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.)
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
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)
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)
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)
AN ABC STUDIOS PRODUCTION
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 ABC.com. 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)
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)
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)
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)
Trivia
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)
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)
CHAINS
"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)
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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 2010-02-03T17:19:56.
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)
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)
Bloopers
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)
Terminology
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 (talk • contribs) 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)
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)
I think that would be a good thing to add. I'll try to contribute to it when I'm done with some other stuff. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 05:29, 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)
Thanks, Jimbo, I just saw it. You hit the nail on the head over there, by the way...dark entity is ridiculous!--Emissary23 05:45, 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
Tailies?
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 Stell 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 Stell 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)
Fumanchu?
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)
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)
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)
Well
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)
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)
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
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 (talk • contribs) 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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Compromise
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)
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: http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/02/02/lost-premiere-damon-carlton/ (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 Stell 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)
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 abc.com 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, but...well...so what? The important issue is, what role does Frogurt play in all of this? Jack Hare 09:19, February 4, 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)
Translation
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)
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)
... 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.
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)
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 Stell 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
with keeping it in. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 05:38, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is currently taking place on the Talk:Dark entity page. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 05:44, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
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)