Why flash-sideways

I thought of this while I was on the discussion site of the "flash-sideways timline" (which hopefully will soon change) and I thought I put it here, too cause I really feel like it makes sense as in why the producers used that name:

Well, they are sideways as in sideways to the other timeline. Doesn't that work, too? Also, since it's different years doesn't that sort of make the "flash" okay again? People were complaining that those aren't really flashes but if you think of it as flashes in the usual way (going from a certain point of time to another) plus sideways as in switching the timeline doesn't that make sense again? I thought of it like that anyway.

What do you guys think? Does it.. make sense? Sorta?! Jared 20:45, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • Well Jared, I always took the light and to me it sounded like an airplane engine roar when they move to a flash sideways. The light to me was the light that happened in the S5 finale when the bomb was hit and it turned white. --Phryrosebdeco23 21:46, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Will we see anymore flash backs?

I posted this under Dharma "Talk page" too. This has been troubling me. Since now the side plot devise is "Flash Sideways" will they do a "Flash back" about Richard, or Widmore, or particularly what happend to the DI once the bomb went off? I mean I think we will see the end come together but I don't know if we will see a flash back. What do you think? Also, (tiny spoiler from a JKL interview with Michael Emmerson) he says there will be one whole episode where none of the current cast will be in it. I am assuming to explain the whole 1st inhabitants on the island and the explination of Jacob, MiB and that time period. That would mean no DI I suppose. Just a couple of thoughts. What do you all think?--Phryrosebdeco23 21:40, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Why the differences in characters and pre/post Flight 815?

Did anyone else notice that Kate, Claire, and Jack followed through with their pre-crash lives? Kate is still a fugitive and escapes and is still on the run, Clair tries to give her baby to the adopting parents, and Jack loses his dead father and tries to hunt him down. Their lives continue on from what they started out as before they got on the airplane.

But on the other hand, Sawyer, Sayid, and Locke have different lives after exiting flight 815 than what they were before getting on the plane. Sayid started out looking for Nadia in the original timeline: the CIA had sent him on an assignment and rewarded him with information about where Nadia was. Sayid was on flight 815 going to America to look for her. The new "future" for Sayid has Nadia married to his brother and Sayid a buisnessman. Saywer was a con man, now he's a cop (working with Miles), but still looking for the Sawyer that killed his parents. Locke wasn't in a relationship with Hellen, now he is. The original Locke knew no limits, as it were; while the flash-sideways Locke surrenders to his handicap.

Did anyone else notice this? Why did some characters have their "past" changed but others didn't? Why did some continue on where they left off but others followed something different?

Rad1986 19:48, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • Except Claire every single character has a different "past" (actually it's pre-flight life, as 2004 is still the past regarded from orig). Jack has a son before 815 and Kate presumably killed another man not her father and is more prone to violence and crime than in orig. I think that these difference have something to do with Jacob not interfering with their lives. --Orhan94 19:54, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

So in the flash sideways timeline, it's not the same as the "original" timeline? Almost like a parallel universe? I don't want to get into that whole discussion. But just that the flash sideways timeline is separate and different (but with similarities) to the original timeline? Is that what you're saying?

Rad1986 20:22, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Purgatory

Could we rename this 'Purgatory' and all related pages now that we know they were flash-forwards to after death?

  • Pictogram voting support I like the term "flash-after" personally. I also think that all character x pages should be removed and included on the regular pages for the characters as they are all in fact the same people in ultimately the same time line.Slimeham 00:54, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose The producers call them Flash Sideways Metroid101 00:56, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Purgatory. Very simple. President Kang 02:58, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Purgatory, makes it much more simple. --Steffi955 04:02, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose This isn't Purgatory. Purgatory is where people are punished, purged of their sins. If Purgatory exists on the show, it's what Michael's experiencing. The Afterlife the main characters create though exists so they can "remember and let go." --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:07, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose For us to rename the page to 'purgatory' or 'afterlife' would be us putting our own interpretations of the ending into lostpedia, which is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should not contain any personal opinion or bias in any of its articles. Therefore, to name this page 'purgatory' or 'afterlife' or anything of the sort is to abandon NPOV, or neutral point of view. Therefore, we should keep the page titled Flash Sideways as that is the name used by the executive producers of the show to refer to this phenomenon. Doughnutguy 04:12, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose 1) Flash sideways is sufficient and memorable; 2) Purgatory is a construct related to specific religions, where the FS seems as likely to be the Tibetan bardo as it does a Western purgatory, and there's no official word from the canonical sources on which if either; 3) the Catholic Purgatory is where the faithful go to be purged of sin before they are allowed into Heaven - here they were not purging but just experiencing life - so in this way the Island was more of a Purgatory whether or not it was a real-life experience; 4) Flash sideways is accurate in that it takes place out of time and therefore can be considered to be 'beside' any or all time. Erielhonan 04:24, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting oppose The sideways was never officially called the afterlife on the show, which is the canon. As awkward as the title is, I think that it remains the best that we can do. There will always be debate about whether or not the FST actually was the afterlife, but I think it's important for Lostpedia to remain impartial and not jump to conclusions.  WanderingMathematician  talk  contribs  email  02:39, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment It was never called "flash sideways" on the show either. That came from the writers/producers. I know that the writers have said that the flash-sideways reality was "purgatorial", but have they actually called it "Purgatory"? —Josiah Rowe 15:18, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support There are some great pro points here. I think purgatory is an excellent name. A place between life and the true afterlife, where people remember and review their life and "let go" of it, or are purged of all the suffering they went through in that life, so they can freely move on to the next life. It makes perfect sense. Plus the name "Afterlife" might better suit the place they move on to after the church. Barjon 12:06, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Afterlife

Pictogram voting support See above. --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:06, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose for same reasons listed above, also because they technically didn't enter an afterlife until Christian opened the doors and let the light in. Here they were experiencing a sort of life. Erielhonan 04:25, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support, if it's going to be renamed. It was an afterlife, because the characters entered it after their deaths. We don't know exactly what the light was, whether it was another stage of afterlife or movement on to reincarnation or nirvana (which technically isn't an afterlife, as it's not a state of being). —Josiah Rowe 15:26, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support It should be rename to afterlife, since flash sideways is not accurate expression. --Sipio 12:14, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting supportThey died. It is death. It is not time travel, forward, backward or sideways. I know some people are having trouble philosophically with the idea of an after life. It smacks too much of religion so they try to render it into scientific terms, but it is death; that's it. Trying to rationalize it away is a mistake. Going into the light is frequently a cultural/religious touch stone for going to heaven (or hell) or somewhere beyon our mortal coil in someother plane of existance. I don't think the Producers were aiming for any interpretations past that. They had the Castaways moving on in that ecumenical church for good reason-and the obvious one with those six religious symbols in the stain glass in the scene with Jack and his dad.

    In that same vain the time flashes Desmond Hume was having before was not visions of an after life in "The Constant" but his mind going back and forward in time, even legit parallel Universes. That was time travel, time travel in time periods of living people, not the afterlife so that part of the section should be removed IMHO. Hunter2005 20:48, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting supportRename to Afterlife (If you want to get technical might as well call them falshforwards ;P) Would this be a site-wide change, as in the words flash-sideways won't be used on the site?--Rod|talk 03:31, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support - Yes, this should be renamed "Afterlife". This doesn't mean we should stop using the term "flash-sideways" as the narrative device used to tell the afterlife story. We should also merge all X character pages into the main articles under the "afterlife" heading. Is there a collective debate on that proposal anywhere?--Baker1000 23:00, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support The name "flash-sideways" was a red herring from the producers. This was their afterlife.--Gonzalo84 02:24, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Surely this is a consensus? We need to go ahead and do this. A lot of these changes like merging the flashsideways characters with their main articles and renaming flashsideways to afterlife need to be done asap or it is simply not going to be done. InflatableBombshelter 04:01, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

No one is calling it AFTERLIFE! We do not create the naming of the shows structures. We simply reflect it. Accept it. Officially it is called Flash sideways, whether we like it or not. If they change the naming, or we have evidence that the producers of the show, and ABC call it otherwise, then we change it then. Until then we do not create or recreate it to suit what you believe. You might want to rename Ben's article to "Peter Peterson" and have 7 people all agree on it, doesn't mean it is going to happen. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  12:00, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revoke my previous agree, I was too hasty. Plkrtn makes an excellent point. We're reflecting what happens on the show and the opinion of the shows producers. What they say goes at the end of the day. We aren't in the business of naming something because we think it sounds better. The flash-sideways might very well be a form of afterlife, but that is not the name that the producers have given that particular "timeline". I think afterlife sounds better, but we're not here to write the show, we're here to document it.--Baker1000 19:03, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting neutral I think we could rename it the Afterlife because, well, that's what it is. It's a world they created to live in After they died. It has also been confirmed as such by Christian Shepherd. Even though the afterlife has been referred to as a flash-sideways, the producers would've given the game away if they had called it anything else before the season finale, and after all, it's not really a flash sideways, it's more of a flash to their new life after they died - the afterlife. However, upon reading some of the comments on this page, I now think that Purgatory is an even more accurate name. Barjon 12:06, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Rename result

No rename : Firstly, there is no consensus site-wide on this. Secondly, until the show's creators tell us otherwise, the name flash sideways was used, is used, and will be used in the future. If they refer to it differently in future content then a rename would need to be discussed again. We don't create show parlance, we reflect it. The official website uses Flash sideways still, even in its recap of "The End" so there is no need for Lostpedia to try and rewrite the show creators and owners desires over naming. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  02:16, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

If we must keep titling the article "Flash sideways," fine. I thought we had consensus, but maybe we didn't, and articles deserve official names. What I can't get behind though is calling sections on character pages "Flash sideways timeline." Quite apart from all the things wrong with the name (it's not sideways! it's not a timeline!), we don't title character sections after narrative techniques. No character has a section called "Flashbacks." We call it "Before the crash" or "Before the island." No character has a section called "flash forwards." We call it "after the island." (Some characters split 2007 with "flash forwards" and "season 6." Similarly we could split afterlife with "flash sideways" and "physical return".) Similarly, we should describe a section with its position if the character's history. It's their afterlife. Not heaven or purgatory or limbo - it's what they did after they were alive. Post-death would also work, but we use that term to refer to post-death references, including their funeral. --- Balk Of Fametalk 03:11, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with removing the word "timeline" and just using "flash sideways". However like I said, until we get a name from the shows creators, writers, producers we have to stick with what they have given us which is "flash sideways" or "flash sideways timeline" no matter how unsuitable it is in hindsight. I'm hoping for more clarification in the future from somewhere (The official encyclopedia, Gregg Nations, future interviews with the show creatives, a book of the scripts..) , so we can settle it, but as fandom at large and the official sources still use "flash sideways" we should stick to that until a suitable replacement is found. Its important Lostpedia reflects the terminology thats officially and/or fan used and doesn't create its own. The bone of contention really is that whilst it is "after life" (of sorts, corporeally perhaps) as such, it isn't the "afterlife". Its more purgatorial than "afterlife", and they're spiritually still alive in some respects....
Yes, they aren't technically "flashing sideways" either I know, and its not suitable anymore REALLY, but its what we've got, and what the fans know it as. Sucks I know, but hey, theres plenty they didn't give us, not just this! :D -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  03:36, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
What about, in character histories, just "After life". That's merely descriptive, right? And we could replace "post-death" with something, maybe "legacy"...--- Balk Of Fametalk 04:26, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
It is descriptive, but its once again about what names are officially used, and what names are used in fandom. The use of flash sideways is consistent with the fan base. All we need is someone from TPTB to speak out and give us something we can use, as a fan base at large, not just on LP. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  04:32, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean article titles. I mean history headings. They're all descriptive. "Before the island." "After the island." Not "Flashbacks", "Flashforwards".--- Balk Of Fametalk 04:34, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
BalkOfFame is making a great deal of sense here. I'll risk a redundancy of his sentiments-- referring to the Sideways events as an "Afterlife" is no more a renaming (or defamation of the writers' intents) than referring to flashback/forward events as "Before/After the island/Year/Etc." Use of "Afterlife" simply clarifies to the reader that these events are... after their lives (as, of course, confirmed by the Christian/Jack dialogue). Now, I'm not at all against use the term Flash Sideways, I just don't think we should be so hesitant of the "afterlife" word, whenever appropriate. Certain uses of "Afterlife" can better enforce the idea that he Sideways events do have lasting effects on our characters. In other words, sometimes the term "Sideways" can sound too suggestive of a parallel timeline/reality of sorts. Even if we understand what it means, not all readers will. --[:[User:Jacknicholson|Jacknicholson]:] 10:36, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


Why both this and Flash-sideways timeline? We'll surely rename the latter soon to remove the word "timeline." --- Balk Of Fametalk 08:55, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Never mind. I see now that it's that page that we must delete. --- Balk Of Fametalk 08:58, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Actually I agree with deleting. This page is full of unconfirmed theories (like the different passage of time), and without confirmation we can't document these things in an encyclopedia. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 18:33, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Special circumstances

I'm not sure what to do with the following content. It was under the "Nature" section, but it doesn't state the sideways flashes' nature. Perhaps these should go on the individual characters' pages? The tone is also too speculative for any article's main page. --- Balk Of Fametalk 09:46, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Some characters had more complex and nuanced reasons for life wishes to be fulfilled, redemption to be obtained and consequently less obvious more elaborate ways to obtain them:

  • Claire acted as she did before the crash. Perhaps because planning to put your child up for adoption isn't inherently bad, and indeed it is often the good, unselfish thing putting your child needs and future before your own. This seems to be the case with Claire. She didn't see how she could properly care for the baby given her circumstances but she wanted to keep the child, that was her wish. With the intervention of Kate helping her, and finding her extended family including Jack Shephard (her half brother) and David Shephard (her nephew), she was able to see how she could keep and properly care for the child, resolving that issue for her. She got the help she lacked in life before the crash.
  • Charlie appears to have regressed to his life while a rock star. However, his band was more successful that it was originally. Drive Shaft was a one hit wonder in life. In the flashsidways "timeline", Drive Shaft was an established band with multiple hits. One wish fulfilled. However, Charlie followed the path of a number of successful band members and became a drug addict anyway, possibly, paradoxically, because his band was a success. In another irony Charlie, because of his at least partial memories of the island including most importanty the knowledge that he lost the woman he loved somehow, continued and indeed became even more self destructive in his behavior, seemingly without making decisions to fulfill wishes in life or redeem questionable behavior in that life. After being asked earlier, he continued to refuse Desmond's plea to perform at a concert. Desmond enlisted an awakened Hurley to forcibly bring him to the concert by tranquilizing him. Charlie seemed to be high at the time. At the concert he connected with Claire, awakening his memories to the full. In yet another irony, while the others including Ben Linus had achieved their wishes and redemption on their own, other people had to use force to help Charlie see his way. His life wish was probably that. That there would be people who cared for him, real friends that would help him whether he wanted the help or not, something he didn't have before the crash.
  • Libby put herself back into the mental institution after seeing Hurley on the television. This was probably because she was hoping to see him there because in past life they were both there at the same time. She also searched him out, likely because she was not totally honest with him in her past life and wanted to make up for it by being straight forward with him. She may have lived a peaceful life before all this happened.
  • How are we so sure that redemption is a very part of the nature of the timeline? --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 03:56, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • We have no evidence that characters must redeem themselves in the afterlife. We know though that character do create situations in which they can redeem themselves. Similarly, we don't know if the Island creates non-Smokey apparitions, or if they're a separate phenomenon, like Walt's powers. But they occur on the island, distinctly from how they do off, so we mention them in a description of the island's nature. --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:28, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
Right, so we can mention that redemption happened, but not exactly because of the FST. We've got no proof of that. Christian only said, "This is a place you made to find yourselves again," but how that was managed can be left opened to interpretation. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 15:20, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
Yes. In fact, I'd phrase it as the article now says - characters create situations that let them come to terms with or correct past mistakes. We have no evidence that this really redeems them on a spiritual level. By the way, if it wasn't clear, I didn't write the above paragraphs. I removed them from the article. --- Balk Of Fametalk 15:48, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to clear up the explanation

I've attempted to clear up the explanation and used a quote from the finale in order to try and resolve what's being explained. If anyone would like a stab at making it even clearer, then go for it. My brain is baked! :D -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  04:04, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff, but I moved some of it into the body. --- Balk Of Fametalk 05:57, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Only thing I would say is that, in my opinion, the punctuation of the following line is incorrect: "Well, there is no now. Here." It should read "Well, there is no 'now' here." Though I could be wrong. There definitely shouldn't be a full-stop (or 'period' as Americans say) between "now" and "here". --BigKahunaBurger 14:34, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
The way it is delivered is... "There is no now [pause] here." So i'd say a full stop/period is the right marker. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  11:12, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
But punctuation marks more than tone, right? E.g. various small pauses don't merit commas. Two sentences implies independent statements. Christian doesn't say "There is no now" and "here".--- Balk Of Fametalk 12:41, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
BalkOfFame is right. "There is no now [pause] here" = "There is no now, here." The word "Here" on its own makes no sense. --BigKahunaBurger 16:04, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
This is a really well written explanation. However, Christian Shepard's explanation is the canonical explanation and should really be allowed to mainly speak for itself. The rest of the article is just one (apparently commonly-held) interpretation of the FST. When I saw the episode I thought the "here" and "the place" referred to the church, not the entire FST, and therefore I had a somewhat different understanding of the nature of the FST based on Christian's explanation and there is just as much evidence to support another view of the FST's nature. All of that to say - let's be careful about not reading too far and misrepresenting (well reasoned) interpretation for actual canon. Nigelhenry 07:50, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

This page makes no sense

So, everybody imagined themselves in this new realty, but with wishes of their own that came true (Wish-fulfillment)? Guys, this makes no sense. I'm sure:

1) Jack wouldn't like to live in a reality where his son doesn't speak with him (In that case, he would imagine himself just being fine with him since the beginning).
2) Kate wouldn't like to live in a reality where she's a fugitive (In that case, she would image himself being innocent since the beginning).
3) John wouldn't imagine himself living in a reality where he's a paraplegic (In that case, he would be healthy from the beginning).
4) Rose wouldn't imagine herself living in a reality where she's having cancer (In that case, she would imagine herself healthy).

Guys, I can go own. Obviously Wish-fulfillment doesn't take part of the reality. You're stretching Christian's words too far. "This is a place that you made so you can find yourselves again" I understand, but he never said that about Wish-fulfillment. In fact, I never thought of that until I saw this page.

What I imagined about this reality is that, when they all died, they all started their lives again, but in this new timeline, in which Jughead succeeds. Of course, that's my personal theory, but seems to match up with what we saw all of season six (echoing Faraday's words, "[he] already blew [Jughead]". Also, it matches to why Rose has cancer and etc, she didn't control those aspects.

I suggest a complete rewrite or deletion of this page. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 03:43, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

I edited out the word "idealized," and listed how their lives weren't idealized. Nonetheless, Characters did subconsciously create their own lives, and these lives were better than their own ones in several ways, often superficial ones. This prompted much speculation that the flashes were fantasies or a world MIB gave the characters. As for the Jughead reset... the show strongly suggested this from the beginning. The article lists this under discredited theories because the finale revealed what really caused it. --- Balk Of Fametalk 05:56, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
I know that the finale established that they "all created this place". But "LA X" established that Jughead created this timeline. Why can't they be both? --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 14:42, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
"LA X, Part 1" definitely didn't establish that Jughead created the timeline. It suggested Jughead created an alternate reality, and numerous other red herrings supported this idea till the finale revealed the truth. Once we know the sideways flashes are a metaphysical, transitory, spiritual realm for souls, there's no reason to think Jughead made it. A successful reset would prevent Flight 815 from crashing in the real world. It wouldn't at all affect the afterlife. --- Balk Of Fametalk 16:45, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
what about "the characters created a timeline where jughead worked." covers everything. Semidelicious 15:30, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
We don't know that Jughead caused anything or if it even exploded. Anything TPTB might have said about Jughead before thre finale can be put down as misdirection.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:46, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

The Wish fulfillment and redemption section needs to go in a theories page. my theory is that the passengers lives reflect how the other characters saw them. For example, Kate is innocent but a fugitive. Which is how Jack saw Kate: he knew that she was a fugitive but assumed there was some kind of mistake. Hurley wins the Lottery and is an all around nice guy. In the real world, Hurley thought he was "cursed," but no one else did and they thought he was lucky. Sawyer & Miles were the law in the DHARMA Initiative. Viewed with a sense of authority, in the flash sideways he's a cop. Penny viewed Desmond as someone her father should be impressed with and so he is.

What makes those theories more valid than mine? All these theories are presented as facts and their not. Why would you need to be redeemed before entering the Flash Sideways if you're in the Flash Sideways to be redeemed. Nothing, the only thing definite is what Christian said. The article should present the facts and then the reader should come up with their own conclusion and not be told what one editor's interpretation is. Semidelicious 20:12, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Anybody can conclude what he wants. This page is full of unconfirmed theories. Until TPTB confirm them, they're just theories. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 20:21, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, good call on removing that. --- Balk Of Fametalk 20:25, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to clean up the theory page and place them in there. The ideas are definitely possible Semidelicious 22:22, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
THANK YOU! Now we're talking. About the passage of time, I wrote that maybe the inconsistencies were a continuity error and not deliberated. TPTB have said nothing about this (in fact, nothing about anything...) --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 04:07, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

"They canceled the concert when Charlie backed out"

No they didn't. Desmond told Eloise Charlie couldn't play. She didn't care. They continued preparing the concert as before. --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:10, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

No, they continued to prepare everything (dinner, etc.), but I assume that night there was no concert. The concert was played a few days later ("The End"). --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 14:31, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
So Eloise didn't react at all on hearing Charlie couldn't play, but they canceled the concert anyway? THey continues setting up the stage for a concert that wouldn't happen that night? The charity event after weeks in the making became two events? They hosted a random dinner no longer centered around an event? They kept the dinner as originally planned, and then also served dinner in "The End"? I'll believe the impossible but not the improbable. --- Balk Of Fametalk 15:53, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
If you are going to make that assumption I am going to make the assumption that the concert wasn't the night of Sept 22nd. At no point did eloise, des, or widmore, or charlie say the concert was tonight at any point during Happily Ever After. They were setting up for the concert to take place in a week. Silly assumption ? Yes - but that's how assumptions work. LEHLegacy 19:43, June 9, 2010 (UTC)LEHLegacy
They laid the silverware a week in advance? --- Balk Of Fametalk 19:58, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so then what's your argument then ? We know all events from HEA take place on Sept 22. Des goes straight to Widmore's from the LAX, goes through the stuff with Charlie, and arrives at the museum just around dusk. The event obviously doesn't take place that evening. The other argument then you can make is there's a week's gap of time between Des's hospital visit on Sept 22 to when he goes to the museum, however then that would not sink up with all the other events that we've seen in ELH, TLR, and so on. If you are going to reply with time doesn't move normally in the FST, save it cuz we've already had this discussion in detail on the FST timeline page.LEHLegacy 13:54, June 10, 2010 (UTC)LEHLegacy
Right, we discussed this already. We realized time runs different for different characters. --- Balk Of Fametalk 14:27, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA we absolutely did not realize that. Not sure who we is. If anything, I realized S6 has a bunch of flippin' continuity errors in regards to timlines. LEHLegacy 17:31, June 10, 2010 (UTC)LEHLegacy
Right, that was not the final decision. I think it's more probable that there were some continuity mistakes that time moves separately. But there's no mistake here - the concert was canceled, but the dinner was still on plans, so they continued to lay the silverware. A few days later Hurley got Charlie and THERE- you can have your concert. If you think that the same day of LA X was the night of the concert, besides all the continuity problems that it would make, it would have been then weird for Eloise to have been waiting for Charlie, since Desmond already told her that Charlie wasn't going to make it that day. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 05:15, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly - canceling the concert on the night of Set 22nd is the only logical solution that prevents a LOST universe-wide continuity error. If the concert was supposed to be on the night of Sept 22nd why wasn't Miles getting ready for it instead of doing the sting operation with Sawyer ? As far as the whole characters passages of time move differently in the FST, I had another thought that just brings to light the lunacy of that position. Say if Person A is a character in the FST in which time moves the same way it does in the normal world (24 hours a day, 7 days a week). Say if Person B is someone who's timeline doesn't pass normally. What happens if they want to arrange a dinner and a movie date ? How's that convo work ? Person A says "I'll pick you up tomorrow at 7 PM". Now, is person B completely lost by this exchange ? Do they think they really mean in 3 standard years time ? This sounds like a stupid example but this is essentially what you are advocating. Practically ALL the characters use some sort of passage of time phrases in the FST. When Desmond told Sawyer he ran someone over at a high school a few days ago, did Sawyer understand that to mean 14 years ago b/c he doesn't see time in it's normal sense that say maybe Desmond does ? See where I am going with this? In this light, I think it's with all due respect a ridiculous solution. If this show was 100% bulletproof in terms of continuity errors, I would entertain this more, but we all know it's not - again, it's probably a major continuity error. LEHLegacy 12:53, June 11, 2010 (UTC)LEHLegacy
You act like a "universe-wide continuity" discrepancy is impossible, or even bad. But when Locke and Sun arrived at the hospital together, we learned such a discrepancy wasn't just possible - it existed. Having established that the afterlife contained this screwy continuity, what evidence suggests they postponed the concert? Des says Driveshaft can't play with Daniel, not they they can't play tonight. Eloise says that doesn't matter. They continue setting up for the evening's event, including the stage. Nothing suggests they split the event - the eventual concert featured a dinner as well.
Characters' timelines adapt however necessary to meet one another. Their memories constantly adapt to suit new circumstances, as when Jack rationalized his scar with an appendix operation. If a character says "let's meet tomorrow", they'll meet. As when I try to explain hallucinations or schizophrenia, I'll compare this to a dream. When dreaming, and someone says "Let's meet," do you say "Hey, wait. We can't meet tomorrow on Wednesday. It's Monday!" Or do you say "Hey, I can't meet you. You moved to Phoenix!" Or do you say "Huh? You died when I was a kid?" No. You accept. And you meet. Occasionally, you may realize the situations' absurdity. Usually, you forget this and go on dreaming. Or you can keep dreaming while aware that you're dreaming - a lucid dream. Or you can wake up. --- Balk Of Fametalk 17:58, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, not sure who you can sit there with a straight face and rationally think what you're advocating isn't more of a stretch then what I've proposed earlier. Not sure if Dr James said it on this page or the timeline page, but it's pretty apparent now that you have taken Christian's words and for lack of a better word, twisted them, into some extremely contrived universe where your timeline makes sense. Here's the thing though, it seems you've gone ahead and made your own sideways world page where you can reference and discuss your theories at your heart's content and so that is totally cool with me. I only came to this discussion page (a page I in fact agree with some others above should be deleted) b/c it seems in the past 2 weeks the conversation has moved from the timeline page, where I have my vested interest in, to here.LEHLegacy 14:16, June 14, 2010 (UTC)LEHLegacy
It's more of a stretch in that smoke monsters are more of a stretch than Kate and Jin hooking up. But guess what - we know smoke monsters exist. So the smoke monster's a more likely explanation than and Kate/Jin orgy for how those Ajira people died. Similarly, we know time runs differently for different characters. We know Locke lived for many days between when Sun entered her hotel room and when she left the next morning. Similarly, it's less of a stretch to explain the concert using Weird Time that to say "they continued setting up for a dinner and then hosted a second dinner along with the concert a week later because they postponed the concert though Eloise saw saw no reason to." We're dealing with an extremely contrived universe here, but it's not mine - it's Lost's.
Also, the flash sideways page contained my theories. Someone removed them. I agreed. Time running oddly is not a theory. --- Balk Of Fametalk 18:04, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Dealing with a contrived universe, or a possible and likely continuity error ? Seems like you can't tell the difference. If LOST ran a tighter ship over the past 2 seasons in regards to it's continuity I would be more appeased to agree with you, but hopefully I don't have to explain to you that they most certainly have not been.LEHLegacy 20:46, June 14, 2010 (UTC)LEHLegacy
So you're saying it isn't a contrived universe? It's a world... which their minds created... after they died. Sounds pretty contrived. As for Lost's supposedly loose ship, can you name a single continuity error nearly this big from anywhere in the entire series? The last instance of screwy time was Michael off-island, and they justified that by introducing pseudo-time dilation. (Judging by how the series has since ignored the concept, it served no purpose but to explain Michael's timeline.) --- Balk Of Fametalk 21:25, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

The different passage of time isn't the final word - the creators haven't said confirmed it. "There's no 'now' here" doesn't mean that "time passes different here". No, it just means that there's no "now" here. But I saw that nights followed days, you could count days, there were dates (September 22 was confirmed as a date - that means TIME DOES EXIST). Also, you're saying that when two people want to meet, they'll meet, regarding how much time passes for each one? Ok, that means that they must KNOW that they must meet for it to happen right? But Sayid found Jin in the freezer and they haven't met in this world (or reality, or whatever). So why did their times mixed? The only logic explanation would be: time flows normally, they met there because it was the same day. And why did Sun arrived one day later and Locke five days later? I would bet it was a continuity mistake, that's all. We have seen some continuity mistakes across the series, and we have accepted they were mistakes. I think we can do the same here. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 03:02, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

The creators haven't confirmed it. Nor did they confirm that Sawyer's voice calms baby Aaron. But we saw it happen. I also believe the creators haven't confirmed that the characters in the church were dead. That's what happens when creators maintain "radio silence" post-finale. --- Balk Of Fametalk 03:37, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
" 'There's no "now" here' doesn't mean that 'time passes different here'." Well what does it mean? It means more than "characters travel here from different times". That's time travel. --- Balk Of Fametalk 03:39, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
You say dates exist in the flash sideways. Actually one date exists - September 22nd. Characters don't mention a single other date - they say "the weekend" and "tonight" and "several days age" but no other dates. And examples of time running normally don't prove time consistently does so. That's like saying earthquakes never occur because they often don't. I offer you earthquakes. Or to give a Lost example, you're saying no healing properties exist on the island because Boone hemorrhaged and Sawyer needed antibiotics. I give you Locke. --- Balk Of Fametalk 03:47, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned people meeting because you asked how they might set up meetings. Separately, some force, call it fate or call it their subconsciousness, pushes the characters to meet. --- Balk Of Fametalk 03:52, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
This x 1000000. I still believe that you are taking Christian's words and twisting them to the 100th degree. You're taking "there is no here now" to ESSENTIALLY say time doesn't exist, when it CLEARLY does and we've given you a dozen examples, the best and most direct being that we were given a date, Sept 22, 2004. And Balk, just because there hasn't been a 'bigger' continuity error than this dosen't mean it's any more or less important. I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation at all - we all know this show has had flows here with this kind of stuff; there is no dispute. Either way this is going to be the last thing I'm going to say on this matter - all that I could possibly say has been said. But most importantly, as I pointed out above, you've gone ahead and created a page where you can discuss these things you believe at will, which is good for you, just as long as the Timeline:Flash-sideways page is left alone.LEHLegacy 13:02, June 15, 2010 (UTC)LEHLegacy
Time exists. That doesn't mean it runs normally. --- Balk Of Fametalk 03:55, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a bigger continuity error. But can you mention any errors about dates from the series, a single one that the show didn't address or try to justify?--- Balk Of Fametalk 03:58, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
It just hit me that you're calling this a continuity error after first offering an explanation (they canceled and postponed the concert). You realize those positions are mutually exclusive, right? --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:01, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
You're glad I made a new page? No, that's not good enough. Users can't make new articles to sneak in their theories. Either accept the content as part of Lostpedia or reject it. As for the timeline article... we'll eventually edit it into something accurate. --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:04, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
This is hilarious. If I didn't know any better I would say you do this yourself to the T. Have your fun here, but if you make a major amendment the time line article without consensual approval I will just undo your changes. LEHLegacy 13:52, June 30, 2010 (UTC)LEHLegacy
This x 1000000000000. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 02:52, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
This times -1. --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:07, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of this. One user can't decide by himself the destiny of Lostpedia. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 04:14, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Nor can two. The question is: who is right? The lesser question is: what do more people say? --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:26, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Moving to flash sideways world

Before I recently edited this page, its format matched the flashback and flash forward pages in describing the narrative technique. I see now that the narrative technique deserved a page for itself, and I shouldn't have changed it. The afterlife does deserve its own page though. I'm moving my content to the page flash sideways world, which I hope to rename to something better, possibly "afterlife". --- Balk Of Fametalk 19:14, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I feel afterlife is an individual interpretation of the creators term, Flash Sideways. We should keep the creators terminology of Flash Sideways. We can offer various interpretations in the description of Flash Sideways, however, the title used should be the creators terminology.--Just Sayin' 23:37, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be deleted all together ? LEHLegacy 13:07, August 23, 2010 (UTC)LEHLegacy

We have pages for flashbacks and flash forwards. We need this page too. --- Balk Of Fametalk 14:57, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
You're right but I still think we are 1, maybe even 2, pages too heavy on the whole flash sideways stuff. It's messy to say the least. LEHLegacyLEHLegacy


Why "flash sideways" and not "flash-sideways" (or "flashsideways")? (I am French, so my question may be stupid…)  Nico  23:46, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.