FANDOM


Unlock?

It'd be nice...  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a moment. I'm setting up the main parts of the article before it gets unlocked and inevitably crashes. It won't be more than another ten minutes. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, did we figure out how to fix that? Nifty.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah okay, was wondering the same. Also LP/Wikia seems to be really slow at the moment, is this common right after the show? Congested 02:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
We didn't fix it, per se, but if it's locked there can't be data loss. And no, Congested, LP is unusually...congested at the moment. ;) -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah okay, yeah earlier today I got an error from Wikia when logging in saying that they had a problem with their "front end." I can forward on the exact error message if anyone's interested... it's somewhere in my IRC logs. Congested 02:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
re: your last edit - (Changed protection level for "He's Our You": Let the chaos begin... [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) - Protection is still on. Congested 02:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So long as you're prepping everything, can you add the NavMinor templates for the UQs, themes, literary devices, etc...?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Also, Sun does appear in the episode.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake on both counts. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks dude, added an image for the ep for now. I think that it's suiting considering the nature of the scene and the fact that Sayid hardly ever smiles. ;) Congested 02:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Good pic choice with LSD-Sayid. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ha, thanks. Though it's now been swapped out. Which I sort of expected... maybe I'll add it back once some time has passed. ;) Congested 23:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sun footage not entirely recycled

5x10 sun ajira through seats
This shot wasn't reused as far as I recall. Congested 02:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right, but I think it was just footage filmed during "316," like the previously unseen outtakes of Jack from multiple episodes in "Expose." Anyone wanna share their thoughts? I also noticed the dock seen was largely re-shot or using alternative footage with different dialogue. However, I don't think Yunjin Kim was brought to the set to film anything new, if that makes sense. Anyone else have any thoughts? Alexisfan07 25 March 2009.
Well, that's plausible, though the shot was clearly set up to be from Sayid's perspective. So even if it was shot earlier, it was intended as original footage for this episode, no? Congested 04:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Possibly, but I was just looking at "316" and there are lot of side shots from when the characters are on the plane and other random shots. I think it's possible it was either shot now or saved for this episode since that entire sequence of them on the plane was re-done, but it's also possible they just took a bunch of shots of characters for later. If Sun's footage in the dock scene was new, it would for sure be countable, but her footage doesn't look like it's new, and when it is (like when she's holding the gun on Ben), it's easily a body double. Alexisfan07 25 March 2009
Yeah, honestly the scenes of them at the marina really never played into my thinking. What stood out to me during the episode was that Sayid looked at Sun through the plane seats, and that's the image I uploaded. I would have never even considered the idea of Sun not being in the episode until others tried to edit it into the page. As far as I'm concerned she was in it. That shot was original to this episode, which is enough for me. Beyond that I'll leave it up to others to decide whether she really should be considered as "in the episode" or not. Good luck. Congested 05:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Lostpedia is very loose in being considered as in the episode. Basically, if you appear in new or old footage, you're in the episode, so she appeared. I personally only count new footage, that is, created for the episode. I may change my philosophy if the few appearances don't matter in the long run. However, I looked over and compared the marina scene in both and the only new footage AT ALL are the reaction shots of Sayid, meaning they had him reciting dialogue to no one to get the shots. The Sun plane shot is tricky but I'm not going to count it... for now. Alexisfan07 26 May 2008

the song

does anyone know the song that the crazy old guy was playing? They dont usually put stuff in episodes if its not important. dposse 03:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like ella fitzgerald, no? Congested 03:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I think it's "I Can't Give You Anything But Love" by Ella Fitzgerald. Here it is on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6896329708145253904 Congested 03:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Billie Holiday --Redgoriya 05:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
What Billie Holiday song? o_O Thought I had it nailed. Congested 05:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It's "I Can't Give You Anything But Love, Baby", recorded by Billie Holiday in 1936, and Ella Fitzgerald in 1957 (Listen), and Sarah Vaughan in 1965 (Listen), among others. It doesn't sound like the Ella or Sarah versions to me. While I can't find Billie's version, it does sound like her singing. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah okay, I'll have to listen to that song. Congested 20:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's too particular about whether 'baby' is included in the title! I have the track that appears in this episode, on a CD called "Lady Day's 25 Greatest - 1933-1944". (Incidentally, I'm sure Billie recorded it several times throughout her career.) --Redgoriya 04:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, maybe I take back my parenthetical. Searching on iTunes, I find the song on eight of Billie's CDs, but all are the same track! Redgoriya 04:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • iTunes. Of course! Palm/face. Yes, it's definitely Billie on that record. Sounds just like her. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We're gonna have to call Ann Arbor

Being from Ann Arbor, the room erupted! What a hoot. The writers rock. This show brings me joy. This doesn't go here, but it was my destiny to say it. Annarboral 03:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you might find this page interesting. Congested 03:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Namaste Annarboral 04:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Flaming Bus

At first I and my wife chuckled that they found our old beatup blue VW minibus from the seventies and were using it in the series. Then we found out later they had it perfectly restored and apparently gave it to Jin to use on patrols. In the next episode, we find out they have so many of them, they maintain them in a garage, and they even set one on fire occasionally...I think Ben had an accomplace. I also think, even at a young age, he's way too sly to allow himself to be killed, so we'll probably find out in the next episode that he had a vest or something. What do you think? - mwfontan 0937utc March 31 2009

Maybe it's just me, but I thought it was obvious that Ben started the flaming bus and put Roger inside to create a diversion for Sayid? No Others were around, or Ben would have gone with them. -- Crazy Bearded Jack 04:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Put Roger inside??? .. WHAT? --Integrated (User / Talk) 16:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Roger isn't inside, because he's still alive when Ben kills him in the future. Other than that, yeah... it's pretty obvious Ben lit the van.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Emissary23 04:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • He did refer to Roger in the past tense when he busted out Sayid. To me, he was inferring he killed him and was ready to run away. -- Crazy Bearded Jack 04:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought this too when I first heard it CBJ, but the reality is Lil Ben says "I hate it here" not "I hated him." Kgun5 15:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Kgun, that's right. That line was the only thing making me think Ben killed Roger, so I'm guessing he didn't --Crazy Bearded Jack 23:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But we know that Roger Linus dies on the day of the Purge, right? Unless you are suggesting an alternate timeline, for which there is no evidence, best to assume that Roger is not dead on the flaming bus.--Emissary23 04:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes to Ben causing flaming bus; No to it containing Roger. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Call me a weakling for wanting things more spoon-fed, but its little more than a hunch that he was responsable for the bus, or that Roger was in the bus. While probable, I say Lil' Ben is innocent until proven guilty (we see it on screen/hear a character say s/he saw him do it). --  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   07:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It WAS spoon fed. If that wasn't obvious enough you must need an IV :P --Integrated (User / Talk) 16:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The fact that Ben was hiding behind the door to where Sayid was being kept, so when Phil left Ben slipped in.... is as blatant as possible that Ben was the one who set up the flaming bus, because Ben was the one who was in position to immediately take advantage of the distraction.--Jaywallin 14:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin
  • I don't agree that it was obvious. It was not a coincidence of course, but I don't see any proof that Ben was the one who put it on fire, accelerated it, jumped out, and immediately went for Sayid's cell. Note that Ben was waiting in a dark corner at the bottom end of the stairs. Why would he risk going down there and stumbling across Phil who would receive the bad news any moment? There could have been easily another man in on this job. --MacCutcheon Talk? 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • He wouldn't have to even be in the van. He could start it on fire and put a brick, or a broom on the pedal.--Crazy Bearded Jack
    • That might buy him a few seconds, but he'd still have to be on the van to get it running. --MacCutcheon Talk? 11:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I posted a theory about it being kate on the theory page. It makes a lot of sense i think. take a look and lemme know what you guys think.
    • Like I said on the theory page, it couldnt have been Kate.--Maxwell P. Rodriguez 00:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Please keep theories to the theory page. This is only about whether it was Ben himself or not. --MacCutcheon Talk? 11:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh, there's almost no evidence that supports Ben setting the Van in flames beyond it being a convenient distraction for him. How would have he done that?? Try to imagine this sissy kid stealing the van, setting it on fire, driving it on course, rigging the pedal and the wheel so the van would keep running ahead, jumping out without being noticed, running back to the prison in time to be there the moment Phil went out AND not breaking a sweat by the moment he freed Sayid. I'm myself convinced it was Juliet, but we'll most likely find out the next episode.Maokun 01:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • You're completing deluding yourself. Ben said he would form a plan to break Sayid out. He did just that - a complicated one, but one with a high chance to suceed. It is his one sole aim in life to escape from his father and join the Others. He may be sissy but he wants nothing more than to leave DHARMA and that type of determination will make him do anything. He formulated a very well timed plan - that's why he didn't break a sweat. You underestimate the kid. There's not gonna be any more said on the show because it's just obvious. --Integrated (User / Talk) 06:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Wow. I have to admit you totally took me by surprise. Correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't seem to me like I was attacking you personally as to obtain such an aggraviated answer, but I digress. Since you synthetized my points as simple nonsense that is totally irrelevant to you one and almighty "obvious" fact, let me spell them for you once again with more exposition. He. is. a. kid. Do you think he's even able to drive, let alone, to steal and rig a vehicle to keep running on it's own? Even if you, as a thinking adult plan everything perfectly, could you set a van on fire, jump out of it and run to another building totally unnoticed and without breaking a sweat? And we're talking here of a kid that couldn't even look his stupid father to the eyes and tell a lie he had already researhed and executed ("Horace sent me with the sandwich.") Certainly, if I as a kid had been able to stealthily rig explosive vehicles, I wouldn't have taken any crap from an abusive parent. (Not that mine were.) Maokun 11:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
        • What's with the "run to another building" talk? He likely just set up the fire and the bus at the top of the stairs, then set it rolling, and walked down the staircase and waited for Phil to jump up. No running involved at all. No sweating. Marc604 09:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Or the van could have been at the top of an incline. Start the fire in the back, take the van out of gear, and let it roll down, the fire increasing as it rolled and took on more oxygen. Then Ben walks to the Security Office, and waits for Phil to get the call. A lot went on before they called Phil over, plenty of time. It's not rocket science to be a vandal, and not being able to directly look at an abusive parent is actually a very good indicator that someone would do something sneaky like setting an unattended van on fire and rolling it into a house, rather than directly confronting Phil, which would take balls the kid didn't exhibit. It's like the quiet, abused people who crack and shoot up their school; it doesn't take brains or balls to become a terrorist. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As I already pointed out in the other section, I couldn't agree more, Maokun. If it is really supposed to be Ben himself, then it was presented poorly on the show. He was already waiting half-way into the station which makes zero sense if he was on the van just a few seconds earlier. There are people inside monitoring whatever is going on out there and they could have noticed the van even before they were alerted by LaFleur. So why would Ben risk crossing Phil by going down there? The way it was shown leads me to believe that there was somebody helping Ben with the van. --MacCutcheon Talk? 11:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It was 1 minute 14 seconds screentime from when James notices the van already on fire, until he calls for Phil. When James notices it, it's fully on fire, and it's rolling by on it's way to the house. Allowing that the fire was raging on the house before James got on the phone, realtime would have been longer, but even that amount of time, plus the time it took for the van to pick up speed, catch fully on fire, etc. was plenty of time for a kid to go across a complex and climb down some stairs into the darkness. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It might have turned out to be 1m14s+, but Ben did not have this knowledge in advance. Also, the area is monitored by cameras from within the security station. With an event like this there could have been people entering and leaving any moment. --MacCutcheon Talk? 11:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

SRSLY? (Seriously?) The van goes through the house, people are pulled out, chaos ensues, and it is some time before Phil is called to join the hose brigade. There was plenty of time for LB to creep into the Security Office and hide until Phil was called out. It's not a theory, and it gets rather annoying when every little thing must be completely spelled out or editors refuse to connect the dots. We were given every clue we needed to make the connection, including Ben telling Sayid to be patient and he would help him. There's no jump there, no theory. Ben lit the van up. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. (thanks also for ensuring we all know what SRSLY stands for, I think someone would open up a theory page if you didn't spell it out) It's the whole 'Locke didn't blow up the sub' argument all over again, just because it wasn't shown 100% on screen people instantly jump to doubt it. OK both our opinions on what Young Ben can and can't do are speculative. Facts are; he said he would break Sayid out, he did just that. There was a lot of concentration on the fire and people preparing to put it out, more than enough time for him to run to the security station ( as he no doubt planned ). Bear in mind it's his inability to stand up to his father which is the drive for him to escape and join the Others. --Integrated (User / Talk) 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • You can save your breath regarding that "SRSLY" remark, as opposed to what we're talking about here this is something that can be answered with a simple Google query. I'm not going to continue to argue about this detail either since I don't really care that much. If the majority feels (although I don't really get that impression) this is not worth an UQ, so be it. --MacCutcheon Talk? 21:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't defining it; I was emphasising it, because I simply can't fathom why anyone is unable to connect the dots there. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I was referring to Integrated's comment. Besides, it's not about being unable to connect the dots. If you think that people are unable to relate the van situation to Ben taking advantage of it, then you haven't understood what this is about. Sometimes the show presents situations where the most naive conclusion turns out to be wrong and it is up to the viewer to pick up the slightest hints indicating that. --MacCutcheon Talk? 11:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wishful Thinking on an Alternate Way this All Could Have Played Out

I'm not sure if this i the right place to post this, so if anyone thinks it needs to be moved, please be my guest. That said, It bothers me that the Sawyer crew has lived for three years with the possibility of the rest of the Losties returning, and it seems unrealistic that they would not have come up with a really good contingency plan. It seems something like claiming that anyone who showed up under questionable circumstances could have been claimed to be one of their ship's crew, who had been captured by the hostiles for as long as they had been away, and that they had escaped . Then if and when they showed up under suspicious circumstance, it would have been far simpler to claim that, rather than having to make up some explanation on the fly. I know it's just wishful thinking because I care about the characters, and really messy, disturbing conflict makes for good storytelling.... but it just seems really unlikely that over ALL that time, they wouldn't have come up with a contingency plan. Any thoughts??--Jaywallin 04:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin--Jaywallin 04:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably best suited for a forum post. ;) This page is used to discuss wiki-related edits of "He's Our You." Congested 04:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Sawyer says as much that they never really expected the Oceanic Six to return.Spiral77 05:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I know, but in La Fleur, we see that Jin has spent years seemingly doing a grid search of the island looking for their people, so even if they weren't thinking they really would come back, they seemed to be hoping/fearing for it. When Jin finds Sayid he seems to not know how to play it, but it's kind of silly that they never would have played out the scenario with each other on what should be done.--Jaywallin 05:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin
When they first made the decision to "wait" for Locke by the well near the Orchid, they didn't know that they were stranded in 1974. It wasn't until they rescued Amy from the Hostiles/Others and were "captured" by Dharma that they realized they were in the past. It seems to me that Sawyer did have a pretty good plan, becoming head of security and staffing it with Miles and Jin, plus the "dimwitted" Phil and Jerry. That gave them control of the perimeter, security cameras, etc. They may have even planned for finding other 815 survivors (Rose, Bernard, etc) travelling on the same timline by listing them as other members of their "crew". But once they realized they were in the '70's, they likely gave up on Locke and the O6.--Eyeful Tower 16:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sawyer seemed to have a few plans - the problem came when Sayid refused to go along with it. There was nothing he could do there. --Integrated (User / Talk) 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed blooper

I added the fact that the presumably dead body of Young Ben is still breathing after Sayid shot him. This was promptly removed. Explain? I don't want to edit war this. --  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   06:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that Ben is dead (ie: we have seen him in the future, you can't change the future, ergo...), thus him breathing is not a blooper.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • True that Ben is still alive in 2008, that wont change no matter what happens. Unknown if Ben is alive or dead now, 1977 (he could be dead and resurrect somehow, or not be fataly wounded). Now, are we not meant we are meant by TPTB to think that he is dead in 1977? So, to successfully imply/depict death, the body left in the scene isn't supposed to breath. It does ergo, Blooper. --  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   07:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen the episode yet but, isn't it possible that Ben is still alive but fatally wounded at the end of this episode and it will be revealed at the beginning of the next episode wether he is going to die or not?--Haskar 09:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep- I don't see any reason to assume that Ben is totally dead. Gunshot wound != death.--Chocky 15:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Ben is dead or very close to dead, but the Island will bring him back to life. (Alternatively, maybe Jack will have to operate to save him!).--Lostinspace 28 March 2009
    • It seems pretty unlikely that someone with Sayid's experience would leave Ben in the jungle in any condition other than "unequivocally dead". It has been claimed that you can't change the future; but that is not a fact of the show; it's one character's claim. TheHYPO 15:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And the producers. They've gone on the record saying this.--Chocky 15:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • But they've also previously discredited Time Travel as being part of the show. We know how that's turned out. Honestly, were so close to the end now that the Producer Podcasts are going to HAVE to be full of misinformation if they want the end to be a surprise. So, while listning to D&C is fun and interesting, I dont believe a word of it i hear.Matt 21:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with TheHYPO. Sayid is a trained killer, I think this episode made that very clear, and Ben is as dead as a very dead dodo. --Cunningmunki 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • In this episode, at the marina, Sayid says only to Ben, "If I see you again, it will be extremely unpleasant for both of us." But, in This Place is Death, Sayid addresses both Jack and Ben by saying,"If I see you, or him again, it will be extremely unpleasant for all of us." This is not a blooper. It was clearly done deliberately, so even though it is weird, it was not an accident therefore not a blooper. Just a desicion by the producers. I moved to Trivia. --Integrated (User / Talk) 16:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't understand your logic! To me, this is clearly lies within the bloopers and continuity errors section. Do you mind elaborating more on your reasoning? — Iimitk  T  C  18:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. — Iimitk  T  C  20:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree It was done in post to save time most likely, and to make things a bit clearer for the audience. The new cut omits the Jack stuff to save time, and to keep things less confusing. Really the scene was included just to set up the time frame for the bar scene, which it does successfully. Congested 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Bloopers are things that are accidental. This is just a time cut done in the editing room to help the flow of the episode. It's not a blooper because it would have had to have been done on purpose. But more than that, it doesn't imply that the rest of the dialogue wasn't spoken, it's just a basic time cut.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yea exactly - it's not an ERROR because it was done ON PURPOSE --Integrated (User / Talk) 08:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • We also have to consider perspective. In this episode, we heard Sayid speak; previously, we heard what someone else thought he said.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was the one who wrote that blooper first, and for once I thought there should be NO ARGUMENT over this one. I'm literally dumbfounded by the logic that someone would try to argue why this is okay and should be reclassified. Whatever the reasoning behind it...the dialogue in the first episode kind of locks them into it, and it IS NOT just an editing trick, they changed up words, as is obvious by the quote as its written. The things that make it as bloopers or errors would never jump out to me, yet a blatant line change is justified by some? I give up.--Jaywallin 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin
  • I re-added the marina dialogue blooper after rewatching the two scenes, words are clearly changed, not just time cut. But also, regarding the continuity of the position of Ben's body, I just don't see it, AT ALL. I don't want to remove it, maybe someone else wants to weigh in on it, but it looks simply like the camera angle changed, so the perspective on his body looks slightly different, but this seems far less a blooper, then the alteration of dialogue, whether intentional or accidental. And even if there was a minor movement, we're not talking about an inanimate object, it's entirely plausible that the last seconds before Ben loses consciousness, that he slightly moves, or writhes.--Jaywallin 01:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin
  • Here's the simple fact: A blooper is something done unintentionally by the producers that wouldn't make sense if the events were happening in real life (ie: someone in 1930 has a cell phone, or the boom mike comes into frame, or an extra walks through the shot). A continuity error is an accidental contradiction of previously established facts (ie: Jack suddenly has a new tattoo, Juliet's sister is named Jessica (not actual things to happen in the show, just examples of something that would be a continuity error)). In either case, these are accidental things that the show makers didn't intend. Recut, or refilmed dialogue is obviously intentional. So, simply by definition, the marina scene isn't a blooper or a continuity error. Additionally, Ben moving isn't a blooper because we know he survives due to the fact that you can't change the past.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • continuity error By your own definition it *is* a continuity error lol. It wouldn't make sense if it happened in real life - if you took a videos of Sayid on the marina in real life with two different cameras, both cameras would record the same dialogue. As far as intentionality, there is just no way that the producers intended for the dialogue to be inconsistent. It's not edited or recut, it's actually *contradictory*. Even if they intended the new scene to replace the old one, it's *still* a continuity error because the new scene makes the old one inconsistent. An "intentional" error of "I know it's wrong but did it anyway" is still an error. You can argue that then it's really that old scene that's wrong and that's fine, but the fact that this episode contradicts the older one makes it important to list on this page even if the "error" itself is now on the old episode.If it was intentional then true, it's not a blooper, but it's still a continuity error. And it might even have been a blooper. They may have shot the scene several times from different angles, and wanted a different angle for this episode, and not realized that Naveen changed the dialogue slightly. --Jackdavinci 04:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not gonna argue this much further, because frankly I don't really care that much. But I just want to say, the key point of the definition is "unintentional", so no it isn't a continuity error if edited intentionally in that way.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • What he said - it isn't an error, it was changed on purpose to make the episode flow better. It was weird but it wasn't an error. --Integrated (User / Talk) 08:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Let's not get into an edit war here - I'm going to remove it pending an overwhelming disagreement. It is NOT an ERROR - while it is to do with continuity, it is weird, it is controversial, it is upsetting, confusing, displeasing, mindboggling, it is NOT an error, it was a deliberate change. I'm leaving it in trivia --Integrated (User / Talk) 11:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to agree that it's an error. The writers have not stated it was their intention to have the dialogue mismatched, and it would matter little if they did mean to do so. A person intentionally insulting someone else is still an error in judgment; wikilawyering the word error solves nothing. The scene differed from one episode to the other, therefore it needs to be pointed out. LP gives a perfectly reasonable definition, without regard to intention in the B&CE article: "Continuity errors are bloopers that don't match storyline or timeline from other parts of the same episode or other episodes". The story does not match up where Sayid says something different. It is a continuity error. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok well fair enough Lostpedia has spoken. I just think error is the wrong word. I will put it back though. --Integrated (User / Talk) 12:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry Integrated. None of that was specifically directed at you. I'm just in a bad mood. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No worries eh. --Integrated (User / Talk) 17:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is funny that because some think to know what will happen to Ben they disregard this blooper as one. It's not at all said that Ben won't be dead and that the future has not been changed by Sayid. All we see here is that Sayid shot Ben and we have to believe that he is dead, period. Some started to sell their ASSUMPTIONS as the final truth. We don't need any of this because then the show is bereft of all mysteries. Even if there is doubt that Ben has been killed no one does KNOW for certain, so we have to go with what we saw and believe Ben to be dead, hence regarding a breathing shot Ben as a blooper. I really don't understand what's to discuss about that. Is there any, any concrete evidence that the future can't be changed; that Daniel was right; that Ben won't be dead from now on, other than some very vocal and appearently influencial people's assumptions? I don't say it can't be true but we don't KNOW. What I would do as a producer, writer or director to point viewers attention to the possibility that Ben might not be dead is zooming in on his moving chest DUNN DUNN DUNN and then fade to black. As it is, only some people with good eyes and HD TVs saw the breathing. Wouldn't you make sure to let everyone in on the clue, not only some? My two cents. One08 13:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What did Ben do to Sayid?

Previously we had been shown a very sharp disparity between Sayid working for Ben and Sayid after some untold severe break with Ben. Whereas previously Sayid killed for Ben unquestioningly, after he had extreme distrust and hatred for Ben, wanted nothing to do with him, and warned everyone he talked to not to trust him either. But this episode seems to portray their 'break' simply as Ben telling Sayid his job is done. Was this really the trigger for the extreme turn around in Sayid's view of Ben? Or is the trigger event still as of yet unseen? --Jackdavinci 07:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Sayid has always had extreme distrust and hatred for Ben, all the way back to the interrogation in the Swan. But for a time, Ben convinced him they had a common interest: eliminating allies of Widmore who might hurt the O6. After Ben cut him loose in Moscow ("that was the last one"), all that was left was the distrust and hatred.--Eyeful Tower 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sayid was working for Ben because of his wifes death and him feeling like he had no purpose in life. Ben offered him salvation by giving him work that would help the O6 and protect them from Widmore. During Sayids time working for Ben unquestionably, a possible sense of trust for Ben may have come from Sayid. However, Sayid realised that when Ben just cut Sayid loose like he was a pawn in Ben's plan, this "trust" was false and became enraged with how Ben manipulated him so easily. Maxwell P. Rodriguez 00:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode references

Sayid's being tortured whilst shackled to a tree is clearly a reference to the episode in which Sayid tortures Sawyer in the same manner. Only problem is, I can't remember which one that was! Maybe someone who can could add it to the episode references. DublinDilettante 10:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • That would be episode 1.8: Confidence man.--Smullie 10:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oldham

Hell yeah! E.B. Farnum in Lost! Anyhoo, anyone noticed al the coloured jars on the table outside the tipi? Could this be a hint towards Jacob? He lives away from the D.I. and the only tech we've been shown is his record player. Thoughts anyone ?--Smullie 10:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the record player outside his tent was seen inside Jacob's cabin in an earlier episode. Can anyone confirm this? --Androsphynx 16:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, althought he uses a not so conventional way (LSD)of getting info, I'd rather say that Oldham is an interrogator than a torturer.--Smullie 10:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, Roger Linus says,"We'll see how pretty you are when Oldham gets done with you." Which kind of makes it sound like he's going to mutilate him, but in the end Sayid has a fun trip, and they end up not believing his truth anyway, and surmising that they used too much. Oldham instantly goes from being an ominous torturer, to being a goofy hippy who just overdosed his "client".--Jaywallin 12:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin

Not to argue too fine a point, but from Wikipedia: "The use of truth drugs is classified as a form of torture according to international law." Who's to say that Sayid wouldn't have used such a drug in his interrogations of Ben (or the Iraqi prisoners), if he'd had access to it? Clamshell 19:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is a stretch, and I don't even think this was intentional on the part of the writers but a fun coincidence. According to wikipedia, the surname Oldham derives from the place Oldham, in Greater Manchester, England. The toponymy of Oldham seems to imply "old village or place" from Eald (Saxon) signifying oldness or antiquity, and Ham (Saxon) a house, farm or hamlet. The character Oldham is played by William Sanderson. Sanderson played in Bladerunner as J. F. Sebastian, who has the disease progeria(Methuselah Syndrome); his glands age faster than he does and thus he has a short lifespan. That is, he is "Old" beyond his years. --J.nc 03:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Flash

Sayidflash

There is a flash on the ground when Oldham has Sayid tied to the tree and says "there are side-effects to what im giving you" at approx 20:30. At first i thought it was something they edited out then i thought it was the reflection of something but there is nothing there in other shots. Nothing important, just wondering what it could be--Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 11:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Don't suppose you could circle what you see? I see some light coming through a break in the trees and a reflection of a bucket...humpton 19:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I know where you mean in the scene. There is a darkening of the light, then it gets bright again? I think the sun went behind a cloud or something, and then there was some reflective light. I am fairly certain it wasn't a "flash". ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I took that darkening as a directorial trick, as we're seeing things through Sayid's perspective, to show the LSD has started to affect him. shrodes 01:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • My bad, I see what the OP means. @ 20:30, centre of screen, at the bottom, you can see vertical reflection lines from some object. Could be one of those light reflecting panels they use in TV to get the light just right on the characters / surroundings. shrodes 01:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • When shooting in daylight or near a very powerful source of light, camera lens get this 'light blur effect', speacially in wide angle lenses, which has a large piece of glass to capture the image, and becuz of that is more sensitive to this sort of effect. Stanley Kubrick used it a lot. The most famous scene is on Full Metal Jacket, other directors uses it as well as some sort of homage. So, it could be just a 'problem' of too many light, kept for aesthetic reasons, or really means something. But I´ll guess I´ll stick to aesthetic reasons.

Eko and Sayid

Sayid and Eko have similar pasts and will never know it. A brother is told to kill, but the "lost" brother steps in and kills on his behalf. It is interesting to see how this show mirrors itself. Writerstix 11:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That struck me as well.Spiral77 04:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

==Why remove the continuity error of the scene on the pier?== It's blatant, and clearly an error.--Jaywallin 13:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)jaywallin

Kaiser Soze?

This is my first post/edit/whatever, so if I'm doing this wrong please let me know, but also, be kind

When Sayid assassinates the guy in Russia, he looks very much like Kaiser Soze does in the flashback/story that Verbal tells in The Usual Suspects. Then, when he approaches Ben outside, Ben looks very much like Verbal, revealed to be Kaiser, when he's on the boat.

These are not the only similarities that LOST has with The Usual Suspects

- Ben, the mastermind, when captured acts like a lackey and tells an elaborate story and when he finally "breaks down" and tells the truth, it's still not the truth. Ben is also a master manipulator like Kaiser Soze.

-The boat/freighter factors largely in both stories and looks similar.

- Flashbacks

- Everything is not what it seems

- The audience is intentionally misled.


--Haven13 16:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • This is a nice comparison that I haven't thought about before. The Usual Suspects is one of my favorite films! I would venture a guess that as storytellers Darlton has a great fondness for it. Perhaps they're doing homage to it. I think that might be a good question to put to them, if anyone gets the chance! I'll come back with more thoughts when I ponder this more. Lorite 18:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Though I agree on the Ben part as The Usual Suspects is unique in misleading the with Verbal Kint's manipulations and lies-within-lies in a similar fashion that Ben does it, I think that flashbacks and plot twists are not rear in TV shows (even sit-coms such as How I Met Your Mother, feature flashbacks in most episodes and plot twists are featured in many episodes). Though I have to say that it's a great comparison, the story of Keiser Soze is the best part of The Usual Suspects and it really links to Sayid/Ben's situation. --Orhan94 22:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Good one! I did think that ben in that hat looked like someone I've seen before but I couldn't put my finger on it. It may be somewhat significative seeing how Ben has never before used that attire. Maokun 01:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Another similarity between the works is the many Wizard of Oz references. They are much more overt in LOST, but Bryan Singer said, "I always equated the movie to The Wizard of Oz. New York was Kansas and Los Angeles was Oz, with a cool cast of strange characters that they would encounter — you know, Red Foot by the Korean Friendship Bell, and this strange pool hall where they meet Kobayashi, and is he the man, or the man behind the curtain?... That's where a lot of that design, and perhaps some of the color and vibrance, came from."--Haven13 15:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hurley's Cooking Skills

  • One of the unanswered questions concerns Hurley's cooking skills. I don't consider this a problem because, firstly, he was only showing serving waffles and ham. This is not a particularly complicated meal. Secondly, this is a man who likes to eat (and has been shown preparing his own food previously). Even without professional training, he could certainly be capable of preparing a decent meal based on his own cooking experience. Axemantitan 18:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I see no one remembers Hurley at Mr. Cluck's... --Cerberus1838 02:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

UQ round 1

Please people don't repost these UQ unless you have a good argument for disagreeing with me, let's try and be smart about these things.

  1. Is young Ben Linus actually dead? A leading question and also we will undoubtedly find out next episode.
  2. When and where did Hurley learn to cook? We saw he worked at Mr Clucks, plus cooing waffles in a deep fryer isn't hard.
  3. Who was responsible for the flaming Dharma bus? How you can watch the episode and not know this is beyond me. It was young Ben rescuing Sayid.
  4. Why would Andropow want to kill members of the Oceanic Six when most of them are in Los Angeles and he's in Moscow? umm.. what? Sayid was killing these men to protect the people still on the island.. when did anyone say Andropow wanted to kill the 06? Nonsense question.
  5. How did she know that Sayid was at the bar? (referring to Ilana) Well she is a professional bounty hunter give her some credit.

--Integrated (User / Talk) 18:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. How does Ilana know Sayid was responsible for the death of Peter Avellino? She was told by whoever hired her.
  2. What kind of authority does she have to take Sayid into the plane with handcuffs? She's a bounty hunter, they can have legal standing I believe. Even if this isn't the case, she could be lying. Not a major mystery.

 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • re: the bus, I just posted something in the #Flaming_Bus section (feel free to reply here). --MacCutcheon Talk? 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Who or what is Ann Arbour". It is a town where the University of Michigan is located, aka the birthplace of Dharma. FralfTC 19:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • 1. wait and see
  • 2. doh!
  • 3. obviously Ben
  • 4. Poorly worded, but I think the editor was trying to question how Sayid was supposedly protecting the O6 by shooting the men on Ben's list, and how someone in Moscow is a danger to people in LA.
  • I actually think it's important to know how Illana got Sayid in handcuffs on the flight.. is she a cop who was lying about being a bounty hunter or a bounty who lied about being a cop ? --Integrated (User / Talk) 01:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 5. She did not confirm she was a bounty hunter. I adjusted the question about taking Sayid on the plane in handcuff to what her authority was to take him on an international flight in handcuffs. "She could be lying" doesn't solve what gave her the legal right to take him on an international flight.
  • ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Re: #5 This has been stated somewhere else but Guam is actually a US territory, not international. I've never been to Guam though, so it could still be treated as an international flight. Lorite 01:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • American citizens still need to a passport when flying to Guam (here). This indicates to me it's considered an international flight, regardless. I'm not sure what the paperwork would entail because I couldn't find anything on the Internet. That tells me it'd be an UQ for other viewers. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed:

    • Why does she have to take him to Guam? She said that he was bringing him in for the death of the man he killed on the golf course. Obviously charges on awaiting him in Guam.
    • Who is she really working for? Leading question.

Whatever Happened, Happened

Removed: "*Did young Ben die with the shot?

    • Will this action change the timeline?"

because this was answered, in Because You Left: No and no. Whoever added this obviously doesn't understand how time travels works on Lost... --Golden Monkey 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • You can't blame people for being confused. Young Ben was shot in the chest, and not many people normally recover from that. I also questioned if Ben was living or dead after watching the end of the episode. It seemed to spit in the face of "whatever happened, happened". dposse 20:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The question is: can't Faraday's timeline theory be wrong?
  • Whoa there, "Did young Ben die with the shot?" a very valid unanswered question. I think the title of the book that young Ben gives to Sayid is a very big clue to how this is all going to pan out. The impression you got from Sayid was that he had come to realise what his purpose was, namely, to kill the young Ben. It was what the whole episode was about. Despite what's been said before in the series about changing the time-line, I think the end of this episode was a very sharp kick in the teeth for that theory, which was a deliberate move on the part of the writers to make the end of this episode all the more shocking. "Is Ben dead?" is a valid question to be included, and in my opinion, he definitely is. --Cunningmunki 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe I was misunderstood… I meant to say that we aren’t completely sure of Faraday’s theory, so questioning if the shot will change timeline seems plausible to me.
  • Sorry, I was responding to Golden Monkey's post, not yours. You're dead right, Faraday was wrong. --Cunningmunki 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As a preface, arguing about the effects of time travel, fate v. free will, etc. has been the most exciting for me with Lost. To push back a bit on what you wrote, Cunningmunki, I think that Ben has had two key lines in the past two episodes that supports the theory that he knows exactly what's going on, and that he in fact remembers everything (that he was witness to/will be witness to in 1977). First, he has a great line after the first commercial break in Namaste when Sun (I believe) asks "Where did they go" i.e. Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid...and Ben says, "How should I know?" in Michael Emerson's amazingly deadpan way that is SO ironic because the episode ends with young Ben introducing himself to Sayid. I think Ben knows EXACTLY where they went...because he has always known! My second example comes from this episode, when Ben approaches Sayid in the Dominican Republic. He insists that Sayid is a killer, because it's in his nature. Now, we can all agree that Ben has ample proof of this from his experiences with Sayid off the island, on the island in the hatch, etc. But my ears perked up when he said "It's in your nature Sayid." Because even though HE knows that Sayid can't change things, Sayid doesn't know that. So back in 1977 Ben was shot in cold blood by this man that he had just freed thinking he was going to get away from his father, etc. for good. The "nature" line juxtaposed with the (from young Ben's perspective) cold-blooded act of (attempted...my belief anyway) murder of an innocent child leads me to think that Ben knows exactly what's going on and knows exactly what kind of person Sayid is. Regarding the bit about the book Ben hands Sayid, it's a story about some guy who gets tripped out on hallucinogens in his effort to find meaning, yada yada. Maybe it gave Sayid some insight into how he could fight the effects of high doses of LSD (I'm totally kidding). Lorite 23:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the producers have also stated that you can't change the timeline. It's not just coming from Faraday.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

None the less, the first question the audience asked themselves, the question leaving them wanting more was 'Is Ben really dead?', not 'How did Llana get Sayid past security? Annarboral 06:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That might be the first question they ask, but as soon as they give it some thought they should realize (if they've been listening) that the question is answered.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's still a valid question. Personally, I agree with you, but it's a point of much debate at the moment, so we should keep it in.--Chocky 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm with Chocky, the fact that we're all talking about it makes it a very valid question. Plus, the fact that the producers have said they can't change the time-line (by the way, has anyone got an exact quote on that?) means nothing, as Matt has pointed out in another topic, they have contradicted themselves before, and could be very easily be giving us misinformation. Previously, I was as convinced as most other people that they couldn't change the time-line, as this had so far been the "law" in Lost, and that was what made this ending so shocking, which is exactly why we had been led to believe what we had, for greater effect. Remember, Ben said Widmore "changed the rules" when he had Alex killed, so perhaps this means Sayid has now also broken the same "rules". The story of this episode, and especially the flashbacks, were all leading towards that ending, and if young Ben is still alive, then I'd be very disappointed in the writers, as it would contradict the whole point of the episode. Look at the title of the book young Ben gave to Sayid, is that not a BIG enough clue as to what's going to happen?! Oh, and look at the title of next week's episode. It's a valid question, and it's going back in.--Cunningmunki 15:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The whole point of the episode, from beginning to end, seems to be to establish the fact that at his deepest core, Sayid is a killer, plain and simple, from his chicken-neck breaking childhood to his innocent-kid killing final moment of the episode. This indicates nothing about whether or not he accomplished his goal. The writers (I believe, because we really don't know, even if they "tell us") were digging into Sayid's intentions. Is he capable of killing young Ben Linus? The episode definitely answers that question. Personally, I wouldn't be disappointed at all if young Ben was still alive, because it would not change a thing about what the writers were trying to convey about Sayid in that episode. Lorite 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The point of the episode isn't meant to be "OMG is Ben dead?" but rather "OMG Sayid shot a kid!" Scrapping everything that's been previously established (inside and outside of the show) based on speculation is not the way to go. Furthermore, even if that weren't the case, from a writing perspective it would be a terrible idea to kill Ben as a kid because it invalidates the first four seasons of the show because they no longer happened in the same way... You lose all credibility as a storyteller if you all of a sudden decide "oh yeah, the last four years of stuff I've told you? it didn't happen." The producers have stated that they require us to be invested in the show, and thus that they won't change the timeline. Not everything is an unanswered question, sometimes you just have to apply some reasoning to it.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • ^^^This. It's a "what happens next" type question, rather than a What's Smokey question. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Saying "this has been answered" is an assumption on a. that Faraday's theory is correct, and b. That things the producers have told us about time travel and paradox's have been true, or understood fully. Darlton have a track record of lying for the sake of drama--I think it's a legitimate question, and isn't one of the ideas with UQ that we don't make assumptions? --<BauerUK> tlk | cnt | www | irc 11:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not an assumption either way. Adding it as a UQ just ammounts to asking "what happens next". Wait and see. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Additionally, "not making assumptions" is not the point of UQ's. Otherwise you can poke holes in the most definitive of answers. At some point you have to assume that the reasoning that we've been presented with is correct and that the question is answered.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok c'mon Cunningmunki -"You're dead right, Faraday was wrong." thats pretty difinitive well I hope your a frequent user and please do check back next week when you are proved wrong. I would go as far as to bet my life Ben will not die Not just Faraday but those guys called the produers yeah the ones who control the show have stated you CANT change the past. I would expect this question from someone who has never seen an episode before but this site is based on what we know and we know you cant change the past. And the first thing i asked myself wasnt "is ben alive" it was "is that why bens sucha a sicko" so there. I would also argue that the most interesting things that have happened this season have been when we have seen that if the survivors didnt time travel certain things wouldnt have happened ie: richard going to see locke because locke told him to; or Daniel not getting sick because jin wouldnt let her go in the temple. So why would the producers show us that they cant change the past but rather are a part of it for 9 episodes and then shoot that all to hell by killing ben which we know doesnt happen in the future --Czygan84 04:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian Dialogue?

Forgive me if this is a flame, but has it been revealed what Andropov said to Sayid in Russian prior to his death? --Frenk Melk 21:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • He said something like... "This 300 (or 3000), 400 (or 4000) they are yours". Nothing special really, as far as I understood. --Orhan94 22:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • You are right. Here's what he exactly said: "Wait, wait, wait! Don't shoot! 300 000 or 400 000 euro. They are all yours. Please. Ple..." Bang, Bang QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 12:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Timing of first Sayid flashback?

How old is Sayid when he kills the chicken? It'd be cute if the scene was set in 1977, so it'd be a "flash-sideways".--Nevermore 23:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha that'd be genius. Even so it's flashback regardless because it happened previously in the character's personal timeline, just as everything else in the flashback did.. even though it's taking place 30 years later... trippy --Integrated (User / Talk) 01:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Andropov versus Andropow

The Article page references a character variously named Andropov or Andropow. The section "Synopsis/Flashback/Tikrit, Iraq" and the section "External Links/Flashback characters" list him as Andropov and contain a live link to a secondary page under this spelling. The sections "Trivia/Storyline analysis" and "Trivia/Literary Techniques" spell his name as Andropow and again link to seperate page under this different spelling. So which is his correct name ? It sounds like Andropov to me. Is this a simple typo ? Or is there a language technique involved here -- similar to the German language where the symbol "w" is pronounced as an English "v" ?Kolbbros 06:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The correct spelling of this russian surname is Andropov.plasmaangel

The picture

Behind Bars

Jail

5x10 Just Enough

Smiling

I would hope that the war over the lead picture is over, but I think it's time for all who care to go on record: "Jail" or "Smiling"--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Jail. The episode revolved around Sayid's imprisonment.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Jail as well. While the smiling face makes me smile and does relate to the bit about how "He's Our You", the jail photo reflects much more vividly the darkness underlying this episode. Lorite 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Smile. No particular reason, just personal preference.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Smiling. Sayid is seen imprisoned in previous episodes in this season. The under influence smiling is unique to this episode and it reflects an actual event of the episode: interrogating Sayid and the information he had revealed about the Island and DHARMA. Actually the smiling face relates more the episode's title since it it references a type of torturing, and that's why Sayid has responded with "you've used enough", indicating he already knows what was applied to him. — Iimitk  T  C  08:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Smiling. As Iimitk points out, the jail is a continuing story, while the LSD is a major part of this episode, enough to warrant the title. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Jail. Personal preference.--Forloyo 11:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • SMILING--Integrated (User / Talk) 15:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Jail. I don't think the smiling picture is as straightforward (i.e., one needs to know that Sayid was on drugs to understand why he was smiling). --kristbg 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Jail. It's a dark episode for Sayid. Namastizzay 22:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Jail: One of the key points in this episode is Sayid's interactions with young Ben, which takes place in the jail room. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 22:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sayid crying after shooting Ben might be a good picture too. But if it's between these two — Jail because like others have said it's a dark episode for Sayid so this picture better represents the feel of the episode and the character, especially considering the end. -- Hamdo    [Talk] 00:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Jail: the smiling one just looks silly, doesn't fit the tone of the episode. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
  • Jail: not even close the smiling one is straight wierd; plus the emotion on his face in the jail pic is very more representative of the episode then one where he looks drunk. --Czygan84 00:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Jail, personal favorite. --Orhan94 00:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Jail: personal preference + the second picture doesn't show a clear emotion and is not related to the main plot of the episode. --   Steff    talk    contribs    email   00:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Smiling Sayid makes the badass face in so many episodes; this is the first time we've seen him even slightly silly; aside from the end, that silliness is the best part of the episode. --Emissary23 05:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Smiling. It uniquely identifies this episode and is part of the scene that is associated with the title. --Celebok 19:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Jail's image gets the most votes.

Image Dispute template is removed as other issues discussed the section below (Images) are resolved as well. Thanks everyone. — Iimitk  T  C  11:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

This is the first time I encounter this here, but there appears that someone is changing images to other ones merely because they're uploaded by himself. Earlier I changed some images that don't "serve" the article to more descriptive and engaging images, yet they've been replaced again with meaningless images, like the image of the burning DHARMA van running through the barracks, or the image of a blunt Roger checking on Sayid. Good images in my opinion are:

  • Descriptive, telling or summarizing a main event of the episode or the show in general.
  • Related to main characters. To me, an image of Kate & Juliet argument about their relationship is superior to Roger's looking at someone.
  • I prefer close-up images over distant-view ones.
  • I try to avoid images that are originally very dark or unclear altogether.

I know image precedence is a gray area, but at least some guidelines should be present so that we can refer to when image disputes occur. — Iimitk  T  C  09:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Picture preference is subjective, but no one should rule the article over which pictures are used. If a preference is removed repeatedly, bring it up here so we can discuss it. I just wish someone would stop forcing thumbnail sizes every episode that negate our personal preferences. THUMB is sufficient; we do not need the PX sized. I like my images big, because I have a nice WS monitor, and so I have that set in my preferences. However, someone keeps code forcing them to 200px (or smaller) on every new episode. I wish they'd stop. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've already brought it up here by starting this section, and already have given two examples of image removal in this article. LP:IMAGES says too little about choice of images and spends too much on tackling copyright issues. I think image preference's "subjectivity" is what brought us up here. I gave my suggestions about what good images for an article should be, and am hoping others would enlist their suggestions as well. — Iimitk  T  C  13:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I missed your specific examples before. Roger at the bars and the van burning the house were two very key scenes in this episode, IMO. I'd be fine with Roger at the bars traded for Roger roughing LB up, but I think that scene must be represented in some fashion because it gave us insight into Ben's early life. The burning van and house were important because it was the vehicle (groan) by which Sayid was able to escape. I'd be fine with a clearer picture, but again, it should be represented. What would you put in their place? (forgive me for not wanting to dig through the history) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Images removed and replaced which I've noticed are:
    • Young Sayid image is replaced with that of his father.
    • Kate & Juliet argument at the puncture is replaced with the burning van's image. IMHO, the van's image is very trivial to the episode or the show. It was the means by which Ben could bring chaos to the barracks in order to escape Sayid, which is the more relevant part. Ben could have used any other method to do this. On the other hand, Kate & Juliet's conversation at the puncture while short, is so important, as it's obviously a seeder to the upcoming rivalries and love triangle dramas. It affects them, Sawyer & Jack as well, so it should warrant a visual representation I guess.
    • Roger's image is put there without replacement. However, I respectfully disagree with you that it has any importance. We already know that Ben's father is a loser since season 3. That image is useless, even from its caption "Roger visits Sayid"! As a middle solution I'll try to upload an image that catches him while abusing Ben; should be more informative. Agree?
All in all, my main concern is that people don't replace images for reasons other than improving the quality of the article. This usually runs smoothly, however in this episode there was a bit of image war waging, so I thought we might consider sketching a few guidelines.
And yes, sorry about the lengthy edit. :) — Iimitk  T  C  20:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not fussed either way with the other two, but yes, a good compromise is the abusive Roger with Ben, nd Sayid if possible, to show that part of the story. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done! And thanks for bringing the other images back. — Iimitk  T  C  10:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's no guarantee they will stay. I didn't remove them in the first place, so I had no problem putting them back there. I like the updated Roger one better. There is at least one, if not more, editors who, on every episode, force their prefered images. Good luck. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "You just had to say something". You know what, I usually wouldn't be willing to spend more time or resources into this, but since we've settled the images issue in a very civilized manner, I guess I'm going to defend the spirit of community we've worked with. Who ever changed that image, it is obvious to me that he waited until we end the fruitful discussion here and remove the PictureDisute template just to go after our consensus and change images to those (again) uploaded by himself. How obsessive! — Iimitk  T  C  02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
After Iimitk wrote on my page I read this discussion. My overall opinion regarding images that each paragraph should have one picture that shows a scene from it. In this acrticle's case, the first paragraph in the "On the Island" talks about Horace's visit to Sawyer, while Roger's scene is in the next paragraph yet it appears with the first one. I thought it was clear - I guess it wasn't.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  03:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Taser Anachronism?

  • Isn't the Taser that LaFleur uses on Sayid an anachronism? I see that the first Taser devise was finished in 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser) but I can't imagine they looked like modern Tasers.
  • Same thing could be said about the surveillance camera and other equipment. I guess this could go in the Bloopers section. -- Hamdo    [Talk] 00:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I just assumed that DHARMA had access to experimental technology. There's also the possibility that Sawyer showed them how to build one (as a criminal, he might be familiar with it). Clamshell 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I doubt he knows how they work, I beleave its just a blooper.

Just a Thought

I'm not sure all these bloopers are actually bloopers. Go back to Confirmed Dead: the pictures on the old lady's wall changed while Miles was upstairs. Maybe we're seeing little fractures in the timeline? i.e. Charlie can't swim then he can, Kate has freckles then she doesn't, Sayid has 2 different lines at the marina. It doesn't have to mean that they are changing or have changed the future; the Uncertainty Principle says that the completely impartial observer is a fiction; their mere presence on the Island in 1977 changes the timeline. Alternately, when Desmond pushed the fail-safe, it could have created a temporal anomaly that rippled backward and forward in time. Sometimes a blooper is just a blooper, yes, but how many bloopers make a pattern we've been missing?--Emissary23 06:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  • They're bloopers. --Integrated (User / Talk) 08:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    • More educated discussion from Integrated. Maybe you would like to share your insider knowledge about them being definite bloopers? You say it with so much conviction after all... --Ben 08:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Every time they've shot a scene twice the lines have been different. I think it would be pretty easy to make sure that the lines are the saime if that's what they're going for. Kajillion 18:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Until a fractured timeline is shown, it's a theory. Until they, they are continuity errors and bloopers. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

POLL : Flaming Bus

There has been some discord over whether or not to assume Ben set the flaming bus, and whether to have a UQ about it. Let's vote here.

  • Ben - Seemed clear to me --Integrated (User / Talk) 08:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me put it this way, do we know categorically who caused it? The answer is no, therefore it's an UQ. So why are these cowboys running around deleting things which are more than deserved of being listed as such? I'm looking at you Integrated. In the next episode when Ben reveals that he started the fire, you will have much enjoyment in going back and removing it for the final time from the page. But until then... --Ben 08:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I'm trying to avoid "cowboy" accusations by always discussing my motives on the talk page, and I have created this poll just so we can reach a majority consensus. --Integrated (User / Talk) 08:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ben. Obvious. Not a UQ. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I consider this to be neither a definite Ben-did-it, nor a UQ. Ben is the most likely suspect, but there has not been a confirmation that Ben actually lit the fire and sent the bus rolling into the Barracks. At the same time, since Ben is currently the only suspect, and he had both the motive and opportunity and used the situation to his advantage, there's really no need yet to be raising a question as to who did it. For now, it's enough to just say that Ben Probably did it. --Celebok 10:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • UQ I also don't believe that there has been confirmation of Ben lighting the fire and managed to put the car into gear then get it moving, it might be hard for a kid Ben's age to work with cars, but he is Ben who we have known to be extremely smart even if he did only end up a Work Man. Without confirmation I don't believe this can be done though, lost has thrown alot of things our way and you never know what this flaming car message is. --Cerberus1838 10:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: As you point out, Ben is smart, but really, what specific knowledge, "work with cars", would be required? Start a fire = accelerant and a match; most young boys know how to do that, and certainly by age 12. Roll a manual downhill or down an incline? No brains needed. We don't need to be spoonfed every detail. Ben tells Sayid he will help him get out, the fiery van creates the diversion so Ben can get him out. 1+1=2. There's no reason to create any complicated theories of another shooter on the grassy knoll. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Its clear that the barracks and the area around it is flat, there is no chance that Ben is going to pull off speeding into the barracks with a fire in the back of the car and then bailing out of the car. Just seems a bit suss, I wasn't suggesting anything crazy, just saying that someone else might be helping? Clearly if this issue isn't cleared up in the future then we can just assume Ben did it. --Cerberus1838 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • UQ See discussion above. --MacCutcheon Talk? 12:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • UQ It's probably Ben, but the episode does not show us who lights the bus on fire. I'm not asking to be spoon-fed, it just seems silly do disqualify UQ's that are raised, but not answered by the episode.--Eyeful Tower 17:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • UQ: I think Ben is a smart kid, but it would still be unexplained as to how he was able to set a bus on fire when he was inside the security office which was at least two blocks away. I'm sure Ben figured out how to do it, but we really don't know for sure. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 17:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • UQ: Sure, it's gotta be Ben, but... We've been fooled before.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • UQ:It seems to be clear that Ben planned it, but there's no confirmation that Ben did ALL OF THIS WITHOUT HELP. It might be a easy strike-a-match-and-push-the-van-downhill thing, but i don't think it easy enough for a young boy to do it alone. --Justin L. 03:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ben: Out of curiosity, who would've helped little Ben? Richard seems to keep pretty good tabs on his guys and would've known if any of his men had been captured and if he (or any other Other) was helping Ben out, they probably would've told him Sayid wasn't one of them. Ben seemed pretty convinced Sayid was. I also don't think we're ever gonna be getting a blatant answer to this lest baby Ben receive another whooping from his daddy. Genosoa 06:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: These are our "guess", what we think is "suggested", but still nothing is confirmed as yet. Whether it was Ben or not, I believe there will be more details in later episodes. So I hold the opinion that we leave it a UQ until there is more convictive evidence. --Justin L. 08:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ben: The incident happens prior to Sayid's escape with Ben's help, so it seems reasonable that Ben did it; with or without help is not really crucial to know.--Messenger 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Lost Untangled (disputed canon) states it was Ben. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Lost Untangled is a joke as a data source; they're so busy making it cute, they don't pay enough attention to fact. How can Lost Untangled say Ben did something that the show has not said he did?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes Lost untangled is a joke and i wouldnt watch it if you paid me but they are run by abc and i seriously doubt abc would put false info in it. Its kind of like that enhanced crap the producers dont run it but it does have the correct info. --Czygan84 04:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ben. Nothing in the episode has been done to suggest that the bus was anything other than Ben, nor that we should be questioning it. UQs are for mysteries raised specifically by the show, which this is not. We can't question everything on the show, at some point you're just going to have to roll with the things that aren't presented as mysteries.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions 
  • Ben. Ben is absolutely the mastermind, and possibly the perpetrator. If the question is whether Ben is the mastermind or not, it's a silly question then. If it's whether he's the perpetrator or not, it's a legitimate question, but yet the answer is so trivial to the incident to warrant its own entry in the UQ section. — Iimitk  T  C  02:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ben are you kidding you think people would have learned from the statue or ethan but the same people that said it wasnt the statue in lafleur and the baby wasn't ethan rom are back again, i mean gosh do the producers have to spoon feed you everything. Is it safe to say jack has taken a piss since hes gotten back to the island or because we didnt see it is it an unaswered question. I mean I know I sound upset but this is getting ridiculous there are some things we just need to assume. --Czygan84 04:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've noticed everyone using the "Spoonfed" cop out when trying to change articles, people need to understand just as Jim says above me "We've been fooled before" lost is a show based largely around plot twists so we can't just assume that Ben lit this until later when we know that it's a fact or its no longer an issue. These "Spoonfed" remarks are pointless to the arguement, we obviously can't question everything but its clear that we also can't assume everything is happening exactly as we think, The Map Is Not The Territory.--Cerberus1838 07:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow C you are being the biggest hypocrite ever, you call spoon fed a cop out and say we cant assume until proven as fact but then you say we cant question everything besides being a hypocrite your contradicting yourself. and when people use spoon fed its not a cop out its a more of a way of describing a user like yourself who questions everything and needs info "spoon fed" to them from the producers. Were we fooled when the little red haired girl was Charlotte or when the baby was ethan or how bout the statue or were we fooled after ji yeon when everyone knew mike was the spy but it hadn't been confirmed yet. All I'm trying to say is we need to assume the little things i am all for questioning a lot of what happens on the show but god the lost podcasts have turned into the confirming information hour because people question everything i dunno maybe that's the one downfall of this great show. Im just sick of having to wait for darlton to confirm it when we all know what happened. --Czygan84 02:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes we've been fooled before, but to constantly question everything we're presented with is absurd. For starters it leads to speculative UQs, but furthermore at some point you just have to accept what you've seen and go along for the ride.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Occam's razor... Ben has always been a sweet kid, a bit creepy with bunny rabbits but he's never been a full blown arsonist, unless Damon saying "Trashcan Man" in this weeks podcast was based at Ben which might mean a lot more then we think it means, the stand has always been a big part of lost. The next ep is on tomorrow so this issue won't be so pressing by the end of tomorrows ep I think. --Cerberus1838 08:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ben Pretty obvious, tho' prolly will be blamed on the Hostiles. Spiral77 19:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • UQ it seams obvious, but the obvious has been known to bit you in the xxx Omggivemaafningusername
  • whoever posted the reults earlier learn to count or dont contribute to the vote counting part oft he disscusion, go back count again and then run you mouth.

Ben =9 UQ=8 --Czygan84 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a discussion, not a vote. You can't claim victory because you have more people on your side, it comes down to the actual discussion. On that note, not everything in the episode is an unanswered question. The UQs are for major mysteries that the show presents us to wonder about. Fact of the matter is, nothing in the episode suggests a mystery behind the person who lit the bus. It might turn out that it wasn't Ben, but that doesn't make it an unanswered question. We could speculate somehow that Horace directed Ben to go release Sayid, but that doesn't mean "why did Ben release Sayid?" is an unanswered question. The UQs recently have turned into a place for people to speculate about anything and everything, which is not their intent. You do not write the show. Stop trying to second-guess the writers and use the UQs for what they are: a place to list the questions that have been specifically and explicitly raised by the episode.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  15:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said Jimbo. I'm worried about the increasing number of polls as a means to resolve disputes. In collaborative editing projects, like this one, reaching consensus through discussion and editing is the proper way to decide upon what to put into an article. Vote casting should only be a measure of last resort. That being said, I really do not see this discussion leading us to anywhere. If it's Ben, then there would be no UQ. If it's not him, that piece of info does not hold an exceptional importance to warrant an entry in the UQs section. It does not represent a major mystery in the show. It's just an isolated incident, no matter how whoever behind it or however it was carried on are revealed later on. — Iimitk  T  C  17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. There is not a consensus whether this is a valid UQ or not. Also folks keep in mind that not every question raised by the episodes qualify for a valid UQ. Otherwise there would be kazillion UQs on every page. Coming back to the question; it seems unlikely that it is going to be answered in any future episode, simly because it was not meant to create a mystery. The question seems too trivial, and the answer too obvious to me. We should keep things simple (Ockham's razor).--Messenger 13:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Abstain It's perfectly reasonable to look at it from both sides of the argument. There is no consensus reached yet, please do not change the article until one is reached. --Blueeagleislander 10:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. We are all zealots. I think we should often let these pages go crazy for the first week. (And, yes, as I type this, this article and its theories are almost two weeks old.) If there is a UQ, short of a lurking theory, that you don't agree with, so what? Relax, allow some time for the facts to shake out. Some of the best work is done on this project between seasons. If some noncontributor wants to denigrate the quality of our work while it's still in progress, who cares! BTW, I may be the inadvertant villain who started the recent rash of "polls." I suggested under "The picture" on this page that we should each state our preference. It works on the Lostpedia:Ideas page. Mea culpa.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Also posted on Aelci's Talk page, as he continually tries to remove the UQ from the page - As none of us have the ability to see into the future, we cannot predict what will be answered, or not, in future episodes. For all you know, the cause of the flaming bus may well become a major mystery. And as we dont know, the UQ remains. Until it is answered of course, when you may have great pleasure removing it for the final time. --Ben 07:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • FYI, I removed it just once. There are other users who do not want to see it as a UQ, so they must have removed it. --Messenger 10:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That's true, we don't know what questions will be answered in the future. That doesn't mean that we should include anything that people happen to wonder about as an unanswered question. In fact, it means quite the opposite: we should only include questions that seem like they have an answer either way. If you're right and someone else lit the bus on fire, the sure we'll eventually see it. But what if the rest of us are right and the producers are just intending for us to assume that it was Ben (as everything in the episode points to)? What if we never see a scene with Ben lighting the bus because the answer was meant to be obvious? What do we do? Just leave the question up there indefinitely because "we have no proof that it wasn't someone else."? Suggesting that it wasn't Ben is speculative because that's the answer that the episode presents us with. The UQs are meant to be for major mysteries, not minor trivialities that the fans insert into episode. And, yes, I admit that it might turn out in a future episode that someone else lit the van, but the fact is nothing that we have been presented with thusfar points to this as a possibility. Thus, not an Unanswered Question. (Furthermore, if Ben had help from the Hostiles, then Richard should have known that Ben was trying to get to him and not at all confused when Sawyer and Kate show up with him later.) I'm removing it again.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Im sorry since when do we answer to User:Ben you state your opinion like we all should follow your orders and secondly please dont single out Aelci like that it is completely uncalled for. I just looked back and he isnt the only one changing it, the last 5 times it was removed its been a diffrent user every time but you are always the one who changes it back, no one has added the UQ in like a week. So it would seem like there are many users against keeping the UQ and now just 1 for keeping it so please stop editing it, an edit war can result in a ban (and when your always the one changing it then it looks bad for you) and someone will eventually report it so save yourself the trouble man and also STOP refering to anyone who doesnt agree with your opinion as a vandal. --Czygan84 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Unequivocally Ben. Ben set Sayid free and needed a diversion. We have zero proof that he had anyone else from the DI working with him to set Sayid free, nor could there have been any Hostiles helping him. The Hostiles didn't know about Sayid and Ben wasn't technically working for the Hostiles yet -- Sayid was his ticket, in his mind, to joining the Hostiles. Therefore, the only logical conclusion we can draw is that Ben did it. Just because we don't have Ben saying he did it, doesn't mean it's an UQ. --Cobblepot 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still an UQ, so I will add it again to the article. Until we find out who did it, I suggest we keep it there. Thanks for the support everyone.--Ben 09:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Instead of simply stating that it is a UQ, perhaps you would care to address some of the many points that have been leveled against it in the discussion?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a bit hard to say more than I already have. If you would care to read back through my previous posts, you will see a well laid out and logical argument. Thanks Jimbo --Ben 06:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, let me be more specific. Lostpedia's Unanswered Questions sections have a specific intent as determined by consensus among the userbase. This consensus states that questions with an obvious likely answer are considered answered because it is speculation so say "well, sure Ben probably lit the bus on fire, but what if it wasn't?" If you'd like to argue that this is a valid UQ, you need to argue that within the accepted definition of what Lostpedia considers to be an unanswered question (it's not necessarily as cut-and-dry as the name suggests). If you would like to argue the accepted definition of an Unanswered Question, then that's fine too, but this isn't the place for that. That's sort of a meta-reason against your position, which I haven't seen you respond to (if I'm wrong, I apologize and request the courtesy of a simple copy-paste if it's not too much trouble). The other reason I would argue for the exclusion of this question is based on information from "Dead Is Dead". If Ben had help from one of the Hostiles, it seems unlikely that Richard would be unaware of this (and, thus, not confused/surprised to see Ben show up). How do you account for this without speculation?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The episode recap at the official site says that Ben did it. To quote, "...young Ben uses the flaming bus and fire as a diversion to break Sayid out." [1]
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 21:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to add to the above clarification, and for historical reference, Eddie Kitsis and Adam Horowitz talk on the DVD commentary about the origin of the flaming bus, and refer to it as "Ben's diversion." -- Graft   talk   contributions  21:39, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Floyd

Which character is Floyd?--LOST-Hunter61 14:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, who's Floyd? Perhaps a character in a deleted scene. Anyone know what the actor looks like?--Mistertrouble189 01:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's one of the people in the dharma house when they are voting.Voting in dharma house--WILL-I-AM 13:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
That's likely, has one of them a speaking line? (I can't check the transcript, alas) --LOST-Hunter61 17:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What was the drug?

I've seen a number of people putting up little comments here specifying that the drug used on Sayid was LSD. Was this actually stated in the episode? I assumed it was just sodium pentathol, or some other related drug (perhaps developed by DHARMA themselves): I wouldn't think LSD would be effective for getting someone to tell a very clear truth. Clamshell 22:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It could've ben both mixed together, but when i was watching the episode, i also through it was a truth drug. the Old Guy said something to Sayid like "It's useless to fight. You'll tell us the truth, you have no choice". That implies that he was taking away Sayid's ability to lie, which a truth drug would do. Sayid did act really stoned, and i'm not sure if a truth drug would do that on its own. dposse 02:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I know this isn't the best source but I seem to remember in the film True Lies, Arnold Schwazaneggar is given sodium pentathol and he seems to act fairly stoned, similar to Sayid. --Integrated (User / Talk) 05:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It could be any of a number of things. As it says in the wikipedia article about truth drugs, they are all sedatives that affect judgement and higher cognative function, so they would all have symptoms too similar to distinguish based on simply seeing a person affected by them. For now, we'll just have to satisfy ourselves knowing it was one of the truth telling drugs, be it sodium pentothal, scopolamine, or any of the others it could be.
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 06:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Seeing an old hippie putting drops of something on a sugarcube would naturally bring to mind LSD. I don't think it has any major bearing on the story, so I choose to believe it's acid... --Emissary23 07:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, as long as it's not explicitly stated what it was anyway. I'll choose to believe that it's something Oldham 'cooked up' himself. Clamshell 17:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Silence of the Lambs as a Cultural Reference? No...

I do not think so. This is a huge stretch. There has been a long running theme of an 815 survivor having an across the bars imprisonment conversation with an Other, regardless of who is one which side of the bars. The most important thing to realize here is that Sayid in Season Two was on the other side of the prison bars as he questioned Ben (as Henry Gale). I find it completely absurd to single this particular instance of an imprisoned character talking to another character as a reference to "Silence of the Lambs." It's not like Sayid is licking his lips and planning on skinning and eating young Ben.

I think for good sense and good taste that that "cultural reference" ought to be removed. It's just way too ridiculous a stretch.--Japhy Ryder 07:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmm I was a bit suspect of that one.. but it's been a long while since I've seen the film so I dunno .. --Integrated (User / Talk) 10:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, only direct references are allowed --LOST-Hunter61 10:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No.---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I noticed the reference early on, but thought someone will eventually remove it. Actually it was a nice stretch to be honest. Who couldn't get the scenes from that movie stuck into his or her head? Anthony Hopkins was legendary in that movie. :) — Iimitk  T  C  02:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rosie

Where's Rosie in this episode?--Mistertrouble189 01:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

With DHARMA members during the vote cast to execute Sayid. She is sitting in a table with another DHARMA lady, wearing a DHARMA jumpsuit with a Looking Glass logo on it. — Iimitk  T  C  02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah I see it now, I'll try to get a screencap to add to her page.--Mistertrouble189 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the name of Sayid's brother (Omer) isn't mentioned in the subtitles?

Ashraf BTE 18:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Ashraf_BTE

Redirected to Talk:Omer Jarrah--Ashraf BTE 18:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Why did the Dharma Initiative need a torturer?

Although Oldham was called the DI's Sayid, he wasn't a torturer. He was an interrogator. It said "Interrogator" on his Dharma jumpsuit. -- Crazy Bearded Jack 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I also removed the question about the authority that resides in Ann Arbor. If you've paid attention to the show, you know the DeGroots founded the Dharma Initiative at the Univ. of Michigan at Ann Arbor. -- Crazy Bearded Jack 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed the references on the character and actore pages that referred to "torturer."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Russian company name is okay

The "Oldham pharmaceuticals" company name transliteration intro russian with cyrillic letters is actually correct. If the company exists under such a name in another country (i.e. UK or US) and it has a subsidiary in Russia, the russian subsidiary can actually named using phonetical transliteration of the foreign name. That's very common practice in Russia. "ОЛДНЕМ Фармасьютикалс" would actually be pronounced just as a russian would pronounce "Oldham pharmaceuticals", and it's very plausible that the russian subsidiary of an "Oldham pharmaceuticals" would be thusly named. {Aszegedi 16:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)}

I don't think that word means what you think it means

Sayid's brother is too chicken to kill a chicken. (Irony)

It may be "amusing" but I'm fairly certain this should not be here. In fact, most of the items listed in this section are either juxtaposition or "jokes" Dhalia 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Too chicken to kill a chicken" is a huge (and goofy) stretch, especially given that no one in the show actually uses that phrase (seriously, how nebulous and tangential are these alleged literary devices allowed to be?). Moreover, even if you think it's a legitimate literary device, it's NOT irony. Irony is when you get the opposite of what you expect to happen (eg. Sayid's brother went to kill a chicken and instead the chicken killed him -- that would be irony). "Too chicken to kill a chicken" is, at best, a linguistic coincidence. But again, considering no one actually said it in the show, it should be removed. If no one disagrees I'm going to remove it... Does anyone disagree? --Faraday100 19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As no one has disagreed, I've removed that "literary device". --Faraday100 03:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Irony, I think: Sayid is talking about Sawyer, a man. Radzinsky ask, Who is Sawyer? Sawyer is behind him, listeing as LaFleur.--Station7 18:14, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

UQ: Who lit the van on fire?

It was pretty obviously Ben, so I removed it. I mean, who else could it be? It's not like there were any DHARMA people helping him, or any Others there. So it's Ben. --Golden Monkey 19:09, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

I agree definetly with you Golden Monkey.--Station7 19:15, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, well last time I checked, until we get told on the show, it's not an answered question. And if we start answering every question which is "pretty obvious" then we can wipe a whole load off the list. Ben 21:09, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
It's Ben of course. So he could free Sayid to go to the Others.--Station7 21:13, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram reply Quoting the official episode recap ([2]), which I understand is written by Gregg Nations. "...where young Ben uses the flaming bus and fire..." That should clear this up nicely. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 21:20, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you cgmv, it seems that Station7 doesn't quite understand the English language. At least you provided me with a proper response! Cheers! Ben 22:42, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
Are we done with the edit war? cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 22:48, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
Don't know what edit war you're talking about. All I saw was people trying to pass an unanswered question off as an answered one. But after your contribution cgmv123, I can see that there is no need to argue any more :D Ben 02:01, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
Ben, this issue has been solved. Stop re-adding this answered question to the UQ. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 23:50, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Moscow flashback - another time line?

I was re-watching this episode yesterday and the scene with Moscow was a little bit weird for me. I mean, Ben had an old-fashoined costume. The car is also not really modern type. And after Sayid killed Andropov, you can slightly see the newspaper "Pravda" ("Правда") near his body. Now, this newspaper exists even now, but is not really popular like it was before collapse of the USSR.

So my question is: has Sayid killed Andropov after a time travel in the Soviet Union time? 70ies? 60ies? Perhaps, if the Oldham is the same Oldham as on the Island, it could explain his fate: <speculation>He was first working in his pharma company in Moscow, and then he travelled to the island.</speculation>

If this is just my mistake (if Moscow scene is also somewhere in the 2000ies), it would mean, Oldham left the island after he worked there as crazy medicine man?..--Kosmomerz 10:12, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think there's any time travel happening off the Island. Maybe Oldham wore out his welcome and was booted by DHARMA before the Purge; he then set up a "pharmaceutical" firm in Moscow and elsewhere.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:18, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Main Image change

Main Image needs to be changed. New pic would better symbolize main episode plot which is sayids reason for being in 1977.

5x10 Shoot em up

Pictogram voting support -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:58, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support I agree, but I would kind of prefer it if you could find, I guess, a less black version of the image, if at all possible.--Bish-Fiscuit 14:03, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Works for me. Lighter could work too. Mhtmghnd 02:39, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support I like it. Menot 02:54, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Me like. Eets nice. InflatableBombshelter 02:56, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

That's a consensus. It has been changed. Menot 03:02, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

"First episode this season with traditional flashes"

I'd say that's "LaFleur", which contained Sawyer's flash forwards throughout. That's more the traditional flash structure than this episode. Rather than two stories spanning two timelines, this episode give one real-time story and a series of vignettes of a character's life. The show only used this format a handful of times, mostly in season 5. --- Balk Of Fametalk 02:27, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

  • Technically "LaFleur" contained flash-forwards, but it was non-traditional in the sense that the "future" became the "present" by the end of the episode, and the next episode ("Namaste") would continue from that point, while no further coverage of Sawyer's life in 1974 would ever be shown. --Celebok 19:05, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.