back, and I'm almost positive it was Czygan84 who said it -- he said something like, the picture doesn't have to always exactly represent the episode title in every detail, and if it did, the picture for Eggtown should be a town of eggs. Or something along those lines. But in any case -- the picture doesn't have to be him happy because of the title. Picture 2 is Hugo at Libby's grave (relevant), picture 3 is Hugo on island as a leader (still relevant) and picture 4 is Hugo remembering "some other life" (extremely relevant). The only reason I contested the current image is because Libby's head is distracting. Otherwise it'd be fine. I can't think of any other main image on this site that has a distracting and blurred object in it that everyone has been okay with. (Kdc2 23:02, April 14, 2010 (UTC))
I don't mean literally symbolize it, but have some relevance. How could you tell that Hurley is in a "leadership position"? You'll have to rewatch the episode to know that. I thin the main image should have something symbolic from that episode so just by seeing it, you know where it's from.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  02:44, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose Current image is excellent. Leave it. Very good choice. Good portrait at a pivotal moment, Libby in the foreground adds to the shot, not every part of every grab needs to be in focus, as part out of focus draws attention to the subject.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   01:50, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • I like #5, probably because of the Open sign in the background. But I also like Hurley's confused wave. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 05:26, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose There's nothing wrong whatsoever with the current image. Libby's head in it is appropriate, since that's one of the main points of the episode. Keep the original image. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

  • Its appropriate but not very good. The smile is better than Des' last week. However, I better shot would still be him carrying the T-Rex award and getting all sad for it. That's just my opinion.--Lucky Day 15:44, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting neutral I think #1 is fine but if it IS decided to change, my vote is for #2 or #3 as (personally) I don't like #4 or #5. --Jonahwriter 02:10, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Please change it to #2. Not only does this scene actually start the episode, it gives a much better thematic idea of the episode's core. --Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 14:55, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • This needs to be closed off. There really just isn't enough momentum (or reason) to change the original image which has wide acceptance and currently is the leader in this poll.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   15:15, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting support
  • A proper vote could be generated if someone had not removed the Dispute/Discuss tag on this page.
    • I think it should be put back to get some more people into the talk page to vote.
      • Then a count can be called, and a FINAL DECISION based on Vote made.
        • Furthermore, this should be done for all episodes, at least from here on out. It's the only fair approach, IMHO.

Thanks, and PEACE, Sheryl --Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 23:44, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

  • Let's also have a vote on each individual image used on the page, and also one of each line of the summary - coz that is the "only fair approach"! And lets leave the vote open long enough so that we never really know what anyone wants! Absurd. This is just not needed. Excellent images are selected by people who make an effort in that particular area. When it doesn't get much approval it's changed. Sometimes it might need a vote. Its worked very well in the past. Leave good enough alone.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   23:56, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • I really like no. 2. But I guess I don't care enough to keep disputing it. So .... Fair enough. Leave it be. PEACE, Sheryl. --Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 00:15, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not a bad image. It gets the job done. However, I don't like having blurriness in a main image. That doesn't mean everyone feels the same. I doubt we need a tag, but it would be nice if more people had input in choosing a main image. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 00:49, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
#1

(current image)

#2 #3 #4 #5
  • Duncan905
  • ODK
  • Lionofdharma
  • Charles Kane
  • Ao-bōzu
  • Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance
  • Clayburn



I think the winner is pretty clear at this point. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   02:48, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed something

It's probably just a HUGE coincidence, but Hurley's best friend from the original timeline, Johnny, shares the same name as the restaurant Hurley went to in the flash-sideways.--Gibbeynator 19:56, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch! I doubt though that Johnny was Spanish.. ;)  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  21:24, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I said it's probably just a huge coincidence, or a nice little easter egg for the viewers who remember back to season 2. Or maybe Johnny IS Spanish in the flash-sideways, he could have been born after 1977, and have a different father as a result.--Gibbeynator 21:37, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
You can't have different parents in the flashsideways. --Integrated (User / Talk) 11:40, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

FST Hurley Update

Surprisingly, Hugo_Reyes_(flash-sideways_timeline) has yet to be updated. Its too massive for me. I seem to recall as well someone called him Hurley this episode - maybe his mom, if so that settles that discussion (and if not, it doesn't).--Lucky Day 22:09, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember either way, but I would be shocked if Carmen called him Hurley in the FST. IIRC, she never called him Hurley in the OT. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   22:11, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

    • Okay, took a stab at updating it. It could probably use a bunch of links to Mr Clucks media. G'Day, mates.--Lucky Day 23:14, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Irony?

Something that just came to mind, maybe a possible idea for the "Literary Techniques" section:

  • Ilana asks about Libby's grave not long before she gets herself killed by the dynamite explosion, thus leaving no body to be placed in a grave. (Irony)

Panglossa | Talk 00:22, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

    • IT might be some foreshadowing but its not direct.--Lucky Day 02:26, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
      • That's not really irony. That's like saying "Illana speaks to Richard before she gets blown up and therefore can never speak to anyone again" --Integrated (User / Talk) 11:38, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
        • Not really, thing is, the conversation is held on the graveyard, and she talks specifically about a grave. It was very clear to me as a first impression when watching the episode. Anyway, very sorry for her :( Panglossa | Talk 13:59, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Character Connections in the FST

With the Island blowed up and sunk there shouldn't be anything to cause the character connections - at least not until this episode. Jacob should no longer be able to affect anyone. Desmond (as pushed on by Charlie) however is taking an active role but the connections are going on without, or even in conjunction, with him. I imagine the character connection coincidences have been brought up before but Des' active role adds a new element.--Lucky Day 02:30, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Eloise Hawking in the audience

I'm pretty sure I spotted Eloise clapping for Hurley when he received his award in the beginning of the episode. Can anyone else confirm that this was her? If it was, I think the question of why she was there should be added to the "unanswered questions" part of the page. Or maybe it should be added to the trivia part? --Manifestdestiny 03:06, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • Grey haired woman in second set of applause is NOT Eloise and looks nothing like her.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   03:27, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • I deleted the assertion from the article for two reasons: i) it's not sure she is Eloise and ii) that woman does not look like Eloise so much. It's only an old woman with grey hair. Not Eloise. --Dottorcere 10:34, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Reunion! (Almost)

Hey, long time lurker, have never added anything before but thought I might drop an observation in here, run it past everyone. This would be the first time the combination of Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, Sayid, Locke, Sun and Claire have been in the same location since meeting at the cockpit wreckage in S4E1 The Beginning of the End. Worthwhile trivia? And is that accurate as far as you can remember? You could go as far as saying "all the 815 survivors" if not for Rose and Bernard's status being a bit mysterious (did they travel forward as well?) and Jin. --Anthem47 09:37, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's accurate, but not trivia worthy - simply because Jin isn't there, it'd be a bit pointless saying "they're all there apart from jin". Wait till Jin gets back then we'll trivia it up! --Integrated (User / Talk) 11:37, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe "that largest gathering of 815 survivors since S4E1 The Beginning of the End."?--Pittsburghmuggle 21:00, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Recurring Themes

Article says "On the island, Hurley picks up a bag filled with what could only be the black and white backgammon pieces from Locke and Walt's games during season one. (Black and white)" Is that fact? I thought it was Jacob's ashes that she had collected earlier in the season. Hawkdeath 10:14, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Theory me thinks :P --Integrated (User / Talk) 11:34, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
Backgammon pieces!? It's definitely Jacob's ashes. Why go to all the trouble of showing Ilana gather them, if they don't become part of the story later? This was obviously the writers making sure we hadn't forgot about them, and that they don't fall out of the story now Ilana's dead. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
N.B. - The ashes already have played a role in the story as Ilana had Miles "read" them. Spiral77 20:25, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
Since people are saying it's so obvious it's the ashes and it's so obvious it's the backgammon pieces and it's so obvious it's the black and white stones from Adam and Eve and it's so obvious it's the diamonds, maybe... it's not obvious. Let's consider the contents a mystery until we see them in play in a future episode. --Jackdavinci 06:04, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Agree w/ Jackdavinci. Spiral77 18:33, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

beach towel

It is not a black and white - the towel Hurley puts down for the picnic is BLUE. With the camera below and the sun above it may appear black (because the underside is entirely in shadow) but when it lands on the sand it can be seen as blue. Removed.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   16:36, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Jack and Locke reunited?

If I'm not mistaken, isn't this the first time Jack has seen the MIB face-to-face, ever since putting his father's shoes on Locke's corpse, before boarding the Ajira flight? --Magmagirl 16:34, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the MiB. That was John Locke. This is, however, the first time Jack has seen him at all, in non-monster form. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
Exactly. Which would explain the look of shock/concern on Jack's face, since he doesn't know the MIB looks like Locke now. It would be a thought of "Wait, didn't I just see your dead body in Los Angeles?" I'm guessing his reaction now is similar to Ben's last season. --Magmagirl 16:55, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
Jack knows the monster is now in Locke's form, as Ben and the others told him. But as Ben himself said, knowing (ok, believing) is one thing, seeing with one's own eyes is another thing. Panglossa | Talk 18:14, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Jack knew what was coming but still has a lot of questions Johnistrippin 16:24, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Leonard Simms

Is the person who is playing connect four in the mental institution supposed to be Leonard Simms? He looks like him, but is played by a different actor. Gfrast 09:09, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm sure its not meant to be him. Presumably the island sank > no numbers broadcast > Leonard never went crazy > never went to santa rosa. Ehsteve23 09:18, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, no Leonard Simms with numbers also means no Hurley becoming a millionaire. Since Hurley did under entirely different, if unknown, circumstances, then it's just as plausible that Simms went clinically insane under entirely different, if unknown, circumstances. Of course, it shouldn't be added unless there's confirmation that it's the same actor/intended to be Leonard. It could just be a sign that Santa Rosa stocked a Connect Four game in both timelines, however implausible that may be.--Tim Thomason 09:26, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia?

The following 2 items appear in trivia: "Similar to Desmond's experience in "Happily Ever After", Hugo is recalling future events from the original timeline. While it is unclear how many days have passed since the landing of Flight 815 on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 Hurley did not meet Libby before Day 48 on the Island in the original timeline and their planned first date was to take place on Day 64 - Wednesday, 24 November 2004." and "The existence of the well implies the presence or previous existence of another energy pocket on the Island, similar to the those located by the DHARMA Initiative at the Swan and the Orchid."

Are either of these really trivia? They just seem like someone's interpretation of things happening on the show. Unless someone has a reason not to, I'm going to remove these.--Faraday100 14:13, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

  • Restored the first one. It's extremely clear that Desmond and Hugo in the FS timeline are seeing events that have not yet taking place in the original timeline. In the original timeline Hurley has not even met Libby yet. He's seeing an event that will take place in his counterpart's future. Spiral77 17:45, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • With all due respect Spiral77, even if one agrees with your subjective interpretation of what's happening in the show (and personally I don't agree with you), so what? It's still not trivia -- you're just pointing out something you think is happening... that's no more "trivia" then saying "Desmond was thrown down a well" is trivia. Would anyone else like to chime in here? I don't want to start a war, but this just doesn't belong in this section (it belongs in fan theories), so I'm removing it again tomorrow morning unless someone has a good reason not (or unless Spiral77 can explain how this is trivia).--Faraday100 00:04, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it is an interesting observation but I agree that is does not belong in the article. Jdray 03:02, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is not subjective interpretation or a theory. There is no speculation going on here. It's an observation on the nature of the timelines based on what we have seen in the episode and in the series. You can make the same observation yourself by comparing the two timelines. To illustrate:

OT Timeline: 815 crashes on Sept 22, 2004. Hurley does not meet Libby until at least 48 days after the crash. Their planned first date was to take place on Day 64 when she was killed by Michael.
FS Timeline: 815 lands at LAX on Sept 22, 2004. In "Everybody Loves Hugo" we know it is no more than a week, perhaps two at the most, since Flight 815 landed successfully. This is shown proxy of Desmond's arrival at LAX in "Happily Ever After" and his continued actions in "Everybody Loves Hugo". This means by FS timeline reckoning it is, at most, Day 14.

When Hugo and Libby kiss in "Everybody Loves Hugo" (taking place on or near FS Day 14), Hugo somehow observes (or, as he says, "remembers") events that took place between Day 48 and Day 64 in the original timeline. This discontinuity is even more apparent in "Happily Ever After" when FS-Desmond sees OT-Charlie's death at The Looking Glass.

From the Lostpedia Manual of Style: "Trivia sections are where more in-depth analysis takes place, with "easter eggs" and other important clues not directly relevant to the episode's progression are addressed (rather than in the synopsis)." This is exactly where this kind of observation belongs.

I had a terrible time in the first pass attempting to describe the observation clearly and suscinctly -- but have taken another stab at rewriting. Cheers -- Spiral77 18:42, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

  • Spiral, it's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's just that I believe it's only one possible interpretation of what's going on... a theory. My interpretation is different. As I see it, the dates are completely irrelevant. The characters in the X-Universe are having memories of things that they experienced BEFORE the bomb went off; that is, nobody is "remembering the future", they're simply remembering their own obscured pasts. Note how nothing that Hugo or Desmond (or, as far as we can tell, Charlie, Daniel or Libby) remembers occurred AFTER the detonation of the bomb -- Hugo didn't see himself escaping the temple or talking to Isabella; Des didn't see himself being zapped with electromagnetism or being thrown down a well. So that's two different ways to look at what we've been presented thus far... two theories (and neither of us has really treated the widely held fan-belief that the altU is some sort of trick or fake or deception perpetrated by Smokey -- that would make 3 theories!). Since we've got a new ep coming in an hour, I'll leave it up for now... but unless something in The Last Recruit changes things, I'm removing it. Respectfully --Faraday100 23:45, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • Please stop with being the Trivia police. Trivia is the proper location for sound, well-grounded observations and/or analysis. Despite any arguments you make, for the last two eps, individuals in the FS timeline (about Sept 2004) are seeing (or recalling -- use whatever word you like here) events that occurred much later in 2004 in the OT timeline. That is the crux of the observation which is fact, not theory. There is zero speculation or theorizing going on here.

Were I to speculate, which I've avoided doing so previously, I would say this discrepancy is likely a clue that the two timelines presented are NOT parallel -- this would be a theory. I would classify your interpretation as theory. I would definitely classify the Smokey deception as theory. Cheers -- Spiral77 17:30, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm being the trivia police because you like your theory better than mine, or others? Is that supposed to be comedy? I don't care if you like your theory better... it's still just your theory. It's not "deep analysis" and it doesn't belong in trivia. Sorry Spiral. As the only person who cared enough to chime in agrees with me and not you, I'm removing your bogus trivia (and will continue to do so unless and until the show backs your INTERPRETATION up). Yes, the DATES of the scenes you cite are correct, but the CONCLUSIONS you draw from that are 100% your own... and honestly nobody needs you to point out the dates (nothing could be more self evident). If you'd like to post it in theories, go for it... that's where subjective interpretations of facts belong. Cheers to you too!!!!--Faraday100 23:28, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Wells, Shafts, and Holes

I start thinking about wells and shafts and holes on the island. Now I discover more and more shafts:

  • the shaft under the hatch,
  • the hole in the ground that the Monster tried to pull John into in "Exodus, Part 2",
  • the shaft at the Swan station, where Juliet died,
  • the pit in the temple, where Claire was hold captive,
  • the reference on the blast door map "a mouse does not rely on just one hole"
  • perhaps the entrance of the submarine, too
  • ...
  • and now Desmond thrown into a well

Is there a pattern? Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? Akege 18:11, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Dave

Did anyone else hope that Dave would come by to say hello? I was disappointed. I miss him. --Lucky Day | msg 17:49, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Nunu

  • Nunu has apparently passed away. Since there's no page dedicated to Nunu, like there is one for say Pono or Madison, I was wondering if this should be mentioned here.--LeoChris 18:20, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.