This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ji Yeon article.
General discussion about the article's subject is permitted as a way to aid improvement of the article.
Theories about the article subject should not be discussed here.
(Instead, post your theory to this article's theory page
or discuss it on this article's theory talk page.)

  • Be polite, don't bite, have fun!
  • Admins are here to help
  • More discussion at the Forum
Article policies

Timeline of Ji Yeon's Birth

  • In order for Sun to give birth in July or August (as listed in the timeline), the baby would have been concieved in October or November. Jin is listed as having died in September. I can't imagine that this was an error, so are we to assume that the baby is not Jin's, or is this just evidence of how time in the real world works differently than time on the island? --buch016 12:36, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Jin's date of death is listed as 22 September 2004, the day the plane crashed on the island. This means that Sun was complicit in the story that the Oceanic Six has told the outside world about their experience on the island. Ji Yeon has been firmly established as being Jin's and Sun's child. Nate 15:44, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I don't think we can necessarily timeline things on and off the island like that. I mean, how old is Aaron in Kate's flashforward? His "real" age could be younger.
  • Is Ji Yeon premature? At the beginning of the flashforward, my sense was that Sun was packing for a trip and that going into labor was a surprise.--Gaarmyvet 18:42, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I figured she was packing a hospital bag because she was expecting the birth to come soon. Probably not for a few days or whatever, but then Ji Yeon came, so I imagine shes a few days to a few weeks early, but not unusually so. Jimbo the tubby 19:46, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

unlock

Set to unlock after the episode airs. -- Graft   talk   contributions  09:31, 22 February 2008 (PST)

Can we get a new Episode Information template since Ji Yeon is both a flashback and flashforward? Evil-pineapples 20:11, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

Infobox

This has been mentioned on the talk page for the episode infobox, but since it seems that no one really looks there, I'll mention it here. We should just have one infobox that can do flashbacks and flashforwards. This is especially relevant now, but even before this episode, it made sense for convenience. I'd do it myself, but I'm really clueless when it comes to making templates. Right now, the flashforward template is preferable (since it allows for separate categories for guest stars, co-stars, etc.), so perhaps someone could just add a flashback field into that template? I'm pretty sure there's a way to make fields invisible unless there's information there, so "flashback" or "flashforward" would only show up when relevant. --Compossible 20:16, 13 March 2008

Well that was quick. Thanks to whoever took care of this! --Compossible 20:30, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

Michael and Desmond

Have they met each other? The only time they were on the island simultaneously was a few hours in Live Together Die Alone, and if they did meet it wasn't shown. Should we all assume that they have met each other, or at least seen each other?--Theslate 20:19, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

  • I was thinking this exact same thing. It's tough to read that scene, but Desmond doesn't look all too surprised to see Mr. Kevin Johnson, so I presume they have never met. I guess it wouldn't be a continuity error, since they could just explain it away with a "Oh yeah, that guy I saw just an hour before I set off to the capsule dump with all my friends (removed for racism) and got them captured," sort of thing, but that would be kind of lame. Let's hope Desmond doesn't know what's going on and has to ask Sayid or something. Evil-pineapples 20:59, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
  • It is safe to assume that they have seen each other, as Desmond's boat arrived during the funeral for Anna Lucia and Libby. Also Michael was in the hatch and was aware that Desmond was down there for three years. --Rodwell 22:35, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Was just flipping through Sports Illustrated and saw that former NBA point guard Kevin Johnson on March 5, 2008 announced that he is running for mayor of Sacramento. Strange coincidence? --toobitterforyou 23:38, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Desmond and Michael definitely met. The reason why Desmond doesn't seem too surprised/upset is because he didn't know him personally and he didn't know Ana Lucia and Libby (well he knew Libby, but not on the Island). So Michael's treason cannot affect him as much as it affects Sayid and the other Losties.--Lauridsen77 06:55, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Wouldn't Desmond have no idea who Michael is, as he had no idea who Sayid was once he was off the island? For instance, would Desmond have any recollection of Charlie at this point in time?--TheSlider 14:23, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Desmond regained his present mind once he was brought in sync by his constant N1ck0 15:13, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Is that so? I remember Desmond introducing himself to Sayid after Sayid helped him contact Penny. And saying something like, "So were friends? Thank You, Sayid" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattw1027 (talkcontribs) .
  • No, he just replied Sayid's apology about the phone not having more power, and said "Thank you, Sayid. It was enough." He stressed Sayid with an implication of him gaining his memory back. --     c      blacxthornE      t     17:15, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Michael and Juliet had never met each other before either, that is until they showed the Lost: Missing Pieces episode 'The Deal.' So maybe Michael and Desmond's encounter was kind of like Michael and Juliet's. It happened at some point, but it wasn't shown in an actual episode.--Vico 16:23, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Desmond was drunk when he showed up during the funeral. I think he was probably still sobering up when Michael left for Othersville. I'm sure someone told him about Michael, but he wouldn't know the man introducing himself as Kevin Johnson was the same man who betrayed the Losties. Outpost road 18:00, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Duh, I have to agree with TheSlider. Desmond thinks he is in 1996 or some such. The only people he knows is Penny, Faraday and the Boaties.--Lucky Day 18:37, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Desmond's mind synched up after he found his constant and got in touch with Penny. Outpost road 18:54, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • My thought of Desmond's reaction was that he did not know who Michael/kevin was. The actor's reading was the sort of blank look you would expect if he did not know the person he was introduced to. I agree that it had nothing to do with symptoms of being unstuck in time; he had become stable in the present because of Penny. Note also the director's emphasis on the handshake between Sayid and Michael. Harold Perrineau's reading of the face-to-face moment with Sayid seemed to me that he was thinking "Is he gonna kill me himself or blow my cover? Either way I die." WCFrancis 12:48, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
    • The emphasis on Sayid's handshake also emphasizes Desmond's. Michael shook Desmond's hand because he actually was just meeting him for the first time. He wasn't going to shake Sayid's because they had already met, but Sayid knew that if he didn't have a proper "introduction" handshake Ray might have gotten suspicious. They were already acting suspicious as it were. As stated above, Desmond and Michael were both at the beach camp for maybe an hour or so before Michael left. Desmond was drunk and spent the entire time alone until Locke found him (still drunk) and there were more than forty people on the beach, so who's to say he would remember him? --macosx 18:12, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
    • PS - I do not remember if Des and Michael met. Has anyone checked the episodes after the hatch was open to see if there is an explicit scent with the two of them in it? If Desmond had only seen Michael at a distance, that would also explain the look on his face as someone thinking "where the heck do I know this person from?" WCFrancis 12:55, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
    • It could be assumed that Desmond immediately thinks Kevin Johnson is the spy that he was told by Sayid that Ben had on the boat.
  • Since Desmond and Sayid were discussing "the man on the boat" earlier in the episode, I assumed that they were making poker faces, realising that Michael was "helping" them for some reason. I thought they were being wise not to tip their hand and reveal who Michael was until they were able to ascertain his agenda. NB Sayid sticks his hand out quickly and acknowledges "meeting Kevin" as if for the first time. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:07, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

Unanswered Question

'Who is the saboteur on the boat?' I dont know if this is right, but it seemed to me that this may be Michael. He's the spy and probably doesnt want them coming to the island, thus he would be the obvious choice for me. Mia 20:42, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

Did you see the preview for next weeks episode? You could hear Ben mentioning something about Michael doing anything to get back his son. Sounds like Ben is controlling Michael so that he can get Walt back. Additionally, the two bearings for leaving were different. Could 325 have led Michael to the ship on a boat, but 305 is necessary to get to the ship on a plane? More questions than answers for sure.--Keyura 22:05, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
I think he's talking about what Michael did to Ana-Lucia and Libby Kajillion 22:11, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
The bearing would be different because each left from a different place on the island, not because they are different vehicles. There's nothing special about going a particular direction, there's some sort of special area that you have to aim for. Merick 08:40, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Keep in mind Michael probably didn't go directly to this boat. He probably was met by someone on the outside, then pressured into joining the crew by Ben's people. So the bearing probably took him a) to a known/set rendezvous location b) a shipping lane c) a populated place N1ck0 15:24, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
We're not supposed to trust the captain. I think he was lying. --Xbenlinusx 01:20, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Why did Frank dissuade Sayid and Desmond from speaking to Captain Gault?--Vico 16:41, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Why did Jin insist on having a Panda?--Vico 16:49, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Maybe because he was going to give a present to China's ambassador in Korea and wanted the present to be something chinese?
Yeah, I just rewatched the episode, and that does make sense.--Vico 17:21, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I was waiting for the Panda to blow up, if there was any significance to the one it swapped with, or the blue ribbon he tied at the end. These are all Hitchcock type red herrings.--Lucky Day 18:39, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Heh, I figured when he lost the panda he would end up having to get a Polar Bear instead...
  • I think the most likely reason Jin insisted on a Panda was that is what Sun's father told him to get. Remember that he is still afraid of her father after they had been married some time, so it's not unlikely that he was equally or even more afraid of him after only two months of marriage. So, he'd do what he was told to do, without making any substitutions that would possibly dishonour the family, or at the very least dishonour himself by disobedience. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:02, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Nice touch that Jin asked the person "Boy or Girl" and then tied a blue ribbon on it since it was a boy - and likely had pink ribbon in case it was a girl. He had thought this gift out well ahead of time and was prepared.--J.nc 20:11, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Yeah, that was very smart. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:28, 14 March 2008 (PDT) Edit: he did have a pink ribbon; he throws it on the table just before he wraps the blue one around the panda's neck 12:45, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

Funny story

Heh, when I first saw Hurley in Sun's flash-forward, my immediate reaction was "Are they together?". Of course, they're not, and I know that now, but for the firt few seconds there when Hurley was standing in the doorway, I was like "WHAT THE F*CK!!" and truly believed that Sun and Hurley were together in the future. That would have been totally unexpected though. Sun and Hurley sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G... Evil-pineapples 21:03, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

Haha, exactly. As I saw them, I started laughing very hard and I had to even stop the thing for one minute :) yes, they did it on purpose --Running 09:13, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
They did that on purpose. Remember that most of us still thought that Jin had flashforwards when he said he was married for two months. Since that was the big revelation moment, it is alright to expect many people still dazzled by the fact that Jin said he's married for two months in a flashforward, which would possibly mean that he is... remarried? Jin and Sun divorced? With the door bell ringing, you still expect to see maybe Jin, finally coming home. Maybe the remarriage was something ceremonial? But what the... It's Hurley! Oh my God is it possible? Those few seconds were very confusing and I admit that I thought all these things and I'm glad it was written that way. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:12, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
Hey, I wondered that too! I'm glad it wasn't just me, lol. Lindsaynickel 21:29, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
I had the same thought, it was strange when Hurley says "good" when Sun tells him he's the only one that came. Yab1112 21:41, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
That was a really bizarre line.
I think it just means that the O6 aren't getting along well. Jack ends up drunk and crazy, Hurley ends up back in the crazy house, Sayid is an assassin, Kate just beat a murder rap and is raising someone else's kid which Jack seems visibly upset by. It isn't surprising that the six of them aren't pals hanging out. --Minderbinder 05:40, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I think this was the earliest of the flashforwards so none of those things have happened yet. --Hurm 08:47, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I was equally creeped out there for a second, that would have been a bad choice. --Rodwell 22:38, 13 March 2008 (PDT)
Here, here. I was waiting for them to start making out or something--and I was not looking forward to seeing that. Why do you think he said "Good" anyway? --Jacob's Lather 02:49, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, after Jin mentioned he was married, I kinda made a logical leap and thought Sun and Hurley were married now Merick 08:42, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Ditto--Lucky Day 18:40, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

I can't be the only one who thought Hurley was going to kidnap the baby. ESachs 23:24, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

He isn't Charlie.--Lucky Day 18:40, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

I missed the part of the year of the drgon thing and I thought Jin was having a flash forward so at the end of the episode i thought he faked his own death and was back to his old ways before the island lol --ConnerXcountry57 08:14, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

Are we sure that it was a flashback / flashforward?=

I mean, the idea makes sense, but I understood that it was a flashforward where Sun's father had conned her into believing that Jin had died (hence Jin being married for two months, presumably to another woman or he's just maintaining a story, and his continued employment with Paik Industries). Maybe I'm just totally off the mark here.

Jin uses an old cell phone and the shopkeeper implies that it is the year of the dragon -- the last year of the dragon was 2000, the next one is 2012.
Also, Korean-dubbed Exposé cameo at the beginning? Genius. --Joshspazjosh 22:02, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

None of this absolutely means that Jin is dead and his flashes were flashbacks. It seems everyone is jumping to conclusions.

Jin's tombstone gives the date of his death as September 22, 2004. The day of the crash of Oceanic Flight 815. That means that Jin officially died in the plane crash. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that Jin is dead, though. Only that he didn't leave the island as far as Sun is concerned.--Nevermore 05:35, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I think it's more precise to say that the O6 cover story is that Jin died in the crash. Since Sun and Hurley visited the grave with no visible reason to convince someone else (they were alone, there was no hint someone was watching them), it seems they think Jin's dead as opposed to being alive on the island. Sun's words were imprecise, but I think it's hard to read it any other way. --Hurm 08:51, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm still not sure that it was a flashback, although that Year of the Dragon thing lends some credence to that theory. When I was watching the episode I thought Jin faked his own death or something. Cypher 05:52, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Jin says that he had only been married for two months. That's the biggest clue that this is a flashback. Not to mention the fact that he is working for Mr. Paik -- he won't be doing that again. So unless Jin gets back, marries someone different, then goes back to work for his ex-father-in-law after Mr. Paik somehow swallows his pride, there is no way that this is a flashforward. --Litany42 09:51, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Jin's part was definitely a flashback. The man in the toy store said it was the Year of the Dragon, which was (essentially) 2000. That was also the year that the Lostpedia timeline has Sun and Jin getting married. The next Year of the Dragon isn't until 2012.--Eyeful Tower 10:51, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I definitely believe that Jin's portions of the episode were flashbacks, but, without looking at the episode again, I felt that the toy store salesman said that the toy would bring luck IN the year of the dragon, not that it WAS the year of the dragon right then, leaving what year it actually was open to debate. Sithboy 15:07, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

The O6 are world famous (Kate's lawyer said that to the jury). And no one seems to recognize Jin. It's cristal clear that his is a flashback. Enzo_2309 March 14th, Buenos Aires - Argentina

Furthermore, when the subject of him having children comes up, he lightheartedly dismisses it, which is not how a man who has had his heart put through a wringer over his wife possibly carrying someone else's child, who was eagerly looking forward to a daughter with a wife he adored but for some unexplained reason they're out of the picture now... would act. If you assume it's a flashforward, there are a bunch of things that don't make any sense or require complex and unlikely explanations. If you assume it's a flashback, it all makes sense. Apply Occam's razor. - Tvb 19:53, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Jin's are flashbacks and Sun's flashforwards. Married two months, the style of the phone, the year of the dragon, and working for Mr. Paik are very obvious clues. The necessity for a panda was a clue, too, but one we couldn't get until we understood why it had to be a panda. This is one of those cases where Lost is complicated enough yet we still try to complicate it further. --Lanie 00:17, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
The shopkeeper didn't actually say it was the year of the dragon. He said the toy dragon brings good luck in the year of the dragon. --Makiwolf 01:39, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

I don't think there was any solid evidence in the show to conclude it was a flashback - the shopkeeper said the toy brings luck in the year of the dragon. What I think we can go by, however, is the ABC.com episode recap, which says it was a flashback. -- Graft   talk   contributions  22:54, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Jin said "Don't rush me. I've only been married two months" (Jin and Sun were married longer and don't rush me is a statement of a man with no kids, opposed to Sun being pregnant). The buying a dragon in the Year of the Dragon statement by the shopkeeper can only be understood in the context that it was presently the year of the dragon, or the shopkeeper would effectively be saying nonsense. The big reveal at the end would be senseless as there would not need to be a monument with the crash date and a crying Sun if it were a FF. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 23:01, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Sorry, I meant "hard evidence", like a date mentioned or shown. Not arguing that it is a flashforward, just wanted to bring up some evidence from ABC. -- Graft   talk   contributions  22:20, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

a quick word about time..

The idea that time goes differently on and off the island is clearly debunked. We know that the crash happened on 22 Sep 04. According to the paperwork found by Locke in the Pearl, the system failure, which TPTB have told us is the reason for the crash, happened on 22 Sep 04, Island time. Same date on and off the island. Listen to Daniel, he said that the perception of how long the helicopter had been gone was not how long they had been gone. My 2 cents: there's some sort of barrier around the island that acts as a Looking Glass of sorts, one of those funhouse mirrors. Time runs the same on and off the Island, but when you're on the Island, the Looking Glass distorts your perception, maybe even distorts your consciousness when you try to look through it to the outside world. Same if you're off the Island looking in. This could explain why all the crew members are crazy/sick/time-tripping. If you're too close to the Looking Glass, maybe your perception gets so screwy that you read a blank book, or sabotage the radio room, or blow your own head off. If you're really lucky and you've been exposed to radiation or electromagnetism, you get unstuck in time.--bq 00:29, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

  • You can also theoretically have distortion in time around the island but the time in each individual place remains constant. Imagine a ring around the island in which anything that passes through the ring gets 'held up' in time. Basically both the island and the ship are moving at the same rate through time, however a boat/probe/plane/helicopter/etc could effectively get slowed in time when passing this boundary. And as Einstein's twin experiment shows time/perception of time is relative to the observer. So while in the darts/boat/helicopter/etc's persecution 1 second has passed, but from the island/boat/rest of the world more time has passed (30 mins, a few hours, etc). Now taking into account either where you cross the field and the speed you are traveling this may effect the time distortion. This could also have something to do with helicopters, planes, etc crashing as they are depend heavily on precision mechanical operations, and may experience slightly different time-slowness issues on different part of the craft (a millisecond of difference could cause an engine to stall, or a large object like a airliner might experience tremendous forces from different parts of it being forced through time at different rates possibly causing it to break into pieces). Also another possibility is that the effect increases with altitude, possibly explaining why Ben's crew used a submarine. N1ck0 09:11, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

It's also possible that the time distortion only happened after the discharge, which would mean that the on-Island/off-Island time-differences wouldn't exist until the end of Season 2. EDIT: I like Nik0's theory, above, though. Jimbo the tubby 09:09, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Maybe the magnetic reactor, and the discharge control of the swan station helps manipulate/control/modulate the 'time-field' affects. One thing that I can postulate is that this station was built to harness a natural 'time radiation' or 'energy field' that is related in some way to the time distortion. But the swan station manipulated it by smoothing out time peaks, and valleys (like a voltage regulator or capacitor) and every 108 mins the excess 'energy' had to be purged. After 108 mins it would build up and create massive magnetic disturbances from the 'excess energy' storage, which then when released would amplify/extend/surge the time field (thus making the field extend out and have wildly surging time distortions over an area of space). During the unplanned discharge, This could have extended the field into a flight zone, caused 815's tail and fuselage to be in two different 'time distortion rates' causing structural failure where the 'zones' met, and differences in momentum/etc when they flew through the field (solid object moving at two different relative velocities == not good). Now that the swan system was destroyed the field is fluctuating naturally, which may not be very stable/controlled/predictable. This also may indicate why the looking glass was a communication site, being under the water and out a distance from the island allowed for more reliable transmission across the field. Sorry lots of ideas not all necessarily in the right article, but I think the relationship between different aspects of the island are starting to converge into a 'theory of everything' N1ck0 10:59, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
    • The above theory sounds about right, except for the pesky fact that the hatch and the "regulation control" of the 108 minutes got blown to pieces when the 108 weren't reset. Does that mean that it does not need to be regulated anymore? Or should that imply that the time warping effects should be gone since there is no way to regulate them? Any thoughts?Leo1973

Did anyone note the question of the boat moving? Something to the effect of 'This ship isn't moving.' and 'Well if you say so'. Also with the cases of 'cabin fever', and being in an unsafe proximity to the island. It might indicate that the time distortion is more of a field that extends at a gradient, and possibly the ship is drifting into the very edge of the field. Minor time distortion could have nasty effects on perception the mind under prolonged exposure... could it also be effecting the aging of objects (seems like a pretty old boat for a man with tons of money, also maybe the kitchen issue is a accelerated rotting of fresh food). Of course now I'm getting extremely speculative... N1ck0 09:20, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

  • and to argue against my own theory I think it right to point out that Desmond made the comment, and Desmond does have sailing experience. Maybe he just doesn't notice minor swaying of ships anymore. N1ck0 09:22, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I like the suggestion about food rotting in the kitchen. But to argue against your own argument against your own theory: Desmond does have sailing experience... Anyone remember how he got on the Island in the first place? Jimbo the tubby 09:24, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
    • True he should be able to discern movement if he wanted to pay attention to it. Of course large vessels do 'feel' different then a yacht. Also maybe the cockroach infestation plays into the food idea, it did seem a bit prominent on screen (although panning from roaches to blood stains did set the mood for the boat conditions, so they might just be there for the ambiance of the moment).N1ck0 09:38, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Unneeded Question

"Why was Hurley the only one to visit Sun after the birth?"

Sun has a baby, so now the other 5 have to go visit her? This is not a necessary question. --Xbenlinusx 01:26, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I think an even better answer here is that the writers are reminding the audience (us dopes who didn't figure it out yet) that Jin isn't there. It also serves to remind the audience that the Oceanic Six have golden tickets.--Lucky Day 18:28, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
The writers brought up the fact that none of the others were there, so it may be signficant. - Tvb 20:06, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

"Why did Ben fund..." is probably jumping to a conclusion that may not be true. All that was revealed was that apparently Ben is somehow connected with the coverup--specifically the procurement of "324 dead bodies." He may have also funded the entire thing, but we can't know that at this point. Recommending the question be removed. --Jacob's Lather 02:46, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Question can certainly be rephrased. --Xbenlinusx 03:09, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I rephrased it. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:20, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I don't think we should even accept for certain that Ben did fund it. The captain said so. We were told not to trust the captain. Even aside from the note, why should we trust him? And the freighters are working for Widmore. Of course Widmore will tell them bad stuff about Ben. For all we know, it could have been funded by Widmore, and he's trying to cast blame elsewhere.
I for one thing Ben did NOT fund the hoax, but maybe he did provide the bodies--possibly in return for a very handsome sum, which is why Miles believes he is rich. But if you take what the Captain said at face value, he didn't even say Ben was involved at all. He simply said that the reason they wanted to find him was related to the staged crash--which could simply mean they think he can help them answer their questions, or provide them with some other information they need. I'm not saying that's true or even likely, but I think it's important not to infer too much from what is said. --Jacob's Lather 05:22, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I agree that we can't trust the captain. But in the larger picture, it sure is messing about with our feelings on Ben's character. Back in The Economist, it starting to look like Ben was one of the "good" guys. But since then, he's wavering back to being one of the "bad" guys. This is just another example of how the producers are keeping us on our toes about Ben's true character. --Litany42 09:45, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Not to cast any judgment or anything, but Ben would be able to get a whole bunch of dead bodies. Either by having a bunch of dead DHARMA (but they looked pretty rotting), or by somehow making copies of everyone (Orchid style). Maybe copying has something to do with the lists? Or maybe the monster makes the copy when it flashes someone.
    • We also need to keep in mind that we were told ont to trust the captain by Michael aka Kevin Johnson, who is working for Ben Linus...So of course if the captain is telling the truth, Ben wouldn't want Sayid and Desmond to believe him...Thelordnyax 11:28, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
    • I was under the impression that the Captain stated that Ben staged the crash, and that was why Widmore held the operation to find him. I believe that was the truth. However I think the Captain was lying about mechanical problems on the freighter. --Xbenlinusx 13:22, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
    • You got to remember one of the points of lost is there are really no 'good' or 'bad' guys. Everyone has both selfish and group goods that they are trying to pursue and protect. You also have a lot of knowing and unknowing single, double, and triple agents out there. So you have to watch casting people into good and bad roles, as no person is consistently nefarious or consistently irreproachable. I think both Widmore and Ben would be just as willing to lie, manipulate, and conceal to reach their goals as the other. So assigning people to good and bad can set up an expectation for them never to act the opposite, their are no true-heroes or true-villains in good characters...you can really only assign these roles posthumously (or post victory/defeat anyway) N1ck0 14:04, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

I think these two questions aren't necessary:

  • Why is Michael going by the name Kevin Johnson? -- Isn't that obvious? People on the freighter know the manifest.
  • Why does the tombstone indicate that Jin died on the date of the crash, September 22, 2004? -- Again, that seems obvious, indicating that Jin died before (or during) the rescue or stayed on the island, and according to the cover up all dead people and the ones who were left behind did not survive the crash. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:20, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Actually, I'm confused by the whole Jin tombstone thing. How could his body have gotten there to bury? Wouldn't somebody notice that he had died recently instead of in 2004? Or do we assume that Jin's body was never there and Sun erected a tombstone in his honor? Then why would Hurley say, "let's go see him?" If this is a fake grave, why visit it at all? Just for the coverup? Does this mean Jin is NOT one of the Oceanic 6 then? You can't be rescued and dead at the same time. So really, a lot of questions hinge on the date on that tombstone. --Emily76 08:04, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
    • When Jin goes with Sun to get rescued, he experiences the time flashes. Because we see his flashback, I am pretty certain he got his bloody nose and his body died in transit. His mind, however, is alive but stuck now in the past. He'll have to end up reliving the crash and the island, maybe rescue and death again. This is his time loop (eternal?). Jin is gonna be in it until the O6 (or whoever the protagonists in this show even are) fix things.
  • What route did you travel to reach that cconclusion? There's no basis for this. Jin would have to have been exposed to a large amount of radiation or small amounts a lot of times in order to be affected in the same way as Minkowski or Desmond. Jin's flashbacks in this episode were merely flashbacks and NOT mental time shifting. That seems pretty obvious.Thelordnyax 11:32, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • It's commonplace to put up a tombstone for someone whose body wasn't recovered, especially if he has a spouse who intends to be buried "next to" him as Sun apparently does. It serves as a memorial. It also makes sense that Sun would use this as her place to "talk to" Jin, whether he's really dead or just out of reach. If nothing else, giving any paparazzi or spies a chance to see her (and her fellow world-famous O6er) visit his grave with their new child would help reinforce their Big Lie. - Tvb 20:06, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • As to the Michael question, he didn't know that he might be in danger from the freighties, he was never told by Ben to conceal who he was if he met anyone on the open seas. His reasons for giving them a fake name are still a mystery. Sithboy 15:15, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
    • I think you're missing the point. Just because we didn't see it, doesn't mean that Ben didn't give Michael instructions. He's obviously the man on the boat. Do you think that he just happened to decide to be a "man on the boat" for Ben? He clearly has taken further instructions from Ben and one of them had to be an alias. I'm amazed by people asking why he got an alias, but not how he got to be the man on the boat. If the second one is obvious, the first one is even more: It's part of what Ben wanted! This is a pointless question, and really not nearly a "mystery". --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:23, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
  • The larger question is how Michael came to be on the freighter (sans Walt). The fake name is a detail. - Tvb 20:06, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
My theory is that Michael and Walt were freed as shown. Back in New York, Walt was taken by Ben's people and Michael is returning to the island ( once again ) to get his son. The fake name, as stated above, is obviously a cover since the Charles Widmore knows the manifest.

Production Errors

  • When Kate is first seen in this episode Jin says to her "What happened?" in English, without a noticeable Korean accent.
I took it that Jin's pronunciations are simply getting better. I don't think he's ever had a Korean accent, just trouble with vocabulary. IT would be intersting to hear him pronounce some words with an Australian accent.--Lucky Day 19:03, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
No, Jin was supposed to not know English at all, not just have a poor vocabulary. And everyone who learns a new language has an accent, and you can identify what their native tongue is from their accented English (e.g. Korean, Indian, Spanish, etc). All in all, I think his current speaking ability is a stretch, but I can live with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AugC (talkcontribs) 2008-03-15T14:15:59.
Total immersion is the quickest way to learn. With Sun helping him, I think he could get this far, this fast. --Gluphokquen Gunih 11:56, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
I agree. With only one Korean speaking person in your presence for over three months, would pretty much allow you to pick up English easily. Especially with influences from Michael, Sawyer and Hurley over the series. Mikay 10:30, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Tombstone

What fine Korean literate person wants to provide us with a translation of Jin's tombstone? Anybody see this somewhere yet? --Beardedjack 05:31, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Also, can anyone explain the three dates on the tombstone? Obviously the last one is the date of death. I'm assuming one other one is the birth date. What is the thirds significance? --LOSTinDC 06:07, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
On the right are Jin's birth and "death" dates. The one date on the left is likely Sun's birthdate, meaning that it's a shared plot and the date of her death will be added when she eventually is buried there. It's a pretty common way of doing things (at least here, I can't speak for Korean tradition). --Minderbinder 06:41, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
That makes sense - joint tombstone. --LOSTinDC 07:46, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I don't think joint tombstone is the common way in here, Korea. Anyway, if you need some clarification of the writings on tombstone, check this out. http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k149/jyunaharry/lost%20cap/jinstombstone-1.jpg I think it showed that in Korea Sun still has her maiden name Paik, which is right, rather than change her surnmane into her husband surname Kwon. --Foxysmile 15:36, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
That would make Sun 24 years old. That seems a little young, no???
I noticed this too. It does some completely inaccurate. --Xbenlinusx 13:24, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
The real actress is only 7 years older, you saying she can't pull off being 7 years younger? Tsk, tsk... --Rodwell 13:29, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Yes. The character hardly seems to be 24. --Xbenlinusx 14:26, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, and nobody on The OC seemed like a teenager. It's television. :) - Tvb 19:43, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Could the tombstone have been put up in their honor when everyone came to believe all the passengers were dead? My knowledge of Korean is rather, uh, non-existent, so I don't know how that fits with their names and dates on the marker. Lindsaynickel 14:11, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

If that were the case, the left side would have 9.22.2004 since they had assumed Sun died on that day as well. Since Jin has a death date listed but not Sun, that implies the tombstone was put up after Sun was rescued. --Minderbinder 14:13, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

What's up with the tombstone? I mean, can anyone confirm something about the names on it? Cause some people say it's not Sun's name on it and others say it is.

Discussion or theory?

Will people please stop posting questions in the theory page? I think it's better to discuss matters on talk pages, and then make them into theories. This is also a site policy. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:09, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Yeah, it's a horrible mess. I deleted a bunch of stuff, feel free to weed out the crap. --Minderbinder 06:42, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I think this is not only obvious, Ben gave the answer last episode.--Lucky Day 19:14, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Why was Daniel taking apart the Sat-Phone?
    • didn't someone break it?--Lucky Day 19:14, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Monster?

Is it just me or did the dragon toy make the smoke monster noise? Can anyone confirm? --Jackdavinci 07:18, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Just a roar noise that a toy would be expected to make. Merick 08:48, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • It may not have been an identical noise, but I'd say it was a bit of an in-joke in reference to the monster.--Cunningmunki 08:02, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

Banging = morse code?

Did anyone catch whether the banging sounds on the freighter was morse code? Anyone get a transcription? --Jackdavinci 07:35, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

That was my first thought. Maybe Michael trying to give a message? Or did the note about the captain appear during the noise? Or maybe it just means some poor crazy crew member is banging their head on a pipe somewhere. Merick 08:47, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Not sure the banging was a code but it is an interesting thought. POWs, for example, communicated through walls by tapping – either by Morse Code or “tap code” used to find a letter of the alphabet laid out in a 5x5 grid with C used for K. B would be tap...tap tap (used at the Hanoi Hilton).--J.nc 09:09, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
It looked like Sayid was trying to listen intently when Desmond mentioned it, so Morse code ran through my head at that moment. But then the doc came in. So maybe he interrupted Sayid before he could discern any message.N1ck0 09:32, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I thought this too, but then the doc said they were working full time trying to get the engines back up and running -- I figured this was the explanation for the banging. --Litany42 09:40, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Listening to the banging several times, it seems to be one bang, followed by a pause, then two bangs closer together, then the series repeats itself over and over again. It is hard to tell with banging since morse code is made up of long and short dashes. I would assume that the space between the bangs is intended to signal either a dash or a dot (longer pause is a dash, shorter pause is a dot). There are two letters that have a single element (dot or dash). E is one dot and T is one dash. I would assume that the single bang is a T since there is a long pause afterwards. The next "letter" is harder to interperet. The long pause after the two bangs closer together coule be to signal that the next noise is not part of that "letter", or it could be that it is to signal a dash. If the two bangs are intended to be the same, then the second letter is probably an I (two dots). If the pause after the two bangs is to signal that the second bang is a dash, then the letter would be an A. So, the banging is T-I repeated, or T-A repeated.--Afrugoli 11:43, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

However, by the fact that veterans form a theme in the show as well, it is plausible that it's Tap Code, S/he would the be transmitting the letter B. Perhaps calling out for Ben? Kidslimmer 16:03, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

My first thought was that the people on the freighter were trying to trick Sayid and Desmond into thinking the boat was malfunctioning somehow, because that's exactly what Desmond thought. He said something like, "I hope they fix that soon." I don't know why they would want them to think that, but that was my first impression. Outpost road 18:13, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

My thought was Desmond would have picked up Morse Code right away with his training. Maybe we'll hear it again, but I'm guessing it was Michael. Maybe its liek the whispers on the Island.--Lucky Day 18:32, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

The sound came from Regina dragging that chain around. ESachs 20:16, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

  • It was definitely not dragging. It was banging and when Desmond said if Sayid thought it was someone banging the pipes again and again, he said that was exactly what he thought. And it didn't sound like Morse Code because we heard the same sequence over and over (unless the person just repeated the same letter or number, or whatever it is). Besides if it was Morse Code, Sayid would definitely pick it up. I think he knows it, but even if he didn't, he would know it's Morse Code and would've commented about it. He just said it was not mechanical, which means he just figured that it was human, but nothing else special about it. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:07, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I just assumed it was morse (or some other form of) code. It was significant enough to have in the plot and Sayid said that the bangings were definitely not mechanical. Not to mention it happens when we know there is a sabateur/spy on board who is also helping Sayid and Desmond. Don't know what it was saying or what it means but I'm pretty sure it was a person banging and trying to communicate after some fashion. --Lanie 00:26, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I related the banging with the blood on the bulkhead revealed near the end of the episode. WCFrancis 04:49, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Looks like the mark of a suicide by gunshot. The stain is concentrated in one place - bashing a head would be more scattered around, more drippy. Compare to the Radzinsky stain in the Swan hatch. --Moo 16:57, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
  • If it was Morse code I would have expected both Sayid and Desmond to recognise it instantly, given they both have military training.--Cunningmunki 08:07, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Aye, my first thoughts go to Morse code, but why bother using it if you can get a written note in there? --Moo 16:57, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
  • One small contribution that has not yet been observed: the reference to the problems in the kitchen. No one has yet asked, "What about the cook?" Maybe I've just watched Clue a few too many times, but the lima beans and the juxtaposition of Sayid listening to the banging while eating from a can makes me wonder if there are significant activities happening on the boat from members of the crew who have been referenced but not yet introduced. In other words, is the stain on the wall what used to be the cook, and was s/he responsible for the banging? We'll just have to see in the next episode if the food gets any better. :) Elitry 07:08, 18 March 2008 (PDT)elitry
    • And why are these seafaring types calling it the "kitchen" and not the "galley" --ukexpat 06:17, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

Didn't they say they wouldn't do this?

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I could swear reading an interview where Lindelof/Cuse specifically said they wouldn't confuse viewers by mixing flashbacks and flashforwards within an episode. Can anyone back me up on this? I think it was fairly recently, so the episode must have been written already. Was this a deliberate red herring on their part? --Joezoo 08:22, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

First of all, they have done a great job and it wasn't confusing at all. It was a twist: Leading you to believe something and reveal something else. And second of all, I think they meant for the same person. The flashbacks were Jin's, and the flashforwards Sun's. They didn't show either one in the other flashes. So I think it was greatly done. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:06, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
This was in reference to "The Economist" I believe. They have stated that flashforawrds are always chronological. Flashbacks have not been in the past, but flashforwards are. I would separate Jin from Sun here. We have two separate flashes in the episode.MFXD 08:47, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I dunno but something about this episode with the flashback + flashforward seemed very atypical lost...sort of seemed like a classic cheap Hollywood TV suspense trick (forcing the audience to say 'oh wow Jin and Sun made it', and then the classic 'ha ha we fooled you' moment. Usually the lost episodes are a bit more subtle with these types of things by not leading the entire audience into a single mindset. I dunno if feels like maybe some sort of studio/network meddling to me. Of course maybe its just cause I noted the cell phone being old and it spoiled it for me N1ck0 10:29, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Although in the previous podcast they did say they were rushed to complete all the last episodes, maybe if forced the writers to make a few shortcuts on how they really wanted things to play out. N1ck0 15:18, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I think that's exactlly what it is. We're made to believe that Sun and Kin are both off of the island. Especially with the whole Jin going to the Maternity Ward thing. But I think Lindelof/Cuse meant there wouldnb't be a flashback and flashforward from the same character in the same episode...but with Sun and Jin: two seperate characters.Thelordnyax 11:37, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
No, I don't think so. They wrote and produced this episode and the first eight of this season as planned. The only time they ever had to rush was when the writer's strike occurred, shortening the second half of this season. The possible "combination" of flashforward/flashback would have been intentional if it did actually happen that Jin was in a flashback. I think this episode did more raising of questions then answering of them. But it's ok, Michael is back to get beaten up by Sayid, like we've all been waiting for for 28 episodes. Rddswim 21:54, 15 March 2008 (EST)

It reminded me of the stupid and confusing twist at the end of Saw IV, which didn't work either. I only got that Jin's was a flashback when I came here and read that stuff about the Year of the Dragon. Otherwise I had thought they were saying that Sun thought Jin was dead even though he was still alive, and they'd had their memories wiped. That made sense to me because she thought that stranger was Jin for a moment, which implied that she maybe couldn't quite remember what he looked like, which would avoid problems if she ran into him again. Still, I guess I was wrong. I thought it was too confusing to have both flashback and flashforward in the same episode, or at least they didn't make it clear enough.

When you say that the flashforwards are chronological, do you mean within an episode or across the whole show? As in, do you mean that in a single episode every flashforward scene is set one after the other, or that, say, Kate's flashforward would take place after Hurley's, and so on?
  • They have said that within a single episode, flashforwards happen in order. This episode is obviously a bit of an exception, but the Sun flashforwards are in order and the Jin flashbacks are in order. I don't think they have said they wouldn't mix the two in a single episode. --Minderbinder 12:39, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
It just means that when we return to Sun after the commercials, it will be a scene that takes place after the scene in the previous act. As for whether the flash-forward/back combo was clear enough by the end... that's a tightrope that they have to walk any time any time they're sneaky. One person's "confusing" is another person's "obvious". - Tvb 19:30, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
It all makes sense after reading Lostpedia for me, however I also didn't pick up on the subtleties which told us it was a Jin flashback. When Jin announced he'd been married two months, I didn't pick it up a bit, and did think that he'd remarried. I'm a little disappointed because I totally picked up on Jack's Motorola in Through the Looking Glass but missed Jin's phone here.. Haha.. I had just assumed that Jin wasn't dead after all. I also didn't click that it meant Jin isn't one of the Oceanic Six.. Thank God for Lostpedia, eh? Mikay 10:39, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Centric?

Why is this only listed as a Sun-Centric episode. The flashbacks were all Jin's.MFXD 08:48, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

I agree. I commented on this on the Template:Season4nav talk page, but nobody's changed it yet. Jimbo the tubby 09:16, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

The flashforwards are Sun's though. This episode is further proof of the producers "mixing it up" a bit from the original formula, containing flashbacks and flashforwards from two different characters. --Litany42 09:42, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

True, but the nav template was saying that the episode was exclusively Sun-centric. It's fixed now, but yeah, having both characters is the way it should be. Jimbo the tubby 09:44, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Pictures

None of the picture links seem to be working. I put Sun's S4 image in the sidebar because it looked very messy, but if someone could add working pictures, that would be good.

It looks like a permission error on the server to me - for example `/var/www/sites/www.lostpedia.com/images/0/07/Kevin_Johnson.jpg': Permission denied. N1ck0 10:12, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
None of the pictures on this page are working for me. All I get are red x's. But I have spoken to people who can see them on this page. What's up with that?--Baker1000 16:31, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

Jin and the DUI Curse

Well, seems that there is another one for the road... Daniel Dae Kim gets a DUI last year and now we find out he likely dies. (Of course there is always the possibility that he isn't dead, that he is alive and well with the rest of the people who didn't make the "Oceanic 6" cut.) --Litany42 09:56, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Except that he likely isn't dead. And even if he was, he still has the opportunity to make plenty more appearances on the show, not exactly what you'd do if you wanted to get rid of an actor. The whole "DUI curse" applies to how many actors, two? Not exactly a curse. I think it's more likely that actors either were planned originally to be short term, or they ended up being difficult to work with. If anything, I think they may have used the whole DUI speculation thing to jump to the wrong conclusion that Jin is dead. --Minderbinder 10:03, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Why do you say he "likely" isn't dead? I can understand the speculation that it's possible that he's still alive, but to say that it's likely doesn't make much sense to me. Can you elaborate? Jimbo the tubby 10:19, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Based on what we've seen in the show, I think it's likely. The only thing suggesting he is dead is a tombstone that we know is wrong. --Minderbinder 11:29, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Whether or not he's dead, I don't believe the writers intended to get rid of him because of his DUI. Especially on this show. People die and reappear in flashbacks quite often, so they wouldn't actually be getting rid of him.Thelordnyax 11:39, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

And would it be a horrible SPOILER for me to point out, unless everyone already knows, that next week's episode has a returning character (presumably in flashback) that was a victim of the DUI curse? Sithboy 15:40, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Also if he is dead (and I firmly believe he's not), he's dead in the future, which means he's still in the on island story and not written off the show. The "DUI Curse" doesn't apply here. --Gluphokquen Gunih 11:52, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

Jin's "possible" death?

Can someone explain to me why we're treating Jin's death as possible? Every time it's mentioned in the article, it says something like "Jin possibly dies" or what not. There is nothing in the episode to suggest that Jin is still alive, so this is entirely speculation without foundation. I feel that this would be similar to asking something like "Is Sayid actually working for Bed?" Until something in the episode actually suggests that what we're being told is false, then it should be treated as true, because otherwise you can have unanswered questions about literally every event or line of dialogue in the show. So can someone please provide an argument based on episode content for why we shouldn't believe that he's dead, because if not then we should be treating his death as actual until proven otherwise. Jimbo the tubby 11:26, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Because we have no evidence that he is dead. All we have is a tombstone, which we know is false. Given that we also know that the O6 lied and said that everyone else on the plane died, that's pretty poor evidence that he is dead. Do you think the article should just say that he is dead? --Minderbinder 11:31, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
What about the funeral that Jack went to? It would make sense that nobody attended the funeral because nobody knows that Jins mother and father are alive.
If there was a funeral for Jin, there would basically be one for everyone who supposdely died on the day the plane crashed. With that in mind, it would be very easy to apply your logic to any of the non-O6 people. It would make sense that nobody would be attending many of the funerals such as Locke, Sawyer, Sayid, and several others whom all have no immediate family or friends.
There's no way the funeral Jack attended in LA was for Jin, that doesn't fit at all. --Minderbinder 11:03, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

Umm... We have no evidence that he's alive. How do you know the tombstone is false? I'm pretty sure that if Jin actually *had* died in the crash, Sun would've had a tombstone for him when she got back, and I'm sure the families of the people who are presumed dead on the plane have similar plots for their deceased family members. And yes, I think the article should say that he is dead (or will be dead), because otherwise we should be saying things like "Sun gives birth to a baby that is possibly the same one she was pregnant with on the Island". Without evidence to show that something that appeared in the episode is false, there's no reason to question it. EDIT: Furthermore, if the tombstone is fake, why would Sun and Hurley even bother going there? Jimbo the tubby 11:34, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

The tombstone had the date of the crash as his date of death. So it's at least a partial lie, maybe it's all a lie? Instead of wigging out about it...let's wait until the rest of the seasond :D Thelordnyax 11:41, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Sure, that's a lie, but it's consistent with what the Oceanic 6 told the rest of the world. I'm sure that if Sabrina Carlyle has a headstone for Boone and Shannon (or at least Boone) then the date of death for both would be the date of the crash, not their actual dates of death. In fact, I would be more likely to believe that the tombstone is fake if the date of death were not listed as the crash because then it wouldn't synch up with the story that Jack told. Jimbo the tubby 11:45, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
If the tombstone is true, how do you explain Jin you know...being alive for the first three and a half seasons of the show? You're right, we have no evidence that he is alive. That's why the article doesn't say he's alive. We also have no evidence he's dead. That's why the article doesn't say he's dead either. Since we know the headstone is a lie, and that the O6 are telling a story that we know to be false that says all the other people on the plane died, why should we take the fact that a headstone exists as proof of his death? If person X died on the island, the story says they died on the island and they get a headstone back home. If person Y remains alive on the island, the story also says they died on the island and they get a headstone back home. How does the existence of a headstone prove that person died when we already know for a fact that the O6 are lying and saying that people are dead when they're not? As for her and Hurley visiting, she probably just goes there because it's a place she can go and "talk" to a husband she thinks she'll probably never see again --Minderbinder 11:51, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
why use Shannon and Boone as an example? Because we KNOW that they are dead. We saw them die. Not true with Jin. And yes, the date does coincide with the O6 story...but that was a lie. For now Jin's "possible death" is the best way to say it, because there are clues that can infer either conclusion. Thelordnyax 12:08, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
There's as much evidence that Claire is dead as there is that Jin is dead (i.e. not very much). Does Lostpedia reference Claire's "possible" death? The only thing Jin's tombstone proves is that O6 cover story is that he died in the crash, which is known to be false. I don't think Jin's death should be referenced at all.--Eyeful Tower 14:27, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Jin's "possible death" should defintely be mentioned, because it's important to the story; or, rather, the fact that he's not with Sun and their child is very important, and right now the only explanation we have is that he may be dead.Thelordnyax 15:35, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Death is not the only plausible explanation for why Jin and Sun are not together. But plausible explanations aren't what matter anyway, evidence is. There is no more evidence that Jin is dead than there is that Claire, Locke, Sawyer, Walt, Michael, Rose, or Bernard are dead. Are you prepared to list all Oceanic 815 crash survivors as of episoce 407 not confirmed as part of the O6 as "possibly dead"? The best way to handle it is to mention the facts: his tombstone, etc. without speculation regarding his death, possible or otherwise.--Eyeful Tower 16:30, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
There is reason to question it. There is no clear evidence that the Jin is dead and there is no clear evidence that he is alive. The writers intentionally choose to present it the way the did, they did not come up with a black/white explanation. Please don't try to tell me that the tombstone (with the date of the crash) and the fact that Sun visits it is proof for Jin's death. She can still miss him and the tombstone may be her only connection to him, because the date of the crash ultimately represents the island. --MacCutcheon Talk? 11:44, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
We know the tombstone is false because the date of Jin's death on the tombstone is Sept 22 2004. This aligns with the Oceanic Six cover story (which we already know is totally false), not true events. Therefore, it's safe to say the Jin's death is a lie and should be noted as such. Why Hurley and Sun would visit is fake grave is the real question. I think it's because they are being followed and tracked. They're highly motivated to keep the cover story going. Vaholdem33 12:01, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I wouldn't say that it's safe to assume Jin's death is a total lie, but questioning it is very reasonable. Thelordnyax 12:12, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Also, depending on how deep this Oceanic 6 lie goes, or is intended to go, Sun may be planning on telling her daughter that Jin died in the crash, keeping the truth from her even as she grows up. Getting her started on the habit of visiting her father's "grave" would reinforce the O6 story. Sithboy 15:46, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

I was thinking that too. If she thinks she'll never see Jin again, I could see her telling the kid he is dead instead of "he's alive but on a magic hidden island so we'll never see him again". Might as well start acting the part from the beginning. --Minderbinder 15:57, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Regarding why Sun would visit a fake headstone: Memorials are for those left behind, so they have a place to go to communicate with their loved ones. If Jin is alive on the island, he may as well be dead to Sun. She has no way to contact him and probably thinks she will never see him again. She just gave birth to his daughter and wants to tell him about it. Since she can't get in touch with him, she settles for talking to his memorial. Outpost road 18:26, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

I'll grant you that there is a possibility that Jin is alive, but I still think for the purposes of the article, we should present what we are presented with in the episode, ie: what I feel is a very clear scene showing Jin's grave. I doubt very much that this is meant to be a mystery that the authors are presenting, it's just a peacefully tragic way of foreshadowing the death of one of the characters so that his actual death wouldn't detract from the emotion of the episode (ie: shock at his death vs. sadness to learn of it). Minderbender: I did not say the headstone is true, I said it coincides with the story that the Oceanic 6 are telling the world, namely that pretty much everyone died in the crash. It'd be slightly awkward for Sun to explain why Jin's tombstone says he died ~100 days later when their own coverstory contradicts this. Thelordnyax: I use Boone and Shannon as an example, because we know that they died over a month after the crash, yet the outside world will consider their death to be the date of the crash because of the story told by the Oceanic 6, simillarly they would have to claim Jin's date of death would be the crash as well. All that aside, I feel like people are just in denial that one of the characters has been revealed to be dead and will try anything to convince themselves otherwise, including a number of overly-complicated theories about him staying on the Island. Would I like Jin to sill be alive? Of course, but I'm willing to accept that he's probably gonna die shortly. Until we have confirmation that soemthing is not the way it's presented in the episode, we shouldn't be treating it as speculative. Jimbo the tubby 20:32, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

What was presented in the episode was quite clear. Jin's tombstone only establishes that he was not one of the Oceanic Six because of the date of death (known to be false) being the crash date. What the episode does not establish wihtout doubt is that Jin is dead in mid 2005. Since we know he is still alive in current Island time, any discussion of his death is speculation.--Eyeful Tower 08:46, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
So do you suggest we declare all characters except the o6 dead? That would be the logical consequence of what you're saying. We can be pretty sure that all the other characters have tombstones with the date of the crash as well (as part of the staged crash), we just happened to see one of them. --MacCutcheon Talk? 11:56, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
"It'd be slightly awkward for Sun to explain why Jin's tombstone says he died ~100 days later when their own coverstory contradicts this." Their cover story is fabricated, so it could have said whatever they wanted it to say. If Jin died on the island (and particularly if they brought back his dead body, which I consider extremely unlikely), they absolutely could have given his actual date of death and just said he died when he did. After all, they did say two people survived the crash but died later, why not include Jin as one of those? There's nothing about saying that Jin died on January 2 (or whatever) that contradicts their story. Whether you think it's "denial" or not, the fact is that we have zero evidence that Jin is dead. The survivors say he's dead. They also say that about 40 other people are dead, most of whom are most likely alive. So since we know the second claim is a lie, I don't know why we must treat the first as fact? Or why the possibility that he's alive is "overly complicated"? The possibility that he's alive has a simpler explanation than him being dead since the tombstone has a bogus date. --Minderbinder 13:43, 18 March 2008 (PDT)


Surely if we've learned anything from past episodes of Lost, it's that you can't be sure of anything. It is entirely feasible that there will be some kind of twist whereby Jin will turn out to still be alive. I'm not sure if the article here needs to constantly remind us that he might not really be dead, but I think it is fair to say that it 'indicates' that Jin is dead rather than definitively tells us that he's dead for sure. In a show like Lost I think the only way we could know Jin is really dead is if we see him die on screen.Liquidcow 05:18, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

Oh come on people, JIN IS DEAD. Why would Sun talk to his tombstone and cry, why would Hurley say "Let's go visit him" if he wasn't dead? Wouldn't that be a bit stupid? "Hurley: Oh yeah, Jin is alive, but let's go visit him: let's go to see his fake tombstone, which was faked to make Lost more complex and plot-twisted and so people at Lostpedia would theorise about it. Oh and Sun, you'll probably enjoy talking to it.". BeŻet 18:57, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

BeZet wins. Jin is dead. Had Hurley not said that, then yes, it could be plausible it's all a ruse. But he does, he has no need to "act" around another O6 member. --Gredge 20:00, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
Let's assume that Sun was forced to leave Jin on the island. Let's further assume that she knows that her father -- a controlling man that almost lost her once -- is watching her carefully. Would it not make sense for them to go to the grave site for the sake of appearances? The fact that she misses him as well and is distraught without him would explain her emotions.--Chuck 19:38, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
Jin's not dead. The gravestone had his date of death as the day Flight 815 crashed. This means he's still on the island. Visiting the gravestone is the closest thing Sun has to talking to Jin since he's miles away from her. He's not dead.--Richard 19:14, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
Has it not occurred to people that Sun and Hurley might actually believe that Jin is dead even though he's not? Again, in a show like Lost you never know what they're going to do next, so since we haven't seen Jin die on-screen it's still feasible that he's not really dead. Therefore I think it's fair to say that this episode indicated that Jin is dead but doesn't tell us for sure.Liquidcow 05:50, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
Writing bold or turning everything into a joke doesn't make it correct. I suggest you read this entire subsection to get an idea why Sun and Hurley would still visit a fake tombstone. The only thing stupid here is the conclusion that Jin is dead from what we've seen in this episode. As I said earlier, probably every non-o6 lostie has a tombstone and people visiting it. That is part of the cover-up story. Note that I'm not claiming that Jin is alive, I'm just saying that we can't assume that he's dead. --MacCutcheon Talk? 07:22, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
THE fact that Sun believes he is dead is what worries me to believe he actually is dead. However, Sun could just as easily been lied to and Jin could be on the island. I believe the cinematic climax between Jin and Sun/JY at the point of their reunion would be too strong to completely disown the notion that he may still be alive. I think that at this point it could just as easily go either way and this should definitely not be a definite.--DocHoliday 16:30, 16 March 2008
We don't know whether Sun or Hurley thinks Jin is dead. Either is possible. And yes, it's entirely possible that they know he's alive but they visit the cemetery because they don't think they'll ever see him again. Plus, it's likely that Sun will tell her daughter that he died and is starting to go to the cemetery for her daughter's sake. Posting something in bold and all caps doesn't make it true. --Minderbinder 13:43, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Ji Yeon: What does it mean?

Didn't the writers say that they don't name people on the show by accident? So, if that's true, what significance does "Ji Yeon Kwon" have? dposse 12:17, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

"Heavenly patience" -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:52, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Ji = Truth or honor or wisdom. Yeon = extend. Kwon = strike or smash. My Korean is very bad though. Bobwilnes 16:34, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

'Heavenly Patience' huh? I wonder if this hints that Sun might be waiting for Jin to return, and that her 'heavenly patience' will be rewarded.Liquidcow 05:20, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

Remember Jin couldn't concieve off-island and was really angry about it when he was first told. "Heavenly Patience" could refer to their wait to become parents in my opinion. --Gredge 20:14, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

Most Korean names' meanings are depend on what chinese letters that they choose. For example, Sun's chinese letter is 善('good-hearted) but maybe it could be 先 and then the meaning would be 'the former'. Like this, we can't sure the real meaning of Ji Yeon until we find out the chinese letters. Anyway, most Korean parents name their daughter(mostly) Ji Yeon for the combined meaning of 'Ji : truth, ambition, widsom' and 'Yeon : lake, pretty, lotus'. On the other hand, as the general word, jiyeon(遲延) means 'delay, postponement'. But I don't think it means "Heavenly patience", because that word doesn't mean 'active waiting'. It just means 'something is put into the later timeline'. So it would be some hints for Sun/Jin's fate, although I don't think that Jin thought about this aspect when he named his daughter Ji Yeon. --Foxysmile 09:35, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Unanswered Questions removal

I'm going to remove the following two questions:

"Why was Regina reading her book upsidedown?"

Obviously this was just a device to show that she was only pretending to read and that something was on her mind. The question about why she commits suicide adequately covers the issue of what exactly it was that was bothering her.

"Why is Michael going by the name Kevin Johnson?"

Because he's acting as a spy, duh.Liquidcow 12:21, 14 March 2008 (PDT)


Who staged the fake Oceanic 815 crash? The captian said Ben did.

Why does Jin's headstone indicate that he died on September 22, 2004 (the day of the crash)? The six is pretending that he died in the crash.

Fralfman 12:42, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

#1 is something claimed by a character that has been hinted as being potentially unreliable. #2 I agree with, however.--Nevermore 14:19, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Same here, we don't know whether or not to believe the captain at this point. We've been told not to by another unreliable character )Michael aka Kevin Johnson). Up until this point I was under the impression that Abaddon or whoever he works for is behind the coverup, could be Ben, might not be. So "Who staged the fake Oceanic 815 crash?" is a valid question. Thelordnyax 15:38, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Perhaps in the context of this episode the question should be 'Did Ben stage the Oceanic 815 crash?', since the question of who faked it has been around since previous episodes and the real question here is whether the captain is telling the truth about it being Ben's doing.Liquidcow 05:22, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
"Who staged the fake Oceanic 815 crash? The captian said Ben did." Remember, the Captain is not to be trusted (allegedly). --Gredge 20:15, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

I really hate the headstone question. It's very obvious and people keep reviving that. Isn't "Is Jin really dead?" enough? Actually I think even that is too much, because it's not really an unanswered question, it's just doubt. But if you reaaaally love to ask the freaking question, oh please suffice with "is he really dead?" and stop asking questions that have been answered by characters on the show! --     c      blacxthornE      t     03:46, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

Yeh, even though I'm not sure if he really is dead myself, the 'is Jin really dead' question is a little bit theory-baiting. The episode itself doesn't bring this question up, it tries to make us believe that he is dead. The seasoned Lost viewers among us know they may surprise us later with the news that he's not, but it's not an unanswered question in my opinion.Liquidcow 05:55, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
Thanks. That's what I thought. I'm removing it. --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:59, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
I don't see why this would be theory. We haven't seen a scene where Jin dies or something similar. It was the writer's intention to present it the way they did, there is absolutely no proof either way (dead or alive) in this episode. Question like these are all over Lostpedia e.g. TMFT - did Locke really blow up the sub? --MacCutcheon Talk? 07:38, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
That doesn't mean that they're legitimate. They've said that he blew the submarine a thousand times. That's theory baiting, as the episode does not raise the question. However, it raises the question about whether Ben put that in his mind (Alex says that explicitly). So that's another issue. In this episode, they show his tombstone. No one says that he is on the island. So we are expected to assume that he is dead. Wondering if he's still alive is just because we kinda got used to plot twists especially about life and death. That does not mean that it is left as an unanswered question. If he's not, that will be nice. They show his tombstone and Sun and Hurley visit it as if he was dead. The tombstone itself is supposed to be a twist, especially after Hurley asks if they should we go "see him": The twist is that Jin is actually dead. --     c      blacxthornE      t     14:13, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
We can go back and forth with this, but the mystery stands, no matter how much you hate it. Every main character who's died and can be confirmed dead very visibly dies. Until we see that we can't be 100% sure. If the show producers didn't want any mystery, they would not have done a closeup on the stone, or given Sun a valuables bag with someone else's name on it. Pessimists will trust the headstone, optimists won't. --Moo 17:14, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

I actually like the current wording of "What has happened to Jin?" because whether he's dead or not, the question makes sense without suggesting either answer. Jimbo the tubby 23:09, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Yeh actually, it's perfect I think. If you want to believe that he's dead, it's asking how he died, which is definately an unanswered question. If you want to go with the angle that he might still be alive, then it asks whether he really is dead and if not where he is.Liquidcow 13:49, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
I'd agree on that wording, although "Is Jin dead" is a perfectly legitimate question, not "theory baiting" at all. And the episode definitely brings the question up. If the date on the tombstone was January 2 or something, it would be plausible and we'd be more inclined to accept it. But by having the date of the crash, the episode tells us that the tombstone isn't true - we know for a fact that he didn't die on that day, so it brings the idea of whether he's dead at all into question. --Minderbinder 13:54, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Episode References

When going into labor, Sun calls for her (supposedly) dead husband. This mirrors the moment when Jack referred to his father as if he were still alive in his own flashforward.

If you watched the mobisodes, it shows that Christian is still alive. Should we keep this here, knowing that he is? What I get from this, is that he is off the island in Jack's flashforward. Fralfman 12:48, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Considering the show has had MANY times when dead characters have appeared, and that they seem to generally be visions of some sort, I'd disagree with the notion that it showed that he is alive. --Minderbinder 12:51, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
I think the reference is true. In both cases we think the guy is dead. In both cases we don't know if they really are. And in both cases they are being talked about as if they weren't. --     c      blacxthornE      t     12:52, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • If you watched "The Cost of Living", is shows that Yemi is still alive.
  • If you watched "The Man Behind the Curtain", it shows that Ben's mother is still alive.
  • If you watched "Dave", it shows that Dave actually exists.
  • Yeah, not really.--Nevermore 14:22, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Indeed. Who knows who's alive or not? I think it's a reference, both being in flashforwards and both talking about seemingly dead relatives as if they were alive. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:38, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Jin wants Jack to pass him the cereal. This is almost the same as when Sun decided to talk to him only in English and said "Would you pass me the box of cereal?" in English, in Tricia Tanaka Is Dead. It's not exactly the same sentence though. Does it count as an episode reference? --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:38, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Same here. I assumed he was trying out the phrase she taught him, even if it's slightly different. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:05, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Cultural References

Sorry, but I don't agree with the connection between Regina's suicide jump and Bottocelli's The Birth of Venus. Even with the little diagram, the similarities are not strong enough to be considered a cultural reference, if you ask me.--Vico 16:06, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Same here Bobwilnes 16:38, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Glad you both said that -- I was coming to this page to post my opinion on this. I am deleting it with a note to come talk about it here. --Chuck 17:00, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

I fully agree with you Vico. --Enzo_2309

Red Herrings as a Directing Technique in Lost

When Jin had his Panda stolen by by the lout who took his cab it had me wondering if it was done one purpose. The cab's number I think was 2639. I may be wrong but it was very visible. Jin then left the Panda in the waiting room and then tied a blue ribbon around it. I swear I was waiting for the thing to blow up.

Alfred Hitchcock was a master of using deception to keep audiences wondering. He would show scenes that were seemingly significant and important but turn out to be completely meaningless. One comes to mind from the movie Suspicion where Nigel Bruce as "Beaky" takes off his glasses to look at a painting. The next shot is done from his POV as he loses focus on the painting. Hitchcock spent enough time on that shot to make the audience sit up and wonder what the importance of it was to the big mystery. I sat and waited through the entire film to discover it was nothing it all. It was simply done to make you think it was significant.

In this case the stolen panda, the clear license plate and the blue ribbon turned out to be nothing in this episode and will probably not be shown again.--Lucky Day 18:55, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

I think the point was just to indicate to us that Jin would rather turn up late than without the present, and to make us wonder why this was ... until the end of the episode! -- 16:23, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

The whole thing with Jin was done to make you think he was alive in the future and that the Panda was for his and Sun's child, so yeh in a way the whole flashback is a red herring. The blue ribbon was a way to show that Jin was eager to impress the grandfather with his attention to detail, so it has some significane to his character, the thing about the first one getting lost I guess was just to make the story more interesting. But I mean that whole flashback sequence was just a red herring really and probably won't feature again. When you think about it we didn't really learn anything new about Jin from it.Liquidcow 05:28, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

The Cab number is 2369 - I don't know how to paste a capture, but i'm watching it right now and i'm absolutelly sure. Bye. Enzo_2309

Weird theory

The theory that Miles wants 3.2 million theories because they found 324 dead bodies in the place, is one of the weirdest theories I've seen on these pages. Am I the only one to think that this theory lacks support?--Salvora 11:43, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

No, I think we simply need to wait to find out the meaning of the amount of money.
Speaking of numerological weirdness, I have tired of seeing every reference to a number or digit from the numbers linked to its own page as if it meant anything. The numbers cover 6 out of 10 possible digits, so this is just silly. Sometimes, my dear Freud, a cigar is just a cigar.
On the other hand, the missing digits are 6, 7, 9 and 0, two which are tied to the Question of Life the Universe and Everything in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: The answer discovered both after and before (due to Time Travel) the question was posed by Deep Thought, as any Douglas Adams fan knows, is "42". On finding out the question to the answer "42" is "What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?", Arthur Dent says, "I always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe." And the flaw in the universe is obviously focussed on the Island. Is that convoluted enough for ya? WCFrancis 05:05, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
6 is covered in 16. And 42 is 6 multiplied by 9? ain't that 6 x 7? Either way, I think it's too much pondering. I don't think the writers thought about any of these missing digits and we're missing the whole point here. --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:59, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
That's the joke. 6 x 9 is not 42, hence the "something fundamentally wrong with the universe". And I agree with you; my yammering above is also intended to be mildly satirical. And I screwed up my accounting for numbers; because my memory failed and I was thinking that the Great Question was "7x9". My subconscious tried to force this round peg into the square hole by remembering the question in a way that fit "missing" numbers. My whole point is really, enough with the numbers connections. WCFrancis 06:22, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
And you caught this while I was still trying to bring some coherence to an incoherent theory that I really don't believe resulting in an edit conflict WCFrancis 06:22, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
Heh heh. I don't doubt your basic math skills, everybody knows 6x9 ain't 42 but I asked that just to get what you actually mean to say. That's why I said "either way", meaning either you just confused what you were about to write, or you did it on purpose: Either way the thing is really pointless to think about I guess. I just wanted to state that I agree that people get a little too far searching for numbers. I mean a number like 2369 maybe okay to count as a reference (even though it's just the half), but saying that a number like 134 is actually (1 = 16 - 15) and (34 = 42 - 8) is just too far. So what I said was not meant as a personal reply, but a general statement regarding numbers (although your post was a starting point to get there). --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:50, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

Rose and Bernard

I had posted this under trivia and it was removed: This is the first time since their reunion (besides a pre-reunion flashback in "Exposé") that only one half of the Nadler couple, Bernard and Rose, appear in an episode the other does not. It was removed becuase Rose appears in "Live Together, Die Alone, Part 1" with out Bernard. The point I was trying to make was that there hasn't been an episode where one appeared and the other did not, not that they've never appeared without each other. I'm putting it back, but if someone can word it better I'd appreciate it. --Gluphokquen Gunih 19:26, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

Rose doesn't appear at all in LTDA, but Bernard pulls Claire away from the hatch door as it falls from the sky. Jimbo the tubby 14:05, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

Regina's book

Someone has replaced idea that Regina's book pages were blank. While there was a definite colour-cast to the scene because they were below deck on the freighter, the pages were not blank. Note the first picture is a screen-cap of the book as it appeared on the episode, and then the second is with the colour-cast removed. While the lighting is bad (too bad to read by, IMO), there are some obvious grey marks on the page that resemble print in bad lighting (you'll probably have to click and look because the pictures are too large for full size here). There is no reason for the article to indicate that the book was blank; I'm removing it again. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:36, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Pictures were added to this talk section, but there was no reasoning added to explain why the editor insists on adding that the pages were blank, so I've yet again removed this incorrect information and left a note on the editor's talk page to discuss it here. I've uploaded a second angle of the book pages (picture 4 in the gallery), enhanced again to remove colour-cast and show definate grey area around Regina's finger that there was indeed text on the page (visible even in the small screen-cap that I did not upload). This should settle this matter. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 21:00, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
Agreed. Massive margins and bad lighting. -Moo 17:20, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

Even if there were no text (and, yes, I agree that there is text), this would be a blooper and not an unanswered question. Jimbo the tubby 21:12, 14 March 2008 (PDT)

Agreed. The dialogue in which it's pointed out that she is holding the book upside down is all that is needed to make the point. Making it double weird by using a blank book prop would not be done; real books are chosen for reasons in LOST. WCFrancis 06:27, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

K, thanks. Lost gets crazy with all the mysteries. I'll stop editing pages with this info but don't be too fast to discount it . It makes sense to me; blank pages, upside down = something. The Survivors of the Chancellor is an 1875 novel and the Black Rock has date discrepancies of when it disappeared 1845 before the book was published (blank pages) and 1881 (after the book published) but I guess that doesn't prove anything. --mhenke

  • It "making sense" does not out weigh the fact that it didn't happen. There is text. --Gluphokquen Gunih 20:38, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

Chronology

Since this episode is unique in that it had FF and FB, should it be organised chronologically, much like we did with Desmond's flashes? That way, the article doesn't have the confusing order where the conclusion about Jin being only married two months comes before why that statement is important (i.e., that we see Sun giving birth, asking for Jin, etc.). I realise this is a departure from the norm, but I think it would work better on this article than the current format. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:49, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Not sure... In the case of Desmond, his mind was jumping between differents points in time, but in this episode, the FB and the FF were related to 2 different people, and had no interconnections... --erikire 21:20, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I disagree. The interconnection was fooling the audience. The way the article stands right now, we give the ending before the story is told. Even if we don't put the flashes intermixed, I think we should keep the flashes together in the order in which they happened in the show, so the context makes more sense. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 23:09, 16 March 2008 (PDT) Edit: I've rearranged it according to the episode order, and made the header "flash events" which does not indicate backward or forward timeline, as the episode intended. I hope this works better. I also moved the note about the flashback "reveal" to another section. 23:29, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I agree with the new order, only I think the flashes should come after the "Real-time events". that way we will have the ff after the present, and the flashback the old Jin that present-Jin was talking about. --CharlieReborn 23:45, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Correct: the interconnection was to fool the audience. So why do it here? These articles aren't supposed to preserve spoilers, they're supposed to summarize what happened in the episode, and when. Intermixing a flashback and a flashforward muddles that. The producers also cut back and forth between the present and flash-back/forwards for storytelling purposes, to show connections between the events, but we don't preserve that here. - Tvb 08:43, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

I disagree with changing it. Every other Lost episode article is presented chronologically, so I don't see why we shouldn't do that here. The article is meant to be an ordered summary of the events in the episode, not a preservation of the actual episode's structure. If that's what you want, then there's a transcript. My vote is to put it back to where it would be organized Flashbacks -> Real-Time -> Flashforwards. Jimbo the tubby 20:52, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Because presenting it in a strict chronological order causes more problems in reading-clarity than the way it is now. As I said, keeping the flashes separate puts the ending, the "reveal" if you like, before the plot-line, necessitating an explanation of how the FB and FF were actually presented in the episode. It also disconnects Jin's back-story from any context, turning it into basically "filler" material, instead of part of the mindf*ck literary device it was in the episode. Changing the flash order to mirror the episode has nothing to do with preserving spoilers; it's about the importance of presenting information to the reader so they understand what happened in the episode. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:22, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Lostpedia articles aren't supposed to preserve spoilers. They are supposed to summarize, and even clarify what has been done in a strict chronological order. If you want to read about the episode without being spoiled, you can do that reading the transcript--in which I pretty much preserved the unknown until it was revealed. Lostpedia episode and character articles being in a chronological order help people a lot when they're confused about the order of events. --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:14, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

  • To point to the transcript is silly, because that could be said then for any article that separates FB or FF from current events. The order isn't about transcripts or preserving spoilers; it's about the article making sense to the reader. Jin's FB becomes fluff when separated from Sun's FF; the two together were a literary device and should be preserved as such so that the reader understands what happened in the story. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:28, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
Then it's easy enough to seperate them and point out the literary device. The flashbacks in Greatest Hits are kept seperate, even though they're firmly entwined with the on-Island events as a literary device that only makes sense in the context of what Charlie is doing on the Island. Note that in that article, we also point out what the episode does with the flashbacks, so there's precedent for explaining flash structure when it's entwined with events in a different timeframe, while still keeping the two frames seperate. A similar argument could be made using Flashes Before Your Eyes, but the events of that episode are framed within a legitimate flashback, so maybe not quite. Anyways, I think we should seperate it but point out why they're important. Jimbo the tubby 09:28, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
Okay, now suppose for the sake of comparison that Charlie's #1 on the list was not something that happened in the past, but rather something that he wanted to do in the future; we see a segment where he completes that task in the future, adding it to the list. It would not make sense to separate that last point from the others, in that keeping them together would outline the complete list for the article reader. Sticking to chronological formatting in the article shouldn't have to be a steadfast rule, and there is precedence with Flashes that we might have to do things differently when approaching an out-of-the-norm episode such as this one. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:26, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Oh. I point out to Tvb's comment above... Actually the only reason I didn't revert the article myself is that LP:EMOS is a little outdated (as it does not include flashforwards) and although I think that it's common sense to follow the flashback/on-island/flashforward routine, in the end it would be arbitrary. But then again, so is yours. So I think we'd better discuss and ammend LP:EMOS, and have consensus on the subject so that we can give this article a final form. --     c      blacxthornE      t     17:44, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

I've raised the issue over on the talk page for the LP:EMOS policy. Jimbo the tubby 18:36, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
Sounds like a plan :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:56, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Continuity Errors?

Maybe it's just me but I think maye these "continuity errors" are just clues. Anyone else agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClockKing (talkcontribs) 2008-03-15T17:13:50.

  • I agree that its certainly a possibility, but until we know for sure, I think they should be left as continuity errors. Everyone has made a convincing argument that Jin is having flashbacks (although I remain skeptical only for the reason that Lost has "mindf***ed" me before.) --Srsnyder 20:56, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
  • At the end of the episode Sun takes a ring out of a hospital bag labeled with the name 권성혜 (Kwon Sung Hieh), which is not Sun's name (백선화).
    • I think this should be removed as a blooper, since it's possibly a clue that she's living under a name not her own. --Island Hopper 14:41, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
      • Everyone knows who the Oceanic 6 are though.--ClockKing 17:54, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Don't Trust The Captain

This might be a long shot, but the handwriting on the note struck me as a little odd. Every letter is square caps, apart from the N's which are both square Italic. Purposely done as a clue (perhaps handwriting analysis could help - e.g. slanting N's could mean the author is lying)? or purely coincidental? Hmm. It just seems a bit too obvious to me. --g00nerz 14:54, 16 March 2008 (GMT)

Drawing in square caps is also a reasonable way for someone to disguise their handwriting. Dharmatel4 12:25, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

mound next to the tombstone

does anyone know if that confirmes Jin's body is actually there? --CharlieReborn 08:47, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Often, in western society at least, family and friends will entomb mementos of that person, or some of their personal effects. There could have been a hole dug and a burial that followed. It's also possible, though I find it unlikely, that the fake corpses from the staged crash were collected and entombed. --Moo 17:22, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
Possible, but in 4x02 the news report said that recovering the bodies would be next to impossible. I bet no bodies were retrieved, if any bodies are buried, it would be the two that Jack said died after the crash. --Minderbinder 13:49, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Kate's map

Kate's map continues the geographic confusion about the Island. Kate gives directions to the Barracks that involve going northwest for about a day and a half. On Ben's radio tower map and Rousseau's map, the beach camp is on the north coast of the Island and the Barracks would be to the southeast. Kate's directions are consistant however with Locke following Eko's stick "north" to the Barracks. They have also for whatever reason reverted to the original longer travel times to/from the Barracks. Dharmatel4 11:45, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

  • I haven't looked at any of the maps in depth for a while, but how many have compass roses on them? We can't assume the top of the paper is North. Sometimes maps are drawn differently to fit the page better, and since Sun and Jin didn't have a compass anyway, it wouldn't matter where Kate drew north. If I get time, I'll try to check out how the maps fit together, ignoring the up is north rule and see what happens. --Gluphokquen Gunih 11:49, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Rousseau's map has a compass rose on it. There is also a compass on the helicopter map. So does the DHARMA cabling map which gives the relative positions of the Flame and the Barracks to each other. And through the DHARMA cabling map, the compass points on Ben's radio tower map (which has the relative positions of the Beach camp, Barracks and Pearl) can be directly inferred (the barracks on the two maps can be overlaid). Kates map has a compass rose on it too. Beyond the maps, all of Ben's dialog from through the looking glass has the Beach camp to the north. Dharmatel4 12:23, 16 March 2008 (PDT)

Red Objects Trivia

Maybe I've missed something, but is theres some particular significance to the presence or absence of red objects in an episode that warrants the following trivia remark"

"Fewer red objects were portrayed than in episodes before, but again they were prominent: doorknob in the ship, Sun's necessaire, Jin's shirt, Oceanic 815's flight data recorder, red roses in the other baby's room, a.o."

If not, this should be removed. --LOSTinDC 11:30, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Yeah, I was wondering that myself... I'll remove it until it can be justified. Jimbo the tubby 11:31, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Lets not forget about Boone's "red shirt" comment ;-). --Frink 00:51, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Red shirt is considered a literary technique. "Red stuff" is useless information. If there was anything significant with the red objects, it would be considered a recurring theme. It's not. Why don't we make a green stuff trivia, and then some blue stuff trivia? Jeez, I think I removed that red object thing twice and someone keeps reviving it. It doesn't belong here. --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:07, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Since the first ep in s04 there are indications of red objects that were mentioned in the articles. though I don't see the point in mentioning a doorknob, Jin's shirts, or a rusty flight recorder. --CharlieReborn 07:35, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

  • I've gone back to ep 4.01 and put a question there as to whether there should be mention of a red object there. The remaining episodes in this season seem to either not raise a "red object" issue or do so appropriately. Hopefully, this will be the end of the Red Baron. --LOSTinDC 08:46, 18 March 2008 (PDT)


Question about Regina's suicide

In the Unanswered questions, someone asked "What was the nature of Regina's condition?" and then commented "please dont split this up again to "why did she commit suicide" and "why was she reading her book upside down"" I think that these questions are seperate entities and shouldn't be balled up into a single questions, as they could easily have distinct answers. Thoughts? Jimbo the tubby 13:00, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

As discussed above, holding her book upside down is obviously just a device to show that she wasn't really reading it - i.e. she was distracted and didn't realise she was holding it upside down, because she was troubled, which is why she committed suicide. It's not a question that we can expect an answer to, it's just character development. Why she committed suicide is an unanswered question, but both that and holding the book upside down can fit under the question of her condition.Liquidcow 16:38, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Okay, I'll agree with that... But then how come we're asking about some supposed "condition" rather than asking "Why did Regina commit suicide?" which would be the obvious question to ask? Jimbo the tubby 17:33, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Yeh to be honest I was a little unsure about that, I thought I was missing something that had been said, but assuming the plot synopsis on the article is correct there is no mention of a 'condition'. I think perhaps it should be 'why did she commit suicide', as that encompasses both her nervousness (when she pretends to read) and her supposed 'condition', if there is one.Liquidcow 07:06, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
Regina's character was presented to us with only two short scenes. in one she reads her book upside down, acting very strange. in the other she's jumping off the ship. you can't say that the ONLY two scenes that we met her in were not related, as Liquidcow said above, it's character development. as for her condition -- right after she jumped the captain explained his crew has some sort of condition which he called a "heightened case of cabin fever", so yes, a condition has been presented to us here. btw I wrote the question and the comment. --CharlieReborn 07:29, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
Then if we know that she commited suicide because of the condition, and we know that the condition is this "heightened case of cabin fever", then where is there an unanswered question? Jimbo the tubby 09:22, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
"GAULT: Some of my crew has been dealing with... what might best be described as a heightened case of cabin fever. I think it's got something to do with the close proximity of the island." -- the show has made it pretty clear it's not REALLY cabin fever. --CharlieReborn 09:58, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
Ok that cabin fever thing was brought up, but I still think it falls under the question of 'why did she commit suicide?'. There might be a reason why she killed herself and others haven't. Also, the 'condition' doesn't apply only to her. What about one question 'why did Regina commit suicide?' and another 'what is the 'heightened sense of cabin fever' that the captain describes?'.Liquidcow 13:43, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
Ok do that. but I still think Regina's case was ment to represent the rest of the crew's problems. --CharlieReborn 21:50, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
Done. Jimbo the tubby 21:56, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Flashback?

Has it been confirmed that Jin's flash was a flashback? It's possible that one of the conditions required for leaving the Island is that he couldn't see Sun anymore and that he would have to work for Mr. Paik again, which explains the DS and PSPs on the shelf in the toy store. -- LightSpectra 13:56, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Oh my God. No. It is a flashback and we need no confirmation for that for Goodness's sake! Let's not expect *everything* to be clues and everything to end with plot twists (especially not plot twists themselves). The PSPs and DSs and some toys are obviously just continuity errors as they probably didn't rearrange the whole store checking if every little thing was present around the year 2000. THAT is what explains the new toys, not a possible double-twist. And him working for Mr. Paik, the dragon year and being dead in flashforward leading us to the conclusion that Jin's flashes were flashbacks IS the plot twist. Don't expect another one on the same subject. This is just like people that say that the flashforward Aaron is not Claire's Aaron. That was the plot twist. They can't un-twist it now. --     c      blacxthornE      t     14:43, 17 March 2008 (PDT)
  • He said to the nurse that he has been married for only two months. The PSP and DS is just an error, the producers of the show has said that they don't look at every frame of the show while editing, so things that we can pause on and say it's an easter egg doesn't mean that the producers meant for that to be in the background it was just a mistake, which is hardly noticable. --Frink 00:50, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
    • He could've only been married for two months to his new wife, the one "given" to him for his new life post-rescue. Here's the point: when Sun was rescued, she and the world was given reason to belief that Jin had died, when in reality, Mr. Paik had given him a new life and spouse. -- LightSpectra 21:00, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
      • He has a new life and new wife but the same job and an old cell phone and somehow toy store owners are confused about what year it is? Anyway, this isn't the place to be debating theories... Robert K S (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
        • To be fair, we can say that this is a general debate about the episode: whether a flash is a flashback or flashforward, whether the toys are bloopers or clues, etc. Anyway, I think it's pretty much settled. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:13, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

How should we call "the new Others"?

Just a general question for discussion. The people in the boat is a new lot of people. We have referred to people from Oceanic 815 as the losties or as the survivors. We have referred to Ben's people as the Others. Now we have a new lot of people with some sort of organization and some sort of common purpose, how are we to call them? The "people on the boat"? "Charles Widmore people"? Any suggestions? Also, I have always noticed that there is a lot of "people" discourse going into the island. And the survivors are treating this new arrivals as "a people": for instance, I think Sayid when he is talking to Miles in Confirmed Dead asks something about who they are and what they are doing on the island and says "your people." I've always found this "people discourse" very interesting; it's at the very least surprising since the fact that some group of people who are stuck in some particular circumstances does not automatically makes them "a people." --Salvora 05:53, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

I believe Carlton and Damon have referred to them in interviews as 'the freighter folk', possibly among other things. I've seen people refer to them as 'the freighter people', 'the freighter crew', 'the people on the boat'. I think any reference to the fact that they're on a freighter or a boat makes it clear enough, but if I had to pick on term I would personally use 'the freighter crew'.Liquidcow 07:10, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Personally, I'm a fan of the term "freighties". Jimbo the tubby 09:20, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

lol, I like the "freighties" too. --Salvora 09:46, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
Freighties is alright. Could be boaties too, which is easier to spell and say. --     c      blacxthornE      t     11:19, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
I like "freighter team", "freighter group" or "freighter crew"--or any other way they've been referred to by the EPs or the Enhanced pop-ups. Use of less formal fan-derived terms isn't consistent with the rest of the presentation of the encyclopedia. Along these same lines, I've often thought about proposing a rename of the Tailies article. Robert K S (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
"Tailies" is a term used by the producers, as well as "Losties". With that in mind, those two terms are pretty much official. And while "freighties" is by no means official, it's derived from two semi-official terms. Jimbo the tubby 21:28, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
I wouldn't consider nicknames that the producers use to be necessarily "official" though. While some information that they provide that's not in the show can be taken as official (like clarifying certain ambiguous points), I think that nicknames fall out of that category. I agree with Robert's suggestions; they are encyclopedic and less informal sounding terms. Also noun phrases such as "people aboard the freighter" or "people from the boat" I think are perfectly acceptable. -- Graft   talk   contributions  22:26, 18 March 2008 (PDT)
I want to be clear about something. I must have misunderstood the question; when I read "what should we call them" I didn't realize it meant throughout Lostpedia, I just assumed it was about us users, using an easy term for general discussion. If we're talking about articles, then no, "freighties" or "boaties" do not sound formal and shouldn't exist in an encyclopedic article. I've never been the fan of the Tailies article either, and I think it should redirect to Tail section survivors as does Losties to Portal: Main Characters. Tailies is obviously done in a very informal way; the first line reads: "The "Tailies" are those survivors who sat in the rear section of Oceanic Flight 815; that tail section tore off and landed on a different side of the island than the plane's middle section." I think it is an arbitrary article and should redirect. In every other article we should use tail section survivors instead of tailies, middle section survivors for the other losties, and freighter people or freighter group for the freighties. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:13, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
I'm maybe being pedantic here, but surely freighter crew' is more correct. Since it's not a passenger ship, everyone on board is part of the crew, it sounds more formal to call them as such.Liquidcow 04:59, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
I agree the title should definitely be formal. I like Freighter Crew also. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:11, 19 March 2008 (PDT)
blacxthornE: by "we" I meant "the community of fans in lostpedia" (you and I and every other contributor), but I did not mean "lostpedia". I agree "tailies" or "freighties" is not formal enough for the encyclopaedia articles. But I also think that the "Survivors from Oceanic 815" or "Survivors from the tail section" or "Freighter crew", are a bit too long for other pages such as the discussion pages and the theory pages, and that terms like "losties", "tailies" and "freighties" (or "boaties" I don't mind) respectively, are better for those pages because they are shorter, and its meaning is self-evident.--Salvora 09:58, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

Mix Flash Events

I think that the "Flash Events" section of the page should be mixed back into Flashbacks and Flashforwards to keep in continuty with the other pages. HolySock92 07:10, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

We're trying to come up with a general rule for this sort of thing over on LP:EMOS. Please feel free to contribute your opinion there as well, so that we can get this cleared up as quickly as possible. Jimbo the tubby 09:16, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

Proposed update to flash section

In order to reach a compromise on formatting for the flash section, what if we format it this way to be placed after the main events in the article, but before the trivia, etc.: -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:27, 19 March 2008 (PDT)


Flash events (<- that would be a normal header)

Jin's flashback in this episode is structured so that, on first viewing, it appears to be part of a flashforward for both Sun and Jin.

Sun in labor

Jin buys a panda

The Chinese ambassador with the offered panda

Jin and Sun's family tombstone

Jin's flashback
Jin is on his cell phone, saying that he will be at the hospital soon. He rushes into a store and buys a large stuffed panda.

Outside the store, Jin hails a cab and puts the bear in it, but before he can get inside another pedestrian gets in and the cab speeds off. Going back into the store Jin attempts to buy another bear. The store owner suggests a stuffed dragon since it brings good luck in the "Year of the Dragon" (which implies the timeframe is within 5 February 2000 to 23 January 2001). Jin insists that he "must have the panda". He ends up paying an exorbitant price for one which had been reserved for another customer.

Jin rushes through the hospital entrance carrying the stuffed panda. Upon arriving at the maternity ward, Jin approaches a room which has a man standing guard outside. Jin identifies himself as working for Mr. Paik, offers his congratulations to the Ambassador on becoming a grandfather, and states that, as a representative of Patik Automotive, he has brought a gift. Before the guard, to tells Jin to wait there, can enter the hospital room, Jin asks the baby's gender. The guard responds that it was a boy, and as the guard turns to enter the door, Jin throws a pink ribbon on the waiting area table and wraps the panda's neck with a blue ribbon. An older man comes out of the room, and Jin presents the bear as a token of Mr. Paik's esteem. Jin informs the Ambassador that Mr. Paik is looking forward to doing business in China. As he is leaving the hospital a nurse asks why Jin is leaving so early. He informs her that it's not his baby. She says "Well, maybe someday...", to which he replies "Don't rush me. I've only been married two months."

Sun's flashforward
Sun packs a suitcase and is applying makeup while watching the Korean-dubbed episode of Exposé, when she begins to feel pain. She phones for an ambulance and the camera pulls back to reveal that she is very far along in her pregnancy.

At the hospital the nurses comment that Sun is one of the Oceanic Six. She is going into labor and the baby is, according to the doctor, "in distress". Sun asks them to inform her husband and repeatedly calls for Jin, indicating her desire to not give birth until he arrives.

Sun, distressed from the labour, mistakes a hospital visitor for her husband. While the doctor debates whether to perform a cesarian section, the baby crowns. Soon a daughter is born.

Sun is back at her apartment, applying her makeup, when she hears a knock at the door. It is Hurley, who has come to see the baby. He asks if anyone is else coming and seems to be pleased when she answers no. While admiring the baby, Hurley comments that she "looks just like Jin". Then he suggests that the two should "go visit him". They travel to a cemetery and stand in front of a tombstone with the date 9/22/04 inscribed on it. Sun looks at the tombstone and tells Jin that she misses him and that she named their daughter Ji Yeon, as he had wanted.


Comments

I think this compromise is the best of both worlds, where the sections are preserved together so that Jin's FB makes sense, but kept separated into FB and FF so that they aren't confusing to the reader. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:27, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

It's better to the point of being somewhat okay, but I still don't think that anything is lost (no pun intended) by ordering the sections chronologically, especially if we're pointing out that the flashbacks appear to be flashforwards upon first viewing. And since keeping them together doesn't (in my opinion) give us anything we wouldn't otherwise have, then we might as well aim for consistency and split them up into chronology. Jimbo the tubby 19:40, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

Combining the flashes into one section and interweaving them seems to be someone's idea of preserving the original storyflow and therefore the twist the writers set up at the end. This is inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. If we were to follow this format, we would have to interweave the flashes and real-time events of every episode. While I think cases can be made for exceptions to the rule of listing events in chronological order (e.g. "The Constant"), this isn't one of them. Lostpedia isn't written as a way to present the show as the writers intended for audiences; it's a best-knowledge re-interpretation written after-the-fact. While the writers aim to confuse and obfuscate for entertainment purposes, we should be making the real order of events as clear as possible in our layout. Flashback, real-time, flash-forward. Robert K S (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

Do what you want. I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:15, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

Year of the Dragon

I just rewatched the episode, and I don't know about the Korean that was spoken, but the subtitles of the flashback scene where the toy store clerk offers Jin the toy dragon are "What about this... In the year of the dragon it brings good luck." I can't agree that this means that it is currently the year of the dragon in that scene. He is only pitching his product by saying that IN the year of the dragon, it will bring good luck. This in no way specifies that it IS the year of the dragon at the time of the scene, as many have argued above. This may seem minor, but the timeline of this show is very important, and it's better to leave something ambiguous rather than tie it down to erroneous information. Sithboy 21:26, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Oh My God. I feel like Desmond--I must have seen this discussion before. Just quit thinking there will be an eventual plot twist and just tell me you seriously believe that the store owner basically tells Jin "what about this? in the year of the dragon it brings good luck--so if you can wait a couple of years, it'll be a great gift! i'm sorry that you have to go without a gift on the actual day of birth though." Or maybe he's thinking that he's going to the hospital for childbirth, but he's not expecting it for another year or so? Or maybe the store owner cannot just come up with a more appropriate toy for the current year? Say, a monkey, a rooster, a dog, or a boar? He just suggested a gift he can give in 2012? I think we should all just relax and trust some of the clues and not expect a mindf*ck over everything. --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:06, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
    • I'm not expecting a mindf*ck regarding this issue, and I don't think there will be any future plot twist about it either. I'm only stating that we should be careful about "establishing" that any event happened at a particular date, otherwise it could be contradicted later, leaving us with a real problem. I also do not think that the shopkeeper intended for Jin to give the gift in a few years, you were much more on track suggesting that he simply could not come up with a more appropriate gift at hand for the current year. Think of it this way... if it WERE the year of the dragon in that scene, wouldn't the shopkeeper have said something different? Like... "How about this dragon? It's the year of the dragon right now, you know!" He would've specifically pointed out how appropriate the gift was, and we would be sure of the year. I feel that the way it was phrased proves that it is NOT the year of the dragon. But just because it's not, doesn't mean that Jin has to hold on to the thing until it is!Sithboy 14:29, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
      • You're right: we don't need to point at the "year of the dragon" comment as proof of the year because it's made obvious from all the other details in the flashback what year it is. The shopkeeper's comment is just one more thing pointing at it. The reason they didn't have him say "It's the year of the dragon" is because that would sound about as ridiculous as someone announcing that "it's the year 2000" and draw unnecessary attention to the question of what year it is before they wanted. Please give it a rest. - Tvb 19:58, 29 March 2008 (PDT)
      • Think of it as someone saying "We're in the new millenium, it'll bring good luck!" versus "Take this, in the new millenium, it'll bring good luck!". The second one sounds like a more appropriate expression. Anyway, I'm just saying it is pointing that the current year was 2000, and not any other year. But if you don't, it's cool; we can agree to disagree. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:39, 30 March 2008 (PDT)

Question for discussion

Why is it that the people in Naomi's team (by which I mean Frank, Miles, Daniel and Charlotte) reply differently when asked what the purpose on the island is? Naomi went with the story that they were going to rescue them, Daniel did the same but latter admitted that rescuing them was not their primary purpose, but doesn't disclose anything else, Charlotte pretended they were there to rescue them... then Miles is completely open about the fact that they are there to capture Ben. And is straight and open about this from the very moment he arrives on the island (Confirmed Dead). And as for Frank, he doesn't tell, but the first thing he notes when he is on the island is that Juliet is one of The Others, so he is not clear about what their purpose is, but his behaviour suggests that they are on the island after the Others. I know that we don't still know what their true purpose is, but what I don't understand is why each member of the team is telling a different story. If they are a team, and are acting as a team, then they should at least keep telling the same story (whether it's a cover-story or the truth). Why do they act differently?

  • I think Abaddon and Naomi's discussion made that, well, not obvious, but pretty much clear. Naomi said that these people were not good for "this kind of" mission. Abaddon told her that each one had a specific purpose. This implies that each was probably given different missions. That's why they all went with the cover story first (except Miles who was hostile from the start), which was a rescue mission, but had different explanations when pushed further. --     c      blacxthornE      t     13:46, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
    • I certainly agree that they do not seem to be working as a team.--Salvora 14:11, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

Unanswered Question

A question I added was deleted on ground that it was probably a production error:

  • Why is Sun's ring in a bag labeled "권성혜", and not her own name (백선화)?

Looking at how deliberate the camera angle was, it does not seem accidental. Plus, it is possible that Sun is going by a different name--it is well established that the Oceanic 6 are maintaining a cover story. Is it unreasonable that her hospital bag was labeled with her fake name 권성혜 ?

  • I don't think Sun would be living with a fake name. We know that Kate and Jack still use their real name (as evident from the trial in "Eggtown"). Sayid still uses his real name (from the golf scene in "The Economist"), and Hurleystill uses his real name (as evident with his conversation with Mike Walton). The only member of the Oceanic Six that I think could be using a fake name is Aaron, who could possibly be Aaron Austen. --Phil (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

Answered question

"Why was Daniel working on the phone?" In The Other Woman, Kate notices the sat-phone in Daniel's bag. Later in the Tempest, the same bag is on a metal stand. When Juliet and Charlotte fight, Charlotte knocks the bag to the floor and lands on it, and Juliet lands on Charlotte. In Ji Yeon, Sayid asks, "Did you have any contact with our people on the beach?", to which Lapidus replies, "No luck. Something must have happened to the phone." Daniel was working on it to repair the damage done to it by Charlotte and Juliet's fight. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:54, 20 April 2008 (PDT)

Ji Yeon's birthdate

Sorry if this has been brought up elsewhere, but if the world at large thinks Ji Yeon is Jin's child then wouldn't it seem strange that Ji Yeon had a 10 month gestation period? The baby was conceived in late October, but if the baby is Jin's the world at large must assume she was conceived in September. So unless Ji Yeon was born 1 month early it would mean that anyone aside from the Ocenaic 6 will think Ji Yeon was gestating for 10 months. Stevenac

I dunno that pregnancies that late would be that uncommon. Can anyone with medical expertise back this up?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:24, 9 June 2008 (PDT)
It is very possible that Ji Yeon was born early. Remember that it was unexpected for her, so much that she didn't even say "I think I'm in labor" (which she probably would even if it was a couple of weeks early), but she said something like "There's something wrong with the baby", which I think suggests that it was way too early for her to think it was an actual labor. Ultimately, she turned out to be right; it was not an actual labor, but there was something wrong with the baby. It was "in distress", as the doctor said, and she was given a C-section (which supports the theory that it was earlier than it was supposed to be).--     c      blacxthornE      t     01:00, 10 June 2008 (PDT)

Main image

New image suggestion

Yes Episode is centric to both Jin and Sun. Image should reflect that. (Kdc2 07:39, March 30, 2010 (UTC))

Yes Both Kwons should be featured. --LeoChris 10:56, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
No I think the current picture is very representative of the episode, and should not be changed just because it doesn't feature both of them. --Bish-Fiscuit 20:42, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
ReplyNo While the scene does represent Sun and Jin both, we should really keep the same routine -- all centric characters in the photo. (Kdc2 20:45, March 31, 2010 (UTC))
Yes We have always used a picture of the centric character/s for each episode and I am strongly in favour of a picture of both Jin and Sun for this episode. It still fits with the theme of the episode and is actually the scene where they discuss the baby's name - where the episode gets its title. It works perfectly for me. Mhtmghnd 02:34, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Yes When it's possible to feature all centric characters we should. Obviously it is not possible with some episodes (Exodus, Confirmed Dead, The Incident, LA X)-but it is for Ji Yeon (many shots of them together on Island, and you could technically say that a shot of Sun and the grave represents them both), so yeah. Anything with Jin & Sun and is high enough quality is okay. --Golden Monkey 03:18, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Yes We should have the centric characters wherever possible. Lets change it to the suggested one. Menot 02:48, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
Yes Agreed. 6 against 1. I'm changing it. Rachel P 08:39, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable narrator

Falsely implying that Ben faked the crash isn't an example of "unreliable narrator". It's just misdirection or a red herring. Unreliable narrator would be if they actually showed Ben faking crash and then later revealed - no, that never happened. --- Balk Of Fametalk 17:42, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

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