Lostpedia
Don't have an account?
Register
Lostpedia
Register
Lostpedia
Lostpedia
7,494
pages

Talk: Flaming arrow attack

Back to page
Sign in to edit

casualties[]

Anyone see how many were killed? I counted Neil and then 3 others were hit.--Mistertrouble189 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

4 or 5. Frogurt and at least 3 others. --LOST-The Cartographer 04:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, should check too see if clothes match.--Mistertrouble189 04:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding template and cleaning up just a bit -- Iron Man  Send a message  View contributions  04:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it's not Craig. Craig was/is wearing a blue shirt, the guy that Juliet was trying to revive was wearing a cream/white shirt it's not him. I'm pretty sure that the one who were killed were stunt people that were hired for this specific episode. -- LostCloverfield42  Talk  13:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Images[]

Can somebody work on getting some images of the attack? -- Iron Man  Send a message  View contributions  16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename[]

This article should be renamed, since there was no "camp" and not to be mistaken with the Others' attack in S3 Finale. --Kemot from Poland 14:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In favor of renaming. I would consider the attack in S3 finale a "beach camp attack" as well. There should at least be a way to distinguish the attacks in their titles. --Snooble 18:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename, but not to "Fire arrow attack". How about "Beach attack" (so it doesn't include "camp")? -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename: I think "fire arrow attack" is better because it's more specific. "Beach attack" or "beach camp attack" are pretty vague. --compossible 23:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I like Beach Attack. They were traveling in time so much, I can't remember if the camp was even there.--Pirakafreak24 DCWIKI 23:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename: Fire Arrow sounds more precise, and is less similar to the Beach camp battle, from the S3 finale. --   Calick    talk    contributions    email   23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename: How about the word "assault" be used rather than "attack". -- Matthew R Dunn 01:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename: Doesn't make that much of a difference either way, both words are pretty similar. I agree with the name "Fire Arrow Attack", totally non-ambiguous. --Arjayoh 11:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename: How about "Flaming Arrow Attack". That's what it is called on other sites. -- LostCloverfield42  Talk  12:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename: I like "Flaming Arrow Attack" as well.--Mistertrouble189 03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • CONSENSUS: Rename. (I'm renaming it to "Fire arrow attack" unless we can come to consensus on another name. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What, you don't like nonsensical or awkward article titles? Pshaw! Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
  • Keep Fire arrow, but I don't care if it's attack or something else (ambush?). They were attacked by fire arrows which were flaming. Why is it childish? "Fire arrow" is the correct term. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

my identity 17:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Both are grammatically correct. Fire arrow is a compound noun. "Flaming arrow" is like changing roller coaster to rolling coaster, thereby changing the meaning. The correct way to name this article is to determine if they were sent by bows, flaming arrows, or sent mechanically, fire arrows. It looked more mechanical than manual to me, given the number that flew at once. It would have taken a small army of archers to do that manually. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, "Fire Arrow" is singular, they were hit by a volley of arrows. So saying "Fire Arrow Attack" sounds as if a Giant Fire Arrow attacked the camp. It's not nessicarily grammaticaly inncorrect, but something doesn't have to be technically "wrong" to sound awkward. For example, the following is technically correct: "A fire arrow attack on the survivors killed many of them." But "Many of the survivors were killed by a fire arrow attack." sounds better. I am a screenwriter and altough I don't spend much time worrying about my spelling or grammer (computers fix much of that), I have to pay attention to how things "flow" to prevent them from sounding awkward or clumsy.

I still propose "Archer Attack" because it puts the responsibity of the attack in the Archers hands instead of their weapons. When Sawyer gets shot at we don't call it a "bullet attack". -- Iron Man  Send a message  View contributions  21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus for "Flaming arrow attack" - so I've moved it to that. If you want it changed again, start a new discussion. Thanks, --Nickb123 (Talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Place[]

Shouldn't it be future beach camp? instead of former --Rod 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I've corrected it.--Baker1000 00:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this is minor, but should it be "Future Sight of Beach Camp"? When I read the article I thought it meant beach camp in the future. Iburnedthemuffins 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bernard and Rose[]

I think we should add Bernard and Rose and (Vincent) to the "Aftermath" section, now that we know what eventually became of them after the attack, as revealed in "The Incident". --Celebok 15:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

gungun.jpg[]

Anybody know whats up with these guns? I tried to get rid of them but I couldn't find them in the code for the page...Doughnutguy 19:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Presumed dead?[]

The article says that all the unnamed survivors are presumed dead based on comments made by Ellie, Rose and Bernard. But... How would they know? At most, they can assume. Ellie has no means of being certain, and Rose and Bernard have few grounds even to guess. There may have been any number of survivors who scattered in the jungle, and whose ultimate fate resembled Rose's and Bernard's. It seems to me highly improbable that they were all killed in the attack. Aridd 18:58, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • I think you're right, but to make things easier, since they're likely never going to tell us, we can probably just assume that they're dead. --Crash815 Talk 20:14, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think if they were alive they would have brought them back into the show by now. Also just because they didn't kill them all on the beach doesn't mean they weren't killed in the jungle or at another section of the creek. --LOST-The Cartographer 04:55, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think they'd have been brought back, even if alive. There's no reason to bring them back. Presumably, survivors are doing pretty much what Rose and Bernard did: coping by themselves. My point is simply that we don't know they're all dead -and in fact we have no reason even to assume they are-, so if we want this wiki's articles to be perfectly correct, we should probably say that their fate is unknown, and that they may be dead. Aridd 13:01, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms