This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LaFleur 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

Why did Horace let them stay on the island for 3 years

Horace extended their time to stay on the island for 2 weeks to look for their crewmates, but clearly he let them stay on there for 3 years, is there any explination for this yet?--Nzoomed 02:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

New DHARMA characters

Do they all need the "(DHARMA Initiative)" in their names? I thought that was only for clarification among characters who share the same name as someone else.--Mistertrouble189 02:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they do not all need that at the end. It's for clarification only, if there is another article with that same name. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
So would Phil (DHARMA Initiative), Jerry (DHARMA Initiative) & Heather (DHARMA Initiative) be eligible for renames to remove the "(DHARMA Initiative)"? (Phil and Heather when searched redirect to user pages and Rosie has already been renamed; Paul goes to a disamg page so leave it as "Paul (DHARMA Initiative)")--Mistertrouble189 03:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Same with Amy (DHARMA Initiative) since there is no "Amy" on Lostpedia.--Mistertrouble189 03:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Jerry and Phil are all that's needing renaming as of now (Amy, Rosie, Paul and Heather have been taken care of)--Mistertrouble189 04:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I created the Phil, Jerry, Rosie, and Amy articles first as appeared during the show, and several users created their own of the same articles, without the DI in brackets, and redirected mine AFTER I had already set my articles up with info on the characters, infoboxes, and nav boxes. I deserve the credit for the the article creations, and demand that they be reverted back and renamed. I wouldn't be saying this if these users had just nominated the articles for renaming, therefore leaving the credit to me. Instead they get the credit for something they were late in creating. I'm not the only one MisterTrouble's two articles that he created (Heather, and Paul) were also redirected and instead of renaming. --LOST-The Cartographer 05:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see that happening, especially as the original names didn't follow LP policy. If you want "credit" in the future of having your name first, follow the policy, eh? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the Survivors be classified as DHARMA?

  • Just because the survivors have been taken under Horace's wing, does it necessarily mean that they are technically part of the DHARMA initiative? As they have never been recurited by them, and even Horace said to Sawyer that he was not DHARMA material? we could say that they have associated with the DHARMA initiative, but not say that they are official members. Horace let them stay to supposedley find their crewmates on the island for 2 weeks, and drive around in DHARMA vans, wearing their jumpsuits, but i personally dont feel this makes them members, its more like they were allowed to stay and work for them temporarily. However its clear that for some reason they were allowed to stay longer, as they are all on the island 3 years later. --Nzoomed 08:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • My answer is no. The "Survivors" (which includes Daniel and Miles) are living a lie. By 1977, Sawyer may have told Horace the truth about who they are. And he just developed another problem: Jack, Kate and Hurley. --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with this, we should add this to the discussion page for DHARMA characters, and put a new category in addition to those who are dead, alive in the past, off island etc. We need to name it as something related to the survivors living with the DHARMA Initiative, or something along those lines.--Nzoomed 23:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • How are they not considered DI? They may be pretending to be other people, but it's clear they are official members. Sawyer is apparently the chief of security! He's also apparently very close with Horace and Amy. If being fully-fledged members of an organization doesn't count as being affiliated with that organization, then I don't know what does. --Cobblepot 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul's necklace

Have we seen that necklace before?? I swear I've seen that necklace before... --Ivalum21 03:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It's the first time an ankh's been seen on the show. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I know where I've seen it...that symbol is one of the hieroglyphs in the Swan when the clock ran down --Ivalum21 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't.--HaloOfTheSun 06:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Might have appeared as a hieroglyph on Smokey's door, Daniel's map, or at the temple, but not on the countdown timer. --Lanpesci 08:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That is the first time an ankh has been on the show, except, of course, in the hands of the statue. Perhaps you got it mixed up with the amulet symbol that's on the secret door. Check out the hieroglyph page, it spells out symbol by symbol which hieroglyphs have been seen. Zholmboe 01:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


The statue was a sandy color unlike the grey 4-toed statue, and also appears to be carrying an Ankh(Egyptian-(Eternal)Life) in it's right hand. Can't make out what's in the left hand. --Hugo815 03:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The color could have faded due to time or due to the weather.--Mistertrouble189 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The position of the figure, a frontal pose with the arms at the sides and the legs apart as if walking forward, is the same as that of ancient kouroi statues of ancient Eastern Mediterranean cultures. Greek kouroi were always depicted nude, and were often used to depict Apollo. Egyptian versions of this form usually have a loin cloth and a headdress, like the statue on the island. Interestingly, this form is strongly associated with depictions of Horus in Egyptian art. --Sidwood 05:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The statue has to have been built around the same time as the temple surely, given their likeness. Maybe the monster was around longer than anyone thought(The curse from opening a tomb)? - Eric Falsmin 08:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Near the Flame...(secret entrance)

Sawyer said that Horace was near the Flame station, when he was blowing up trees by the pylons. We know there is a secret entracne to the Flame (seen here in Via Domus). Are we assuming this is the same entrance as the one in Via Domus? This entrance is nearly half a mile away from the actual farmhouse, so I think Sawyer obviously knows about it. I hope we'll get to see more of the Flame basement sooner or later. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 04:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't think about that, nice one! Seems logical otherwise he would have just said near the fence. I wonder who he knows at the Flame (Olivia?), Sawyer says something like better not tell her where he was. --Hugo815 04:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The fence is a huge circle surrounding the barracks - saying someone is at the fence would be somewhat ambiguous. Near the Flame specifies which part of the fence. It was phrased oddly though! --Jackdavinci 08:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
More likely the statue depicts Anubis because of the pointed ears. Horus' head is smooth like a falcon's at the back, this looks more like a jackal. --rancemohanitz 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Flashback or Flashforward

User:The mE recently edited the article to change it from a flashforward to a flashback, leaving the comment: I think that there is flashbacks in 1974 and that the real-time is 1977 because of Jack, Hurley and Kate... However, I reverted the edit because this is wrong. The episode's initial scene leaves off directly from where the present Island branch of the main story ended, meaning that the 1977 parts are a flashforward, and the ancient times and 1974 parts are the present day story. See below.

Copied from Talk:316: Think of Lost as having one, main, continuous plot line. It starts with Oceanic 815 crashing, through the discovery of the caves, Boone's death, opening the hatch, the Tailies, blowing up the hatch, Jack/Kate/Sawyer being captured, escaping, the Others' raid on the beach, the freighter, the mercenaries, the Orcid. All of this is the "present" timeline. Then, when Ben turns the wheel, the present timeline splits into two timelines: On-Island and Off-Island. However both of these timelines are still following the same continuous plot line, just for two series of characters. So we get:

  • Plot line A) Ben turns the wheel, the Island starts moving through time, Charlotte dies, Locke teleports off the Island; and
  • Plot line B) Ben turns the wheel, the Oceanic 6 see the Island disappear, crash, get rescued, return to the real world, decide they need to go back, board Ajira 316 and reawaken on the Island.

These two are also, "present" plot lines. (Note: It now looks like A) and B) have merged into a single plot line, which is good because it'll be less confusing hereafter.) Anyways, my point is this: Anything that takes place outside of this present plot line is either a flashback or a flashforward. If it takes place before the current position in the plot, then it's a flashback. If it takes place after the current position in the plot, it's a flashforward. The opening of "316" takes place after the current place in the plot, and thus is a flashforward. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

I think it's meaningless to describe these as flash forwards or backs in this context. They're not following the traditional format. --Pennyj 05:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I hope everyone is happy with the way I changed it to "on the Island" with the timestamp as subheaders. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm a proponent of the continuous plot lines method too, but the two plot lines reconverge in this episode. If we had to choose one, it would be a flashforward, because the Sawyer plotline left off in the 3 year ago section, and because the three years later parts do not all happen after the Jack plotline leaves off. But it makes more sense to consider this a flashback/flashforward episode since it's transitional between two reconverging plotlines/timelines.--Jackdavinci 08:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm thinking along these lines as well. The post-FDW scene picks up right after the previously established "now" line for the time skippers. By the end of the episode, it transitions to synch up with the off-islanders' present. So whereas the O6's present skipped three years ahead between seasons 4 and 5, the left behinders' present skipped ahead three years during this episode. So after this episode, I would expect the two timelines to be 1977 and 2008. -- Graft   talk   contributions  09:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Between the time travel and the plotlines diverging the way they did this season, i think the whole flashforward/flashback thing is meaningless now. The way-- LOSTonthisdarnisland arranged it makes the most sense and is in keeping with LP guidlines. Lanpesci 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's far less confusing this way, and hopefully it will prevent the "FB or FF" arguments. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

the four-toed Statue

It definitely looks Egyptian. It looks sorta Bird-ish to me, and its holding two things in its hands. Any thoughts on which God(s) is might be? dposse 04:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a (jackal) egyptian god called anubis. {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My first thought was that it was Sakhmet, the lion-headed goddess of pestilence who was worshiped to ward off plague and bad luck, which would fit on the island.

These Egyptian guesses belong on the theory discussion page, not here or in the article. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The statue has to have some sort of Latin affiliation; it is the enlightened language after all. Eric Falsmin 08:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it would have any Latin connections. From what we can tell the statue it is Egyptian in nature, where as Latin is Roman.Maxwell P. Rodriguez 01:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for putting that fire out, I guess I got carried away again! Do you think however, the Egyptian populous on the island had some sort of run in with a Latin group? Maybe thats why the statue is so severly damaged in the present; a sort of conflict erupted. Eric Falsmin 07:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been looking at a group of egyptian gods and I am pretty convinced the statue is of SET, has anyone got any opinion about this?Eric Falsmin 13:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

About UQs ...

Alright, there's a few UQs that I feel maybe shouldn't be included, but I just wanna see what is the consencus about them.

Why haven't Rose and Bernard turned up on Jin's grid search of the island? - Exactly what says they haven't ? Sure, they're not mentionned in the 3 Years Later scenes, but neither is Daniel. Therefore, isn't the question pure speculation until we have further evidence that they haven't been found yet ?

Who is Horace and Amy's baby? - Just a normal, unimportant as of now, baby ? Asking the question is assuming it is relevant to the storyline, therefore speculative, IMO.

Why does Paul have an Ankh necklace? - As far as we know it's just a normal necklace, right ? Kind of like asking why does Sawyer wear glasses or why does Daniel have a tie ...--LeoChris 06:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rose, Bernard, and any other surviving 815ers were moving in the time flashes. Since we don't know they are dead and we haven't seen them yet this is a valid question - although it would probably be better phrased just asking where those two (and any other 815ers) are. As to the baby and the necklace, both were featured fairly prominently in the episode, so should have some importance to the overall story. The baby even more so after all the issue has been made about children not being born on the island. Baby question -Yes, Rose & Bernard - reword, Necklace - eh... Lanpesci 08:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the baby question, I agree with the first poster. It should not pertain to who the baby is. We have no specific reason to suspect it should be somebody we already know. To suggest as much is speculation and theory baiting. The idea of children being able to be born on the island is a different issue and is worth asking I think. -- Graft   talk   contributions  09:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You ask how Paul's Ankh relates to the child born on the island? Consider this: can it really be a coincidence that PAUL ANKA released his massive hit single HAVING MY BABY on United Artists Records in... 1974 ?!? [[[User:Middlenamewayne|Middlenamewayne]] 18:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)]

I think the question about whether Sawyer and the others are still around for the Purge is very relevant. When they stop moving through time Daniel says they are stuck wherever they are. Three years later they have all integrated into the DI. Daniel sticks around to help build The Orchid. Why would we assume they up and leave prior to The Purge? --Lanpesci 10:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is assumed that they leave prior of the Purge because the Losties cannot be present during the purge. Assuming "whatever happened, happened": If they would still be present in 1985-1992 then Ben would have known the survivors long before the crash as he was grown up at that age. There are several scenes (like down the pearl where Ben sees Jack for the first time through the monitors) which proove the impossibility of them staying longer the early/middle 80s. Anyway, the question is not relevant because it's still an assumption.
The point is that it's not directly relevant to this episode. It's wondering something about the future (relative to the characters' timeline), ie. the purge. Questions should ask "what happened?", not "what will happen?" (See also LP:UQ, which talks about this.) -- Graft   talk   contributions  10:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the UQ aobut Rose and Bernard is invalid because the episode pretty much sums up the answer; they aren't on the grid yet. "JIN: We finished grid 1-3-3 today. No sign of our people. No one. SAWYER: Well, 1-3-4 then. " So since Jin isn't finished looking, the question should be changed or deleted. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I worded the Rose & Bernard question that way because Jin has been doing a systematic search of the island and they have not found any of their people yet. Sawyer tells him to move on to the next grid section tomorrow implying Jin's been at it for some time. And we now know the next day he finds Jack, Kate and Hurley during his grid search. I'm openminded on question wording, but I think it is potentially very relevant that we haven't seen them since they ran off during the arrow attack but now three years have passed.MixMasterMike 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's currently "Where are Rose, Bernard, and the other survivors?" which I think works fine. My guess is they're all dead. But that's just a guess Integrated (User / Talk) 14:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Would a good UQ be "Why didn't Sawyer tell Juliet that Jin had found Jack Hurley and Kate?" or is that a case of 'wait till next week' ..? Integrated (User / Talk) 14:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, that and I think the obvious answer of him wanting a bit of time to get over the initial shock of seeing Kate for the first time in three years without it happening in front of Juliet. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding John Locke bieng back on the island; is he really alive again or is he 'Christian Shephard alive'? Eric Falsmin 14:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Juliet and Sawyer's deal

Why is 'what is the deal between Juliet and Sawyer?' obviously for them to not be who they used to be? It might be, but it's not obvious. I'd like to put the question back. humpton 16:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

From the transcript: "JULIET: [Lowered voice] We had an agreement. SAWYER: Screw our agreement. He ain't never done one. I'm guessing you have. JULIET: Don't you understand that every time I try to help a woman on this island give birth, it hasn't worked?". The agreement can only have been that she wouldn't be a doctor on the Island anymore; this is not only supported by what she says here, but by the fact that she's working in the mechanics' pool, and the DI doctor didn't know Juliet was one. I don't see the need for a UQ about it. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, probably because she didn't want to be responsible for any more dead women. --Alilamba 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If you insist on putting it back, I would rephrase it so it doesn't sound like something out of Jerry Seinfeld's act :-). --Srsnyder5885 05:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sawyer knew Richard?

I don't remember Sawyer ever meeting Richard, yet he instantly seems to know who he is when Richard walks into the barracks area, and even knows about his apparent "eyeliner" situation. The only thing I can think of to explain this is if there was a meeting we didn't see at the army camp in "Jughead", after Juliet and Sawyer rescued Daniel from Ellie and before the next time flash. Worth noting? -- Graft   talk   contributions  06:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how that happened because they disappeared in front of Ellie. I don't remember a meeting either, and I'd think it would have made it onto Richard and/or Sawyer's articles. I love that they referenced it, though. I lol'd. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • While they never met, I'm pretty sure Juliet pointed Richard out to the group (including Sawyer) from afar in Jughead. (Locke then declared he had a conversation to finish, or something similar) Therefore Sawyer should know who he is. --LeoChris 07:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Correct. Juliet pointed out Richard to thier little group, said the line about him "always being there." Right after Sawyer saw Daniel being marched by Ellie and Locke took off to talk to Richard. --Lanpesci 08:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, I could go along with that, even though it looked like Sawyer was late to that party. While Sawyer couldn't have possibly seen Richard's dark lashes from that distance, I can suspend disbelief enough to say he might have seen them out the window (in the dark, from a distance... :P ) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Or maybe Juliet told Sawyer this detail to help convince Horace. ESachs 07:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I guess the eyeliner joke is worth it, even if it we weren't shown a face to face meeting. ;) But I think the joke would've played better if they had held off on it until after Sawyer talks to Richard. Btw, the reason I mentioned that army camp scene is because they were all shown in that same vicinity after the flash (right before Charlotte keels over), indicating they had returned to the camp after confronting Ellie. -- Graft   talk   contributions  08:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't seem as though they've met onscreen - but it's possible that they met 'behind the scenes' when Sawyer was at the Hydra. --Jackdavinci 08:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
It is worth noting that Sawyer is far sighted (from way back in Season 1), hence why he is seen with his glasses whilst reading throughout the episode. Sawyer could have had a good vision to see Richard from the distance. Obviously not so good to see his dark lashes, but to at least recognise him when he was approaching the Barracks. Phobia27 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The eyeliner joke was definitely worth it! ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it deserves a UQ ? Integrated (User / Talk) 14:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Nah. It was just a mechanism to share the joke, IMO. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea I was sorta kidding.. though that's not entirely obvious on second glance Integrated (User / Talk) 08:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

UQ about Olivia

"What happened to Horace's wife Olivia?" This needs to be changed to what happened to Amy because Olivia is after Amy, not before her. We see Olivia and Horace married when Ben comes to the island. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Never mind. My mistake. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Olivia was with Horace in the 60's before he came to the Island and still with him when Ben arrived on the Island. Ben was 11 then, and if born in the early 60's, should put his arrival to the Island at or before 1974. Judging by Richard's appearance when he first met 11 year old Ben, that was prior to when we see him in 1974. So Amy was most certainly after Olivia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bw29 (talkcontribs) .

That's why I struck it out and said never mind. We aren't supposed to delete talk text, but we can strike it out when we recognise we made a mistake, as I did. I'm tired. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
And Bw29, please don't move the coding on my post again. The strike out wasn't intended for the entire part, just the part I was marking out. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but although we saw Horace and Olivia driving in the same car, there was never any evidence they were married. It's possible that they are siblings. --Cornprone 02:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
So if Ben comes to the Island around '74, have the characters met him? It seems that during three years they would at least have heard that there's a boy called Benjamin Linus living there, especially given "LaFleur"'s status as the go-to guy when Horace does something stupid. And Sawyer doesn't seem like the sort of guy to just ignore something something like that just because of Daniel's theories. Is this worthy of a UQ, or have I overlooked something? Also, can I ask how you know that Ben was eleven? It doesn't mention this in his bio, or on the episode page for The Man Behind the Curtain. If he's just two years older, we may see Ben arrive yet in the current timeline, and the question does become "what happened to Amy?" Risk one 00:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The recap told us he was 11. I guess we'll see when we see with Ben; it's not really an UQ, but rather a "what happens next" question, which we avoid in the UQ section. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


  • Horace , the leader of the Dharma Initiative on the Island has a similar sounding name to the falcon-headed Egyptian God, Horus. The literary term for this device is called homonym. Horus carried an ankh in depictions of him. --Kb1pkj 11:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Theory page, please. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Good spot - should go on Horace's trivia I guess? Integrated (User / Talk) 14:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rerun next week?

So why is there no new episode next week, any info on that? Part of the hype about going to 16 episodes per season and starting in January was the promise that the season would be continuous with no reruns or breaks. Anyone know what happened? --Minderbinder 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • shows a rerun of LaFleur. --SDSpivey 15:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Any info on why no new episode as originally planned? --Minderbinder 16:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I expect it is because of new mid-season replacements debuting and they decided to make room for them Tymes 20:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

LaFleur, Lawman. (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid)

In Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, they are running from LaFleur, the most tenacious lawman in the west, famous for wearing a straw hat. I forget his first name, but it may have been Jim. In the movie Mallrats they referenced this with the Mall Security guard being named Art LaFleur, who wore a straw hat. I'm just saying, watch for Sawyer to put on a straw hat sometime soon ;) Actually, I think he already had one at one point. Anyway, I don't think it's a coincidence that "LaFleur" is the Law in New Otherton.BlueBeard 13:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid are pursued by Joe Lefors. La Fours is the "law" in Mallrats. That being said, I agree that LaFleur is a nod to Lefors. New Daddy 17:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, I see- thanks for the correction. It has been many years since I saw either movie, but was least I was close ;) --BlueBeard 20:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


In a past episode, didn't we see the corpse of Lafleur? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LOSTHEADACHE (talkcontribs) 2009-03-05T08:29:27.

  • No Integrated (User / Talk) 14:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Sawyer was filmed as being in the coffin as an alternate ending for last season, however, it shot was just made to prevent spoiler leaks. --CharlieReborn 20:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I also thought a Dharma corpse was found with the name LaFluer on it. It was not in the pit where Ben shot John and left him though.--Southernfried 05:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll - Statue = 4-toed?

Statue terrain comparison

Since people continue un-linking the statue to 4 toed one, let's have a poll. Should the "giant statue" in the episode be linked to the 4-toed statue? I personally think yes. - TheAma1 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • No: Because of difference in color (Sandy vs Grey), location (Orchid is NE of camp, 4-toed is NW), terrain (4-toed is near large mountains, new one is on flat terrain), and culture (whatever ancient civilization(s) lived on the Island had get respect for it and would likely build more than one monument). --Hugo815 17:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait and see (change to) Yes. I think it's fairly certain they are the same. I disagree with the terrain because they are looking at the arse, not the heels, so they are higher up. However, the colouring is a good point, and I'd advocate holding off adding the link for a while to see if it's cleared up. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Changing mine to yes, per comment below. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not just make one of the unanswered questions something along the lines of "Is the statue the same as the four toed foot"? We don't know either way, but we can certainly mention the possibility since it is so obvious. --Minderbinder 19:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, without a doubt I'm getting a little tired of how fans can't take a hint. There are some things on Lost that are meant to hint at mysteries that were raised before on the show, in the clearest of ways. The question that should be asked is did the writers intend to reference the well-established mystery of the four-toed statue? I don't think anyone would argue that the answer is yes. Therefore, any other explanation, although very interesting, should be considered a theory and should not affect the article. --CharlieReborn 19:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course, the difference in color result just from the fact that the full statue was CGI'd and they did a pretty bad job. The terrain looks different because they're at the Orchid and needed to show the statue somehow, so they came up with a not-so-smooth transition from the Orchid jungle to the open ocean (as shown in the background). --MacCutcheon Talk? 20:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait and see. This is an item that can drive us to distraction. Start a page on the Giant statue. Who knows, there could be more than one. If the statue is demonstrated to be related to the foot at a later date, suggest a merge; that should be a short discussion.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, as per CharlieReborn --LeoChris 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes since when did it become too obvious? --    Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email   22:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, Ancient statues like the one we see in this episode are almost always painted. The paint wears off over time to reveal a different color.--Japhy Ryder 04:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: DoH! Thank you. That totally clicked for me now, mate. I now remember seeing some articles about this with Ancient Greek statues, and how they were said to be more colourful than a Disney cartoon originally (see some pictures). Great catch! There goes my last remaining bit of disbelief. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

*Yes I think that they should be on the same page for the same reason that nobody has separated the pages about the Dharma Initiative Temple, and the Temple wall. Until there’s definitive evidence that they aren’t the same, I seen no reason to separate the articles. That said, even better would be to make an article about “Giant statues”, and to put both of them on that page, rather than to imply that they are they same by keeping them on the current page. Zholmboe 01:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


Tutankhamun in Egyptian sandals

  • No I have been spending so much time looking at the giant statue for clues that I haven't spent any time looking back at the 4 toed foot for clues. Now that I've done so, I realized that the sandal on the foot could be a pretty big clue. The vast majority of Egyptians didn't wear sandals at all, and I haven't been able to find a single image of a deity represented in sandals. I have looked through hundreds of different styles of sandals from ancient Egypt, and not a single one seems to remotely match the sandal on the 4 toed statue. As best I can tell, the four toed statue is wearing a simplified Roman sandal. [1] I hate to say it, but I think this means that there may be some valid arguement behind the giant statue and the 4 toed statue being different. If not, that is a pretty big oversight by the producers. Egyptians made their sandals from either woven plant material or leather, however leather was considered unclean. It seems almost unthinkable to find a statue of an Egyptian god wearing leather strap sandals (since the woven plant material clearly doesn't look like the flat straps on the 4 toed statue).
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes but yea or nay it doesn't solve any big mysteries--Macsrods 04:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes: Of course it's the 4-toed statue!! come on.. what do you want them to do? show the statue AND show a pop-up text box saying 'This is the same statue that Sayid, Sun and Jin saw in the season 2 finale'... and i wondered why they showed those enhanced episodes =) this is why Darlton are sometimes angry about the question "Are you going to answer all of the mysteries in the show?" Lost is a show that wants the viewer to get in the mysteries, to try to connect the dots.. not everything will be spelled out for the audience--   Steff    talk    contribs    email   16:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The anti-disagreement hostility in this thread is unnecessary. There's enough reason from the image evidence to believe they're separate statues. The terrain doesn't match. Viewed from behind, the ground is level or gently slopes upward toward the plinth of the giant statue, whereas the four-toed statue sits at the shore surrounded by mountains. The ground leading up to it from behind would have to slope downward. Also, what we see of the dark blue horizon behind the giant statue, where it peeks through the trees, appears to be irregular, rather than flat as would be the case if it were the water. It's even more evident in the full picture. Draw a flat line across the image from the highest peak of dark blue, and on the left and right side of the images, you'll get light blue below your horizon, meaning that quite possibly this giant statue is inland, nowhere near the coast, and the dark blue behind it is mountains rather than water. The "difference in statue color" argument isn't particularly persuasive to me since stone color can appear to be different depending on the light and whatever work the colorist has done to the image in post-production; however, the idea that the statue would have been painted in monotone beige is totally bunk. Ancient statues were painted to add color. If the statue had been painted we would be seeing at least some vivid rusty reds and some cobalt blues. Robert K S (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a nice try, but you are comparing the topography of an ancient civilization with the topography of 2004! Your projections are based on too little information, considering you don't have the angle of the rear view shot, and how high they were. Were they standing in the valley behind the foot? If there is truly some 900 or so years (based on random comment about it being 1114 on the commentary, which I think might have been a joke), then the terrain would differ from inhabitance, erosion, etc. The water and mountains wouldn't change much, but the landscape could change dramatically from human occupation over that length of time. The entire jungle might have once gone to the beach in that area, but later might have been cut back by humans for building materials, etc. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The four-toed statue is at sea level on the shore. It resides at a local minimum: all the other land around it is above it. That means that no matter where you view the statue from, you have to look down to see it. The vantage toward the giant statue is level if not slightly uphill. "Erosion"? Something's going to erode a mountain but not a block of stone? Robert K S (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The consensus says merge.. I'm surprised it hasn't already been done. Integrated (User / Talk) 11:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Check a dictionary for the meaning of "consensus". It doesn't mean "majority". :-) I actually don't oppose a merge. What I oppose is a merge on the basis that the two statues are the same, which evidence is against. As for the below remark by Samus88, I went to the trouble of creating the above image, and rather than refuting the evidence, it's just more lame ad hominem. Boo hiss. :-( Robert K S (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess those who think it's no the same statue, are the ones who thought the man in the hatch wasn't the same man Jack met at the stadium... It is the same Statue. No doubt.--Samus88 18:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • While the fancy diagram is cool, the people who run the show aren't as meticulous about where things are on the island, let alone the exact slope of the terrain! So it's not in the category of evidence we can use, in the same way that the position of the sun is not a reliable arbiter of things since they are not taking the relative position of filming sites on Oahu compared to the fictional island into account either. I think it's clear it's meant to at least be a related statue, if not the same one. They should be in the same article, but should not be identified as being 100% the same exact statue. It's a reasonable possibility that there used to be multiple large statues around the perimeter of the island. --Jackdavinci 20:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. From a narrative standpoint, it isn't remotely plausible that this wouldn't be the giant statue we were waiting for.--Cracking 20:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I read somewhere else that in the recap version they had a definitive answer on this statue-whether it's the same as the one previously seen. Since I didn't see that, would someone mind telling us?JEMJEM 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes it did. It said, "In the Season 2 finale 'Live Together, Die Alone' Sayid, Jin and Sun saw a giant 4-toed foot the only remnants of this giant statue." See Enhanced#LaFleur-Enhanced for a picture and a link to the transcript. <hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 2009-03-13T15:46:23

Security Center

Didn't they mention something about the screens watching the polar bears? So wouldn't it be the same as the ones from I Do (etc)? And need this link? I wanted to make sure before I (or someone) changes the link with this one: --Alilamba 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember they ran from Security to where Horace was drunk? I doubt they were on Hydra. It has to be a different, but similar, place behind the sonic fence in New Otherton. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Plus, I think they were joking about the bears. --Hugo815 18:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
True dat. Nevermind :) --Alilamba 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think they might have been joking about them getting out (which they did, which makes it even funnier, and foreshadowing), but I don't think it was a joke they could see them. I think that station was probably part of DharmaTel. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte's Body

As the body did not time travel with Daniel, was this left with the fully built Four-Toed Statue (Presumably Ancient Egyptian times?). It's a bit ironic as well since she was into anthropology and archaeology, her body was left in a culture which would have been of interest to her. Which also raises the question - how would have the Ancient Egyptians reacted to a dead, futuristic body lying on the ground? Phobia27 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • To add to this comment, if any dead body remains while living people time-travels... shouldn't the 815 survivors have found Frogurt and the others' bodies when they first settled in the camp? --Comfortably.Floyd 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Frogurt was killed during the 50s. The Others probably buried their bodies, the same way that they buried the bodies of the 6 US soldiers that Miles detected. elliottthomas|talk|contributions 04:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

  1. Is the giant statue the same as the four toed foot? Feels like theory baiting, but I'll leave it until there's further discussion.
  2. What is the significance of Paul's ankh necklace? Doesn't seem like a major mystery.
  3. Why were Amy and her son able to survive the delivery? Obviously, like Sawyer says, whatever causes that to happen hasn't happened yet.
  4. Why are women unable to carry a child to term later in the Island's history? Question already raised by earlier episodes.
  5. How did [Richard] bypass the sonic fence? Redundant with another question, and assumes that he actually did bypass it.
    • Didn't he just need earplugs? He says somethings the fence will stop (probably the monster), not him. But I th ink anyone with earplugs . JEMJEM 21:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. Where is Daniel Faraday in 1977? Question is equivalent to asking "what will happen next?"
  2. What happened to convince Horace to let Sawyer, Juliet, Miles, Daniel, and Jin stay on the island? Sawyer helped them solve the problem with Richard.
  3. Why did Jack, Kate, and Hurley return to 1977? I don't even know what this is trying to ask.
  4. Why did Locke have to do anything other than set the wheel back on its axis? Likewise... what?
  5. Why do all uniforms of the Dharma Initiative have the first name written on the uniform, while Sawyer, posing as "James LaFleur" has "LaFleur" instead of "James"? Not a major mystery.
    • Is the red haired girl really a young Charlotte or not, and if so, what is the explanation for her previously given birth date of 1979? Seems like theory baiting.

 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree, mostly. Thoughts:
    • Replace number 2 with "How does Paul's ankh relate to the mystique of the statue?"?
    • The "LaFleur" on the uniform thing is kind of nagging at me. Why is it different?
    • There has to be some question about the red-haired girl that doesn't begin with "is" or "was," but I don't know what it is. I noticed that Daniel did not speak to her and warn her not to come back, yet.
--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Who is the young red-haired girl that Daniel sees?" Better? We do have to UQ it in some manner. "Why were Amy and her son able to survive the delivery?" I think is still a valid quesiton, because (a) Sawyer is correct, then what changed later, or (b) Sawyer is incorrect, and it's either a fluke, or the baby was conceived off-Island. With three options, questioning which one in this simplistic manner follows the UQ guidelines. "assumes that he actually did bypass it" - this doesn't have to be assumed, unless you mean bypass to mean electronically bypass? I think bypass could also mean walking through it without harm, so that's a valid question, as it was raised in the show, but unanswered. I agree with you about the other questions. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe "LaFleur" because they already had a Jim in security? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Or the head of security? Did the top guys have first or last names on their uniforms? And of course, it's the title of the episode:>)-JEMJEM 21:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No, Horace had Horace, IIRC. I think that was the reason behind this question, that Sawyer's was unique. IMO calling the episode "Jim", and showing Jim on the jumpsuit wouldn't have been as interesting. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The red haired child was Charlotte. Daniel says her name quietly as she runs along, and Charlotte says she remembers him telling her to leave the island and never come back when she was little. I think that ones pretty obvious. "How did Jin get more fluent in English?" Well we saw how much his English improved in just 100 days, so in 3 years you'd expect it would be alot better. seemoe 03:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Daniel says her name was Charlotte, but that doesn't mean he was right. He desparately wants to find a little girl named Charlotte so he can warn her. Daniel wants to do want he says we can't do, change the way he's already done something.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 04:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Why did Sawyer make up a cover story to tell to Horace? I'm guessing "we're time travellers from the future who crashed in a plane and have been trying to escape the Island for 100 days but then this dude who used to be with the other dudes you're fighting with sent a freighter full of mercenaries to kill us all, oh yeah and in the future you're all dead" probably wouldn't have gone over so well.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, and already removed it, as well as the Jin fluent in English and one other that was invalid because we were already shown Daniel in a Dharma jumpsuit. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Not disagreeing with what was said above, but...the fact that Sawyer is making up cover stories, among others, gives us an idea about why sometimes the stories Others told the 815 survivors were 'lies'...there are things that either would be too much to tell, or, aren't being told due to whatever is known about the needs of the future...It wouldn't even surprise me if we saw Sawyer or others covering someones head and dragging them off, in order to avoid being seen...or to avoid some other time travel/conflict related problem. Which is a bit looks to me now like a lot of the strange appearances and disappearances that occurred in earlier seasons could be because either a. flashes of the Others during the time flashes, or b. trying to manipulate the balance of something to avoid further future problems....My biggest unanswered question right now, is, what and where were the Others flashing to during the flashes. Supposedly they were in the 'temple' the safest place (if I have kept track of it)...maybe there's another reason for them being there besides the purported safety problem of the supposed gas being released. That may not have been the reason. There may be another, as yet unexplained, reason. Esp. since Richard at least is aware of the flashes from having encountered Locke (and also Sawyer)in the 'past' ...and probably others are also, or have been told. JEMJEM 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Daniel and young Charlotte

"Daniel Faraday sees a young red-haired girl at the Dharma Initiative camp in 1974 whom he believes is Charlotte Staples Lewis. However, Ben, when reciting her biography ("Confirmed Dead") stated she was born July 2, 1979, approximately 5 years too late to be Charlotte if Ben's information from Michael was correct (a birth date of 1969 would be closer if this girl is indeed a young Charlotte). It remains possible, however, that the girl was not Charlotte, and Daniel was mistaken due to his grief." I've reverted back to this simple phrasing, removing in-article discussion that belongs elsewhere, and that only served to repeat, rephrase, or attempt to explain why Michael's information might be incorrect. I don't think we need several paragraphs on this topic. It should be sufficient to say that either Michael's information is correct or it isn't (for whatever reason), or Daniel was mistaken in his grief, identifying a pretty little red-haired girl as Charlotte. We don't need, I feel, to get into the reasons why the information might be incorrect, changed, or misreported. That would be better served on Charlotte's theory page. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That is a good, concise description. The article just needs to present the basic discrepancy and any other permutations to explain it away belong on the theory page. -- Graft   talk   contributions  03:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is Lost Untangled, while disputed canon, says it's young Charlotte. I really think this was a production mistake, one I hope they find a way to clean up. But that's just my opinion. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually Lost Untangled does not say it Charlotte; it says Daniel recognizes the little girl as Charlotte. Daniel is a mental basket case at this point; he desperately wants the little girls to be Charlotte.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Being the transcriptor for Lost Untangled, I would have to point out here that the exact wording is "'cause Faraday just realized that Charlotte is there! And she's a little girl." which neither confirms nor denies the girl being Charlotte. Not to mention, Lost Untangled has not been confirmed to be canon information and they tend to word things a little strangely sometimes. meggie ~ Talk & contribs 20:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Excellent point, thank you. The piece for "LaFleur" has Amy saying the the fence is off and volunteering to go through first; Sawyer or one of his party ordered her to go through as a test (not that it did them any good). Pieces like these sacrifice accuracy for cuteness.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
No probs... its not to say that Lost Untangled isn't canon information, its just that they simplify things and gloss over certain aspects in order to make a comical summary of the episodes. meggie ~ Talk & contribs 22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That's why I marked that article for disputed canon, because it covers canonical things, but not exact to canon. I only mentioned it because it might prompt us to find something we all missed. Or not. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Could be misreported by Ben, or Michael, or the records were wrong on her. Maybe her mother changed the records of her birth date to try and cover up her time on the island? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Integrated (talkcontribs) .
we do know that Daniel talked to Charlotte as a small girl, so if he mistook her in this episode, it was not because he didn't know what she looked like, but that he was distraught.JEMJEM 19:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Wait, maybe not...I'm losing track of what he would remember when. He only knew what Charlotte adult told him until he went back. So, right , he hasn't seen her yet.Dang.JEMJEM 21:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
How exactly is it possible for a mother to change the birth records of her daughter sho she would appear more than five years younger than she actually is? Wouldn't, like, someone notice when a girl who is allegedly ten years old looks more like 15?--Nevermore 23:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a separate page for this girl? Should we? ESachs 10:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please go to Little red head girl; I'm sure there's improvement needed.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The red headed little girl could EASILY be one of Charlotte's two sisters. It would be easy to imagine they also had red hair. We should also point out that whatever this girl turns out to be named on the island, her name may change after she leaves and perhaps assumes a new identity. Tymes 18:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

How could she "easily" be one of Charlotte's two younger sisters? Wouldn't that make things even more complicated?--Nevermore 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

UQ round 2

Personally "What is the significance of the giant statue?" is moot - who ever SAID it was significant? The real question is who built it, and that really belongs to be on the statue's page (which it is). "What year is the statue in?" is valid, but "Is the giant statue the same as the four-toed foot?" - I think we should assume it IS the same until shown otherwise (as per the poll above) Secondly "Why do the Others want Paul's corpse?" - I took this as they wanted it as proof that the Others killed one of DHARMA as well .. like an eye for an eye, but if Sawyer said "they killed one of us first!" then Richard wouldn't have believed him so they had to produce a body to prove it. My opinion. Integrated (User / Talk) 08:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Produce it, yes, but carry it away? I just assumed that Richard wanted to take the body back to his people to show justice had been served, i.e, one of "them" was dead also (although is two to one justice? is it justice if they shot first? IDK, seems weird for Richard). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea true I guess it is unanswered, it does seem a bit of a weird truce to have. Integrated (User / Talk) 11:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
There's been some definite weirdness surrounding some deaths on (ex: Christian) and off (ex: Ben's mother) the Island. Spiral77 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Why do the Others want Paul's corpse?" -- I thought it was quite obvious that Richard needed something in exchange so he wouldn't return to his people with empty hands? --MacCutcheon Talk? 23:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that the Others want to know there was a quid pro quo, but why don't the Others trust Richard enough for him to tell them that? Is his leadership that fragile? Is there another reason they need a body? I'm not goin' there right now.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • and having a body vs justice are two different that would still leave two dead on the hostile side and one on the Dharma side...I figure they are collecting bodies to stash on the fake plane in the ocean:>) no , who is wierd.JEMJEM 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
      • It is strange. However, IS Richard the leader? To me, he always seemed to be the right arm, more of a spiritual advisor position for example, than the leader. Perhaps he had to take it back to whomever was leader at that time? But again, why wouldn't they trust his word? Regardless, I think that UQ might be valid because it's still weird enough to question. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Good point. Richard is the chief of staff(?) and the real leader (Widmore at the time?) doesn't want his identity known? Lotta question marks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Drunken blooper

"After his drinking binge, Horace remains passed out for somewhere between 14 to 20 hours, however it is unlikely that it would have taken him that long to wake up again." I don't understand the timing in this supposed blooper. How do we know it was 14 to 20 hours? How do we know how much he consumed to determine whether the timeframe before he woke up is accurate? A 750 mil bottle contains approximately 25 1oz shots, and the average man takes about 1 hour per shot to get the alcohol out of his system. Binge drinking, as we saw Horace do, is more than 4 or 5 shots in a row that results in passing out (depending on tolerance and body weight), would take quite a while to recover from, and even longer if he nearly finished a full bottle. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Becoming sober, and waking up from being passed out is two different things. He would remain drunk for quite some time, he just wouldn't be in a coma for almost 24 hours. The writers just stretched out the period he was asleep for the things they wanted to happen during that time. It went from night, through the next day, to the following evening for him to wake up. 14-20 hours seems like a pretty good guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaywallin (talkcontribs) .
Perhaps on the timeframe, but I dispute that this is a blooper. We are not shown whether Horace was unconscious the entire time, or whether he woke up periodically in his alcoholic stupor and just went back to sleep because no one was there to make him get up. There appear to be far too many assumptions made about a non-drinker whose level of alcohol consumption isn't indicated, but merely suggested. I'm removing this. It can be replaced if there is objection. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, when I have passed out in the past from binging it has been literally impossible to wake me for around 12 hours, and they did say Horace wasn't a drinker. I wonder why they didn't pump his stomach? Integrated (User / Talk) 10:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Funny. I was thinking something similar about him possibly needing medical attention, as he would run a higher risk of alcohol poisoning being a non-drinker consuming enough to have him out that long. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Do what you feel. Personally, this was my first attempt at pointing out a continuity error, and to me it was pretty blaring, but I didn't expect to run up against so much "political debate" about something that jumped out at me as being unrealistic for the sake of driving the plot. We were to assume that he had been asleep all day because it was essential for the plot to play out. Issues with the passage of time, jump out at me more strongly than things like an item being in a different spot from one shot to another. It just felt like stretching out time for all the days events to play out, when realistically he should have woken up much earlier than that.--Jaywallin 11:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)jaywallin

It's not personal. That's just the nature of the wiki. Better to discuss it here than to have an edit war on the article. I just don't see it the same way, and I've seen a lot of binge drinkers down for the count for a long time. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I got the sense it was more like 14-16 hours (between around 4 AM and after dinner), but didn't think it was unrealistic. Robert K S (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This is why I questioned the length of time, which was an abitrary guess in my mind, rather than something shown in canon. Why not 13, or 21? My only point was we should say better part of the day (it was after 3AM, as Sawyer ran right out and got Miles, after he was woken up, and we could presume an early meal if Sawyer was headed to work, but it was definitely twilight or just dark based on the lighting behind Sawyer in Horace's house), if it goes back on, rather than exact time span like that. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
On second viewing of the episode I think the reason they didn't get Horace medical attention is because they wanted to keep it secret that he'd gone crazy and drunk - Sawyer says to Miles they can't tell anyone. ANOTHER MYSTERY SOLVED? Integrated (User / Talk) 03:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Smart, and good on ya. But stupid of them, considering the circumstances of weighing his health vs. his reputation. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
True. You get the feeling reputation kinda means a lot to these people. Sawyer thought the knowledge of Horace's drunken silliness would do more damage to him than the actual drinking spree itself. Also the two security guys were terrified of Lafleur, probably based on a ruthless reputation. Integrated (User / Talk) 09:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Tire Blooper

Where the blooper is talking about seeing the tire marks already, inidicating a re-take, surely there will already be tire marks if the road is used regulary?Wild ste 12:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

UQs, Round 3

  • More UQs that I removed (and I reworded others because they were too chatty or unclear, I felt):
  1. Why did the Others attack Amy and Paul, despite the truce?
Covered in the episode; they were somewhere they were not supposed to be under the conditions of the Truce. This is why Amy was apologising, rather than responding like she didn't know why they were taking her and shot her husband.
  1. Why did Locke have to do anything other than set the wheel back on its axis?
Covered in the question that preceeded it about why did the O6 have to go back, since that was Locke's sole mission.
  • This is a fun game. "Who is Amy's baby?" - major assumption that Amy's baby is ANYONE other than Amy's baby. Assuming Amy's baby is anyone is a theory. "Was the completed statue in the past or the future?" - very bizarre question, pending major plot twist (where the well is destroyed completely and the statue rebuilt) let's assume past. "Why does Sawyer's jumpsuit uniquely have his last name only?" An interesting point but it is really not a question that needs answering, and I really really doubt the show is going to answer it. Integrated (User / Talk) 14:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Arrow Orientation film not yet made

I think this is worth mentioning, as we know that Pierre Chang had not yet filmed the arrow orientation film at this stage, as this was in the middle of being made when he got interrupted with the probem in the orchid station. This event happened after the survivors met horace, who was wearing an arrow jumpsuit. This must mean only 3 things.

  1. There was no orientation films previous to this.
  2. He filmed an updated film for this station.
  3. Or, Pierre Chang had replaced someone's position who was in charge at that time.--Nzoomed 09:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd guess there was no orientation film made yet. The stations had to be made first, and the decision to bring people in to test in those stations had to be made before the people were brought there to be tested upon. So it's likely that we are seeing events just before the test subjects are installed in the stations. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Very good spot, that hadn't occurred to me. They've been on the Island long enough to build a station specifically for dealing with the Others, but not long enough to film it's orientation? Integrated (User / Talk) 02:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Its possible that the producers overlooked this bit possibly. Horace was already stationed in the arrow, so that rules out that no one was stationed there. However The Orchid had not been built. Do we have an accurate date when DHARMA actually set up on the island? That would be quite useful. --Nzoomed 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Another option is that they had built the station and were preparing for the first group of staffers, other than Horace, for whom the staffers would be working. The Arrow may have been an afterthought; the Others were, in DHARMA's estimation, going to welcome the DI with open arms. Now the Truce has collapsed. Oops.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Irony in Literary Techniques

Can we agree, given the definition of irony as "A technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated," that these literary techniques are not irony?

  • Sawyer, Juliet, Jin, Miles, and Daniel have been living a lie for three years, just as the Oceanic 6 have off of the island. (Irony) (Juxtaposition)
  • In "The Long Con," Sawyer referred to himself as the "New Sheriff in Town". (Irony) (Foreshadowing)
  • The Oceanic Six go back to the Island after three years in the outside world. Sawyer and his group meet them after living for three years with the DHARMA people. Considering that time flows differently in the Island and that those two stories ran parallel in different years (even decades), the time period could have been different in any of the two -- but they were the same. Horace tells Sawyer he's not DHARMA material. Three years later Sawyer is head of Security. (Irony)(Juxtaposition)
  • Amy removes a necklace with an ankh, a hieroglyph meaning life, from her dead husband. (Symbolism) (Irony)
  • Juliet delivered Horace's son, the person that brought Ben Linus to the Island whom was the one that brought Juliet to the Island to deliver babies. (Irony)

Zholmboe 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Juxtaposition and Irony are often confused on LP, or both are used when only Jux is appropriate. 1 is not ironic; it's juxtapostion only. 2 is cosmic irony, because he called himself the sheriff without knowing he would be head of security, or the "sheriff". 3a is too wordy, and it's Jux, not irony. 3b is a different entry, and it's just someone changed their mind, so I vote delete. 4 is Symobolic, not Ironic (removing symbol of life from a dead person). 5 is, well I don't know what 5 is, but it's not irony. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Number five : poorly worded. Integrated (User / Talk) 03:16, 8 March2009 (UTC)

Security Page

I don't really want to start a new page but does anyone else feel we should make a page for the security? They have a logo, what looks like a station (where all of the video screens are) and are even called 'Security' (as evidenced by Sawyer's nametag. I thnk they deserve a page a lot more than a lot of other things on this wiki and I'm wondering if there is any specific reason why no one has made a page. elliottthomas|talk|contributions 04:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree User

That, and the Motor pool that Juliet works for, with the wrench logo. ETA: I guess it already redirects to a section in the DHARMA Initiative article. Maybe the Security section merits only similar. Robert K S (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Removed notice by Jimbo the Tubby"

There was an edit titled "Removed notice by Jimbo the Tubby. Please use talk page for these things and try to speak more kindly." I just want to clear my name now and say that the notice removed was not posted by me and for people to please check the edit history in the future to prevent falsely accusing people of rudeness.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I greatly apologize. My e-mail notification of the page's change identified you as the editor who posted that change. This must have been a computer/e-mail error. I am sorry for any offense that might have been caused. Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Again, I apologize. meggie ~ Talk & contribs 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking back on the history, I see the issue. My e-mail notified me of changes, so when I clicked the link that said "See all changes to this page since your last visit", Lostpedia listed your username as being the most recent person to change the page, as at the time you were. It appears to have been Faraday100 who posted the offending message. Perhaps we could contact an admin or SysOp some way to get that taken care of? I am terribly sorry for the inconvenience. meggie ~ Talk & contribs 22:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeframe for Ancient Flash Scene?


Darlton commentary on Season 4 finale talking about a contest for who has bluer eyes, Lapidus or Charlotte

While rewatching the season 4 finale with the optional commentary playing, I noted that Damon and Carlton were talking about whose eyes were the most blue: Charlotte's or Frank's. One commented that it would be hard to compare them because Frank was off the island and Charlotte was in the year 1114. ("Eleven-Fourteen" was how he phrased it.) JiYeonKwan 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The color of their eyes was what prompted the comparison and then the fact that they weren't together. The comment didn't relate to the episode itself. Earlier in the commentary, they mentioned that they had just completed meetings with the other writers to figure out what was going to happen in the next season. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JiYeonKwan (talkcontribs) 2009-03-09T22:31:43.
That sounds very interesting, though I'm not sure what they are trying to say in context. How does the year she is on the island relate to her eye color? Could you use subtitles or captions and transcribe the quote, along with perhaps the context immediately before and after that quote? Also, are they referring to specific images, or a specific scene? It would be very cool to have a specific year we could identify in the ancient past.
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 16:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they were joking (they were talking about a contest, winner to be decided by the socks, regarding whose eyes were bluer, Lapidus or Charlotte; they stated they couldn't because Lapidus was off the Island, "screenie caption"). You can never be too sure, though, because they sometimes hide nuggets of gold in their BS. Here's the screenie, anyway. Make what you will of it. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

LaFleur mentioned in Dharma booth video??

  • User:Docarzt made an edit in the trivia section claiming that Dr.Chang says "LaFleur, what are you doing?" in the video from Comic Con 2008... i am not sure if he says "LaFleur" or "no--what?" the inaudible speech is at the end of the video (at 3:33-3:35) --   Steff    talk    contribs    email   17:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the trivia section be corrected? Is this information true? Let's have a vote:

  • Neutral: i will wait for an improved audio, because as the audio is, i cannot say if it's "LaFleur" or not. --   Steff    talk    contribs    email   17:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't hear a "LaFleur" on the video, at all.--Samus88 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I did, and have updated the video page.Link title
  • Yeah I don't hear it either. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  23:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • He clearly says "No, [something], what are you doing?" If it's not "LaFleur," what is it?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • He says "No, no wha- what are you doing?" It does not sound like "LaFleur" at all to me. --Cornprone 00:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, I now realize I was listening to the wrong line of dialog. First he says "No, no wha- what are you doing?" then he says "No [unintelligible sound] what are you doing?" Well, I honestly don't know what that word was, but I'm not as strongly opposed to the idea that he says "LaFleur" as I had been. --Cornprone 13:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly the above. Someone should take the "LaFleur" part out of the article. It may confuse people, it's not confirmed by any official source that he says LaFleur. Besides, I don't think the writers had written the whole plot of Sawyer using that name by the time they wrote this video. It seems unlikely that we had the alias of Sawyer back in mid '08 when we first heard it in March 2009.--Samus88 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Didn't Francois Chau confirm that he said "Lara"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JiYeonKwan (talkcontribs) 2009-03-09T22:33:33.
  • Chau confirmed that he said "Lara" when addressing the unseen woman with the baby.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This should be moved to the video page, as there is also a short conversation there, and it's more appropriate than on this episode talk page. Can't tell yet, but I'm leaning toward it being LaFleur. It sounds like he says "La-" the first time, then the full name the second time. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It really does not sound like Lafleur Integrated (User / Talk) 14:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I definitley heard "LaFleur"--Mistertrouble189 02:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I work at a television station, and using an editing program I isolated the sound in the video. Chang definately says "LaFleur, what are you doing?" -- Crazy Bearded Jack 03:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Upload it to youtube and link? Integrated (User / Talk) 04:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statue Unanswered Questions

Can we please keep the statue questions to the four toed statue page? They weren't POSED by this episode, the only question posed by this episode is what year is the statue in. I removed:

  • What is the significance of the giant statue? This is too open ended. The question has no meaning. Where did anyone say the statue has significance?
  • What happened to the statue so that only one foot remains in the future? To be posed on the Four toed statue page. This question has been being asked since SEASON 2, for the PAST 3 YEARS - it is in NO WAY a question posed by this episode.
  • Who is the baby boy born to Horace and Amy? The baby boy is the baby boy, it is not anyone else, has not hinted to be anyone else, and until it is shown to be anyone else this is not a question that has been posed by the episode.

Integrated (User / Talk) 06:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • "What happened to the giant statue?" is posed by this episode, since the giant statue was only visible in the distant past. Adding " that only one foot remains?" adds the unproven theoretical connection that disqualifies the question. Robert K S (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Now that we know they are connected, this question is no longer theoretical speculation. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it really important to know when the statue was actually built? I suggest removing that question. But the other question about when they SEE the statue is a valid one, I think.--Messenger 13:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is the baby boy born to Horace and Amy? Now that it is revealed that the baby is Ethan, that sure looks like it was a valid question to be asking. This is a show where all the characters are all interconnected, the producers *expect* us to ask who new characters are. --Minderbinder 18:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Snellen chart blooper?

The Snellen chart was invented by Herman Snellen in 1862, not Alex Eulenberg in 1970. Sure the one portrayed is not a "standard" one due to its unusual font, spacing, letter sizing and letters used. But I don't see why it should be a blooper? Not everyone uses standard ones. I move to remove this "blooper"? It's just totally wrong. --Chesebrgr 11:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I thought this was out of place too. DHARMA create their own food - why can't they create their own eyecharts? Integrated (User / Talk) 12:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I had a hard time understanding this blooper as well, but I think it's valid. You see, the chart used in the show can be downloaded here as "Alex Eulenberg's 1-page Snellen Chart." And since Eulenberg was born in 1970, it's impossible for his eye chart to exist in 1977 (unless he invented it before he was 7 years old). The blooper certainly could be worded more clearly, though. --Cornprone 13:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This chart used by optometrists must have been invented way before 1970. It was certainly used in the 1980's, so it must be as Chesebrgr suggested.--Messenger 13:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • LOL. As Chesebrgr points out, the Snellen eye chart was developed in 1862, by Herman Snellen who was born in 1834. Alex Eulenberg birth year has absolutely no bearing because he is simply someone who runs the website that features downloadable versions of eye charts! There is not one variation of the Snellen chart, but many, else the viewer could commit it to memory. The one in the show is simply one of those versions, so the blooper is invalid. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • THE Snellen chart was invented by Herman Snellen. This version of the Snellen chart was made by Alex Eulenberg, and is used on a website advocating pseudoscientific vision-correction techniques. Maybe there is a better way to clarify that Eulenberg didn't invent the first Snellen chart. That said, they may seem like small differences, but those differences are enough to make the chart not work. It would be like going into your doctors office, and instead of getting an x-ray, standing in front of a microwave, since, heck, "they're both radiation." As you can imagine, the medical profession has to be exacting; the letter standards are there so that the chart works not just to standardize for standardization's sake. There are most certainly variations of Snellen charts out there, but those that doctors use all have medically proven backgrounds. Pretend you're an optometrist, and try to find a new Snellen chart to buy for your office, and you'll see that you pay for what you get. Optometrists don't just type there own, or print them off the internet, and it has nothing to do with simply wanting to spend more of their own money; they require a chart that meets medical standards. This chart simply wouldn't work at a medically acceptable level. You wouldn't want your doctor using anything like this on you. It's not that the DHARMA doctors couldn't have had a slightly different version of a Snellen chart, it's that they would never use this one. So is it a blooper (beyond the fact that is wasn't invented until long after 1977)? Absolutely: a real optometrist wouldn't be caught dead with a chart like that in his/her office.
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 13:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Then the blooper needs to be concisely rewritten to reflect that the proportions are wrong, not that it is wrong because the person was born in 1970. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I was taking eye exams longe before Mr. Eulenberg was born. Has anyone noticed that this argument has migrated from whether or not the chart existed in 1977 to questions about its format? I'm sorry, but to compare variations in fonts and document dimensions to the difference between X-rays and microwave radiation is just too much of a stretch. Does anyone who has been criticizing the chart have any medical experience? I don't, btw.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You can see that the chart on the wall in the scene is the Eulenberg version is by looking at the bottom line. It's off-center. Edwallols 14:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with this revised version except some minor nitpics. I just objected to it being a blooper because the website owner was born in 1970. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not a blooper because the chart isn't medically standard; as has been pointed out, there's no reason DHARMA couldn't be using an out-there, nonstandard eye chart. It's a blooper because this chart was created by (not just hosted by) this Eulenberg guy, and that's anachronistic. --Cornprone 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not a blooper at all, it's trivia IMO because since time travel is involved in the story now so someone might have put it there from the future. It's such a far fetch and unlikely, but covering all the bases....Four4elements 02:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. Not everything is related to time travel. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Got your zapper?

When Miles gets into the Dharma van, Saywer asks him if he's got his "zapper". Miles asks if Sawyer thinks he'll need it. Could this be referring to some sort of Tazer, or to a Ghost Agitator Machine, like we saw Miles use in his flashback? The implication is that since they're going near the sonic fence, they might have to take the fence down, and be open to attack by the Monster. Perhaps a Ghost Agitator is a rudimentary defense against the Monster. --Pictish 13:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Pictish

A very interesting theory...I just thought that he meant a taser, but that could be it as well. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  14:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought he meant stun darts. We still don't know where the Others got them from. Robert K S (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I assumed Sawyer meant taser to use against the Horace, if needed, because last Sawyer heard Horace was pissed and blowing up trees. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Mic blooper

Why was this deleted: "At the end of the episode, when Sawyer steps out of his Jeep to wait for Jin's van to arrive and seconds later in a close-up one is able to see a small black microphone in the lapel of Sawyer's Dharma jumpsuit."? This IS clearly a blooper. I suppose Sawyer had no access to lavalier microphones back in '74. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One08 (talkcontribs) .
Sawyers lavalier
  • There was a discussion leading to the conclusion that it was not a microphone. Because Sawyer had no lines in the scene shown, that may be true. It may also be true that there is additional scene that was shot at the same time. Sawyer and Kate have to say something to each other.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Where did that discussion happen? Can I have a say in my own topic? "Leading to the conclusion" - do you have any evidence to support your conclusion? That he didn't say anthing doesn't mean anything. The scene was cut obviously. So you decided that Sawyer just has a meaningless little black piece of plastic attached to his jumpsuit because the scene is cut to not show him talk. And when he speaks in ep.09 you decide it's a microphone. I wonder what you decided in your discussion this piece of plastic was. A Dharma jumpsuit clip? What possibly can that be in 1974? There is no other scene in which we see something like this on Dharma jumpsuits, so it can't be a regular item. What did you decide it actually is? One08 18:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Please remain civil, One08. No need to get worked up about it. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  21:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't know me, what makes you think I've been worked up? I wasn't, I would curse if I was. Don't lecture me, please. One08 15:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The scene wasn't necessarily cut. It could have been filmed at the same time but will open the next episode. I can't say mic for sure, but it definitely looks like one. The only thing I'm wondering is why they'd use a lavalier mic instead of a boom. Has there been any instance in the show's history that they've used lavaliers? And where are the other actors' mics? They could be hidden better than his, but Kate's would have to be under her ponytail. --Cobblepot 22:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • They would have used lavs for virtually every scene. It's standard. One was visible on Alex in "Meet Kevin Johnson"; see here. I'm not convinced this is a lav; it could also be a costume issue; it actually appears to me to look more like a zipper end. It's uncommon for a lav to be pinned to that location of a piece clothing for a shot. Kate's lav is most likely taped to her chest with medical tape beneath her shirt (if she has one). Robert K S (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Turns out there was no discussion, btw. Another editor disagreed and deleted the blooper, citing his reason in the Summary box.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If any of you read Jorge's blog, he had a post some time ago about holes in his pockets, used by Sound to thread the mic wire through. The mic is either clipped to the hair above the ear or taped to the chest, and the wire is fed down the shirt and a pants' leg, then back up through a hole in the pocket to where the wireless transmitter is located. In this case, Sawyer is wearing a t-shirt under the uniform, and they are outside, so it makes sense, especially if it is windy, that they'd put the mic as close to Sawyer's mouth as they could without it interferring in the shot. If it's a mic peeking out, it's a blooper. Removing it because he has no lines doesn't make any sense. Filming could have easily continued for a future show, with Sawyer speaking, and then it's edited into the the different episodes post-production. Looks like a mic to me, but it could also be a zipper, as Robert pointed out, because we do see him zip up the uniform in this episode (don't we?). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've read that, could be an exception though. One08 15:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Exactly. The encounter was one trip to the location. The only reason it will be labelled as two scenes is that it will be spread over two episodes. Put the blooper back in, in case anyone has forgotten why we're holding this meeting.<smile>--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree; there will have to be some sort of conversation after three years. I doubt they will just nod and go their separate ways <smile>. Look at the screenie where he is zipping up the uniform at the beginning of the episode. While the zippers are black (bad choice!) on the tan uniforms, the top doesn't seem mic-shaped. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. And this "mic" isn't mic-shaped. It's his jumpsuit zipper. If you want to close this case once and for all, just post this picture over on the audio forum of and see if you can get a single audio expert to identify the "mic". Robert K S (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Looking at it zoomed, coupled with Jorge's blog description about where mics go, and the fact that the zippers are black (what were they thinking?), it probably is the zipper. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's absolutely right, it's really a zipper. One08 18:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You can make this out far more clearly in 5x09. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Rosie's anachronistic shirt


I'm not sure this qualifies as a blooper, but I'd like to hear some opinions on whether anything that looked remotely like Rosie's shirt existed in the '70s. It smacks of 1990s+ in terms of the style, the font, the screen printing, the colors. The screen printing of the 1970s involved large blocks of solid color (see, e.g., [2]), not the sophisticated American flag style design of the colors placed inside the text. This becomes especially true considering Geronimo Jackson is supposed to be some obscure never-hit-it-big band that would have had unsophisticated merchandising. Ringer style shirts were popular in the '70s but I can't remember ever seeing a Jersey style shirt of that particular style until the 1990s. (Again, even if such shirts existed as a women's style back then, I suspect they would have been too expensive to use for the merchandising of a little-known and quickly-defunct San Francisco Sound band.) Robert K S (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I thought the band was very famous in-show, while utilising music from a real "little-known and quickly-defunct" band. I had that style shirt in the 80s, if that means anything, and screen printing has been around for ages. However, I'm not sure that it was as nice 30-odd years ago, either. Looking at the link you provided, there's a Willie Nelson shirt with different colour lettering ( ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The band is not a real band. It is a fictional band created for the show. It does seem to be "famous" among certain people on the show, going by the reaction to Eddie's t-shirt, which, now that I look at it, is of the same jersey style as Rosie's. Robert K S (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Not to get off-topic, but the article is written in-universe, as it should be, and therefore declares the band as "real". The producers have insisted multiple times that the band is real. The producers are playing a little game. Robert K S (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The article itself, yes, I agree. But if Darlton are screwing around, then we need to make the podcast section I linked clear that it's not a real band and they were joking. As it reads now, it gives the appearance it is an obscure real band being used on show. People oustide America might not make the connection that it's all a big joke; I didn't, especially with the "The producers again insisted that the band was a real but obscure group". ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out here that the Lost TV Store (ABC TV Store merchandise) has released a line of Geronimo Jackson themed items. This would also seem to signify that the band is fake and was created for show purposes as well, as the items are copyrighted to ABC. meggie ~ Talk & contribs 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Not that I'm arguing, because I haven't a clue one way or the other, but this point doesn't seal the deal as far as you are using it. ABC could have easily purchased the copyright, and would most likely do so to protect themselves, if they wanted exclusive use of real music from a real, but obscure band. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. However it is extremely likely that it is in fact a fake band. meggie ~ Talk & contribs 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • To get back to the shirt, in-universe we've determined it was a famous band, right? So high quality t-shirts wouldn't be out of line. I don't see much of a problem with it, really. The lettering might be too modern, but I think it's a minor point. If they made the lettering too outdated, they wouldn't be able to sell "authentic" shirts at ABC. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Name Tag

Removed the below line from Bloopers.

  • While all other DHARMA-members have their first name on their jumpsuit, Sawyer's nametag says 'LaFleur' and not 'Jim'.

Because this may not be an error, since the security guys at the beginning called him LaFleur instead of Jim. This can be Sawyer's choice at the time of getting the suit. —Jack in the box 11:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • disagree, it is remarkable, unless you can name one other Dharma-member who choose the same. In the 70's, in likewise organisations, you weren't supposed to use your familyname. If it isn't a blooper, than it is at least worth mentioning under trivia --LOST-Hunter61 13:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to correct myself, there's also the Dharka with the nametag 'Halliwax' --LOST-Hunter61 18:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. It might be a trivia point, but it's not a blooper because his alias was LaFleur, and there is no real life DI to say that it is wrong. Unless someone can show from canon that only first names were allowed, we can't impose our sense of what should or shouldn't have been on the uniform. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. We need to distinguish between mistakes and decisions. Jim is a fairly common name (said the guy named Jim!). If DHARMA had a requirement for uniqueness and there were a real DHARMAite named Jim who already had his name on his uniform, then "Jim LaFleur" would need something else on his chest.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree for reasons stated above. --  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   21:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. It was purposely chosen to emphasize the revelation that Sawyer is LaFleur. The people running the show get to decide whether or not it's un-DI to have a last name on your uniform, not us. Unless we see other characters with their surnames on their uniforms, it could be considered valid trivia though. --Cobblepot 22:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No Daniel in 1977

Don't know if this is mentioned anywhere, but we get no Daniel in the 1977 scenes. We see Miles, Sawyer, Jin, Juliet, but Daniel is nowhere to be seen. I have several theories as to why this is, but do not wish to spoil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Playsbad (talkcontribs) 2009-03-18T12:30:24.

Recall that we've already seen Daniel working as a member of the DHARMA Initiative in this timeline in the opening sequence of "Because You Left". Please don't forget to sign your talk page messages in the future.  Robert K S   tell me  18:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak conclusion

In Trivia/General: "Sawyer, when captured, tells Horace that he and his crew were looking for the Black Rock. The Black Rock carries dynamite that Rousseau, Jack, Kate, Leslie Arzt and others have used. Then, in 1977, Horace is seen blowing up trees with dynamite." This appears to be drawing a conclusion that Horace got the dynamite from the Black Rock after learning about it from Sawyer (easy mistake; I made it myself). However, as someone else pointed out, dynamite is anachronistic for the time the Black Rock crashed, so the dynamite had to get there by some other means. The most logical explanation is that Danielle and her team, who had dynamite in their beach camp in 1988, brought it with them when they went to the Black Rock (or Danielle brought it later). If this is true, then it happened at least 11 years after 1977 when we see Horace using dynamite. I'm removing the trivia as being a bad conclusion. (And, no, you can't just say "plus time travel"). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Flashback vs. Flashforward

I think this episode counts better as a "flashback" episode because:

  • as of "Because You Left", the "present" is now 2008; the first five episodes on-island were flashbacks themselves in a way, meant to "catch up" to the week-long jump for the Oceanic 6 in the season 4 finale
  • the flashforward concept was unique to Season 4 because of the fact that there was a definitive event in the near future that the FFs were leading up to; the concept doesn't fit as well with this episode, or with this season for that matter. --Pyramidhead 08:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimbo the tubby#Timelines. I've copied a post that I made back after "LaFleur" aired, which has been quoted a few times here and there. I think it applies here as to why the episode should be considered a flashforward.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions 

Episode reference to Lockdown

Not sure if this reference is concrete enough, but the way Horace Goodspeed found Paul's necklace in Amy's sock drawer is very reminiscent of how Locke hid the ring he was going to propose to Helen Norwood with in his sock drawer in Lockdown. Does it merit an Episode Reference? Flashesb4ur8s 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Playing chess

I noticed that at the very beginning of the scene where Sawyer gives the flower to Juliet, we see a DHARMA member playing chess by himslf! You can clearly see that nobody is on the "white" side of the chess board, and the man is playing on the other side of the chess board. This definitely reminds me of when Hurley was playing chess with a dead Eko. I think this could possibly be referencing that. In the trivia for this article, it says "two men are playing chess", but I clearly only see one. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change this in trivia, and also add an episode ref to when Hurley was seen playing chess (with a dead Eko). I clearly do not see anyone on the other side of the chess board. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 23:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the white player is not the only thing missing. The pieces on the board can be seen clearly, and the white king isn't there. --Storm 20:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Swan wine blooper

The Swan hasn't been build yet but when Sawyer came home to have dinner with Juliet there is a wine with The Swan logo on it.--IceCrash 13:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's a blooper, it's a blooper that's been in many episodes. It may be better to fanwank it. --Jackdavinci 17:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Telephone blooper or plot hole

When Jin telephones James Ford/Sawyer/LaFleur to report that Jack, Hurley and Kate have turned up, where exactly is Jin TELEPHONING from?--Burt Gummer 23:20, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Directing choices as trivia?

Right now under Trivia:General, there's:

"*As Daniel is explaining that the "record is spinning again" and time is running normally, the camera is constantly spinning around the characters."

As cool as that shot is, do directing choices really count as trivia? --Cul-de-zack 13:59, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

    • Maybe "trivia" is an inappropriate category, but I believe that camera positioning, lighting, the pace of cuts, not to mention sound, etc. are all part of the episodes, and can be crucial to the story at times. People obsess about incidental props and random things in the background that may or may not be intentional. I don't think that it would be a bad idea to include stylistic and directorial elements in analysis of episodes, because these things are intentional. Until there are enough examples added to the wiki to warrant additional subheadings to main pages, I don't see anything wrong with qualifying them as Trivia. --DanVader228 02:52, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
      • Of course all those things are intentional--it's television. Those things are all choices the production team makes to tell their story, and are fun and enlighteningto discuss, but I'm not sure it counts as trivia. Every episode page could have a whole essay about the directing choices. (There are a few essays already on But anyway, I don't think you should take this one out. Maybe this is something the wiki should consider for the future. --Cul-de-zack 13:59, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Vote on FF or FB

Hey can we have a vote on whether this is a flashback or flashforward because I think its a flashback. I have no idea why its listed as a ff. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:01, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply As a general rule, we don't vote, we take polls to reach consensus. I think it's a flashforward because 1974 is the "present" until the next episode.

I'm going to quote:

Think of Lost as having one, main, continuous plot line. It starts with Oceanic 815 crashing, through the discovery of the caves, Boone's death, opening the hatch, the Tailies, blowing up the hatch, Jack/Kate/Sawyer being captured, escaping, the Others' raid on the beach, the freighter, the mercenaries, the Orcid. All of this is the "present" timeline. Then, when Ben turns the wheel, the present timeline splits into two timelines: On-Island and Off-Island. However both of these timelines are still following the same continuous plot line, just for two series of characters. So we get:

  • Plot line A) Ben turns the wheel, the Island starts moving through time, Charlotte dies, Locke teleports off the Island; and
  • Plot line B) Ben turns the wheel, the Oceanic 6 see the Island disappear, crash, get rescued, return to the real world, decide they need to go back, board Ajira 316 and reawaken on the Island.

These two are also, "present" plot lines. (Note: It now looks like A) and B) have merged into a single plot line, which is good because it'll be less confusing hereafter.) Anyways, my point is this: Anything that takes place outside of this present plot line is either a flashback or a flashforward. If it takes place before the current position in the plot, then it's a flashback. If it takes place after the current position in the plot, it's a flashforward.

 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions , Talk:316

Plot line A is the present and is the 1974 story. The 1977 story in the episode is a flashforward. The 1977 story is the present from "Namaste" onward. --cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 00:49, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

For startes I asked for votes so i could get opinions secondly that explanation is horrible and confusing. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:40, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
Ok I understand your two plot lines that makes sense and they merge (like you said) but they merge at the begining of 316 when Jin (whos a part of plot line a) meets jack, kate,hugo(a part of line b). In other words the more logically merge would be as soon as we are shown Jack on the island because now all characters are on the same timeline. So since the 1974 events arent shown until after we see the merge of the two plots it would be a flashback as would the events off island during 316. So why have you choosen Namaste as the point of the merge, when they actually merge occurs durring 316, It seems to me like your contradicting you argument. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:28, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
The way I look at it is that, because at this point, the last time we saw plot line A) was still off-Island. That particular plot thread continues when we see how they got to the Island, with (what I consider to be) a flashforward in between. Originally this was written without the plotlines merging being an issue, but basically, the continuation of the timeline isn't dependent on when the characters meet but rather when the last time we saw a particular plotline was.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:23, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

(episode) -- why???

Why the parenthetical? I thought this was only supposed to be for instances where there are more than one article with a particular name. We give Jughead (episode) its parenthetic because there is also a Jughead (bomb). But as LaFleur only redirects to LaFleur (episode), then why the parenthetical? Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

  • Maybe people are trying to justify having made Lighthouse into Lighthouse (episode).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:39, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • But the lighthouse itself has an article. LaFleur, on the other hand is not even a redirect to Sawyer's page... --LeoChris 00:01, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Picture discussion

I disagree with the picture choice. The episode isn't about Sawyer's shock at his friends' return. That's just the cliffhanger and next episodes' theme. This episode was about Sawyer and his group successfully integrating into Dharmaville.
Pictogram voting support I suggest the first picture below, which also happens to contain une fleur. We could also consider the second picture below, or the shot of La Fleur right before the opening title. --- Balk Of Fametalk 23:24, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

LaFleur avec la fleur


5x08 JamesLaFleurFord


  • Pictogram voting support #1 seems really inspired ... I like the LaFleur with a flower concept. --LeoChris 23:58, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose The episode isn't anymore about Sawyer's relationship with Juliet than it is about his reaction to his friends' return. It's mainly about the fact that Sawyer has been living as a member of the DI under the name LaFleur for three years, which the existing image reflects. --Celebok 07:45, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
    • The episode may not focus on Sawyer and Juliet's relationship - that's we won't use a picture of the two of them. I agree that it's about his settling into three years of the DI, and a shot of his domestic state captures this well. The existing image doesn't reflect his time with the Dharma Initiative. Rather, it reflects the beginning of the end of that time. --- Balk Of Fametalk 12:09, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support #1 seems perfect to represent the episode. The current picture on the article is ok. #2 doesn't offer much context. -- Graft   talk   contributions  17:30, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose The picture doesn't need to exactly represent what the episode is "about". It needs to be an obviously good shot as well as contain the centric character. The current does both. And the current is also EPIC. Do not change.(Kdc2 02:27, April 22, 2010 (UTC))
  • Pictogram voting oppose reasons above, current is fine. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  21:38, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting neutral I like the first suggestion with the flower, but I don't see a problem with the current one. Either is fine by me. Not second suggestion though. Mhtmghnd 00:48, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I like the flower one. Rachel P 23:58, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support I like the flower picture.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:40, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Amy's Passcode

I was watching this recently and, being neurotic, I tried to see the numbers that Amy pushed when she pretended to disarm the Sonic Fence. From what I could tell, she used 1623 which just happens to be the code to send the 14-J signal. This thus explains how the Initiative were alerted to their presence.

My only problem is, where do I put this in the article? Smith. 22:40, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the episode, and I'm not sure if that's true. The first number looks more like "3" than "1." The second one might be "6," but the third number looks like it's below the fourth one. Also, the 14-J distress call disables the fence, as we see when Alex enters it, but Amy did not disable the fence - she just pretended to. --- Balk Of Fametalk 19:14, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.