This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LA X, Parts 1 & 2 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



First off, woo! So does this mean we can finally mention the episode name without it being a spoiler? But my reason for posting here, is about the picture we're going to use for the upcoming episode images this season. I think the Lost Supper image would look better, rather than the official poster. I remember in Season 5 we had the other cast image, where they were all sat around a rocky scene. Thoughts?--Baker1000 20:45, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should go with the Lost supper poster because it's the actual characters of season six, instead of a gaggle of current cast and past regulars and even guest stars. Especially since the lost supper image has someone the poster doesn't. --Golden Monkey 23:28, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
I think we should wait till the premiere airs; and then see what kind of "feel" it has. The ALL cast poster, or the SUPPER cast poster. But at the moment, I think the ALL cast poster represents Season Six at the moment.Shortguy457 19:10, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Golden Monkey raises some good points. The Supper photo contains just the Season 6 cast, which is most relevant to the episodes this season. The other poster has guest stars and is even missing Ilana, who is now in the cast. I suppose we could wait until the episode airs and decide for the next episode, but right now I feel the Lost Supper is a better image.--Baker1000 20:39, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we know yet what's relevant to this season's episodes. The supper image also "smells" too much like the Season 5 image of everyone, including the "footless Daniel," sitting together for some purpose. I think the poster is much more intriguing. What does distance from the center mean? What does distance from the front mean?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:00, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Lost Supper The image that will go there after the episode airs is widescreen like the Lost Supper. Plus, I think the Lost Supper is cool. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 23:43, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
We should use this Lost Supper image. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 18:34, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
Here's one I uploaded that's widescreen:


--Pyramidhead 20:17, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Press Release —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shortguy457 (talkcontribs) .

Reply I don't think we can post it yet. I'll check spoiler policy and notify the sysops so we can do something about it. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 14:27, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
Why not? There aren't any spoilers that Lost fans don't already know (IE who the main cast is). In fact it gives a brief summary of the show and that we start off immediately after the S5 finale. --LOST-The Cartographer 15:42, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
We can't post it due to the spoiler policy, though if anyone wants to know it doesn't say anything new. It restates what happened last season and doesn't even have a guest list. Well, it says that we'll learn what happened after the end of last season, but duh of course we would, that's what happens every premiere. --Golden Monkey 15:49, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly my point mate. --LOST-The Cartographer 03:49, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Episode 1 and 2

This time, there's no debate about it - the following episode is listed as 6x03, then 6x04, etc. We need some way to denote that this is two episodes instead of one. --Pyramidhead 20:14, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Well so far the template for ep 6x02 is still "TBA". I asked here what the plan is with numbering this season, so feel free to give your opinion. I think we should list the following episode as 6x03, obviously, and then change the season nav to show #01/02 next to this episode. The same goes for articles such as Episodes (already done) and Airdates.--Baker1000 20:39, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
Disagree--we don't do this with season finales. I have a feeling I know why people so badly want both parts to be two different episodes, but we don't make exceptions for fan theories. They're airing on the same night and are two parts of a two hour episode like every season finale normally is. We can't make an exception for arbitrary reasons. ShadowUltra 01:08, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're getting at. In what way is this a "fan theory?" Literally EVERY informed source has stated that LA X counts as 6.01 and 6.02. I'm not suggesting cutting it into two articles, but neither am I suggesting we simply IGNORE how the producers have chosen to number their episodes because it makes some templates less "pretty." --Pyramidhead 01:52, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
I agree. A quick Google search for Season 6 episode guides gave me about six sites (on the first page of results) that list the episodes as 601 and 602, while just one listed it as just 601. Don't split the pages, but don't call the next episode 6x02. While it is true we don't have two "template:ep" numbers for finales, we do have for example 5x17 as a redirect to The Incident, Parts 1 & 2. This episode article states that it is the 104th and 105th produced hours of the show, so why is it we should consider it two episodes (an hour is an episode per "The Variable" being episode 100) but only assign it one episode number?--Baker1000 02:10, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think how we number episodes is a management decision.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:11, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, we should list it as 1/2 in the template and make it so that if you put in "LA X, Part 1" it'll show LA X, and if you put in "LA X, Part 2" it'll get you LA X, and if you put in "What Kate Does" you'll get-um, you'll get a episode that I cannot name. :P --Golden Monkey 15:51, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • Ha, it is pretty annoying trying to refer to an episode that you can't name. The um, episode after the next one? Anyway, that's how I see that we should do it. I asked DarkUFO on his site in the comments for this episodes press release, and he says ABC are referring to these episodes as F104 and F105 (hours). So they consider them to be two episodes. Plus, at the end of the season everyone will say "there have been 121 episodes of Lost" but we will say 120 episodes, unless we count this as two.--Baker1000 17:45, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • The hours and episodes debate has been going on for ages, its driving me nuts. Personally counting episodes in hours is the easiest and best way to do it. I mean logically every show does it that way, why is Lost any different. Dont split the pages into two articles, but I think label every 2-hour episode as 2 episodes under one article. Its just alot easier and doesn't confuse people. Buffyfan123 10:53, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
I personally don't care as long as we're consistent, something a lot of people ignore. For example, "Exodus, Part 2" vs "There's No Place Like Home, Part 2". Why is the three hour Exodus series only two parts? Why are TNPLH and the Incident three? Either the seasons 1-3 finales will have to be renamed (against ABC's naming) or the seasons 4-5 finales will have to be renamed (against ABC's naming). ABC may not care about consistent naming, but we should. ShadowUltra 21:51, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
Um, that's because that's how ABC said it. When originally aired, they listed Exodus as Part 2, LTDA by name only, TTLG by name only, TNPLH as Parts 2 & 3 (changed to part 2 on the DVD, but that's irrelevant), and The Incident as Parts 1 & 2. The names are not up for debate. --Golden Monkey 07:47, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we should just have all hours labled as part 1 and 2, or just left as one. I mean isn't it common in tv world that each hour = 1 episode. Why should Lost be any different, I dont know why. Buffyfan123 08:04, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
6x01 (the first hour) aired in Hawaii last night. I'm pretty sure it would have credits for just part 1, as well as ending with a cut to the word LOST like all other episodes. Surely it can now be considered a separate episode, and part 2 should be titled 6x02?--Baker1000 12:57, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it would have credits for just part 1

That may be a false assumption (but I can't tell you why I think that) --LOST-Hunter61 14:18, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no. It had credits for both parts 1 and 2, as it included the names of some guest stars that were not in part 1. I can't say who, of course! But there were a couple that, far as I could tell, aren't in part 1. --Golden Monkey 15:18, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry for making that assumption, I haven't seen the video. But if they have an idea where the episode should finish at the one hour mark (i.e. given a cliffhanger and not ending at a random point) then it is a separate episode to part 2. Again, I don't know how they ended the episode so I apologize if I'm wrong, but I'm just assuming it wouldn't end in the middle of a scene.--Baker1000 17:21, January 31, 2010 (UTC)


When the clips (with scenes from season 6) will be revealed? --Darth Stefan (Talk) 12:54, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but you won't see them on here. Spoilers are not allowed.--Baker1000 13:14, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
The producers stated that even one frame from Season 6 would reveal too much, so the abc promos are only using recycled footage. I heard that the people who won a USB drive with Season 6 clips have been notified though, so expect those leaks on non-Lostpedia sites shortly. --Gluphokquen Gunih 07:34, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
There are clips already. One promo included a flash of a spoilery character from season 6, and another ad with new footage will air during Desperate Housewives this Sunday. [1] --Golden Monkey 07:48, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


Ugh. This isn't a spoiler, because it deals with something insignificant that has nothing to do with the plot...but the credits have been changed, if Sunset on the Beach is any indication. Before any names appear, it has a big title saying "AN ABC STUDIOS PRODUCTION". Two things about this: 1. is this an change we should note here and 2. is this on every ABC show now? I've also seen it on FlashForward and Scrubs (2.0). --Golden Monkey 15:21, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

In answer to number 2, I am pretty sure it's an ABC standard now, both Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty started doing it at the start of their latest seasons  >: 4 8 15 16 23 42  17:31, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
I have noted this in the 'Production notes' section. --Blueeagleislander 12:31, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

First four minutes

The first four minutes of the episode are now available on I was wondering if we should include a link on the page, considering it's ABC offering this and not a leak site. The four minutes rehash the end of The Incident Part 2 until 1:52 in when the actual end of that previous episode happens.--Pittsburghmuggle 15:41, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

It's still a spoiler. I'm going to have to remove the link. Any discussion or posting of the content will get you banned. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 15:47, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Historically, there's never been an issue with people linking to spoilers, provided they were off-site and clearly labeled (such as casting announcements, Medianet press releases, interviews, etc).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  17:07, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the only reason I brought it up was because it was directly from ABC rather than a fansite. It's all good though.--Pittsburghmuggle 18:44, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
It's still a spoiler and even with my new spoiler policy it would still get banned due to its revealing nature. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 18:46, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Got it.--Pittsburghmuggle 18:51, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Reply cgmv: There's a difference between posting a spoiler and linking to one. I don't see the harm in providing a clearly-labeled and legitimate link, given the fact that we freely post links to other legitimate materials that are considered "spoilers" (press releases, interviews, etc).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:14, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Flash Sideways

How come we didn't see that one coming? --Litany42 04:08, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Let's use that term for them. Flashsideways. It's flashing back to events we know, but not as we know them-so it's sort of sideways. Somebody add that to the template. --Golden Monkey 04:09, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sideways doesn't really do much to explain it. It's technically still a flashback since we're seeing events in an alternate 2004. I vote "Dimensional Flash". --DanVader228 05:19, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, but see that's the thing -- they are happening at the same time. The timeline split after The Incident, and they are quite definitely parallel despite the 30-years difference in "normal" time. We've been set up for this for the past two seasons, this whole idea of time shifting. We are working with two timelines now, timelines that we might even find are connected (i.e. something that happens during one time directly affects something that happens in the other). --Litany42 13:39, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • The phrase 'Flash sideways' is lame, derivative, infelicitous, in short: awful. I'm calling them simply, timeline jumps. What they are all describing is alternative timelines where reality is a bit different before, during, and after the flight.Charles widmore 05:25, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, the official name is Flash-sideways, so you'd better get used to it: 05:29, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
      • Interview gets rid of the term "alternate" specifically due to the issues I talked about below. Blandestk 05:44, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Chuck Widmore, but the creators use the lame, derivative, infelicitous, other-words-you-found-in-the-dictionary term flash sideways. Source [2]. So you might as well get over it. --AddictedToLost 06:12, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, the show's creators could call it "flashcunt" or any number of things nearly as offensive as "flashsideways" but that by no means obliges us to mimic their grating, impossibly ugly choice of terminology. LOST-Zaphod 06:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, you could call it flashcunt yourself if you want. But then whenever you call it flashcunt, you'll have to explain to everyone that you're talking about a flashsideways because no one will know what the hell you're talking about. Everyone else is using flashsideways since that's what the show creators call this plot device. So like I said, might as well get over it. --AddictedToLost 14:14, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
          • You miss the point entirely. The point is, if they called it flashcunt that doesn't imply that we have to use that name. No need to genuflect to every bit of terminology, no matter how lame, used by people on the staff. Even 'sideflash' is better, has a ring to it (good idea cerberus). Flash sideways is infelicitous at best. We are better than that.Charles widmore 15:32, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
            • Apparently the point flew right over your head. Whatever, you can call them flashcunts if you want so you won't be infelicitous. Nobody's gonna know what you're talking about, so enjoy explaining that you're talking about flashsideways every time. Maybe every time you have to explain that, you can genuflect. --AddictedToLost 06:14, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

What about a "Sideflash", short and simple. --Cerberus1838 10:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I wholeheartedly second this. Maokun 04:37, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I still prefer "Snap"Benjaminajacobs 11:15, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

What about "Flash X", shorter, simpler. It's within the theme and is a standard SciFi/Comic abbreviation for alternate realities. Heck, it's directly from the Episode name. --Don820 15:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I've been using "FlashMaybes" but whatever works.--Pittsburghmuggle 22:03, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


Currently, LA X is described as the only 2 hour season premiere. What about the Pilot? Is it not a season premiere? If not, what is it? Mcwebe0 05:50, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

That's because LA X is an single, 80-minute episode. Pilot, Part 1 and Pilot, Part 2 are two separate episodes. MryCrisper (talk) 00:43, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the police code -- where does "firearms discharged" come from? I can't find any confirmation of this. Police codes are not standardized, so numbers aren't the same across the country. Besides that, it doesn't make sense because nobody fires a gun during Kate's escape.--Znils 04:23, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Blooper/continuity errors

Not sure how to add stuff on here/dont want to mess anything up. I notices that when Sawyer went into the imploded hatch he pushed the exercise bike out of the way... but I believe we saw this exercise bike laying out in the jungle in a previous episode. Dont know if its worth mentioning... Torgee 04:25, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that the explosion is the old hatch, or is it abandoned construction from the unfinished site.

Wouldn't be much use for an exercise bike at a construction site. Plus the door was finished and all the entrances to the center. Plus the sides of the hole were steep with no ramp down. Hatch was definitely built, finished and imploded.--Pittsburghmuggle 22:06, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

"The seat layout inside flight 815 is 3-4-3 and it is only available in B747 or A380. But when it lands on LAX, it is a twin engine plane which resembled a B777 or A330." - This is patently false. The B777 does in fact have a seat layout of 3-4-3. SEE HERE--Adeelr26 05:15, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

The watch Jin has at the plane is different from the one he has at LAX.--Zeluizvalle 00:01, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think it is the same watch, just different lighting. However when I went back and looked at them I noticed that in the first shot of it on the plane it looks like it read 1:02 and in customs it looks like it was 1:25 or 23 minutes later than before.--OolonColluphid 15:45, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Going to add Ben asking Ilana who she is despite having met here at Hydra Island Beach LEHLegacy 12:07, August 4, 2010 (UTC)LEHLegacy

While I think it's probably valid, do you not think Ben was being a bit sarcastic? She asked him something about Jacob if I remember, and he questioned who she was to even be entitled to that information. That's how I see it anyway.--Baker1000 13:32, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Baker1000. Given that context of Ilana trying to take charge, "Who are you?" is still a valid question for Ben to ask Ilana, even if he briefly saw her amongst the Ajira survivors. --Celebok 18:52, August 4, 2010 (UTC)


"What "chains" does Jacob's Nemesis refer to with Richard?" I'm pretty sure it was a metaphor. The "chains" comment was about how Richard had been living in the shadow of Jacob for so long, and now his chains of servitude were lifted. But in case anyone thinks different I've left it be. --Golden Monkey 04:25, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, that seems like too specific and too weird a thing to say for us to not see Richard in chains later this season. --Beardedjack 04:32, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a reference to him being a slave on the Black Rock. --Barbsishere8 04:48, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Or a prisoner. Ben had the "real" Sawyer (Locke's father) in chains on the Black Rock. I think the producers just told us how -- and when -- Richard came to the island. (Though how'd he get the American accent...?) --Litany42 13:43, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Let's assume it's literal for the time being.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

It's not exactly a stretch to assume that MiB meant it both literally and figuratively. I mean it's not the first time someone has spoken dialogue with ironic intent. --FlashMedallion 00:06, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Richard immediately understands who Flocke really is after the chains remark. From this, it can be seen that "chains" referring to servitude under Jacob is far too literal. There is a past between them, and it is the chains that would remind Richard of that, thus leading him to the conclusion that Flocke is who he is. --Atomic Mystro 06:06, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I wondered if Not-Locke was speaking of the figurative chains of Richard not aging "Jacob makes me this way" - I was half-expecting Richard to age and die in front of us.--Pittsburghmuggle 22:08, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Why does it necessarily have to be about Richard being a slave (Metaphorically or physically)to Jacob? Why couldn't Richard have been indentured in some way to MiB and Jacob freed him, released him ... which earned Richards devotion and dedication to Jacob. Lostin newmexico 21:34, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Near Death Experience

  • The episode summary listed Charlie as not being happy after his failed suicide attempt. I don't believe Charlie was trying to commit suicide. As per the pilot episode he obviously freaked and tried to swallow the incriminating bag and it got stuck in his throat accidentally. You can't commit suicide by choking, same as you can't do it by drwoning yourself in a basin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgdownload (talkcontribs) 2010-02-03T16:43:02.
  • Same scene as above but not so relevant is that Charlie had his hair shaved over, different than in Season 1 plane scenes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AdamDS (talkcontribs) 2010-02-03T17:19:56.
    • His character on FlashForward (Simon) has short, short hair...

Centric Status

I would argue that instead of labeling this episode's centric status as "Various," it should instead be listed as "Alternate Universe Oceanic 815 Passengers" or some variation thereof. -DesmondFaraday 04:42, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I say we should just keep it simple with Various, that's how Exodus is labeled ... and the two episodes are really similar, in my opinion --LeoChris 05:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, let's stick with the simpler, shorter "various". The structure was very much like Exodus, and that's what we called that episode's centricity. --Golden Monkey 05:18, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know, There's no place like Home (Oceanic 6) and Confirmed Dead (Science Team) seem to be more on point and more recent. Exodus was when only Oceanic 815 passengers got flash(back/forward/sideways). Now that anyone can get a centric episode, it only seems appropriate to narrow the scope beyond "various" (although Desmond does throw a wrench in the mix). Maybe "Alternate 815'ers"?Janich78 06:00, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
How about none? There's no way to tell which applies for each character. --Pyramidhead 06:56, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
I assume that you mean that it's impossible to discern which half (LAXbound and Islandbound) is Primary and which is Secondary. And neither has a claim on being the "real" timeline. For the time being, (until the writers have made an effort to clarify) I'd suggest that we assume those on the island are the Primary story and off islanders in sideshots are the "centrics." Being that the islanders will continue to work together, if we assume the opposite, there will be quite a few "Various" labels this season. As the season progresses, the unaffected 815'ers will drift apart, allowing for more targeted centric episode.Janich78 12:40, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Label it Various, it still has the normal woosh flash sound cutting to different characters. Buffyfan123 13:54, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I was thinking Jack myself. Most of the scenes were based around him. --138 23:07, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • While I also thought Jack first initially, the episode does bear a resemblance flash-wise to Exodus and I believe categorizing it "Various" is correct.--Halcohol 04:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think none works, because each scene is definitely centered around a character. And the majority of it is definitely focused on Jack. I think something like Jack / Various would work best, with Jack referring to part 1 and Various referring to part 2. --michael_is_NOT_in_the_coffin 16:55, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Would it be fair to call this episode 815 centric? It's not a traditional character, but there is a centricity thing going on with it. WeirdDNA 17:19, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Change it to "None." "Because You Left" is labeled none, because in that episode no character is getting more attention paid to them than another, and that is the case with "LA X". Also, on the side panel, it names the characters under the heading "Centric characters." And on the page for "The Incident" there is Centric character, AND Flashback. That is just confusing. "The Incident" was Jacob centric, we can all agree on that. Having a section stating who happened to appear in HIS flashback is unnecessary and that information is where it should be, in the summary section. Long story short: this episode has no centricity. Many different characters are featured, but none more than another. Change it to NONE. (Kdc2 03:54, February 28, 2010 (UTC))
Reply NONE would imply that there are no flash-sideways. However, there were flashsideways. That's not the right message to send. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:57, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Reply No, it wouldn't. Look at the top, it says, "(Centric characters in parenthesis)." It doesn't state whether or not there are flashsideways/back/ or forwards. This episode has no centricity. (Kdc2 01:28, March 1, 2010 (UTC))

Unanswered Questions

Some of these unanswered questions seem to imply spoiler info from upcoming episodes. Nothing in the episode proper indicates that either reality is more "real" than another. Can we really say one is "alt" and the other is "actual?" Given, I have no prior knowledge to upcoming episodes, but to me these questions seem a bit prescient.

It may be arbitrary to call just one of the realities/timelines/whatever "alternate", but they are alternate to each other in that they seem to be different realities/timelines/whatever. OsgoodeLawyer 05:10, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

How about Reality A, and Reality 1? --Freakish 12:31, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

This person is on to it --FlashMedallion 00:08, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and cleaned up the Unanswered Questions section, especially the part concerning On-Island. I removed all inconsequent, already answered in the episode if you paid attention, most likely to be answered in the first few minutes of the next episode, or simply nonsensical questions. I also edited some that were pointing to details in the storytelling, rather than addressing the real mysteries behind them. Maokun 04:43, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

In the first question, I changed the use of the term "alternate reality" to parallel timeline. In the Official Lost podcast for this episode, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse make it clear that this is not an alternate reality.Pallacydenial 06:00, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

I had posted two questions under Parallel Timeline > Flight 815: "Why wasn't Shannon on the plane?" and "Were Michael, Walt, Eko, Ana Lucia and Libby on the plane but just not shown? If not, why?" These two questions were deleted by another editor. I can see why the first one about Shannon would be since Boone sort of explains that but I meant the specific reason she stayed behind. But I don't understand why the second question was deleted UNLESS the reason is that it was rolled up into the question "What differences are there in this new timeline?" Is that the reason? I can't see my question being spoilerish.--Captain Bunny Killer 01:23, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

I added questions about the large objects that traveled through time in this episode, but can understand if they get yanked. Is time-travel is enough of a 'science', especially on this show, to just conclude: "because of direct contact with a time-traveling person"? Perhaps - Sayid was resting against the Dharma van, Juliet was pinned under the wreckage, but Hurley just had the guitar case in the seat next to him on Ajira 316 (the guitar case remaining in the van is consistent). Also, Desmond awoke without his clothes in the jungle after his consciousness traveled back in time. When Daniel is time-skipping he keeps the pack on his back, and Ethan's bullet doesn't leave Locke's leg. This is a relatively minor detail almost certain to be left unexplained so I feel it belongs, but I'm open to the view that time travel as a fictional genre has some universally accepted 'rules'. Duncan905 19:39, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

  • There's a line in the early 5th season, I believe it's from Juliet, where she says something to the effect of "I guess whatever we're carrying comes with us". I fear this is probably about as much of an answer as you can expect. At the very least it's an answer proposed by the show, which is the point where the UQ is typically removed.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:49, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
    • Much appreciated input, I'd forgotten Juliet's remark. Agreed this satisfies the questions, as far as the show will ever provide. Duncan905 20:02, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Someone's UQ in 'Recon' regarding Sawyer helping Kate despite being a cop was pulled with the note it belonged to this episode. Since it's not here & there's no talk or edit war I'll take a stab at it. But this is new territory for me - later revelations raising a question about a past event. I just added a similar UQ to 'Dr. Linus', moving something from 'Recon'. Just looking for guidance if this is the right way to go. Duncan905 17:08, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think so... I think UQs should be paired with the episodes in which they are raised and shouldn't be retro-paired back to earlier episodes which present only a part of the information required to construct the question. I.e., no UQ on an episode page should require information from future episodes in order to understand the question.  Robert K S   tell me  17:18, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable to me. I'll take it back to 'Recon' for more talk. Duncan905 19:19, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


Do not add bloopers about how the circumstances of flight 815 differ from the original flight 815. Its an alternate universe, so Charlie's hair being short is not a blooper. The fact that Desmond is on the plane should show that things are different in this timeline. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  04:59, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

"The seat layout inside flight 815 is 3-4-3 and it is only available in B747 or A380. But when it lands on LAX, it is a twin engine plane which resembled a B777 or A330." - This is patently false. The B777 does in fact have a seat layout of 3-4-3. see here --Adeelr26 18:14, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


We need to establish terminology for the two timelines. So far I've seen "flashsideways" "sideways" and "alternate timeline". Personally, I think the two sideways ones sound silly, but for the sake of consistency, we need to come to some conclusion on this.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:01, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Personally, I'd go with flashsideways. For what it's worth, I also believe the term was mentioned, along with "Alt. scenes" in filming spoilers regarding season 6. (i.e. Such and such actors are filming flashsideways) --LeoChris 05:05, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Ugh... If it's really in popular use and it's what everyone wants to go with, I'll bow to it... but in my opinion, it just sounds ridiculous. Thank god they're not doing a seventh season or we'd be seeing "flashupwards" and "flashspin-around-in-a-circles".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:09, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree that flashsideways sounds less than desirable. I think the most important thing is to come up with terminology to distinguish the two timelines without subjugating one to the other as less real. Ideas?
        • Yeah, but it communicates that these are separate, different timelines we're seeing. They're what we saw but "sideways", as it were. --Golden Monkey 05:19, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
          • I prefer "original" and "alternate". Neither of these implies more "realness" to the timeline, it's just the different versions: the timiline originally presented on the show, and the one that's been altered by the detonation of Jughead.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:28, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
            • But the "alternate" is significantly different from the "original," so much so that it's closer to a unique reality than a "sideways" view. Characters added, characters deleted, and, oh, it paves NEW ground by flying to LA. Blandestk 05:31, February 3, 2010 (UTC)blandestk
              • How about universe A and universe 1? :P --Golden Monkey 05:33, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
                • A and 1 seems good to me. Blandestk 05:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, though Damon and Carlton use "flash sideways" to describe the movement, they pretty much rule out "alternate" in this interview: Blandestk 05:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. It's "flash sideways." I don't understand why people have such a problem with the term. I think it's rather elegant, catchy, and above all fits the continuity of the terminology (flashback, flash-forward, flash-sideways). "Islandbound Timeline" is a terrible, terrible term. Come on, guys.--Cul-de-zack 05:54, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

"Flashsideways" is embarrassing to the point of absurdity. "New timeline focus" or "new timeline flash" or pretty much anything says it more clearly and without making the page look like it was written by an absolute idiot. LOST-Zaphod 06:54, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but embarrassing or not, "Islandbound Timeline" and "Crashless Timeline" make "Flash-sideways" sound like Shakespeare. And at any rate, it's what the showrunners have called it. Why wouldn't you use that term?--Cul-de-zack 07:35, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, so those are even worse than "flash sideways". There's no need to pay groveling homage to every throwaway scrap of lexical garbage that dribbles out of the mouth of someone on the production staff, and this term is insanely, despicably, odiously ugly. It's unacceptable and we need something bland and clear, not something that's the vocabulary equivalent of having a rack of baseball bats stuffed up my asshole.
[more] I think what it is about this "flash sideways" terminology that really makes it deserving of summary rejection is that it implies that something new in science fiction, to the best of our current knowledge, has actually been invented here, to the degree that we need a new stinking word for it. This is pretty standard fare in time-travel fiction. "Flashback" is a very old word. "Flash-forward" is a reasonable backformation from that. But now we have a second timeline in the story: most people accept the name "alternate timeline" for this when it's clear which one has primacy in a particular work. So, okay, we don't know that yet. But we know which one is the original timeline (seasons 1-5) and we now clearly have a new timeline (season 6). We don't need new words for it; people have been writing about this plot device for a century without having to resort to some mouthful-of-nonsense like "flash sideways". It's outside the bounds of the timeline metaphor, and we don't need it. I say it's called a new timeline flash. We get to use the word "flash" like we did before. We don't needlessly invent a really nasty name for it. And it's utterly clear what we're describing. How about it? LOST-Zaphod 07:53, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree to that. Don't know how much I appreciate the vitriol against the term--I still think it's valid--but as long as we have anything, frankly, to replace "Islandbound Timeline," I'm happy.--Cul-de-zack 08:32, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem though is that both new timelines are "alternate". That is to say, The Incident took one (albeit loopy) timeline and split them into two. This has to be the case because if the loophole had simply been closed, then the LA X timeline would be everyone landing safely, and the Island X would be everyone dead from a nuclear explosion. Everything within a mile of that blast would have been literally vapourized. The only explanation is that they are now in another timeline altogether, not just a continuation of the "original". It is also important to note that LA X and Island X are parallel (in my opinion) and we may even see something happen in one timeline that directly effects the other. Thus, flash sideways. (Besides, isn't this just the logical next step in the terminology progression? Backward. Forward. ... Sideways?)--Litany42 13:58, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
The island timeline in "LA X" is clearly the same timeline as the majority of the preceding five seasons of the show. Remember, they did not detonate a nuclear bomb above the ground (which would vaporize stuff within a quarter of a mile or so). They removed the detonator and dropped that deep into the ground. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that this would have destroyed anything except Juliet. Considering that they jumped through time right as it went off, they avoided all the effects of this extremely low-yield nuclear test. They are on an island surrounded with the evidence of the original timeline: the imploded Swan station, the Ajira group near the statue, Locke's body, etc. The "safe landing" timeline is clearly the new one that diverges. We don't know which one will be "real" for purposes of the long-term timeline of the series, but we know which one's old and which one's new. LOST-Zaphod 08:45, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree. I've accepted a LOT of boneheaded decisions on this wiki, but I can safely say that "flashsideways" becoming accepted parlance would be the one to completely turn me off using and editing Lostpedia for good. --Pyramidhead 21:05, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with everything except with both timelines being parallel. The survivors didn't create a new timeline by jumping through time, they simply jumped back to the time they would be if they hadn't been separated from Ajira's flight survivors. Just see how time hasn't been altered for Sun, Frank, and the rest. They are definitely in the time 3 years after Oceanic 815's crash. Maokun 04:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Why not "centric character(s)" like we've always used? There's a novel idea. --Pyramidhead 07:03, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Well, "centric" is not usable in the way people use it here, for one. It's a word, but not in the way that Lostpedia seems to think it is, which is basically adapted from its use as a suffix: if it's not glued to the end of another word with a hyphen, we're already off in lexical la-la land so we should avoid that. "Character focus" is probably the clearest and most neutral thing we have available, but that's usually been used to refer to whatever was going on in flashbacks (and then the flash-forwards, once we had those). But sideways implies movement along a dimension that does not exist in timeline metaphors. A line has no width, and correspondingly, neither does a timeline. We're talking about examination of different universes (if you subscribe to "many universes" theories) or simply in different timelines. There is the original timeline, and I say this new one is most effortlessly named the "new timeline". Do we need to separate these issues? LOST-Zaphod 07:08, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the storytelling device is called a "flash-sideways." However, that doesn't mean the timeline needs to be called the "flash-sideways timeline." I prefer the term "alternate." Look at it this way, we say "flashbacks" show us the "past," not the "flashback timeline." --Cornprone 15:15, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Wow...okay, I utterly, utterly HATE seeing flashsideways twenty times in the article. Please let's use something else, ANYTHING else. --Pyramidhead 18:35, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

How about: X-Flash: LA X and X-Flash: Island? WeirdDNA 22:18, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Original Continuity vs. New Continuity

My issue is referring to either as a "timeline". It's really not relevant or specific enough to describe what is going on. I say this with regards to "time". Yes, one dimension is existing in 2004 and the other is existing in 2007. But comparing it to last season when we were witnessing separate time-lines; there is no possibility that actions in the 2004 dimension, in this case, would effect the 2007 dimension in any way. So it's not as simple as past and future. It's no longer a matter of time itself. We're definitely seeing multiple dimensions (or universes or realities or whatever). Two totally separate existences with unique pasts, presents, and futures. Causality and temporal paradox has been removed completely. My solution comes from my own background as a comic-book nerd: Continuity. Comic series get reboots all the time. Some series get a reboot nearly every year. In this case we're only seeing one reboot (thankfully). I see nothing wrong with referring to LOST Season's 1-5 and the escapades of our heroes on the Island in Season 6 as "Original Continuity" and the events that transpire after the safe landing of Oceanic 815 as "New Continuity" or "Reboot Continuity". It's simple, accurate, and grammatically correct (Flash-sideways timeline? Really?) Tell me what you think guys. I don't think this has to be as big of an issue as it has become. --DanVader228 22:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • The word "timeline" doesn't refer to a particular date or time, but rather then entire sequence of events within the universe. It's essentially synonymous with your alternative of "continuity."  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • It may not refer to a particular time, but it does refer to time. Which, in my opinion, is irrelevant with regards to explaining what is happening.--DanVader228 23:59, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't Shannon on the Flight?

Removed. Boone explains this clearly. --Golden Monkey 05:16, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Which seems to be another changed detail in the Flash-Sideways. dposse 05:18, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Easy. Maggie Grace is busy filming 3 movies back to back, so they had to change the story. Easy and simple. Buffyfan123 06:00, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe for the same reason they left anna lucia, eko, libby, nikki and paolo out, the actors where just busy.--Tjtjtjjr 21:52, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • i doubt they left nikki and paolo out because they where bussy.Omggivemaafningusername 23:01, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Cultural References....

"Earth X" is not a direct reference and this should be removed.

I disagree. Damon and Carlton are known to be huge Comic Book fans, and that has been a part of LOST since the beginning (the Polar Bear comic book, Hugo, ect) dposse 05:29, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
It's just about the only reference that could make the title make sense. --Golden Monkey 05:34, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yes with keeping it in.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:38, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Damon and Carlton just said it was "intentional" on the Jimmy Kimmel show. dposse 05:49, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Think it's worth saying that LA X is also the name of the airport. Spoonybard1983 05:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's a play on words. dposse 05:59, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
My interpretation is that the "X" stands for "cross", as in all these people crossing paths in LA even though there's no logical reason for them to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DocAlpertz (talkcontribs) 2010-02-03T11:24:26.
All due respect to Monkey and Jimbo but the rule for this section is "DIRECT references only". Nobody in the episode was sitting around reading a comic book called "LA X" and there is no such comic book to even be DIRECTly referenced. This is a really important rule to enforce else the cultural references section fills up such indirect references, allusions and homages. I mean.... I AGREE... i think it is a reference to old Justice Leagues (Crisis on Earth X and such). It's just not a DIRECT one. So it should removed, or relocated maybe to the trivia section (if Damon really said this was a reference to comic books, that's trivia).--Faraday100 00:56, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Added a cultural reference to NCIS hopefully per site's my first edit so be gentle.--UMJeremy 20:49, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

List of changes in the Flash-Sideways

Should we list all the changes in Flash-Sideways universe? Jack Sheppard's casket wasn't on the plane (but it was on the Island), Hugo said he was the "luckiest man alive" (which means that The Numbers hasn't 'cursed' him), Locke lost his knives, Shannon wasn't on Flight 815, ect. The only thing is, the changes are going to grow now that Time is flowing as it was supposed to (or, at least, one way it was meant to). dposse 05:27, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Fun idea (when the differences are subtle, on the 815 flight). But I agree that the differences will only grow as this timeline is shown to us. To the point where the list would become unwieldy and would eventually end with "Everything is different now!" --ElectricAnkh 06:30, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I am removing the part about Sun's English. You can replace it if you like, but she definitely hesitated before saying "English" after saying "no." Implying that she needed to remember to make it look like she did not understand the woman, rather just saying no. It's also currently based purely on speculation. (Tkarcher 07:33, February 3, 2010 (UTC))

Dark Entity?

Now that we know that Jacob's Nemesis and the Monster are one and the same, can we settle on what we call it? I think we should call it the same thing we always have: The Monster. It's not a new character, and we don't know its true name, so why should we change it? I think the "dark entity" sounds ridiculous, no offense to anyone. Also, we are meant to think that Jacob is good, and the Monster is evil, but if you go back and look at what the Monster has done and what has been done in Jacob's name, this is anything but clear. I'm just saying... --Emissary23 05:38, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Last night on Jimmy Kimmel, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse seemed to imply that Jacob's Nemesis and the Monster are NOT the same. Here's an external link. (It's in the second clip.)--Uncommongrace 19:31, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • What? They literally said "John Locke is the Smoke Monster." I don't see the ambiguity there.--DanVader228 19:59, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • When he asked them if John Locke was possessed by the Man in Black, they said "No!", and then said that he was the Smoke Monster. They seemed fairly convincing in their denial of his being possessed by the Man in Black.--Uncommongrace 20:16, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
      • It's semantics really; if Locke was possessed, then the Man in Black would be inhabiting his body. This isn't the case, because his body is lying on the beach. He is (was) however being impersonated by the MiB/Nemesis/Smoke Monster/Dark Entity/We really need to pick a single name quick and stick with it


I noticed a significant lack of Tailies on the plane. Bernard returned, but we still missed Eko, Ana Lucia, Libby, etc. Has anything been said about this being intentional?

We didn't see the tail section or who was in it. Simple as that. --Golden Monkey 05:52, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • We didn't really see into the tail section did we? And I think they intentionally avoided it so since the plane landed, we wouldn't have to come across these actors that did not return. Burgerking 05:52, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Its easy to ignore them, as they were in the tail section, and so they can not bother brining the actors back, focusing on the originals. Besides we never saw them in the original timeline, so why bother showing them in the alt, if we never got to see them in the original, so better to leave it at that. Buffyfan123 05:59, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • More importantly we didn't see Walt (undoubtedly because he can no longer portray the character that young) and Michael. At least Shannon's whereabouts were explained. Why were Michael and Walt not on the plane?--HaloOfTheSun 06:02, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Who says they weren't on the plane? Not seeing them versus them not being on it are two very different things. --LeoChris 06:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Timeline names

This is something that isn't going to have an official name unless Darton makes one. But "Islandbound" and "Crashless" are a bit wordy don't you think? I personally feel that a simple A-Timeline and B-Timeline would suffice. A of course referring to the timeline that has occurred on all the seasons thus far, and the B-Timeline being the "crashless" one. Do we need to be so wordy about it? I feel it's unecessary. Please discuss. Burgerking 05:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

"Original timeline" and "Alternate Timeline" are better. dposse 05:52, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
That works for me Burgerking 05:52, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
I like that. Maybe MTL and ATL for short, like Dark UFO used in their recap.Rednukleus 19:27, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Well, we don't know that it's original...if you want to get technical. It could be that the no-crash timeline was the one that split off into what we saw somehow.--Golden Monkey 05:55, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
      • I think something short such as this is preferable for the time being. Perhaps we'll be given an official, but until then it's best to stay succinct. Importantly, though, I think we need to stop using the term "alternate timeline" or "alternate reality" since Damon and Carlton explicitly said that's not what's going on. I think we should refer to the differing plots as "simultaneous timelines." Blandestk 05:55, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Golden Monkey, if its not the "original", then explain everything that happened on the Island. Juliet was dying just like at the end of the last season, Sayid was still shot, and everything at the Beach...! dposse 05:58, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • A general thought: I think terms such as "Crashless" should be avoided, because that speculates yet-unseen plot. What if, at some point, the characters in this new timeline eventually do crash on the island (or crash anywhere for that matter). Suddenly, we'd need to rename the timeline again. --ElectricAnkh 06:28, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not take from the show? "LA X" and "Island X" since, as explained in the article, "X" refers to alternate timeline? --Litany42 13:12, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Alternate timeline is the easiest and best way to clearly address, between the normal timeline and the alternate. I say keep it at that. Buffyfan123 13:22, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I would propose Timeline 1 for the "original" timeline and Timeline A for the "alternate" timeline. They are both equally original and alternate. Who is to say which is which?Benjaminajacobs 13:26, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Another Weird UQ

"Why is an older version of Juliet seen in the background of Richard/Sun group on the beach?" This is the lead-iest, theory bait-eist UQ I've ever seen. --Golden Monkey 05:55, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

How is the above not a spoiler in itself?--Dsmrsw 04:18, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I looked at this part a few times and I can’t see her, I see a woman that looks like her but it is clearly not her.
  • I think they have different plans for her. She is speaking to James as she is dying as if she is flirting with him as if she has just met him. I think she will meet James in the new time line and she will ask him if he wants to have coffee and go Dutch.

three timelines?

The current summary says that there are three timelines, but there only seems to be two: one where 815 doesn't crash and one where nothing has changed on the Island. I've tried to change it to reflect this by changing the wording, but someone keeps reverting it. dposse 05:54, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I wasn't the one making the changes, but I happen to believe there are three timelines: Before the Incident (aka the "original" timeline), the alternate timeline where Oceanic 815 lands (LA X), and the alternate timeline with everyone still on the island (Island X). --Litany42 14:01, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • The original timeline is still in place with the return of the Jack, Kate, James, Hurley, Jin, Miles, and Juliet from 1977. Their future is different, but the timeline remains the same evidenced by the events happening by the statue being the same as before, and continuing at the same time as the Temple events, since Richard sees the rocket that was set off from the Temple. So there are only two timelines. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:03, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I can see what you mean. I guess I can't argue with any certainty that there are three timelines, not two. But I do believe to be that the case. It seems to me that time was caught in a loop, with The Incident being the reset point of that loop. Something happened to end the loop, which (to use the term already used in the show) caused the record to skip into a different groove. Except that it skipped into two different grooves -- two new, distinct grooves. (Incidentally, I believe that it was Jacob's death that caused the change at the point of The Incident.) But you're right -- in terms of this page describing the episode, there is nothing concrete to suggest anything other than two timelines. I still think that LA X and Island X are great ways to describe the two timelines though. --Litany42 17:18, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
        • Over on Dark UFO, in the recap, they used MTL (Main Timeline) to refer to the scenes on the island, and ATL (Alt. Timeline) to refer to Flight 815 X. I like MTL and ATL because they are succinct and 'taste good on my tongue'.Rednukleus 19:23, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Two timeliens, the non-crashing Flight 815, unknown time. And the post-incident Island, in the present. — Iimitk  T  C  16:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Trivial Stuff

Just like Charlie had on his hand at Comic-con (or some gathering where Damon and Carlton were), Charlie's first words of Season 6 are: "Am I alive?" Also: - Anyone else see the commercial for a Walkabout in Melbourne during the commercial? - Kate says something like, "What, you think I'm going to poke a knife in your lung?" when the officer doesn't let her use a knife to eat. Does this have a connection to one of the island events with him? - Jack asks for a pen to save Charlie, just like he did after the crash.Ezlo 07:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

it was "do you think i'm going to stab you and run?", or something similar. it was definitely "run", not "lung". she clearly said nothing that even remotely implied a tracheotomy. LOST-Zaphod 07:21, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

--Although, when Sawyer shot the marshal, he didn't kill him, just puncture his lung. I'm just sayin'.--Emissary23 07:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Kimmel transcript

If anybody missed the Kimmel segment with Darlton, I have the transcript here. It probably has some errors and/or omissions in the second half, but the first half should be pretty accurate. Cheers,  Robert K S   tell me  07:19, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Cool -- I missed that last night, so that was perfect -- thanks! --Litany42 14:07, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • awesome dude, thanks so much for posting! Lost finale is on a Sunday? That's pretty weird.--Beema|talk|contributions 17:28, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the Nightline behind-the-scenes was also really cool (with Jorge Garcia rifling through 5 years' worth of prop boxes and finding Hurley's Hawaiian shirt golf flag, Kate's toy airplane, Eko's Jesus stick, etc.) but no new (spoiler) information was divulged, except that there will possibly at some point be some sort of struggle or goings-on in a confined space and some "electronic gizmos" will possibly make some sort of appearance as set decoration down the road. I didn't think to get a transcript of it, but it wouldn't have been very helpful since whatever was interesting about it was visual, and it's probably up over on the Nightline web site anyway, so if you're interested I encourage you to check it out.  Robert K S   tell me  20:35, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Where does Jacob's nemesis go when he gets shot at in the statue?

I removed this question and also "How does he re-enter the statue from outside?", as they make no sense considering it is now confirmed by Jacob's nemesis that he's the smoke monster. The question would have to be posed in the episode where Yemi or Christian Shepard first appear/disappear after being confirmed dead.--Mathilde Walker 12:19, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


What are we calling this character until he gets a name? You know who I'm talking about. The Temple leader. What language was he speaking? Dogan.Benjaminajacobs 12:43, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I would take a guess at Japanese as the actor is Japanese. How about we call him Temple Leader? Its better then Temple Janitor which is probably what he is.Zaggs 14:07, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Everyone on the Fuselage is calling him "Dogan" now. No idea where that came from.--Beema|talk|contributions 17:20, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, he is definitely speaking Japanese. I watch anime alot, and i recognized the Japanese words for "He's dead" when talking about Sayid. Anyway, he seems to be very old fashioned, to the point where he hates to speak English. dposse 17:54, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Read on blog the actor himself said the character's name, who knows. It could be he is the Temple version of Alpert. Maybe they both came over on the Black Rock.Zaggs 21:11, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

According to ABC's official episode guide he's called "Dogen" instead. TheHade 21:23, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


Why is this considered non-centric? It was a multi-centric flash sideways episode...most of the alt bits were clearly from the POV of specific characters, and it even used a kind of woosh like flashbacks/forwards. --Golden Monkey 13:08, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I say we keep it as multi-centric, it had the woosh nose like a normal cut to flashback/forward etc. Besides the premier was suppose to mirror the 2-part Pilot, which was also multi-centric. I say we keep it as is. Buffyfan123 13:20, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Because there's no easy way to clearly delineate whose "flash-whatever" each segment was. If you can make a convincing argument for each one, then by all means. --Pyramidhead 18:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Multi-character flashbacks do tend to clog up the character pages. Ideally centricity should only be attributed to groups when it's obvious. IMO The Incident is also attributed to too many people. LOST-Figg 21:24, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's multi-centric. This isn't really as hard as people make it out to be. Most of the time, centricity is fairly obvious from the fact that the camera focuses on the same person at the end of one flash and the beginning of the next. --Jackdavinci 21:44, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Would it be fair to call this episode 815 centric? It's not a traditional character, but there is a centricity thing going on with it. WeirdDNA 22:27, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Why Jack didn't remember Desmond?

Hello Lostpedians. Long parallel time no see. :)

So have you thought about it? Jack encountered with Desmond at the stadium when they were running. Now why he didn't remember that on Oceanic Flight 815? Although he did remember Desmond instantly at the Swan station, which was in pretty tough conditions, i.e., dark, tension, Desmond's changed look, etc.?

Does that suggest exactly two parallel universes where one can't remember what happened to him in the other? If so, then why Jack "felt" he knows Desmond? And Desmond's behavior suggests that he knows Jack, how does this relates to his "specialness" that Faraday talked about?

Well, enough for now. My head is spinning in light speed, and I'm not seeing that ends sooner than next May. — Iimitk  T  C  14:21, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Actually the Widmores should be dead in this timeline, no Charles, no Penny. So Desmond would never have gone on the race for which in turn he then never would have trained in the stadium. Jared 15:05, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Say that again? :) Seriously though, I'm afraid I'm not following you; why the Widmores should be dead in this timeline? — Iimitk  T  C  15:17, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
You're right actually. I can't be sure, I just figured the island sank right after the bomb went off and since Widmore and Hawkins were still on the island at that time I presumed they were dead. Of course it's possible that the island sank some time after the bomb went off, but at this point I doubt it. We'll see. Jared 17:03, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Penny would have been born off-island before 1977, so I think she's alive in both timelines, regardless of whether or not Widmore and Hawking made it off the island before it sank.
  • The timelines are very different. In the nocrash line, for instance, Hurley has good luck, blond-girl (sorry don't recall her name) isn't on the plane. The history of the world is literally different, so it wouldn't be surprising if Jack never met Desmond at the stadium. (Butterfly effect and all that). OTOH, Jack did have a weird feeling at the time of turbulence, seems to have "felt" the other timeline. Perhaps he had a transient memory from that alternate timeline.
  • The timelines are very different. In the nocrash line, for instance, Hurley has good luck, blond-girl (sorry don't recall her name) isn't on the plane. The history of the world is literally different, so it wouldn't be surprising if Jack never met Desmond at the stadium. (Butterfly effect and all that). OTOH, Jack did have a weird feeling at the time of turbulence, seems to have "felt" the other timeline. Perhaps he had a transient memory from that alternate timeline.Charles widmore 15:22, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, no reason for me (Charles Widmore) to be dead in the no-crash timeline. He had already left the island. Faraday's mother, on the other hand, should be dead as she was on the island at the time of the detonation.Charles widmore 15:22, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • No he didn't. Jared 15:36, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • He was definitely on Island. He was there when Faraday was killed, one day before the Incident. He was killed by the nuke, so he never created the boat race Desmond participated in, thus, he never went to the stadium to train. This also probably means that there's no Penny in this timeline. Maokun 05:06, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • It was stated that Widmore made off-island visits, so he could've been off the island when it was flooded. --Boumie 21:18, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • We don't know yet, but it seems like there are two obvious possibilities: 1) Jack didn't meet Desmond previously in this timeline since it diverged in 1977, and he seems familiar because he is still connected subconsciously to the other timeline. 2) Jack *did* meet Desmond, and that's why he seems familiar. --Jackdavinci 21:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Page Organization

I realize this page is still being written, but I don't think the current way it's being structured makes sense. Right now the headings are divided between the Island-bound timeline, and the No-crash timeline, but they are also divided by scenes based on location, all at the same level. I think from now on, each episode needs to be first divided into an Island-bound and No-Crash sections. Then beneath each of those you will have headings based on major scene locales as per usual. This might not display chronologically as we the viewers get to see it play out, but it makes the most sense for referential formatting. If this has already been discussed and is being worked on, my apologies. Scenes playing out at the Temple should come under their own heading within an Island-bound timeline section. Currently they are under "Swan hatch." Also, does anyone else think the "introduction" should be placed within a No-crash timeline section/heading?--Beema|talk|contributions 14:41, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

So, I still think the headings of sections 1.3 and 1.4 should be denoted as "Original Timeline" or whatever we are calling it. Anyone??--Beema|talk|contributions 02:08, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Many-Worlds Interpetation or a Multiverse?

So, we know that in the Flash-Sideways universe, there were small changes in the circumstances of the people on Flight 815 that all added up. But some of these changes happened before Flight 815 was due to crash on the Island (and before it even left the ground!), during the Flight, and the changes became even more pronounced when the Fate of Flight 815 was changed. This is due to a theory in Quantum Mechanics that is popular in Science Fiction: There are many alternate worlds directly next to ours that are created due to the choices we make in our lives. "Do i get married or not?", "Do i turn left or right?", ect. These changes began small in the Flash-Sideways, but they will begin to grow at an increasing rate now that Time is flowing in a different direction (IE, Flight 815 never crashes, Edward Mars is still alive, The Numbers haven't 'cursed' Hugo, ect)

The thing is, i'm not sure if the Many-Worlds interpretation or the Multiverse applies to this. What do you think? I wish to add one of these to the "Cultural references" section of this page and/or the "Differences between flashsideways timeline and original timeline" article. Not only do i believe it's relevant (especially in a SciFi show like LOST), but it will also help in future episodes when these changes to the Timeline become more pronounced. dposse 17:17, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more like a multiverse, in that we are only exploring one alternative. There is the universe where the Losties went through the whole ordeal and are currently hanging out in the temple in 2007, and the universe where the plane never crashed. I think they're following the implications of the characters changing one major thing in 1977 and the cascading changes as the new history of the island slowly leaks out into the rest of the world. Following it as a many-worlds device adds a kind of futility to it, because then you could ask why they aren't showing us what happened if Locke never went to Australia at all, or if Hurley bought a Porsche instead of a Camaro or.... the list is literally endless.--FlashMedallion 00:22, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I believe there's no multiverse and these two timelines are not independent universes. Rather, as we've been hinted several times, the Island (being itself able to travel through time) maintains it's own timeline inside its borders (remember the timing unaccuracies of test rockets shot from the Kahana?) As it is now, the Island exists in the same universe and timeline of LAX, only not in the same time where you'd expect it to be (2008, over 3 years after the Oceanic 815's crash that never happened). If the people inside the Island were able to leave it now... what time would they find the rest of the world to be at? I think our only hint is Jacob's Nemesis saying he wants to go "home", meaning perhaps his birth/era/ rather than his birthplace. Maokun 05:15, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe too that there is no multiverse or alternate time-lines in the show because it seems that the theory that the authors are exploring is about the single possible time-line/universe, “imagine time as a string; you can travel forward or backward along that string, but you cannot create a new string.” I can imagine the string that at one point makes sort of circular loop and then continues straight forward from the same point. This circle is the Island's time-line, or reather loop; it can be of any length btw, is a dead-end, and theoretically does not exist. My theory here. --V-vk 08:03, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Poll: What to call the new timeline

Feel free to move this wherever, but I think it's critical that we make a decision on this as soon as possible. Cast your vote for one of the two, or add a new option. --Pyramidhead 21:19, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Alternate timeline

Yes It's as clear and concise as possible, the most accurate in describing what has been portrayed, and doesn't rely on a made-up term that a producer mentioned offhand as an analogy. --Pyramidhead 21:19, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • What about the original/unaltered timeline? This one seems to be what would have happened if the island had never happened? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgdownload (talkcontribs) 2010-02-03T16:45:43.
    • No, because no matter how hard you try, people will always consider the timeline where the plane crashes as "the original"...since that happened first. Plus, this timeline isn't a direct continuation of what would have happened if Oceanic Flight 815 never crashed. Evident by the fact that there are changes, such as Shannon not being on the flight, Hurley not having any bad luck, Sun and Jin are not married and Desmond (possibly) is on the plane. It's what would happen "if the Island was destroyed" not "if the plane didn't crash".--Baker1000 21:56, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
      • Please note Korean wives do not take their husband's last name Talkster 09:58, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • This is the best of those on the list (can't we do a real poll here rather than this discussion format). If people must use that IQ-destroying phrase 'flash sideways' they need to use it as a verb, to describe the switching between the two realities. It isn't a description of the alternate reality (a noun). You have a "flash sideways" switch when you go from one to the other. Neither is preferred. For those arguing that calling one an "alternate" denigrates the other are simply wrong. Each timeline is a different alternative. A different path.Charles widmore 16:56, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes Can we stop with the "flash-sideways"? Calling it a "parallel", "alternate" or "new" timeline is much more descriptive as compared to the "original" timeline. A flash-sideways is describing the visual story technique of moving from one version of reality to another. We were merely seeing events in a different version of reality -- similarly the flashbacks and flashforwards are moving forward or backward to a particular point in time. Flash-sideways is a jarring made up word and looks terrible in the writeups. Ech. Spiral77 01:17, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Flashsideways timeline

Yes Seems to be the official and popular terminology, as well as being comparable to the previous flashbacks and flashforwards. "Flashsideways" is also a complete noun phrase unlike "alternate". OTOH, We could just call it "LA X"... "Alternate timeline" is fine for an article title, but flashsideways is better for infoboxes and so forth--Jackdavinci 21:40, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yes Alternate timeline is fine for article titles and such, but I think the official term for the flash should be flashsideways.--Baker1000 21:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Reply Ugh...I just found THIS page [3], which seems to solidify this position. If we absolutely HAVE to use this, I guess I can accept using "Flash sideways" for the infobox and as the heading of that part of the synopsis, but that page also supports the term "alternate timeline," so THAT should be used as the name of the timeline and its elements as a whole. --Pyramidhead 22:01, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


Yes Per [4], "Flash sideways" in the infobox and in episode synopses, but actually refer to the new reality as "alternate timeline." Including moving new pages back to "Jack Shephard (alternate timeline)", "Oceanic Flight 815 (alternate timeline)," etc. --Pyramidhead 22:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I don't really like calling it "Flash Sideways timeline" because it's a bit of a mouthful. People who aren't familar with the term are much more likely to understand what you are talking about if you say "alternate timeline". However, to describe the storytelling device being used in this episode we should stick to "Flash Sideways" because it keeps up with previous descriptions for storytelling devices like "flashback" and "flashforward". So like you said, page titles "alternate timeline", infoboxes and episode synopses "Flash Sideways".--Baker1000 00:55, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Disscusion Over [?]

This poll is not needed and there will be no compromise the producers have stated in an interview that they do not want the timeline refered to as alternate and I quote Damon Lindelof: "And we don’t use the phrase “alternate reality,” because to call one of them an “alternate reality” is to infer that one of them isn’t real, or one of them is real and the other is the alternate to being real."

- Pretty simple this is not up for debate if its what the producers want then its Flash sideways. Source: (to avoid any mild spoilers scroll to question that starts with Is there a relationship between Island reality and sideways reality?) -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:19, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well, as much as I'm sure you wish it were the case, you are NOT an authority on this subject by any means and the "disscusion" is certainly NOT over just because you say so. In any case, the term under debate is "alternate TIMELINE," which says nothing about the "reality" of either and has nothing to do with the article you posted. Even if it did, there really should be a line at which we can distinguish between what the show presents and every overanalyzed comment the producers make. --Pyramidhead 00:18, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
For starters DONT strikethrough my posts. Secondly its over, your wrong, give up. third I am NOT and have never claimed to be an authority on this subject but the producers are and I provided a source with their comments on the subject. And the point remains they dont want the term alternate used because it suggest one reality/timeline is not real. It doesnt matter if its timeline or reality th point is the same. Just because you are wrong dont attack me. Its over. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:32, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
The fact that there is conflicting evidence that DOES use the word "alternate" is proof that the discussion is NOT over as you claimed. The fact that this is being hotly debated all over the wiki is proof that the discussion is not over. So don't try to declare one side the victor when it's not even close to being resolved. --Pyramidhead 00:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
"You're wrong, give it up"? Wow, that's a strong countpoint! Anyway, i have to agree with Pyramidhead. No one here is talking about a alternate reality, but a alternate timeline. They are not the same thing. A alternate reality is a world where Dogs rule Humans. A alternate timeline is if the Nazis won World War II. I think we should call it a "alternate timeline" to distinguish it from the timeline we've spent years watching: Flight 815 crashed. dposse 00:55, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is most certainly not over, until it's over. The use of "flash-sideways" was likely more an offhand joke on the producers' part. What's clear and obvious is that it's not even a word. Lostpedia shouldn't break precedent of being systematic and formal just because of a throwaway comment, regardless who uttered it. I propose either Alternate timeline (as the producers are WRONG when they say that word implies one isn't real -- it only implies that the two are different from each other, which is true) or else Parallel timeline. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
I hate "flash sideways" just as much as you, but unfortunately it now has extra legitimacy from the link I posted [5]. I'd just as soon bury it and never speak of it again, but if we're going to use it, we should at least call the alternate timeline what it is. --Pyramidhead 01:09, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
This ABC web site blog you keep pointing to shouldn't be relied upon as evidence of anything. It's not clear who it was written by, but dollars to doughnuts not anyone associated with the show in a production capacity. Most likely somebody low on the totem pole in the ABC marketing dept./online division.  Robert K S   tell me  01:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
In that case, I happily withdraw it as support for flash sideways. --Pyramidhead 01:40, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Theres goes your "conflicting evidence" as well. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:44, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Unnecessary. The phrase "alternate timeline" denotes a divergence from what we've seen on the show up to now, not the relative "truth" or "reality" of either. --Pyramidhead 01:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
My "vote" goes to either "alternate timeline" or "parallel timeline." They are descriptive without inferring that one timeline is more "real" than another, and they are not the horrible "flashsideways." -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  01:53, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Pyramidhead is correct. We have to distinguish the Timeline of events that we've known for five seasons from the Timeline that we were introduced to in this episode. dposse 01:54, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately to all the "alternate" campers, the word "alternate" absolutely indicates a sub-reality compared to an original. While the author of a blog on has questionable origins, the quote from Damon and Carlton about "alternate" is not questionable. Why is there such resistance at ditching this term? "Parallel" or "Simultaneous" are not only far more descriptive and accurate for the situation, but they do not have the confusion or controversy associated with "alternate." Seems cut and dry to me. Blandestk 03:36, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Can we at least write it as "Flash-sideways" instead of the bridged non-word "Flashsideways?" It just doesn't read very well and feels incredibly awkward. --Beema|talk|contributions 02:03, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
I think it's pretty awkward no matter how it's spelled. :-) -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  02:05, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm totally voting for 'flashcunt' personally.Jack Hare 03:26, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Wow, jack hare, wow. pretty despicable to come on here and talk like that. --Emissary23 06:27, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • I was merely referring to the discussion of the same topic further up on the page, and attempting to express, through humor, the sentiment that this nomenclature, while important for the organization of the wiki, is hardly worth the kind of vituperation and effort that seems to have been put into it. Perhaps it wasn't funny, but if my repetition of the language already involved is despicable, perhaps some consideration of the emotional heat brought to this trivial topic might be in order. I wasn't the first to bring the c-word into this discussion; only I brought it as a joke rather than a rhetorical imprecation against the term as coined by the producers.Jack Hare 08:31, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • I didn't see the earlier use; I stopped reading it and started skimming it when the name-calling started. Either way, it's not a word that is ok to use, even if someone else did before you. As for the emotional heat, I agree. People get way too worked up over simple terminology. I'd rather argue about my theories or yours than whether we should call it flash-sideways, or alternate reality, whatever.--Emissary23 09:06, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
        • Fair enough; it honestly wasn't my intention to offend, but rather my hope to possibly get a laugh, and at the same time perhaps help jog some folks out of the kind of angry rut that is all too easy to fall into on the internet. As far as the offending word itself, I'm rather more of the reclaim-it school of thought, but that's neither here nor there. In regards to 'flash-sideways', I agree that it's not the most mellifluous term in science-fiction history, what? The important issue is, what role does Frogurt play in all of this? Jack Hare 09:19, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
          • I just came here to say "flashcunt" again. LOST-Zaphod 17:58, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

This is really simple, just think about the grammar

  • The Lost web page [[6]] refers to transitions between timelines as 'flash sideways' (that's a verb), while the different timelines are two alternative timelines, or alternate timelines (noun). So when you hear that swooshing sound, you are experience a sideflash (or "flash sideways" if you must), and being taken to the alternate timeline (alternate to the one you were just watching). Why make this so complicated? I just wrote up this in more detail in a post [[7]]. Charles widmore 17:00, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Possible "evidence" that timelines will intersect?

I put evidence in quotes because I fully acknowledge that this may be a very big stretch... but here it is:

After flight 815 has landed and people are getting ready to "deplane", we see Sayid walking by a man, who to me looks a bit conspicuous (his hat is purposely covering his eyes, outrageously big beard... etc.) He looks like an older version of Hurley, almost. I took some screenshots: [8] [9]

Is this something planted innocuously now that will pay off later, or is this just my wild imagination looking for something that isn't there? If I am crazy, please feel free to let me know. Mrfridays 21:31, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • That is probably indeed a big stretch, especially with that kind of clues but... boy, that hairy dude looks incredibly amusing --Timich 00:07, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think your theory is very likely, but I did notice that man during the episode too. He seems out of place for Lost somehow.--HaloOfTheSun 04:09, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Intriguing...might be entirely incidental, but I'm suddenly reminded of Mr. Friendly's fake beard. In any case, it may not actually pay off, but after looking at your screenshots and watching the scene in question again, I don't think you're crazy, Mrfridays.Jack Hare 09:57, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Perhaps I'm really clutching at straws here, but he seems to be in another scene briefly. [10] (now you see him...), [11] (now you don't...). He's there, and gone within about 5 seconds. Could be nothing, could be something. shrodes 12:01, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • And here we got him again: [12] - Standing suspiciously behind Sayid, Jack and Hurley. Now that I'm looking at all these pictures at once I think there lies something in the shadows. Please go on discussing this topic! It's really interesting somehow ;) Mistermaul 04:09, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • All the evidence you need to know that they will intersect is in Season 5, Episode 14 WeirdDNA 22:34, February 8, 2010 (UTC)


Do we have anyone on board yet for the translations, since there were no subtitle? --Jackdavinci 21:41, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Of the Japanese guy? That's shouldn't be too difficult. It's not like we haven't had to translate languages before (French, Arabic, Latin, ect.) dposse 22:15, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Different seating

It appears that most of our characters are in the same seating on the plane in the sideflash. But Hurley and Sawyer are seated somewhere else. They are sitting behind Kate (the part that was originally cut off). Charlie is also seated there but this was probably his seat in the beginning, because during the crash he was walking back from the toilets. Should the difference for Hurley and Sayid be listed under General Trivia? And more important what could this mean? --Boumie 21:49, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Jack, Rose & Bernard are in row 24 instead of row 23.
    • I don't think so. They sit next to Jack. You see on the head compartment numbers, but I think it's because of the angle you think it's row 24. You see he is on the third row, so I guess it still is row 23. --Boumie 11:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • The best view of Jack/Rose/Bernard seat number is when Jack returns to his seat and asks Rose about Desmond being gone. Its clearly row 24 in this scene. -Cpt cannibal 20:45, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the Case May Be

One thing that really stood out to me was Kate's total ignoring of the Halliburton case. She left it behind when she could have grabbed it easily! This is really different from all the trouble she went through to get that plane in the past and on the show... Perhaps the plane isn't there? Maybe Jacob didn't buy her the lunchbox so there was no time capsule? Maybe she was "arrested" for stealing the lunchbox, explaining her new bad-assedness? --Sfoskett 21:59, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Did Sayid actually die?

or was is he just unconscious, with a slow undetectable heartbeat or something? One of the rules on the Island seems to be "dead is dead" as stated by Ben, you can't come back from the dead. Though it seemed Locke had broken this rule for a time, we now know that Locke remained dead. The Others seemed astonished to see him rise again also. So either Sayid never died or he might be the very first person to resurrect, a miracle even by the Island's standard...--Lauridsen77 21:56, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Nobody seems to have commented on the way Sayid looked as they carried him out of the pool - arms straight out to the sides, long hair and bear - very Christ-on-the-cross like? --Ljstreet 17:24, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • ... or maybe Sayid is Jacob now, just like Locke is his nemesis... --Sfoskett 22:01, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Jimmel Kimmel said that last night to Damon and Carlton, and i'm not sure if they completely disregarded it. dposse 22:14, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I actually thought about that too: Sayid being Jacob and leading the Final Battle against "Locke"... But there are two problems with that theory: in the case of Locke, his body remained dead and in the coffin, the Monster only assuming his appearance like it did with Yemi or Alex. Sayid on the other hand resurrected inside his body (so to speak). Also, why would Jacob want him taken to the Temple at all? He could have just let him die in the jungle. Locke didn't have to be brought to the Temple...--Lauridsen77 22:39, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this is the solution to the whole Christian's missing corpse fiasco (in White Rabbit, not in LA X). When Jacob inhabits a body, he actually uses the physical body. When MiB inhabits a body, the original body stays there, and the new one we see is just a facsimile of it.--Beema|talk|contributions 02:06, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • It seems Christian is more likely to be the MIB (though I hope that's not the case, Christian seemed more special than that - but then again so did Locke and Walt). "Christian" told Locke he was supposed to turn the wheel, which fits in line with MIB's plan more likely than whatever Jacob would have wanted.--HaloOfTheSun 04:05, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Did anyone notice Miles reaction while around Sayid. I took it as he didnt have his "sense" because Sayid was never really dead. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  04:09, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • There are a few problems with Jacob now being Sayid. One is that if Jacob intended this then there would have been no option given to Jack about whether to try revive him or not. There also seems the definite possibility that Sayid might have lived and been healed (like Ben) if he had just made it past the sand running out. From a practical point of view Sayid also has a story of redemption/learning to fulfil (as do most of the losties) which he can't do if he's posessed by Jacob (just waiting for Locke to get up now). Sayid also asks "What Happened", which doesn't seem like something Jacob would say if it was intended.
    • On dead is dead, there have been various comments by characters that the island won't let you die if its not ready for it. It could be that to date it hasn't needed to ressurect anyone as it can always get the job done with live people. Perhaps Sayid is someone it can't bypass? As Jacob said, if Sayid dies they're all in for it.
    • I have the vague suspicion that Miles was confused because he's never heard the 'sound' of a spirit going back into a body before...Jack Hare 05:30, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Before I read this I had the theory of maybe Sayid is Jacob now, just like Locke is his nemesis. John was “good” and Sayid was bad or “evil” Sayid having a strong personality and able to defend himself since Jacob will have all Sayid’s personality and know his thoughts. However now I don’t feel that this would work with the story line and Jacob will show up in some other form or person ie: maybe Charlie LOL.
      • Who's Charlie LOL?
  • The more I think about it, the more I suspect the question isn't whether Sayind is now Jacob, but rather what will be the consequences of him being resurrected in the Temple. We know that being healed in the Temple can have a "corrupting" effect as demonstrated by Ben who lost his innocence according to Richard or even Rousseau's team members who turned "evil" after their visit to the Temple...--Lauridsen77 21:04, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Exactly. The note allegedly warns that they're in big trouble if Sayid dies (although probably not those exact words). Rather than taking that as a warning to save Sayid, perhaps it was a warning to beware of Sayid.WeirdDNA 22:40, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Did anyone notice Sayid had a British accent when he says "what happened", it sounded more like 'wot happened'. Do you think maybe Charlie is now in Sayid's body?--Skyhaler 00:41, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
    • Naveen Andrews has naturally a British accent. He must have forgotten to "switch".--Lauridsen77 14:22, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

The Pilot of 815

This might be nitpicking, but was the Pilot the same as in the original timeline? dposse 22:12, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

If I recall corectly, they called the pilot Norris in the episode, implying that it's the same person. -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:43, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yes he announced himself as Captain Norris. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:12, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
It was definitely the same actor...Co1973 01:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Cool that they got him back just to do one line of voice dialogue.  Robert K S   tell me  01:55, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

23 changed to 24?

just a guess, but i think they changed the numbers with the jughead core. on the original flight 815 jack was sitting in seat #23, on the new flight 815, he's in seat #24. maybe this is why hurly's like bizzaro hurly. you know, cause of the Valenzetti Equation, what ever happened when jughead went off changed one of the variables. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muad'Dib3030 (talkcontribs) 2010-02-03T18:12:54.

  • I believe this is important, but I never noticed when they stated seat numbers. Do we know seat numbers for the other non-Losties? Maokun 05:21, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, how do we know that the plane's number was 815 here? Themanthing 21:34, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Hurley's Shirt

Just want to put it on record that I really, really hope that there isn't any significance to the fact that Hurley, at some point between loading Sayid onto the van and reaching the Temple, took a moment to change out of his Dharma jumpsuit into a bright red shirt...Jack Hare 03:26, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

    • Everyone knows you can only kill off Red Shirt characters. Things don't bode well for Hurley...Pgdownload 04:17, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • I was thinking the same thing! I'm a little afraid for him. LGebhard 17:53, February 4, 2010 (UTC)LGebhard

Jack neck

  • Hi ,does anybody knows why was Jacks neck bleeding--A31094 03:44, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Hi, there was a small gap between a capillary in his neck and the surface of his skin, allowing some of his blood to come out. --FlashMedallion 06:45, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • It's probably completely unrelated, but in the "Previously on Lost" segment, Daniel Faraday had a patch on his neck in near the same spot.--Pittsburghmuggle 20:55, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
    • Watch as Jack first looks into the mirror, then furrows his brow as he first notices the problem with his neck. He appears totally surprised for a moment then stares off blankly as though he was trying to or even somewhat remembering what happened. --Cpt cannibal 00:40, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Island as a reality nexus.

So the two timelines that exist, are two different sides of the same reality. (The light and dark sides of reality. Light=alternate losties, dark = original losties.) Where these two realities intersect is the island. So that, when the A-bomb went off, enough changes occurred in this reality to reverberate through the reality continuum to intersect this alternate reality, so that the two become intertwined. (Or that was always going to happen.)

In any case, I believe these two timelines are equally valid and mutually connected, and that the only way they can be connected is through the island. And so the island is some kind of "way-station" for all the different realities that exist.--Sarcasticus 05:37, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • There's no way to know that these are the only two dimensions that exist either. What about Original-continuity off-Island dimension (i.e.- Desmond currently in critical condition after being shot by Ben), and let's not forget post-Dharma on-Island dimension (where we may learn about Ben and Widmore's relationship). Were these two dimensions destroyed? Or do they persist? How many other dimensions exist for our castaways?--DanVader228 05:46, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oceanic Flight 815

I cannot for the life of me figure out why everyone on this wiki is insisting on calling the alt timeline flight "Flight 815", when there is absolutely no identification of the flight number in this episode? It is pure conjecture. I have changed this 5 times on every page that refers to the alt timeline flight as Flight 815, but it keeps getting changed back by people that insist on using conjecture and making assumptions. Come on, fellow fans! This site has always been about presenting and separating what we know from what we theorize. There-is-no-spoon 07:16, February 4, 2010 (UTC)There-is-no-spoon

  • I agree it may not be the same FLT 815, but do take into account flight numbers remain the same on same routes and airlines: it is Oceanic, and if their SYD to LAX flight is #815, the return flight LAX to SYD may be #814. Once the aircraft is re-fueled and ready to go back, it becomes #815 again... Talkster 09:54, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • According to ABC's official episode guide, it is Flight 815. I'm not closing the door on the possibility that the flight number changed -- maybe something to do with the numbers, perhaps? -- but until we learn otherwise, I think we have to assume it is Flight 815. It's just like by the same reasoning, we can't know that Claire's name is actually Claire in the flash sideways -- maybe it's Susan in this timeline. But right now, we have to assume it is still Claire. --Litany42 13:37, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, do we have any indication that this flight takes place in 2004? WeirdDNA 21:51, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Desmond's "..mate... ...mate... ...brotha..."

Anyone find any significance in Desmond Hume's speech pattern? I haven't seen the transcript or subtitles, but this seems to be the dialogue between Jack and Des: Jack: "Excuse me." Desmond: "Oh, I'm sorry mate. Is this your seat? The stewardess said it was empty." Jack: "Ah, no... I'm at the window." Des: "Oh, ah, alright." (Jack sits) Des: "'Say mate, do you mind if I sit here? 'It's just the fellow next to me has been snoring ever since we took off from Sydney Jack: "Yeah, no problem." Des: "Thanks, brotha." And then it isn't until Desmond says "brotha" when Jack seems to recognize/remember him. I only mention this because there is a lot of chatter at other sites, including NPR's monkey see blog. Ideas: 1. Desmond spent less time in the monastery in Eddington, Scotland, thus says 'brotha' less. 2. Desmond spent several years in Australia and picked up some local lingua. Talkster 09:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • "Brother" doesn't mean monk, it just means like "dude" or "buddy". He would have said that all his life, not picked it up/had it reinforced in the monastery. (Although something is definitely up with Desmond, this isn't it, IMO.) --Litany42 13:25, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Scottish people say "mate" too. As far as I know, Desmond's use of "brother" was just an idiosyncrasy of Cusick's which the writers picked up on. DublinDilettante 17:10, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Jack's Pen

Can't find this anywhere, but I am pretty certain that Kate pickpocket's Jack's pen when they meet the first time. He can't find it later on during the Charlie incident, and Kate uses the pen to try to escape the handcuffs. I don't think it's a particularly crucial incident, but then again anything in Lost could be crucial --Sean Sheep 18:16, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I am also certain that the pen Kate uses is the same one Jack had. She bumps into him upon exiting the toilet, and seems to keep her hand on his shirt for a while longer than most would. I'd say it's just a little easter egg and explains how she had a pen later in the episode. How else would they explain where the pen came from?--Baker1000 21:16, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Locke and the Walkabout

While we do not specifically know he was excluded, we do know he can't walk, but describes moving around in the outback for ten days, hunting for his own food, and sleeping on the ground.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:53, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • Either he lied and made the whole story up, or he somehow decided to go on a Walkabout some 2 weeks earlier in this reality, a different manager let him do it and he is now pretty happy with himself. MauserContact 06:34, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it's probably just a plot device. We know at this point that things are different, so of course we're wondering how deeply things have changed in this timeline -- is it so much so that Locke never got pushed out the window? The writers are keeping you wondering until the end. (Of course, Locke in a wheelchair doesn't definitely say his father pushed him -- it could have been some other accident -- but Locke walking would have been a pretty definitive answer...) --Litany42 18:08, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll add this here, but regarding mostly the post above... I don't think Locke was paralyzed in the same fashion as we originally saw, ie, father pushing him out the window. When he chats with Jack in the LAX terminal, he says "My 'condition' is irreversible". That makes it sound more like a medical condition rather than having had his back broken in a fall. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but it seemed curious the way he spoke. --Cpt cannibal 00:51, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

What does Dogan reply when Lennon asks him why the spring isn't clear?

It's one of the few things that doesn't get translated. Jonnyboy88 21:58, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • I have it from a Japanese speaking source that he is saying "I don't understand why you're mad", implying that he should be priviledged to be in the temple at all, and shouldn't be complaining.Sithboy 06:38, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Smoke Monster Appearances

The Smoke Monster has appeared as Walt, Yemi, Eko's victims, the Black Horse, and others. It does not make sense that an Unanswered Question would be "Why does the smoke monster only appear as people who have died/who have died on the island." Yemi and Eko's victims did not die on the island and Walt is not dead, to our knowledge. Slverrose 22:22, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Has it been confirmed that Taller Ghost Walt was the smoke monster?  Robert K S   tell me  16:42, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah we havent been told anything that would indicate TG Walt was smokey. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:29, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Jacob dead when meeting Hurley in cab

The article currently notes: "Hurley believes the deceased Jacob to be alive when he walks out of the jungle, whereas the the last time they met he believed the still living Jacob to be dead." However, Jacob met Hurley in the cab in 2008, one year after he died. The only thing that doesn't make sense in that scene is that the cab driver appears to hear/understand Jacob's direction to stop the cab.  Robert K S   tell me  09:03, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think this was 2008? I thought that the Hurley meeting was just under 3 years after the O6 left, so was in 2007. --Sean Sheep 15:40, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
It was 2007 this debate was settled weeks ago. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:28, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Twice deleted reference to real crash relevant to Locke's comments

In the trivia section under the sub section of "General" I had put this in in reference of Boone and Locke commenting on the odds of surviving a water landing. I believe it was the writer's veiled reference to US Airways Flight 1549 successful ditching, "The Miracle on the Hudson":

"John Locke assuages Boone's anxiety about a crash landing on water by telling him that with a good pilot and calm seas that they all can survive a crash landing on water; the plane could land intact and float on the water with the fuel tanks providing buoyancy for some time, enough for everyone on board to make it into life rafts. Despite the events of Oceanic Flight 815 occurring on September 22, 2004, this may have been an inside reference by the writers to the controlled ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 in New York City's Hudson River on January 15, 2009 due to bird strikes and subsequent dual engine failure. The plane floated totally intact (but slowly sinking) and the passengers made it out onto the wings waiting to be picked up by the tourist and transport ferries converging on the site. There were no fatalities."

However "Lost-Hunter61" removed it for this reasoning in the brief summary of the rational for the edit on the Revision history of "LA X, Parts 1 & 2 list:

(cur) (prev) 06:01, February 5, 2010 LOST-Hunter61 (Talk | contribs) (44,042 bytes) (General: "may have been an inside reference", that's not enough. Lots of planes have landed on water) (undo)

Okay fair enough; but can you LOST-Hunter61 or someone else name one other instance in which a very large commercial jet filled with dozens and dozens of passengers ditched into the water totally intact and floated without one lost of life that the general public knows about? Keep in mind we are only about a year and two weeks removed from the "Miracle on the Hundson" and 99% of the people aren't aviation historians. Seriously. Yes, there is no in your face obvious reference to it like you have with a book or a line from a move and so far I haven't seen yet a note where the producers and writers have blatantly said that they were referring to Flight 1549 which is why I used "probably and inside reference" but giving the fact that it is widely known in the popular culture with the pilot hailed as a hero from the President on down with the one year anniversary of the "miracle" happening I think it is a VERY safe bet. There has to be a certain reasonableness when it come to things like this.Hunter2005 09:29, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • I think that scene was just to show that despite the change in the timeline, Locke and Boone would still have that teacher/student relationship like they had on the island -- in other words, circumstances bring them together but personalities form how that "together" plays out. I don't see the reference to the Hudson River ditching -- they hit some turbulence, and they started talking about plane crashes. Happens on planes every day. --Litany42 18:50, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • I must admit it made me think about the Hudson landing instantly. Sure it was a nod to that, though probably not for any special purpose other than it fit. It also means everyone watching instantly knew Locke was correct. Rmirta 13:37, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Flocke's voice-shifting

I've noticed Flocke's voice sounds really different from Terry O'Quinn's when Ben returns to the Statue's Foot with Bram. Check how he says "Where's Richard?". It sounds deeper and distorted. For me, it's clear the writers are hinting something, and it's also likely to pass unnoticed by many viewers. Shouldn't we put this in the trivia secion or somewhere in the article? --XuanLlocu 11:09, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get the same impression.  Robert K S   tell me  16:41, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't notice anything in his voice per se, but he is a different person. Terry O'Quinn is now playing Jacob's Nemesis, not Locke. He no longer has to "pretend" to be Locke, because Jacob is dead now. --Litany42 18:02, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Episodes should be split up

This is really just very simple. Each episode has separate beginning and end credits. Part 2 has a Previously on Lost. There is a traditional "teaser" act for Part 2, complete with Lost title card and "theme song". "LA X, Part 2" is airing separately next week before the new episode. That's really all you need. It's just like how we have "Pilot, Part 1" and "Pilot, Part 2" as separate articles. Unlike the two-part season finales, these parts were constructed to run separately. I know the counter argument will be "we've already had this article up for a few days" and "won't it will be hard?" But really, "so what" and "no, it won't." :) -- Graft   talk   contributions  17:20, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what others will argue, but my argument is "we treat the episodes as they were originally aired in the U.S.". Obviously if the production treats "What Kate Does" as 6x03 we are going to start to run into irreconcilable numbering problems and we should address the issue, but this won't necessarily involve splitting up the articles. As for the title card and "teaser"[?], this must be something you're watching on or iTunes or something, because there was no title card or "Previously on Lost..." recap when the 2-hour show aired on Tuesday.  Robert K S   tell me  21:32, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure why anyone will disagree with you here. I just watched both parts at and saw that they were indeed two separate episodes, as they'll no doubt be on the DVD. Why can't this site reflect the reality of the situation? Episode #6x02 is NOT "What Kate Does" as it says on the above portal. Marc604 21:46, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
The episodes did not air with seperate credits in the United States. Finales have been split up with seperate credits before and we don't split their articles. We use the way the episode first aired in the US. ShadowUltra 21:47, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
But ... why? I mean, let's face it, the episodes have only aired unsplited once, upon original airing. All reairings (for syndication) as well as most international broadcasters split the episodes. Plus, keeping them as one article leads to some confusion regarding credits ... some actors only appear in one part, not both and it's hard to reflect it with the current format. --LeoChris 21:55, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
They do the same thing for finales. We don't currently split finale articles; why are we treating this one differently? ShadowUltra 21:56, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
ShadowUltra, you're right, the finales never aired separately on ABC, not even in reruns. They always aired in a two-hour block. HOWEVER, on Tuesday, February 9, from 8pm to 9pm, ABC is airing "LA X, Part 2" and then they are airing "What Kate Does" from 9pm to 10pm. No "LA X, Part 1" at all on that night. Proof undeniable that these are two separate episodes that were merely given special treatment as a two-hour block for premiere night. If you still don't agree (or anyone else), then at least tell me this: what do you consider to be episode #6x03? Marc604 09:41, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Look at the way #1x01 "Pilot, Part 1" is described here at lostpedia: ""Pilot, Part 1" is the first of the two-part pilot episode of Lost. It was originally broadcast on September 22, 2004, and "Pilot, Part 2" aired the following week. The two parts aired together on October 2, 2004." That's exactly how we should be treating "LA X, Part 1". Just swap the language so that it says something like, "While these are considered two different episodes, the two parts aired together on February 2, 2010." Not sure why there's a debate. Two-part premieres have always been separated into two pages (Season One and Season Five), and two-hour finales have always been kept as one page (all seasons). That's our rule. Currently, by keeping the S6 premiere as one page, we are breaking that rule. Marc604 09:50, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should split the articles, but I do think it should be considered 2 episodes and "What Kate Does" should be 6x03. The reason we split the Pilot is because it aired on two separate nights, if it had aired as one double length premiere we would not have split it. Season 5's premiere was clearly two episodes because they had different titles, and we were already told that episode 2 is a Hurley episode. So we treat this article like any other "Parts 1 & 2" episode (finales) that were titled as such in the ABC press release, and we keep it under one page. Now, the problem is for some reason we still consider this to be one episode on the template. If we are treating this like any other double finale that airs on one night, we should be counting it as two episodes! The finales count as individual episodes, as "The Variable" is episode 100. Hours = episodes, people. ABC have confirmed that by promoting the 100th episode. The clue is even in the title "Parts 1 & 2" and the article "104th/105th produced hours". Many more reasons here. Keep the article as it is, just note the two episodes on the templates.--Baker1000 23:31, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Richard shows anger

Is it just me, or is this the first episode where Richard is shown to lose his cool? Jacobking|talk|contributions 20:00, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe; Richard seemed a little annoyed when Little Locke failed the test with the objects.  Robert K S   tell me  21:29, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
He also seemed quite short tempered when Locke wanted to bring Ben inside the statue to see Jacob. He pretty much says "we can only have one leader at a time, duhhh!"--Baker1000 14:56, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
He was also quite aggressive with Horace at Dharmaville, when he came after his men were killed by Sawyer. — Iimitk  T  C  21:33, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Exact Year of the Alternate Timeline

I do not understand exactly what is the year of the alternate timeline... I have searched the article, talk, and theories pages, and, if I have searched correctly, I did not find someone talking about this... In the article, it says it happens in 2004, but, also, the article says that, before the Losties go to the Temple, it is heard the Alternate 815 sound, and that this happens in 2007. Therefore, what is the year of the alternate flight (2004 or 2007, or both?!)? If the answer falls into theories (because of the underwater items, such as the statue and ankh), please move this section (my question) to that page. If the sound that is heard before going to the Temple is not of the alternate flight, please correct the article. I am Portuguese and in Portugal, and it will take some time yet until I can see the episode on Portuguese TV. Thank you. (The)Batmagoo(BatmanMagoo) 00:36, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

For the year of the alternate flight not to be 2004, a number of circumstances would have to be coincidentally delayed or moved up, to the point of incredibility. Locke and his walkabout, Christian Shepard's death in Australia, Kate's being caught by Edward Mars, Claire's pregnancy. It all adds up to Flight 815 X being in 2004, just like Flight 815.  Robert K S   tell me  06:32, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
I think a previous revision of this page had a random apophenia-based claim that the noise is heard as the group is entering the Temple, causing confusion for someone who hasn't seen the episode yet. ShadowUltra 18:46, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

The Hatch IS Different

I have just been re-watching 'Flashes before Your Eyes', and I have noticed two things:

  1. The hatch site in S6 ep 1 is definitely bigger then the site in FBYE
  2. The exercise bike that was cast aside when Sawyer trying to find Juliet in S6 ep1 in was lying in the jungle in FBYE before Your eyes, and not buried in the debris at the Swan implosion site.

I know there has been much discussion about the Swan Implosion site looking different/bigger elsewhere, and the current explanation is that this is 'poetic license' given to the producers to allow a more dramatic scene. However, I don't buy this. They would have looked at the original footage and replicated if if that was what they wanted. The whole point is that in S6 Ep1 they are messing our heads with alternate timelines, and this is further evidence that in fact there have been alternate timelines in existence BEFORE S6 ep 1.--Sean Sheep 11:06, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Why exploding Jughead caused a flash for the 1977 people

Can someone explain this or should it be put in unanswered questions? LOST-Brett 14:15, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered question--we can only theorize about it at this point.  Robert K S   tell me  18:57, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
We don't know it exploded, and we don't know what caused the flash. For all we know it didn't explode until Desmond turned the failsafe key WeirdDNA 21:59, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Child at the Temple


So I was watching LA X, Part 2 and saw a young boy running around at the Temple where the Others are residing. It's not Zach obvs. But I thought the people couldn't give birth to children on the Island and that DHARMA evacuated all of its children..or maybe I'm just overlooking the fact it's just simply a child living with the Others.--Mistertrouble189 23:05, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Could be another Karl ... or umm didn't we see a bunch of kids with the others way back in season 2? The ones with the bear. --LeoChris 23:08, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

It's not Karl or Zach. It's a child that lives at the Temple for unknown reasons. Maybe he is there to serve some food to someone.--Station7 23:10, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Of course it's not Karl, what I meant is that we don't know where Karl comes from, and he's still underage, therefore it's not impossible that another kid is with the Others. --LeoChris 23:41, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Why Jacob called Ben "an old friend"?

In the conversation with Hurley, Jacob referred to Ben as an old friend, which is really weird having the conversation they had before Ben stabbed him at the statue.

Hurley: How did you die?
Jacob: I was killed by an old friend who was retired of my company.

Any thoughts on that? — Iimitk  T  C  00:44, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't referring to Ben, he was referring to the Man in Black. I know it was Ben who stabbed him (and is the one who "killed" him) but he only did so at MIB's request, and it was MIB who actually pushed him into the fire (which actually killed him). So Jacob believes he was killed by MIB.--Baker1000 00:48, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... very interesting. Thanks. — Iimitk  T  C  00:58, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
I actually disagree quite strongly with this. Jacob was referring to Ben. It was his way (and the writers' way) of telling us that, though Ben had felt ignored and neglected by Jacob, that Jacob was there alongside him the whole time. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
No way. :-) Man in Black.  Robert K S   tell me  05:47, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
It would be hard for Ben to have tired of his company when Ben never met Jacob. ?everything 14:24, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Richard physically attacked

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the first time we've ever seen Richard get physically attacked by anyone. It's significant because it narrows down the question as to whether or not he's invincible, and what his true abilities are beyond the fact that he doesn't age. --Celebok 03:55, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

No one thought he was Invincible! Especially after Jacob died! Shortguy457 05:37, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Plot Hole?

  • The ALT reality plane should not have flown through the turbulence and over the Island. If they did, that means they would have lost communications and would have been on their way to Fiji, 1,000 miles off course.
    • The turbulence could have simply been something else.
      • I thought of that too but the fact that they used some of the same footage as from the first episode makes me think it was a blunder instead of a coincidence.
    • The island could still project some kind of electromagnetic interference, but nothing too serious as to cause a crash.
  • Not necessarily, assuming that the jughead explosion caused the island to sink in and following 1977, we don't know where the island was located at that point in time compared to where it was in 2004
    • Actually, the ALT reality plane DID fly over the island as revealed in the camera dive from the plane into the ocean and around the sunken island.
      • It flew over the Island, but as we know, the Island moves all over the globe, so when it was sunk, it could have very well been located under the ALT reality plane's flightpath.
        • Is it more logical that this is just a mistake or that the Island moved into the direct path from Sidney to LA and they encountered the same turbulence?
        • The island can move but it doesn't have to move. In fact this would strongly imply that while it appears to float it doesn't actually move with the water currents and is somehow kept in place. Possibly by the same force that allows it to teleport. Thought that doesn't explain why search parties didn't find them. Unless the island is capable of hiding itself which would fit in with the other things it can do. And explain the difficulty in finding it.
          • Eloise Hawking: "The Island is always moving, which is why you were never rescued." Your whole "it doesn't actually move with the water currents" assertion is simply false.
          • Of course the island is hidden. Do you watch the show?
      • We don't know that it was directly over the island, we dove into the water and went through a school of fish and over who knows how much ground before we got to the sunken Island, it could be 1000 miles for all we know
        • I agree. The shot went into the water and down, and then could have gone across a long, long way. It just depends on the speed you are going.

Jughead still exists?

Does Jughead still exist on the Island, down in the tunnels? It would have to, since its explosion creates a second timeline, and we've been following the non-exploding-one all this time. Similarly, Richard claims that he saw all of the Losties die in the past. Uh... how? If he was there during the explosion, he would not be the Richard of our timeline. He would be the Richard of the alternate timeline. I think I'm confused. Marc604 20:31, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think it still exists. Both timelines are two seperate solutions to the same thing: Jughead's explosion. In one timeline, Jughead prevented the Swan from being built, 815 to crash etc (and probably sunk the island) and in the orginal timeline, it was responsible for the incident or something like that but in any case leading up to what we have now happening. Also the Richard thing, that is considered to be just dramatizing by most people, I think. He wasn't at the Swan site so he couldn't have seen anyone die there anyway. I think that both of those things won't get much more explaning, though. This is all we get. At least that's my guess and I'm okay with it. Jared 12:17, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
We haven't been following a non-exploding timeline. Like JustJared said, the separate timelines are both caused by Jughead's explosion. In one, the explosion (presumably) sinks the Island and Oceanic 815 lands safely. In the other, the explosion sends the 1970s Losties back to the "present." If Richard had seen the latter explosion, it would look like everyone was vaporized, since they suddenly weren't there. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  13:29, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily, we don't know whether the core exploded or not, however we've been following the events of the same connected timelines either way. Whatever happened, happened. If what Juliet did or didn't do to the bomb changed history, the change would have happened before Faraday returned to the island to try to change things, but we clearly see the results of his actions even after he "changed" everything in the "old" timeline(He actually caused everything, not changed). Rewatch "The Variable" in season 5 if I'm not making sense. As for the original question, yes, the bomb, minus the core is most likely still buried under the Dharma barracks in both timelines, however it's possible the Others moved it away before taking up residency there in the "original" timeline.WeirdDNA 22:11, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

It's Jughead's Fission Core !! Not Jughead

Digging around wiki, it appears that a fission core similar to that contained on the jughead type devices, would have had a blast of about 27 kilo tonnes, roughly double that of the Hiroshima bomb.

Had Jughead itself been exploded, it would have created a blast of roughly 10 megatonnes; Or c 40 times bigger.

Now it's conceivable that a strong electromagnetic force, combined with an underground detonation could have mitigated the effects of the kilotonne device. However if jughead itself had been detonated, it would have almost certainly obliterated the whole island. --Ianmr 17:34, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Two of every kind theory

I'm thinking if the Hydrogen bomb experiment did in fact work, like Juliet said (I don't think she would be lying on her death bed) would that mean that the original timeline and the new timeline would exist at the sometime? Basically indicating that there are two of every character in the world? Like, in 2007, there is a Jack on the island and a Jack in LA? Yes, I know that one timeline is currently showing 2004 and the other is showing 2007, and I know that this would implicate that when the Oceanic Six appeared in 2005, this would mean that they would find their double, or something like that... Anyways, it's just a theory because I can't accept the fact that they're showing this timeline only to show what would have happened if the island had sunk...

Also, I'm remembering that the writers said in a press conference that "there will be a point in this season that the two timelines will merge into one - no more flashforwards or flashbacks" and since the 1977 timeline is no longer in the show, what does this mean?

(Arcticmonkeyzzz 22:07, February 8, 2010 (UTC))

Timeline B is the ultimate cause of Timeline AWeirdDNA 22:13, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain that?... (Arcticmonkeyzzz)
If you go back and watch Season 5, Episode 14: The Variable, you'll find that several events that happened while Faraday was trying to change the past were already established as known history to the future. Seeing how the decision to change the future had already been made at that point and the events were already set into motion, that means whatever happened in the incident chamber to create two different timelines was already a part of the island's future. If what Juliet did to the bomb created an alternate timeline, then the only possibility for the original timeline to ever have existed in the first place is if the non-crash timeline comes back to re-intercept that same point and stop Juliet from changing the timeline. Seeing how Juliet has memories of both timelines, it's likely that the side-verse Juliet somehow interfered in her final moments to make sure 815 crashed. Basically both timelines depend on each other to exist, however the non-crash timeline will be self-terminating.WeirdDNA 22:58, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that enlighted me for sure! Thanks man! (Arcticmonkeyzzz 23:21, February 8, 2010 (UTC))

Miles and Sawyer admitted to the temple

Anyone else find it odd that they almost shot Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid and Jin but they simply capture Sawyer and Miles and let them in? Maybe they were on the note?--Pittsburghmuggle 02:53, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Chracters with no alternative timeline?....

Because they left the show? like Michael, right?... I though the signed off the show and won't come back, so therefore perhaps he won't have an alternative timeline episode? Tikikala 06:22, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

SPOILER EDITED regardless of whether or not we see these characters, the timeline is just that.. alternate, not everything is exactly as it was in the original timeline.WeirdDNA 14:03, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
Don't post spoilers, WeirdDNA! Not even "rumors" you "may" have heard. Marc604 06:10, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Fight Club reference?

I just posted this on the "LA X" article page under Cultural References but wanted to throw it up here to see if others concur. I do not think that this reference was intentionally orchestrated by Lindelcuse because there's nothing in the scene that directly and overtly points to it but, after giving it some thought, I feel the similarities are too great to ignore.

  • Fight Club: While on Flight 815, Locke is seen from an over-the-shoulder shot reviewing the Oceanic flight safety card. From off-screen, Boone tells him, "You're wasting your time, man" and then the camera pans around Locke to show Boone sitting three seats down wearing a leather jacket. The two briefly discuss the likelihood of a safe emergency landing. This short exchange is similar in many ways to Jack's (Edward Norton) first encounter with Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) in the 1999 film Fight Club. The setting (an airplane), the topic of conversation (emergency aircraft landing) and the cinematography are alike. Even the leather jacket Boone is wearing is similar to Tyler Durden's jacket.
    • Interestingly, in simple terms, Fight Club explores modern man's devaluation and journey to reclaim his true nature; Locke was experiencing the same devaluation and planned to go on a walkabout to find himself prior to Oceanic Flight 815.

What do you all think?--Captain Bunny Killer 01:14, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Episode commentary

Commentary by Daniel Roebuck (Dr. Leslie Arzt) for both parts is now available at [13]. You can also make your own commentaries. --Jackdavinci 19:30, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Grr, US only. I hope someone can make a transcript for this, because I think it would be pretty entertaining.--Baker1000 20:10, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
I really hope this makes it onto the DVD. Same for the 6.03 Kyker commentaryMauserContact 16:50, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

It's a thermonuclear bomb, not a hydrogen one

The bomb that was buried was a hydrogen bomb indeed, and Daniel did say "I'm going to detonate a hydrogen bomb", but the bomb was too heavy to carry to the Swan. It so happens that the detonator of a hydrogen bomb is a "regular" thermonuclear or "atom" bomb (it's the only way to get the pressure and temperature needed for hydrogen fusion). What they did is to take the thermonuclear bomb out and use it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amirams (talkcontribs) 2010-02-21T15:53:46.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and my own understanding, a thermonuclear bomb IS a hydrogen bomb (actually its a deuterium or tritium bomb - which are both isotopes of hydrogen). In essence a hydrogen bomb works by fusing hydrogen atoms together, releasing energy. At its core there is a fission bomb, which works by having two separate masses of uranium 235 or other fissionable material such as plutonium. In the separate masses of uranium, atoms sometimes spontaneously 'split', transmuting into other elements such as radium , lead etc., and emitting alpha and beta particles together with a small amount of energy. However, these events are 'relatively' harmless, and unless you sit by the bomb for several weeks, you will probably suffer no ill-effects. On impact, a detonating charge propels the two masses together. When the two masses combine, they now create a 'critical mass', and the alpha and beta particles resulting from the nuclear fission (splitting the atom), go on to cause other atoms to split. These in turn cause further splits, and the cascade of splits now reaches such a level that a chain reaction begins to occur, which increases exponentially and the energy released is catastrophic, and the whole thing explodes in a an instant. When this type of bomb is jacketed with deuterium oxide (heavy water), the nuclear explosions is suffienct to cause the deuterium atoms to combine to make helium, and even more energy is released. However, please do not try this at home (however, if you do decide to try, here are some instructions. I understand that spare parts are available at Sayid's WMD Spares Shop, 213 Jarrah St., Tikrit if you are interested.--Sean Sheep 22:44, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

The Others at the statue

What happened to these guys? The ones who came with Richard. They haven't been mentioned since this episode. They couldn't have gone to the Temple and it looked like MIB's recruits were all from there. --Golden Monkey 23:43, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • Qualifies as an UQ for sure. Considering the countable numbers of Temple dwellers shown it's hard to argue their numbers increased before the massacre (even if you're nice & ignore the recycled redshirt defectors/loyalists). Ilana said they did head towards the Temple, but the absence of an arrival scene there points to them never arriving. And these are Others. After what Sawyer found on Hydra island, I'm braced for another grim discovery. Last we saw them, MIB was inexplicably angry at the entire group. Duncan905 01:53, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Sayid centric?

How is this episode considered partly Sayid centric? All he did was kick in a door for Jack and look at a picture. (Kdc2 21:00, March 29, 2010 (UTC))

It may not have appeared Sayid centric but there was obvious focus on the "main eight" (the 8 who have been around since the begining). A good barometer was the camera focuses as the plane lands which were focused on all 8. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:03, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Dont credit former main cast members as special guest stars.

All former main cast members in Season 6 are guest stars only. Not special guest stars. This trend started in Season 4 when Cynthia Watros became the first former main cast member credit as guest star only in Meet Kevin Johnson. Please stop changing this. Thanks. --pastoryam12 20:56, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Main Image

I think we need a new main image for this episode. Since it is multi centric I find the image of just Jack misleading. While all the 815 characters don't actually appear together in any one shot a picture of the plane landing would work well. It fits with the theme of the episode and since all the centric characters are on board it is the closest we can come to showing them all at once. Mhtmghnd 03:10, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Shows main point of fs in LA X which is the differences between timelines.

Plane landing is to generic Id go with the statue underwater. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:27, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how the plane landing is too generic. It is the epitomy of the differences between the timelines and it at least tries to show all the centric characters too. That said that is an awesome photo of the statue and it does imply that the episode isn't centric on just one character like the current one does. I'd still rather the plane landing but that is a close second and beats the heck out of the current one. Mhtmghnd 03:33, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
The plane landing is too generic because weve seen plane landings on three seperate occasions now. When the O6 returned flight 316 and flight 815 and the 815 and o6 return were near identical. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  05:05, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of having a main image without any people in it. I think the one of Jack is fine, but another one I like is this...(Kdc2 05:38, April 11, 2010 (UTC))

Highlighting 4 of the 8 centric characters -from kdc2

That could work I suppose. It's better than just having Jack. Mhtmghnd 06:00, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
I have no problems with it being just Jack. It captures the first few seconds of the episode, and the flash-sideways which is the big reveal of the aftermath of the Jughead cliffhanger. Keep the original.--Baker1000 23:00, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
No to the 4/8 people, IMO it has to be a picture of something taking place in the fs timeline because that would appear to be the main plot of the episode. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:15, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

We should have as many of the centric characters as possible. Yes to the 4/8. Menot 02:40, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
If we use the argument that the plane landing is too generic then so is Jack sitting at the window of a plane. The picture of the four of them works best. Rachel P 08:49, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
The picture of the four of them just standing there is terrible and horrendously generic. Fuck no to it. I say stay with what we have now, or go with the underwater foot. --Bish-Fiscuit 03:18, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Stick with what we have --pastoryam12 05:33, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • present image is excellent, revisits 815 with the slight look of doubt that was later to be mirrored by all the FS characters. This has been disputed long enough and since the alternative doesn't have much support I think it whould be laid to rest.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   01:04, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • The foot is best. The picture of just Jack is deceptive and makes it look Jack centric. Limitlessness 03:57, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
    • I definately prefer the foot to the current image of Jack at the window. Mhtmghnd 12:49, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • After 7 weeks there have been 10 votes (by different people). There has been a general lack of interest in instituting a change. The vote stands at FOOT=3; 4LOSTIES=0; JACK=5. That is way long enough and also decisive. It is time to put this one to bed.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   13:35, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • Your count is a touch biased. You are lsiting those who vote for more than one option as just voting for Jack. Also there are 5 votes for some sort of change, only 3 for leaving it and 2 who are okay with a change or not. That is not nearly decisive enough to close yet. Mhtmghnd 13:58, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • I have not been biased. I counted first preferences as a first past the post vote. I did it honestly. Yours is the bias in flogging a dead horse. There is no other way of counting this than to determine the first preference of those who have "voted" or indicated a preference. Seven weeks is not only long enough, it is way too long. The uglu dispute banner is worse than any possible choice. Usually these things last a week or two otherwise they are just stale. This has gone SEVEN weeks. As Desmond said - you need to "Let go" - Mhtmghnd!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   14:07, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree that it still needs to be changed. If the 4 of them isn't good enough, I'm going to go for the foot too. It's a muli-centric not solo-centric. Having just Jack is misrepresentative of the episode. Not to mention as I previously said the current choice of Jack in a plane window could have come from numerous episodes and doesn't particularly scream LA X like the foot does. Rachel P 23:53, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
Ok this horrible pic needs to be changed tallying votes a few people originally went with the 4 but changed to foot, so i am tallying the last vote you placed, feel free to correct me if i am wrong, also BishFiscuit, never really makes a choice so i counted him for both things he voted for. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:47, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jack- Baker1000, CharlesKane, Pastoryam, BishFiscuit (4)
  • 4 -(0)
  • Foot-Czygan84, Rachel P, Mhtmghnd, Limitless, Menot, BalkOfFame, Kdc2 (7)
I still prefer the four mains, but am changing my vote to the foot too as it is much better than just Jack. That makes it Foot=6, Jack=4, (Four=1). That's a majority don't you think. Sorry for late reply. I've been avoiding the site until I got a chance to see the final. Menot 01:38, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Bish-Fiscuit prefers the picture of Jack, now more than ever. That is presumably the exact instant that the flashsideways began, right after Jack closes his eyes at the end of the season. I think that the shot of him experiencing the weird deja-vu is extremely relevant to this episode, and that it should remain the picture. --Bish-Fiscuit 00:05, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • I prefer the island underwater now more than ever. It represents the island and the events of the series as just below the surface in everyones subconscious. Jack's expression to me represents nothing more than him looking confused, again. Despite some people's opinions this show and especially this episode is about everyone not just Jack and the foot far better represents that. PS I have adjusted the tally above to reflect your opinion, however this does not affect the majority vote. Menot 04:30, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
      • The regulation Bish refers to is showing centric characters. When we can't show all centric characters though, showing one is even worse. Instead, we either show a scene shot that represents the centric characters or we just pick an iconic moment. The wheel touching down would be an obvious choice. The statue is an even better one. Confused Jack just looks... confused. It's not a big moment. It's not a good shot even if this were Jack-centric. --- Balk Of Fametalk 04:54, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes We can't comply with the regulation so we go with the next best thing which is the statue. Mhtm 05:16 June 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote; I prefer the image of the foot. (Kdc2 00:01, June 20, 2010 (UTC))

UQ removal

I feel we can safely remove "How did Juliet know "it worked"?" after seeing Happily Ever After. It is pretty clear that near-death experiences cause some form of bleedover between timelines.--Frank J Lapidus 22:43, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Man with bag on his head

Around 41:30, when everyone is getting off of the plane, you see Sayid walk past a bearded, long-haired man with some kind of black thing over his upper face- what is this supposed to be? (here is a picture). Etkewa 02:08, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Title of the article

I think the title for this article should be just "LA X". Other articles of 2-parts episodes, like "Live Together Die Alone, Part 1" and "Live Together Die Alone, Part 2", or "Through the Looking Glass, Part 1" and "Through the Looking Glass, Part 2" have their names as "Live Together, Die Alone" and "Through the Looking Glass" (not "Through the Looking Glass, Parts 1 & 2" and so on). Why isn't this article the same? There's no reason. I propose the renaming of this article as "LA X". --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 06:23, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

The other articles were named as such because that's how they named them in the press releases. For some reason they named the S4 finale "Parts 2 & 3" instead of just Part 2 as per Exodus, Part 2. Then they just continued to do it with "Incident, Parts 1 & 2". I don't know how they name them on the US DVDs, but I imagine it is the same. If it is, we should stick to their official titles.--Baker1000 19:54, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
We name the episodes as they were named for the original U.S. airing and don't change them to retcon them with future releases (releases in other countries, DVD releases, iTunes listings, etc.). However, all variants correctly redirect to their appropriate articles.  Robert K S   tell me  17:28, June 19, 2010 (UTC)


What Ben says is never true: he is completely unreliable. You are Never sure whether he was pretending to be aghast at the murder of jacob. Example after example of absolute ambiguity. Did he not kill Ilana with a gun because he wanted to blow her up. In a great cast, Emerson is performing on a higher level. Nobody can touch this guy Yeah, Nestoris superb in his passivity and incredible in his centric episode. O 'Quinn has his tremendous moments. Holloway and Garcia are incredible. But Ben is the impossible character; I think they just kept writing the most impossible dialogue possible. Emerson makes you hang on every gesture all the while knowing he is lying. After thinking about him, I have come up with my strange theory: Ben vs. Faraday, Ben could killed miB at his whim. Faraday stops him --Past recaptured 11:40, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

What does Ben have to do with LA X you know, the article--PSC Soap 05:54, January 24, 2011 (UTC)PSC Soap

Sayid's birthdate?

I have looked at the passport from Sayid and I think this is a blooper. It says 04-25-72. 25 April 1972. Sayid was born in 1972.


--Station7 17:32, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Could well be, considering that the passport also says he's Iranian. Where'd we get the date 1967 from? --- Balk Of Fametalk 17:48, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

From Solitary. It's on Sayid Jarrah's page.--Station7 17:50, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

So, should we edit it to the bloopers?--Station7 19:40, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Where is the date in Solitary? --- Balk Of Fametalk 21:04, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

If we're debating over which one we should believe, I think we should trust the one said in the Original Timeline, considering the Flash Sideways doesn't even exist. Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs 21:12, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

To BalkOfFame: Maybe it's on a piece of paper or something. Somebody did put that information there. Glad we're discussing this, before I would might put it on the page ;) --Station7 21:37, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

  • I think the 1967 date comes from Sayid telling Ben he was 23 when his country was invaded by the Americans, in "One of Them". That was 1990/91, so a 1967 year of birth makes sense.--Baker1000 00:30, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Foreshadowing of The End

I'm surprised how little I've seen of this online -- and nothing on this page.

To me it seems there are two pieces of foreshadowing of the climax of The End in the scene between Jack and Rose.

Rose first says, "You can let go now," which, obviously, is a major theme of the flash sideways. This can't be coincidence.

Second, when Jack says "Looks like we made it" (and Rose replies, "We certainly did,"), this foreshadows this dialogue in the End:

   Jack Shephard: Where are we, Dad?
   Christian Shephard: This is a place that you... that you all made together so that you
   could find one another. The most important part of your life was the time that you
   spent with these people on that island. That's why all of you are here. Nobody does it
   alone, Jack. You needed all of them, and they needed you.

So the LA X dialogue can be interpreted as: "Looks we [all] made it [together]." "We [all] sure did."

Thoughts on this?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adamdonahue (talkcontribs) .

I'd never thought about "we made it" being a reference to making the flash-sideways world before. It's very possible that's what the writers had in mind. "you can let go now" has always been a fairly obvious reference in my opinion, and it should be listed on here somewhere. I've definitely discussed it online with people. It's my assumption that Rose and Bernard are actually "woken" when they're on the flight. We never see it, of course, but they're each others soulmates so of course they remember everything.--Baker1000 (talk) 17:21, December 16, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.