This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Meet Kevin Johnson 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


Graft, glad you locked it, but there are a couple mistakes, specifically mentions to episode seven instead of eight. Could you fix it? --Minderbinder 14:28, 29 February 2008 (PST)

Yep, I got it - will create the ep template shortly. Thanks. -- Graft   talk   contributions  14:31, 29 February 2008 (PST)


  • I want to get some screenshot info on guns and bullets. Michael traded his watch for "a gun. A gun and bullets" (paraphrase). We only see what the bullet and gun make are when he whips them out in the alley in his suicide attempt. THEN there's the struggle with Tom, at which point Tom (I believe?) gains control of the gun. My question is: Did Tom switch out Michael's gun for a dud? One that won't shoot? Explaining him "not being able to kill himself" later in the (presumed) hotel room with the gun. I DEFINITELY want a screenshot of the gun's barrel in the hotel room when Michael, after shooting and the gun not going off, checks to verify that all chambers are filled. I want to see if we can read what type / brand of bullets they are and compare them to the box we see in the alley.--Overworkedirish 19:10, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • There are 6 bullets, 5 with the same brand "R.P 38 SPL" or "R-P 38 SPL" and 1 different "FEDERAL 38 SPECIAL". This one was probably loaded by Tom after the struggle.--Hulpap 07:03, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I think this one can be taken at face value. Mr. Friendly is telling us that the Island has powers we haven't imagined yet. Not only that, but it has concious thought -- it would have to. There's a whole new argument ready to go... --Litany42 20:35, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • This would assume that Tom knew what kind of gun Michael had and had a non-working duplicate. Or at least hoped Michael wouldn't notice a change in weight/style.--PappyBlueRibs 09:26, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Doesn't a shot go off during the struggle? And then the gun is full with 6 bullets later when Michael opens it? Merick 07:53, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
He has quite a number when he primarily loads it doesn't he? --Gredge 16:45, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Unanswered questions

  • Who really placed the fake wreckage of Oceanic 815 at the bottom of the ocean?
    • Uhh, did you watch the episode?
      • Well, both Ben and Widmore (via associates) have pinned the blame for the fake wreckage on the other, so it's an absolutely valid question.--Overworkedirish 19:27, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
        • I remember the Captain saying it was Widmore as well. It seems everyone has said it's Widmore. It would be right to assume it's Widmore then.--HaloOfTheSun 19:28, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
          • Absolutely not. Gault pins it on Ben: "This black box comes from Oceanic Flight 815. A salvage vessel recovered it from the bottom of the ocean. It took a considerable amount of Mr. Widmore's resources to procure [as in, retrieve from the wreckage] it. It was found with the wreckage of the plane, along with all 324 dead passengers. (to Sayid) That's not the complete story, as you are well aware, Mr. Jarrah, given the fact that you're standing here, breathing... The wreckage was obviously staged. Now can you imagine what kind of resources and manpower go into pulling off a feat of that magnitude? Faking the recovery of a plane crash? Putting 324 families through a grieving process based on a lie? But what's even more disturbing... where exactly does one come across 324 dead bodies? And that, Mr. Jarrah, Mr. Hume, is just one of the many reasons we want Benjamin Linus."--Overworkedirish 19:40, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
            • Sayid & Desmond were told not to trust the captain, and the Others have more proof. I'll add the question, "Was it Charles or Ben that staged the crash". Fralfman
              • Yes, but it's possible (I'd almost say likely) that that note was from Michael, who is working for BEN. It's very unclear at this point, and I think presuming one over the other knowing only what we know would be a mistake.--Overworkedirish 20:42, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
            • Re-reading the captain's statement, I guess it's worth pointing out that he doesn't explicitly say *who* faked the wreckage.swishypants
              • Why do the people on the freighter not know that it was Charles Widmore that staged the fake plane crash, when the expedition on the freighter to look for the island was arranged by him? - Frank seemed to have beleifs that the plane crash was staged like the apollo mission, but it didnt seem like Charles Widmore told him
  • Is the Temple a DHARMA station?
    • If you look at the map, you can see a Dharma logo marking the temple. It was a blank logo, with a line near the bottom.
      • Interesting. A Dharma station without a name, and The Orchid without a location... --Litany42 21:44, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
        • It does have a name - "Temple". At one point Ben refers to it as "Temple" and not "The Temple", an indication that this is the name of the station.--Cunningmunki 07:50, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
          • Could be a Buddhist Temple --CharlieReborn 19:19, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Why is Libby appearing to Michael?
    • It was guilt. He killed her, and can't get her out of his mind.
    • ...or is it the island? This is certainly not the first time "dead" people have appeared to our Losties.--Overworkedirish 19:27, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
      • Yes, and it's interesting how she told Michael "not yet" just seconds before the flag pops up with the words NOT YET... --Litany42 21:45, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
        • She just says "Don't do it" not "not yet"

Fralfman 19:19, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

  • I would say the Libby question might be kept, you can't say that he saw her because he was suffering from guilt. It could have been a vision from the island. Still, doesn't matter to me. Someone keeps adding these back though. --HaloOfTheSun 19:27, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Still, it was cool that Nurse Libby was carrying a blanket (if I recall correctly), just as a nurse might, but it echos that she was also carrying a blanket when Michael shot her. 20:32, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • The questions "What was Ben's intention when he gave Michael fake explosives?" & "What is the significance of Libby's reappearance?" should be revised/replaced. Ben explains his intention behind the explosives, so what is un-answered? And raising the point of the significance of Libby's appearance is theory baiting beyond the simple explanation that she is a manifestation of Michael's guilt. Perhaps this question should be "Why is it ONLY Libby that appears to Michael?".--Cunningmunki 07:50, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Because they could only get one actress back. Seems pretty obvious -Moo 17:05, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
      • Also, Michelle Rodriguez, who played Ana-Lucia received a DUI on December 1, 2005. Anytime someone from the show gets a DUI, they seem to be killed off. Maybe there was some bad blood between the show and Rodriguez. Before you all jump on it, Cynthia Watros, Libby, also got a DUI, I know. The exception seems to be Jin's actor...maybe...--frisbee2784
  • The following should be removed:
    • How does Tom know that the Island has selected Michael for the freighter job and will thus protect him from death? - nobody said the island selected him.
    • How did Miles know that Michael was not who he claimed to be? - it was clearly ment to seems like a paranormal thing, and then when he explains he was just guessing because everyone on the boat is lying it dismisses itself. it's fine as a theory but not as a question
    • Who is the older man next to Michael in the hospital? - the episode did not imply he has any significancee. and no, it's not the actor that plays alvar hanso
    • How is Michael protected from death? - Tom explained "the island won't let him", it's not like we're waiting for the scientific explanation

Why not? It may be because he has a determined path, therefore can't die, maybe the people on the freighter will try to kill him and find him immortal?! Arniie 15:25, 24 March 2008 (PDT) ArnIIe 2008-03-24

    • Why does Libby implore Michael not to push the button on the bomb, even though it isn't an active bomb? - this is assuming libby knows the bomb isn't real, and that she didn't just want michael to do the "right thing"

--CharlieReborn 19:52, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

  • What happened to the shipping container(s) on the deck of the Freighter? On the close up shots on the freighter (before the automatic weapon target practice sequence), you could see the freigther had a 40 foot shipping container on the deck of the ship, later on it appeared to be two twenty foot containers "end to end", appearing to be a 40 foot container. Either way, what happened to them - they were gone from the deck by the time Sayid and Desmond arrived on the freighter with Frank as the "deck" of the freighter was perfectly clear of all cargo or other equipment by then. So, what is in the shipping containers and where/when were they "put overboard"? Maybe this was part of the Widmore plan to "discover" the remains of Flight 815 and these are now surplus to requirements? (or maybe these were put ashore somewhere on the island?).

-Number 6 03:21, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

I'm removing the following questions:

  • What has happened to Walt since he left the Island? we know the answer from the episode... he gets off the Island, Michael confesses the murders to him, Walt can't deal with that, and goes to live with his grandmother
  • How did Tom get off the Island and what does he do while off the Island? this question appears twice with different wordings
  • Who is the older man next to Michael in the hospital? this is just the "Was it Tom in the hospital bed in 3x01?" thing all over again... we don't need to ask about the significance of every background character on the show because they're not presented as mysteries"
  • Why can't Michael successfully kill himself? because the Island won't let him
  • How did Michael's gun wound from "Two for the Road" heal so quickly? because the Island heals people

Jimbo the tubby 21:37, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

"Why do the people on the freighter not know that it was Charles Widmore that staged the fake plane crash, when the expedition on the freighter to look for the island was arranged by him? - Frank seemed to have beleifs that the plane crash was staged like the apollo mission, but it didnt seem like Charles Widmore told him" Should this just be removed entirely? It is an awful question on so many levels and I have no idea how it could be fixed. I'll remove, revert and fix if you can think of a way how. Kajillion 04:24, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

  • How Tom gets off the island? By the submarine, isn't it? Or John below up the sub before he got to the island? Remove the question if you think I'm not mistaken. --Jack in the box 11:47, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
The problem with the submarine theory is that Ben said that the discharge (the purple-sky-thing) disabled the sub's homing mechanism or whatever, and consequently it wouldn't be able to return to the Island once it left, which is why he was reluctant to let Jack and Juliet go, since he needed his people to have the illusion that they could leave if they wanted to. It's possible that Ben is lying and that the sub still works to go to and from the Island, but as we don't know whether or not this is the case, I would suggest leaving the question. Jimbo the tubby 12:00, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
I'll leave it, but I vote for that being a lie. Ben also told everyone that the Looking Glass was flooded. Likewise, Ben probably used the purple haze as a convenient excuse to keep people from using the sub. Disabling contact with the outside world seems to be the running theme here. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:26, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Why is Rousseau so willing to take her daughter to the stronghold of The Others at the request of Ben. Considering they kidnapped Alex 16 years ago, and Rousseau has hated and feared them since. --Hugo815 10:28, 26 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Just removed: 'Is Michael's story entirely true?'. Personally I think this is theory baiting, it's not a question explicitly raised in the episode nor is there any obvious reason to assume that Michael is lying.Liquidcow 12:06, 30 March 2008 (PDT)

"Not Yet"

  • ...could Michael not see that note before he "pressed the button"?--Overworkedirish 19:28, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Guess not. The-room 19:49, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
    • If he could, he would have read it before he did, wouldn't he?
      • He had no reason to look for one, and in it's resting position if it wasn't obscured, it probably just looked like a part of the device.Frankie Viturello 20:52, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

This was a test devised by Ben. He knew that if Michael pressed the button, he would be committed to the cause and do anything Ben asked. After all, if you are willing to blow yourself up, is there anything you won't do? Michael waits the day or two, hits the button, reads the note. Another day or two later Ben calls to find out if Michael tried to set off the fake bomb, and if so, to give him further instructions. --Litany42 21:49, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

In the hospital, who is in the bed next to Michael?

Guy in hospital bed next to Michael

The old man in the hospital bed next to Michael before he sees "Libby".

  • Can anyone get a picture? I thought it was Alvar Hanso for a minute there.--Playsbad 19:54, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
    • When I rewatched the episode, I kept my eye open for that. In Michael's "vision" when Libby shows up, the guy does look like it is Hanso. But in the "reality" portion after the real nurse shows up, it looks like a different guy. --Litany42 21:39, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
    • In Michael´s vision with Libby in the hospital, the man in the bed next to him has a tube in his throat. The following scene shows him with an oxygen mask. It´s questionable that it´s the same guy. --Airedale 05:46, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Looked like the same guy to me. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:22, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
    • I just re-watched on ABC's site, and it looks to be the same guy. I originally thought they were different too.--Bdjsb7 12:05, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Did the writers really put him there just so the nurse could say "well, it sure wasn't him"? It seems odd. Merick 07:58, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Why is that odd? Unless you're rich you usually share a room. This guy is hardly significant.-Moo 17:04, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
This is Lost, everything significant and I think we got a pretty good look at him, so its possible he's not just nobody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustJared (talkcontribs) 2008-03-21T19:10:16.
Definitely the same guy, intubated in the dream but with oxygen mask + bag in reality. Robert K S (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
I'll go with "same guy, important presence" as well. The guy is seen twice for a curiously long time (two seconds, yeah, but "long" in TV terms), and the nurse mentions him in a quite conspicuous manner. I just don't have any idea who he is. If no one can answer that properly, it remains out of significance. -. Grillage .- 00:20, 31 March 2008 (PDT)
Maybe this guy was injured in Hurley's deck collapsing incident. --Petrarch1603 21:43, 6 April 2008 (PDT)

Different format / What do Sayid and Desmond Know?

did anyone notice that Micheal's flachback did not contain the standard "wooshing" sound you hear normally.

maybe this proves that it was not a flashback, but him telling the tale ( an like all good TV stories what the viewer sees is always more indepth than what the teller is actually telling).

  • ....uh, it DID contain the standard whooshing sound. It's one long flashback, at the beginning and end of which there is a whooshing sound. Watch the episode again.--Overworkedirish 23:07, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • This was different from other flashbacks because Michael was telling the story, like a narrative, not a flash.--Playsbad 19:57, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
    • We don't know what story he told in the present or that the flashbacks have anything to do with that story. Dharmatel4 20:06, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
      • Very interesting point. I wonder if a podcast will clear up whether or not that entire flashback is to serve as what Sayid and Desmond now know.--Overworkedirish 20:16, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Um, wasn't the entire flashback Michael telling Sayid and Desmond what happened? I could be wrong, but that was what I took from Sayid demanding answers and Michael relating the story... --Litany42 20:32, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • That question is unanswerable in story terms. A flashback is not the same as speaking a story to someone. I think it can be assumed for story purposes that Desmond and Sayid know roughly what was in the flashbacks. I dont think that we should treat the flashbacks in the episode as anything unusual because they just happened to be simultanious with Michael telling his story.Dharmatel4
  • Most flashback/flash forwards have taken a slightly different twist this year. The four flashbacks at the beginning of the season (or was it five?), the Sun flash forward and Jin flashback last week, Desmond's struggle with time. Michael's is unusual as well since it seems to relate the story. It's just that "unusual" flashbacks aren't that unusual this year. --Litany42 20:43, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • We should keep in mind however, that Michael asks the other guy to go get some piece of equipment (not recalling specifics) which should really only take a max of a few minutes. By the time the story is "over" (i.e. post-flashback) the other guy still hasn't returned. This time contraint should be considered when evaluating how much Sayid and Desmond know.--Overworkedirish 21:01, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I don't agree. The writers had Desmond travel 5+ hours by train without having a blackout in "The Constant" so I don't think they are counting the beats from when the other deck hand disappears. The guy's there, Michael gets rid of him, Sayid says "Start at the beginning. Tell us exactly how it is you came to be on this boat." And then Michael's flashback starts. I'm not sure how much more of a clue we could have that Michael is telling Sayid and Desmond the story. --Litany42 21:37, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • But this puzzles me. From Sayid's line that you quoted, you're saying Michael would start out: "So I was sitting in my apartment, writing a suicide note for Walt ...[fast-forward] crashed my car, was in the hospital - oh p.s. Sayid and Des, I think I saw Libby! Weird..." -- Don't you think Sayid would be like, "Whoa, hold up. Your apartment? How did you even get to the US??? Who found you and Walt on the boat???" This is still information that we, the viewers, don't know. It would seem that this, along with other simple story fragments would be VITAL for Michael's story to Sayid. Plus, why would he get into the personal issues of suicide that are so highlighted in the flashback. My opinion has, at this point, taken the turn that what we saw was Michael's experience, though not necessarily what he told Sayid and Des.--Overworkedirish 22:07, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Even if the flashback was meant to be what Michael was telling Sayid, a similar argument could be made for Ben's flashback being the story he was supposed to be telling Locke in that episode. --Jackdavinci 21:42, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
I would say Desmond and Sayid definitely know everything we do, because Sayid verified that he was working for Ben Linus at the end of the narrative. --Xbenlinusx 00:25, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I'm sorry, but HOW would Michael be okay with sharing such personal information like his SUICIDE ATTEMPTS with Sayid, whom he hasn't seen in a while, and Desmond, whom he's never met??? Michael's not exactly the most sharing Lostie. He's pretty much kept to himself because he has his own agenda.--Overworkedirish 05:07, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Because he was trying to prevent exactly what eventually happened, being exposed to the captain before he could complete the task he agreed to do. Michael thinks he is saving the survivors on the island by following Ben's instructions. Being outed to the captain stops those plans. Therefore, he has two choices with Sayid and Desmond, either tell them the entire truth, or kill them both. We already know that he is consumed with guilt, so assumedly he would prefer telling the truth here. However, we see where that got him, eh? Oh, and Sayid would know how Michael got to the US, because he knows about the boat he and Walt got from Ben. We are to suspend disbelief a bit that it would have gotten them to the States. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:06, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Regarding the original post, yes, we do hear the standard flashback sound. Regarding what Michael actually told Sayid and Desmond, I think we can at least assume he told them some sort of condensed/rough version of what we saw in the flashback. But as for specifics, the only thing we can say for certain is that he is working for Ben. We don't need to mention any more than that in the articles. -- Graft   talk   contributions  16:11, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I think people are reading too much into this. The flashbacks are a story-telling device -- they always have been. This season, the producers seem to be purposefully mixing it up, playing on different variations. In this episode, the flashback is introduced with Sayid demanding to know the truth about Michael's background. Yes, he left out the part about getting to NY, yes he left out other key things as well. But this is a one-hour show; there's no room for every detail. There's little doubt though that this is a recount to Sayid and Desmond of Michael's time off the island. --Litany42 18:15, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Numbers craziness

  • "Michael enters the numbers 7 7 1 6 into the keypad on the "bomb" in the briefcase. ( (7 * 7)-(1 + 6) )= 42 (Numbers)"
    • I was going to go ahead and remove this because I think it is a pretty ridiculous connection, but didn't want to be an ass. Why not put that 42+42-4 = 80 (the percentage of people Miles says are liars). The numbers can be found in pretty much everything; should a multi-step process count? Danhm 19:59, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
    • multi-step processes almost never count. This one should not count. Dharmatel4 20:05, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
    • 80% or statistics are made up on the spot. Mapper 04:22, 27 March 2008 (PDT)

Here's a nice little loop: 7+7=14. 7+1=15 1+6=7. 7+(start again)7=14... (And yes, I know it's meaningless.) --Litany42 20:29, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

More likely, 71776 refers to July, 1776 - the month of the American Declaration of Independence.--MonsterEatsThePilot 05:12, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

July 1776 was also when Captain James Cook set sail on the voyage that led him to discover the Northwest Passage. Not incredibly significant to the Lost world, but fun fact nevertheless.--JoeyBags1138 11:52, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

Most of this "number craziness" is rubbish. Every other number can be constructed from the Lost numbers if you choose the right combination of operations. I don't believe that such a complication would be added to the show. I only believe in the connection to the Lost numbers when they appear directly or in the form of simple combinations/operations, like 108, 7418880 or 423. Everything else is, as you say, craziness! Helvio 08:53, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

I have a crazy theory about that. Since every number on Lost has worked or was related to real stuff that happened or was happening. The numbers 7716 didn't activate the bomb because it was "not (77) yet (16)". I believe the writers will give a new activation code like 8815 or something related when it's (23) time (42). I think I should write this to theories. =) --Jack in the box 13:25, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Going Nicholson

  • Minkowski sports a haircut not unlike Jack Nicholson's in THE SHINING. Significant? --Frenkmelk 20:13, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Yeah -- it wasn't just Minkowski's mind that was stuck in the 70s. --Litany42 20:37, 20 March 2008 (PDT)


It sounds like an amateur journalist trying to write a synopsis for their magazine. Therequiembellishere 20:23, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

It's a wiki engine. If you don't like it fix it. --Jackdavinci 21:44, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
Amateur journalist seems more qualified to write a summary than a math teacher. --Xbenlinusx 00:27, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

the episode summaries always need time till theyre finished, stop complaining.

I just did a revision to condense sentences and have a more factual tone. See if this is an improvement. --Emily76 18:35, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

Flashback timeline

  • All the flashbacks in the episode up to Michael's first conversation with Ben on the freighter have to take place between day 68 and day 82. Thats a very busy two weeks. Tom has to be in New York between Day 74 and Day 80.Dharmatel4 20:26, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Not at all refuting here - but can you please support these timeline constrictions with citation? How do we know when the boat was ported in Fiji? And why 74-80 for Tom?--Overworkedirish 20:36, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Michael left the Island on Day 68. The others left the Barracks on Day 82. Ben talked to Michael from the barracks the first time so it has to be between those dates. Tom is at the Hydra day after day between when Michael left the Island and when the Others left the Hydra. Tom is next seen with Jack at the barracks on day 80. For completeness, Naomi arrives on Day 87. Dharmatel4 20:41, 20 March 2008 (PDT)]
  • This was likely a busy trip for Tom, including a visit to Tallahassee as well as New York, since Anthony Cooper appeared on-island around Day 80/81. Locke also destroyed the submarine on day 81 (or did he?). Also, I assumed that Ben contacted Michael from the Flame, not from the barracks. Have we seen a radio room at the barracks?--Eyeful Tower 09:07, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Ben contacted Michael from the secret room in his house at the Barracks, as referenced by the Buddha statue and moved bookshelf. -Nate 12:22, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Whoops. My bad...I wrote day 90 didn't I? That's the day the Others broke camp leaving Locke. For some reason I equated camp with Barracks.--JoeyBags1138 20:54, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I think that a most important issue here is that the timelines in the island and the outside world match. There seems to be no time shifts as suggested in some theories based on the delayed rocket. In a previous episode, Sayid and Desmond said in the freighter that they've been gone for 3 days, which is the time that has passed in the island too. Michael had been gone for 2 months, as his mother says, which is more or less the time he spent in the island. If the difference between the time passed inside and outside the island was proportional to what we saw in the delayed rocket, Michael would have been gone from the outside world for much longer than 2 months.Helvio 08:44, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Here's a timeline issue that is bothering me...Michael hears the news story about flight 815 being found, and rushes over to the Earle Penthouse to see Tom. Tom already has him set up as a deck hand on Widmore's freighter that is leaving from Fiji "in a couple of days." At about the same time Michael finds out, Frank Lapidus also finds out (he saw it on the news as well), making a phone call to "authorities" that they have not found 815. Somehow, Frank's phone call gets passed up the chain of command, all the way to Widmore (per Frank's conversation with Michael while on the freighter). Frank gets added to Naomi's team over her objections and he gets transported from the Bahamas to Fiji. And this all happens in a couple of days.--Eyeful Tower 15:01, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

In season four, the careful attention to continuity the show used to have seems to have been mostly abandoned. As far as the submarine, I think its clear now that Richard and Tom have a different way of getting off the Island. As far as Ben's communications, if we take the destruction of the flame into consideration, he would have had to have made the first call, given michael time to put together an entire list of the crew and then made a second call before the flame was destroyed. I think it would be appropriate that Ben had a different communication channel off the Island via the looking glass before and after he left the barracks. Dharmatel4 16:17, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • It also seems remarkable that Michael was in a major car accident and seemed to be fully recovered in the next scene. Though we have no indication how long it was between Michael being in the hospital and trying to visit Walt, we know that it all had to occur within the few weeks he was off the island. Not to mention that a Christmas tree is visible in the hotel and we know that "The Constant" occurs on Christmas Eve, meaning that Michael is in an accident, recovers, tries to visit Walt, tries to shoot himself, visits Tom at the hotel, makes it to Fiji to ship out, and is on the freighter for the duration of its trip so far, all between Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve.--Christian BC 15:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible blooper - nurse

  • After Michael crashes his car and he wakes up in the hospital room, the nurse walks in and says "Sorry, Mr. Dawson. I didn't mean to wake you." (Paraphrase). Yet then she asks his name. This seems too obvious for a blooper, but what does it mean otherwise? Or did I miss something? --Litany42 20:26, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
    • The Nurse was "Libby" in some form or another so she knew his name - she was not the "real" 20:28, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Not Libby -- the real nurse. I'll watch again when the Pacific episode comes on just in case I did miss something... --Litany42 20:30, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
      • I'm quite certain the "real nurse" didn't say "Michael" or "Dawson" - she in fact noted his lack of ID.--Overworkedirish 20:38, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
        • Yeah, you're right -- it was Libby. But another interesting thing I saw in that scene. The old man in the coma *does* look like Hanso in the first shot, but when the real nurse comes in, it looks like a different person. But how would Michael have heard of or even seen Hanso? --Litany42 21:22, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
          • It's the "Hurley-seeing-Christian-Shepard-in-the-cabin" conundrum. ;-)--Overworkedirish 22:10, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

Tom's Guy

So I'm thinking showing Tom living with a guy in New York is to confirm what was hinted at way back when, when he told Kate she wasn't his type. Not too extraordinary that he's gay-- but this does have some interesting implications for the show. The man didn't appear to be one of the Others. Does he know where Tom has been this whole time? Is he one of the Others permanently living off the island? And how many of the Others might have significant others off of the island?

I'm pretty sure the guy's a "professional". I can't imagine that (A) Ben would allow Tom to have a relationship off the island and (B) Tom would bother anyway. --Litany42 20:39, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • and I can't imagine that (C) Tom could get a young thing like that without paying for it. Sithboy 22:47, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
Tom did say something to the effect of "I don't get to the mainland often, but when I do I like to indulge myself". I'm thinking the professional angle too...for all we know, Tom could be a Governor somewhere! :-D --JoeyBags1138 21:20, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • If he's a Governor, he must be a Republican... --Litany42 21:42, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
That's right! Democrats have heterosexual sex scandals. Republicans have homosexual sex scandals... I need to remember that...--Chuck 22:26, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
Is this really necessary? I'll opt to ask first whether this would be considered offensive material.Mapper 06:27, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Well, from what happened in the episode, I am assuming that Arturo is a sex worker rather than in a relationship with Tom... so I believe, as the episode is in New York, there is some reference to Elliot Spitzer going on... Its not needed here though thank you people!!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  06:49, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Even though this was filmed months before the scandal? Therequiembellishere 07:25, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Not the show, I mean everyones cheeky comments about politics above!!!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:33, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Agreed, and Arturo could alternatively be a pick-up from a bar. Either way, it's obvious that it's not a long-standing, monogamous relationship because it would open up the line for too many questions being asked of Tom, such as "where are you when you aren't here?" -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:11, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
What about McGreevey? Nate811 01:31, 28 March 2008 (PDT)
Guys, it's called "joking around". Darlton does it all the time on the can do it do! :-D (the smile also indicates joking around...)--JoeyBags1138 11:47, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Why do you all think Tom is gay?--Christian BC 15:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Seriously? In the episode he has a man in his hotel room whom kisses him goodbye while stepping out. Also, it was confirmed by the producers. But mostly that first part is what should've given it away.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hotel Earle : Cultural reference or Trivial error?

Before I go making an edit to the cultural references section, I just wanted to float this by the regulars ... ... The Washington Square Hotel in NYC hasn't been called "The Hotel Earle" in years, at least not in 2004/2005, or within the time frame of this episode. Since the placement of the line seemed deliberate enough, one of the other, most significant cultural references that came to mind was the FICTIONAL Hotel Earle featured in the Coen Brother's 1994 film "Barton Fink", in which a New York City playwright in the 1940's travels to California to write for big Hollywood studios and winds up in a metaphysical "living hell" which is The Hotel Earle. Barton Fink @ Wikipedia

Do you think that could be the LOST writers throwing some love the Coen's way by way of reference, or does it simply "date" Tom's frame of reference for the last time he was off the island and in NYC? (If not a cultural reference, then the fact that it is no longer called "The Hotel Earle" should go in a trivia and/or errors section.) Frankie Viturello 20:46, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

There's no real Oceanic airline either! --Xbenlinusx 20:49, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Um, yes, but the Washington Square Hotel was ACTUALLY called The Hotel Earle at one point. I'm thinking it was either a reference to the fictional hotel from Barton Fink, OR Tom hasn't gotten off the island to see NYC since before the hotel changed it's name, which was sometime AFTER the 1960's. Frankie Viturello 20:55, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
If it was just a mistake of Tom's Michael wouldn't have found the hotel. It must be real (at least in the lost universe)
The themes of Barton Fink certainly seem to tie into the themes of Lost, so I think this could be Cultural, definitely.--JoeyBags1138 20:52, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
An anagram of "The Hotel Earle" is "Ethereal Hotel", which could be another name for PURGATORY. (Probably not, but could be...) --Litany42 21:31, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I re-watched the episode, and the sign on the penthouse says "Hotel Earle" on it, so it wasn't Tom just calling the hotel by the wrong name, it exists in the LOST universe in NYC as the "Hotel Earle". Frankie Viturello 15:51, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Only one helicopter

After Naomi and Lapidus finished their argument--in which Naomi apparently insisted she would fly herself to the Island--shots of the deck clearly showed only one Huey on the two helipads. Production error or major clue? Robert K S (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Good catch. I'm voting blooper. --Litany42 21:23, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Blooper. renting a second heli just for 5 seconds of the show would be pretty silly. --CharlieReborn 03:49, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Uh, yeah, but then you'd think they'd try and not point the camera right at the empty helipad. Robert K S (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
      • Was it ever confirmed that there were 2 helicopters? We never saw one crash only heard it when Naomi arrived on the island. It could be possible that there only ever was one. --El geeko 15:45, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
        • One heli could also be out on survey but that would included yet a third person with "pilot abilities"

Gay "Insinuation"

"Although insinuated in "A Tale of Two Cities", it is revealed that Tom is gay"

Since when does a man telling a woman she's not his type insinuate in any way that the man is gay and is not attracted to women? Maybe he liked blondes. Hell. --Xbenlinusx 21:13, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
In a future episode, Daniel Faraday will experimentally demonstrate it is impossible to be heterosexual and not attracted to Kate. :-) Robert K S (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
How do we know that? After all, DESMOND is his constant... :-D --JoeyBags1138 21:18, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
Well to be honest I'm only attracted to her when she's not smiling. She needs dental work. Jack was much smarter when he moved to Juliet. --Xbenlinusx 21:17, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, I really don't think that should count as an insinuation. I could say that a certain blond guy isn't my type, but only because I like guys with darker hair better. Looking back at Tom's comment, we can now see why Kate isn't his type, but just the fact that she isn't doesn't insinuate he's gay. Lindsaynickel 02:11, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Except it was the manner in which he said it, IMO. I said he was gay after the scene in AToTC, and I'm sure it was confirmed in this episode. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:16, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I agree that the manner is the defining wink to the camera. Tom not only states that Kate's not his type, but also chuckles to imply that she is as far from his type as possible. This was pretty telegraphed.--MonsterEatsThePilot 05:17, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • The podcast that is due is bound to clear this up... I think it was made pretty clear in the episode that Tom is homosexual, personally!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  06:51, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • But did you see how the guy throws a football? That was the real giveaway User:Mr Paik/sig 8:05, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Tom's earlier comment was definitely a hint that he was gay. "You're not my type" is practically a gay cliché as a way of telling a woman you're not interested without officially outing yourself. I suppose it's possible for a straight man to say that to a pretty woman, but I've never actually heard it. Reading some of the old discussion about this on Talk:Tom was almost funny (except that it was actually insulting) how hard people were trying to "defend" the character from the "insinuation" that he was gay. - Tvb 09:29, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Give me a break Tvb. I'd tell a woman she's not my type if I wasn't interested, and I'm not gay whatsoever. --Xbenlinusx 13:58, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

On the latest podcast, they confirm that the character is gay, and that the earlier episode with Kate "alluded to" that. I added it back to the article now that it is confirmed and not just speculation. --Minderbinder 12:14, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Not that it matters one bit, I think from the standpoint of the writers/producers it was an insinuation that he was gay. It is revealed now and Kate accused him of wanting to watch her get naked. Thus, "You're not my type" in this situation, even if not in all, was an insinuation. We all suspected it, even if some of us didn't want it to be true for whatever reason, homophobic or not. Whether it should be in the article; hell I don't care. --macosx 02:43, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Post-island depression

We learn that Michael's exodus from the island leaves him depressed and suicidal. Although Michael (and Walt) are the first to leave the island, we see similar depression and suicidal thoughts in some of the Oceanic 6 following their escapes from the Island (especially Jack, e.g. his suicide attempt in "Through the Looking Glass, Part 1"). I want to note this pattern in the article but I'm not sure where. Resurgens 22:10, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

Episode references. perhaps? Michael and Jack both uttered the same phrase before their suicide attempts. Robert K S (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
I agree that this may be an important theme. I would just caution that in Jack's case his depression did not seem to develop until some time after he was off the island, and seemed to be driven by the fact that he could not return. --LOSTinDC 09:07, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Although there are similarities, Michael's is explicitly stated in the episode to be because of Walt not speaking to him after he told him he killed Ana-Lucia and Libby. That doesn't mean the Island's magical depression-causing power wasn't a factor, though. This does all support the theory that Michael is the man in the coffin as well. The teenage son, the unfamiliar name (remember the producers said that the original clipping was made by the prop department and will be reworded in the future), and the fact that Michael had tried to kill himself before. Not to mention his response to "Why are you here?": "To die." Or something like that. It's clear that he never fully recovered from depression and perhaps there were more events amplifying it after he returned, and once he finished his business the Island (Ben, actually? Remember the comments that he gets what he wants and he clearly wanted Karl and Danielle dead) allowed him to die. --macosx 02:51, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Danielle -- no wound?

I've watched the last few minutes over and over a few times now on my Tivo, and I can't see any blood, bullet hole, or wound of any type on Danielle after she is shot. We get a pretty good angle on her back after she falls and her front as she is falling, and they look just fine. Can someone confirm? Is this a blooper or is it of importance? Danhm 22:38, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

  • I thought it hit her in the head, near the front. I do want to watch it again, though. Lindsaynickel 02:06, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • There's a wound... not in the head --CharlieReborn 03:52, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • There is a clear entry wound under her right breast when she is shot. There is no exit wound however, which doesn't bode well for her being alive after the mini-break  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  06:53, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Several people have survived bullet wounds, or similar injuries. Perhaps Daniele is someone that the island will heal. Perhaps this healing has helped kept her alive, living alone in the woods for however many years. Merick 08:07, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Wow, you need a new Tivo! The wound and blood are VERY clear, both when watching at normal speed or when paused, although my impression was that it was an exit wound rather than an entry wound, as the blast causes her to fall forward, not backward.--Cunningmunki 07:56, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
      • Having just watched the episode again, I think it is clear that all the shots were coming from behind.--Baker1000 04:00, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

"your mother will protect you"

  • In a related vein, I am thinking that when Ben says "your mother will protect you" he was not referring to Danielle, but rather to someone else whom he thinks is Alex's mother.--Ememem 23:25, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
  • In the way that is phrased he may be referring to the Island, maybe in the persona of Annie --Hunter61 02:11, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Unanswered question re: death

After the debate last week over the "Is Jin dead" question, I almost hate to bring this up, but... There's an unanswered question saying "Are Danielle and Karl dead?"... Given that everyone's argument for keeping the "Is Jin dead" question was that we didn't see his death, now that we've seen Danielle and Karl shot and laying motionless on the ground, shouldn't we just accept that they are until we see otherwise? Just my $0.02. Jimbo the tubby 23:17, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

  • I believe the exact opposite - this is not the first time we've seen people been shot, left for - and presumed - dead (John Locke, anyone?). It would be absolutely irresponsible for us to report Karl and Danielle's statuses (alive vs. dead) as anything other than uncertain.--Overworkedirish 23:27, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
Certainly, I'm not saying that we should claim they *are* dead, but is it really an unanswered question (ie: an intended mystery) as to whether they are or not? Jimbo the tubby 23:35, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
Valid question for a cliffhanger episode from the standpoint of the audience. Likely this question can be removed down the road in future eps when it's resolved one way or the other.--Spiral 23:45, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
'Kay. Jimbo the tubby 00:21, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Danielle can't be dead, the producers said she'd get a flashback sometimes, but probably not this season. I know Naomi is dead and got a flashback, but it seems unlikely for Danielle cause her story is most likely really important.

Report them as "shot". Don't report them as dead until confirmed by producers or another episode. Karl is almost certainly dead (he's an unimportant character at the periphery of the show), but I thought Mikhail was dead at the sonic barrier. Personally, I think the "unanswered questions" sections have become a bit silly -- I don't think there can be objective standards for what constitutes a worthy "unanswered question". --Eyeful Tower 07:31, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I would agree that Danielle is more likely to be alive than poor Karl, as Karl was shot twice, and apparently once through the heart, whereas Danielle was only shot once at the side of her belly (mind you, so was Libby, and through padding!). However, the fact that she is due a flashback is no reason to presume she can't die beforehand, since our expectations are being continually, and deliberately challenged, especially this season. And haven't they said Libby will eventually get her own flashback too? Giving Danielle a status of "Uncertain" is fitting enough. --Cunningmunki 08:06, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Besides, have they said that Danielle herself will receive a flashback, or that some of her story would be told through flashback. I imagine that a Ben flashback could involve some interaction with Danielle's expedition; Alex; etc. --LOSTinDC 09:10, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Why would you assume a character has to be alive to be the subject of a flashback? It's not as if these are being presented as the characters' memories; a flashback is just a narrative device in which the audience is shown something that happened in the past. - Tvb 09:15, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I recall Damon and/or Carlton saying that they were going to adhere to a narrative rule that characters who are "dead" won't get their own flashbacks ... but may show up in other character's flashbacks, though I can't recall when/where they said that, could have been a podcast, could have been an intervew, could have been a DVD commentary, or it might have just been a dream I had.Frankie Viturello 15:56, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I think that the deliberate way they showed Karl's bullet wound implies that he is in fact dead, whereas Danielle was not shown to have a potentially fatal wound, therefore she's much more likely to survive.Frankie Viturello 15:56, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Enter 77?

The code Michael entered was "7716", right? Does this warrant a reference to "Enter 77"? Danhm 23:58, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

  • The code Michael entered was 71776. This is most likely a reference to July, 1776 rather than the "Enter 77" code.--MonsterEatsThePilot 05:26, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Removed Malcolm David Kelley's credit

4x08 Walt in window 1
4x08 Walt in window 2

That's not Malcolm playing Walt... they have some totally different kid in the window who's a lookalike of Malcolm around Seasons 1 and 2. Makes you wonder what scenario/timeline contains "Taller Ghost Walt" ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshspazjosh (talkcontribs) 2008-03-21T02:34:55.

  • Good point, it certainly doesn't look like Malcolm. --Lostie247 01:26, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
It definitely isn't Malcolm David Kelley. It is Walt though!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  05:16, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Are you guys sure? Looked like him to me. --Minderbinder 09:24, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Looks like they reused the shot of Malcolm from the "My Name Is Earl" episode he was in.--Frankov 13:51, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
No, since you can see Michael and Walt in the same frame after Michael leaves, which is not from MNIE. Roger 15:11, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
If they used footage shot earlier, either for this show or borrowed from somewhere else, it would be very easy to composite into new footage. --Minderbinder 15:13, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Yeah it looks like a composite, much like when they photoshop an actor's face over a stuntperson. --JoeyBags1138 11:41, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
Do we have the official press release? That should solve the question. --Minderbinder 16:33, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
It's here, and it doesn't. If they did a composite job on the face, it's a really seamless, expert job. The light changes on his face as he moves, his eyes move, and his face turns slightly revealing his features from a slightly different aspect (meaning a simple 2D cut-and-paste wouldn't suffice). That said, there does seem to be a stripe of unmotivated light on his face, so I wouldn't rule it out entirely. It seems more likely they're using footage of MDK they shot years ago, or they found a really good look-alike. Does anybody think the distant shot of Michael and the close-up appear to be slightly different? I can't convince myself one way or another. I guess we'll have to wait for the Season 4 DVD to know for sure... Robert K S (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
Seeing as how My Name is Earl is an NBC show, and Lost is on ABC, it's very unlikely that they used footage from's just a different actor.Thelordnyax 11:52, 26 March 2008 (PDT)
I was completely sure the first time I watched this episode that it wasn't Malcolm. I then saw it a second time and clicked on pause to see the boy by the window and I'm sure it wasn't him. But could anyone post a picture of that scene?--Salvora 09:15, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
Here you go. Robert K S (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
Many thanks Robert K S!--Salvora 10:10, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I think Malcolm will stop appearing in the show, because Malcolm has grown up a lot during these years: yet, on the island it has been only about 3 months? The interesting related-issue is that the producers could have used Malcolm's growth as part of the story: for it has been suggested that the speed of time on the island is different to the speed of time off the island. So if Malcolm has been growing fast during the last years, then the producers could have used this as part of Walt's character: for instance, saying that since Walt has left the island, then he has been growing faster because of that, even though it has only been 3 months on the island. The fact that they don't do this, and that they use a different actor, suggests to me that they are not going to pursue this story line. Shame, that would have been clever and useful! I'm afraid we won't be seeing Walt an awful lot from now on because of Malcolm's growth!--Salvora 09:15, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
I'm not sure where I read about it, but I'm pretty sure the producer's said they had planned for Malcolm's growth since the very start of the series, knowing full well he'll be shooting up in height, etc.. Mikay 16:48, 23 March 2008 (PDT)
EDIT: Source] (Contains Spoilers) Mikay 17:12, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

It is Malcolm in the window: [[1]]. Jimbo the tubby 12:43, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

The Conversation between Michael and his Mother

One thing I noticed that seems to be left out... Michaels mother said, and I'm paraphrasing, "You were gone for two months.. you left him for two months. Now you will tell me where you were and what you were doing or you will not get to see him" which suggests... Walt was with her the whole time he was on the island? In that 2 month period, WALT WAS WITH HER?! If I'm mistaken, please please tell me because this is an extremely strange occurence.

"I thought you were dead. They said your plane crashed in the middle of the Ocean, but you show up here fine and dandy. Only I can't tell anybody about you or Walt, can't call you by your real names. He barely talks to me, but he does wake up screaming in the middle of the night and I'm the one thats got to tell him its gonna be OK. So until you can explain to me where you were for over 2 months, and what happened, you gave up your rights."

I think that the line "I can't tell anybody about you or Walt..." and the established timelines (Walt being on the plane because Michael went to get him from Sydney) suggests to me that he was on the plane, and wasn't with her all the time. Sure, the wording is awkward, but I think he was on the plane and Island as we've already seen!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:00, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

  • You've misunderstood her meaning. She is asking Michael for an explanation of where he AND Walt have been and what happened to them both. And until he can supply answers about the crash and island, she doesn't want him seeing Walt. No mystery here.--MonsterEatsThePilot 16:07, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

No, the two months that Michael was "away" are the two months he is recovering from the car crash/attempted suicide. He left Walt with her, tried to kill himself, and spent two months in the hospital. After he was released, he comes to see them, which is this scene. It has nothing to do with Walt and Michael's time on the island. --Litany42 18:05, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

  • No no no... She says that she thought they died in the crash but they showed up there "fine and dandy". The "two months" refers to that period of time. She wants to know where they had been (not just Michael) and what happened there, because she didn't know what made Walt so angry with Michael. --     c      blacxthornE      t     14:32, 4 April 2008 (PDT)

Is anyone else wondering what name Michael went by when he first arrived back to the mainland? Assuming that the flashback is in chronological order his mother says that she can't call them by their real names and as Michael has not taken on the identity of Kevin Johnson yet what name is he using? Just wondering if this could end up being relevant in the future? --Vanessa 06:01, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

Good point. Perhaps the "Johnathan Lantham" or whatever people think was in the newspaper clipping will be his other fake name he went by, since he doesn't need "Kevin Johnson" anymore. --macosx 14:56, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
I thought you were on to something there! The newspaper clipping says that the guy was living in LA, but was from NY originally, which is where Michael is in this episode. However, apparently the producers have said that the clipping is not meant to be a clue, and that they will be rewriting it. So I guess we can't trust anything from the clipping... ([2]) --Litany42 05:58, 26 March 2008 (PDT)
In the hospital the nurse asks Michael what his name is, pointing out that he didn't have any ID on him. --Jackdavinci 11:14, 26 March 2008 (PDT)
Maybe h was never using a fake name before reason why anybody would need ID for anything...he probably was usign Credit Cards or anything...Thelordnyax 11:54, 26 March 2008 (PDT)
I'd be surprised if anyone could get by in life without having to provide a name for things. He had a small flat that he was maybe renting so he would have to give a name for that and I would have thought ID (that's how it works in the UK anyway) If he gave his real name then it would eventually be noticed that he is supposed to be dead or missing at the time he took the lease out on the flat. The only other solution would be that the flat is in somebody elses name. --Vanessa 05:25, 28 March 2008 (PDT)

Crew member

Could anyone else hear what Michael called the crew member he asked to go to the Supply Room? I heard "Jack".--Phil (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

  • "Jack, man, you know what? We need a pressure valve." -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:13, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
    • I actually heard "Jeff" and that's what came up on my Closed Captioning as well. - Kaiser 05:07, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Revolvers don't jam

Just wanted to explain an edit I made in the synopsis. A firearm is said to jam when a round does not get properly loaded into the chamber, usually because an empty shell casing is stuck. It's impossible for a revolver to jam since all the rounds are loaded into separate chambers before firing (the cylinder just rotates from chamber to chamber as you shoot). What happened in the episode (despite Tom asking whether the gun "jammed") was simply that it failed to discharge. So, I've edited the synopsis to reflect this. Tabula 05:11, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Although that's a fair technical observation in most scenarios, we are dealing with the creepy magical Island. If the Island can keep Michael alive after a car crash and send him visions of Libby, then I think the island can manage to jam even a revolver. That's the beauty of being an all-powerful island.--MonsterEatsThePilot 05:29, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • I feel like this information regarding jamming vs. failure to discharge may support my "Tom-switched-it-out-for-a-dud" theory. See the Bullets thread on this page.--Overworkedirish 06:06, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • No they can't "jam" but thats the point!!!! The island made it not work! Stop thinking so hard people... Your hairlines must be back 6 inches since this show started!! :D  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:01, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Oh, I certainly agree that the island made it not work. I'm just saying that "jam" is the wrong term for how it failed to work. What happened -- for whatever reason -- was that the gunpowder in the ammunition didn't ignite, which isn't the same thing as jamming. Tabula 15:12, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
    • And in case I'm being unclear, neither am I saying that what happened in the episode should have been "impossible", island or no island. It's entirely possible, although rare, for a round of ammunition not to go off when the trigger is pulled. Tabula 15:16, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

No Jack?

Is this the first episode ever in which Jack does not appear? I also think it is cool that Jack has not gotten an episode this season. I love Jack episodes, but I think it is good that the show is using the other characters more.--Playsbad 07:10, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

You know what? I think you might be right! This could be the first episode ever that doesn't have Jack in it at all! I think Jack will probably get at least one of the finales as a centric episode personally.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:20, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
He wasn't in "The Other 48 Days", "Flashes Before Your Eyes", "Tricia Tanaka Is Dead" and "Enter 77" to my recollection (and according to Character appearances).  >: 4 8 15 16 23 42  07:27, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Oh fine... He's still been in far too many!  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:34, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
I hope that sometime this season we get to find out what happened to Jack between getting off the island to his suicidal state. Marko 18:46, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
But Jack does appear briefly in a flashback - kneeling, bound and gagged on the island jetty while Michael is leaving the island. Or doesn't this count?Zin92 08:12, 29 March 2008 (PDT)

Deleted Cultural References

  • The Godfather: Miles Straume is eating, and offers Michael, an orange before getting on the freighter. Oranges are seen in each instalment of the Godfather trilogy before deaths or assassinations. (Movies and TV)
  • Cars: In the flashback, Michael drives a green Dodge Aspen

These seem to be quite a stretch to me. I'd be willing to give in to the Godfather reference (especially with the Star Wars reference above it), except that this case didn't precede a death or assassination. I was more thinking a reference to Locke eating the orange in Episode 1.

But a 'Cars' reference, just because he was driving a car that looked like a car from that movie... that's way too far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clamshell (talkcontribs) .

  • First, the reference wasn't about Cars, the movie, but cars in general on Lost (cf the link where it leads). Second, the context of the "orange scene" was clearly a reference to the Godfather, and obviously put in to underline the irony of Michael's situation. - TheAma1 08:14, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Come on. Is every appearance of an apple a reference to Eden? Is every appearance of an orange an homage to "The Godfather"? Please, sometimes an orange is just an orange.--Eyeful Tower 08:36, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Okay, I guess I was just assuming the link was to the Movie, I guess I should have followed it. However, it's still not really a cultural reference... unless you're willing to say that Miles Straume eating an orange is also a cultural reference to oranges in general, or Michael's use of a gun being a cultural reference to guns, etc.
As for the Godfather reference, I have to agree with Eyeful. It's just an orange. I've already stated that it did not precede a death. Clamshell 08:42, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
I agree the Godfather reference is too much of a stretch. The Star Wars and Star Trek references have little value as well. Aren't there a 1000 movies with the line "I've got a bad feeling about this"? And the Red Alert-sound isn't even in the episode. It might go under Trivia, but it is not an cultural reference in my opinion. --FrankdelaCoste 11:36, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
No, the "bad feeling about this" line was popularized by Star Wars quoters. Robert K S (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, "bad feeling about this" is a line used in ALL 6 Star Wars movies, and just about all prominent peripheral stories. It's a Star Wars thing.--Ex-Pope Cardinal Richard Corey 14:05, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
As Star Wars is a major influence to many of the Lost creators and writers, I don't think this is a stretch at all. Godfather might be a different story though.--JoeyBags1138 11:36, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
Funny about the Godfather reference. I swear when Miles offered him the orange I thought of the Godfather, and remembered when Locke smiled at Walt with the orange peel in his mouth in S1, just like Brando did before he died in The Godfather. I doubt either instance was planned specifically, but one of the great things about Lost is how much it suggests, how the smallest things send us off on new avenues of investigation, the images are so rich with meaning, echoes of archetypes. So while it did make me think of the Godfather, it's not really enough to call it an intentional reference, not like Charlotte's name or Daniel's first words to Jack and Kate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emissary23 (talkcontribs) 2008-03-22T02:16:30.

Are we sure it was a Dodge Aspen? I don't remember them having a Special Edition or white vinyl top -- it was more the "utility" car of that line. Could be a Plymouth Volare with "fine, Corinthian leather"...? --Litany42 18:20, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Libby and Production Notes

This was on the main page:

  • Libby is the first non-original main cast member to reappear after leaving the show.

Libby already came back when she gave Desmond the boat. We have also seen many of the others come back after dying. Libby only came back as a vision, she didn't actually come back from the dead. I am not sure what this note was intended to mean. --Chuck 08:45, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

    • When she was in desmonds flashback, she was still credited as a regular until the end of that season, so she hadn't "left" the show yet. this note is saying she is the first member of the main cast (but not the original from season 1), to be seen in the show after she has left being a regular.--Mattfarley1008 11:55, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
      • Now I understand. It is one of those silly inconsequential facts that do nothing but clutter the main article.--Chuck 09:39, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
        • Actually ... doesn't Kiele Sanchez's cameo in Ji Yeon count as a comeback ? --LeoChris 10:03, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

I'm removing it. Brett Cullen came back as Goodwin in Season 3.--Eyeful Tower 10:08, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Not that I'm against removing it, but its not the same as goodwin, as goodwin was never a regular--Mattfarley1008 11:55, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Guess I don't see Libby as a main character. Tail section survivor, never had her own flashback, lasted less than one season. That's my three strikes.--Eyeful Tower 12:44, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
She was credited with the main characters at the start of the episode, so officially she was a main character. --Minderbinder 12:53, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
if she's credited before the "guest-starring" section of the credits, and she appears in all the promotional photography for that particular season, she's a regular. --JoeyBags1138 11:34, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

Deleted Production Error

- *I don't post often on this wiki, but just after 11pm last night, I added a blooper to the effect that Michael's "Kevin Johnson" passport picture would not be valid because it shows him smiling rather than straight-faced. Can anyone tell me whether this is true or not? And if it is true, why is it not still on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gsm (talkcontribs) 2008-03-21T10:47:30.

I'm smiling on my passport picture, and it's valid. This may be a restriction added sometime after September 2001. Mine was taken in 2000, I believe it's good for about 10 years after that, certainly easier to fake one of those older passports before modern restrictions. Clamshell 09:45, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Okay, thanks - I am a resident of the UK and I was not allowed to smile on mine - but mine is a recent passport and maybe US legislation is different.g-s-m 16:11, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

How Tom left the island?

This is under unanswered questions, but isn't it most likely he just used the sub like everyone else? According to the timeline on this site, it was blown up on December 11. The flashback he appears in could happen any time after about Thanksgiving due to all the christmas decorations. He simply used the sub, then Locke blew it up after he got back to the island. Isn't that question pretty much answered? --Minderbinder 09:08, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

I agree. Unanswered questions can't be a parking lot for everything that we absolutely don't know for certain.--Eyeful Tower 09:43, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
I agree it's something of an odd unanswered question... tho' there does seem to be some validity there. The Swan imploded in the S2 finale which was the last time we saw Michael. Peripherally it's been mentioned that the anomaly (aka sky turning purple) also wiped out the Others communications -- I believe that the underwater beacon to guide the sub back was knocked out to boot (it appears to be offline in Enter 77). Later when John is about to destroy the submarine, Ben tells him that Jack & Juliet are leaving and once gone the sub will be unable to return -- tho' granted Ben lies about things frequently. Tom was frequently seen on the Hydra and at the Barracks throughout S3 so the timeline seems a bit odd. Possibly there are other ways to leave the Island that have not been revealed yet -- aka the polar bear showing up in Tunesia. It's a long way from the South Pacific to New York City.--Spiral 09:48, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
There's plenty of discussion about the sub's capability and possible role in transport to and from the Island in the Galaga entry. Because of it's lack of speed, the sub was probably a way to safely navigate the "time bubble" surrounding the Island. We know that Dharma used the sub, and that the Others continued to use it after the purge. The complete details of how the Others travel to and from the Island are an unanswered question, as is the exact role the sub has in it. But to pose the question specifically about this trip for Tom in this episode is unnecessary and repetetive.--Eyeful Tower 10:44, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Because they do not use the Sub to travel off the Island.Mapper 10:13, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
What do you mean? We have seen them use the sub to get to the island in multiple episodes. While this is the first time we've seen an Other off the island since the swan blew up, the sub seems to be the obvious answer to this question. --Minderbinder 11:27, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Whoa, so we're saying Tom did his whole trip in less than a week, in a sub?? Michael left the island on day 69, and the sub blew up on day 82... factoring in that Tom was present from the point Michael left till Episode 9 of Season 3 Stranger In A Strange Land... we're leaving 6 days for a submarine to get from the Eastern Pacific Ocean to New York, and then back?? Seriously guys, subs aren't that fast. The Galaga's model of ship moves at 16km/h when submerged or 10mph. so that means a maximum range in 6 days of 1440 miles... The fastest sub in the world submerged can only do 50mph, making its maximum 6 day range 7200 miles. As the crow flies its a 5000 mile round trip from LA to New York... Accounting for the journey having to be via the Panama canal or the Drake Passage, It can't be the sub.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:38, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
I don't want to theorize on the talk page, but perhaps the sub takes a shortcut. Like, y'know, the taken by polar bears and Beechcrafts. Robert K S (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Tom's trip to new york, sub or not, requires something we don't know and can't explain yet. In other words, the submarine can be a partial answer but not the full answer to the original question. Since Tom can't have done a round trip by sub in the time shown, I think there is a valid question of how he made the trip so quickly. The window for Tom being off the Island is actually Day 75 (left the hydra) to Day 80 (at the barracks). Those are the only days he isn't seen on the Island. The other consideration on the submarine is that it could be making a short trip off the island to somewhere with jet service (like where the freighter was docked). But even that would take a long time by sub. Dharmatel4 20:16, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Please don't forget that Juliet arrived on the Island by sub, but she was in an airport VIP lounge when she drank the orange juice. Unless we care to speculate how the sub took off from an airport, it seems common sense that the sub goes to the nearest place that they can catch a plane from, whether that's Nadi, whatever. We've been told that they go to and from the island by sub. We've been shown that it's common enough that Patchy thought Bonnie and what's her face were on assignment to Canada. This is not an UA question in the sense that there is a high probably the writers will give an answer that will satisfy everyone. Sometimes we just have to use common sense and accept the most plausible solution based on what we've been told, because not everything is a puzzle to be solved or a question that will needs a spoon-fed answer. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:30, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
I'm pretty sure the Sub is used for short range missions. Michael flies to Fiji so it only makes sense that Tom probably did the same. It should be interesting to note as well that days 74-80 take place before Anthony Cooper appears in the Black Rock's brig. It's possible Tom was on two missions during his stay to the mainland: Michael and kidnapping Cooper.--JoeyBags1138 11:32, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
We do not place things on the wiki based upon speculation though. If it happens in canon, its on the wiki... if its speculative guesswork, its a theory and nothing else! We don't accept plausible solutions until they give us such reasoning to speculate (ie tell us that there are gateways they can travel between!) Until then, we just don't speculate on main articles.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:23, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
On that same thought, however, we don't allow UA questions that are easily explained by common sense or connecting the dots based on what is canon. Juliet came to the island in a sub AFTER she flew to wherever the sub was located; the sub didn't leave from the airport we see her in. It is speculation to say exactly what mode of extra transportation Tom used, and where it was secured. It is common sense that a short-range sub cannot get to NY and back in the short period of time alloted. There's no question that Tom arrived by other means, means that we do not need to have as a UA because it does nothing to further the story. It's akin to asking something like "Paulo walked toward the trees with a magazine and a roll of toilet paper. Did he go number 1 or number 2?" Come on. Use common sense and let's not fill the article with nonsense -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:36, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
Actually all we see of Juliet is her waking up in the sub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mapper (talkcontribs) 2008-03-27T06:34:28.

I think any timeline funny business with on island and off island events can be explained away with the time bubble Kajillion 04:10, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Passport Photo

Since i'm originally from England and therefore have a UK Passport, I don't specifically know about US policy, but over in the UK you are not allowed to smile in a passport photo, in fact if you wanna get technical, i'd say also that in Michael's fake passport photo, his head is too small. I can only guess US is more relaxed on such things right? --Gredge 09:46, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

What pose should the photos show? The photo should show a clear, front view, full face of the customer. The customer should be in normal street attire, without hat or dark glasses against a plain white or off-white background. The customer should have a natural expression, mouth closed, and eyes open and looking directly ahead. Photos in which the face of the person being photographed is not in focus will not be accepted. 10:09, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
I smiled for my passport photo and I am perfecly legal lol. --Hansvon 12:54, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
I also smiled in my passport photo so I suppose that the US Passport office really doesn't care about smiling. --SolarSunSpot 13:50, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
I'm in the US and was not allowed to smile in my passport photo. I got my last passport Autumn 2005. --Xbenlinusx 14:04, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
I also had to not smile, so I guess it not a hard rule. Kajillion 04:11, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
I'm amazed that anyone is allowed to smile on a US passport photo. When was the last time you saw anyone smiling trying to get through US Customs post 9/11! :D  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  15:24, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
I was smiling when I cam back through customs from the British Virgin Islands in 2002 :). But really, in addition to the reasons I mentioned regarding this question several sections above, we have to remember that the passport in question is a forgery. Clamshell 13:30, 4 April 2008 (PDT)

The Mole

Should it be mentioned in the main article that before Michael came back to the street that there was a flash frame of something that said "The Mole", I don't know if it was a blooper on ABC's part or an easter egg? --Redsoxfaneb 11:12, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

  • I saw that too...I saw a flash of it on two separate occasions, both right before the show came back on. The only reason it made any sense for me is that ABC is bringing back "The Mole" this summer (filming began earlier this month). David 11:28, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
  • But the placement of it was so weird, I'm sure it was a mistake on ABC's part but its almost like saying Michael is "a mole". I was trying to get a screencap of it on my computer, but it wouldn't let me I'll try again later. --Redsoxfaneb 11:30, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, it's just a "subliminal" ad for another show, they have been doing the same thing on other shows, has nothing to do with LOST.
Um, just wondering... isn't subliminal adv against the law? --CharlieReborn 07:51, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

--Minderbinder 11:34, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

  • This was most likely due to the way they queue up their advertising. If done improperly, you'll sometimes shear off the end of one too early, or catch the very beginning of another one. The Mole "splash" screen that showed is from the beginning of a short clip announcing the return of the show. --Bdjsb7 11:49, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

--Ainulindale 13:52, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Things I noticed

1) Sayid is sleeping with his shoes on.

2) Sawyer is homophobic (he killed Tom).

3) Minkowski plays Texas Hold 'Em.

4) The Temple's logo is nothing special. Andreapasotti 15:20, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

1) Yes. 2) Not even worth discussing here. Go to the forums if you want to speculate wildly on that one. 3) Yes. 4) That is your opinion, I'm amazed you could make it out.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  19:30, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

  • 1) As a vet myself, I noticed that immediately. Of course Sayid is sleeping w/ his shoes on; it's a force-of-habit from years of military training. You'll also notice that Desmond isn't sleeping w/his boots on, but he instinctively puts them on immediately after the alarm sounds. This reflects a difference in years of experience between the two and how Sayid served in actual combat scenarios, whereas Desmond appears to not have done much but training and drills.Kevrock 06:57, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
    • I spotted that as well and I think it's a really cool detail! It's so easy to overlook it but it actually says alot about the character of Sayid. I bet BKV wrote it into the script, he's awesome with details, see his comic book series "Y-The last Man" for evidence. :) Roger 20:03, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
Uh... killing a homosexual person doesn't make you a homophobic. Being afraid or uncomfortable around homosexual people makes you homophobic.
2)He would be qualified as homophobic if he killed Tom BECAUSE he was gay...but that is no that case.Thelordnyax 11:59, 26 March 2008 (PDT)
Exactly. Sawyer stated he shot Tom for, "taking the kid off the raft." The-room 13:29, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

No innocent people

Ben's comment about not killing innocent people was pretty suspicious considering his past. It's in unanswered questions, but I think that Ben asked Michael to get the names so he could get information on those coming to the island as part of the team. We saw in Confirmed Dead that he knew pretty much EVERYTHING about Charlotte. He clearly checked up on everyone to know what he was up against, he doesn't care about innocent people. I don't know if it's conclusive enough to remove from the questions, but something to think about. Voodoo 15:55, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Ben was simply lying. Ben kills people with a little reason (remember The Other Woman and Goodwin? Remember "the purge"?). But - he is a very, VERY good manipulator (as Miles noticed). --Running 18:41, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
He didn't kill Goodwin. The only example I can think of him killing without reason is the orders he gave for the beach raid at the end of season three. As far as him being a manipulator, he is hardly the only one on the Island. For all her self-pity, Juliet is just as bad. Not to mention real operators like Sawyer and especially Kate. Kate uses Sawyer who knows he is being used but still betrays Locke without a second thought. Dharmatel4 19:16, 21 March 2008 (PDT)
Without knowing precisely what you mean by "without reason," I find it pretty hard to justify the above statement. He murdered his father and friends in the purge. He intended to kill Locke in cold blood simply because he was a threat to his hegemony. In addition to the attack on the beach you mentioned, he also ordered Ryan and Tom to execute Jin, Bernard, and Sayid (they disobeyed). Sure, there aren't many role models on the Island. But I see zero room to defend Ben. Even his release of Michael and Walt has proven to be to his advantage, rather than keeping his word or the goodness of his heart.--Eyeful Tower 08:08, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
In response to the last comment, I always thought that Ben never wanted Tom and the others to kill Jin, Bernard and Sayid. My understanding of what happened then, is that all of that was a plan orchestrated by Ben to get Jack to believe that they would kill them if Jack didn't give them the phone. If you think about it, all of The Others share an idea of what the good people are and what the bad people are, and of what it's right and wrong. If so, it makes sense to suppose that Tom and the others with him on the beach knew for certain that Ben didn't mean the orders to be executed. Because if Ben truly meant those orders, then he wouldn't be one of the good people any longer. So, my understanding of what happened in the beach, is that Ben orchestrated this lie to get Jack to give him the phone. It was all manipulation, but there wasn't intention to kill... My opinion is that the Others are pretty ruthless about manipulating others, and they do lie in order to achieve their goals. But I think they think it's bad to kill innocent people, and that they don't do it "without a reason."--Salvora 10:21, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
He actualy ordered Ryan and Tom not to execute them. They complain about the orders the fire into the sand and thought they should have killed them. The better example is the orders to kill Bonnie and Gretta in the same episode. As far as the purge goes, there is no answer about his actions until the motivations for the conflict are better understood. He killed his father, but thats not exactly uncommon on the show. As far as Locke goes, it could be that Ben didn't consider someone who was swaggering around challenging him for leadership in the middle of a crisis as an innocent person. Dharmatel4 12:44, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

The only "reason" that Ben needs to kill is if he perceives the person to be a threat to the island. Locke is developing the same traits, killing Naomi and allowing Boone to go to his death. Historically, sacrifices to a greater good (the Aztecs, the Mayans, even Abraham readying to sacrifice Issac) have not been viewed as murder. Both, in my view, see these killings as sacrifices and not murders, and are therefore more justified. (Though both enjoyed seeing their respective fathers dead...) --Litany42 06:09, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Before we go judging Ben too harshly, consider that we know very little about his larger motives. Concerning the purge, we know next to nothing about the history of conflict between the Dharma Initiative and the Hostiles. Regardless of the personal conflict between Ben and his father, the purge was much more than that, and for me it's too early to take sides. Concerning shooting Locke, Ben definitely knows about Locke's missing kidney, and shot him exactly there. I suspect if he had meant to kill Locke, he would have. "Ben is a man who gets what he wants." He left Locke saying, "I certainly hope Jacob helps you now." I kind of think he really meant that. Archaeoptryx 12:41, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

I think he wanted a list of Good and Bad people. Michael, not being an other, couldn't make the call himself like Goodwin could(I can't remember if he asked Ethan to make the same list) so Ben just asked for a list of all the names. Kajillion 04:17, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Car crash sequence

The car crash sequence seemed out of place last night. It looked more a like a season opener than the opener they actually used for season four. I think it would have actually been alot better if they had opened the season with michael driving into the wall with no explaination for the next seven episodes. It would have set up a long mystery about what the note was about, why he did it and how he could turn up alive on the freighter. It would have also made his appearing on the freighter a whole lot less obvious. Dharmatel4 18:16, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

My impression was that it seemed like the openning shot of an episode, but not necessarilly the season. Like if they had a full 23 episodes instead of the reduced 16 they would have had the scene where Sayid and Desmond confront Michael at the end of the previous episode as a cliffhanger and then this episode would have begun with the crash. I'm also a little disappointed by the "twist" at the end of this one. All of the actors and the producers themselves kept saying that this episode ended with a nice season-ending-like cliffhanger that will hold us over until the new episodes aired, but it was pretty lame and was nothing different than a normal episode ending. Who are Karl, Danielle, and Alex? Nobodies. And lame ones at that. --macosx 15:04, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
Karl was important: he was the last surviving member of the males-18-to-30 demographic on the Island! :) - Tvb 15:10, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
I think the actual cliffhanger was not about Rousseau, Alex or Karl... It was about who the people shooting them were. If it was anyone we knew, we probably would see them. It's not hard to imagine a scene where <insert name here> jumps out of the bushes and kills two of the three people. We were probably meant to be wondering about who were shooting them, and even if they were some people we haven't seen before, not about what happened to Rousseau or what will happen to Alex. --     c      blacxthornE      t     14:39, 4 April 2008 (PDT)

Midf*ck ending

The ending of this episode was the best from 4th season.... as I saw the ending, I though "oh, the old lost with creepy cliffhangers at the very end of the episode is back" ... I don't know, I don't remember such a good lost cliffhanger in the whole 3rd season, but I may be wrong ... of course, the old lost is not back, because the show is changing over the time, but still, I loved the ending - as I like 4rd season at whole .... 3rd season was strange, but 4rd is great again... just my guess :) --Running 18:39, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Are you kidding? This episode was entirely filler-in and not very entertaining. The twist at the end was lame. Characters no one cares about and poorly executed. Best episodes of the season so far would definitely be Desmond's then Sayid's (and that says a lot since I hate Sayid and all of his episodes the most). In fact, I'd say Sayid's ending was probably the best in Lost history. --macosx 15:07, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

Remember the Man From Tallahassee? Locke's dad tied up behind that door? That was a pretty good mindfrak. --bq 00:21, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

Blooper remover

i'm not sure this is a blooper, i think it should be moved to unanswered questions 'Only one helicopter is seen on the deck of the freighter when Michael arrives, although the Kahana is supposed to be carrying two.' the helicopter could just be on a test flight, or hasnt arived at the freighter yet for the mission. i think the question should be... 'where was the second helicopter' or similar Malachi Dungeon 02:15, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

I agree that it's not a blooper. I'll remove it. Jimbo the tubby 20:38, 23 March 2008 (PDT)


My wife and I were both under the impression that there was a faint noise of the Monster audible during the last scene. It was during the pull-back shot of Alex, when she was alone and hiding behind the tree, just after Rousseau has been shot, but before Alex starts announcing her identity. Did anyone else notice this? It seemed to us to be very similar to the faint audible presence of the Monster in Expose during the spider attack.Kevrock 07:26, 22 March 2008 (PDT)


Naomi Jeans

Low Rider Naomi

Since I'm not a native English speaker, I'd like to get cleared the plumber thing refferenced in

"When Naomi steps into the ship after talking to the helicopter pilot, we can see a plumber on Naomi."

As far as I understand this, it's quite of a slang word used for the position of the pants and what it reveals. However, this doesn't seem to be neither continuity error nor blooper. This is probably more like a trivia section. Is this appropriate on this page anyway?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taboracek (talkcontribs) 12:35, 22 March 2008.

  • I am a native English speaker, and I don't even know what that means. Last I checked a plumber was a person that does plumbing work. Someone want to clear this up?--MetallichickX 13:33, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Ha Ha...I think what T's referring to is "plumber's crack". Kivipat
  • Rofl, also known as "builder's bum" .... Mikay 16:54, 23 March 2008 (PDT)
  • It's definately a blooper (it's not supposed to be shown on camera), not trivia. However, if it's placed in the article as such, it should have a brief and clear description that doesn't include slang terms that might confuse our readers. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:33, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
It's called a "plumber" because plumbers often have their crack showing whilst bent over working on pipes.Thelordnyax 12:03, 26 March 2008 (PDT)

What was in Alex's ear?

4x08 Alex&#039;s hair adornment
4x08 Alex&#039;s microphone

Did anyone notice that there is something visible in/on Alex's ear near the very end of the episode. My friends and I were pretty certain it was a mic. I'm talking about her right ear. If anyone can get an image, that would be awesome. I'm trying to get one myself. Quazie 13:07, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

It looked like an earring or a female hairwrap to me. --Xbenlinusx 14:07, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
It looked like a hearing aid or a flesh-toned version of the things that Secret Service agents wear in their ears to communicate. But I don't think it's important, probably just a blooper if anything.--MetallichickX 14:33, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
At first I though you might be referring to hearing protection that the actress might have worn when dealing with squibs and other gun effects during that final scene. But I'm looking at it now. It's clearly not inside her ear, but hanging near her ear from her hair. And it's long and thin and metallic. It's some sort of adornment. Robert K S (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
After re-watching the scene I retract my previous statement, it does look just like some sort of hair jewelery.--MetallichickX 14:54, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
It could be a microphone--over the ear, underneath the hair is a good place to hide them on women--but I've never seen a lav that looked quite like that. Experts? (Additional pics added.) Robert K S (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
It's a hair wrap. Type of jewelry men and women hang from their hair. --Xbenlinusx 15:25, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
It really looks like a mic. Any definitive arguments either way? -Quazie 21:04, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
Let's try this: in a scene we didn't see, Ben gives Alex an earring, as a present. But this has something to do with her non-death (assuming that the gun shots came not from the frighter people..... come on, they are on a war, why would they use a "silent" weapon?) Andreapasotti 01:42, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

They are hair beads. --Litany42 05:57, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

It's a mic dressed to look like jewelry

It seems everybody was right. I brought this up on a digital video forum I'm fond of. Link. Somebody with experience in mics was quick to point that the hard windscreen is a match for several popular mics (see, for example, this pic) but the mic has been dressed with some ornamental metal to make it look jewelry. So everybody was right--and we can put this one in bloopers. Robert K S (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

If they're dressing up the mic to look like jewelery, then they're obviously aware that it's going to show up on camera, so it's not a blooper because in the world of the show it is jewelery. Jimbo the tubby 20:38, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Good point! Roger 17:09, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Or, it's meant to be a mic dressed to look like jewelery!! --Chesebrgr 05:19, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

It shouldn't be considered a blooper. It's not a filming equipment. They use microphones on those "booms" and they don't place mini-microphones on the actors like they would do on some talk show. This one is a piece of jewellery made of a microphone but it's not used for filming. It is definitely a legitimate prop. --     c      blacxthornE      t     02:55, 14 April 2008 (PDT)

I'm not arguing the blooper status of this, Blacxthorne, but you're mistaken if you believe lavalier microphones are only used by talk shows. Every film and TV production puts lavaliers on its dialogue-speaking talent--often just under the shirt, but preferably on the head if one can be hidden there--and the lav tracks are usually the preferred source for dialogue editors and mixers in post-production. The first rule of pro audio is "get the microphone as close as possible to the sound source". A boom-mounted mic usually only gets within feet of a speaker, whereas lavs get within inches. The head is preferred over the chest as the point of placement to eliminate the attenuation that occurs when an actor speaks while his or her head is turned away from center. Audio tracks sourced from the boom mics are used for dialogue, but usually only when the lav tracks are for some reason unsuitable. Robert K S (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2008 (PDT)
Hmm... I actually looked it up before I commented on this, but I guess I didn't do a very good job :) Thanks for the input. --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:27, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

First bomb?

Did this episode have the first ever instance of a bomb on Lost? (Bomb being defined as explosive + timer fuse.) Robert K S (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

I don't think so. Several uses of the explosives so far have been with a fuse (blowing up the hatch door, attempting to blow up the blast door inside the hatch). My bomb education is pretty poor though, so if timer fuses and regular ol' run of the mill fuses are different then I'm completely wrong.--MetallichickX 15:11, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
Locke bombed the sub. -Neur0n 06:23, 23 March 2008 (PDT)
Locke is like a bomb expert! He bombed the sub and the flame station. --Petrarch1603 22:38, 6 April 2008 (PDT)

Which hospital was Michael in?

4x08 Libby ID badge

Could anybody make out the name of the hospital from Libby's ID tag? Manhattan [Something] Hospital. All I've done so far is manage to discount "General", "Christian", "Lutheran", "Surgical", "Charity", and "Clinic &". It looks like it's 7 letters. Robert K S (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2008 (PDT)

  • This is a clearer image than I could get. I thought at first it looked like "county", but now I nearly convinced that the last of the symbols in the middle is an ampersand, making it Manhattan [something] & Hospital. That could mean it very well could be "Clinic". That makes sense. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:13, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Shame we can't se Libby's surname in the picture--Phil (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

    • That "Libby" is just a "vision" of Michael's mind... And I gess he didn´t know her last name...--erikire 18:18, 31 March 2008 (PDT)

Caliber blooper?

I'm looking at the scene where the bullet hits Karl's water bottle. Now the bullet hole is approx. 1cm wide. I wonder if this is a caliber a sniper rifle usually fires. Any gun-fan's around who can confirm or deny that? Roger 10:09, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Maybe I'm over-thinking this one: Are we assuming too much that a sniper rifle was the weapon (or among the weapons) used to attack Alex et al? Prseumably, someone using a sniper rifle (as commonly understood to be a rifle fitted with some type of improved sighting system) ought to have been able to take at least one of the 3 down on the first shot (especially since Carl and Alex were relatively still), unless they were a terrible shot. I would hope that the implication is that they were shot at by someone with an unscoped rifle or a pistol. And on that note, did it sound to anyone else like the producers intended to make us think that the weapons were silenced? Sorry I can't answer the mail about the caliber of the weapon. Jonesgp1996 11:34, 23 March 2008 (PDT)Jonesgp1996
Well, I believe the most normal rifle calibers are 22 and 308 thousandths of an inch (a.k.a, .22 and .308). .308 would correspond to about 7-8mm, and .22 would be about 5-6mm. It could have been a .357 rifle, which equals 9mm (the wound was probably smaller than it appeared, because of blood spattering, reddened skin, etc)--Ainulindale 15:00, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

timeline clarification on Anthony Cooper's kidnapping.and finding of the 815 wreckage

We now know indirectly a couple of new things based on the episode:

- The 815 wreckage is found between Day 74 and Day 79. It has to happen while Tom is off the Island and it has to happen allowing enough time for Michael to fly to where the freighter is while Tom is still in New York.

- Anthony Cooper had to be Kidnapped and brought to the Island between Day 75 and Day 80. In the Brig, Cooper knew that the 815 wreckage had been found. The 815 wreckage is found while Tom is in New York. This does not prove that Tom was in Florida to kidnap Anthony Cooper. Dharmatel4 10:38, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Statue in Ben's secret room.

I've seen it referred to on this talk page as a Bhudda statue, but I kind of thought it looked more like Ganesha, the elephant-headed hindu deity. Whichever one it is, it's put at the very beginning of the shot, very pointedly. I think Ganesha makes sense too, because this would be a pretty expository scene, assuming Ben is telling anything remotely resembling the truth, and Ganesha is revered as the remover of obstacles. Or am I just looking too hard for a trunk in the shadows on this guy's face? Archaeoptryx 12:52, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

The Names Tom Lists

  • At one point, Tom is talking to Michael and he mentions the names of some Island people. He says (Can't remember the order): "Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Sun, Claire, her baby". Notice that many of these are people who are part of the Oceanic Six (he named 6, 4/6 of which were, in fact, O6ers), although they're still on the island when he says it. This led me to believe that the Others have already planned which Losties are going to get off the island - it's quite a coincidence that he names whom he does. If this were true, could it mean that Sawyer and Claire are planned to be members of the O6? They are replaced by Hurley and Sayid.--Ainulindale 14:41, 23 March 2008 (PDT) (edited for clarified discussion by--Overworkedirish 16:05, 23 March 2008 (PDT))
    • We don't know the circumstances that the O6 get off the Island, but it would be strange to find that the Others already have picked out which Losties get to leave this early, especially when they're still trying their hardest not to let any of them go. There are around eight to ten prominent Losties still alive at this point, so the fact that he mentions most of the O6 isn't surprising or anything other than coincidental. In fact, the fact that he mentions Sawyer disproves the theory that he purposely mentioned the O6 because he clearly isn't one. And please sign your comments. --macosx 13:55, 23 March 2008 (PDT)
    • I agree with Macosx. Also, please keep up-to-date on your Lost facts (the 06 have already been revealed), and keep discussion focused on "Meet Kevin Johnson" improvements - I really had to stretch to edit your post so that it was relevant.--Overworkedirish 16:05, 23 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Apologies to Ainulindale - I didn't mean to break Lostpedia policy by editing his talk - was only trying to help.--Overworkedirish 19:11, 23 March 2008 (PDT)
    • I actually thought he listed names Michael would care about. The first one was Sun (they had a thing back in season 1, which was brought up in the mobisodes), then Sawyer & Jack (who Michael last saw gagged and betrayed by him), and then Claire and the baby, for sympathy... ElectAbuzzzz 09:48, 24 March 2008 (PDT)
      • I thought that was obvious. How weird would it be if he started naming unimportant people or names we haven't heard of before? "Jack, Sayid, Roger, Scott--" "Dude, it's Steve. Scott's dead." "Well whatever. Neil Frogurt?" My point up there is that there aren't that many losties that he would care about, and since there are six O6 members, it would be entirely coincidental that he named most or even all of them. As I said, the fact he named Sawyer negates the theory that he was purposely naming the O6. --macosx 15:13, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
It goes like this (and the it should be noted it's not a formal list, just random names being thrown):
- Michael, you have to kill those people.
Michael gets to the boat and gets to know those people by name.
- Well, Michael, now that you put names on those faces, you think it will be hard to kill them?
Michael thinks "yes", but doesn't say anything. Ben reads into it and goes on:
- Well, your former people - Sun, Jack, Claire, etc - will be killed by them. They have names and faces too, and you know them better. Can you make a decision?
Michael gets convinced he shall murder the Freighties. There's no complication, really, and a guy like Ben would obviously put Sun's name first. -. Grillage .- 00:49, 31 March 2008 (PDT)

something I think I noticed

Something I noticed is that this seems to be the first post-island, off-island flashback from a main cast member (that is, exluding the Boaties' flashbacks)--Ainulindale 14:41, 23 March 2008 (PDT) (edited for clarified discussion by--Overworkedirish 16:05, 23 March 2008 (PDT))

Well, yeah, because nobody else has left the island and come it's impossible for anyone to have an off-island/after-crash flashback.Thelordnyax 12:12, 26 March 2008 (PDT)

I have a doubt

When Michael is about to set the bomb off, and he hears something and turns around, I thought he had heard the Whispers, but it could also be just him hearing the normal sounds of people moving and talking (when you're doing something secretive, your ears become more attuned to everything around you, and you jump at the slightest noise). Can anybody with good sound equipment clarify this?--Ainulindale 14:51, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

All I can say is that the closed captioners annotated the sound as "(ghostly whispers)", which is what they usually use for the whispers. Robert K S (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2008 (PDT)
Hm, I don't know how you didn't hear ir... it was a part of the song Michael crashed his car with that makes him turn around --CharlieReborn 00:13, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Altered ending to episode

Acording to Blake Bashoff's interview with Kristin, he said that a scene was deleted from this episode that at the very end, the men shooting at Danielle, Karl, and Alex appear from the tall grass, but the producers probably cut this out from the final cut because it made a better cliff-hanger leaving them out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marko14126 (talkcontribs) 2008-03-23T19:34:52.

  • I'm sure it wasn't deleted, it will be featured in the next episode. Malachi 21:42, 23 March 2008 (PDT)

Contact lens blooper

4x08 Tania Raymonde brown eye

"At the end of the episode, Tania Raymonde's (Alex) left eye contact can be seen slipping out of place, showing her naturally brown eye underneath."

This is in the bloopers section. Does anybody have a pic of it? Jimbo the tubby 09:45, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Here you go. The brown bit is revealed near her pupil. It also makes it look like her eyes are a bit askew. I watched this scene very carefully and the blooper is definitely legit. Something else I noticed: tricky editing made it so that Mira Furlan (Rousseau) never had to wear a squib. We never see her GSW explode--there's just suddenly a red spot on her chest. The sound of the impacting bullet sells the effect. There's another cut when she falls, possibly to cover a less-than-convincing death fall on the part of the actress on the wider take. Robert K S (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Wow, that looks really freaky... Thanks for the screencap. Although if you want to argue that perhaps Alex wears contacts (after all, Ben wears glasses) then it's not a blooper, it's just Alex's contacts becoming disloged... ;P Jimbo the tubby 11:05, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

I have rarely ever heard of someone wearing contacts regularly to change their eyecolor (unless for a special occasion). And this wild island child does not seem like she is preoccupied with her own vanity. Definitely a blooper.--MonsterEatsThePilot 16:57, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Agreed, I was kidding. :P Jimbo the tubby 09:08, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

Editing blooper

"Blake Bashoff's character Karl seems to posses precognitive powers, seeing that he turns his head in wonder at the same time the first shot can be heard and the second time even before the sound of the bullet hitting the bottle can be heard." This is what I entered as a blooper before someone took it out. Sure it could use a workover on the wording but essentially that is definitely an editing blooper! The sound effects of the first and second shot are edited into the scenes too late so it appears as if the character reacts to the shots almost before they happen. It's pretty obvious that Karl's reaction would fit better if the sound effects appeared a touch earlier. The reason for the edit in the article ("Not a blooper. He hears something in the woods... and we don't know which shot hit his water bottle...") holds no water since it's clear that he reacts to the first shot (too early so) and the second bullet fired hit the bottle. I really believe this should be back up in the blooper section. Roger 17:31, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

It might be the way you phrased it, I think some people might not get the sarcasm and might think you are really suggesting that Karl has precognitive powers.Liquidcow 11:05, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
The guy who took it off had other reasons as posted above but you are right, on a second look it sounds sarcastic. I'll rephrase and put it up again. Roger 16:12, 26 March 2008 (PDT)

Karl's hearing aide?

Not sure if anyone has brought this up, but here goes. After Karl is shot, and lying on the ground, there is a close-up of his face in which you can see "something" in his ear. Maybe a hearing aide? But, kind of reminded me of the puddy kids would put in their ears when swimming to prevent water-ear. I wonder if maybe it was sound protection for the actor when the squib shots (exploding "gun shots" coming from the actors' chest) go off? Or maybe the actor wears a hear aide in real life? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DIGITALpH (talkcontribs) 2008-03-25T00:35:53.

It was, as you surmise, hearing protection for the pyrotechnics sequence, and it's already added to the bloopers page. Robert K S (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2008 (PDT)

Innocent People

Ben's claim that he doesn't kill innocent people (or order others to kill innocent people) means that the following people aren't "innocent:

  • Charlie since Ethan hangs him from a tree and leaves him for dead.
  • Sawyer, Jin and Michael since the Others had no problem blowing up the raft and leaving them to die.
  • Nathan since Goodwin snaps his neck.
  • Claire since, according to Alex in the Staff, they were going to kill her aftr she gave birth.
  • Pickett since Juliet shot him when Ben told her to go help Kate and Sawyer escape the Hydra.
  • Bonnie and Greta since Ben has Mikhail kill them.
  • Jack since Ben tells Locke to shoot him at the radio tower.
  • Charlotte since Ben shoots her.
  • Goodwin since Ben sent him to the Tailies to die.

That's all I could think of right now. Any thoughts? Would this have a place in the article? Jimbo the tubby 09:20, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

    • Ben may have just said that to further his manipulation of Michael. --Spiral 09:27, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
If that were the case, then why wouldn't he just blow up the freighter? He must have some concern for certain people being innocent on the boat. I just think it's interesting to note who he doesn't consider to be innocent, since he's willing for them to die. Jimbo the tubby 09:30, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
I think he was lying about not killing innocent people. It's quite possible that Ben wanted the boat to make contact with the island, to further manipulate teh Losties, and get him where he wants to be...he's now a semi-trusted member of Locke's camp...this would never have happened if the boat was blown up.Thelordnyax 12:17, 26 March 2008 (PDT)
Some thoughts:
    • Charlie - Ethan was acting of his own volition. It's stated somewhere that he went crazy and wasn't following orders.
    • Nathan - We don't know if Ben ordered Goodwin there. Goodwin says he felt it necessary himself.
    • Claire - It's possible they weren't going to kill her.
    • Pickett - Juliet was working against Ben.
    • Jack - He wasn't innocent at the time. If the freighties are evil then Jack was trying to help them reach the Island and thus was bad.
    • Charlotte - I agree, she's not innocent. She's evil and is one of the ones following orders to kill everyone.
    • Goodwin - Ben hoped he would end up getting killed (and remember, he gets what he wants), but that doesn't mean he had a hand in his death. There was a possibility that he didn't have to die, but fortunately for Ben he did. It's more of Ana-Lucia's and Goodwin's faults than Ben's. Benry Gailinus even attacked Ana-Lucia for killing him (as a performance).

That's my response. --macosx 15:31, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

  • I don't think so. There is no list given in this episode and no list has been shown related to this that would be considered canon. This is original research that has a place in the Theory section of the good/bad article, but not here. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:45, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
    • The first thing Ben ever said that I believed was when he told Michael on the dock that the Others were the Good Guys. This is not evidence, just my gut reaction, but the truth about Ben is that we know nothing of his real motivations. We don't know what his people do, why they are on the island, their relationship to the island. We don't know what Ben thinks he is protecting. A common theme in tv and movies these days is is when the good guys have to act like bad guys in order to win. Jack Bauer from 24 comes to mind. Some of Ben's actions, like the Purge, may eventually be explained as purely self-defense, or just what he had to do in order for the island and its people to survive. Of course, power corrupts, and it's clear in light of what he said to Juliet over Goodwin's body that he's probably mad with power, but I bet he wants to believe he can be honorable in war because he believes in whatever it is he's fighting for. It is impossible at the moment for any of us to truly cast judgement on Ben Linus. --bq 12:58, 28 March 2008 (PDT)
Didn't one of the Others (possibly Juliette) say Ethan acted "alone" with regards to his capture of Claire. Can't remember when exactly it was said, could have been from anywhen Juliette befriended Jack from Season 3. And also, before recapturing Claire, Ethan swam around the manned perimeter and snapped someone on the beaches neck. --Gredge 05:34, 5 April 2008 (PDT)
Ben shoots Charlotte to expose the fact she's wearing a vest. - GoodRom 15:54, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Not been mentioned - Symbols on side of boat

Hey Folks, it may be just me being over enthusiastic, but I'm surprised it is not mentioned anywhere.

There is a shot when Michael is on the boat out at sea. The shot looks back at the side of the boat, with Michael looking out to sea.

On the side of the boat, to the left of the screen there were two quite distinct symbols. I don't have access to the show to get screen caps. Can anyone have a look? Any cryptographers around? The symbols didn't resemble anything I had seen before on the show.

As I say, I'm surprised they weren't mentioned. --Stubblychin 03:19, 26 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Those symbols are common load lines also called plimsoll lines or waterlines showing how much the ship can be loaded to at a maximum in the area and season it operates in. Check it out in detail at Wikipedia. [3]--Nemo 05:30, 26 March 2008 (PDT)
  • Ah I see. I was obviously a little too enthusiastic!--Stubblychin 06:34, 26 March 2008 (PDT)

Game show on Micheal's TV

What show was that or was it just something made up? Thanks. --Hugo815 10:52, 26 March 2008 (PDT)

It was something made-up, apparently a throwaway element produced in a hurry for Lost. Too bad, because usually when Lost goes to the trouble of re-creating fictional television, they do it in a thorough and fleshed-out manner, and reuse elements of it (Action 8 News, Expose). Here, they didn't even bother to assign a name to the show or its host. Robert K S (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2008 (PDT)
Maybe it was an idea for a game show on ABC that never got used. So they just tossed into an episode of Lost. (Speculation based on nothing)Thelordnyax 12:19, 26 March 2008 (PDT)

Smiling for passport photos

Removed from main article:

  • Michael's passport photograph shows him smiling. Passport photographs should show no expression on them, and such a photograph would make the fake passport stand out to any officials who saw it.
    • The U.S. Department of State's passport photo guidelines say absolutely nothing about not being allowed to smile in a passport photo.

There are lots of rumors about this and it appears that toothy smiles are frowned upon, but there is no hard rule about this on the U.S. State Department website. Anyone know more? --Chuck 11:10, 26 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Depends on who you ask. I definitely remember when I got a passport a few years ago that the guidelines included not smiling. According to there's no mention of it, but in other places such as it says "Face in photo should have a natural expression (closed mouth)" and in it says "The new guidelines permit people to smile for passport and visa pictures but frown on toothy smiles, which apparently are classified as unusual or unnatural expressions. "The subject's expression should be neutral (non-smiling) with both eyes open, and mouth closed. A smile with a closed jaw is allowed but is not preferred," according to the guidelines. So why does the State Department frown on smiles? Smiling "distorts other facial features, for example your eyes, so you're supposed to have a neutral expression. ... The most neutral face is the most desirable standard for any type of identification," said Angela Aggeler, spokeswoman for the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, which handles travel-document guidelines." --Jackdavinci 11:22, 26 March 2008 (PDT)
    • It's true that regulations require for no smiling, but it's not really enforced. Many people smile in their passsport photos and it is considered legitimate.Thelordnyax 12:21, 26 March 2008 (PDT)
      • In several of the examples on the site, the people are not only smiling, but you also see their teeth. I think that this is a non-blooper for that reason alone. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:20, 29 March 2008 (PDT)

How many times did Michael actually try to kill himself?

Now, some say that Michael had five attempts, but does he really pull the trigger fully that second time in his apartment? Whoever wrote the synopsis seems to think it was only 4. I would agree with this as I don't think he pulled the trigger the fifth time. The news of finding Oceanic makes him pause, and I didn't hear that flat click I heard during his first attempt.

Anyone else curious about this?...JakeC 11:48, 29 March 2008 (PDT)

It's either three or five, depending on whether you count interruptions (interrupted by Tom in the alley, interrupted by breaking news about Oceanic 815 on the TV). I don't see how you can get a count of four. Robert K S (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2008 (PDT)
Well, in the synopsis, the author cites four attempts: The car (1), After he gets the gun in the alley (2), in his apartment after seeing Tom (3), then when he stands in front of and sets off Ben's "bomb"(4). I guess it depends on what one defines as an attempt. And like you said, does that include interruptions? In the big scheme of things it probably doesn't mean anything. And it could be either 3 or 5 tries I guess. Thanks for your comments --JakeC 10:38, 30 March 2008 (PDT)
I'd say 3, thinking that even three or four pulls on a trigger in the same scene would be classified as a single attempt. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:38, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
I say we should count interruptions. Fate is a major thing in Lostpedia... Interventions aren't always direct; the "sign" Locke got when he was trying to open the hatch, for example, was merely a result of Desmond's curiosity, but it was still an intervention: Locke received a "sign" from his fate. Same thing happened with Galaga, for example: It was Locke who blew up the submarine, but it was the Island that didn't let Jack leave. So the interruptions of Michael's attempts were not coincidences, they were interventions. Actually when Tom said the "Island wouldn't let" him, I really expected nothing more than more interruptions, like seeing something on the TV, or forgetting to put a bullet in the revolver, etc. It was shocking to see that a fully loaded revolver just didn't work, but it doesn't mean that the Island's interventions should be expected to be always this blunt. Sometimes it's more subtle; things just seem like coincidences... But we shouldn't mistake coincidence for fate, right? --     c      blacxthornE      t    

Jack and Kate do appear in this episode?

The first production note says: "Charlotte, Daniel, Jack, Jin, Juliet, Kate, and Sun do not appear in this episode." But in the "previously on lost" part Jack and Kate appear.. Is this a mistake in the production note or does "previously on lost" not count? --ArnoVL 05:37, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

"Previously on Lost" doesn't count. Robert K S (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Allright, thanks for pointing this out. --ArnoVL 06:51, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Gun Blooper?

I'm new to this so please overlook me if I'm out of line.

It's quite obvious that there is no firing pin in the revolver while Michael is trying to commit suicide at his apartment. Wouldn't that make it a blooper? Or is the thinking that Tom switched out the gun with a dud? --Andie 13:01, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

  • It's actually quite obvious that there is a firing pin. There's, like, 8 different shots and you can spot it in every single one of them. The close-up shots are practically focused on the firing pin; you can see it move as Michael pulls the trigger--it just fails to fire the weapon, with no logical explanation. No blooper. --     c      blacxthornE      t     17:46, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

Ok, went back and re-watched that scene and you are right, there is a firing pin. My weapon obsessed other half would like me to point out though that the pin is shorn at the tip so even though it is there the gun would have never made contact with the blasting caps firing the bullets.--Andie 18:31, 13 April 2008 (PDT)

Interesting, could be a prop safety measure. Still, in the Lost universe, we know the gun was capable of firing, because Michael did shoot it. Robert K S (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2008 (PDT)
Heh. I have no idea. But I agree with Robert: Whatever stopped the gun was not the firing pin because Tom suggested that it may have just jammed--he wouldn't know of course, but the suggestion is actually for us, the viewers, hinting that there was some great intervention there. --     c      blacxthornE      t     02:44, 14 April 2008 (PDT)

I've actually checked with some people that know about guns after the episode aired, and they said the firing pin is not visible. and that in that gun the firing pin is INSIDE the gun, and we only see the hammer. --CharlieReborn 20:32, 19 April 2008 (PDT)

Then I must've assumed that the tip of the hammer was the firing pin or something, because I think they're usually too short to notice anyway. But if there are people that know about that gun, then we need not debate. That means it's still not a blooper though. --     c      blacxthornE      t     01:33, 20 April 2008 (PDT)

SPOILER on new TV ad

Those who wish to avoid being spoiled as to the identity of the shooters at the end of this episode should avert their eyes and plug their ears if they see a Lost TV ad coming up while watching ABC. Robert K S (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

I haven't seen it, and I don't think I'll go looking for it... But given that the cliffhanger at the end of Kevin Johnson was "who shot JR... er... Danielle and Karl" I don't understand why they'd put that in the preview. I know the ads are done by ABC, and not the producers, but you'd think they could figure out not to spoil something like that before it airs. Jimbo the tubby 09:25, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

Thanks for the warning on this one, I'll stay away but I suspect I'll run across the info somewhere anyway. I guess that's kind of a cliffhanger, but I don't really care that much. Seems like it's either the freighties or someone sent by Ben. The bigger question is whether Danielle (and Karl) live or die. But I don't think that will turn out to be all that surprising either. --Minderbinder 09:42, 15 April 2008 (PDT)
Agreed, if I come across it on TV, I don't think I'll care that much, but I'm not gonna go out of my way to find it. Besides, I'm already fairly confident in my theory about who it was. But I really think that they need to stop putting large spoilers in the ads. Telling you what the episode is about is fine (ie: "Next week, Sun considers leaving for Locke's camp and Juliet reveals an important secret to Jin." ("Ji Yeon") or something like that) but telling you big things like "next week, one of these people will DIE!" always pisses me off. Jimbo the tubby 10:12, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

Enhanced Episode Timing of Flashback (Um, WHAT?!)

Didn't the Enhanced "Meet Kevin Johnson" place the first suicide attempt at two weeks after Michael's departure from the Island (Day 67 + 14 = Day 81/December 10, 2004)?

  • Michael returned to his home in New York / after he left the island with Walt. / This flashback takes place / a couple of weeks after their departure.

Our timeline currently places it between Day 69 and Day 74. Since the producers have now declared the Enhanced episode info as canon, our timeline must be wrong in some way. Then again, I don't see how it can be wrong without time travel. After all, the Others leave New Otherton (from which Ben communicated with Michael) on Day 81 (about the time Michael is supposedly crashing his car if there is no time travel). So... WTF? The General Trivia section here would appear to be out of step with this new info. --Castaway815 14:14, 21 April 2008 (PDT)

Where did the producers confirm that the enhanced episodes are canon? Also, I noticed another thing in the 4x08 enhanced episode, where it declares that Tom's full name is Tom Friendly. Which is retarded, since the producers have flat out said that Mr. Friendly was just a nickname they had for him. Pisses me off. Jimbo the tubby 15:27, 21 April 2008 (PDT)
The producers confirmed the canonicity of the Enhanced episodes in an interview with DocArzt you can find by clicking here. It's also mentioned on the Lostpedia canon page and elsewhere on this site. --Castaway815 15:31, 21 April 2008 (PDT)
I listened to that already... as I recall they didn't say that the extended episodes were canon, they said they were a good opportunity to catch people up on the show so that they can get into it if they haven't seen it before. I think they even compared it to Find 815 which they definitively stated weren't strict canon on the podcast. Am I wrong? Especially since the extended episodes are known to contradict information we already have. Jimbo the tubby 17:19, 21 April 2008 (PDT)
Well yeah, this was mentioned before. And Jimbo is right; they did not confirm it. They just didn't deny it, and many people thought it was a good opportunity for them to address that even vaguely but they didn't. That's still not a confirmation though. They could've been talking about Lost: Via Domus and say that it's a good way to experience the Island's atmosphere, for example. That wouldn't mean that Via Domus is canon. We just said that the enhanced episodes being non-canon is a smaller possibility now. --     c      blacxthornE      t     17:26, 21 April 2008 (PDT)
Actually, TPTB said they are Cliff notes for the episodes, making them canon by extension. (And Friendly has been confirmed as Tom's last name in several different ways. See Tom#Trivia.) On the other point, the timeline was just repaired recently and still needs refining on the Michael points, so yes, it might be out-of-step. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:43, 21 April 2008 (PDT) Edit: Jimbo, how do you catch someone up with incorrect information? You don't; ergo, canon.
The Tom article says nothing about it being his actual last name (other than the enhanced episode). Indeed, it actually mentions "Mr. Friendly" as being his nickname not a real name. And can you point me out to where the timeline has been fixed to deal with the disagreement about what day it is according to the enhanced track vs. the events seen on the show? I can't find it. As for canon, the producers have explicitly stated that the only thing that is 100% official canon is the events on the show and the mobisodes. Not the ARGs, not the novels, not Via Domus, not even things said by the producers if they later get contradicted (anyone remember "there will never be time travel"?)... By extension, I really don't consider the enhanced tracks to be canonical. Jimbo the tubby 22:53, 21 April 2008 (PDT)
TPTB evidently do consider them part of canon, so we must react accordingly. Regarding the timeline corrections, look at Timeline:December_2004, along with a huge chunk at the bottom of Talk:Timeline:December_2004 related to the changes. The timeline actually now matches perfectly in line with the enhanced episodes even though they were not any part of the primary consideration when the changes were made based on how the events transpired. ["Through the Looking Glass"=Day 91, "The Beginning of the End" ["...the Season 3 finale...was just a few hours ago")=Day 91, "The Economist" ("At the end of Season 3...was only a few days ago")=Day 92, "Eggtown" ("This is the survivors' 93rd day on the island")=Day 93, "Meet Kevin Johnson" ("the Season 3 finale... was just a few days ago.")=Day 96 (comment: FEW is relative, but the numbered days are not!)]. We should have been wondering all along why they were trying so hard to tell us the numbered days in the popups; seeing them all together like that, I actually feel very stupid for not seeing it sooner. (Thank you for pointing out it still said "nickname"; I've corrected that oversight. I was actually referring to the name revealed in closed captions before it was revealed by TPTB.) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:27, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
Evidently? They said "Cliff notes for the episodes". They didn't say they are canon, that's just the conclusion you are jumping to. --Minderbinder 10:54, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, I'm gonna side with Minderbinder on this one. Until they come forward and say definitively that the enhanced episodes are canon (which is doubtful, given that not even things like the ARGs or Via Domus are canon, as per the podcast I previously mentioned), anything they say in the enhanced episodes shouldn't be considered canon. That doesn't mean that they're false, just that they're not confirmed facts. As for the closed captioning on Tom, I still feel that to be a nickname, used in the closed captioning just because they didn't have anything else to name him. It'd be like if Mikhail were called "Patchy" in the CC: it wouldn't make it his name. Jimbo the tubby 13:00, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Except we have a full name for Mikhail, and Tom wasn't just referred to as Mr Friendly in the captions, but also as Tom Friendly, which shows it was used as a last name, not a nickname there. Canonicity can be discussed on canon, while this can be continued on Tom :) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:10, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

And how do you know they were using it as a last name and not a nickname? --Minderbinder 14:33, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

The timeline issues should be discussed in the December 2004 timeline article. Many issues and problems related to the content of the enhanced episode are dealt with there. When that timeline changes, the material in this article will change as well.

Canon issues should be dealt with in the discussion for canon.

Any issues releated to Tom's name should be discussed in the discussion for the Tom article as part of the ongoing discussion over renaming the article. Dharmatel4 14:39, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

Michael and tennis ball

  • "Michael is bouncing a tennis ball against the metal door of his ship's quarters. The sound made by the ball appears to be the same sound later referenced in episode 7 "Ji Yeon" when Sayid tells Desmond that the annoying noise is not made by a machine." This was the same sound, so it can be referenced as such. It's a strong probability we are being shown what made the sound again on the later occasion with Sayid and Desmond listening. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:35, 21 April 2008 (PDT)

Sorry for all the reverts on that before, I thought what you were trying to say was that when Michael was bouncing his ball against the door in his flashback, it was the same event that Sayid and Desmond were hearing, which is obviously not the case. I've put it into a different wording now to make it clearer. Lemme know what you think. Again, sorry about the misunderstanding. Jimbo the tubby 12:57, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

No worries. I explained it here because I assumed you misunderstood by your edit summary. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:11, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

Longest flashback?

"This is the longest flashback to date, exceeding "Flashes Before Your Eyes" by just a few seconds." Since The Other 48 Days is flashback for the entire episode, wouldn't that be the longest flashback? --Minderbinder 15:51, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

Under that wording it would. But I think it means the longest continual flashback. It needs rewording.--Baker1000 16:00, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
In what way is this flashback "continual" while the one in TO48D not? --Minderbinder 16:12, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
Ah sorry, I forgot MKJ was set out like TO48D.--Baker1000 16:17, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

I've been meaning to change that, keep forgetting. It's fixed now. Jimbo the tubby 19:21, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

Not a blooper

"Karl's water bottle springs only one leak, whereas a bullet passing through it should have created two holes" is not a blooper. Yes, it should have created two holes, and we can't see the exit area to be sure it didn't make a second hole. However, one leak is exactly how it would have behaved given the angle of the bottle; one hole for air, the other for the water to escape. Consider when you pop two holes in a can of juice, where you pour the juice from one hole and the second hole makes that possible. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:15, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Possible continuity error

Hey, Might be wrong here but I think I notcied a continuity error. When Michael visits his mother, she siad "they found your plane on the bottom of the ocean" or something that effect. But in a later flashback, Michael sees the news report about the discovery of the wreckage. Error, or have I missed something? --Blueeagleislander 17:42, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

She doesn't say they found it. She says: "They said your plane crashed in the middle of the ocean".--     c      blacxthornE      t     05:27, 26 April 2008 (PDT)


Does anyone know if the two men that Captain Gault beats up near the beginning of the episode were played by any of the extras listed in the freighter extras page? I'm trying to get an idea for myself of how many confirmed crew-members were aboard the Kahana when it blew up. Burnside65|talk|contributions 13:22, 17 June 2008 (PDT)

Deleted Scenes

In an interview with Blake Bashoff earlier this year, he said that while they were filming this, at the end after Alex cries, "Wait don't shoot. I'm his daughter! I'm Ben's daughter!" he said that Keamy, along with the entire mercenary team come out from the tall grass. Is this is included in the Deleted Scenes section of the Season 4 DVD set, then would this mean that all the mercenaries would have one more episode count, or do the episode counts no include delted scenes? Marko 17:43, 7 October 2008 (PDT)

Toms first appears after his dead was in Meet Kevin Johnson. The second time was in The Other Woman.--Station7 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael asking Keamy about the rescue mission

Can someone help me out, why did Michael ask Keamy "I thought this was a rescue mission"? Michael knew from Tom that it was mercenary mission. I mean, maybe he was playing along but I don't remember Michael being told by Naomi or anyone what the freighter trip was supposedly for in the first place. Can someone explain this to me? Thanks! Alexisfan07 9 January 2010

Main Image change

Main Image needs to be changed. New pic would better symbolize main episode plot which is Meeting Kevin Johnson.

4x08 MeetKevin
Pictogram voting support -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:23, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose Don't like the image being of the passport; I like a pic of the character "in person" better. I don't think the pic needs to represent the title too literally here. -- Graft   talk   contributions  23:46, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose I agree with Graft on this one. The current image is of Michael as Kevin Johnson, it symbolises the episode title just fine. The passport is an object, not a person.--Baker1000 23:54, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it needs a better picture, but definitely not this picture. --Bish-Fiscuit 20:40, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose I'm not a huge fan of this new picture. It is too small an image of Michael who is the centric character. Mhtmghnd 02:25, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Karl's Water Bottle

Wouldn't the force of the bullet have knocked the water bottle out of Karl's hand? And how does it created a nice clean hole?--Paleored 20:41, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

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