This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Follow the Leader 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


Follow the Leader is currently occupying the 15th and 16th spots on the navbar. The 17th spot needs to be removed because there are only two episodes left (unless the proposal to split finales is enacted). ShadowUltra 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the 15/16 problem. We'll wait until the split issue is resolved to act either way on the finale episodes. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  03:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. ShadowUltra 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The press release is already out for the finale, and it is a part 1 & 2. I won't say the name though --LOST-The Cartographer 04:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Kris White in the latest video podcast calls "Follow the Leader" the "penultimate episode of the season" and correct me if I'm wrong, but penultimate means second to last. It suggests that the finale should be counted as one episode, but go down as hours 102 and 103.--Baker1000 00:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It seemed to me he meant the episode of the week before the season finale. I believe the press release when it says part 1 & part 2. --LOST-The Cartographer 01:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Final Episode

I'm assuming that everyone knows the name of the last episode of season five. It seems funny that we have to wait for "follow the leader" to air to state such a simple fact. Does anyone else agree with me here?Seb456zig 11:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, policy. Don't want anyone getting spoiled. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  12:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, policy is policy. And not everyone knows the name of the episode. I will say though that the title becomes a lot less spoilerish after this latest episode. I don't think anyone can say we should hold it from the site until after it airs (like they were when it first came out) because it'll spoil you.--Baker1000 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard centric ?

  • Another flashless episode ... don't you just love those ? [/sarcasm]. Anyway, while watching, I've noticed most (if not all) of the 77/07 transitions were close ups on Richard, and that, most of the time (again, if not all, can't double-check right now), he was in the following scene. Kind of like flashbacks transitions actually. Does this qualify the episode as Richard-centric ? Personally, I'd say yes, but what are your thoughts on the subject ? --LeoChris 01:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I really don't know, I noticed that too, but the plot didn't revolve around Richard at all. Well, Richard to this episode was also kind of like Desmond to Jughead...
  • I'm voting for Richard
  • Definitely a Richard episode. I felt it was about his role as advisor; him just following other people wherever they told him to go, rather than being listened to. "Follow the Leader" IS the name of the episode. KingK.Rool 02:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I would say it does not have centricity. InflatableBombshelter 02:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Definitely a Richard-centric episode. The guy was in almost every scene, even if the story didn't revolve purely around him. I can't think of anyone else that would even be close. You could even consider it flashing backwards, or forwards, depending upon your perspective, though Richard's timeline.--Jrtoastyman 03:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard-centric. Both the A- and B-stories (the C-story being Sawyer & Juliet) took place from his POV. Add in the close-up on him introducing the 2008 story and it's definitely a Richard ep. --Joshspazjosh 03:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • 100% Richard-centric, I believe his reluctance expressed in visiting Jacob sets up an arc that could be explained in the last episode and next season, when I presume he'll FINALLY be a regular. 01lander 03:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, gang. This episode isn't Richard-centric. It's Jack/Locke centric. Witness the title. Who are the leaders? What did Damon and Carlton say in the last podcast?  Robert K S   tell me  04:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The episode's contribution to the big season story arc was to position Jack and Locke in their respective positions for the finale. This was done through Richard's POV in both time frames. Richard is, as Ben said, an "advisor" to both of the leaders, and we begin to see what role he plays on the Island. Completely Richard-centric. --Halcohol 05:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Beyond centricity, what was the point of Locke taking Ricard & Ben to the Beechraft? As it was occuring, I thought it was cool, but on reflection, I don't see the benefit of it, other than Locke just showing off. I can't figure out either the writer's nor Locke's intent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mairoco (talkcontribs) 2009-05-07T11:48:18.
    • I don't think "centricity" is the point of any scene for the writers. Here, the salient point, as raised for the audience by Ben, was that Locke is somehow being given information that would seem impossible for one to know. How could Ben know the exact moment he would be blipping into this time period, and blipping out again?  Robert K S   tell me  16:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we are seeing another change to what Lostpedia calls the "centric" character. Just like when the show went from flashbacks to flashforwards, then from flashforwards to on-island/off-island. Remember, we (Lostpedia) came up with the term "centric" (please, correct me if I'm wrong there). There has always been one up to this point in the show. That idea is possibly changing. It may be harder from now on to make the determination. If we continue to add the centric character, we may have to start looking at it differently than we have up to this point. While we've always learned something major about the centric character, that may not always be the case anymore.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  17:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I vote too for a Richard centricity, but it's kind of weird, because it was flashes like at the beginning of the season but it was Richard's flashbacks that was making the transition 2007-1977. --The mE 19:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Definitely Richard centric episode - it was a flash forward / flash back for him between the two time periods. His first centric :) --Integrated (User / Talk) 22:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but neither this episode nor "This Place Is Death" is a "character-CENTRIC" episode. A "centric" episode (by definition) means that all story-lines REVOLVE around a specific character. This, unfortunately, is not the case with either of these episodes. Arguments can be made for "This Place Is Death" but DEFINITELY not "Follow the Leader." Most arguments for "Leader" being considered a "centric" seem to be the fact that Richard took part in two of the four story lines (since he was alive in both times). But of those two story-lines, one revolves around John Locke, and the other revolves around no one it particular but mainly focuses on Jack. Bottom line: There is no "centric" character whom the entire episode revolves around! (For examples of true "centrics," see seasons 1-3)--Mrmagic522 23:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Another good point that was brought to my attention: Since the title of the episode is a clear reference to John Locke (the new leader/Ben says, "I'm following you now") The only question here should be "Is this a Locke-centric episode?" (It clearly isn't) But I am baffled to see that the argument is for Richard, of all people.--Mrmagic522 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the title of the episode actually does point to it being a Richard-centric episode. Perhaps it is not the "leader" part of the title we should look at...but who is the person (up until this point at least) who is always the one to "follow the leader". I agree trying to call this episode truly a character-centric episode at all is a bit of a stretch, but if it is anyone at all, I agree that it is Richard.--Perplexity 06:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Folks, where's the rule that says episode titles have a direct correlation to the centric character? Marc604 07:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Nothing, it is just suggestive
  • Besides the unconfirmed rumours, I never thought this was a Richard episode, especially after watching it. Richard didn't play much of a role in the episode, he was just a witness to most of the storylines. It is like saying an episode was Vincent-centric if he was present in most scenes and there were no flashbacks/forwards. --Robbie 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Centric tally

Who do you think the episode was centric to, if anyone? I think it should either be Locke, or None, and I'm leaning toward none. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Richard, see my reasoning above. --LeoChris 02:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • John Locke Centric! - john is obviously the leader, which the title refers to. --Frw22 02:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - but Richard is following the leader, and not Locke. -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 02:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "'Comment'" - Also, the title refers to a theme of leadership in the episode; not just Locke, but Jack, Radzinski...etc. -- Joe Harmon 7:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard. Reasoning above. KingK.Rool 02:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard It's not Locke guys, if anything it would be Jack. Richard was present in both timelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Endoplasmic Reticulum (talkcontribs) .
  • None - what about none? We didn't really learn anything about Richard here.Luminifer 02:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None or Various - As much as I love Richard, he was not the focus of the episode just because he was in it a lot. ShadowUltra 02:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I am tentatively changing my vote to Richard-centric - Upon rewatching parts of the episode, many of the jumps between 1977 and 2007/2008 happen from Richard's perspective; i.e. the camera zooms on his face, then says "30 years earlier/later" while playing the whooosh noise, and shows Richard's face again. This has traditionally been how flashbacks occur on Lost, and was the rationale behind calling "This Place Is Death" Jin/Sun centric (because the jumps between time periods always zoomed in on Jin or Sun). ShadowUltra 02:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to point out the expository conversation about Richard between Ben and Sun that sets up the rest of the episode. ShadowUltra 03:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - I wasn't really wanting to say that it was Richard centric, but the more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to lean toward this.--HaloOfTheSun 02:28, 7 May 200--
  • Richard - Its Richard because the episode is told from his perspective i.e. telling locke he is going to die. Hanso815 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard flashes between him in past and present also Richard has never been the leader he has always been "following the leader" so it would seem the title is a refrence to what his job is. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None or Various - as someone who only started watching the show recently, and who followed along on Lostpedia as I watched, I would be pretty excited to see a "Richard-centric" episode coming up... only to be extremely disappointed on finishing the episode and knowing virtually nothing new about him. DocAlpertz 02:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None most definitely, I honestly don't see the case for it being an Alpert episode, much less a Locke or Jack episode. InflatableBombshelter 02:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard he was the focuses of the majority of the flashes. --THE REAL DEAL998 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None although Richard was in both times I think the major story lines were Jack's plan for the H-bomb and Locke solidifying his position as the Leader. Nothing was revealed about Richard to make this Richard-centric.
  • I'm changing my vote to None. Centricity isn't about camera time, but character focus. The episode focused on Richard about as much as it did on any other character. So None. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
  • Richard- Definitely. He has always been portrayed as someone who had a connection with the island, an upper hand, if you will. We now find out that although he is the "advisor", no one heeds his advice and he is always "following the leader".Dhomison 03:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)DHomison
  • Richard. See reasoning above.--Jrtoastyman 03:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - reasons above. This was a Richard-centric for sure. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 03:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None because the press release didnt or barely mentioned or involved him and above reasons Four4elements 03:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - For sure. Even the title, "Follow the Leader", seems directed at Richard.
  • There is hardly room for debate. The whole point of calling an episode "centric" to a certain character means that one character is the MC of the narrative--a story about that person is told alongside the main plot. Nobody fits the bill. If this was Richard-centric, where in the hell was the insight into his past? What have we learned about him as a person? Nothing, except that he put a ship in a bottle, and he still never ages. I vote for none.Jacobking 03:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - He came across as the character we were watching through kind of, whether he was the most dynamic, or had the most action.01lander 03:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - Considering the degree of depth that was added to Richards character - and the amount of screen time he had (cmon it has to have been his most ever) I think this was meant to be Richard centric, its just not what everyone expected from a richard centered episode (MaxMoney37 04:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC))
Changing to Richard for now...please continue discussion. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard centric, like This Place is Death being Sun/Jin centric, Richard had alot of character developement and it was focused on him. Buffyfan123 04:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Locke and Jack. The title is "Follow the Leader". Who are the leaders?  Robert K S   tell me  04:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None/Various - we learned nothing about Richard or his past. Yes, he's a prevalent character, but so are many of the characters. There are multiple scenes without Richard, like the Juliet/Sawyer stuff. Alexisfan07 7 May 2009
  • None We should really stop trying to pigeon-hole every episode into centric this and centric that. Kajillion 05:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None Ditto Kajillion. There have been episodes previously that have no centricity. Spiral77 05:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard To be fair, Richard played a more important role in this ep than Desmond did in "Jughead." Marc604 05:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard Almost every scene (all except those at the Barracks) had to do with Richard. Many of them could even be considered flashbacks/flashforwards. --Crash815 Talk 05:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None - Of course there was a lot of Richard: HE EXISTS IN BOTH TIMES! But NONE of the the plots are Richard-CENTRIC! Even the story-lines he is in, I don't believe revolve around him. I think that the 2007 story-arc definitely revolves around Locke (but that doesn't make the episode as a WHOLE, Locke-centric). There are SEVERAL story-lines in this episode and some don't even INVOLVE Richard (Sawyer and Juliet/Miles and Chang). The term "centric" does not fit this episode. It focuses on several different characters during multiple story-arcs.--Mrmagic522 05:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Various on the Template, Sawyer, Jack, Locke, and Richard in the info-box. Reason being for Richard: stated above by those umpteen folks above me. Reason being for Sawyer, Jack, and Locke: They are the leaders being followed (allusions to the title: Miles, Hurly, and Jin following Sawyer's orders from "The Variable;" Richard (1977), Eloise, and Sayid following Jack; Richard (2008), Ben, et al folowing Locke) --  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   05:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - Same reason stated above, that flashes between 1977 and 2007 focus on him. The only counter-argument against Richard (not counting suggestions for other characters) seems to be that we didn't learn anything new about him, but that's not a necessary criteria for centricity. --Celebok 05:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • This isn't always the case, we didn't learn anything about Sun or Jin in "This PLace is Death". I would go as far to say that we don't really find out much about characters anymore, due to the rushed pace of the show. 01lander 06:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Come on. There's no focus on Richard. Richard doesn't motivate any of the actions in this episode. He just happens to appear in both timelines. Do an analysis of the transcript. I bet you'll find he has fewer lines than Jack, Locke, Sawyer, Kate, Ben, Eloise, and maybe even Radzinsky.  Robert K S   tell me  05:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Adding to my argument, there's no flashbacks. Yes, it's technically been done before with Sun and Jin, but they would NEVER have a character's first centric episode contain no flashbacks. Alexisfan07 7 May 2009
  • None - There is no centric character this week. Locke, Richard, Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Eloise were all prominent. Just because Richard is a constant between 1977 and 2007 doesn't mean he's centric. I will concede however that the title of the episode refers to Locke.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 06:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • CommentI disagree. The title refers to Richard (althought this does not make it Richard-centric). In both timelines, he is following the leader. (Jack & John) --Blueeagleislander 09:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - Certainly more Richard in this episode than Jin in the supposedly Sun & Jin episode. Long lingering shots of Richard all through out the episode, including and especially during the transition between times. Sun asking who he is. Focus on his role in the Others. Plus various sources had reported this was supposed to be a Richard episode. --Jackdavinci 07:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment What... Jin appeared in half of the episode alone without any main characters, and we see the off-island story through Sun's POV so "This Place Is Death" is certainly a Sun and Jin-centric, though that's not the discussion. --Orhan94 09:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Leaders (Richard, Locke, and Jack) - See title of episode. Actually, you could argue for Radzinsky, Horace, Pierre Chang, Sawyer, Eloise, and Widmore, too. Heavyccasey 07:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None As Heavyccasey said above, the episode showed a LOT of leaders (and a lot of followers too) in this episode. Yes, we got more Richard time in this episode than we ever have previously, but that doesn't mean it's Richard-centric. I think it was more focused on who was following whom, and the changes in leadership dynamics (Ben watching while Locke led the Others, Horace watching while Radzinsky took over, Ellie deciding to trust Jack, etc.). --Managerpants 10:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None Though Richard's face appeared a lot during time transfers, he's role in the episode was really minor, if compared to other episodes he appeared in, such as "Jughead" (BTW I'm not saying that "Jughead" is Richard-centric). As the title is "Follow the Leader" and it did revolve around leadership, I'd say, though it's speculative, that the episode centered around Locke (taking leadership over the Others), Eloise (leading the Others in '77), Sawyer (losing his leadership role among DHARMA folks) and Jack (questioning his leadership, Science vs. Faith/Fate vs. Free Will) --Orhan94 09:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None The title, the screen time, the presence in both storylines, and the closeups DO NOT reveal centricity. Centricity is about who the story CENTRES on. In this episode, the plot was not centred on one character. --Blueeagleislander 09:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None - Yes, there was a lot of Richard, but that doesn't maek it a Richard-centric episode. I never saw "The Lie" and "Jughead" as Hurley-centric and Desmond-centric (respectively) either, even though everyone seemed to think so...every single episode doesn't have to have a true "centric character." Kjodon7 11:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None/Various - Same thing for me, but it is for sure not a Richard centric. - TheAma1 11:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - The story of the various "leaders" involved Richard heavily, and nearly every single transition was from Richard to Richard. In fact, I can only think of one that wasn't (Richard to Sawyer). --Golden Monkey 11:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None I don't think it focused on anyone. I also think that Richard was just used for transitions. Brotha305 12:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - I was originally at Locke/Jack, but after some thinking, I changed my mind. If there is a lot of Richard, then it is Richard-centric. Also, the title referes to him. He is the one who follows the leader (Locke in 2007 and Jack in 1977) QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 12:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. Title does not neccessarily correlate with centricity, look at Jughead, This Place is Death, WHH --Blueeagleislander 13:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard, but semi-centric - While the episode clearly is Richard-centric (close-ups and presence in both stroylines), his character was not explored as characters are usually explored during their centric episodes. User:Spoutnik 44
  • Actually ... for the first time ever, I think we can safely say that the centricity was "All." They focused on everyone equally (yes I know Desmond wasn't it it. I still stand by it). --Jeff 13:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard, kinda obvious, at least to me. MauserContact 13:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolutely NOT a Richard-centric. Did we actually learn anything new about Richard? Any flashbacks or flashforwards of him? How old is he? Where he was born? Is he a native of the Island? If not, when was he brought to the Island, by whom and why? Why he doesn't seem to age? None of these questions are answered, and many folks here still insist it's a Richard-centric episode? And the fact that he works as an "adviser" was expounded on by Carlton & Damon in a podcast long time ago. The reason for Richard dominant position is this episode, is that he's the only adult who witnessed the events across a relatively long timeline (1954-2007). Ben is a kid in the 70s, Eloise and Widmore are off the Island. Jack & Kate didn't witness the events in 1954. Richard is the constant of all these events, although none of the events in this episode revolve around him. This episode is either Locke-centric or None. From the recap scenes at the beginning of it, it seems more appropriate to be a Locke-centric, however I'm going to consider it none-centric, because nothing refreshingly new about Locke is revealed either. — Iimitk  T  C  13:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Some centric episodes gave us little to no new info about centric character as well. The Little Prince comes to mind.
    • As was noted earlier, This Place Is Death gave us nothing new about Jin & Sun. QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • But the first centric episode for a character always tells us a lot about that character. The Man Behind the Curtain is the template for what the first Richard-centric episode should be, not This Place is Death. If Richard had already had his version of Man Behind the Curtain, I might be OK with this one being Richard-centric, but since he hasn't, I don't think it should be. DocAlpertz 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard: I agree with all above comments for Richard. But, I think we are seeing another change to what Lostpedia calls the "centric" character. Just like when the show went from flashbacks to flashforwards, then from flashforwards to on-island/off-island. Remember, we (Lostpedia) came up with the term "centric". That idea is possibly changing. It may be harder from now on to make the determination.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  15:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard: For Lostpedia to be consistent, this needs to be considered as a Richard-centric episode. If This Place is Death is classified as a Jin/Sun episode, this has to be classified as a Richard one. He's the only one that you can say had any sorts of flashbacks and the episode title is referring to *him* since he is the one doing the following. For those saying it's a Jack/Locke episode because of the title, I dare say that you can't argue that unless the title was something like "The Leaders". --Ffhc 15:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC
  • None for most of the above reasons. I dispute the fact that the title refers to Richard. It was Ben who said something to the effect of: "John's the leader, I'm here to follow him." Follow the leader could be Richard following John; Ben following John; all the Others following John; Jack following Eloise; Kate NOT following Jack (ironic title); Radzinsky NOT following Horace; etc. My point is that the title of the episode references the fact that many people in this episode were dealing with following someone or changes in leadership. Not a centric episode on any one person. --LOSTinDC 15:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None: Everybody was following a leader, not just Richard. Besides, the story wasn't really about him. This Place Is Death featured no flashbacks, but clearly had Sun and Jin at it's helm. This episode was about Jack's attempt to stop the bomb and Locke's attempt to retake his people. Richard just happened to be involved in both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illyrias Acolyte (talkcontribs) .
  • None. How do I measure centricity? If a character/group stands out as having lots of dialogue exchanged with non-regular characters in a given episode, or otherwise has lots of time where he/she/they are the only person in the scene. This lines up with Kate in "The Little Prince," Jin & Sun in "This Place is Death," and Desmond in "Jughead." This also negates Richard's chances of being the centric character in this episode. Also, it feels very bizarre to have a character's centric-episode debut have no flashbacks or revelation into his origin. If someone had told me this was a Richard-centric episode before I watched it, I'd go in expecting to find out something major, like how he got to the island, or what he was doing before he got involved with the others (if such a time existed). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacobking (talkcontribs) .
  • None - for exactly what LOSTinDC said. -Kaisle 16:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm... if the vote hasn't been determined yet, why does the template say "None" I still go bym

my opinion and say it is Richard centricEndoplasmic Reticulum 17:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • None Richard just happens to be present in both times and involved in both stories, it's not "about" him. LOST-Merick 17:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard: he's the only character prominent in both time periods, and the camera is following him around for the prominent events. "Follow the leader" refers to Richard following Locke around, likely. So I vote for it being labeled a Richard-centric episode. -- LightSpectra 17:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard: To add on to what LightSpectra said, Alpert was following the leader both in the 70's (Jack) and the 00's (Locke). If Alpert is not an acceptable centricity, then I would argue it to be a Jack / Locke centricity. On a side note, I think that if this is agreed to be a Richard-centric episode, then Namaste ought to be a Frank-centric episode ... not necessarily a huge background into the character, but the episode was primarily from their point of view. --michael_is_NOT_in_the_coffin 18:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard see above --Asian_Dawn 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment Just a note, if we change this to none instead of Richard, then there's no argument remaining for why "This Place Is Death" should be considered Jin/Sun-centric. You can't have it both ways, either they're both none or they're Richard- and Jin/Sun-centric.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with this. This episode was Richard-centric in exactly the same sense that "This Place Is Death" was Jin/Sun-centric. In both cases, there were no character-driven flashbacks or flashforwards; in both cases, the centric-determination relies upon inference rather than obvious direction; in both cases, we don't learn anything new about the allegedly centric character(s); in both cases, the "woosh" follows the allegedly centric character(s) around. I can see an argument made for "none" in both cases, or Sun/Jin and Richard for their respective episodes, but in any event there really ought to be some consistency. tuttlemsm
  • None I agree with the comments that we don't have to have a centric character every episode. This episode furthered plot lines that are setting up the season finale, we didn't learn anything through flashbacks (or forwards) about any specific character. Stuv 19:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard- The flashing between 1977 and 2007 could be considered a flashback for Richard, IMO. When most characters have a flashback episode, the flashes are usually a result of that character seeing something in the present that reminds them of the past. Sun showed Richard the picture of Jack, Kate, and Hurley, reminding him of the events which were shown in 1977. That constitutes flashback in my mind -- Steele  talk  contribs  19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - The title of the episode "Follow the Leader" suggests Richard is following the leader in both timelines. Both Jack and Locke take on leadership roles in both timelines and Richard is obliged to follow. If the title is about Richard, not to mention it keeps flashing between scenes in his life, suggests it is his centric. Phobia27 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Richard - I agree completely. This is clearly an episode that centers on Richard.--Shortynj 23:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard or None - Every time the episode flashed between 1977 and 2007 there would be a close up on Richard's face and then it would jump to either 1977 or 2007 and the close up would still be on Richard. "Follow the Leader" suggests Richard following Eloise and Widmore in 1977 and Locke in 2007. In spoiler leaks it also mentioned that this episode would be Richard-centric, however they have been known to be wrong in the past. This leads into my other arguement; there have been a few episodes this season in which there is no centric, such as Because You Left and The Lie, so it's possible that this episode also has no centirc. Also, if you think about the tradition flashbacks on the show, Richard doesn't exactly qualify. We learn that he's been an advisor for a very long time for the various leaders of the Hostiles/Others, but after that we really don't learn anything else about him. Perhaps there'll be a more appropriate centric episode for him next season. I could go either way. Marko14126 21:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • We may not have learned as much as we're used to in a character's first centric, but we DID find out several things. We learned why he was there for Locke in Because You Left, we learned definitively that his role was that of an advisor, never leader, and we got that crucical first 2007/2008 shot of him building a ship in a bottle, a pretty blatant hint at the Black Rock. And his character was the only one to really have a revelation of sorts at the end of the episode; his realization that Locke may not be the leader he'd hoped for. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am. KingK.Rool 21:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Various People that are saying Richard are only saying that because they, like myself, REALLY like the idea of a Richard centric episode. Yes, he was alot more prominent but nothing was revealed about him, both storylines had him following orders, and there were no flash backs or forwards. --Nintendo_Warrior 22:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • About as much was revealed about Richard in Follow the Leader as was Jack in Pilot, Part 1. That's not a criteria for being a centric episode. -- LightSpectra 23:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        • That's a weak analogy. Pilot, Part 1 was the series premiere and Jack's the main character of the show. We learned more about Richard in this episode than we have in any prior episode, the flashbacks pinwheeled around him, the title refers to him (among others, I'll admit), he played a prominent role in both major storylines, and even the opening scene can be considered his flashback, just as the opening scene of This Place is Death is considered Sun's. I'd say that's enough criteria. KingK.Rool 00:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard--Integrated (User / Talk) 22:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - It's pretty obvious! --Ben 04:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard because it was done from his PoV ... as far as you can do anything from someone's point of view on televison. He sees the leaders in the same light we are meant to - bewildment. Both Locke and Jack appear to acting on insane ideas, yet Richard still "follows the leader". There is some divation, such as Sawyer and Juliet's story, but that is necessity as he isn't there; happened all the time in the earlier seasons (like random side stories about Charlie fetching Claire some peanutbutter). He is like Watson in Sherlock Holmes - he views everthing from the side in utter confusion. It also added depth to his character as he is soon to be a very compliant and rather whimpy character (in bizzare good sort of way, in my opinion).--Domerin 13:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "None" or "various." And no, I don' think that means that the Have to make "This Place Is Death" a "none" because of it. It's two different situations. "This Place is Death" very much focused on Jin and Sun and their point of views, Jin in the time jumps and Sun in 2007. In "Follow The Leader," yes Richard was in both time frames but not once did i even remotely think it was Richard-centric. He may have BEEN IN both stories but neither certainly focused on him. That's the difference. --Jeff 01:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus note break

  • A consensus note: there are currently 33 votes for Richard and 23 votes for none/various, proving there is no consensus at all that the episode is noncentric and the infoboxes and articles should be changed accordingly. ShadowUltra 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Could someone change the episode to Richard centric, as per the vote? --Integrated (User / Talk) 10:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Lostpedia is not a democracy, votes are not the deciding factor. As ShadowUltra pointed out, there is currently no consensus for the centricity. --Blueeagleislander 14:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think so. After all it was due to the consensus that This Place is Death was changed from None to Jin/Sun-centric. And I believe ShadowUltra pointed out that there is no consensus that the episode is noncentric, meaning that there is consensus that the episode is Richard-centric. QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 17:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Exactly. There will never be some issue we all agree on. There is currently a much higher amount of people supporting the episode being Richard-centric. I have no idea why the same justifications for "This Place Is Death" being Jin/Sun-centric do not apply to this episode just because people were expecting Richard's first episode to be the greatest hour of television in history. ShadowUltra 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is stupid...somebody write Damon and Carlton a letter or something! Brotha305 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Richard - For various reasons stated above. Congested 21:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - Richard "Follows the Leader"; all reasons as previously stated. User:Bartmooby
  • Everyone just calm down for a moment here. I added this subdiscussion to its own subsection for easier navigation. ShadowUltra 21:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

None - My opinion is that to make it centric the plot not only has to revolve around the character in question but they have to drive the action and the plot, not be in the passenger seat. Was Richard in the episode a lot? Sure. Did he drive the story line? No. In the Variable, Daniel was the focus and driver. In LaFleur, Sawyer was the focus and the driver. I'd even argue that in This Place Is Death, Sun/Jin drove the plot. But in Follow the Leader the people who drove the plot if any, were Locke and Jack. Richard just happened to be there. I would love to see a Richard centric episode someday but that wasn't it. It didn't feel like it was "focused" on him. Let's not confuse focus for screen time. Everyone really take a look back at the episodes we know the centricity for and see how not only is the character on screen for a long time and not only are they involved in the plot but are the driving force of the story line. That's my opinion. Brotha305 23:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • If we're taking a break from the vote I'd like to add something: given that there is currently no concensus, why is the MINORITY (that there is no centricity) still ruling the page? Shouldn't the MAJORITY VOTE (that it is Richard centric) be given the page in the meantime? What I don't understand is, if Lostpedia isn't a democracy, why did we take this big vote, just for the few to say "Well we were outvoted but we're still having it our way". Lostpedia invented centricity, the majority here thinks it is Richard centric, why has the change not been made? This is a big disappointment for me. Also I might add, that I was very happy to watch the episode and finally see a Richard centric, with Richard flashes, but then coming to this site after only to find it full of cynics, is a big letdown. --Integrated (User / Talk) 02:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a big let down because you're filled with false hopes--Pags 07:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
  • Hopefully heres your answer: I too like you was dissapointed that the change was not made to Richard centric so I notified a sysop however I was notified that this decision isnt made by a vote and that the users who voted for none had "better arguments" than the users who voted for richard. Obviously I took this as a slap in the face basically saying my opinion was useless, however i am going to continue to try to get some reasoning applied to the decision making process around here. As i am very confused at how these decisions are made. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  04:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it really that hard to believe that some, if not many, of Lostpedians' opinions are useless and invalid?--Pags 07:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
    • This was not a vote. This was a tally to determine consensus. I would know, I set it up. Your opinion matters, but this is not a democracy. The centricity has been changed per SysOp discussion, but this is subject to change should any major objections arise. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • None. Your opinions don't matter when they suck. In the prehash podcast, Darlton even said that Follow the Leader had to do with Locke, Sawyer, and Jack. You guys are such idiots. You're all craving a Richard-centric episode so badly and it got hyped up so badly that you want it to say "Richard centric" even when it clearly wasn't Richard centric just so you can feel content in your own delusions. I think it will be pretty obvious when we get a Richard centric episode and I'm pretty sure Darlton will make note of it in some way.--Pags 07:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
  • Which are the specific criteria to determinate the centricity??? --erikire 01:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, there aren't any. People seem to forget that season 5 isn't about flashbacks and flashforwards, but actual time travel. About half the episodes this season didn't follow the traditional formula. The only criteria I can think of in order to determine a centric character is the "whoosh" sound (formerly "flashback sound"). For example, on "This Place Is Death" the first instance of the sound occurs on a transition from Sun (in 2007) to Jin (in 1988). In this episode, every transition (with one possible exception at the end) focuses on Richard. For me, that's enough to say that this episode is Richard-centric. (Maybe "centric" isn't the right word to use... the featured character works more like an "anchor" to the story.) --kristbg 05:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Really? The centric episodes in Season 5 aren't about flashbacks and flashforwards? Did you watch Some Like It Hoth or The Variable? Those were CLEARLY character centric episodes based on the formula we've seen in the past. Isn't the lack of parallelism in FTL a sign that it probably isn't character centric at all? Let's not forget that DARLTON SAID THAT FTL HAD TO DO WITH LOCKE, SAWYER, AND JACK in the podcast that rehashed FTL. I'm not at all surprised that the majority won on this seeing as the majority of people on Lostpedia are moronsPags 07:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
We even have a "Centric character(s)" parameter in the episode infobox for occasions just like these, and is currently only being used on one episode..."This Place Is Death". ShadowUltra 05:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • One more point I'd like to make pro-Richard. Looking at it from a writer's perspective, Richard was a plot device this episode in order for us to go back and forth between 1977 and 2007. These were two separate storylines, but Richard was used as the writers as a sort of "anchor" between the timelines. In other words, no, Richard was not "centric" in the classic sense of the word, but the writers did make an effort to use him for many of the flashes to help establish the changes in timelines. Marc604 07:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, if it's not totally obvious to all that it's Richard-centric, then it is not Richard-centric. The title "Follow The Leader" applies to 3 relationships in the episode, Kate questioning and leaving Jack, Richard questioning Locke, and Radzinsky questioning and defying Horace. Besides, don't you think that when we get the Richard episode, it will be late next year, and full of all types of answers? Also, I really liked the picture of Locke and the Others on the beach, and I think it should be the pic for this episode.--Emissary23 08:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No centricity I agre with all those who voted for no centricity. --Kemot from Poland 11:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolutely no centricity. We discussed the same thing in the 9th episode of the season - "Namaste". Remember, Sawyer appeared in most of the scenes in "Namaste", but we all agreed that the storyline didn't focus on him. Same happened for Richard in this episode. The audince wants a Richard-centric episode, but that is not the one we all are waiting for. Sorry. -- Paintbox 11:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No Centricity Sorry guys, just wishful thinking that its richard centric. its none! --Frw22 13:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No Centricity Would have loved to see a Richard-centric episode, but this wasn't one. MaximCHS 15:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I hate to post this, but can someone change the centric of "Because You Left" from Various to None? It's been bugging me a lot. Marko14126 19:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think they agreed on "various" because a number of characters are front-and-center (Daniel, Sawyer, Jack, Ben) but not the rest of the characters. "None" implies no one was more relevant than anyone else. ShadowUltra 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Change it back! Also, in the next podcast they say that the title is a reference to Locke.Four4elements 16:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The "you" in "Because You Left" is Jack; the episode is not Jack-centric. ShadowUltra 16:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Other examples: "Dead is Dead" refers to Locke; "Whatever Happened, Happened" is a Daniel quote; "Jughead" has nothing to do with Desmond. --kristbg 21:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a note - Was the story from Richard's point of view? No. Was Richard mentioned in the summary on the Press Release? No. Hmmmm....
    • Also there were many times when Richard was doing something and the focus was on a different group and their conversation. (Jack, Kate, and Sayid at the creek, Locke and Ben at the Beechcraft, Sun and Ben at the beach, etc.) If this was a Richard centric episode, don't you think we would've seen these scenes from his point of view? Brotha305 13:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard's presence in both time periods was used as a transitional device, but that doesn't make it a Richard story. We learned a little about him, but this episode focused heavily on the absence or ambiguity of a clear leader, a person to focus on, to follow. It should stay as none.--Do a cannonball 00:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • None - No flashforwards/flashbacks of an individual character. Richard was just a witness to both time periods, he wasn't "in command" of the episode. --Robbie 16:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Forgot to mention how I was never a big fan of having This Place Is Death be Jin/Sun centric. I can see how it is, it is more likely than this episode since that episode was about them but this episode was not about Richard. --Robbie 14:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • How could it be Richard? When we do see him he is an ancillary figure. He's just a guy; he's never the main guy. So how can it be centered around someone who is not even the center of any of the plot lines he is involved in. He's a blueshirt. The episode shows four simultaneous plots in two separate times - 1977, and 2007. Richard is only featured in two of the four plots. Jack Dutton 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    • What are the important things that happen?
1. Jack leading his group to the bomb.
2. Sawyer kicked off the Island.
3. John leading his group to find(kill) Jacob.
4. The B Team convincing Chang to evacuate the Island.
None of these events "center" around Richard. Jack Dutton 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Your absolutely right, now that I think of it richard isnt even in the episode (sarcasm) the two major things are the h bomb and 3007 events the other thingss arent major at all and guess what richard is involved in both of those major plots. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry I'm late to this argument by like 6 days but I STRONGLY DISAGREE to the notion that this was a Richard-centric episode. I consider it either various or none. You may add that to the consensus. Hope that helps. --Jeff 01:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolutely NOT Richard centric. Can't even believe this has been such a disputed fact. It's a major mistake... --FireSoul|talk|contributions 09:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No Centricity (was surprised to see it listed as a Richard ep) and No Consensus for Richard, so it should be none, right? --Butseriouslyfolks 02:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No Centricity The ONLY reason people are voting this as Richard centric is because of 2 things: 1) it was rumored beforehand to be Richard centric. and 2) People REALLY like the idea of a Richard centric episode. That doesn't mean it IS Richard centric. We learned just as much about Richard as we have in ANY other episode. If this is Richard centric, we might as well add him on for every other episode he's appeared in. It was various. It covered pretty much everyone equally. Richard was hardly prominent in the 1977 storyline...Eloise had more to do there. And he was somewhat prominent in the 2007 storyline, but not any more than he was in The Incident or Jughead. Actually, I'll say that I'd call The Incident Richard centric before I call Follow the Leader Richard centric. There was no real development in his character as opposed to the finale. Flocke had just as much screentime, more was revealed about him, and he probably did more than Richard did in this episode. Calling this Richard centric is like calling Fire + Water Claire centric or calling just about any episode Sawyer's appeared in this season Sawyer centric. It just isn't. Just because someone has a bunch of screentime in an episode doesn't make it their centric. I think it's been pretty obvious for awhile that they've been holding out on giving us a Richard centric until they can really deliver with his character in Season 6. --Nick40292 00:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No Centricity Agree 100% with Nick40292, this episode is about as Richard-centric as 'The Incident'. We learn absolutely nothing new about Richard or his motivations, and there was no development of the character over the episode. For me, an episode can be classified as 'character-centric' if by the end of the episode we are able to look at that character in a slightly different way, either because we know more about their past/future, or because the major plot points of the episode revolve around that character. None of this can be said about Richard in 'Follow the Leader', he just happened to be the common denominator in both the 1977 and 2007 stories, but was still very much a secondary character (the episode could easily be the same without Richard, with exception to the beechcraft encounter). Also, a quick glance over this discussion shows that there no longer seems to be consensus over Richard-centric, shouldn't it now be changed? Will626 16:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard - Not sure if anyone's discussing this anymore, but after reading through all these, I think I've got to give it to Richard. Many of the reasons against Richard-centricness (no Richard character development, he's just following everyone around) actually speak volumes about his role among the Others - and match the title of the episode perfectly. Richard's role as 'caretaker' or 'steward' or whatever he is has rendered him a constant 2nd banana, and conceptually I like that before we get a full-blown backstory and/or motivation-bonanza for him (which hopefully will happen in S6) we get an episode that showcases him as he's functioned for the last 30+ years - on the sidelines of influence. Also, The centricities of some of these vague season 5 episodes have always seemed to return not to what the overall progression of the episodes are, but rather what to the two main plots (77/07) have in common? Where do the Intersect? Little Prince's plots connected over Kate's involvement with Aaron (at birth and off-island), and the episode began with a FB about Kate; Place is Death's plots intersected at Sun bossing Ben around to find Jin and Jin making Locke promise not to bring Sun back, and the episode began with a (brief) FB about Sun. Follow the Leader's plots intersected at Richard taking orders from (and following around) the leaders (Locke/Eloise/Jack) of all time periods, and the episode began with him. It's a vaguer centricity than many episodes we're used to - but it's there, and it's what the writers chose to do for the S5 episodes that didn't feature a specific character's flashes. --DesmondExMachina 17:55, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Richard - and what Desmondexmachina is what I was going to say (including his first sentence)--NK-Metaltalkcontributions 17:09, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • None I realize this is an old debate. But frankly its embarrassing for the site that this page is still labeled as a Richard centric episode. There are plenty of episodes in seasons 5 and 6 that have no centricity that have been labeled as None or Various and this episode clearly resembles them. Compare this episode to Richard's actual centric episode "Ab Aeterno". In "Ab Aeterno" we learn Richard's back story, his beliefs, his relationship to Jacob and the Island, and his motivations. We see him grow over time into the man he is today. We get none of that in this episode. The basis for his centricity here is because he has slightly more screen time than other characters simply because he was the only one around in both time periods. I would've posted this after the episode aired last year but I assumed logic and reason would win out and coming back to this page I see that hasn't happened yet.--Peels87 03:27, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Henry Ian Cusick?

Can anyone confirm whether or not his name was removed from the credits for this episode? I don't recall seeing his name. Marc604 05:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • He was credited. Actors who play main characters are credited in every episode for the season, regardless of whether they appear (or even if their character is dead - Jeremy Davies was still credited this week). Rawr? 05:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • To be fair, Davies appeared this week in new footage :P Alexisfan07 5 May 2009
      • I already knew that Rawr, which is why it seemed odd when I missed spotting Cusick's name. Carry on. Marc604 06:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


Did anyone else notice that when Jack swims through the rock tunnel, he goes under water at the far end of the pond and swims the whole distance of the pond before entering the tunnel? Shouldn't he have swam to the waterfall, started holding his breath and then go through the tunnel to minimize the chances of death?! I don't know if this is a blooper per se. More of a "goof".--Mrmagic522 05:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • A character doing something not perfect isn't a blooper. Kajillion 05:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree it is not a "blooper" at all. I just wanted to point this out. I just think it is laughably funny to watch him swim the entire distance of the pond under water. --Mrmagic522 06:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)--Man With the Black Eyeliner 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Recurring themes regarding who said what

In Act 3, wasn't it Juliet saying to Radzinsky that James and her were not bad people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DharmaJam (talkcontribs) 2009-05-07T00:59:23.

RADZINSKY: You want me to stop? Then tell me what I want to know!
JULIET: [Voice breaks] Stuart, please. We have known each other for three years. We are not bad people! We are not here to hurt you!

Also, wasn't it Mitch and not Horace who told Radzinsky that Hurley was with Jack and Kate?--Shortynj 16:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Tunnels

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this exchange take place when jack emerges from the under-water tunnel:

JACK: Where are we?
RICHARD: The tunnels.

WHAT ARE "THE TUNNELS"???--Mrmagic522 06:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

New location. They deserve an article their own, IMHO.  Robert K S   tell me  06:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems like they've been hinted at before on the Blast Door map -- and may have been how the Others left the Barracks in S3 en masse as if they disappeared into thin air. Tie in to Ben's secret room? Spiral77 06:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Previously it was implied that there were Dharma tunnels (based on the maps and game). I wonder if there are Dharma tunnels and Other tunnels, or just Other tunnels? --Jackdavinci 07:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed UAQs

"How does he intend to do so? (Kill Jacob)" This will clearly be answered in the next episode, if he kills him at all.--Acolyt3 12:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm on the fence on this one: "How did the Hostiles move the bomb into the Tunnels?" They did say they were going to move the bomb out the same way they got it in so this question will likely be answered in the next episode. --LOSTinDC 15:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Obviously there's more than one way in. Not a great UQ. Spiral77 16:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • My bad (I asked "How did the Others get Jughead into the Tunnels?", someone changed it to Hostiles). I was wholly unaware of the standard procedure for posing UAQ. I just thought it meant questions that were posed but left unanswered in the episode. I didn't know it meant unanswered questions from the scope of the seriesas a whole.. Seems a bit much, but I always tend to just Follow the Leader... :) Guess that just means that there will be a lot of people busy editing the site once we reach the series finale next year. Jwilkinson 20:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        • On that note, I just can't believe that it's almost over... One more season after this... I don't wanna believe it... What am I supposed to do with my Wednesdays after that!?!? I'm thinking about "syndicating" series over, watching the DVD's for each & every episode, one at a time, every Wednesday @ 9, whaddaya think??)Jwilkinson 20:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Someone removed my UQ : "In what manner did Richard watch the 1977ers die?". I don't think this question is leading, I think it's very much a question raised by the episode, and I don't think it's a 'what happens next?' question because we haven't been given a specific reason to suggest they are going to die at any point soon .. I'd like to see anyone's reasoning for removing this? Does it need rewording? --Integrated (User / Talk) 10:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not something that we should have UAQ's on! I think it should only be about "Why" and "How", maybe "When". --Acolyt3 15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a good question, but I think it could be improved & made more general; currently it's very specific: what does Richard know about X? Very likely Richard knows a lot about events in 1977 -- beginning with LaFleur's arrival on the Island up to "current events" in 1977. In any case we'll prolly find out next week in which case this question can be removed. Spiral77 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Well the reason it's specific is because it is specifically raised by the episode - Richard said he watched them all die, but didn't specify in what manner, so it's a question that needs answering. The difference between asking generally "What does richard know" is that this question was one which was asked by the episode directly, which anyone watching now expects an answer to. --Integrated (User / Talk) 20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Another horse blooper!


Horses seem to be problematic to Lost.[1] :) I just discovered a nasty blooper, in which the hand of a horse-trainer in the first scene of the episode is clearly visible. If you rewatched the scene again, you can notice a rope or something thrown at the horse, which might be in able to control him from moving or something. I just want everyone's confirmation that it's a blooper before adding it. — Iimitk  T  C  14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh, yes, blooper.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's probably a blooper, but couldn't it be a Hostile, who is tying up Widmore's horse for him? I haven't done much riding, but he few times I had, the horses were normally tethered when not in use. Who's to say they don't have a hitching post in their camp? --Gluphokquen Gunih 14:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There were only one Other besides Widmore, and he was aiming gun at Kate when Charles stepped down his horse, so he's most probably won't have time to take care of Widmore's horse, AFAICT. — Iimitk  T  C  14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe, when I rewatch the ep, I'll try and take a closer look at the scene, the pic you provided obscures all but the wrangler's hand, so it's hard to tell. Again though, I am leaning toward blooper, just like to give the show the benefit of the doubt. =] --Gluphokquen Gunih 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
They're not in the camp; they're still out in the high grass.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Does Locke plan to kill Jack, et al, or Jacob?

At the end of the episode, I thought Locke said he wasn't going to save his friends, but to "kill them." But the episode summary on Lostpedia says:

"Locke lets Ben in on a secret, that he's not interested in reuniting with his friends in 1977, and reveals much to Ben's shock, that his true intentions are to kill Jacob. "

Which is correct? To kill everyone in the past, or to kill Jacob? 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Locke did indeed say he was going to kill Jacob at the end of the episode. Kaisle 14:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow. I was wondering why Ben was so shocked that Locke would kill Jack and the group. :) 14:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • if Jacob = Jack this isn't a discrepancy, maybe your subconscious was telling you something...Asymetric 11:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

An important detail to add from 1977

Example I don't remember exactly when it happened, but Widmore is shown holding Eloise's stomach in the aftermath of shooting Daniel. It seemed to communicate awareness of her pregnancy and is a detail that should probably be included in the 1977 summary.--Fredremark 16:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)FredRemark

  • So Daniel was born in 1977 or 1978, and he was a 19 years old professor when Desmond visited him in Oxford in 1996. Looks like it's another timing error. Paintbox 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't notice this, but if true it does seems to be another timing error. You've got to admit though. With all of the time traveling, flashback/flashforwards, etc...... it's got to be really hard to get all of the timing right. They would've had to know every timing detail by season 3 & that would've been tough. Even though it's dissappointing, I think we've got to cutt them some slack.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  17:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That doesn't necessarily indicate that she was pregnant. Perhaps he was checking to see if she was pregnant, but to his own dismay, found out that she was not. -- LightSpectra 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Faraday has an age limitation in the timeline. We know that he's a professor in 1996, so he should not have been born in the last years of 70's. If Eloise is not yet pregnant in 1977, then our genius became a professor when he was just 15. Wow! Paintbox 18:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • How is it a time error if they explicitely stated in the previous episode that he was the youngest graduate ever? C'mon, people! Marc604 18:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • He was the youngest graduate of doctoral program. Later he became a professor of physics. He was a professor when he was 18 or 19, so he should have been the youngest graduate of doctoral program when he was 15, got a bachelor degree when he was 12 or 13:-)
      • It's never said that when Desmond visits Daniel at Oxford it's his first year as a professor. IT doens't have to be his first year there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Derecon (talkcontribs) 2009-05-10T16:20:30.
  • I noticed it, too. Right after Widmore said that Ellie shouldn't go after the bomb, he said "not in your condition". He then placed his hand on her stomach. Seemed to me that the specific body language coupled with such distinctive dialog would point towards Ellie's being pregnant, but shouldn't you wait to add it until it's been positively confirmed? (PS - sorry for introducing the stupid UAQ about Jughead, I didn't realize that the UAQ's were series-based and not just episode-based.) Jwilkinson 20:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps she was pregnant with Penny at that time
    • Possibly, but remember that Ben said that Widmore had a child with an outsider, though that could mean that Daniel and Penny have another sibling. --Crash815 Talk 22:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • She is pregnant. But we don't know WHO with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starsinsaturn (talkcontribs) 2009-05-08T20:38:25.
    • I just removed the same spoiler a second time. ADMINS, please check the revision history as I'm not sure I read it correctly, but i believe it was user: Starsinsaturn who has been repeatedly adding spoilers to this talk page. -Flashesb4ur8s 05:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Was "We have to come back" a lie?

Although it's not included in the 'mysteries list', that so-called coming back to the island issue is one of the most important mysteries of Season 5. Today we have learnt that it was 'brand new John Locke' s call. Since we don't know the exact nature of new John Locke, is there a possibility that this call was actually not a necessity, and just for something totally diferent from what we thought? Paintbox 17:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Not exactly. Christian aked to do that as well. MauserContact 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I wondered about this one myself. Eloise & Christian said they had to bring everyone who left back, but Claire appeared to Kate & told her never to bring Aaron back. Also, Daniel mentioned to Jack that his mother was wrong & that they should have never come back. Makes me wonder indeed... Jwilkinson 20:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Claire never said not to bring Aaron back. She just said, "him". There's a possibility that this, in addition to Hurley's "you're not supposed to raise him", could be referring not to Aaron at all, but to Locke. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
  • or Ben.... Luminifer 07:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The lie wasn't "we have to come back" but "Locke must die (in order to get back). Christian Sheppard never said so, if you read again the script. LOCKE: Richard said I was going to die. CHRISTIAN: Well, I suppose that's why they call it sacrifice. User talk:themobymartin


5x15 Off we go

Follow the leader.

Instead of just editing it myself I'd like to ask if anyone likes this picture for the main photo? The one we have now is alright but I feel like it's just a shot of the beach, with no characters clearly shown. What do you guys think? Brotha305 18:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not quite as savvy as the rest of you in wiki editing so if someone wants to make that smaller for me...go for it! Thanks. Brotha305 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support - I think it suits the title of the episode perfectly. Everyone following Locke, the leader. No one is centric.--Baker1000 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support - It's perfect. Go for it. — Iimitk  T  C  19:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Pictogram voting comment - You don't need to resize the image, you can edit the episode info box to link to this image as it resizes it to a thumbnail with a 250px width. I changed it to this image but it's a promotional photo so is this okay? Because the image for the info box on other episodes have been a screen capture from the episode. -- Hamdo    [Talk] 20:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I meant making it smaller on the talk page. I didn't know how, so thanks a lot for doing that. It was kind of taking up the whole screen when I posted it. As far as it being a promotional instead of a screen shot - I don't know. I'm not somebody who would make that call, I just liked the picture. I'm sure it's not a big deal. Brotha305 20:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support - It suits so fine!--erikire 20:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support When I saw this pic, I said "Yes!" It's perfect. Marc604 23:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I support using this picture rather than a close-up of Richard to represent this episode.  Robert K S   tell me  03:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I like this one. Jack Dutton 22:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support Same reason's as everyone has said.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  13:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That's enough. I'm doing it ... done. Jack Dutton 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the picture now lacks support for the episode's plot. It shows the centric character well, but it doesn't capture the significance of the title. Whereas the other promo picture captured the title well, but didn't get the focus for Richard. I suggest this alternative (minus the subtitle at the bottom)
    5x15 Follow Richard

    Follow the Leader

    Here, it is significant that Richard is the centric character, and also displays the theme of leadership. Within 5 days, without opposition arguments, I am going to change this picture. If anyone wishes to do it themselves, feel free.
    • Uh, what happened to the above pic of "following the leader", which seemed to have pretty good consensus?  Robert K S   tell me  07:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that one is nice, it just doesn't necessarily capture the centric character, whereas all the others do. It seems the consensus amongst ourselves is that this is indeed a Richard centric episode. Therefore, I personally believe that the picture should depict the centric character as well as the theme and/or title of the episode. I picked this one to replace the odd current one with Richard's glasses all crooked. We can put it to a vote if you feel to do so. It's not that I don't like the other proposed picture. I just feel this one better suits the character and episode. --Series of Dreams 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm here to announce that I'm going to change this picture due to lack of any further discussion. If you are compelled to change it back, please give a reason here. Thank you. Series of Dreams 23:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Heres an update as to why we cannot use the follow the leader picture, its from 5x16, it was released as a promo pic for 5x15 but so were pics of Locke and Ben at the beach camp which we know happened in 5x16 and a picture of Illana who didnt even appear in 5x15 if you need more proof as to why this picture is from 5x15 see my talk page where ObiDanKenobi has provided evidence to show why this pic is from 5x16. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  15:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What picture are you talking about? There's been three or four pics used for Follow the Leader. Marc604 23:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New main image

  • Pictogram voting support Could we change the image to this one, of Richard working on the boat in the bottle? Since we've decided this is Richard centric, it bothers me how Ben is also in the main image. None of the other episodes' pictures feature a non-centric character, so why start here? (Kdc2 01:51, March 27, 2010 (UTC))
Pictogram voting oppose the picture is a horrible pic wayyyy to close to dicks face. The focus in the current pic is obviously dick. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:27, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Look at the main images for The Incident, Some Like It Hoth, Because You Left, The Lie, Jughead, TLADOJB, LaFleur, He's Our You, etc...... how is this any different? I get the feeling you said that just to be difficult and to disagree with me. (Kdc2 01:49, March 28, 2010 (UTC))
Pictogram replyOf course you would take it personal. Think about all the images i have choosen, obviously i dont like close ups of the face so you know my opinion yet you still wanna degrade my opinion. Honestly the pic you suggested is horrible. like I said its way to close to his face in the other instances its a close up on the face but yours is so close you cant see anything but his face. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:55, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply

New main image #2

How about this? (Kdc2 07:18, March 30, 2010 (UTC))
Pictogram voting support I like the one Kdc2 suggests last. We have always used a picture of just the centric character/s for each episode and I am strongly opposed to changing this. Mhtmghnd 02:45, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support I like this one better too. Ben isn't centric so shouldn't be in the picture. Menot 02:57, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

CHarles and Ellie's Whispered Conversation

Did nobody else hear part of the whispered argument of Charles and Ellie? He very clearly told her he disagreed with her choice to go with Kate and Jack "in her condition." She was pregnant with Daniel, the day she shot him!--Missdavis99 18:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)missdavis99

  • I heard it too, and you can now read it in the transcript. He said these things, and had his hand gingerly on her abdomen. The timing would be (almost) perfect. So, my question is: what does that mean for the birth of Daniel?? Are Ellie & Daniel in danger now?? Guess we'll have to wait & see! Jwilkinson 20:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • She is pregnant. But we don't know WHO with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starsinsaturn (talkcontribs) 2009-05-08T20:43:18.
    • I just removed a link to a promo (spoiler). Not cool, whoever just posted above^^ Flashesb4ur8s 05:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bird call

Might just be me but when Juilette and Sawyer were leaving on the sub, as Sawyer turned around, I clearly heard a loud bird call. Makes me think back to the giant bird that swooped over the losties and Hurley claiming that it said it's name. It's probabkly nothing big but on the other side it could be. I just dont see Sawyer and Juilette being written off that easily as them leaving on the sub.

Blooper: Pull tabs on canned goods

When Hurley is grabbing can goods off of the shelf, one of the cans has a pull tab. Were these invented yet? Spaceyraygun 00:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

They weren't invented yet. Darlton addresses this on one of the podcasts, saying (probably jokingly) "is it possible that DHARMA was financed by inventing the pull tab?"  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The pull tab was invented in 1956 in Canada MoeT 17:33, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Continuity Error: Ben knew about the beechcraft

In the episode Expose (See: 32 days ago, Day 49), Ben and Juliet go to the Pearl to spy on the losties.

"Ben and Juliet enter, thinking the door was left open by Tom. Ben tells Juliet to have Tom cover the Hatch with the plane."

Spaceyraygun 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Locke was rather unspecific, just claiming they were going to a plane. What plane? Flight 815, flight 316, the Beechcraft, Richard's spaceship...ShadowUltra 00:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Then why was it necessary for an explanation once they got there? Ben looked genuinely surprised after Locke says "alright Richard" when Locke explained what it was doing there. Spaceyraygun 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Ben is known lying liar who lies. He was probably just playing mind games with Locke. Again. See ``My dead mother taught me to read`` conversation with Jack. --LeoChris 00:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Additionally, Ben was likely surprised not at the Beechcraft explanation, but Locke's explanation of why they were there: to patch up and provide information to Locke himself. ShadowUltra 01:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

While we're talking about the beachcraft and continuity errors, Locke specifically mentioned that this was the one that was used to smugle heroin, is it just me or was the plane still in the tree when it should have been on the ground? Boon was the one that made it fall back in 2004 why is it back in the tree in 2008?--WhyDidntUKnow 14:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • The plane was on the ground[2]--Messeis 21:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Plane falls to the ground on Day 41. Ben orders Juliet to tell Tom to cover the Pearl with the plane on Day 49. I think we assumed the plane fell on the hatch cover, but Eko and Locke won't find it until Day 65. Paulo discovered it on Day 24, but the plane was still on the bluff at that time, and the hatch was easily discovered under a small patch of dirt. I don't think it's a continuity error. Locke does not know if Ben and Richard know about the plane, but obviously we know they do. Jack Dutton 22:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Blooper Jack is not Jack


At around the minute 2, when Charles Widmore turn around Jack, a stunt can be seen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blopa (talkcontribs) 2009-05-07T22:21:11.

  • Are you actually suggesting that Matthew Fox wasn't really beaten to a pulp? I don't believe it. Marc604 07:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL!--Emissary23 06:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


The 2007 synopsis says 'Locke asked Richard if he still has the compass he gave him 3 years ago.' Wasn't that in 1954 that John gave it to Richard? Then new John tells Richard to give it to old John in '07. Then old John gives it to '54 Richard. Annarboral 04:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Right, but it was only three years to Locke. --LOSTinDC 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, Locke skipped three years, so it's not even a year to locke.
      • Good point, and all Locke asks is: "Do you still have that compass I gave you" --LOSTinDC 16:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Did Locke even say "three years ago?" He just asked "Do you still have that compass I gave you?"--Baker1000 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok wait! Isn't the compass in some kind of time loop? It's present in the 1954-2007 time period then in 2007 it's sent back to 1954. This would mean that the compass would gradually age as the number of iteration increases. So at a certain point John and Richard would share a totally wrecked compass and eventually a handful of dust.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olograph (talkcontribs) 2009-05-09T20:29:19.
  • This (very good) question is directly dealt with in this week's podcast. --Integrated (User / Talk) 04:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Where did the compass come from first? Like we see Richard gave it to John, but John later gave it to Richard. Then, we witness Richard had the rusty compass in his pocket all that time [why it was in his pocket we don't know(I mean what else would he put in there, Island currency?)]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zippo69 (talkcontribs) 2009-05-10T17:55:00.
  • It's interesting to note that the compass keeps aging 53 years every time the timeloop starts again. How long until the compass completely disintigrates? Marc604 08:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Tower

Cultural reference? In one of the Dark Tower novels, the main protagonists end up in 1977, like our Losties. There, one of the characters gives an advice to buy a share in Microsoft, as he's from the future, he already knows how big the IT branche is gonna get. In this episode, Sawyer proposes the same idea to Juliet. So... is this a cultural reference to the Dark Tower? Darlton confirmed they are fans and from waht I've heard, they're also going to write the film adaptation.--Smullie 09:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe that, while they creative genius' are fans of DT, Sawyer mentioning Microsoft was probably just to faction to Juliet that he had some financial plan. Or to be smug. Microsoft is a large name and a notable product to purchase if anyone were to travel back in time. On a side note, I do believe that Locke is following a Roland-esque path. I wouldn't be surprised if he is Jacob, stuck in some kind of loop, and he is trying to end the loop or try something different. Though Roland could not remember his previous trips to the Tower, so... I need to formulate that theory better I suppose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laurenaguilera (talkcontribs) 2009-05-08T17:21:31.
  • They most likely decided to go with Microsoft because that's what was used in DT. But still, it's not a very clear-cut "cultural reference." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrmagic522 (talkcontribs) 2009-05-09T02:56:03.

Rosie left the island?

When Lara is arguing with Pierre Chang at the dock, two girls walk in front of them. As the DHARMA members vote for executing Sayid in He's Our You, Rosie is sitting with a girl with dark short hair. Looks like they're friends. And at the dock, the girls are look like Rosie and the dark short hair girl. Anyone agree with me? 06:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)5x15 Follow the Leader.avi 001760258 5x10 He's Our You.avi 001715046

Well, the actress said that she made uncredited background appearances in a couple of episodes (she's made one that we know off, but she said it was a couple in an newspaper article), so this could be her...--Golden Monkey 15:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That does look like Rosie. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll ever be 100% confirmed unless Lostpedia does another interview with Molly McGivern. Do you know if the article you talked about is viewable online, Golden Monkey ? --LeoChris 16:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Most likely Rosie, didn't they evacuate all the women and children?--Mistertrouble189 03:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty likely it's her. She has appeared a lot in the background and all women and children got evacuated. --Ryan76el 14:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Did anyone else think it weird that Radzinski simply declared himself leader, without anyone contradicting him? It doesn't seem very good protocol that the second in command can simply say "I'm leader now". Why did Horace let him do that?--Integrated (User / Talk) 11:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Because Radzinsky is insaneAsymetric 11:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • And Horace is a passive-aggressive hippie; and Phil was probably all too happy to let Radzinsky take over. --LOSTinDC 12:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • According to Eric Lange, Radzinsky is like the second in command, so he got Horace's permission (after the first couple swings) to get answers from Sawyer. --Crash815 Talk 14:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think Pierre Chang should be the leader. I've always thought of him as the leader of DHARMA - it made me mad to see Radzinsky showing "authority" over him. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 23:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yea man I used to LIKE Radzinski ... that is when he was just a stain on the ceiling who had painted a nice map --Integrated (User / Talk) 02:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Horace is so much "passive-aggressive" as he is submissive. He's just a nice guy. To me, he looks a lot different between Season 4 and Season 5, though. Maybe the actor put on some weight?  Robert K S   tell me  15:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What Locke told (and did not tell) Richard

The article identifies this as a blooper: "Richard makes a number of claims to Locke during the scene in "Because You Left" that Locke does not tell him in this episode; namely, that Locke will be "moving on soon" when Locke never told Richard what would happen when three minutes were up..." etc.

But there were many cuts away from the first conversation - both to the 1970s and then an act break. So it is likely that we didn't see the full conversation, and that Locke did tell Richard everything he needed to know, in order to then go over to the pre-death Locke and have that conversation with him. Perhaps it just wasn't depicted in unnecessary detail in the episode. So I don't think this can be assumed to be an error. Francis Bacon 11:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Immediately before the replaying of the scene from Because You Left there was a commercial (at least for me). This implies to me that they could have continued talking during the commercials, and not that the two scenes are immediately after each other. Robbie 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • OR ... Richard knows more than he is letting on. The Island speaks to him, too. Jack Dutton 22:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Or...after meeting Locke in 1954, seeing him disappear, following his life growing up, meeting adult him again 50 years later, watching him stumble out of the bushes while at the same time standing next to another him who says there's only 3 minutes.......all the while (or along the way) knowing all what we haven't yet learned he knows about the wheel and how the island works (as stated above).......maybe Richard just assumed at this point that Locke was hopping around in time a bit, without needing it to be spelled out for him.Joe Harmon 6:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sub Blooper?

"It is hard to imagine that Dharma fit everyone on the Galaga during the evacuation." I'm removing this as a blooper, as this isn't really a blooper - Navy subs can hold between 100-200 people depending on the class. And "It's hard to imagine" isn't really a blooper, it's just a failure of our imagination. --LOSTinDC 12:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

On another subject: was anyone else completely disappointed in the digital effect of the submarine submerging? I was just shocked at how unrealistic it seemed. I guess I chalk it up to a crunch time effect, unless others think I'm way off base...? Lorite 21:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that looked pretty bad too. The thing was, they had a fairly long irregular camera movement, turning slowly while panning out, and then they had to try and replicate that exact same movement in 3D space, and they did very well but it was far from perfect, so it looked like the sub was moving separately from the water. --Integrated (User / Talk) 18:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent example of Uncanny Valley, and the worst CG ever. How hard is it to sink a prop? Come on, really! Jack Dutton 22:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That Uncanny valley link was very interesting Jack ! I had never heard of that before. Anyhow for the most part the CGI on the show is very well done, the reason this one looked off was simply because the camera movement was very unsmooth, it would've just been extremely difficult to replicate that precisely in 3D space. Good on them for trying but a simpler shot would've been more effective in this case. --Integrated (User / Talk) 09:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


I like the new picture at the top of the page. Much better than the closeup of Richard.--Emissary23 12:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

David Lewis ?

Multiple articles state that David Lewis remained on the Island after the evacuation. What's the source for that ? Just because we don't see him boarding the sub with Charlotte and her mother doesn't mean he didn't board it at all. Afterall, we don't even know what he looks like, he could be anyone. Did Charlotte mention growing up without her father ? Otherwise, I think saying he stayed behind is pure speculation. --LeoChris 16:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she said 'why can't daddy come with us ' while her mind was time skipping before she died.Annarboral 16:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Golden Bough

This cultural reference has been removed twice:

The Golden Bough: Locke going into the jungle to kill Jacob is likely a reference to The Golden Bough, a mythological story where a Roman priest-king who lives in a sacred spring is ritually murdered by a disciple that becomes his successor. (Literary works)  (Religion and ideologies)

This is a universal archetype that you see happen in various stories. If there's enough to say that Locke fits the "Messiah" archetype, then this should remain. I ask why it's been removed. -- LightSpectra 17:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • This is way too far-streched. Cultural refences are referred explicitly in the show. Also, I don't think the writers/creators have this in mind. User:Spoutnik 44
    • As I said, this is a universal archetype. Whenever you see this format of story, you can trace it back to the Golden Bough; in the same way that whenever you have a story of redemption through willing sacrifice, it's traced back to Jesus, or whenever you have a story of an uncle murdering the king to take the throne and the crown prince taking revenge, it's traced back to Hamlet. It doesn't have to be explicitly intended. -- LightSpectra 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You're talking about the Corn King religions. It's incorrect on more than one level to call this a "Messiah" archetype. Also, I don't think the killing of Jacob is that explicit. The idea that Locke will replace him is only a theory, and has no basis in the show so far. We need to wait for further details. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

Pictogram voting support The Golden Bough was many connections to LOST, and I don't think it is a stretch to believe the writers are aware of this. It's one of the most important works in 20th century literary criticism, and just about anyone who studied English Lit since 1922 is aware of it. Jack Dutton 22:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Blooper : Eloise being pregnant with Daniel

  • The following is listed as a blooper on the article : ``Charles Widmore references Eloise being pregnant, presumably with Daniel. This would mean Daniel is, at most, 19 years old in 1996 when Desmond visited him as a professor at Oxford, though he was clearly much older.`` Am I the only one who thinks this should be removed ? A) We don't know for sure Eloise is pregnant B) Even if she is, NOTHING says she's pregnant with Daniel. It could be Penny (though that's doubtful) or another as of now unmentioned sibling. Therefore, I think it's too early to declare this a blooper. --LeoChris 18:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Not to mention our own article on Daniel states: "He was the youngest doctor to ever graduate from Oxford." We don't know what his age was either time, so I second the blooper being removed. Roger Workman 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, right now, unless my Google skills are deteriorating badly, the youngest doctor to graduate from Oxford is 22. So Daniel may have been anywhere from 19-22 at his graduation. If I have researched wrong, please correct me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laurenaguilera (talkcontribs) 2009-05-08T17:37:40.
  • I would remove it as a blooper I suppose, because, "though he was clearly much older" means nothing. Nothing is to say how old he is in 1996, we can't call it a blooper unless we want to start saying "Ben is supposed to be 25 in this scene but he is clearly much older" --Integrated (User / Talk) 02:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • How do we know that the Desmond/Faraday visit was in 1996 again? Didn't they make a point to show in "Jughead" that even Desmond didn't remember what year it was? Marc604 07:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not certain, but I think it said 1996 as subtitle (in "The Constant"). Am I imagining things? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrmagic522 (talkcontribs) 2009-05-09T02:51:28.
      • You're imagining things. There was no subtitle, but Desmond was sure he was in 1996, just as we are sure we're in 2009.  Robert K S   tell me  15:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
        • So they actually said the date in The Constant as 1996? I don't remember from memory -- can someone enlighten me? Marc604 08:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
          • From The Constant transcript:

DAN: Desmond, we don't have long to talk so I need you to tell me what year you think it is.

DESMOND: What do you mean, what year do I think it -- it's 1996! -Kaisle 15:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks Kaisle. Marc604 23:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It is a bit ridiculous. If she is pregnant with Dan, he probably will not be born until late '77 or early '78. To think that he earned a PhD in Theoretical Physics before he was 20 is a little too "Doogie Howser." Even Stephen Hawking was 23. Jack Dutton 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Walking Music

Did anyone else notice that the music for the Others/Hostiles walking along the beach at the end of the episode (following Locke/Richard) was the same music used when the Losties were trecking to the Radio Tower at the end of season 3? I thought this was a nice touch. Luminifer 07:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah. I thought that was great. It was the exact same context as well: Everyone following a leader to trek thru the jungle, on their way to an event that will change everything.--Mrmagic522 07:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed - I love that music. --Integrated (User / Talk) 08:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's a memorable little tune... Though I can't remember, has it popped up anywhere else? Luminifer 13:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It came from the Pilot episode. See the scene where they are heading to hear Rousseau's message. All of the musics are great. I think that only one time I didn't like of the sound edition on the show. I can't remember what episode it happened. -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 13:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The tune can be found on the Season 1 Musical Score. It is entitled "Hollywoods and Vines." User:Spoutnik 44
  • This motif reappears with only slight modification several times in the new Star Trek movie. Same composer, just reusing his stuff.  Robert K S   tell me  02:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I recall they used it in the pilot episode for Fringe, with no modifications, and it was just like perfect..--Integrated (User / Talk) 18:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • On Fringe it was played only on the leaked episode, not on the original one. On Star Trek I felt the same thing, on the beginning it seems as Lost's, then it changes, but you can still hear it on the background sometimes. -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 01:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


I just watched the Lost Untangled for this episode. This isn't a spoiler don't worry. They have Radzinsky say what sounds like 'hod'. I think I've heard this before maybe by Darlton? Anybody help me out on what it means? Annarboral 05:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what the context was. A hod is a tray/container for lugging things from place to place, as in hauling an armload of bricks up a ladder -- "to rise in the world, he carried a hod" (Finnigan's Wake). ?everything 13:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Season 5 Navbar

I just noticed this, but on some of the Season 5 episode pages, the navbar lists this episode as Richard-centric, while on others it is listed as None. Obviously it can't be both, so I'm not sure which one has been decided upon. Just thought I'd bring that to the attention of those who can fix it.-- Steele  talk  contribs  19:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a cache error, just wait a bit or clear the cache. ShadowUltra 22:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the page is just kind of a mess in general due to the centric controversy. I don't care what this page is declared to be, but if it *is* Richard-centric, then there should be a "centric character" box in the basic episode information, and a summary for Richard at the bottom of the page, to be consistent with the "centric" formatting. Tuttlemsm

Yeah, every page now reads it as Richard-centric, so I'm glad the debate is over, for now.-- Steele  talk  contribs  20:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Light "Blooper"

Under bloopers someone listed: "As soon as the Galaga submarine departed, the inside lights turned red. Submarines do not always have red lights inside (in many movies/TV shows red lights are a stylized "submarine thing"). On long trips (nuclear subs are at submerged for months at a time), red lights are turned on during nighttime hours to simulate night, while regular lights are kept on during daytime hours. This is done to regulate the passengers' circadian rhythm, so they have an idea of when it's night and day. Red lights are not kept on all the time on submarines, nor are they automatically turned on when the sub submerges. There was no basis for turning the red "nighttime" lights on the moment the Galaga departed."

Now that we've seen the scene continue in the finale we can see that the passengers on the sub were being given the sedative laced orange juice and thus the red light was being turned on to make the atmosphere more conducive to causing the drugged passengers to pass-out and fall asleep (to "simulate night" as the poster says). Obviously, this was not a continuity error and this item should be removed. --Faraday100 05:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

sight and voice?

"When Widmore gets off his horse, a hand of a horse trainer is clearly visible for a short time, and the sight and voice of a rope being thrown to control the horse is slightly apparent."

After reading this note a few times I think I get what is being said. I am changing it to "sight and sound of a rope" and posting this notice here in case I'm missing something and this is correct (as in, it should be sight of rope/trainer's hand and voice of trainer??) Dhalia 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Saw them all die"

I just realised that, in The Incident, Richard tells Jack and Sayid that Eloise will be angry when she wakes up after being knocked unconscious by him, but that being angry is better than being dead. This may indicate that he strongly believes that they will all die, and that something will happen at the Swan to confirm his suspicions. This may have resulted in him believing that he "saw them all die".Bwanar talk|contrib 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuity: Beechcraft Intact

So the injured Locke flashed to 2007 after being shot by Ethan. The Beechcraft at that time would have been reduced to ashes as Eko and Charlie burned it. ( The 23rd Psalm) As Richard approaches the wreckage it does not appear burned at all. The paint is still intact. PowayJay 22:41, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply Adding to the article. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 22:45, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose I've removed this. The Beechcraft is shown appropriately burnt, as it was in "The Cost of Living". [3] [4] -- Graft   talk   contributions  07:53, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Literary Technique - Lara Chang = Lara Lor Van (Superman's mother)

Has anyone noticed that the name of Miles' mother is Lara just like the name of Superman's mom?

Is the parallel between Chang sending Lara and Miles off the island to save them from the incident with Jor-El sending Kal-El to Earth to save him from Krypton's destruction intentional or coincidence?

I think it might be intentional and worth adding to the entry for the show (though I don't know how to do it so it fits the style).

It bears noting that for the Man of Steel reboot in 1986, John Byrne wanted Jor-El to send both Kal-El and Lara to Earth, where she would die from Kryptonite (i.e. radiation) poisoning (which is similar to how Lara ultimately died).--ManofTheAtom 21:51, February 7, 2010 (UTC)



New main image #1

  • Pictogram voting support Could we change the image to this one, of Richard working on the boat in the bottle? Since we've decided this is Richard centric, it bothers me how Ben is also in the main image. None of the other episodes' pictures feature a non-centric character, so why start here? (Kdc2 01:51, March 27, 2010 (UTC))
Pictogram voting oppose the picture is a horrible pic wayyyy to close to dicks face. The focus in the current pic is obviously dick. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:27, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Look at the main images for The Incident, Some Like It Hoth, Because You Left, The Lie, Jughead, TLADOJB, LaFleur, He's Our You, etc...... how is this any different? I get the feeling you said that just to be difficult and to disagree with me. (Kdc2 01:49, March 28, 2010 (UTC))
Pictogram replyOf course you would take it personal. Think about all the images i have choosen, obviously i dont like close ups of the face so you know my opinion yet you still wanna degrade my opinion. Honestly the pic you suggested is horrible. like I said its way to close to his face in the other instances its a close up on the face but yours is so close you cant see anything but his face. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:55, March 28, 2010 (UTC)


New main image #2

If not the one above, how about this? The current image contains a non-centric character and for that it needs to be changed. The following comments, from Mhtmghnd and Menot have been taken from discussion #14. They are still there, however I also brought them here to start a vote -- they were the only 2 users in nearly 3 weeks to offer their opinion. So, I went ahead and changed the image to #2 about a week ago but it was removed once again. Hopefully people will finally see this and agree this image is better. (Kdc2 21:31, April 25, 2010 (UTC))
Pictogram voting support I like the one Kdc2 suggests last. We have always used a picture of just the centric character/s for each episode and I am strongly opposed to changing this. Mhtmghnd 02:45, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support I like this one better too. Ben isn't centric so shouldn't be in the picture. Menot 02:57, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

I proposed the main image change on 3/28 at the earliest and there has been 2 agrees and no opposers. Not sure why no one has offered their opinion. So I went ahead and changed it. Seriously, don't change it back. If you or anyone else won't offer their opinion after the discussion banner has been up for a month, and all there has been is two supporters, come here if you don't like it and THEN you might be able to change it. (Kdc2 17:04, May 1, 2010 (UTC))

Pictogram voting comment Reverted change. New image does not have the proper tags and looks awful at full resolution. Also, 3 votes is generally not consensus. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:04, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting opposeI dont like it, the current is fine its obvious who the focus is. Obviously others dont as well because people keep removing it. Also I agree with Cgmv you make it sound like evryone agree with you but really only 3 people do. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  13:08, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Two people, He's one of the votes. And, just to be clear I Pictogram voting oppose with changing the image, for the same reasons I reverted your change and because the current image is fine. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:12, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support The image is not meant to be viewed at full resolution, so how it might look then is a non-issue. Also, the tags can always be fixed. --LeoChris 14:33, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply I agree the tags can be changed, but right now the image is ineligible to be the main image on this page. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Czygan84, I never said I thought everyone agreed with me. I simply said after asking for a change a month ago, there have been no disagreements. And if no one would offer their opinion then I was done waiting. Because they either don't care either way (if they did, they would have discussed it here), or they never even visit the page, so it doesn't matter what image they want. (Kdc2 15:32, May 2, 2010 (UTC))

Pictogram voting support I prefer the new one too. Limitlessness 04:15, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Me too. A close-up of the centric character whenever we agree on one centric character. --- Balk Of Fametalk 14:12, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Me also. Ben has no business being in the image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rachel P (talkcontribs) 2010-05-10T22:25:59.

Pictogram voting support I prefer the second image. --Celebok 06:16, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

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