Talk: He's Our You

OMG! --Butseriouslyfolks 02:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Sun footage not entirely recycled

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)

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

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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

• continuity error ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:05, 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)

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)

• My vote is that it's the latter, and the former was just the seed. --  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   07:17, 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

Flash

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)

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)

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)

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 QuiGonJinn^{Be 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)

The picture

Jail

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)

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

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)

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.