This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Candidate 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

Just FYI

If you're checking up on this site around Tuesday, April 27th and are wondering why a new Lost hasn't aired on ABC, it is because The show is on a one-week hiatus and will return the next Tuesday, May 4.--Pittsburghmuggle 00:54, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know why it's going on hiatus for a week? Is it a production reason, are they trying to place the finale in a big time, is it to accommodate some other show...? --Golden Monkey 04:09, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
My theory (and it's only a theory, mind you), is that they decided they wanted the finale on a Sunday night, so they moved all the episodes forward in time rather than shorting themselves a few days of production time.--Pittsburghmuggle 06:54, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
You might be right about the gaining a few days and airing on a Sunday part, but all the other episodes are not moving at all. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
Okay, the real reason is when the smoke monster is in smoke form he only eats Apollo Bars, and they were out of them.--Pittsburghmuggle 07:41, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
I think it was because May sweeps started on April 29, so if they pushed it back a week, then the final four episodes will begin and end in sweeps week. --SilentSpy 04:15, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
With the price of ad spots ABC is charging for the series finale, I'm pretty certain it's all about the May Sweeps. DesmondHumeWillBeMyConstant 21:58, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Episode connections

New guidelines

Recent reference guidelines, which allowed only explicit references through dialogue, excluded a lot of useful content. I've contacted several people over the past month about including more subtle connections. Everyone with an opinion agreed. Connections now appear under two subheadings:

  • Episode references - when characters describe a previous scene
  • Episode allusions - when scenes merely echo previous scenes

I've detailed elsewhere the differences between the two. Don't go crazy with allusions. We'll vet them through consensus, as we do with unanswered questions. When in doubt, first discuss. --- Balk Of Fametalk 10:21, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • Brilliant. We need this. I'm not sure when the "rules" changed, or who decided it, because it was never discussed. All of a sudden, a clear reference to a previous scene is no long a reference because the character specificaly refer to the scene in question. This meant "Locke's" bad day comment to Sun wasn't allowed, neither was MIB's "sooner than you think" line. I reckon you'll have to create the sub-headings yourself when the article is unlocked anyway, but hopefully no one gets carried away and starts removing the allusions heading because they disagree.--Baker1000 20:39, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I hope it works. Allusions are pretty fuzzy and difficult to prove.--Lucky Day | msg 05:24, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

A Tale of Two Cities

I took out :

... because Sawyer also explicitly references this, as already documented. --- Balk Of Fametalk 12:09, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

The Man from Tallahassee

I took out:

  • The Man in Black as Locke uses a manipulation on the Losties that Ben used on John Locke to ensure that John Locke blew up the submarine. Alex explained it this way "He makes you think it's your idea but it's his. John Locke replied "I will have to keep that in mind." ("The Man from Tallahassee")

Rather than alluding to that particular conversation, this is just the latest in a series of cons that have appeared throughout the show. Sawyer used similar words in "The Long Con" to describe cons. All his cons used this method. --- Balk Of Fametalk 12:15, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

    • I'd like to put that one back. It is true of course that it is a long line of cons but this was put there (by me) for two particular reasons. Firstly because Flocke seems to have learnt from Locke's experience how to pull this fast one (con) - it is yet another hint/indication that the dead Locke is not gone entirely (at all?)(keep in mind real Locke actually said "I will have to keep that in mind.")! Secondly this is not even a similar con, it is in effect identical. I may not have phrased it well, tinker if you like.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:53, May 11, 2010 (UTC)


Jack centric, right? Or Jack, Locke centric? SLRibs 01:59, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • Both, I'd say. --LeoChris 02:03, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Wasn't it just Jack? There were definitely no flashes from Lockes pov. InflatableBombshelter 02:04, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Just Jack cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 02:06, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
First flash started in Locke's eyes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLRibs (talkcontribs) 2010-05-04T21:04:45.
  • So? A flash has to start on the person whose centricity it is? Calling this a Jack and Locke centric episode is like saying A Tale of Two Cities is Jack and Juliet centric. Oh wait, people here don't understand the meaning of "centricity" so that is what it would be called.--HaloOfTheSun 02:09, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I say Jack centric. And remember Eggtown started with Locke as well, but that wasn't Locke centric.--Frank J Lapidus 03:36, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • It should be just Jack centric. While every single one of Jack's flashsideways focused on Locke, it was always from his perspective. If this episode is Jack and Locke centric, then "The Other Woman" should be Juliet and Ben centric, since all of the flashbacks focused on Ben.
  • Jack and Locke centric.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:12, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting opposeI'd say more on the side of Locke. He was the title character, and almost every Jack scene was about Locke and his past. Last episode was more on the side of Jack, this one more on the side of Locke. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
I'd say Flash sideways to Jack and Locke, centricity to Jack. (Kdc2 02:14, May 5, 2010 (UTC))
I agree with Jack + Locke. Not only were they the primary characters in the sideflash, but the on-island events were mainly a series of "moves" in a game between the two. Definitely Jack + Locke. --michael_is_NOT_in_the_coffin 18:24, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Im Jack + Locke, clear focus on both and both had multiple POV flashes. Thats usually the criteria. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:25, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Definitely Jack and Locke. --Bish-Fiscuit 02:33, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Jack and Locke for sure. Sophia108 02:38, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Jack and Locke. Jack had the majority of the POV flashes, but the first and last began with Locke's POV and the plot was much more about Locke than Jack. --Golden Monkey 03:13, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Jack centric only. The episode starting with Locke means nothing. What matters is that the flash ended with Jack and the immediately following scene also focused on Jack. This is the case for every single sideways sequence in the episode. --Pyramidhead 04:25, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply Didn't the Island sequence following the flashsideway with Cooper start with a close-up on Locke? (Going from Anthony onto Locke)? --LeoChris 04:29, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
So...what does that signify? Alt Locke wasn't in that that scene at all. Okay, so what I described didn't happen every time, but I couldn't even begin to list the times that a flash-whatever transitioned to something completely unrelated with different characters on the island. It doesn't change anything. --Pyramidhead 04:41, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
But the entire episode was about Locke. He was even the title character. Jack was just a facilitator for the audience to learn more about Locke. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
This one made me laugh! How is Locke the title character? He explicately states that he doesn't want to be the candidate, which means that everyone else is more of a title character than Locke. Locke is the exact opposite of the title character. Marc604 06:17, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
...just as "The Brig" was about Sawyer, arguably. It's not always cut-and-dry, but the structure of the episode makes this a Jack episode. --Pyramidhead 04:41, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Also, the title character could just as likely refer to Jack, or to any of the five. There's always a double meaning. --Pyramidhead 04:46, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Just thought of another possible piece of evidence for Locke-centricity.. Doesn't the last flashsideway start with only Locke present? Jack is nowhere to be seen until well into the scene. --LeoChris 04:47, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Again, something that happens extremely often. Remember Frank at the start of "The Lie"? --Pyramidhead 04:52, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Season 5 had some of the less "obvious" and most arguable centrics ever. I don't think using it as an example here really qualifies. The show has clearly gone back to a pattern similar to that of the older seasons. Does that also occur in those? I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but you may be right ... --LeoChris 04:56, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
True. That was just the most obvious example I could think of; there have been plenty of times that the flash started with somebody/something else and then found its way to the main character. --Pyramidhead 05:47, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Jack/Locke is what was listed on the writer's board in Wired magazine. --Jackdavinci 05:06, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I was just gonna post this. But Damon and Carlton also had "Because You Left" as Jack/Locke and "Jughead" as Desmond/Faraday and we didn't go with those. At the very least, if we go with just Jack, we have to note the producer's board in the notes. Alexisfan07 May 5, 2010

Pictogram voting oppose Although the episode's storyline had a huge focus on Locke, To consider him a centric character would be inconsistent with previous policy. The centricity has always been determined by the centricity of the flashes. In Hearts and Minds, for example, Shannon was obviously an important character and she appeared in the flashes. She didn't appear in all of them though, and that makes the episode Boone-centric. Same goes for some Sun&Jin-episodes, which are centric to only one of them: they obviously appear in the flashes of each other and both are involved in the on-island events, but if all the flashes belong to just Sun, then the centric character is just Sun. If decided this episode to be a Jack&Locke-centric, then we should go back and change the centricity of Hearts&Minds accordingly. And BTW, I think that Jack was much more in the center of the sideways than Locke. Jack was an active character, initiating the events thad happened, Locke was just there. (And I know about the writers' board, but if we went with that, we should change The Last Recruit from "Various" to "Roundelay") Andris22 14:18, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Jack/Locke. The focus was on their relationship and interactions. We got way more information on Locke than on Jack in the FST - we found out how he broke his back, we saw his father, etc. Jack also came right out and called him a "candidate" in direct reference to the title, albeit as a candidate for spinal surgery. If this had been a Jack-only episode we would have seen more Jack-centric information such as learning who David's mother is. (Mirth23 15:22, May 5, 2010 (UTC))
  • Jack only - every flash is either from his POV or includes him. It's true that the plot was primarily about him and Locke settling their demons in both timelines, but whoever says that he got no character development while Locke got plenty is way, way off; ever since 316, Jack's main motivation has been to redeem himself for not believing Locke and letting him die. Off-island, Jack achieves that redemption, while on-island, he's taken the final step toward being the believer, the man of faith. MiB did very little this episode (certainly, there was little or nothing character-related - he "did" kill a lot of people, I'll grant) and Locke was mostly used as a device to remind us that in the alt timeline, Jack hasn't learned to let go. --KingK.Rool 20:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • With regards to Anthony Cooper, the wording "He appears to be in a vegetative state." should be changed. He does not appear to be in a vegetative state. He can clearly sit up on his own, hold his head up, and eat (she wiped food from his mouth). That is not a vegetative state. Do we want to call him "mentally disabled" or "appears to be unable to communicate." Thoughts? --Jacknisko 16:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Look, the last flash-sideways had a scene that featured only Locke, before Jack came in. This isn't like Frank in The Lie. Frank was irrelevant to the plot in The Lie. Here, Locke is the plot. Jack has practically no development, while Locke had tons. Locke has a flash-sideways and the plot focuses around him. More people think it's Jack & Locke than just Jack-thus, consensus it's Jack & Locke. The writers even think it's centric to both. It's clear what it is, and the page should reflect what the majority of people think. --Golden Monkey 18:16, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support Jack and Locke. And a minor point - Locke's flash sideways theme plays throughout the flashes. Jack's theme plays once, at the end of the episode. --- Balk Of Fametalk 20:38, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
It appears more people favor Jack and Locke than just Jack or just Locke. --Golden Monkey 19:00, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jack and Locke. Both had flashes from their POV. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 19:05, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm WAY behind on this because I haven't logged in in a while, but I would say that this was just Jack-centric. All of the flashes occurred on him, none on the various Terry O'Quinn characters. Of course, I'm also a hardcore supporter of the fact that Follow The Leader is no one-centric, not Richard-centric, and got voted down there too. Also, I believe the fansites are calling this one just Jack-centric. I think that's the way to go. But that's just me. Jeff 19:48, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
Just Jack centric. Focused alot more on him. Island stuff was mostly Jack with a fair bit of MiB, but still more Jack. Flash stuff had Jack in the main role in every scene. Sure there was a fair bit of Locke but not nearly as much as Jack. Also the scene with Jack and Claire had nothing to with Locke at all. It's solo Jack centric. Mhtmghnd 08:53, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Rose and Bernard

It is yet undetermined what happened to Rose and Bernard, so the page should not note that there are only 6 left from Oceanic 815.--Shmibar 02:15, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We haven't heard anything about them since the Losties flashed out of Dharma times. We don't even know if they came with them. --michael_is_NOT_in_the_coffin 02:23, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

6 Left from Oceanic 815 entirely is wrong as well. Middle section - Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley and Claire. Rose is unknown, Walt is off the island. That make 7 from the middle section. Tail section - Bernard is unknown, Cindy and the kids are unknown, the rest is fuzzy. All we know is that some people who were taken from the tail section, not sure if they were later killed, or are like Cindy at the moment. I've just updated Body count, this gives an overall status of the characters. Phobia27 03:08, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

They really did dismiss Cindy, the kids, and the other Lockies pretty lamely. "Scattered in the jungle". How convenient. 14:54, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Rose and Bernard aren't main cast members. Kajillion 05:06, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
The initial posting spoke of the survivors of 815, not main cast members. It's been altered several times since then.--Shmibar 05:57, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I say note them three, and cindy and the kids as the survivng 815ers. Buffyfan123 02:19, May 6, 2010 (UTC)


  • Why does the bomb go off, but Jack and Richard are saved in the 1800s ship? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deadmaus (talkcontribs) 2010-05-04T21:57:46.
    • Maybe because Sawyer tried to disarm it. If Sawyer hadn't tried to disarm the bomb, maybe it wouldn't have gone off as Jack stated b/c MIB can't kill them, but since Sawyer interfered with the bomb, it was able to go off. Alienux|talk|contributions 03:22, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • The answer to this one isn't metaphysical. It had nothing to do with who can kill whom. Sawyer simply armed the device by tampering with it. If it had counted down, nothing would have happened, not because the island was involved, but because it wasn't armed to begin with.Superfresh 06:05, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • Nope, Richard was the one that lite the dynamite so he would have been the one to kill them similar to Sawyer killing everyone today. My guess is because they were on the island in the boat but the sub was far enough off shore.Rukkis 03:38, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
        • Richard's not a candidate. Only a candidate can kill a candidate. That's why Jack had to make Sayid take the pill. --Orhan94 03:42, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
        • Smokey cant kill them, they cant kill themselves, but them killing each other is a somewhat hazy subject. And Sawyer definitely initiated the 'quick' countdown, insinuating that the explosion was his doing at it's core than the doing of Smokey. And let us remember; Sawyer did not die. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shatarlore (talkcontribs) 2010-05-04T22:44:32.
          • What about, say, the Rousseaus? Keamy isn't a candidate, as far as we know ... --LeoChris 03:45, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
            • I think it's safe to say anyone who's been killed at this point was not a candidate. CaptainSmartass 03:53, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
              • Except for all those candidates. But other than that, yeah.--HaloOfTheSun 04:04, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
                • It's not being a candidate that makes you unable to die, its being touched by Jacob, so that refutes the Keamy part--Roneman90 05:35, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
                  • Then what about Jin and Sun? --Nameghino 05:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
                    • And that truly is the question, isn't it? PhillyPartTwo 14:56, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
                      • You are all speculating with nothing. We have seen this a lot of time in movies, and nobody thinks about beeing or not beeing a candidate. MiB wanted all of them dead, he armed the bomb to kill them. Sayid was right, we wasn't sure about the wiring thing. Jack and Sawyer were wrong, if they let the bomb go off, it would explode... if they touch the cables, it would also explode.--Stabilini 05:01, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
                        • But noone has determined what it takes to not be a candidate anymore (ie. what action/decision/event ended Kate's candidacy?) Thus we really don't know who the candidates are anymore (we know who isn't, but we can't be sure who is until a rule is established for their exclusion) Maybe by being in the tank for MiB (for a time) Sayid is toast, maybe the defining action would have been killing Desmond. I think it's a mistake to assume that just because they were candidates at the beginning of the season, that they are currently candidates. Janich78 13:48, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
    • Locke was killed by Ben. Faraday was killed by Hawking. Sayid was killed by DI, then he killed himself. Juliet killed herself. Sun was killed by Sawyer, but Jin accepted death as the only option for staying with Sun. The rules don't seem clear.(Jack Dutton 06:34, May 5, 2010 (UTC))
      • I think there are (at least) two rules: 1) You can't kill yourself if you are needed by the island or Jacob to do something (hence: Michael couldn't kill himself off-island, Jack and Richard couldn't kill themselves) 2) The smoke monster can't kill any of the *candidates* (unless they've been crossed off) -- or possibly he isn't *supposed* to kill them or he'll forfeit his prize. The above murders/suicides do not defy either of those rules. Clamshell 13:07, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd say Juliet was killed when the Hot Pocket triggered by the DI pulled her into a pit through a rebar. The nuke didn't seem to do anything to her other than throw her through time. --Jbillones 13:38, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
        • mmmmm Hot Pocket
      • So maybe there is one rule. You won't die until the Island is done with you. Regardless of whose side you are on, you won't die until the Island is done with you. MiB can kill candidates, but he can't kill them all. He would have to leave one candidate alive. The loophole MiB is trying to go through is the elimination of all candidates. If he always has to leave one, then he is trapped on the Island. If they all kill each other, he can leave. (Jack Dutton 17:06, May 5, 2010 (UTC))
  • The bomb went off so they could fulfill their purpose on the Island. If the bomb doesn't go off then no one gets off the sub and they don't fulfill their purpose. The Island wanted the bomb to explode so the needed players would stay on the Island.--Dmac1249 19:10, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jack took the poison pill, and Dogen saved his life. He wouldn't have needed to if Candidates can't kill themselves. I thought the only rule was that MiB can't kill candidates (meaning anyone on Jacob's list). They've only been crossed off by people killing each other. Jack not blowing up in the Black Rock might have been due to Richard not being able to die at all. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 00:31, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • You are safe if the Island isn't done with you yet. The rules about who can kill whom are based on that. You can stop being a candidate and when you are then you can die - ie. Mr Eko faced down the smoke monster which later killed him when Mr Eko claimed to have done nothing wrong by choosing the bad life he wouldn't have to. So Mysterious Boy's claim about the rule only lasts so long. Jacob said, "all that's needed is one" so you can assume that once the Island is done with you, you are dead until that one is found. Oh, and the bomb wouldn't have exploded if the watch wound down. It took Sawyer to set it off, so he would have been the last to survive, assuming one of the possible others, Dez, Claire, Walt, Jeyong, Rose, or Zach have been cross off the wall.--Lucky Day | msg 23:26, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • It appears rather clearly from MiB's trickery into making one of the losties pull the wire on that C4 brick (in the sub, Sawyer) that he cannot kill any of the candidates, no more than he could kill Jacob. So by the dying moments of the episode he has the weirdest conversation with Claire. After MiB/F'Locke tells her that the submarine is sunk, she asks logically whether they're all dead (referring to Jin, Sun, Sayid, Kate, Sawyer, Jack, Hugo and Lapidus), to which he replies, "not all of them". He then prepares to take off and she fires, "where are you going", and his reply, "to finish what I started". Right. This scene alone leads us to two questions:
    • (1) how the devil does he know for sure his plan did not succeed, if he knows that at all? Is this some foresight versus hindsight kinda thing?, and most important of all,
    • (2) he needed a loophole to kill Jacob and a very elaborate stratagem to try and make the losties kill each other, now is it just like that - he gives a peeved frown, grabs a rifle and takes off to "finish what he started"??? How the bloody hell does he intend to do that?--Fredgie 13:00, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's how he knows about the sub and its candidate occupants -MiB knows not everyone died because he still cannot leave the Island. That's one of the few rules we do know. Can't leave while Jacob's alive or any of his potential replacements. This was a nicely orchestrated co-assassination maneuver, but he realized it failed because he is still standing in Locke's form (thanx to Duncan905) as to your second question - well that is the mystery isn't it - but where would he be going? Not a well by any chance?    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   14:08, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Good one brother, he still cannot leave the island - that's how he knows... As for the well - what will he do there? Toss a penny and wish???;-) --Fredgie 16:00, May 7, 2010 (UTC)


Did anyone happen to notice whether Zuleikha Robinson was credited for the episode?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:54, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • She was, I looked for it.--Frank J Lapidus 03:54, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • She is still alive in the flash sideways so why not right? You can try reading the press release for episode 16 (since I doubt they would credit people who are not involved in the flashback episode, at least I assume that there will not be any 2007 or sideways scenes) --ShadowSlave 07:03, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • She is still a regular. Very interesting. Marc604 07:43, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I know she's still in the press release, I just don't trust them with how they handle main characters, after the whole Miles/Charlotte/Daniel/Charlotte again/Desmond thing. It'll be curious to see whether she comes back any time this season. It's not the first time they've killed someone off and just kept their credit around (Boone, Ana and Libby if I recall).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  09:10, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • something of note: boone actually appeared in a couple of episodes after he died while he was still being credited as a main character, including the finale of season 1. ana lucia was credited until the finale of season two despite only appearing in "?" post-death, but libby was in the finale in desmond's flashback. daniel was also credited in the season 5 finale, and he didn't appear in "the incident". just various different rules. it seems that, if you die a few episodes before a finale, you get to continue to be credited (charlie was even credited as a main character in the first episode of season four). but back on point, i have a feeling that Ilana will have more to do this season, helping claire and jack and all that.Bassrockindrew 17:39, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Often, there are contractual obligations that require shows to keep actors' names in the credits for a specific number of episodes per season. dmzimmerman 10:58, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

The "unspoken revelation" that Sun is the Candidate

What is this? Who put it there? When did this take place? Illyrias Acolyte 04:42, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • Never mind, it was removed. If it comes back, kindly explain it. Illyrias Acolyte 04:44, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that. It's the manner of how they died that proves Sun is the candidate -- because Jin is not. I think that's the entire point of the title and also a huge added layer to the death scene. Jin cannot be a candidate because he sacrificed himself to be with Sun -- constituting suicide, something a candidate cannot commit. The whole time when Sun is trying to talk him into going, the subtext is that his decision will show us whether or not he's the candidate.--Pogopark 05:03, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • There has never been any rulke stated or implied that candidate cannot kill himself or another candidate. We just know that Richard can't kill himself, and that MiB can't kill candidates, and that you can't kill yourself if the island isn;t done with you, not because you're a candidate. If the island is done with you, even if you are a candidate, there is no reason to believe that you cannot kill yourself.--[User:jeffcutt72|jeffcutt72]]
  • If I'm way off base, let me know. But I think the writers established the rules painstakingly, even choosing Ab Aeterno as the repeat episode, where this rule is blatantly stated. This is a pretty straightforward interpretation of events.--Pogopark 05:05, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sun and Jin died as a result of Sawyer's actions. Because he was a candidate he could cause their deaths, just not his own. Sayid, for example, clearly committed suicide. I don't think the situation is clear. It's an interesting theory though. --Jackdavinci 05:14, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • Sayid wasn't a candidate, so he was able to kill himself. And Sawyer did cause Sun's death, but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying -- it's not how Sun died, it's how Jin died. Jin made a suicidal decision and carried it out, something a candidate could not have done. The bomb clearly did not kill him. I don't think it's theoretical at all. --Pogopark 05:24, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • Sayid WAS a candidate. The person responsible for killing Sayid is another candidate, Sawyer, who tinkered with the bomb he shouldn't have. All who died on the sub died as a result of that candidates actions, unintentional as they were.--Pittsburghmuggle 12:30, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • Uh, Sayid was a candidate. And, although I think it unlikely, Ji Yeon could be the Kwon candidate.--HaloOfTheSun 05:35, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
        • Ah, you may be right -- although he may not have been one at the point of his death. But that's irrelevant -- it's a fact that candidates cannot kill themselves. However, your point about Ji Yeon is very on point.--Pogopark 05:42, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • There is no way to know that Sun was the candidate based on the way she died. At the very least it is speculative and should NOT be included in the main article. --Roneman90 05:36, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • Hahah you guys need to read better. It's not how Sun died, it's how Jin died. At the very least we do know that Jin was not a candidate.--Pogopark 05:42, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
        • You may be correct, but it is still speculation, and has not been proven to be fact. Therefore it should not be included in the main article.--Roneman90 05:46, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
          • Jin not being the candidate is now a known fact. Suicide = not a candidate. The writers couldn't have made it any clearer.Pogopark 05:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
            • Where are you getting this? Please stop posting your theories as known facts. Where in Ab Aeterno do the writers blatantly state a rule concerning suicide and the candidates? I'd really like to know, because I don't think that rule exists. True, we've seen the island prevent suicide (Michael in season 4 and Richard in "Dr. Linus"), but neither Michael or Richard are candidates. Sayid, a known candidate, sacrificed himself to save the others, proving suicide of candidates is possible. All in all, this theory really has no legs to stand on, no matter if we "read [it] better" or not.--Znils 06:56, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
            • No. Richard couldn't kill himself. That's a fact. If Richard couldn't kill himself, then Jack was not in danger. Jin didn't commit suicide. He chose to stay with his wife - "until death do you part," you know. That choice may have led to his death, but it is not clear that he would have survived if he left Sun. The point where you realize that it's too late is not a willful act of suicide. It is realization of the inevitable. (Jack Dutton 06:42, May 5, 2010 (UTC))
              • To quickly add, Richard couldn't "kill himself" because he was bestowed with the gift/ability to live forever... he couldn't die if he wanted too.. --ShadowSlave 07:01, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
                • First of all, is Richard a Candidate? He is Jacob's spokesperson, perhaps he is meant to be the spokesperson for the new Jacob, not a candidate himself. And secondly, Richard merely said HE couldn't kill HIMSELF, not some overall rule for everything on the island. Maybe this is a reference to the fact that Richard does not want to go to Hell. He considers the time he is spending alive his penance or something, and so it would all be for nothing if he committed suicide and went to Hell for that. Catholic guilt, you know? Linta 17:12, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
                • I don't think it's been established that "a candidate can't commit suicide". Richard can't, but he's not a candidate, and he is a special case due to being touched by Jacob, so we doubly can't draw any conclusions about candidates from him. What I took from the dynamite scene was that Jack figured he had a some destiny other than getting blown up then and there with Richard, and he knew that at that moment, the dynamite wouldn't go off. That tells us nothing about some future time when it *might* be his destiny to kill himself and therefore it would work. Beelzebubbles101 09:47, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

If Sawyer hadn't screwed with the bomb, then Jin wouldn't have had a decision to make. So sorry, Pogopark, but your theory is not the end all and be all. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   05:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

My problem with this theory is that... What one says suicide, the other says selfless act of love? Jin (you could argue) killed himself (suicide), or died for love.. And what was the revelation two weeks ago? LOVE is what is going to complete LOST. I think you read WAAYYY too far into this, and I thought the whole "Ji-Yeon Kwon/Aaron Austen" was being put on a pedestal as the Kwon/Austen (re-written) as possible candidates. I've been trying to bust the nut of-If I had to pick between Jin or Sun as the Kwon candidate, who would it be? My answer for that question would be Jin, but that's not what I'm posing here... My proof of your theory is what lies here. --ShadowSlave 06:42, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Look at the list of candidates. Locke - dude. Reyes - dude. Ford - dude. Jarrah - dude. Shepard - dude. Kwon? I would guess - dude. Jacob was a dude. MiB is a dude, at least twice. So, perhaps the "unspoken revelation" is that all the candidates are dudes. (Jack Dutton 06:47, May 5, 2010 (UTC))

  • lol I thought about that as soon as the list came out. It's an entertaining thought that's for sure. Episode 15 may give enough reason to believe in such a theory, but you must also keep in mind, that there are more than 6 people on that list... The lighthouse I'm sure would give us at least one last name that would direct us to a female character who could have been a candidate, so the list does not discriminate (in the beginning anyways). Come to think of it though (and I doubt that there is much in the scene[s]), recall all the Ji-Yeon and Aaron Austen/Littleton talks in Season 6, and ask yourself questions... How are they introduced? Are these characters given any or used as a device/purpose/specific context? Could be a start on something interesting between Ji-Yeon & Aaron in the sideways world (eg. "they are both currently unborn" is a good one) --ShadowSlave 06:56, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Jin didn't choose to die or commit suicide, he chose not to leave his wife. Dying was just a secondary consequence.Fang7124 07:03, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

CLOSED, I think this discussion has been beaten to death (get it?). --ShadowSlave 07:05, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

No mention of maybe the Kwon candidate is their daughter? Hence, both of them can die. Danh916 12:38, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • Candidates die all the time. There is a cave and a lighthouse full of their names. This "candidates can't die" thing is the new "everyone needs a constant" argument.--Crabapple 14:36, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it is being referred to based on Jacob-touched candidates. PhillyPartTwo 15:00, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

CLOSED?? "Nothing is closed until we decide it is." This is a fine discussion, and an intriguing angle. I hope we get verification in the popups if an enhanced ep airs, as "which Kwon?" has been asked this season by Ilana, MiB & Widmore. No reason the writers wouldn't provide some clues as they kill off the pair. I believe Jack deduced the Rule correctly, candidates can kill each other, and all the candidates on the sub were doomed by Sawyer's action. But would Sawyer have survived? We don't know that Michael's case verifies "no suicide", since he chooses to stay with the freighter bomb. We only know a person can't die if the "Island isn't done with them." Sun being trapped on a sinking sub somewhat indicates the Island was done with her, and combined with Jin having the freedom to go or stay gives me the impression it was Sun. Duncan905 16:08, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi all, I now doubt this theory so I'm sorry I got so fiesty about it! It all seemed so crucial at the time. Oh, lost. --Pogopark 18:00, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

The Candidate

So... Can anyone explain the title of this episode to me? It seems as though be the end of it we should know who the candidate is, but if they said it then I didn't catch it.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • Probably just a misleading title refering to Jack's speech to Locke at the beginning. --LeoChris 04:49, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I felt that at the end when Jack is standing on his own, he looks like he is praying or something like that, or speaking to the above, and I kinda thought, he's talking to Jacob and he wants to be the candidate. That was something that I was thinking when I watched it. Obviously not a fact. --Phryrosebdeco23 04:52, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sayid said it. He told Jack to find Desmond, because he would need him, because "It's going to be you."Superfresh 06:04, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a double-meaning. We all know what the candidate on the Island is all about. Jack starts the episode by asking John to be a candidate for an experimental procedure. Jack concludes the episode by asking John to be a candidate for letting go. He wants John to teach him how to stop punishing himself for the stuff that happens. Reading that definition back onto the Island, maybe THE candidate will be the one that is willing to let it all go, the one ready to stop punishing himself and to stop punishing the MiB. It seems that Jack is ready for that.(Jack Dutton 06:54, May 5, 2010 (UTC))
  • They're unaware that we're watching them on a TV show, and at the end of the episode, there are 8 remaining living people connected to Flight 815: Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, Claire and Walt and the two babies. So see, it's the Candid Eight.--Pittsburghmuggle 12:25, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, ya. If you don't count Rose, Bernard, Cindy, Zach, Emma, anyone of the other tail section survivors, and possibly Vincent. PhillyPartTwo 15:09, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Production Notes

As of the end of this episode, Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, Claire and Walt are the only main characters from Season 1 who are still alive in the original timeline.

Aaron Littleton and Ji Yeon Kwon are still alive, though I can understand that this is merely a quibble. Aaron was born on the island and Je Yeon was only there in utero. However, back on those six - that's the same number that they lied about surviving the crash, and now there really ARE six survivors of the events surrounding the crash of flight 815. I thought that was interesting. --Pittsburghmuggle 12:12, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Rose Nadler is not dead, is she? Gfrast 14:55, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

    • I don't think anyone would qualify Rose or Bernard (or Vincent) as main characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PhillyPartTwo (talkcontribs) 2010-05-05T10:10:31.
      • Rose, Aaron and Ji Yeon aren't main characters.. --Verdath 16:24, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't see how Walt is any more main character than Rose or Bernard. Cashisrock 23:19, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Malcolm David Kelley (Walt) was credited as a main cast member for all of season 1 and for part of season 2 as well. Thus he is a main cast member. The actor/actress playing Bernard/Rose were never credited as main cast members. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   03:17, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • For the record, the group of all the actors/actresses who have been credited as part of the main cast during any period of time can be seen [here]. And yes, Nikki and PAulo are considered main characters, unfortunately. There are 8 who have been credited as main characters throughout the series: Jorge Garcia, Matthew Fox, Evangeline Lily, Josh Halloway, Daniel Dae Kim, Terry O'Quinn, Naveen Andrews, and Yunjin Kim —   lion of dharma    talk    email   03:22, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Jin & Sun

Posted this on Sun's talk page as well, but in my tiredness, realized this would be better ._. I may be out of bounds here, but I feel confused. We do not know for sure Jin and Sun are dead. We do know Sayid is, cause well, he had 4 C4 Bricks explode while holding him. Frank we do not know, and his page reflects that. The only thing that supports they are dead is the hands drifting apart. However, the rest is left up to ASSUMPTION. For example, instead of some people assuming that they're dead, I choose to assume something like Frank found more Oxygen tanks, and went back with extras to see if everyone was ok, found Sun and Jin, gave them tanks, then Jin let go of Sun to work with Frank to get the bars off of her. Just because we did not see Frank does not mean he wasn't there. There's many other assumptions that could be the case, so, I'm wondering: Isn't the Wiki jumping the gun by assuming that Jin and Sun are dead? Nothing has been stated as FACT that they are in fact, dead. And before someone asks: This isn't a theory, I'm simply pointing out we do not have concrete evidence they are dead, only assumptions. Jack also assumed they were dead. This article as well as their character articles state they are dead, which is why this is here and not in theories. Now, in my head, every time a main character has died, we have either seen their full body, or at least their head. We saw neither on Jin & Sun, just part of their body and hands, which can easily be explained as to why they separated, as pointed out above. Myzou 12:47, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • IMO that is absurd. We were given all the dramatic signals. This was goodbye, a sweet, sacrificial goodbye. Really - what purpose have Jin and Sun played for a long, long time. Besides we SAW thir DEAD hands drift apart UNDERWATER with Sun still trapped. What is it you want? (there is always the other timeline anyway).    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:52, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, I think the writer's were trying to make it very, very clear that Jin and Sun were actually dead, to abolish ahead of time any theories that they were actually alive and would come back. Clamshell 13:18, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • That may be the biggest stretch i have ever read. I don't want them to be dead either but we have to accept they are gone. All 4 characters served their purposes to the island. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnnyagentzero (talkcontribs) 2010-05-05T08:57:05.
    • I'm not saying they aren't dead. I'm simply saying that people are jumping the gun on saying they are dead. IMO, if they are considered dead, then Frank should be listed as dead as well, as last we saw him, he was knocked down with a submarine door on top of him, when said submarine sank, and not seen with the 4 that escaped. Myzou 14:19, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Dead. Hatchbanger 14:26, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Myzou - Frank is dead as well as Sun & Jin. --LOSTinDC 16:21, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jin and Sun are dead, 100% certain. There is absolutely nothing in the episode to suggest otherwise. I give Frank about a 15% chance of surviving, because it was a really quick cutaway after he was hit by the door, but if he was alive, he would have had to make it back to land in order to stay that way, and we didn't see him wash up on the beach. The wiki will say what it says, but I will assume Frank dead until/unless I find out otherwise. --Frakkin Toaster 17:22, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, at least we now know that Jin and Sun are 100% dead for 100% sure: "Lindelof recognizes that there’s something “brutal” about killing Jin and Sun just one episode after their long-awaited reunion — which, he says, is exactly what made the lovers such an apt choice for making a statement about Fake Locke’s malevolence. “At least they got to die in each other’s arms, so they’d have some sense of victory,” he says." PhillyPartTwo 18:04, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • And in the same article: "Yunjin Kim: “They were kept separate for so long, and then they came together to die together.”" and "Daniel Dae Kim: “They were the Romeo and Juliet of the show, and the fact they didn’t have a happy ending does make me sad.” PhillyPartTwo 18:07, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • So you're saying they "Lived alone, died together"...--Dmac1249 19:29, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but they are dead. The music, the mood, everything indicates they are. I understand the pain at losing these beloved two but we musnt clutch at straws. Frank is maybe alive but Sun and Jin are also dead, plus Darlton immediately were interviewed with EW stating their deaths were partly to show MIB's evil nature. I can find a link to post that here if needed. RIP Sun and Jin. You were loved. --Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 14:10, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

The link to that article is above... and here too: They are gone. DesmondHumeWillBeMyConstant 22:16, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

UQ Discussion

  • I have removed "Is Frank dead?" and variations. Frank was crushed by a steel bulkhead door, Drowned , unrescued, buried in the Ocean. Furthermore his dramatic usefulness was pretty well nil, he no longer served a purpose anyway. People who think he is alive need to come up with an explanation.
    • I think it's a valid question (although I also think the likely answer is 'he's dead'). Sayid clearly blew up holding the bomb. We saw Sun and Jin go limp. Frank, on the other hand, got hit by the door, but we didn't see the outcome. Take Jin surviving the freighter explosion as another example of someone on the show surviving an "obvious" death. It's not absolutely clear what happened. Also, I don't think "dramatic usefulness" should be a valid argument to remove a UQ, but if you want to go there, don't forget that Frank is still the only person who can fly the Aijira plane. (Mirth23 16:53, May 5, 2010 (UTC))
    • Entirely different circumstances to Jin - for a start it was actually believable that he got out of the explosion, not so Frank. As to flying the Plane - I bet Widmore flies! Frank ain't flying no plane with a crushed chest. Also there are 3 eps left - dead is dead. Further more we did see him die - that door was half a ton!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:13, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • CK: I disagree with you with regard to relative believability. We didn't see Frank die. Frank got smacked by the door then the door kept flying and did not "crush his chest" (go watch it on It wasn't even clear whether it knocked him out. We know there were emergency oxygen tanks on the sub. We've seen people come back from much more 'obvious' deaths on the show. Arguments like "I bet Widmore flies" and "there's 3 episodes left" completely beg the question as to whether or not Frank's fate is uncertain. (Mirth23 17:52, May 5, 2010 (UTC))
      • I'm pretty sure he's dead (along with the submarine captain) but until I see a body (the writers say he did) you can never tell.--Lucky Day | msg 19:48, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I have replaced "How did MIB know sub sank, that there are survivors?" and variations because I can't see how it is not a valid answerable, question.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   16:43, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • MiB (wait for it...) clearly just knows. There is no doubt that he knows and no need to question how he knows. Hatchbanger 03:29, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • I would say he knows the sub sank because he set the bomb and thus the timer. After that I think he is going to kill Desmond whom he 'knows' Sayid didn't kill. --Liberal elite 04:24, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting oppose MiB knows not everyone died because he still cannot leave the Island. That's one of the few rules we do know. Can't leave while Jacob's alive or any of his potential replacements. This was a nicely orchestrated co-assassination maneuver, but he realized it failed because he is still standing in Locke's form. I vote to remove. Duncan905 05:13, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • replaced "What is the meaning of the music box that Christian Shephard left for Claire?". It was removed because there is an established history with the song it plays - "Falling Star" - but that is in the OT. Why is this a deal in the FST. Espec since we don't know the Christian history in FST, and why make a whole scene around the Music box - for the box, the mirror, the Song. It isn't clear to me.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:13, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • "Is Frank dead?" is a bad question because it's closed-ended. However, "What happened to Frank?" is open-ended and valid, because we have no reason to claim that he's for sure dead. The rest of the site is treating him as "missing/unknown" and not as dead. If we don't hear from him by the end of the series, then he's dead but for now it's valid.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:15, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed: Did he drown or not? - since that is encapsulated in the Where is Frank Q (even tho IMO it is too obvious that he is dead and at the bottom of the ocean). I also removed: "Where is Widmore?" because it is leading in the sense that it implies he is somewhere other than where we would expect him to be - namely at the Hydra station where we last saw him and which is his HQ. He and Zoe still have some moves. Obviously!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   05:21, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • It is clear that the vast majority of us belive Frank to be dead. I see the reasoning behind the wiki saying that his status is ambigious, the only issue I have is this : if we should never see a body in the next 3 episodes, will the wiki accept he is dead or leave it as ambigious?? IMO he is obviously dead and I say that with deep sadness. --D Toccs 16:09, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not clear at all. If it were, the rest of the site wouldn't say that he's "unknown". Thus, the question remains open. And to calm your "only issue": yes, if we never see a body in the next 3 episodes then we will mark him as dead. I'm readding the question until someone actually addresses the points with something more compelling than "nuh-uh".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:01, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Did we see Sayid's body, or pieces thereof, floating in the water? If not then logically we should add "What happened to Sayid?" as an unanswered question. Hatchbanger 19:08, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • Apart from the facts that, no, because Lapidus was in a position to escape and Sayid wasn't and Sayid's death was treated dramatically *as* a death and Lapidus' wasn't... The producers have confirmed Sayid's death in interviews. No so for Lapidus'.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:20, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Music box - worth an UQ

I don't think there is any really big meaning behind the box. It just means that Christian sung her that song in the FST as well and wanted her to remember it. LOST-Malachi 12:10, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Catch a Falling Star plays when the MIB clears the temple.--Pittsburghmuggle 12:16, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
I pretty much took it the same way. Christian used to sing her that song when she was little, but Claire just doesn't remember it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lostbrotha (talkcontribs) 2010-05-05T09:58:31.

I'm not 100% sure, but isn't that the music box that Sayid fixed for Russo when she captured him?Muggle68 16:17, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Rousseau's music box had a ballerina and played a different song. See Rousseau's music box. (Mirth23 16:24, May 5, 2010 (UTC))
  • Since nobody really seems to be defending it, I'll remove it for now. Anyone who feels it should stay should post here.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:06, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • He clearly gave it to her because all crazy jungle ladies with missing children need a music box (no matter what timeline they're in!)--Lizziejj 13:22, May 7, 2010 (UTC)


  • This may seem like a stupid question, but are we 100% sure he's dead? We didn't see him drown, unlike Sun and Jin... in fact, we hadn't seen him in a while, maybe he swam out somehow? --LeoChris 02:03, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

He was in a totally different room that flooded much faster and the door came out on him. I'd say he died. SLRibs 02:04, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • I bet he's alive. We didn't see a body, and they need him to pilot the plane. Either way, like Jin on the Kahana, it's at least ambiguous at this point. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think he's dead... Frank was below in the engine room. Hardly any chance getting above the water. Crappy send-off, but this episode was all around pretty crappy overall. Deadmaus 02:54, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • Crappy? This episode was awesome. Sorry you have no soul and the deaths of three major characters had zero effect on you. DesmondHumeWillBeMyConstant 16:54, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • That's a pretty harsh thing to say. I happen to agree it was crappy. The character's deaths didn't effect me much because everything was so rushed and they were killed off so unceremoniously and pointlessly (pointless pertaining to their storylines). Anyways, this isn't the place to discuss it really.--Beema|talk|contributions 22:23, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • I definitely don't think he's definitely dead. --Bish-Fiscuit 03:07, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • It could go either way, but I think that if Frank was dead we would have been shown it for sure. Of course, his body could just be discovered later or something, but I think there's a chance he made it. --Golden Monkey 03:17, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • We should keep Frank's status as unknown. I think there's still a good chance he's alive, we didn't see him again after the door hits him.--Frank J Lapidus 03:38, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. We really have no idea at this point.JakeC 06:14, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • We don't know, but it's my personal opinion his number was up once we were told they weren't taking the plane. The character was dragged along to make us think the plane really would be important, because they would need someone to fly it. (And if that's the case, it's the easiest paycheck Jeff Fahey's ever earned!) Plus, we're getting REALLY close to the end for an "I'm not really dead!" surprise. --Pittsburghmuggle 07:05, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think we all know why Frank is dead. It's because The Island was done with him. Widmore rigged the plane. That made the plane useless. Frank's purpose was to fly the plane. Frank was no longer needed. Just like Ilana, The Island no longer needed Frank. That's why Frank went splat. "There she was - picked by Jacob, trained to come and protect you candidates, no sooner does she tell you who you are, then she blows up. The Island was done with her. Makes me wonder what's gonna happen when it's done with us." By the way, what are Ben, Richard, and Miles up to? PhillyPartTwo 14:50, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Dead as dead can be. At best Frank was always a second string character, not part of the central issues, not a candidate, hardly anything to do or say. He got a fitting end. When a bulkhead door hits you like that, and then you get drowned - and no one rescues you and the sub you are in sinks - you die. What further dramatic need is there for him. We all liked him but tonight was about saying goodbye.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:22, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • Which is a shame. I was really really convinced that Frank was to be a huge key to the whole mystery. I thought he was going to be very important. Now he is sadly no more important than The Lawnmower Man himself. PhillyPartTwo 14:52, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • the only ones who are important are the ones that are important. Stupid I know, but that means - Jack, Sawyer, Kate, Hurley and Ben. And, of course Desmond. Not Miles and I doubt Richard. Widmore has some role to play. I doubt Claire is central to anything. MiB.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   15:03, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • This is not a matter of importance.. All three characteres who did die this episode were all important. --Kraeg 20:47, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Dead. Hatchbanger 14:24, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think he might be dead, but there is no way we can say he is dead for sure. Remember Jin on the freighter? We all thought he was dead, there was no way he could have survived the explosion. But he did, right? Then we have Naomi. She was surely dead at the end of Season 3, but she remained for an episode into Season 4. There was also Juliet, who was thought to be dead after detonating the bomb, but she was still alive at the start of this season. The fact is that although the evidence suggests he is dead, past cases prove that we can't say it is confirmed. If we don't see him again, then yeah, he's dead. There is every chance he managed to make it out. I hope he is alive, but then if he is dead it just makes the loss even greater.--Baker1000 19:33, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Facts: he got hit by the bulkhead door as the water rushed in, not much else, really. As far as Frank's page on this site is concerned, the most certain thing we can say is "possibly (or even likely, if you prefer) dead". I'm not arguing about what would happen to someone getting slammed by a bulkhead door because (as Baker1000 implies above) if the writers want someone to survive a nuke explosion, then that person survives (and damn reality). I was waiting for confirmation, and they had an excellent opportunity to prove that Frank was actually dead when the camera was going through all the passageways of the sunken sub. But they didn't. They could have passed by his lifeless body but they didn't. They could have at least shown his pilot wings or something in the water, but they...well, you get the point. Sure, the focus of the scene was all on Sun and Jin, but all it left me with was suspicion and uncertainty about Frank. Likely dead, but unconfirmed at best. Personally, I'm keeping my fingers crossed about him surviving, I think he's an entertaining character, but it certainly looks grim. MannyF 20:03, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • He's not dead. The door didn't hit him on his head. He used his arms to protect him from the door blast. He fall into the floor, but there's no strong evidence to confirm him dead. For those who are saying he was one level down... the bomb could make a huge hole in the sub, enough to let Frank get out from that level.--Stabilini 04:53, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Leave the question "What has happened to Frank?" on the page. If we find out he's dead or we don't hear from him until the end of the show, then the question will have been answered negatively. If we *do* hear from him before then then it turns out it was a valid question all along. Win-win.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  16:37, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • He's dead Jim. Jorge Garcia's latest podcast confirms it. See Talk:Frank Lapidus. Hatchbanger 23:29, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • From that talk it looks like there's a lot more debate. I still want to know what happened to the captain.--Lucky Day | msg 05:33, May 7, 2010 (UTC
Look at what Graft said on Frank's talk: "Also they've updated the character bios on the ABC website. For Frank, all it says about his current status is this: "Frank was in the sub's bridge when the C-4 exploded, and was last seen trying to get out when a partially-sealed bulkhead blew off from the force of the rushing water and hit him in the head." No death confirmation. In Sawyer's bio, it says: "The bomb exploded, leading to Sun, Jin and Sayid's deaths." No mention of Frank's death. I think it's jumping the gun, personally."" I think that's enough to not make a clear statement of his fate yet. --Golden Monkey 08:46, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

AQ Discussion

Did Sayid kill Desmond?

  • No. Sayid claims that Dez is alive and "well".--Lucky Day | msg 20:27, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Who is the final Candidate?

  • Sayid makes the statement to Jack, "you are the one"--Lucky Day | msg 20:27, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • I think he actually said, "Because it's going to be YOU!" DesmondHumeWillBeMyConstant 16:56, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • This is a 'what is going to happen question'. No final candidate has been picked yet. What Sayid said is his own opinion. --Jackdavinci 07:23, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Will Sun and Jin be reunited?

  • Yes, and it takes about 11 hours before the Island decides its done with them.--Lucky Day | msg 20:27, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Which Kwon is the Candidate?

  • I guess we'll never know...(however, for further debate, see discussion above)--Lucky Day | msg 20:27, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Now it seems, that none of them is THE candidate! There is only one. Gfrast 06:15, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • ABC had an official series of prints made of the final six candidates. Both got prints.Mcwebe0 04:23, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Why did Dogen try to make Jack kill Sayid? Candidates can't die (by their own hands), so does it require another candidate to kill them?

  • Jack claimed that the MiB was trying to make them do it because there's "some sort of rule" that he can't.--Lucky Day | msg 20:27, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

How does the MiB think they can get off the Island (quickly) in a crashed and damaged airplane?

  • The question became moot when the MiB discovered it was booby trapped.--Lucky Day | msg 20:35, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Will sideways Jack fix sideways Locke? Will Locke walk again?

  • No, not this episode. Jack fixed his dural sac but insists on fixing his back which Locke continues to refuse.--Lucky Day | msg 20:35, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Another 'what is going to happen question'--Jackdavinci 07:23, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

How did sideways Locke lose his ability to walk? His relationship with his father sounds like its good, so did Anthony Cooper push him out an eight story window? Why won't Locke let Jack fix him?

  • Cooper is in a vegetative state in a nursing home and Locke was responsible. He talked Cooper into flying with him on his first run as a pilot and crashed the airplane. Its possible that this Cooper was trying to con Locke out of his kidney as well, because its likely he was the same con artist that got to Detective Sawyer's parents when he was a child.--Lucky Day | msg 20:35, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't the Losties in the FST remember the Island? Why did Desmond run over Locke?

  • If it was meant to get him to remember the Island it failed, except when he was sleeping.--Lucky Day | msg 20:46, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • I thought his look at Jack when Jack plead, "I just wish you had trusted me," was significant.Mcwebe0 04:23, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Locke's group at the beach?

  • The ones that weren't killed ran off into the jungle.--Lucky Day | msg 20:51, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Excellent summary - I agree with every last word. Now there is one for the books! Thanx    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   03:24, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • @Jack, you are correct that its a "what's going to happen next" but that brings up a point that I was going to have with Chuck on the nature of AQ's in the discussion. You may notice over the last few months I've been doing things that I often put a UQ up with only a partial answer, or the hint at it. If this were the main page I don't think it would be good enough. In other words the response to UQ's are sometimes more teasers than anything else to keep the question going or to further qualify it or give it a new twist. I'm trying to recognize occurrences when the writers do this. Sayid's comment is either foreshadowing or a red herring. What I don't like is all the magical insight some characters are acquiring starting with Juliet's knowing the time travel has stopped. Its been particularly bad this season.--Lucky Day | msg 16:59, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Why is the Man in Black constantly referred to as "Locke"?

It's just the constant use of italics makes it very jarring to read, and it was consistently stated as 'The Man in Black' until the previous episode recap. It's the character official name as designated by Darlton, we should stick to it in all episodes post-The Incident. The relevance of moments like the pivotal scene when Jack mentions Locke and pushes The Man in Black into the water are completely lost jumping back between "Locke" and Locke. ==WhoShotWaldo

  • firstly - please place your edits at the end. Secondly to answer you question - because we have established calling him "Locke" or Locke since it was clear that he is the MIB. Please see the extensive discussion in the discussion pages over a number of weeks. It is not an ideal solution but one of the things we try to do is be consistent - and we have consistently called him "Locke" after linking to MIB in the first reference the whole season. Next - he looks like Locke, next Man in Black has been used, I think ONCE in the script only, thirdly ALL the characters refer to him as "Locke", next Man in Black is harder to read and use in a decent sentence than "Locke", next he doesn't have a name (I like Nemesis but it just doesn't stick) and finally most of us are sick of talking about something we have discussed ad nauseum and have stuck with for so long. Blame thewriters for keeping his name secret, we may find out his name in the last 5 minutes of the show (not a spoiler - I have no idea)    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:33, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll again voice my disagreement with this convention. We don't need to "blame the writers" for anything, we just need to stick to a convention we can agree on and one that isn't annoying.  Robert K S   tell me  15:48, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • I've previously argued in favor of "Locke" in quotes, because at the time it was still somewhat ambiguous as to who/what he was. At least it was ambiguous to me. Now there is no ambiguity whatsoever: At this point in the season "Locke" = MiB. So I would have no issue with using MiB, as long as somewhere in the synopsis it's clearly stated (for reference) that MiB (as used in the synopsis in question) is Jacob's nemesis in the corporeal form of the dead John Locke. Or something like that. I know it's messy but it may now be appropriate to move beyond "Locke". The line of people wishing to sue me forms to the right. Also, I can sense CK shooting daggers at me with his eyes. Hatchbanger 17:52, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • No daggers Hatchbanger - I wish there was a decent solution to this. My current feelings are: 1. For editorial consistency we should stick to what we have done all season - that's about 60:40. 2. For writing style and fluidity I'd prefer Locke without quotes most. Man in Black least. It is a terrible name for a person (who was "once a man"). MiB is nearly as bad and given that people seem to prefer MIB (which breaks all abbreviation conventions) we'd have an argument there as well. 70:30. 3. Boring I know but I'm used to "Locke", it also has the advantage of allowing us to distinguish when Locke is used by a character within the program, and to distinguish him from the historical Locke and the FST Locke 70:30. Finally while I am speaking as me (!) I have to say that Man in Black, MiB strikes me as wrong and lacking any usage within Lost itself. It is wrong because it is based on a clothing choice which is no longer adhered to (therefore confusing as well), it doesn't even describe the black/white dichotomy properly (would we ever call Jacob "the man in white"? I've never even seen "Locke" wear black (Locke wears a black suit in death). I also like the acknowledgment that using "Locke" gives to the personality traits that "Locke" retains from Locke (use of knives, "don't tell me what I can or cannot do", and lots of others [someone should make a list!]). Given that I think "Man in Black" was only ever used once in the show and that everyone on the show calls him Locke I just think it would do the show a disservice and be misleading to call him anything else. We strive for an accurate representation and description of every episode so using a made up name which has no currency within the show simply strikes me as wrong. 80:20.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   03:47, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
        • This is why you guys get the big bucks here, to make these tough calls. ;) I admire your patience for slogging through the issue one more time and making complete sense. Hatchbanger 04:47, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • In the podcast, Damon and Carlton have said that in the writers' room, they refer to the character as Locke. I think if it's good enough for them, it should be for us too. In addition, I've long been opposed to calling him the Man in Black (a name we were given before season 6 started) because... well... he's wearing green. It's that easy. MIB should refer to the character as portrayed by Titus Welliver, Locke when he's portrayed by Terry O'Quinn and smoke monster in his CGI form. If we get a real name for him, we can condense it all into one, but oh my god how I hate the MIB-name being used all the time.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:57, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • That's an argument against MIB but not against "Locke". Locke would be fine if not for the facts of 1) People who go to the episode page won't know which character it is unless they happen to know and remember at which point in the series it's taking place and are already familiar with the whole Locke impersonation thing and 2) In addition to MIB-Locke, in the same episode there also appears alt-Locke, it could be confusing for some to have the same name referring to two different characters. I still think "Locke" is the best solution for the sake of clarity. But I think the following compromise would satisfy the minimum standards of clarity while being less annoying to people who hate scare quotes: 1) The first mention of the character in the original timeline section should call him "Locke" (the Man in Black) and be linked to the MIB page, while successive mentions should refer to him as Locke (no quotes, last name only). 2) The first mention of the character in the flashsideways timeline section should call him John Locke and be linked to the John Locke page, while successive mentions should refer to him as John Locke or John (no quotes, either first name only, or first and last name, but no last name only). --Jackdavinci 07:44, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Except for the quotes - that is exactly what we do! We leave the quotes - not for us - who know - but for those who don't, just as they do in the Writer's Room - except because they are speaking and we are writing we have to add the quotation marks. As I said - it isn't a perfect solution, but the best of a bad bunch!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   07:56, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • And exactly who are these mysterious people who wouldn't understand Locke (no quotes) but would understand "Locke" (with quotes)? Who, pray tell? Who are these people that come to Lostpedia and devote untold hours to reading the episode recaps but yet somehow have no understanding of the show or its characters? Who are these people that are smart enough to understand what "Locke" means once it has had quotes placed around it, but yet are too dense to understand the meaning of the word without the quotes appearing around it constantly, and so must be bludgeoned with the quotation marks instance after instance? Who are these people that know implicitly that Locke is dead and so "Locke" cannot be Locke, but yet for whom this detail must be reiterated again and again? Answer who these people are, and why the encyclopedia must be turned into a carnival of quotation marks for their benefit, when the scripts clearly omit any quotation marks and just refer to this character as Locke?  Robert K S   tell me  08:36, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • @RobertKS phew, that was harder to read than Locke in quotes when it comes to bludgeoning. And despite being bludgeoned (or perhaps because of it) I'm a bit confused - are you suggesting we use Locke in italics? And to answer your endless question - anyone who isn't a regular watcher, now or in the future, anyone who a dipped but not committed, now or in the future, anyone who has got hopelessly confused or who wants to quickly settle a family argument. But that wasn't even my main argument so ignoring the rest of the reasons is unfair to the rest of the reasons. I'm amenable to italics.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   09:21, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting we use Locke in italics. I was using italics to denote use-mention distinction since using quotation marks for that purpose might have been confusing ("Locke" vs. "'Locke'"?). I am suggesting we dispense with the quotation marks and just call him Locke. The characters on the show call him that. The scripts call him that. The name of the thing is whatever people call it. You see the quotation marks as per se informative. They aren't. Reading "Locke" doesn't tell a person any more than reading Locke. They should be dispensed with.  Robert K S   tell me  18:10, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Great comment Rob people act as if putting quotes around the term Locke instantly means that everyone will know we are refering to the man in black. I for one could not care less about the people who dont know the locke appearing now is not the real locke. What the hell are these people doing on this site if they dont know that. This isnt an enhanced episode of Lost, we dont need to explain every little thing. This site is very friendly to new users but we have to draw the line. Like people have said the writers truly look at this guy as locke, he is almost always refered to as locke. We should call him locke. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  01:03, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

The Final Four

  • Yes I know technically, Claire and Walt (and potentially others) still remain - but from the closing beach scene with Jack, Sawyer, Kate and Hugo - it made me think that these are the last four. Does anyone think it is worth mentioning that these four are the same as the Others list for Michael from Season 2? --LOSTinDC 17:32, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • Nah, I think that's just coincidence. We know why those names were on the list that the Others gave Michael. Jack to do the op, Kate to convince him, Sawyer to make Kate have a reason to convince Jack, and Hurley to deliver the message to the camp. Perhaps if none of them die at the end of the season, we could make a note of it on the page for the list.--Baker1000 19:41, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

What Locke says in the hospital: "Press the button"

Did anyone else hear Locke say Boone's name as his first muttering in the hospital? [back from commmercial] (beeping) Locke: Boone... Jack: Mr. Locke, are you awake?

etc. Imbeanie 18:09, May 5, 2010 (UTC)imbeanie

  • Someone thinks Locke talking in his sleep says "Boone .... Press the button". Not only would that not make any sense since Boone never pressed the button, but he doesn't say it. I have re-listened a few times and I don't hear anything like that. I hear something like "Mmgmm" - ie a sleepy mumble b4 saying something. His lips don't touch to make a B - he just doesn't say Boone. Does anyone else think he does? It would be very misleading to put this in with so little which suggests that it is right.   Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:43, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Just because Boone never pushed the button doesn't mean Locke didn't say it; there is not necessarily causality between his remarks. His other uttering about believing him came from his suicide note, and so the three together: referencing Boone, the hatch computer, and his suicide, are all significant moments in Locke's life. Imbeanie 18:09, May 5, 2010 (UTC)imbeanie
  • Perhaps coincidently, the Transcript page ends just before the scetion we are discussing! Imbeanie 18:09, May 5, 2010 (UTC)imbeanie
    • Please sign! 4 tildes! Easy. You can go back and do it now. As to substance - you are right - my arguments are not watertight. They are, however secondary - the main thing is he doesn't say the word "Boone"! He doesn't mouth a "B" and the rest of his mumble is not "oone". I've been wrong before, but having re-listened I'm pretty sure.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:59, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry about the signing, I'm not nearly as interested in computers as I am in LOST, and wasn't aware. Imbeanie 18:09, May 5, 2010 (UTC)imbeanie
  • The closed caption says "mm..." as in a mumble. Hatchbanger 02:47, May 6, 2010 (UTC)


So looking at Sayid's story arc from the time of his "resurrection" at the Temple, to his demise in The Candidate, I'm puzzled as to why they went through all the gyrations of Sayid dead, then alive, suspected of having the sickness, his apparent complete loss of emotion and feelings, etc. Then suddenly he's back to being good old Sayid again, electronics genius, analyzing bomb construction and such. It's as if the writers had something else in mind for him and suddenly changed course. Or maybe they did it as a deliberate diversion. Thoughts? Hatchbanger 18:23, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • I wondered that too, but think that it was his contact with Desmond at the well that brought the old Sayid back. Why we had to go through a lot of the stuff before.... I'm with you, it seems pretty convoluted. Imbeanie 18:27, May 5, 2010 (UTC)imbeanie
    • Yeah, if his change ends up having something to do with his so-far unseen interaction with Desmond, that would be satisfying. Hatchbanger 18:33, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • We saw it - Desmond's argument was brief but powerful. But what it shows is that there is no infection. Infection becomes a euphemism for being led easily down the garden path to evilness, and that the only way to survive there is to block out all feelings. The infection is a metaphor. Sounds much like Satan and being led into temptation to me.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   18:55, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • If so that makes you wonder what The MiB said to Rousseau's team.--Occono 19:28, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • I like that idea, it certainly fits in with MIB's nature, but there's still the little problem of the pool, which I'm assuming is where Richard took young Ben and made Ben "different" or whatever. And complicated 19:43, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
        • You articulated what's bugging me, namely the role of the temple pool in changing the young Ben and how it seemingly changed Sayid, but apparently not permanently in the latter case. And I should have said infection earlier, not sickness.  :) Hatchbanger 21:16, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • I have a question, what did Sayid mean when he was explaining to Jack about Desmonds whereabouts? and what does he mean its going to be you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DcolovesLOST (talkcontribs) 2010-05-05T14:51:59.
  • In an interview Lindelof stated something like this "Sayid was evil when you told him he was evil and he was good when you told him he was good, but when he had to make a snap decision without thinking he was good, so we can walk away thinking he was a good guy" -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  22:51, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • Lindelof's statement certainly confirms my idea, but you are all right, it doesn't really answer a lot of questions. I fear that these issues - once big - have been mishandled and will only get generalised solutions. I would say something like - Jacob does have powers of healing, granting extended life (under strict conditions or "rules") and the healing extends to the pool, or did until MiB somehow infected it (which he could do only after Jacob's demise). But as we have seen, Jacob truly is very hands off - once people are in the Island experiment he stays out of the way and works at the loom. Thus whilst Ben was "saved" by Jacob it was up to Ben to be a good or a bad man. He chose the route so many good men choose and was bad to achieve good ends.(which is MiB's premise). Ditto Ana Lucia, Mr Eko, Sayid. For these, redemption comes in death. It does not augur well for Ben surviving the series methinks.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   02:09, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well in the case of Anna Lucia and Libby behind the scenes politics likely played a role (ie. their DUI's and fan dislike). Politics is going on here too with the series wrapping up. So far, Sayid is the only character to be actually resurrected from the dead as we learned Locke's was phony so its an arc that seems to have went nowhere as the Kwon debate has. Its a shame but its not as bad as the Wheel of Time series and its remarkably interesting considering every other Serialized Drama (aka Soap Opera) of this sort has failed to stay compelling, ie. Twin Peaks, Heroes, etc.--Lucky Day | msg 23:15, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm rewatching Lost. Ana Lucia was a great character. She might not have had a big fan base but she is a character who could have had a great part in Lost - but her story was always going to compete with both Kate and Sayid. Pity, I'm probably in the minority but I also found her to have and animal intensity and sexiness which was great. Both CC and DL as well as Rodriguez said her DUI was irrelevant as the contract was only for one season and her sexual orientation (since denied) should never have been an issue. The sex scene with Sawyer was the best in the series. Anyway I think she had plans for bigger things. She got it in that blue person fillum but it was an awful part - at least her work in Lost wasn't 2 dimensional. (sorry bout that irrelevant rave)    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   03:59, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • You should see the movie Girlfight. Its amazing! Its too bad she couldn't capture that vulnerability in Lost, but the character didn't call for it. The other storyline they had to squirm out of is the Walt arc and why unlucky things happened with him. I've always wanted to see why he was so special but I doubt we will see half of what was intended.--Lucky Day | msg 05:00, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • I missed that film. I'm gonna watch it. Thx for reminding me.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   05:11, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Widmore Team deaths

I counted 5 at the cage, including Seamus, 2 at the plane, 5 at the dock, and 2 in the sub. that would mean at least 14 deaths of Widmore's team. Shortguy457 18:52, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • I assume they all got here on that cramped little sub. One thing though, I swore Sayid got the jump on Seamus and killed him last time before telling Zoe to go.--Lucky Day | msg 23:05, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Locke in the water

Was there any significance to Jack pushing Locke in the water? Locke had told Sawyer he couldn't fly to Hydra; maybe Sawyer told Jack to dump Locke in the water because he thought it would prevent him from going Smokey. Jack's other option would have been to tackle Locke and hold him down - but maybe he didn't think he had the strength to do that.EdwardLost 20:18, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • I imagine it would be hard to hold the smoke monster appearances when underwater.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:19, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • In a previous episode right before MiB met Charles Widmore, Sawyer says to the MiB "Why don't you just turn to smoke and fly over there?" And MiB replies "If I could do that do you think I'd still be on this island?". I don't think he can turn to smoke in or over the water. Maybe it's because of his electromagnetism or something, dunno. But standing water (as opposed to rain) is a limiting factor for him - in smoke form, at least.--Pittsburghmuggle 21:57, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
      • Which, unfortunately, brings up the issue that if MiB really did appear as Christian on the island, how did he appear as Christian off the island (on the freighter, in the hospital). Jinxmchue 15:40, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • Charlie appeared off-island, so there's another force making dead people appear. That particular manifestation of Christian on the freighter appeared to someone who would soon be a whisper themselves, so I'm guessing that was a whisper.--Pittsburghmuggle 20:01, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, I've seen the alcohol-induced hallucination argument used before, but the fact is that Jack had not started abusing alcohol or prescription medication when he saw Christian. He started that immediately after he saw Christian. It was right after he saw his dad that he asked his co-worker for the prescription for Klonopin (or whatever drug that was) —   lion of dharma    talk    email   19:38, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support - absolutely it is - Sawyer has a few brains. The water is his Kryptonite. He has to be in some body to cross water which could make some sense for bring Christian on the freighter but it doesn't explain how he got off or what his interest in Michael was letting him die like he wanted. But the bigger question of Christian Shepherd's ghost keeps coming and from Michael we see that the Island is a Purgatory or the other side of Styx for some ghosts. Others, like Charlie can go back and forth.--Lucky Day | msg 19:46, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • "Locke in the Water" made me think of "Smoke(y) on the Water" (song by Deep Purple). Sorry. Hatchbanger 20:42, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • now all we need is fire in the sky.--Lucky Day | msg 20:51, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Or a Candle In The Wind... AlexDeLarge 00:29, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Just a dumb question

I was wondering what bar could have fallen on Sun due to the explosion? Were there bars on the ceiling or on the walls that could have come loose? Where could that bar have come from, just out of curiosity? --SethFlight815 21:14, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a bar from the ceiling. That mischievous bar! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asklepiades4 (talkcontribs) 2010-05-05T18:34:29.
I thought it was the hatch handle.--Lucky Day | msg 19:42, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

More images needed in article? And a note on current image captions

Does anyone else think we need a few more images in the article? I'd add some but I don't have a good quality episode on my computer right now. I'd love if someone could add a shot of Jin and Sun's hands parting under water? It would be so lovely. Thank you to anyone who can do this.... Also, what's going on with one of the photo captions? Is it an attempts to be funny? "Trust me, I'm your doctor" when they're all looking at bomb. If it's humour, I don't think it works and it seems really inappropriate for such a tense scene.... Also, the "Catch a Falling Star" under the music box image seems a little brief or obscure. Couldn't we just say "Claire and Jack stare at their reflections in the mirror in the music box" and leave episode allusions/allusions to this song for article body. --Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 01:21, May 6, 2010 (UTC)Sheryl

  • a) give us a break - I had pictures up within a few hours of screening after writing a lot of the synopsis. It was surprisingly hard to find good grabs. Jack Bender has a lot to answer for - visually the ep was very flat. b) the two captions you refer to are mine - I'm sorry, I ran out of ideas, at 3 in the morning I just get pathetic. But why don't you just jump in and edit. That is the idea after all. I thought those crappy captions would last 10minutes at most!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   02:16, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sun and Jin's death is something needed surely for an image. Buffyfan123 02:17, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Little moments of animosity like "give us a break" to start a point is an example of one of the reasons I've stopped applying edits here. I'm just making a few suggestions in talk pages from now on as I find things are getting increasingly volatile. I don't like when a row erupts over inserting a change to someone else's work. Besides, many of my edits are not viewed favourable by others. I think it's great the amount of work people like you do - and I was just asking for some more images and making a pointed critique on what I felt were unfunny captions undercutting the tenseness of the episode. I was not undercutting or underappreciating the hard work people do on here. So I'll just make polite suggestions from time to time and if more experienced Lostpedia editors want to take them on board, so be it. If not, that's ok too. PEACE. Sheryl --Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 02:29, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I want to make my peace. I used "give us a break' as a very low level complaint. In Australia we say it without a hint of unpleasantness - if anyone read it that way, I didn't intend it. Next - I have no issue with your complaint about my captions. You were right but as I said I expected someone would jump in and edit/correct them rather than talking about it here. I fixed them as soon as I read your post and realized they hadn't been fixed. Please don't draw back, most of us are pretty thick skinned and I for one expect and can cop some criticism - I hope it helps me do better edits.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   04:15, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sheryl, I know that I personally have my pissy moments around here, some days more so than others, and I'll admit to being more open to letting my pissiness hang out here for all to see than I am in real life. At the very least, please don't take anything I say/do personally around here, and I thnk CK is saying the same thing here. I understand your sensitivity, though, as there are days I find myself taking things too personally. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   04:23, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kind words. I know I'm still quite new here but I think it's amazing the amount of work you do to make this site great. I know I'm prone to sensitivity and should try to develop a thicker skin on the net. I'm also distressed about Lost coming to an end! At least well still have this site when it's over.... Thanks again. Sheryl --Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 14:05, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is this week's vote on then? It certainly has started in the right tone, complete with people forgetting their signatures. If so I vote for this one.
Its a real good capture with that long tunnel shot to capture your eye and so much being said in not being said.--Lucky Day | msg 21:17, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • There's been no discussion about changing the main picture. This was about adding more pictures to the article itself and changing the captions. I personally think the main picture is fine as it is. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   21:43, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

No main image dispute here. I started this section for a different reason altogether. I was actually hoping this was one of the times an image dispute wouldn't take place. Current one's fine, IMHO. :) Sheryl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance (talkcontribs) .

  • Honestly my first reaction to the current main image choice was "Somebody nailed it!". I like this alternate too, but not as much as the current image. Hatchbanger 02:07, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Kate sure got better fast

Bleeding profusely from a through and through gunshot, quick swim from the sinking sub and she's up on her feet with nary a drop of blood in sight. Jinxmchue 03:38, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

It was one of those TV "shot in the shoulder in a way that doesn't impact the very large ball-and-socket-joint bones and you watch because she'll be using that arm just fine before long". Personally, while we're killing of major characters I'm annoyed that Widmore's group weren't better shots when it came to Kate. I'll take Sun and/or Jin back and lose Kate, please.--Pittsburghmuggle 07:31, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
Unless, of course, Kate was only shot to get Jack onto the sub, in which case the shooter was a great shot. --Losteroo 07:44, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
It did seem that Widmore left no guards around the sub because he wanted them to get on the sub. Which is weird because surely he doesn't know about Mib's plan to kill them all? Surely he thought Mib would just jump on the sub and leave the island? --Integrated (User / Talk) 09:30, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
I think you're thinking too far into it. Kate got shot, and looked seriously hurt. She then was in the water swimming to the island, where presumably, any rushing blood or stains would have washed away. Also, the salt water would have slowed the blood, but I agree, there should have been more. She was clearly in pain when they got on the beach, and was side-tracked by the news of Sun and Jin's death. And I think Widmore is fairly convinced that MIB is trying to kill themm. MoeT 18:52, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • The writers made a point of having Jack say "the bullet went straight through". "Also, are you on the same Island as I am?" Patchy suffered a lot worse and he kept getting up.--Lucky Day | msg 19:38, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Another point of this - would you trust Hurley as the one who could get her to the surface the fastest?--Lucky Day | msg 20:45, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Dude. Body fat is less dense than muscle mass. :) --Pittsburghmuggle 12:46, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

"Dual meaninging of episode title" sentence that keeps getting added under trivia

Varying versions of a sentence about a supposed "dual meaning" of this episode's title keep being added under the trivia section. I've deleted 2 versions at this point. The problem with the sentences is that they are inevitably subjective. You may have a theory behind the title having a dual meaning, and your theory may be right, but the only way we can know whether that's the case is if the producers come out and say so. So please, stop writing different versions of this sentence and adding it to the trivia section. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   05:02, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yea I kinda agree --Integrated (User / Talk) 09:27, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you honestly think they only meant it to refer to Locke? We're clearly supposed to pick up on the double meaning here. --Golden Monkey 19:02, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Golden Monkey, you say that it's clear, but unfortunately it's not 100% clear, and this page is meant to be entirely objective. I personally think there is indeed a double meaning, but I'm still mulling it over as to what it might be. Once I make a definite decision, it will be my personal theory, opinion, etc. Unless it's spelled out clear as day, it doesn't belong on this page. Hell, people are questioning whether Frank is dead simply because we did not see a lifeless body. So why not question what this dual meaning was (or even if one exists) since it wasn't made absolutely clear? —   lion of dharma    talk    email   19:45, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Bloopers and Continuity Errors

Old Switcharoo

We see MiB set his pack next to Jacks, then give Jack his pack as they get up to fight, but in the sub Jack says Locke planted the bomb in his. Can we say Jack is mistaken? Pretty far stretch that Locke does this amazing feat of opening 2 packs & transferring a big square thing from one to the other, right behind Jack Kate & Sayid unnoticed. It's also makes it curious that MiB takes Jack's pack as he leaves to 'finish' - it's just got maybe a shirt in it. But hey, backpacks are just all around useful. Sawyer should wise up. Duncan905 07:05, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • But it isn't a blooper. Jack was wrong, but he got the jist of it. How is this a blooper. A blooper is a non deliberate error made by the writers/producer/director - not an error made by a character inside the teleplay.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   07:32, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. And apologies to Integrated below, for my ridiculous unclarity on what might be a blooper. There's no way the writers originally had a scene where Locke planted the bomb in some other way, decided on a re-write of the action & left Jack's dialogue unchanged by accident? CK is right of course, but no need to try & squelch discussion of a point. Duncan905 15:35, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Ya this is ridiculous. It's a BLOOPER that Sun thought Jin was dead for three years!! --Integrated (User / Talk) 09:27, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Great theory, Duncan, and probably correct. In this case, it's not so much a blooper. In the case of the "destruction" of Locke's wheelchair a few episodes ago, a bit moreso.  Robert K S   tell me  16:40, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Duncan I thought of this too, but then I realized that Locke carried Jack into the jungle. I was thinking that there was only one pack all along and that Locke was carrying it for him until it came to the boat. I believe Jack also misinterpreted Locke's plan.--Lucky Day | msg 20:35, May 6,

The Keys

I dont think the blooper about trying to reach the keys should be there. Because something doesnt make the most sense, I dont think it should be called a blooper. In the heat of a moment, not all people make the most sense or proper decision. Reaching to pull him in then get the keys keys may not even have crossed her mind... all she saw were the keys. I dont think the show should be picked apart like that 2010 (UTC)MoeT 22:11, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Jack misremembers?

Maybe this is minor, but when Jack reminds Locke about their conversation in the airport, he gets it wrong. He tells Locke that Locke told him his father was gone and that he needed to let go. This is not true. Locke told him that they lost his fathers body, but that his father could never really be gone. It's almost the opposite. --Beema|talk|contributions 22:15, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

I think it was more figurative than literal. MoeT 22:58, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
Nice catch Beema. I agree, the messages are diametrically opposed.  Robert K S   tell me  23:01, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
It is intentional character driven script writing. It tells us that even in the FS the thing about Jack is that he needs to learn to "let go" - in the FS he learns that and accepts it easily. The Q is "did he learn it from the Island?" Even if I am wrong because it is possibility and because it remains the character's "error" and is figurative it cannot be a blooper.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   00:52, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Best Laid Plans of Locke

Jack interpreted Locke's plan as trying to get everyone in a confined space to blow them up. I'm not sure this is what Locke wanted at all - its just the way it worked out and Jack is reading too much into it. Consider that if Locke had made it to the sub and Jack stayed behind, Jack would have blown up with the C4 in the pack and Locke would have had the opportunity to kill the rest of them on the way back to mainland.--Lucky Day | msg 19:56, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

The producers have actually said that Jack was right and this was Smokey's plan. They explained that, if Smokey had done it any other way, then the other candidates would wise up to what he was doing and not trust them any longer. He had to get them in one place to take them out in one fell swoop. Straight from Darlton. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
  • Well Smokey stayed on the Island with Claire and managed to get Jack in the boat. Clearly he needed to stay off of it if it was going to blow up. I wonder what his real plan was to get Jack to come with him (maybe hit in the back of the head with a shovel). I certainly can't see that he planned to go for a swim. I'll bight that this is what they wanted but its a stretch to say the least and they've been taking liberties about explaining things through characters who suddenly have second sight.--Lucky Day | msg 05:30, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Cultural References

I've removed * Pillsbury Doughboy: Sawyer calls Seamus "doughboy", after this advertising icon and mascot of The Pillsbury Company, a pale and puffy character. (Pop culture references)

    • Though it probably is a reference to Pillsbury's iconic character Poppin' Fresh given Seamus' obvious stoutness, American soldiers have been referring to themselves as doughboys since World War I, which is where the Pillsbury character got its other name.--Lucky Day | msg 20:05, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Sawyer surely wasn't calling Seamus a solder from WWI. This seems as valid a reference as Sawyer's Star Wars nick names.Annarboral 02:48, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • No, he was calling him that because he was fat. I said since WWI but US soldiers were commonly called that for decades long after to the point where even Pillsbury stole the name. Here's some more info and you'll note the reference for the claim that it fell out disuse does not actually support the statement. --Lucky Day | msg 05:21, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • So why did you remove it?Annarboral 21:46, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose Reinstate. It's obviously a reference to Poppin' Fresh, not to the soldiers --LOST-Hunter61 15:47, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Unprepared Widmore

Where the heck was this guy through this episode? Locke thought that Widmore only put up a token defense of the plane to get everyone on it? So where was the rest of them? They got their tails handed to them at the Hydra station and there was almost no one guarding the sub. Where did he expect them to go? Could he not have warned the sub? The first thing I thought is there has got to be some booby trap or a trigger alarm. Sawyer going in full bore didn't seem like the smartest decision. Also thought it was pretty bad the way Locke and Smokey managed to cross each other with neither of them seeing it coming.--Lucky Day | msg 20:43, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • I was wondering how he made the horrendously stupid mistake of not surrounding the generator with the sonic fence lol. Unless Sayid lobbed an explosive over it. --Jackdavinci 07:53, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

What was Bernard making in the lab?

The sysopsis currently says he is "shaping a teeth mold". I'm not sure what that means. Was Bernard making a set of dentures? That's what it looked like to me. I suppose it's relevant because they went to the trouble of shooting a closeup of what he was working on with the grinder tool. Hatchbanger 21:52, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • My old roommate is a dentist. This is the kind of work he had to do before he began his practice. I wouldn't make too much out of it (yet). Its like seeing a fireman at a burning building, its just what they do.--Lucky Day | msg 23:03, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not so much concerned that there's some special meaning to that closeup (although this is Lost so anything is possible). It's more the phrase "shaping a teeth mold" seems weird but I don't have anything better to replace it with. Hatchbanger 23:34, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm a second year dental student-- it looked like he was just trimming a diagnostic cast. (Casts are used in fabricating dentures, crowns, etc...) I did wonder if his working by himself in the lab (on a project an assistant could usually do) might have been a sign that he was still a bachelor in this reality. Just conjecture, but something to consider...--PRbuick 00:25, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • For the record, Rose and Bernard are married in this reality, as seen on Flight 815 and with Bernard's "you were hitting on my wife" comment.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:29, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • Doh! I forgot about his comment to Jack in this very episode. (Need to get more sleep before I comment!!) Thanks!--PRbuick 22:11, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed the wording to show it was a cast. I think it reads better this way but won't be mad if someone disagrees. "Tooth mold" just doesn't cut it for me. Hatchbanger 02:04, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Why the sky turned dark so fast?

At the beginning, the sky is dark, meaning it's night or midnight. Then After Jack saved others in the cage, it turned light, meaning it's morning. Then before they aboard the sub, the sky is still light. After they aboard, just spent about 10 mins, and the sub sank. But when Jack and the others lie on the beach, the sky turned dark again. I don't think it takes a few hours to go to the sub from the plane, so that means when they aboard the sub, it's still morning. So why just passed 10 mins in the sub, the sky turned dark again?Enos 07:18, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

  • Dramatic licence. Sadly they stopped caring about this sort of stuff a while back    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   07:49, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • The night/day thing has been weird ever since "?". You know, the one where Ana Lucia & Libby are shot during the day but everyone finds them apparently well into night? Even though there would have been no one there to press the button in the interim? Yeah. --Golden Monkey 13:01, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • It sucks filming at dawn/twilight. It is almost impossible to get the lighting consistent across different takes. As a result, time shifts from day to night suddenly on TV.Mcwebe0 04:23, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • Changing night and day is a director's technique to illustrate the passage of time - there was clearly an attempt to show the time it took to cross Hydra Island when they went from the cages to the dock in the first act. However, it did only seem like a few minutes on the sub itself so it may not be dark, just a sudden storm like we had when the Black Rock beached itself. Regardless it may be that it was late afternoon by the time they reached the sub or they were in the sub longer than it seemed. Tropical countries do have exactly 12 hour days and nights after all.--Lucky Day | msg 17:04, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Literary techniques

Perhaps these items should be removed from the section about literary techniques:--Tflrntn 21:41, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

  • Can this be considered irony?
    • "Jack, Jin and Sawyer lift off the cabinet that is pinning Sun in the submarine only to find her pinned by another bar. (Irony)"
  • In this case, we are not sure that the C4 came from Widmore. It can be from the Others (through Ben), from Widmore or even from the Smoke Monster.
    • "Both Widmore's boats were destroyed by Widmore's own C-4 explosives. (Irony)"

Music Box - a reference to Through The Looking-Glass?

  • Both Jack and Claire look at their reflections in the mirror; perhaps this references the nature of the Looking-Glass world in Through The Looking-Glass, And What Alice Found There by Lewis Carroll. After all, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland is often referenced to in the show. For those who haven't read the story, it's about Alice walking through a looking-glass (a mirror) as if it were a window to another world, albeit a world in which everything is the opposite to the original world. This perhaps makes sense given the ironic differences between the original timeline and the flash sideways timeline? I think this item was a subtle reference rather than an item with any real plot meaning. It implies there is another world - the original timeline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluevane (talkcontribs) 2010-05-09T11:59:23.
    • A) Please sign your posts on a discussion page (with four tildes or by using the signature button). B) That is why there is a new theme this year of "Mirrors".Mcwebe0 03:39, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Possible episode allusion/reference involving the backpack

In the season 1 finale, Jack tricks Kate into thinking that she is taking a backpack containing dynamite when in actual fact it did not. In this episode however The Man in Black tricks Jack into carrying a backpack containing C4 explosives without his knowledge. Perhaps it belongs in another section, but i think it is worth mentioning (Thezerf 23:17, May 7, 2010 (UTC))

Moved this to the bottom of the page.--Pittsburghmuggle 17:44, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Bomb on the plane

I'm removing the question about who placed the bomb on the plane and why. We have no reason to think that it wasn't Widmore: nobody else has had the opportunity before Locke showed up and he also had guards posted around it. It's a fairly safe bet that he's responsible.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:24, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • DHARMAville had C-4 explosives, right? Team Richard may have known of that. Not impossible. Hatchbanger 04:48, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jim - pity you didn,t use the UQ section here for ease of locating this stuff. Also I believe it may be a valid Q. As Widmore appears to have a list and appears to "care" whether the list members survive it becomes moot why he would put their lives at risk by setting a bomb in the plane. Also there iare Richard, Ben and Miles out there (gone rogue) with the avowed intention of blowing up the plane, it is also conceivable and possible - though a stretch that MiB did plant the bomb there as a precaution if somehow the candidates flew off.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   04:52, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Bomb on the sub, Sawyer pulling the wires

It's a small point but... Did not Jack and Sawyer argue heatedly about whether to try and disarm the bomb by pulling the wires? My recollection is (having watched the episode twice) that Sawyer made a very sudden quick move to pull the wires. Jack probably would have tried to stop him if he'd been able to react more quickly. I was left with the impression -- twice -- that Sawyer made his move in a manner deliberately intended to thwart anyone from stopping him. Does that constitute "invention" on my part? Hatchbanger 20:19, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

  • Not sure I understand your question... Invention of what?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:58, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
    • In the synopsis I changed this: "(Jack) pleads that they will be okay, they just have to trust him. Sawyer says he's sorry and pulls the wires." To this: "(Jack) pleads that they will be okay, they just have to trust him. Sawyer says he's sorry and quickly pulls the wires out before anyone can stop him". Charles Kane removed "before anyone can stop him" on the grounds that nobody tried to stop him, therefore it was invention on my part. My counter is of course nobody tried to stop him, he deliberately didn't give them any opportunity to stop him despite the disagreement taking place in the heat of the moment. It seems like an important detail to me but maybe I saw it "wrong" both times I watched it. Hatchbanger 21:26, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
      • You may be right, he may have pulled the wires quickly so no one could stop him, but I thought that his pulling motion was quick merely because Sayid had instructed him that the wires had to be pulled at exactly the same time, hence the quick motion. Additionally, Sawyer did actually tell Jack he was going to do it - if he wanted to do it before anyone could stop him, he probably wouldn't have indicated that he was going to do it. The whole issue is certainly a minor point, but I would suggest that it's not clear he pulled the wires quickly so no one could stop him.--User:Jeffcutt72
I dont think its needed unless its obvious someone was trying to stop him. If its not obvious you can add that to everything ex:Jack pushes locke into the water "before anyone can stop him" -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:57, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • I did the edit because the extra few words make it subjective. It isn't clear one way or the other that anyone would actually try to stop him - the whole thing was in a sort of limbo of indecision. The extra text was simply unnecessary. I withdraw the "invention" criticism if that is causing upset, I meant "too subjective" - btw I re-watched it b4 making the edit. Czygan84 is also correct - It's easy to go overboard on our write ups.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   03:32, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll accept that while noting Jack grabbed Sawyer's shirt collar during their heated argument over disarming vs not disarming the device. If Sawyer hadn't moved quickly to disarm, I believe Jack would have physically intervened. That's how it played to me. Hatchbanger 03:58, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually I'm satisfied with "quickly" in front of "pulled the wires". Good thing we're all friends here. I stand correctly corrected.  ;). Hatchbanger 04:54, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong....

The bomb was going to go off regardless of whether they pulled out the wires or not. Jack's vote for inaction would as much lead them to death as Sawyer's rash decision. The only way that the bomb would have failed would have been if nobody found it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesmalone2007 (talkcontribs) 2010-05-10T16:57:10.

  • No, definitely not. The bomb couldn't have gone off UNLESS the wires were pulled, otherwise that would mean the MiB killed them, which he cannot do. The action of pulling the wires is what detonates the bomb, that way they killed themselves (or more accurately, Sawyer killed them). This is the MiB's loophole to getting them killed without actually killing them. The whole point of that scene is that Jack figured it out exactly, and that why Sayid told him that he's the one.--User:Jeffcutt72 2010-05-10T17:07:38
    • @Jeffcutt72 Yes, and Jack and Sawyer were arguing heatedly about whether or not to try and defuse the bomb. Sawyer would not listen and pulled the wires before Jack could intervene. That's how I saw it anyway. Hatchbanger 22:12, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
      • I daresay Sawyer failed his "candidate" exam with that, if there was one.--Pittsburghmuggle 13:20, May 11, 2010 (UTC)


There was some discussion last episode on whether Widmore's team was launching missles or mortars. Sayid refers to them as mortars to Jack at the beginning of the episode at the canoe. Sayid has military experience, so I'm guessing he's probably right.--Pittsburghmuggle 23:00, May 11, 2010 (UTC)


I find this bloopers, but we should discuss about this.

  • A man behind Jack Shephard and Helen Norwood helps an old lady who's in a wheel chair. Later when Helen and Jack are going to Anthony Cooper, the man appears again, while not being seen behind Jack and Helen to go to the old people.
  • When Helen is talking with Jack, a woman in a blue shirt has been seen. Later she appeared also where all the old people are without moving from here place.

This are clearly bloopers, I've re-watched it a few times and they weren't seen moving both. So they are bloopers.--Station7 12:30, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

New Image

I think it should be either one of these. Preferably the one showing Sun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Julietfan2626 (talkcontribs) .


Pictogram voting oppose No. It's Jack and Locke-centric. --- Balk Of Fametalk 12:02, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram reply If I remember you saying before, it doesn't matter who's centric episode it is... Julietfan2626 Talk Blogs
Pictogram reply Just the opposite. I say that we can't always capture centric characters (multi-centrics, no centrics) but when we can, we always do. And should. See my opinions about "316" and "The End". --- Balk Of Fametalk 12:18, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose - as per Balk. It's clearly Jack and Locke, and we should try to show the centric character(s) when possible. Even if it were a Sun/Jin episode, I think we could find a better image than the two presented here.--Baker1000 12:40, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose What Balk said. --Celebok 06:30, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Jack and Hurley crying

Is this the only time Jack and Hurley cried on the show? I can't remember any other time. TheUnknown285 04:04, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

You mean crying in the same scene? Possibly, which is kind of interesting, since they cried so many times on their own. --- Balk Of Fametalk 05:42, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the point in 'Production Notes' that says this is the second episode centric to two characters who are not related, as Nikki and Paulo also shared centricity in Expose and they are dating, not married. Saying this is the third episode of this type is not necessarily interesting enough for inclusion in the article, in my opinion, but if anybody would like to reinstate the production note with the information corrected, here it is.

  • This is the only episode other than "Pilot, Part 2" where two characters who are not relatives have centricity. "Pilot, Part 2" was a Charlie and Kate centric episode.
    • By the same token, this is the only episode with a traditional number of flashes to focus on two unrelated characters.

--Mirellabailey (talk) 04:30, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. --- Balk Of Fametalk 05:06, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.