Lostpedia
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Lostpedia
Lostpedia
7,457
pages

Talk: Everybody Loves Hugo

Back to page
Revision as of 07:04, 14 April 2010 by Bobrk (talk | contribs) (→‎Bloopers and continuity errors)
Sign in to edit

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
  • 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)

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 Fame ♪ talk 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)

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

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))
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)

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

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.

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)

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)

UQ

"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)

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)

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)

Well(s)

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

The Whispers Explained!

Finally! I likes the direst answer as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Defimatr (talk • contribs) 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)

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)

  • Yes Probably a fake, put on by Desmond so nobody would record his real license plate number. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 06:42, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think they were different cars. Rewatching to see... Bobrk 07:04, April 14, 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement