Talk: Recon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Recon article. General discussion about the article's subject is permitted as a way to aid improvement of the article. Theories about the article subject should not be discussed here. (Instead, post your theory to this article's theory page or discuss it on this article's theory talk page.)
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite, don't bite, have fun! Admins are here to help More discussion at the Forum	Article policies Canonicity Spoiler policy Theory policy

Protected

I think this page should be protected. You never know what for people are doing on this page.--Station7 19:08, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be locked because we're likely to get people adding the centric character to the article over and over again. Template:Ep/6x08 should be updated with the title of this episode, too.--Baker1000 19:52, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

The centric character has been revealed on the latest podcast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duggie2 (talk • contribs) .

Can't be posted pre-air. Yes, Lock cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:15, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

FST Theory Discussion

[note: site administrators -- thank you for taking control of the instructions for posting. I am posting this for your consideration of adding it to the FST theories page]

This FST theory does not set a date for the "split" between timelines but rather recognizes that there are at least two parallel timelines. Since we are dealing with time itself, the notion of a "chronological split" is meaningless. This is a notion that was comically explored in the Back to the Future movies and other literature, but we have no evidence to support it in real life or in Lost. Instead, we should consider the possibility that there are multiple, parallel timelines, and presently two are presented as having some significance to the show.

Note that when comparing the FST to the OT, there are things that generally remain the same, while others are clearly different. We have nothing to suggest that "Major Events" -- such as geopolitical events, wars, treaties, etc. have changed. We do, in fact, have evidence that the Dharma Initiative, which clearly could be considered an "important event" from the storyline perspective, was launched, and that the island itself, clearly significant to the Lost storyline, also exists, albeit presently underwater. We also see that the main characters hold true to their personas, although their decisions are different. That is the key difference, it seems -- people making different decisions, and as such, some events are unfolding differently. So there are some events that may be significant to the plot and its denoument, that are dependent on individual decisions, that are also different in the FST. This returns us to the notion of a "split".

My theory is that since the evidence does not easily link the differences to a specific event in time, that instead, the "split" between timelines is not time dependent, but rather it is decision dependent. Specifically, it is dependent on the decisions being made by these main characters of the show, who's lives in both timelines are shown as intertwined. Each different decision made has causality with reference to the storyline, and as more of these decision points and new decisions pile up, we have more of a divergence in the story.

We're led to believe that perhaps the catalyst for many of the key decisions made in the OT is Jacob -- his touches, or merely his existence. Following the logic of the show, that would also suggest that in the FST, the catalyst for the key decisions is actually MiB/Flocke/Smocke/UnLocke (I like Unlocke). On the other hand, we have not seen Unlocke's presence in FST. I boldly suggest that although this season is the first time we are seeing FST, the FST has always existed, and for the moment it is serving another purpose in the show -- that being, similar to the flashbacks of Seasons 1-3, the FST is providing us information about the characters and the way they arrive at decisions. This always adds to both suspense and anticipation of their engagement in the crises and decisions taking place in the OT.

With this theory, however, I also believe that we will actually see two endings to the series. One ending will take place in the FST, and another in the OT. If my theory is correct, that there are two (or more) parallel universes, then there is no reason to suspect they will magically converge. Instead, we will be left to decide for ourselves which of these two endings is the more appealing scenario. We may also learn that in fact the FST was a timeline that included the decision for Jacob and Smocke to not accept whatever it was that enabled them to transcend humanity, but instead live out their natural lives.

More on this -- a corollary to my theory is that Jacob and Unlocke, perhaps as the original inhabitants of the island, perhaps as a result of either being banished there, discovered the true nature of the island itself, and chose to allow that nature to transform them in some way (in the OT). There is a little evidence here -- I believe Smocke acquired the "smoky" entity by way of the incident, involving the EM force present at the Swan site. When Juliet was pulled into the hole, her ankle was caught in one of the rigging chains. This was very similar to what Smoky did to Locke and to others early in the show, in the Dark Territory. It's my believe that Unlocke has allied himself with the Swan Site Force (space manipulation), while Jacob merged with the Orchid Site Force (time manipulation). This could also explain how Jacob seemed to be able to move through time, while we have no evidence of Unlocke doing this. Another piece of evidence of Jacob's powers having to do with time manipulation is his portrayal as a weaver of tapestries. There is an interesting concept of time as a tapestry, where we only see one dimension, while it is actually at least two dimensions (or is it three?). The weaver is able to see the whole tapestry, and can move the needle left to right, right to left, or up and down (parallel timelines, crossing timelines, free movement from future to past). We, on the other hand, are like ants that move along in one direction, on one thread.Blitzislost 22:45, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Why is this in the discussion page and not the theories? --SvenBoogie 19:38, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• I have no objections to putting this on the theories page; however, I have undue respect for those who have been trying to keep this wiki under control and I submit to their wisdom. If they see fit to include this on the theories page, great. If they would like to tighten this up first or have me do so, that's ok, too.Blitzislost 23:00, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Jacob is obviously not banished to the Island. He visited Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, Jin, Sun, and Locke outside the Island. Also, realize there is a very interesting difference between the sides chosen on the Island, and the differences in the lives of the people in the sideways line. The most improvement seems to come from people who trust Jacob. Hurley is trusting him, and his sideways life is very happy. Jack is less trusting, but is mulling it over. You can't ever tell with Sawyer, but his sideways life is a better moral choice. Sayid is still a killer, and his brother married the love of his life. Ben is selfless in sideways world. Sawyer is a cop and not a criminal. Locke is much better off in sideways; with Helen and doing a job he seems good at. The jury is out on Jin, Sun, Desmond, Claire, and a few others... but we haven't seen their sideways life yet.

Sawyer's books

I added the books to cultural references and added a screencap. It's my first time uploading pix to a wiki, so please let me know if I did it wrong.--Emissary23 04:25, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• And then someone wiped it in favor of 3 simple bullet points...I restored my edit.--Emissary23 06:21, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I wiped it without an explanation. Take a look at one of the other episode articles and look at its cultural reference section -- that's the way they should be written. Give a definition/description of the reference and how it was used in the episode. Does that make sense? I'm sorry, I should have talked to you before doing that.--Lionofdharma 06:24, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, and each reference should be listed separately. If the cultural item is also in reference to an earlier episode of Lost, that should be noted further under Episode References section--Lionofdharma 06:27, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

No worries, but I'm not sure what you mean. Are you looking for something more than just the fact that the books were shown? Maybe the fact that they were all seen in prior episodes belongs in episode references? Now that I think about it, it may not be worthwhile to explain the significance of each book in that space, given that each has its own page already and has been discussed on prior episode pages. It's notable because we've seen them before, so maybe your bullet points are best in the cultural refs section, and the episode refs section should say something about the books? Either way, I'm not going to tackle it tomight, my head is swimming with next week's preview...--Emissary23 06:33, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Basically in the cultural ref.s section you just give a brief mention of when it was seen in the episode and a brief description of the item. So, from the top of my head it would be something like "Watership Down: This novel, written by JoeSchmoe in 1234, was found on James' dresser by Charlotte. The book tells the story of talking rabbits that do I don't know what, and incorporates themes that I am not aware of." Does that make sense? In any case, there's definitely no reason to tackle it now. :) --Lionofdharma 07:23, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Miles and the Island

If ben and roger remember being on, and leaving the island. Does Miles and Charlotte know about the island too? Miles was a baby and Charlotte was a little girl, were they told about the island? Also, if the incident happened, as in the nuke and all that, that was after the sub with Miles, his mom, and Charlotte and her family, were safely off the island... Where is Dr. Chang? Did he get off the island somehow too? or does miles not know his biological dad and his mother just remarried. Thoughts?--Phryrosebdeco23 06:32, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Miles' father works in a museum with Charlotte... Sure, it could be a stepfather, but given what we know about Chang, I think him working in a museum is possible... I don't think it'll ever be revisted outside of this throwaway mention, though. --LeoChris 06:42, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Remember that even in the OT, Miles knew nothing about the Island.--Frank J Lapidus 06:52, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, given the observation that the FST is more of "the way things are supposed to be", what with Locke coming to terms with the wheelchair, Jack overcoming his father's influence with his own son, and so on, I'd guess that the father to which Miles refers is Pierre. No concrete evidence, of course, but Miles seemed plagued with daddy issues in the original timeline and appears relatively free of them in the FST. Obviously, he was a baby when evacuated, so he'd have no memories of the island. Charlotte, on the other hand, is probably still having nightmares about Daniel, since he creeped her out before the evac. Still, all of this assumes that the timeline branch happened when Jughead went off, which is still a theory (but the strongest one, in my opinion). Although I just thought of something - is there any point in this episode where they tell (or show) Miles' last name? Seems like it should be Chang in the FST if his father is still alive, but, then again, we don't know exactly why it was Straume in the original timeline. MannyF 19:20, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • • Yes, there was a placard on his desk in the Police Station that said Det. Miles Straumme. PhillyPartTwo Mar 18, 2pE.
        • Well, that throws a monkey wrench into my thoughts. Like I said, we don't exactly know why he has a different last name in the original timeline, but my assumption was that he was living with his mother after leaving the island when she re-married and he took his step-dad's last name too, but that's purely a guess. Of course, there are so many other possibilities in the FST - Pierre may have lived, but Lara divorced him and re-married, Miles may have just taken that last name for another reason (maybe Straume was his hero's last name), Pierre may have died on the island (or later), and so on. There's no concrete evidence as to which "dad" he refers, and no clear clues, so this one's still up in the air (although I'm still gonna run with the idea that he was talking about Pierre, just 'cause I like that theory, even though I can't really defend it). MannyF 19:22, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps one of our best clues to prove that "the Incident" was really the Atomic explosion, or at least the electromgnetc occurence while building the hatch,is that Pierre Chang does not appear to have the use of his left hand in the orientation video describing the Swan Station. It looks like a prosthetic hand and Jack comments on this early on. We know this hand is injured in the incident, and on the dvd interview with Pierre Chang, he mentions his mysterious left hand. This leads us to beleive that he still worked for the DI after the incident to make these videos, perhaps from Ann Arbor but it also proves that this incident did happen in the OT timeline.

Well, Roger Linus was on the Island directly before the Incident, as was Pierre Chang, and in the flash-sideways, they are off-island. (I assume Miles' reference to his dad was about Pierre, not a step-dad. Could be wrong, but I don't think so.) I think they left the Island long before the Incident, if it even happened. Someone mentioned an idea to me tonight and it makes sense the more I think about it: What if the flash-sideways timeline's existence is not a result of Jughead's explosion, but of Jacob's murder? It would be a classic case of misdirection on the part of TPTB. Maybe Jacob was somehow holding the timeline together, or his death sent ripples of displacement forward and backward through time? It's not a real theory, just an idea, but it's got a ring of truthiness, doesn't it?--Emissary23 06:46, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• • • Problem with that as a theory, it's not just presupposing that he is not there to do what he would do if he were alive, it's presupposing that he was not there to do the things he did do when he was alive. In other words, you are making it as if he never existed. He clearly does, he's appearing as a ghost. However, the FST could be the state of the world without him.--Sean Sheep 15:27, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • Like I said, it's just an idea. With so much still unknown about the true nature of the Island, Jacob, and MIB, it's really hard to say. For now, Sean, your theory that Jughead spawned the FST is the most coherent and likely I've read, but things could flip on a dime at any moment and blow all our ideas out of the water. I guess that's why we keep watching. :) --Emissary23 21:52, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

It's a true enough Character Connection to list that 'in the FST Charlotte works for Miles' father.' How about this until/if we can get some confirmation or a follow up cameo that would show Pierre as his dad? Meantime that conveys the probable guess behind 'Miles' father'. Duncan905 04:37, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• Remember these (anthropologist) Charlotte's words:"I grew up here...on the island. And there was this thing...this... DHARMA Initiative. And then...I moved away with my mum. Just my mum...and...I never saw my dad again. And then when I got back to England, I would...I would...ask my mum about this place, yeah? But she would say that it wasn’t real...and that I’d made it up. That’s why... I became an anthropologist. To find this island again. It’s what...I’ve been searching for my whole life."(...)". Alt Charlotte is an archeologist, not a cultural anthropologist. But i think she never heard about the island, or maybe, never went there.--Solitary rousseau 19:29, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Sawyer and Anthony Cooper

James Ford has said that he plans to kill Anthony Cooper if he finds him. In that Anthony Cooper is Locke's father, does this mean he is once again destined to kill Locke's father? Umptyscope 23:02, March 21, 2010 (UTC)Umptyscope

Numbers

Sawyer looks at the clock at 8:42. In most other flashes this season, the numbers have been off.--Pittsburghmuggle 06:53, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• This could be significant; I hadn't noticed this. There is some dispute about whether FS Sawyer could/could not have been touched by Jacob. If the numbers are in his world, then this might be an indication that he was touched. This could actully be VERY significant if Sawyer is the only one in the FS that still carries Jacob's gift.--Sean Sheep 15:29, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Something that I did notice, (since the whole series has trained me to keep my eyes glued to the screen to watch for every single miniscule detail possible) Sawyer's room number in the sideways timeline (Room 245) has nothing to do with any of the numbers, unless you include 4 in the middle, which is unlikely. This throws you for a loop, since the numbers have been recurring almost constantly throughout the entire series. --Diabolical Genius 16:10, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Claire's Fingers

Was it just me or when Claire was apologizing to and hugging Kate, did it look like her finger tips were chopped off? Maybe I'm just imagining things, but it seemed like something the MIB did to chastise Claire for her outburst. Again, I could be looking too much into things, but I just want to know if anyone else noticed this. When the episode is put online tomorrow, I think I'll review it to make sure. --OrangeXenon54 07:14, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• No, Claire's fingers are just curled under. Her hand is sort of making a claw. Don't worry though, my dad used to pull the same trick on me where I'd think he lost a finger in 'Nam ;) Uzerzero 11:38, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Definitely a half hearted hug, so despite all the tears is she genuine? Hard to tell with Claire coz regrettably her acting is painfully weak. --Charles Kane 12:36, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• It would appear, based on "The Package", that Claire was just just a trifle insincere.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:29, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems to indicate that her apology was at MIB's instruction, but can't post that as fact yet. I'm going to add it as Foreshadowing for now. Duncan905 16:24, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
• Yes she's a little vixen that Aussie Claire. Duplicitous in spades!More sexy wrestling is indicated! Charles Kane 16:06, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

• Ha, Jim in Georgia, just a trifle. It's amazing how her character has done a complete 180 thanks to the MiB. --—   lion of dharma    talk    email   16:34, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone Else Notice That MiB Tried To Help Kate Up?

And they really seemed to linger on the fact that she didn't accept? What with all the talk of Jacob "touching" people it might be important.Kajillion 09:06, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Might be the touch thing but we never had a lead that MiB can touch people to the dark side. Generally the ep made a point of showing MiB's false politeness, just as the last few eps have made a point of showing that Locke/MiB NEVER, EVER answers a question directly or actually AT ALL. He deflects the question, he answers with a question, he changes the subject, he finds a weak point in the questioner's psyche. He actually lets people dig their own hole.--Charles Kane 12:36, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that there is most likely an underlying cause here. I was wondering that myself right when I saw the Man in Black present the opportunity for Kate to be helped up. We do know that John Locke himself was grabbed by the Man in Black in "Exodus, Part 3," and we know that he managed to die at the hands of Ben, making him the only candidate assigned to one of the numbers who has been able to die, since Sayid seems to be alive and well. --Diabolical Genius 16:05, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Great point! There is definitely something that is being shown here. Kate has amazing intuition and she knowingly doesnt trust Flocke. He tried to reach out to here twice, and she waved him off the first time (fight with Claire) and refused his hand in the Banyan trees. I beleive he was purposely trying to "touch" her. We dont see him trying to "touch" Sawyer or Sayid. Maybe because he could recruit them with his false promises and needed to establish a connection by touch with Kate. Or maybe by your point above, maybe if he touches her, she can die at the hands of another candidate, i.e. John Locke--Annied 01:10, March 20, 2010 (UTC)Annied

We know nothing more about Jacob's "touch" than we do about the infection, really, but they appear to be polar opposites of each other in a way. The one feature of Jacob's touching Richard was his long life. And, from what we've seen, the infection seems to incline people to kill (of course, nothing is mentioned of reasons, but the willingness is the point). So, extrapolating from there, we can theorize that Jacob's "root" power is to promote life, and MiB's is to take it all away, and their tools are the people themselves, for the most part. I noted when Locke offered Kate a hand to get up (and liked the fact that she got up without his help), but we should note that Claire held her hand, and also ponder the relevance there. (Yes, stating "Claire is crazy" could dismiss any purpose, but there still may be some meaning...) MannyF 20:30, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• It was a lingering shot, and as a follow up to previous talk of Jacob touching people in recent episodes it's an obvious juxtaposition, but I feel it was symbolic. Kate had just heard Sawyer say "I'm not with anybody" (yes, he told Jin he was with Locke), had just been attacked at knifepoint & plead for help to an old friend who just watched idly. Coupled with what she witnessed at the Temple, Kate was having a sobbing breakdown, likely doubting why she was with FLocke at all. Refusing his false-polite gesture was a message to FLocke, as much as the tone of her voice in "Excuse me?" when he apologized for Claire's attack. It wasn't outrage/shock, it sounded resentful/skeptical.

• An interesting/ironic coincidence is that this conversation takes place among the roots of the kind of tree that has been an apparent barrier to the Smoke Monster. Then when Kate asks why she was led to the beach to be told about Sawyer's mission, MIB replies, "Then I wouldn't have been able to talk to you." The obvious meaning is that MIB wouldn't tell a revealing story about his mother within earshot of the group, but it would be an interesting effect if he couldn't lie/try to recruit within a 'safe zone'. Duncan905 16:56, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• I was focused on the Banyan Trees because it has been shown that it repels the monstor. I think it is an excellent point that he had to get her away from the trees to lie to her. He seems weak at the trees, when she calls him a dead man, he looks humiliated. When he is talking to her on the beach, he is applying to her mothering instincts and discussing Aaron in an attempt to lead her down a path....

• • Haha, I didn't think of that, but, yeah, in Kate's first true experience with the smoke monster she hid in a copse of trees much like the one she runs to in this ep. Guess when things get rough, she heads for the trees. Also shows a nice contrast for the monster / MiB. First time he was presented as a fearsome killer, this time he was a kinder...I dunno...protector? MannyF 19:34, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• • • Kate also pulls Juliet into the trees in "Left Behind". Maybe worth an "irony" note. Regarding the contrast (Kate refusing to be let up says how much she believes MIB), how about the visual contrast? FLocke's head is a white dome against a black shadow backdrop. Reminded me of his talk with Ben in the statue, where he leans forward into a shaft of white light as he describes Locke's sad life, then leans back into shadow saying he wants to go home. Duncan905 05:31, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

• Hang on. Kate has just watched many people die and sees Locke as the cause of it. She's seen that Locke has a hold over Claire, the person she has come to return to Aaron and that that person is seriously disturbed, she is nearly murdered by Claire (again - Claire's condition probably attributable to Locke and the attack caused by Locke's lies), she sees her beloved Sawyer acting as the same Locke's errand boy - and people expect Kate to accept Locke's hand to help her. You got to be kidding! Far more amazing is that she doesn't shoot him with that rifle! Add to that there is NO evidence that MiB's touch has any meaning at all. Am I missing something?--Charles Kane 06:37, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Why Anna?

In the guest-starring info (and on imdb and other sources) Jodi Lyn O'Keefe is stated as playing Ava. Yet in the describing text about the episode the character is called Anna. Whats up with that? Error? --Mlasson 10:16, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure it's in error. Anna Graves is a voice actor, Ava Graves is Sawyer's woman of the week. Uzerzero 11:41, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• my error, I got it right first time but got confused with something elsewhere on the Wiki and changed them all! If it hasn't been fixed - I will --Charles Kane 12:09, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Pix Please

• I'm stuffed and too edited out - can someone do some nice pics - I hate to see an all text page!
• Great work guys - I think there were two picture editors, terrific stuff --Charles Kane 15:25, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

• What happened to Kate between her leaving Claire and being apprehended by James?

This is a what-happens-next question.

• Why did Sawyer, being a cop, allow a woman in handcuffs (Kate) to escape from LAX?

Thought this was rather obvious: if he acted as a police officer he would have to report it, and his partner and superiors, would know he lied to them about going to Palm Springs. Clamshell 13:09, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Sawyer could have turned Kate in while they were in the elevator without having to let anybody know that they were on the same flight. --Lionofdharma 16:00, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

It seems that they are trying to show that Sawyers fundamental character trait is that of someone who is untrustworthy. Even as a cop he's plays an exceptional con-man, secretive to those closest to him, explosive temper when it comes to self preservation and states he's willing to kill a criminal rather than turn him in.--Nasher 16:38, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• I thought they were just trying to show that Sawyer is going to help Freckles in either timeline. --LOSTinDC 17:07, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

I removed this UQ, as it didn't happen in this episode. It belongs in LA X, not Recon. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 03:58http://images.wikia.com/common/releases_trunk/skins/common/images/button_sig.png, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

I added the UQ to LA_X & started a discussion - a reply said "no Unanswered Question should require information from a future episode to make sense" which makes sense (got to keep our audience in mind). I feel it's a valid UQ, since Det. Ford could have easily done nothing at all if he wanted to keep his Palm Springs cover, yet he interfered. The police code (which he would know) meant 'weapons discharged'. It's fair to question his motivation at this point. Putting it back. Duncan905 19:32, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

• Could we add "Why did Sayid not intervene to help Kate when Claire attacked her?" to the unanswered questions, I'm interested in Kate asking him if he's alright and him just answering "No", why is he not alright? has the darkness that Dogan said was growing inside him taken over? Does this prove that he is now 'evil'?--Lizziejj 17:01, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Umm..I was pretty sure he was evil when he killed Dogen and Lennon, allowing MIB to slaughter everyone at the temple. After that, it's hard to believe he would lift a finger to help anyone.--Emissary23 10:50, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• I put that in some time ago, but someone yanked it out.... Should it go back in? Superpuppy 5:46, March 23, 2010
• seems to me Dogan was right and a darkness is in his heart, OR he's a zombie, totally detached, OR he's good old Sayid, committing an atrocity at someone else's beckoning and then suffering terrible remorse so that he can't function. Take your pick. Doubt we need a question for it.--Charles Kane 13:48, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

• Does anyone else wonder if Sawyer works with Ana Lucia? Both were employed by LAPD around the same time, no?
  • Sawyer's a detective and Ana Lucia was in the uniform division, so I kind of doubt it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:01, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • She was pretty chummy with some other detectives - to try to catch the guy who shot her. It was just a thought - but then they would probably have recognized each other *if* she was on the plane coming back from Australia.
      • I would have preferred seeing Sawyer be set up on a date with Ana-Lucia rather than Charlotte. Rodriguez was probably unavailable, but from a character perspective Sawyer and Ana-Lucia had a much better connection in the OT.(Azuryte 01:53, March 19, 2010 (UTC))

• What was Liam doing in L.A.? If not to visit his brother, why was Charlie in Australia?
  • I was under the impression that Liam simply came from Australia to bail Charlie out of jail. I mean, who else would do it? --LeoChris 04:13, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • Liam's question answered in "Happily Ever After". Duncan905 16:20, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I reinstated the UQ about Ben being directed to Hydra island after shifting the UQ to 'Dr. Linus', following the above discussed logic of 'no UQ should require info from a future ep to make sense'. It seems pretty valid to question the timing since Ben's escape had to happen at once, and MIB could've told Ben a rendezvous point. The UQ here helps question MIB's truthfulness - is the job of Island protector even his to offer Ben? Was his real motivation to have Ben kill Ilana, whom he didn't just attack as Smokey for some reason? Duncan905 20:10, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Jinxmchue, would you mind circling back & presenting your reasons for yanking so many UQ's?

• Why didn't Sayid help Kate when she was attacked by Claire?
• Why did the Man in Black direct Ben to meet his group at Hydra island after escaping Ilana, when he establishes in this episode they would camp for a few days?
• Was the Man in Black already aware of Widmore's arrival?
• Who is Miles dating?
• Who is Ava's husband?
• Who is the child in the photo taped to James' locker at the police station?
• Can Miles listen to dead people?

Also, after pulling all that why add to "who is MIB's mother" "Why was she crazy?" Duncan905 00:45, March 20, 2010 (UTC) Much obliged, Omggivemaafningusername.

Ok, some of these are pretty questionable (theories/leading questions), but what the hell kind of question is this? "What did Charles Widmore mean in stating it was sad how little Sawyer knew?" What else could he mean? He found it sad that Sawyer was lead to believe he sent the frieghter to kill everyone. The same as I could say "it's sad how some people have stopped watching Lost without giving it a chance." I think it should be removed. Any objections?--Baker1000 02:34, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

"how little Sawyer knew" Heh, I'm not a fan of that one myself. I'd vote to strike.

not mine but in favor of - Things like unnamed persons in the FST I find a curiosity because of all the extra character connections so far, which sometimes extend between episodes. Miles' ability I think could be a pointer to Hurley's FST coming up, so it could be deliberately not mentioned. And Sayid seems fair to question since he's a core character behaving less & less like we know. Duncan905 05:40, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I don't like the UQ section to be overly long, but... An unnamed con-man husband definately is a strange thing and Miles is part of the main cast, so if he's dating someone, it's fair to ask for her identity. --Phazonshark 12:02, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

So, is it okay to remove the "what did Charles Widmore mean..." question? A few others I have a problem with: "Was the Man in Black already aware of Widmore's arrival?" That's what we call a theory. It's a leading question, a yes/no question which we usually don't include. I know MIB sent Sayer over to Hydra Island, but would a better quesion be "Why did MIB send Sawyer to Hydra Island, if he didn't send him to find Ajira 316 passengers?" The other question is "Was Widmore aware of the Man in Black's present identity before speaking with Sawyer?" Again, theory, leading question. I don't think we'll have a scene where he says "I knew you were using Locke's identity before I came here" and in fact, Sawyer says "we both know the guy I'm talking about is not Locke" so it would suggest that he DID know of his identity before arriving here. I vote for that one to be removed.--Baker1000 14:33, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

• "Was Widmore aware of the Man in Black's present identity before speaking with Sawyer?" is mu question. I don't think it is leading because it does not suggest an answer, nor does it assume circumstances which are not canon. Widmore is a cagey guy but did seem a little taken abacke when Sawyer said that Locke had sent him. There are all sorts of reasons why his prior knowledge may be important or at least interesting. Keep it.

The man impersonating Locke

• this seems to be yet another candidate for naming Nemesis and is certainly the most inelegant awkward and tiresome nom de plume yet. In fact it is vomitous.
• externally it is Locke, throwing in the occasional long form of MiB is harmless. I'm not pushing for it but Nemesis is probably the best choice and "the man impersonating Locke" the worst --Charles Kane 15:23, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• my argument is that the context is now completely transparent. The underlying mystery is no more, the characters still refer to him as Locke and with an introductory "explanation" which I have now provided (by way of a MiB link) it is safe to use "Locke" without anyone being mislead. I have therefore removed all impersonator phrases. --Charles Kane 15:39, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• I think it makes the most sense to call him "the Man in Black," since that is the first chronological form in which he is seen, and in the Enhanced episode of "The Incident, part 1," he is identified as exactly that. --Diabolical Genius 15:55, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• thanks Diabolical, I'll see if we get enough to get some sort of consensus and aim at say 18 hours from now?. Just now it's a mix of Man in Black and Locke. Should be OK for a bit. --Charles Kane 15:59, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Well so much for that - it is now MiB throughout which I don't think works - it's not English, it presumes a reader understands our arcane shorthand. Don't know who did the edit. I'm going to fiddle.--Charles Kane 16:04, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. "The man impersonating Locke" is too wordy. The Man in Black it best, but I'd say Locke works fine too, once it has been established that this is actually not Locke, as Charles Kane said. I'm not so sure about "MiB" though. Why not just type out "the Man in Black"? --SethFlight815 16:15, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• We operate by concensus here and the editor who originated the term just went at it like he was in charge of something. When reversed, that editor did it again. The most important thing here is that we don't need another name for Locke/Flocke/Nemesis/Man in Black/MiB. Personally, I preferred Nemesis, but that's ancient history. MiB does not bother me because it's a place holder. We will eventually know his name.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:40, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, someone's changed it yet again to "the person in the form of Locke". I'll go through and change it back to "Man in Black"... --SethFlight815 18:51, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• I think the simplest solution is to just to use use the name Locke, but in scare quotes with the appropriate link: The Others tracked through the jungle until "Locke" stopped them to make an announcement. --Jackdavinci 22:35, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Hard to get a resolution. Seems "Locke" in quotes and "Man in Black" (not MiB)are favoured. I think that's a good approach. There are times when we are seeing MiB "in action" when "Man in Black" is indicated, at others, like when all the characters are calling him "Locke" when "Locke" should be preferred. I've redone the page to reflect that. --Charles Kane 02:07, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Keep in mind, none of the people in the Man in Black's group from the temple, and not anyone at all besides probably Jacob and maybe Richard, even know what the Man in Black is, let alone his real name, and since the Man in Black doesn't seem to be a big fan of giving direct answers to questions, it only makes sense for them to be calling him Locke. We the viewers, however, know for certain that the Man in Black is not actually Locke, and chose to impersonate Locke to get at Jacob, so calling him Locke doesn't exactly do him justice. --Diabolical Genius 04:27, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• All true, but then we don't know who he is either. We have a nickname which is pretty obscure for someone coming to the Wiki to try and work out what they just saw. Locke, explained through links and a description at the beginning of the article is pretty safe, and when we add quotes it's even clearer that this is just a descriptor for someone "unknown". Calling him the Man in Black hardly does him justice either, given that it is a made up name, a nickname, never used in the show at all. I still like Nemesis but that is just never going to take. "Locke" is good because it gives us a visual picture of who we, and the shows characters are talking about. I have minimal issues with "Man in Black" as long as it is used sparingly and for a purpose. --Charles Kane 05:35, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Certainly an excellent point. Someone coming to the wiki for answers may not know exactly what we are talking about by the Man in Black, but remember, the Enhanced version of "The Incident, Part 1" coined that name itself. Since this is the first chronological time we see the character, it makes the most sense (and is highly likely) that the person we see talking to Jacob by the statue is his true and original form. Also, we really can't do him justice since we don't know what his real name is anyways, and all this confusion will be cleared up at that time as well. Let's hope that we find out in this upcoming episode. --Diabolical Genius 05:45, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• I'd just go with Locke. It's what they use in the podcasts. -PolarBearSkull 18:37, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• If he's walking on two feet, he's (the) Man in Black; if he's smoke, he's the Monster.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:53, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Little House on the Prairie

Synopsis leaves out the most important reason the episode was shown and affected Sawyer. The little girl, Laura I think, is talking to her "Pa" about what happens to "you and Ma" when they die and he reassures her that people are "not really gone when they die." Might not have gotten word for word exact but I made a note when this was said because it just jumped out, really surprised it's left out of the episode summary. It resonates on several levels:

1. Parent issues; Sawyer is upset because Charlotte found the folder about his parent's death
2. After hearing this Sawyer realizes he over-reacted with Charlotte, he is reassured by the "Pa's" words, a growth in the FST Sawyer that wasn't present in the OT Sawyer. A sort of coming to terms with the deaths.
3. Death/Immortality; Locke told Jack at LAX that Jack's father wasn't Lost, just his body. Repeated in this episode by this dialogue in Little House, "You're not really gone when you die."

REALLY think this is too important to leave out. Comments?--Destinedjourney 16:31, March 17, 2010 (UTC) Guess the page is locked so am not sure if anyone's seeing this message?

• I wrote most of it but I couldn't hear much of what was said. You are probably right but it is certainly not what Sawyer reacted to. If you think it is important - you should add it yourself, just try and get the quote right and be prepared for someone to change it! --Charles Kane 16:45, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

I rewatched it and added the quote. The director clearly meant it to be significant as it isn't until the last line from "Pa" about what happens when you die that James stops and the music begins, signaling its importance.

• • The line about "memories that sustain us" I believe is a nod to Juliet, another reason it touches James but he isn't quite sure why.--Destinedjourney 21:04, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Little House on the Prairie, Part 2

• I was thinking, shouldn't the actors and characters from LHotP get pages on the wiki and be listed as uncredited / archive footage here? It's the first time, I believe, where the viewer was presented with an extended sequence of another work (with the possible exclusion of the baseball game...), where the characters' dialogue was audible. I think that constitutes a significant part enough to warrant inclusion on the wiki, but maybe that's just me... --LeoChris 17:11, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Style typically used for episodes

I just wanted to reccomend that everyone look at the very useful Lostpedia Episode Manual of style at [http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Lostpedia:Episode_Manual_of_Style]. I found it really helpful in figuring out the manner in which episode articles should be written. Some of the standards aren't being followed in this article, and I'm more than happy to do some editing so that the article does meet the standards, but I also don't want to step on the toes of anyone who has already put a lot of hard work into this article, particularly Charles Kane.--Lionofdharma 17:19, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Appreciate your concern, Lionofdharma, frankly I haven't read the Style Manual except for a quick squiz when I started having a go at the Episode articles. Mainly I just followed what others were doing/had done. You are of course free to edit whatever you like - either way you've encouraged me to re-read the style manual. I'm going to bed now (been editing for over 9 hours) but I'll look at it tomorrow (I'm +9:30) and fix what I can. --Charles Kane 17:33, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Going to bed! I'm assuming you don't live in the States. :) And you, my friend, need to get paid after editing for 9 hours. I'll do a bit of editing probably later today. Don't let the proverbial bed bugs bite.--Lionofdharma 17:38, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pfft, they don't even pay us SysOps :) AlaskaDave 09:45, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• I'm in Australia, the editing is a complete pleasure and most of you guys equally so! I'll look at that style manual soon after I check what name Nemesis is going by today!--Charles Kane 00:30, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• I read it. I think most of us are writing pretty close to the style manual. It's true that there is more over-writing than underwriting and too many details are included. On the other hand coming to the article this morning (my time) I found that a number of crucial features had disappeared eg from MiB's beach talk with Kate, or a comment on Sayid's detached state. Also whilst we are not composing a literary masterpiece it is still possible to inject a little of the drama of the show. Reducing Sawyers explanation of taking the sub to a bland explanation of what he said fails, whereas (imo) giving him his quote is much more effective. At least we are now all working in the present tense - for a while it all got into some sort of past/past pluperfect and present awkwardness. some editors still do the "we now see ..." thing but that is easily fixed. I think a bigger issue is lazy editing where a change is made but some remnants of the old are left behind, or other parts are affected by the change but left alone. Blandness is sometimes rife, and as ever people have got comma disease. Rarely is a comma needed after an "and" or a "but" as these words force a pause in the narrative anyway. I learnt that reading the clause aloud in a natural way will tell you where commas belong and that we need far fewer pauses than the number of commas used.

• I hear what you're saying, but the Style Manual says that minute details and direct quotes from the episode should be used as little as possible. I think it's better to err on the side of too bland than too dramatic. This is supposed to be a short and sweet summary of the show; the purpose isn't for the reader to feel as if they've watched the episode once they've read the summary.--Lionofdharma 08:23, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• For a site based on an American show, it is distracting when writers use vernacular from other cultures. "Whilst" is constantly used in these articles and is never used on the show OR its country of origin.--InTheLoop 18:59, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• "Whilst" is neither vernacular (anywhere), nor is it from "other cultures". What it is, is partly archaic. But it refuses to die because it can be hard to come up with an alternative short form for "While this was happening" (or similar) which is awkward and clunky. In other words although "whilst" got dropped from spoken conversation in the US, in GB and in Australia etc. it was never replaced and so it can still serve a purpose in written material. It is true that it can usually be avoided but I'll take bets the American editors here have used it as much as anyone.

• "Whilst" just means "while," and Merriam-Webster online specifies it as "chiefly British." So while "other cultures" should be amended to "other dialects," InTheLoop is essentially correct. At any rate, if a term is archaic, that is even more reason for changing it than if it were from another dialect.--Schoolmann 16:58, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

"it is unclear if the Smoke Monster is also the Man in Black"? Huh?

I just read the above phrase at the very start of the article, and I'm pretty confused by it. How is it unclear that that smokey is also the MiB? We know that FLocke is smokey, and we know that FLocke wanted Jacob dead and orchestrated a huge plan (a loophole) to make sure he was killed. We also know that the MiB told Jacob that he would eventually find a loophole in order to have Jacob killed. So how can we not be sure that Flocke/smokey is the MiB?!?--Lionofdharma 17:52, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and delete this. Taking a look at The Man in Black article indicates that it has been universally decided that smokey=MiB--Lionofdharma 17:52, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• • Actually, there was some discussion of this during Jimmy Kimmel's interview with Damon and Carlton the night of the season 6 premiere. When asked by Kimmel, "Is John Locke possessed by MiB," Cuse and Lindelof replied "No." Granted they could have been splitting hairs at the concept of 'possession', but it could be an indication that MiB and Smoky are NOT in fact the same entity. Here is a link to the video, the MiB discussion begins at 1:40. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOSGE4oVdlA&feature=channelMarkFunk 22:28, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • Easy logic in that response by TPTB - John Locke is dead. His dead body eventually got buried. Only the living can be possessed, re-animated dead bodies are zombies. TPTB were just telling an easy fact. Jacob recognized MIB in Locke's form, MIB in Locke's form states he's the smoke thing. Duncan905 23:21, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

• • Here here! What about all of the changes to "The man in the form of Locke?" They are kind of bugging me. They should be either Locke, "Locke," or Man in Black. Thoughts?JMockShepard 18:26, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

There are still some people who doubt that Locke is Smokey, just because we haven't directly seen him transform. Even though we didn't see Smokey become Yemi or Alex either, they just sort of appeared nearby like Locke does. But anyway, I think we should go with Man in Black for season 6 synopsis since it's common knowledge in-story that he's not Locke. --Golden Monkey 19:11, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

I suggested to User:IslandBatty that concerns should be taken to Lostpedia:Ideas.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:16, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this site should bring in a "confidence rating" for theories. This isn't concrete, but I'm sure we'd all agree that it's pretty certain (the smoke monster sounds play before MiB appears, and so on). So I'd give it 9 out of 10 "locks" (meh, puns are funnier when spoken). Of course, it's a little late in the game for feature requests... MannyF 20:16, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Did you saw the same episode than me ? The one where Flocke tells ... damn I can't remember who, "I'm the smoke thing" ? How can someone still has doubt ? :| --FrenchFlo 21:59, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• of all Lost's mysteries, who the smoke monster is is not one of them. Nemesis/MiB/"Locke"=Smokey. We've seen it, it is the only rational explanation and MiB has actually said so.--Charles Kane 00:30, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly not gonna disagree, I have no doubt at all. But facts are based on evidence, not heresy, so technically it won't be fully proven unless we see him actually transform on-screen. But that's a very annoying technicality that I agree we can ignore as long as we bear in mind that the island seems almost entirely inhabited by liars (even Hurley has fibbed!). But, in the end, I think "it is unclear if the Smoke Monster is also the Man in Black" is not right, the better way to phrase it would be "was MiB lying when he claimed to be the smoke monster?" (to which everyone will reply "of course not!"). MannyF 20:21, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • MiB's admission is only one piece of evidence. There is heaps of evidence, going back quite a way which confirms it. I doubt we'll ever see some two bit transformation in CGI from Locke to Smokey. It would just be too hokey. But think of the temple invasion. The visual cues did everything but show the transformation.--Charles Kane 01:25, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

T-shirt

As I watched the episode -- I've only watched once -- I got the distinct impression that Charlotte was looking for something (the folder) and got caught in the act. I didn't actually see any t-shirts in that drawer.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:46, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Well, she was looking in the left drawer instead of the right. Archon Divinus 19:51, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • I had the same impression. Either Charlotte is a strange actress and looks for t-shirts frantically and in places she was not directed too - or something fishy is going on.
    • Maybe my eyes played tricks on me, but to me it looked like the drawer was full-length (all the way from the left side to the right side), so there was no "left" or "right" drawer, just the one top one. And I didn't see any t-shirts, either. But, like Jim, I've only seen this ep once so far. MannyF 20:09, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • There were two chests of drawers, a smaller one on the right. I believe she was most likely looking for the folder on purpose. Maybe Miles even put her up to it.--Baker1000 20:15, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
• I've watched the scene again, I believe Charlotte misinterpreted what Sawyer meant. Sawyer said 'top drawer on the right', Charlotte thought he meant the top drawer on the right hand side of the drawer. She started looking on the right hand side of the drawer so it's only natural you look in the rest of drawer when you can't find the shirt. She saw the folder, the picture fell out, she smiled as if saying 'Awww.' at the family photo and when she was putting it back she was shocked at the article. Scene again here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=501jmMaa_ak Phobia27 00:24, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah. Mystery solved(?). There was a distinctive lack of t-shirts in the single drawer, imo. It could be argued that Charlotte was digging deeper to find one. Her interest when she opened the folder seemed to be in comparing the picture that fell out with the newsphoto inside.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:38, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Never seen something more innocent on Lost. This is a man who only has beer and frozen TV dinners in the fridge. His drawer is part of that package. Not particularly neat or ordered. Where are the tees - maybe in the wash, or somewhere else. Charlotte rummages a bit but the folder stuff looked really unintentional to me. Anyway they've just made love, she's into openness and honesty, and she's English. She would think nothing of searching for a tee below the surface - after all he directed her there (whether she got it right or wrong).--Charles Kane 01:32, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Juxtaposition

In the literary section it discusses how Sawyer was a con in the OT and a police officer in the FST. I thought it might be worth including how he was the "top cop" so to speak for the DHARMA inititiative in the OT somewhere in there but wasn't sure so ... Jdray 21:05, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ajira in the sand

I might be wrong, I didn't watched previous episodes to see how Ajira "crashes/lands" but what about we see in this episode ? I mean, I was like what ? The plane is right on the beach, a few meters away from the sea" ? I remember the plane landing on the runway, so even it the plane approched the end of the runway, it should be the other way around : the nose of the plane in front of the sea, no ? --FrenchFlo 21:59, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

• The plane did run into trees at the end of the runway -- one went into the co-pilot's chest.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:39, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • It sure did, but what about the nose of the plane ? Isn't it pointing the wrong way in Recon ? --FrenchFlo 08:24, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • I was thinking this was weird, too, especially since there were no trees poking into the cockpit in Recon. But I think it can all be reasoned away. First, I'm pretty sure the nose was pointed in the right direction - Frank steered the plane towards a flat stretch to land, and, if I remember correctly, the "runway" ran parallel to the beach, with just a thin treeline separating them. The pile of dead bodies seemed close the beginning of the runway (if you consider the part that the plane stopped at as the end of the runway). There have obviously been events on the Hydra island we haven't been privy to yet, so maybe for some reason the people (either crash survivors or Widmore's people) cut back the trees from the plane. Or they got some superhuman to pull the plane back (or maybe the sub has a winch :p). MannyF 00:10, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

The Man in Black can be killed

This was a somewhat significant admission/slip-up to Sawyer, I thought. Maybe overshadowed by the mother backstory with Kate. Maybe just a footnote since Jacob seems/ed supernatural but was proven to be mortal. But it was an admission that something other than daggers and bullets can kill MIB. I'd propose it be part of the Storyline Analysis. Duncan905 04:58, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent point, good fellow. That would make for a good unanswered question: "How does Widmore plan on killing the Man in Black?" Although, that may be too specific, and techincally, Widmore never actually said that he was going to kill him. He only gave a twisted smile when Sawyer suggested that he would "bring him right to" Widmore. Also, I would imagine that if Jacob is killable, the Man in Black must be too. --Diabolical Genius 05:19, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• • I believe Duncan905 is actually referring to The Man in Black telling Sawyer that "I don't want to be killed," which of course admits of the possibility. Dcoetzee 07:08, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• • Ah. I see. However, then there is that problem with the Man in Black and his manipulation. Was he telling Sawyer the truth? --Diabolical Genius 07:11, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Agreed it can be hard to read MIB, who admits to manipulation & lying (both Sawyer & Claire) in this ep. In the context of this 'slip-up', he was providing rationalization to Sawyer for killing everyone at the Temple as "...it's kill or be killed. And I don't want to be killed." He had just admitted to Sawyer that he was the Smoke Monster, so there was truth in the same breath. Maybe not-so-coincidentally later Sawyer says to Widmore "...so you can kill him." (an implied goal Widmore doesn't dispute), and repeats "...so he can kill you" to MIB when he provides his recon info. It seems to be setting up future action, but have to admit it could be misdirection (like perhaps 'Smokey's rule' is that he can only die by suicide).

When MIB does his rationalization talk his voice starts to waver, like it does when he starts talking about his mother & when he shouts at the mysterious boy. This seems like a reminder of what should be obvious (except we're viewing the face of a favorite dead character) - MIB is insane. I feel like this is presenting fallibility in a similar set-up fashion. We're watching 2 men bestowed with near god-like powers & agelessness. One behaves with total confidence in his plan and proves susceptible to mortal wounding, the other is given to emotional telltales in his speech & moments of bewilderment (the mysterious boy) yet seems impervious to attack. It seems significant enough to the main story progression to note his admission of mortality. Duncan905 16:16, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• I'm thinking along different lines to most I think. The Man in Black, iirc, has never ever told a lie (apart from perhaps "I'm John Locke") especially since revealing his identity as not Locke. He avoids the truth a lot perhaps, but I think what he says about not wanting to die is as honest as him saying how badly he wants to leave the island.--Integrated (User / Talk) 16:28, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• The Man in Black admitted to deliberately lying to Claire about the whereabouts of Aaron in this episode. marm0lade@gmail.com 19:01, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• We would probably be insane as well if we were trapped on that island for as long as he has been. =) I pray that we will be finding out more about the Man in Black and his relationship with Richard and Jacob in "Ab Aeterno." I can't wait. --Diabolical Genius 16:35, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• • More good dialogue and an interesting point, MIB might have to adhere to telling the truth as a rule. I added the entry, let's see if it stands. Duncan905 18:22, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • That can't be true, that MIB cannot lie. As Marm0lade pointed out above, he confesses to lying to Claire regarding the whereabouts of her son. So either he lied to Claire as he says, or he's lying to Kate now about having lied to Claire. Either way, he can lie. --Cpt cannibal 00:03, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed, MIB admits he told Claire that Aaron was with the Others, Claire says the same beforehand to Jin. But now that I think that lying could be a possible rule, who's to say MIB couldn't choose to break it? Widmore broke a set of Island rules, he dealt with consequences. Or Smokey may be able to tell a claimed person anything he wishes. Was Claire's apology real or was she told to go make up? Duncan905 05:52, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well Claire give a very unconvincing bent finger hug to Kate, but given Emilie de Ravin's rather limited thespian skills it could be that she and Evangeline have had a spat and EdR can't hide it on screen.--Charles Kane 07:57, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Whose Mother?

moved to page The Man in Black's mother.

Lowering of standards

Seriously, who is the one editing the episode summaries to include all the pointless and awkward subjective commentary? Its really getting old and making the summaries silly and amateurish. For example, things like

"babbling about getting drunk..." "Miles regards him suspiciously and suddenly tells him" "James seems upset and tells Miles..." "Charlotte is having none of it. She is very direct..." "Kate watches in bemusement..."

If you don't know how to write a summary, please don't. --SvenBoogie 05:43, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

& And, if I may add, way too many pictures... I think some must be removed from the article, and can be used in the character pages instead.-- Sharon1234  Talk  Flashback  07:23, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• Ah well, can't please everyone all the time. Some actually make the effort to describe the episode so that some of its sense is put in the written form. There is a point where removing all descriptive material leaves no sense of what actually happened. Much of this material is edited hundreds of times and the result is that people, more than just two critics, come to a form which is widely accepted. The style manual envisages such descriptive devices - the example given in the Style manual is:

Kate nodded, and with a half smile, Sun left, still in awe of Kate’s freedom to remove her layers of clothing to cool herself.

I have said elsewhere on this page that I acknowledge that there is, and I am guilty of it too, overwriting. I always try to aim at clarity and brevity but also readability. Perhaps standards can be raised by people like SvenBoogie employing their obviously advanced skills in doing some editing themselves and rather than putting a large number of editors down make some positive suggestions instead.

As to pictures, I personally love some well selected pics, even a lot. Those who don't download digital copies of the show might well appreciate them too.

Really a whole episode page complete with overwriting and too many pics still can be read from start to finish in 5 minutes or so! --Charles Kane 08:42, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• I personally prefer the descriptive style. It's absolutely obvious in the example given above that "Kate nodded", and Sun had a "half smile" were in the script, but that Sun being "... in awe of Kate’s freedom to remove her layers of clothing to cool herself." is a subjective interpretation by the editor. However, not only is this interpretation likely to be true, but given the fact that this wiki is edited, re-edited and re-re-edited hundreds of times, any such interpretations which are 'off the wall', quirky and tangential to the storyline would have been edited out long ago. Leave the poor man alone, he's doing a sterling job.--Sean Sheep 09:46, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Wikis are inherently ugly because so many people can change things. If you think the LP has problems, look around Wikia. We're in great shape. Almost all of the problems with this article will go away after the next episode. Patience.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:52, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Sure hope it improves and hate to sound xenophobic, but the British vernacular imposed upon this site by many contributors is distracting as it relates to a show from the U.S.--InTheLoop 23:00, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I find no major problem with the descriptions. Yes, numerous occasions of poor wording, unnecessary details, and subjective descriptions of emotional states. However, when I look over an episode description, it's after I've seen the episode, and I look for details and just "skim the fat". I also to find editors on this site do a great job in re-wording within a week or two. The thing is, every single episode's discussion page has a first-day post about how bad the description page is.

"Bad writers" who are willing to go through the trouble of writing an entire description probably don't think they're "bad writers", so asking them not to write is kinda pointless. In the end, I'd rather have a complete description that just needs to be worked over than a blank description page waiting for someone to write it. All in all, kudos to anyone who is willing to take the time to detail out a description, and more to editors who fix it up. And "here, here!" to Jim, this is one of the better wikis on the 'net. MannyF 01:14, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references

I'm pretty sure the standard here is direct references only, and the "Some Like It Hot" and "Star Trek" references are a little vague to be considered direct. "Nobody's perfect" is a pretty common phrase, and you could probably find 100 movies with that quote in it. Given the total lack of relevance of the Monroe flick to Lost, it doesn't cut the mustard with me. As much as I love Star Trek, it's the same deal: just not direct enough. What do you think?--Emissary23 10:57, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

When MiB said "nobody's perfect" I immediately thought of Joe E Brown saying it in Some Like it Hot and I'm pretty sure it is a direct reference - I mean after all he is DEAD just as Jack Lennon's character was the opposite of what he should have been:

Jerry: Oh no you don't! Osgood, I'm gonna level with you. We can't get married at all. Osgood: Why not? Jerry: Well, in the first place, I'm not a natural blonde. Osgood: Doesn't matter. Jerry: I smoke! I smoke all the time! Osgood: I don't care. Jerry: Well, I have a terrible past. For three years now, I've been living with a saxophone player. Osgood: I forgive you. Jerry: [Tragically] I can never have children! Osgood: We can adopt some. Jerry: But you don't understand, Osgood! [Pulls off wig] Jerry: I'm a man! Osgood: Well, nobody's perfect!

Nevertheless it's an in joke, nothing to do with Lost - as to Star Trek, really! That's ridiculous. --Charles Kane 11:08, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• Silly that the word "Come" is considered a Star Trek reference. Direct references only please. --Integrated (User / Talk) 12:49, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Some Like it Hot -- I agree that this reference is a bit of a stretch. That said, there is some similarity in that the 2 men in the movie both fall for Monroe's character, just like Jack and Sawyer have both fallen for Kate. It also makes me think of the episode title for "Some Like it Hoth." Just some food for thought, though I don't really care either way.--Lionofdharma 23:22, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm curious about the general guidelines we're to use for the cultural references. What is meant by "direct reference"? Is it a reference that directly connects to a part of the Lost universe or one of Lost's overall themes, however trivial or all-encompassing it may be? An example of this would be Watership Down — I haven't read the book myself, but the description provided in this episode's article is something that very much seems related to Lost. Or is it direct in that it is specifically mentioned? For example, the movie Bullitt is specifically mentioned, but Sawyer could have just as easily said Lethal Weapon. I'm just wondering, because right now the CR section seems a bit overstuffed.--Lionofdharma 04:50, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

• For the most part, and this isn't 100% always the case, but the things that are appropriate for the cultural references are typically either things that are specifically mentioned by Lost (such as your example of Watership Down) or things that are acknowledged by the show creators in interviews, etc, such as the Star Trek TNG episode "All Good Things..." being an inspiration for "The Constant". Anything that doesn't fit into either of these categories should probably be discussed on the talk page first.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:54, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, cool, thanks for your help. I'm still wondering though if something like Bullitt fits within the criteria. I mean it most certainly is directly referenced by Sawyer. But I think most people would agree that the writers could have just as easily written the script so that Sawyer said some other police movie instead of Bullitt. Same as the LA Lakers; the script could have had them talking about the LA Dodgers instead. --Lionofdharma 05:15, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

• "God" as a cultural reference? Seriously? How about putting the actual event into "Recurring Themes" along with the tag "Religion" which it already has. That would be more appropriate. --Schoolmann 17:09, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

The Infection

Has anyone ever considered that the infection could be a hoax? The only people who talked about it were the guys in the temple, who are considered to be Jacob's team and thus the enemies of the MiB. Claire seemed very human when she said sorry to Kate. Of course the skull she keeps as Aaron is weird, but after all she was three years on her own and could be "crazy" in a normal way. Perhaps the infection means some sort of loyalty to the MiB (both of the "infected" are with him at the moment), which would of course be a reason for Team Jacob to see them as enemies... --Luke1304 15:36, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• That's a good point. One only has to consider the fire in the hearts of revolutionaries for a good cause. Who's good and who's evil? This also begs the question of what it was that Dogen's machine detected.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:49, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not saying its impossible that its a hoax, but think about Sayid's recent actions. Sure, he was a trained torturer and has killed many times before. But what he did to Dogen and Lennon? Although they were far from friends, it didn't feel like actions from the Sayid we know. And then to sit there on the log idly and just let Claire (attempt to) murder Kate... I just don't see these as things "Sayid" would do. He's clearly being influenced, controlled, etc. --Cpt cannibal 23:43, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Recurring Themes

• MIB doesn't tell everyone he is the smoke thing, only Sawyer. This surprised me, as I imagined after clearing the Temple as Smokey he re-formed as FLocke in the presence of his group outside the wall. Apparently not, and apparently noone can connect the dots. This is the man who sent the penalty-of-death warning they heeded, but all they assumed was the Temple wasn't a safe place? What luck for MIB to gather the 15 most gullible people on the Island, who happen to be among the previously-depicted savvy Others. Anyways, MIB decided to delay telling the rest of the group. Granted it would be even more devastating to Zach & Emma, and would likely cause mutiny in his flock. Cindy saying "we want to know" what happened does help point out that his followers aren't 'mesmerized' (like the Kate theory); his influence is limited by what MIB can convince someone to believe. Duncan905 18:59, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

General (Trivia)

• "Miles mentions his father working at a museum, suggesting Dr. Chang either never went to the Island or evacuated with everyone else." I think given confirmation of Miles' last name as Straume there's enough uncertainty about the identity of his father to pull/modify this. I actually don't mind the "suggesting Dr. Chang" as a premise - it would be radical if Miles was not the biological son of the same people in the FST (like the speculation about Ethan Goodspeed), but we can't say he evac'd with 'everyone else'. He was at the Swan site right up to Jack dropping Jughead. The Galaga had left port, surfaced & resumed course well before that. Just like with the debate over Roger evacuating, it's possible that there was second evacuation afterwards. Duncan905 22:43, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• There is no evidence at all that Dr. Chang never went to the Island. In the OT the DHARMA Inititive had enough time to set up the protocol at the Swan, etc. There seems to be an assumption the Island sank because of the Incident. Dr. Chang could have safely left the Island later on. Spiral77 07:03, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Right, I'm just saying there's no evidence that after Jughead went off the Original Timeline continued as we know it from 1977 and *became* the FST 2004. In fact, the big inconsistencies like Jack having a son (to me at least) present evidence that the FST is a complete alternate reality from the OT. We do know that the OT continued from 1977 with the Swan protocol being enacted, everything playing out to 2007 as we've seen in the current OT. But the FST is a logic puzzle: we only know the Island sank somehow, the D.I. had set up shop there, Roger and Ben had joined the D.I. and at some point they left, which Roger seems to regret. That's really it so far. Chang's role in the D.I. appears pretty core, so it's likely he would've been there in the FST, which would drive Miles' conception & birth on the Island, necessitating Miles' evacuation, but Chang leaving the Island hinges on Jughead not immediately sinking the Island. In the FST, by virtue of Flight 815 not being grabbed by an electromagnetic anomaly (and the Island being underwater), it *seems* that the Swan protocol was never implemented. At the least, Desmond's failure to push the Button on that September day in 2004 was impossible in the FST. Duncan905 20:36, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Two points worth considering: 1) Miles "dad" may be Mr. Straum who works at a museum (as an archeologist). We have a huge gap in OT between Miles (age 4) and Miles (well-pierced adult). It's possible mom is alive and well and married to Mr. Straume and they had Miles' name legally changed at some point. He may not even remember Dr. Chang. 2) Roger and Ben went to an Island, but was THE Island? Probably, but... If we make too many assumptions/presumptions at one time, "the Island" will jump up and bite us.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:06, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Damage to Ford's car when Kate hit it (no continuity error)

People have stated that there is no damage done to Ford's car when he chases the person who hit his car (Kate), but when you see the car stop and James get out there is indeed damage. The lighting for the scene and color of car hide the damage done when Kate crashed into him. --Couchpotato2013 22:47, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW I agree Hawkdeath 22:51, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Statuette on Detective Ford's Desk

• There is a figurine on LAPD Det. Ford's desk depicting a mother holding an infant child .--InTheLoop 22:54, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • On its own it isn't too out of place - in the FST James is still an orphan, but see below. Maybe fits under Trivia/General for now? Duncan905 21:21, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Photo of girl in Ford's locker

• There's a photo of a young girl taped to the door of Detective Ford's locker, when he's talking with Miles early on. Can anyone get a good grab of this & see if it resembles Clementine? If it's too blurry to tell, it still seems noteworthy enough to be an Unanswered Question or Trivia. Coupled with the mother/child figurine it might be a clue that James still had a relationship with Cassidy which failed. Since they're on display at work it could be relevant to the "die alone" comment by Miles. Duncan905 16:50, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's a screencap: [Who's that?] Great, with the hat & distance you can't even tell if it's a girl, so I'll just pose it as an UQ. Duncan905 21:02, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
• Looks like a girl to me, and probably around 2 or 3 years old, which is how old Clementine would be.

Name on blotter on Sawyer/Ford's desk?

--Flashpot 02:54, March 20, 2010 (UTC)Flashpot On Det. James Ford's desk is a blotter. One of the dates has a name surrounded by stars. Although I can't picture Sawyer doodling and making pretty stars, I wonder if anyone can make out the name in the box. And can it be related to the photo in his locker i.e. a child's birthday?

'Shanna?' 'Shiana?' [some Thursday] It looks like it's in a Thursday square that's not in the current month. The stars are pretty whimsical, maybe from bring your kid to work day? Duncan905 09:05, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

I removed some UQ

I removed the following because they seem to be general curiosities rather than questions directly posed by the episode. As I understand it, Unanswered Questions are for mysteries that the show raises during the episode. Not for general things that people are wondering about. We can't put a UQ for every single thing we don't know, unless the show presents something as a mystery that will be answered at some point.

• Was the Man in Black already aware of Widmore's arrival? It's unclear either way, but this is not a question the episode poses, or a question that really matters, imo
• Was Widmore aware of the Man in Black's present identity before speaking with Sawyer? Same as above. What Widmore knows is unclear, it will become clear soon. Not a question posed by the episode
• Why did the Man in Black direct Ben to meet his group at Hydra island after escaping Ilana, when he establishes in this episode they would camp for a few days? This is a tricky one, but he may have simply expected to go there and find it empty, or perhaps he knew Ben would find them on his way. It doesn't seem like any sort of big deal.
• Can Miles pick up people's last thoughts after they are dead? Again, a curiousity, it'd be nice to know, but nowhere in the episode is this even hinted at, so it's just a certain person's curiosity rather than a big unanswered question.

Another two I didn't remove but REALLY disagree with:

• Who is Miles dating?
• Who is Ava's husband?

I just find these completely trivial, and unimportant, Ava's husband was a tiny plot point for one scene, it should not be treated as a big mystery imo. anyone agree? --Integrated (User / Talk) 18:28, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think you can remove "who is ava's husband?" but i think "can miles hear dead people in the flash sideways timeline?" is a good question. Omggivemaafningusername 18:42, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I added the question about Miles and should have discussed it here first. But I do think it's a mystery as to how he had a huge career change in the FS. Having a father in his life, lead him to be become a detective? But Intergrated is right about not being a huge mystery from the episode, should it be moved to Miles FS page? (Azuryte 22:04, March 20, 2010 (UTC))

• There is already an UQ section on this page - why double up?
• What Widmore knew before arriving could be very important because it indicates where he is getting his info from and whose side he's on and the nature of what he is up to.
• the Miles and dead's last thoughts was re-written by me - it isn't raised in the ep, and I couldn't understand why it was there. It is true about all the sideways people that we are interested in how much they share with their OT versions but that would mean a thousand questions.
• I am attracted to Widmores comment about "sad how little you know" - despite the removalists claim to know the answer I don't see it as that simple - it could be directed at us the audience, but it seems to suggest that Sawyer is under a huge misapprehension about Widmore's reason for doing everything and thus a clue as to what he is really up to.
• The Ava scene was long. It was either badly written, or it meant something more that that Sawyer is a cop. Why was it dark in the morning, why was he screwing Ava, why did she pull a gun etc. Either it was just surreal or there was an elephant in the cupboard. The question is about the elephant. Who IS her con artist husband, who James is chasing.
• "Who is the child in the photo taped to James' locker at the police station?" What is THAT? Its not even his damn locker!! I vote for removal.

--Charles Kane 01:24, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

i agree with your statement, although we should add a comment asking if it is his locker such as "Is that James' Locker, and who is the child in the photo" Omggivemaafningusername 02:46, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

• I really don't see the point. Unless I'm missing something, we are talking about the scene where Miles hussles James into the locker room and confronts him about Australia. In other words James was not in the Locker room. Nothing else happens except the interchange and James smashing the mirror. There is an open locker when they arrive, there's an almost indiscernible photo on the open door. So what? It has no link to Sawyer, someone left their locker open! --Charles Kane 04:52, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

• We have no reason to believe that Ava's husband is significant. That scene only exists as a mislead up to the twist of Sawyer being a cop in the alternate reality. Without any indication that he is more important, we shouldn't bother with the question. Same goes with Miles' girlfriend. Until you can provide any indication that either of these characters are significant, I'm removing the questions.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:00, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

• you'll find my reasons 10 lines up, basically that seemed a big scene for it to end there and I suggested an elephant in the cupboard, the only elephant I can think of is "who is Ava's conman/criminal husband". So while I think the UQ should stay I'm not going to fight. Miles's girlfriend hasn't go anything going for it. I've nearly removed it 3 times myself. But they are both better than "who is the little girl in the photo in James' locker" not only was that a stretch but it wasn't even his locker! --Charles Kane 08:55, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

• Good points, and a little embarrassing that I focused on the photo on the locker without watching the start of the scene. Appreciate the dialogue! Duncan905 15:24, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Recon Main Image

I haven't checked the recommended Style manual on this - but surely the centric character deserves representation in the Episode photo. Use of two male hands shaking is pretty obscure. It's true there was a lot of (false) agreements in the episode but the two hands shaking is way too generic, and isn't even a good photo. I removed it and replaced the original. I'm pretty sure we can improve on that shot but not with the shaking hands. --Charles Kane 04:59, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Great new image just put up by Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance. Well done. Sawyer looking like The Man! --Charles Kane 07:34, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed--Emissary23 07:40, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
• The one w/ the gun is better then the current one. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  14:29, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah--put it back! The current one is too dark. Do we need to call a vote? --Emissary23 17:34, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I was the one who removed it and put the original one back (and I agree the handshake image is a poor choice). I don't so much have a problem with what the image shows, the problem I have is that it's a promotional still (here [1]). We have never used a promotional still for main image of an episode article. I don't know the exact reason, but I do know that promotional stills don't represent an exact image seen in the episode. Plus, this image is a different size to every other main episode image we use. If we're going to allow a promotional still to be used as the main image (and if so, the current image is fine), at least crop it to fit the ratio of every other image so it doesn't look out of place.--Baker1000 18:17, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I resized it to the correct aspect ratio for you guys. --Kriegster 21:12, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, it looks better now.--Baker1000 23:30, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with previous comments that picture of Sawyer with gun looks great but someone has once again changed it back to older image! This image has the ABC logo and is dark and not as good, IMHO. --Jonahwriter 13:22, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

The picture with the gun is way to small. The current one is 425 × 239, and the other one is 1,280 × 672. --Joshm1995 02:27, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

The picture without the gun is a better image of Sawyer. The ABC logo is not a big deal in the short term.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:00, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

• the ABC logo is just terrible, this makes me want to find a decent grab and clean it up. I dod like the gun with Sawyer looking all macho as that is the personality he is recognised for - maybe there's a similar shot in the episode - but my copy isn't HD! Charles Kane 04:09, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

How does it look now? --Joshm1995 04:39, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

• jeez we both id it - I think mine was last so it shows. Great minds... Charles Kane 04:40, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
• Haha--Joshm1995 04:44, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Is the gun pic going to stay now? Likin' it. :) --Jonahwriter 16:17, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think having a promo picture for a main picture is a bad choice, the the others have spoken! :)  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  16:23, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Leaving the Island

Added a UQ on why MiB needs the plane to leave the Island. The question could be probably be phrased better, although there seems to be an open question of 1) how is MiB blocked from leaving the Island (presumably by Jacob), and 2) why he specifically needs the Ajira flight. It's been shown previously that to leave the Island by boat one just needs to follow a specific bearing. MiB further has been shown to have no issues taking an outrigger over to Hydra Island. Spiral77 18:08, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Kare's dress

The dress Sawyer saw in the cages, wasn't that the same one that Kate was wearing when she escaped? Why would the dress be there, either I missed something or it's a blooper/continuity error. --Joshtopher27 23:49, April 28, 2010 (UTC)