This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Incident, Parts 1 & 2 article.
General discussion about the article's subject is permitted as a way to aid improvement of the article.
Theories about the article subject should not be discussed here.
(Instead, post your theory to this article's theory page
or discuss it on this article's theory talk page.)

  • Be polite, don't bite, have fun!
  • Admins are here to help
  • More discussion at the Forum
Article policies



Here's hoping it's not a Jack centric episode. The season finale for seasons 1, 3, and 4 have been his. Maybe this episode can focus on someone else, like season 2 did with Desmond. Marko14126 18:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Marko. --Managerpants 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I would hope that we get some flashes, so that there will actually be a central character. With this season, you just never know.-- Steele  talk  contribs  11:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's Hurley centric or not, I don't really care. But, I would like to learn why Hurley got on Ajira 316 & what's in the guitar case. Is it really a guitar? Just a way to reinact Charlie on the flight? Hurley was willing to go to prison to stay away from Ben. He's the only O6 backstory (as far as why they got on Ajira 316) that we haven't seen.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  20:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it's safe to establish that this was a Jacob centric episode... who would have ever guessed?!? DesmondFaraday 03:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No, we can't say Jacob; he wasn't in Juliet's flashback. I would vote for, "various." -- LightSpectra 03:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • He was the constant in all but one flashback, as well as getting one of his own at the very start of the episode. Even if they weren't from his POV - Cabin Fever opens with Locke's mother, but we still consider it a fully Locke episode. I don't know, but I lean toward Jacob-centric. KingK.Rool 03:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Did you ever stop to think "Juliet didn't have Jacob in her flashback, and she ended up at the bottom of a massive shaft, crushed by tons of metal, smashing a rock on a H-Bomb...". -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I vote Jacob. Yes, Juliet had a flashback without him, but there have been other times when other characters have had one flashback sequence (Libby in "Dave," Karl in "Greatest Hits"). Jacob was clearly the most important character in the episode. -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  03:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I vote for 'Jacob' as well. They basically replayed past events (like Locke falling out of the window) but added Jacob in it. He was the constant in nearly all the flashbacks. dposse 03:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Its hard to say with centricity.. I mean that one Juliet flashback didnt have Jacob at all but all things considered sicne he is in all the other flashbacks i too would have to say it is Jacob centric. Insane finale btw :/ InflatableBombshelter 03:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Either Jacob or Various ... I was kind of thinking everyone else was having flashbacks featuring Jacob, not the other way around, but I'm not opposed to Jacob-centric. --LeoChris 03:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If last episode was Richard's, then this one should be Jacob's. --Uncertainty 03:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's everyone who had a flashback (Kate/Sawyer/Sayid/Ilana/Locke/Sun/Jin/Jack/Juliet/Hurley), not Jacob. Yes, he was a link between most of them, but they were all from these character's viewpoints. Does that mean whenever Jin and Shannon were in each other's flashbacks it was their centric? No. Hell, we didn't even see Jacob except for the beginning and end in real time, in which he died. Plus, I like giving Ilana a centric episode for this. Ok, at the very least, it should be Jacob centric AND all of these characters. Agree? Alexisfan07 13 May 2009
    • Not true at all. Locke's and Ilana's flashbacks were essentially from Jacob's viewpoint. Sayid's flashback was a third party perspective. Hurley's switched viewpoints from Hurley to Jacob as they were in the cab. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
We can count the first one as Jacob centric and then count ALL of the other ones individually! I've got the compromise :) Alexisfan07 13 May 2009
  • It could be Jacob centric, but we have no information that who we saw interact with the losties was Jacob. He only looked like Jacob. We see that Jacob's enemy can look like John Locke. Why would Jacob want to bring on the events that lead to his own death?--IslandHopper 04:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • For the same reason Christ still entered into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday; Jacob has allowed his enemy this apparent victory in order to accomplish the destiny of all the other characters and bring about an even greater good.
    • We don't know that Jacob was trying to bring his own death. Jack and John have been at odds -- maybe the Incident, or whatever surrounds it, will help Jacob. Luminifer 04:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's Jacob centric: we learn something about Jacob in the episode - even though there are all sorts of scenes, it really is about Jacob - it explains what he did to affect the other characters, how long he's been on the island - all sorts of things about him. In the every flashback (except Juliets - which may indicate something) we are shown something about Jacob. The opening scene also shows Jacob. While there's a lot going on, if we go by the literal definition of 'centric', and ignore manufactured technicalities like 'who is in one scene', the episode is definitely centered around Jacob. Luminifer 04:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (someone deleted this before!)
    • I agree, and keep it listed as Jacob in the main navigation bar, but I think it should read Jacob-centric and have all the flashbacks on the characters' pages. Alexisfan07 14 May 2009
  • Various. The only flashback that was definitively Jacob's was the very first one. In most of the others, he didn't even enter the picture until halfway through - I highly doubt that he was the one remembering Jack botching his operation, he wasn't even there. --Pyramidhead 07:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you Pyramidhead! :) Alexisfan07 14 May 2009
      • But the whole episode was about Jacob, and his interactions with the other characters. Try watching this episode again, and close your eyes and block your ears when Jacob is on screen. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Various. Come on guys! they are individual flahbacks! only the first one was jacob. --Frw22 08:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Jacob Various people had flashacks, yes. But throughout Season 5, we are dealing with the centric concept. And Jacob was clearly the centric figure in all flashbacks but one (Juliet's). QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force... 08:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The only reason we ever used "centric" instead of "flashback" was in episodes where there were no flashbacks. That is not the case here. And either way, this is a Jacob-centric episode, so what's the problem? --Pyramidhead 09:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You people are crazy. This is Jacob 100%. I think I'll be staying out of these talk pages next year, because I hate coming here and seeing that people didn't see the obvious. Marc604 10:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Jacob - that was obviously his episode. MauserContact 11:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Jacob - He may not have had all of the flashbacks, but the episode clearly centered on him. --Bish-Fiscuit 12:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but the line in the infobox says "Flashback," not "Centric character." --Pyramidhead 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Jacob for the win. He's a cute guy, and doesn't seem to be afraid of technology! I hate you Ben, I hate you! :-p — Iimitk  T  C  15:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Jacob while I agree that other characters were the POV of (most) flashbacks, Jacob was the through line of the flashbacks with the exception of Juliet which is worth noting. (Juliet's not meeting Jacob may be why she wasn't saved by the island) The on Island story (in 2007) focused on the search for Jacob. If these weren't flashes, I think the community would pick Jacob as the central character, so why should that change just because main characters are in each flashback? --Gluphokquen Gunih 16:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Because by any reasonable standard, all those flashbacks were being "had" by our main characters. You could hardly argue that Exodus was "Airport-centric" just because that location happened to be the "common thread" in all those flashbacks. --Pyramidhead 20:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Various - The first one was Jacob's, but the other ones were told from the survivors' point of view. Think of Hurley's and Jack's, where Jacob wasn't shown in the latter part of the flashback. Even better: Juliet's flashback didn't even despict Jacob! User:Spoutnik 44
  • Various, but that includes Jacob's first one. Upon rewatching this episode is clearly, to me, patterned just like Exodus. Illana, Juliet, Jacob, Sayid, Hurley, Jin/Sun, Kate, Sawyer and Jack all had flashbacks. Locke is debatable, because the flashback doesn't start with him (Jacob's already there, the camera is focused on him, Locke is dead so he can't have a flashback etc. (It wasn't even his body, like Naomi) ... --LeoChris 21:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Jacob - POV aside, the entire point of the flashbacks was to reveal that Jacob had always been present for events in our characters' lives, and for the most part, particularly formative events (Sawyer's parents' funeral, Nadia's death, etc). I mean, Kate steals something as a child. Big deal. But the focus (and the twist, one might say), was that Jacob was there, too. Same goes for all of them. --Grahamdubya 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Jacob – just one flashback did not include him; the rest included Jacob and was "about him". Therefore, all the flashbacks were mainly about Jacob, and how he met other people we know from the Island. BeŻet 22:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Jacob. The episode starts with him, and for the most part, revolves around how he leads people back to the island.
  • Jacob - I can't even believe this is dabated. The flashbacks clearly centered on Jacob and his visits to each character, other than Juliet. And actually, most of the 2007 storyline was focused on Jacob (or finding him).--Baker1000 23:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, for once I expected to sign on to the wiki to find that the centricity wasn't being debated for this episode. But yet again, here we go. It's clearly Jacob, since he appears in every flashback, which all revolve around him being there for the survivors.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the format is exactly right. This episode is very much like "Exodus" or "Pilot Part 2," with the flashback-characters' own pages listing this episode as one of their centric episodes (including Jacob). The only addition I would suggest is having the navbar say something like "Jacob and Various". --Tuttlemsm 04:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Both Hmm... upon watching it again, i'd say it is Jacob CENTRIC, becasue it CENTERS around Jacob. But it is NOT a "Jacob Flashback episode" because like it or not, these are flashbacks of Various characters. This episode is Jacob centric, but the only reason we are debateing is because the show has found a new way to explore the story of a centric-character -> By telling his story through the eyes of others. (As opposed to a seris of his flash-backs or flash-forwards).--Nintendo_Warrior 05:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Jacob to suggest this episode isn't Jacob centric is to suggest that The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham was also multi character centric because others featured in the flashbacks. This episode was all about Jacob. The current format of listing Jacob as the centric, but all the characters featured in flashbacks in the infobox also, is perfectly acceptable and works for this occassion. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
    • People are acting like it's patently obvious that this episode was ONLY about Jacob. It's not at all. Much like Exodus, this episode was all about the pivotal moments in the main characters' earlier lives that led them to who they are on the Island and their purpose there - only this time, the twist is that there was an ulterior force directly impacting those moments, which happened to be Jacob. On a rewatch, it's even more clear that, with the exception of the episode's opening (which I agree is definitely a Jacob flashback), Jacob is the outsider in these memories - he enters briefly, makes an impact, and then exits stage right. --Pyramidhead 09:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

CONSENSUS Jacob centric. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, it would be various, though Jacob does have quite a central role...
    • Sure he does, but then Sawyer also had a central role in "The Brig", moreso than Locke does in my opinion. It's unnecessary to label the episode as "Jacob-centric" when it is by definition since he has a flashback, along with a dozen other people. --Pyramidhead 10:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


From looking at the press release, there's a lot of interesting characters...I can't wait to see. This will be a good finale!--Mistertrouble189 19:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, what's the policy on talking about press releases? because I really am interested in discussing these characters....--AaronianKenrod 11:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It's against the spoiler policy. Don't worry, only a few more days! --Blueeagleislander 12:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it truely against the spoiler policy, considering the press release is on the main page for this episode anyway? And for me it's a week, I'm in the UK and my girlfriend makes me wait 'til our airdate :(--AaronianKenrod 13:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't this page be renamed to "The Incident"? "Through the Looking Glass" is the same thing this episode is, and it doesn't have "Parts 1 & 2" on the title. -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The ABC press release lists it as such, and that is what we go by. Similarly, "There's No Place Like Home, Part 2" has "Parts 2 & 3" on the end, while "Exodus, Part 2" is just called "Part 2". I guess it's all to do with them counting each part as a single episode. They seem to have changed their episode naming system in recent finales.--Baker1000 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Weird. -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually, the press release lists it only with quotation marks around "The Incident". The "Parts 1 & 2" comes after the quotation marks, so it could be considered a descriptor outside of the title. Also, to note, the ABC website lists it only as "The Incident". -- Graft   talk   contributions  00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt really matter what you guys think it IS The Incident Parts 1 & 2 even at the begining the credits for writing the episode are listed seperatley as part 1 and part 2 -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I disagree totally. It's not 2 & 3, it's "The Incident, Part 1 and 2." Why the Jacob would it be parts 2 & 3?? Marc604 10:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Orange Juice

Sawyer mentions that it's time to drink their orange juice and start living in the real world. This mirrors the first flashforward of "Through the Looking Glass," where we first see Jack pouring himself a glass of orange juice when off the island. (Noting this now for article update later). Darmikau 01:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Check out the article Food. It lists some suspicious appearances of orange juice. --Cornprone 02:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The "time to drink their orange juice" is a reference to how Juliet came to the Island. Remember, she was given a choice: drink drugged orange juice or stay behind in the real world. dposse 03:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly -- the oj has the sedative in it. He's just saying that he's going to go to sleep, wake up, and all that will be behind him. Though when Sawyer said that, I had a sudden flash to "drink the Kool-Aid"...--Litany42 12:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jacob's Nemesis

  • Was the name of Jacob's nemesis listed in the credits or anywhere else? If not, my guess is that his name will be revealed as Esau in the final season (I'm not claiming their the actual sons of Issac, only that their names are allusions to the Biblical twins). -DesmondFaraday 03:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I just checked out the list of guest stars, and the character is played by an actor named Titus Welliver, who is listed as Man #2. As the theories page is not yet unlocked, I'm going to speculate here that his name is Esau and he has taken John Locke's appearance as part of his malevolent plot to destroy Jacob. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DesmondFaraday (talkcontribs) 2009-05-13T22:25:19.
I've tentatively created a page on Jacob's enemy. ShadowUltra 03:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The Jacob's Enemy page has a reference the the casting call was for a character named Samuel but since the credits refer to him as Man #2 (Jacob being Man #1 in the script I assume until he is actually named) I would call it official yet.--Lucky Day 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
His name is "Samuel" on the casting call, but I'm pretty sure the producers have used code names before when casting actors.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

the Latin

Someone needs to translate what Richard said in latin as the answer to "what lies in the shadow of the statue?". dposse 03:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

that which watched over us Four4elements 03:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

He said Ille qui nos omnes servabit. Servabit, not servabat. He who WILL protect us.DiacriticMark 03:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a new user, but after watching the finale, I came to this site to see if there were any hints as to what came next. The translation of Richard's answer was flawed and was kind of bothering me, so I created an account and fixed it. I'm in an AP latin class and have the exam tomorrow, and I'm 100% certain that what I changed it to is correct.--West11 01:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

the Statue

So, what was the Statue? Is it one of the Gods i posted links to above? dposse 03:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's definitely that ^ --Redheadguy719 03:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not Anubis. The statue had the head of a Croc/Alligator, not a Jackal. dposse 03:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it's holding the same symbol thingy....idk i just heard of anubis a few episodes back, i'm not an expert or anything --Redheadguy719 03:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

At a discussion over here, a few people mentioned Sobek, which looks like the match. - Amiasha 03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I highly doubt it's Sobek, as Sobek doesn't have the ears. Tawaret does. There's an image out there pointing out exactly how the features line up with Tawaret's. Also Tawaret ties in with fertility, and with having an evil force as a companion and keeping that force at bay. Also, Michael Emerson said recently that it was Tawaret and that Tawaret's mate was key to understanding the finale. The only evidence for Sobek seems to be the shape of its head, which, since it was seen from an angle, could quite easily be a hippopotamus as a crocodile, especially given the ears. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
It only looks Egyptian. We have no idea if it actually is. It's speculation to say that it is Sobek until that name, or a direct reference to, is mentioned in the show. -- LightSpectra 05:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed the names from the statue page, mainly because it's not been shown in full, not named, and we say Darlton said it's male, then name Taweret who is female. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
@Ao-bōzu - According to Wikipedia, Tawaret had the body of a hippo. This statue clearly has the body of a man. I'm tending towards Sobek, but I agree that we can't say for certain which Egyptian god -- if any -- this is supposed to represent.--Litany42 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we saw the statue in Live Together, Die Alone, we saw it's LEFT foot, right? And then in this episode, we saw the statue close up, and it was the RIGHT foot, right?--Gibbeynator 11:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody put this on the actual page already as a blooper, but I really think it IS the left foot. Look at these screencaps [1] and look at the amount of platform in front of the foot from the camera's perspective. When the statue is whole, there's barely any empty platform in front of the right foot, but when we see the remaining foot near the end of the episode, we see it from the same angle and perspective, but there is a lot more empty platform in front of the foot at that angle, which makes perfect sense if the foot is the left foot and is further over to the left. It's just hard to see from that very low camera angle; it looks like the foot is right up against the near edge when it's not. I think this should be taken out of the blooper section.--Apackofmonkeys 14:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the statue is Sobek. It looks like an alligator head, and it makes sense because one of Sobek's duties was a "Bodyguard" of certain gods. Since Jacob lives underneath the statue, the statue is protecting Jacob. Sobek is also suppose to protect the "god" from harm. The only incident that doesn't make sense with this theory is when Ben stabs Jabob? But who knows, he may survive? We have to wait until January to find out... Muggle68 14:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

According to this image, it cannot be Sobek. Sobek is seen holding one Ankh and one staff. The statue has two Ankhs, one in each hand. dposse 17:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most of the egypcian deities named on this site, have the exact same body (Anubis, Ra, Sobek, and others) with only their heads being different. Does that mean that the egipcians had no imagination and all their Gods had the same body? It's just "art" to me, there's no pictures of the actual Gods so they can be depicted pretty much randomly. I don't think we can judge the identity of the Statue by its body, and besides, it's entirely possible that the Statue on the Island is a "custom made" version of a known egypt deity. Like, the body (except the pregnat belly) of Tawaret, and the face of Sobek.--Samus88 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Tempest

  • I'm not particularly versed in Shakespearean Literature, but can someone who is comment on whether or not the opening scene revealing Jacob was in any way an allusion to "The Tempest?" -DesmondFaraday 03:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In The Tempest you have Ariel (light and airy) and Caliban (dark and brooding) as the spirits that inhabit the island. Definitely see a parallel between the white and black garb of Jacob and the Dude. --Huckabees 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Ariel serves Prospero, who controls the Island, also. I'm trying to wonder where this reference should go though. In the articles for Jacob and Jacob's enemy? In the article for "The Incident?" Under cultural references or trivia? -- LightSpectra 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I would put that under Cultural References AlaskaDave 04:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Have we seen Jacob before?

In the recap before the show, they were saying something like if we've met Jacob before, we don't know about it yet. I don't remember him from previous episodes, does anyone else?

I want to say that the big bright light seen by Locke in Season 1 was Jacob. I'm getting more and more convinced the black smoke is a manifestation of whomever this other gentlemen is. --Huckabees 03:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In Left Behind, the Monster took a "picture" of Kate and Juliet. So when Locke says he saw a "bright light" when he encountered the Monster, it was likely that. It's possible that Jacob "controls" the Monster (since we associate the Monster with Yemi's corpse, and Jacob with Christian's corpse) but to say that they are the same is unsubstantiated. -- LightSpectra 05:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Time of the opening scene?

It seems people think that the opening scene took place in 1845, and that the boat on the horizon is the Black Rock. Do we know for certain what time and which boat that was? Perhaps I missed something, but I don't think any clues were given. Should we rename to 'Some time in the past' or something equally undetermined?--Uncertainty 03:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Considering that the Oceanic 6 somehow landed in 1977, and considering that Jacob doesn't appear to age, and given the Egyptian statue mixed with Greek letters and hieroglyphics, we cannot assume that the Black Rock landed in 1845. Lovelac7 04:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that the boat is more than likely the Black Rock. Leaving the date as 1845 won't kill anybody. --Halcohol 05:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Using 1845 is too specific. The vessel on the horizon is, roughly speaking, a nineteenth century type of vessel. It could have been the early twentieth century.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Why 1845 though? Even if it is the Black Rock (and I believe it is), why not put down 1840s or something? Do we know for fact that this scene happened moments before the crash? No. For all we know the boat crashed in like January 45 and the talk happened in Dec 44. - TheAma1 08:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Could it have been Desmond's boat meaning the scene happened in 2001. --Redsoxfaneb 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes this was totally Desmond's boat. (?!?...!!) User:Spoutnik 44
    • In case you are wondering Redsoxfaneb, Spoutnix 44 was joking. It was beyond obvious that it was not Desmond's boat, considering we have seen it before. --Robbie 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah now that I look at that picture, I can tell I was beyond wrong haha. --Redsoxfaneb 00:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jacob's visits

I found it interesting that in all the characters that Jacob visited, except for Sayid, he gave them something (lunchbox, pen, candy bar, revival, blessings, guitar) and for Sayid he took something (Nadia). Does anyone else find this significant? --Gorbeh 04:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that Jacob didn't take Nadia, but rather prevented Sayid from being hit by the car as well.--Jobberforlife 04:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
yah, i thought he prevented somthing as well.Omggivemaafningusername 04:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The book Jacob is reading during Locke's fall is Flannery O'Connor's Everything That Rises Must Converge Which is a quote from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Teilhard conceived the idea of the Omega Point [2].--Penelopoop 06:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In EVERY visit, Jacob intentionally makes physical contact with the person who he wants to bring to the Island! They actually zoom in on his hand touching the person almost every time. Also, he doesn't make physical contact with anyone other than the people he brings. Thoughts?--Mrmagic522 06:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, since the camera deliberately focuses on the act of touching, it must be significant in some way. Is this like a "laying on of hands," in religious terms imparting some kind of grace or healing or blessing on the one(s) touched?--Lauraswartz 22:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)User:Lauraswartz/sig
Oh, and did Jacob ever touch Ilana? There is a shot of his gloved hands as he enters her hospital room, but I will have to watch again to see if he takes those gloves off and touches her. --Lauraswartz 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. He's not giving them each anything; he is saving each of them in some fashion. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure that giving Jack a candy bar saved him in any fashion. Jack's flashback was intentionally different from the others'... Jacob's presence in this flashback was extremely brief. The only thing Jacob did was hand him the candy bar and briefly touch Jack's fingers, which shows that the physical contact is the important thing to take from each flashback. --Mrmagic522 06:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack was walking one direction before Jacob handed him the candy bar (away from his dad) and the opposite direction (back towards his dad) after "the push".Videofarmer 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Does anyone think there was any significance to the show ending with a black on white LOST logo as opposed to the white on black one we've normally seen at the end of all the shows? Will it all be 'good' from now on? 04:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No significance at all, just more aesthetic then a the white on black Omggivemaafningusername 04:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • You're kidding, right? Of course there was significant. This episode was all about Jacob (white) vs. some antagonist (black). Two equal but opposite forces. This has been a theme since the beginning of the show. Of course something so obvious as switching black and white has significance. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
  • You both got it wrong. What happened right before the inverted color logo? Juliet (most likely) detonated the bomb, thus making an Alternate reality where 815 doesn't crash, Desmond never lands on the island, Ben; Widmore; Elle; Alpert all die thus leaving the whole series to an alternate path to the whole series of the show, thus inverted logo. --LOST-Frink 07:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Remember, we do not know this for a fact. For all we know, she triggered the actual incident.
  • Let's think about this for a minute. What else in the series has been represented by a flash of white light? Time flashes. So the white flash at the end of the episode and the black text on white background is to show the time travel, most likely to 2008.--Doughnutguy 22:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought it was to do with INVERTED. As in, in season 6, everything will be inverted. The Others who we thought were the bad guys, will actually be the good guys.. now Jacob is dead all hell will break loose. --Integrated (User / Talk) 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree. It wasn't "black on white", the actual colors of the image were inverted. I think it's them telling us that everything is going to change now, that Jacob's death and the incident turned everything upside down.-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  23:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Real Jacob

It looks like this episode was made with the express purpose of making an administration nightmare for lostpedia that might take until the next season to work out:

  • Is Christian really speaking for Jacob? Does this character now deserve his own page?
  • Is that cabin really Jacob's?
  • Was that Jacob we saw in the cabin with the beard, or someone else? Does he get a page now?
  • What actions of Locke's (as in Terry O'Quinn) really were performed by Locke, and how do we organize his page?

Haha. Luminifer 04:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I say

  • this is a question that should be asked on christians discussion page.
  • this could be a UQ
  • thats a good question, but again, one best delt with over on jacobs page. i beleave jacob already has a page.
  • lock is dead, so all actions up untill before his death, perhaps bring this up in locks discussion page.

Omggivemaafningusername 04:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    • To answer your last question, Locke was always dead. He never came back to life. The person we assumed was John Locke was actually Jacob's enemy, the man we saw in the beginning who wanted to kill Jacob for some unknown reason. So, everything we assumed that John Locke did after his death must be transferred/copied to the Jacob's enemy article. dposse 04:58, 14 May for2009 (UTC)
      • obviously for clarity, a note should be added to Locke's page right after his "revival" post-316 linking to the imposter's page. Flashesb4ur8s 05:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • does this imply that christian did not come back to life but rather than jacob was working through him in the same way? Superwesman 17:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Jughead Really Go Boom?

Ya know, I hate it when people get sticky about this and that. But I'm not convinced that the bomb actually went off. It seems pretty likely, but let's not forget that this is a season cliffhanger. It seems clear to me that this is supposed to be a "did it go off or didn't it?" type of question. If that is the case, I don't think we can definitively say that it did explode. --Litany42 05:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • the casing was broken, so it was only a conventional bomb that went off, but there was also the nuclear material that blew up. Omggivemaafningusername 05:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand where you're coming from. You're thinking that maybe the white flash was, say, the electromagnetic energy detonating or something like that? While it's a good theory, I think the entire purpose of us seeing Juliet at the bottom of the shaft was so that we could see her make the heroic sacrifice of setting off a nuclear explosion. The season ended at the bomb's flashpoint, hence the white title card. --Halcohol 05:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • There are two ways to look at Juilet setting off the nuke. The first (obvious) way to take it is the noble sacrifice to complete the plan that might just undo everything over the last 3 years. The second requires a bit more perspective of being that injured, being dragged 70 meters into the bottom of (effectively) a well, without a doubt breaking numerous bones, bleeding from every available orifice, in a tremendous amount of pain. All that being said, this all sounds much better if you work with the assumption that the white flash was the incident, and that the incident was the nuke going off: That the incident was the act of a desperate woman at the bottom of a well, who was looking to end the suffering. Discuss? Ahrotahntee 08:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • @Halcohol - All I'm saying is that usually on these pages we require absolute proof before we state explicitly that this happened. As I see it, there are three possible explanations for the flash: it's the bomb going off, it's the energy being released (both of which can be explained as "the incident") or it is a huge mindf*ck for the cliffhanger (which would be necessary if the storyline suddenly goes that the incident is avoided, and therefore destiny can be changed). Personally, I believe it is the bomb going off too. This could explain why the Others can't have children on the island (nuclear fallout). But until it is known for sure, perhaps it is not good to assume...--Litany42 12:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The main page keeps referring to the bomb in Jack's backpack as a hydrogen bomb. But if I remember correctly, Sayid said it was an atomic bomb, as atomic bombs are the sub-parts of a hydrogen bomb, when detonated together cause the fusion reaction. So, should those references on the main page be changed? TMC27 06:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It was a hydrogen bomb. Sayid only referred to it as a nuclear bomb/device -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • A hydrogen bomb is a fusion reaction triggered by a fission reaction. The bomb Jack was carrying was the fission detonator and was an atomic bomb, but not a hydrogen bomb.
  • I changed the wording to say that the bomb "seemingly" detonates. It may very well have been a magnetic discharge that happened to occur just as Juliet struck the bomb, and they wanted to keep us guessing. (I for one am skeptical that The Incident was averted; and if the bomb DID in fact cause the incident, then they just killed off most of the cast.) Elchip 15:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • That's too much of a coincidence and too 1940's cornball (wishy washy) to say that the bomb never went off. I think its safer to assume the bomb did go off and the result is either what Miles said, that they caused the incident they were trying to prevent, or we are going to get another Desmond incident and everyone's going to wakeup running around naked in an airport in LA.--Lucky Day 23:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

White flashes have also been used to indicate time jumps. Perhaps the bomb (and cast) didn't explode but jumped back to the present.

If it looks like a duck and swims like a duck...

Okay, I think most people would agree that the ship coming to the island at the beginning is the Black Rock. I understand that the episode description can't say that explicitly, but I think it is worth mentioning it looks similar to the Black Rock, especially given that it falls into the same time period. --Litany42 05:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I beleave its the black rock, but the time periods dont help your cause, because it looked like they where in ancient Egypt.Omggivemaafningusername 05:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Black Rock didn't exist in 1845, when that scene takes place. Lancelot1 05:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes it did, it lay out on it's final trip in 1845.--Acolyt3 15:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The only reason 1845 is listed for date of this scene is because it is being dated off of the Black Rock which last departed the dock in 1845. There is no other info to date this scene. If that isn't the Black Rock (and I believe it is), then the date wouldn't yet be known.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  16:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks identical to the Black Rock, and there's only one ship from that era in the forefront of Lost mythology. Seems pretty straightforward to me. They were clearly on the island, given the statue. And according to a previous episode (see Black Rock article) the ship disappeared in 1845. --Jackdavinci 07:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't assume its the Black Rock. Jacob's rival makes reference to the fact that Jacob has brought people there before- if he brought people there before, they would have had to come on a ship given the time period. Jacob may have brought multiple ships to the island and only one got stuck there, and given the fact that the ship looked old and was far away this scene could take place at anytime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midgetman94 (talkcontribs) 2009-05-14T16:48:14.

Oh for... It's the Black Rock. It's never implied to be anything other than the Black Rock. From a storytelling point of view, the only thing that makes sense for it to be, given our information, is the Black Rock. You can't question every single thing. At some point you just have to take for granted that things are what they're obviously intended to be.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Should Locke's article be altered?

Being that the entity that has Locke's memories but is some sort of mystical clone of "Locke Prime", should everything after Locke's death to Ben be moved to another article; perhaps Jacob's enemy? -- LightSpectra 05:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

this should be asked in locks page. Omggivemaafningusername 05:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following questions:

  • How does Richard know the answer to "What lies in the shadow of the statue"?
  • Why didn't Richard try to stop "John Locke" (Jacob's enemy) from killing Jacob?
  • How did Jacob revive John Locke?

Richard knew the answer because he's the Island's keeper. Richard didn't try to stop Jacob's enemy because he thought it was actually John Locke (though he probably suspected something was amiss, given his confusion over how John was resurrected). Jacob never revived John Locke, Jacob's enemy 'cloned' John's body and 'possessed' it. Lancelot1 05:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • John's resurrection is not referring to him coming back to the island. He clearly died when he fell out the window, and Jacob resurrected him there. I suggest putting that last question back to the UAQ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acolyt3 (talkcontribs) 2009-05-14T10:32:56.
    • That's not clear at all! Man, LOSTpedia is starting to meltdown with all of this speculation being treated as common knowledge. -- LightSpectra 19:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Carlson family book

During the Juliet flashback, the book on the coffee table was titled something like "Mysteries Of The Ancient Americas". Anyone catch that? --SparqMan Talk 05:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


  • Was is Jacob or the entity that can take on others' appearance? - this question makes no sense. Spiral77 06:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What is Jacob trying to prove his enemy wrong about?--Mrmagic522 06:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Guitar

Is the guitar that Jacob gives to Hurley Charlie's guitar from the Island? Maybe something of Charlie's had to be on the plane to best simulate the conditions of O815... Much like Christian's shoes. But even so, did Hurley bring this on the plane? If this isn't the case, then what was the point of the guitar?--Mrmagic522 06:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Chang lose his arm?

It looked like Miles saved him before his arm could be ripped off and all he got was a punctured hand. Kajillion 07:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes he did. This is the point where he loses it. Doesn't matter how it looked, the intention of the scene was to show you where he lost it. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a screen cap of it? I only remember his hand being crushed as well. Perhaps Miles changed the future by saving his father? But I can see this going either way. --Uncertainty 12:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Here you go
5x16 Pierre Chang Hand

Pierre Chang's bloody hand

George47 12:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
That looks badly crushed, but not severed. Maybe he has to get it amputated when he gets back to Dharmaville. --Gibbeynator 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Who said his right arm in the Swan video was prosthethic anyway? Maybe his own arm was srushed so badly he couldn't use i anymore? MauserContact 13:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Someone said "prosthetic" way back in season 2 and many people won't let go of the term, including the concept that it's a prosthetic that doesn't work. At worst, he last is hand/lower arm.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • is this a Star Wars reference?--Lucky Day 23:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Patsy Cline song in Kate's flashback

Anyone know which song this was by any chance? It didn't sound like any of the Patsy Cline songs from previous seasons (at least not that I could tell). Fantastic finale, by the way! Just had to comment on that! :) Dman176 11:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the song is ["Three Cigarettes in an Ashtray"]. Youtube has a great video of Patsy Cline performing the tune live [here] if anyone is interested. I really enjoyed it :) Aftermidnight 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ilana's language

Does anyone know what language is spoken when Ilana is hurt and in hospital?--Salvora 12:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • The Nurse, Ilana and Jacob are all apeaking Russian in that scene. MauserContact 12:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Herring?

Is that what Jacob is eating? And if so..what is the OTHER use of that term? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gblack61 (talkcontribs) 2009-05-14T08:20:09.

I noticed that but removed it from the summary. Because that was a joke, right? I'm no fish expert, but I don't think that was actually a herring. --Cornprone 13:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Herring You can see an illustration of the fish. Sadly, it ain't red. I wonder if TPTB knew that?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines Red Herring as a smoke-cured herring. The fish did not appear to be a herring and, even if it was, it was not a red herring. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lostinspace (talkcontribs) 2009-05-14T13:00:19.
  • I was the one who added "red herring" to the article. To be fair, it was more than likely a red snapper. I, too, am not a fish expert, but, judging from the fin, and considering that they can be found anywhere in the world, it makes sense. See my picture below and compare it with a picture of a red snapper. But why did it have to be a red snapper? Why not a generic-looking fish? Why make it a point to spend so much time showing the fish? It just stands out so much that it almost seems like the show's creative staff intentionally planted it there to say, "yeah, "red herring" is what the fans will think first--lol." Very plausible, and a visual joke in itself to throw the fans off into the vast land of wonderment.--SSJ3Brian 22:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Red snapper
  • I too thought it was a Red Snapper at first, but when he was scaling it it looked like a Koi or something like a large goldfish and either my eyes tricked me or I don't know my fish that well. TBH a Red Snapper is just a metaphor for following a wrong a trail the way a White Elephant is a venture that you throw and waste a lot of money at because neither a Red Herring nor a White Elephant actually exists. The writers may be alluding to using this literary technique until now - its a good thought (should we add Red Herring as a literary technique). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucky Day (talkcontribs) 2009-05-14T18:23:02.


Anyone else getting a serious Beast Wars vibe from the ending? In the season 2 finale, Megatron managed to blow Optimus Prime's head off, and that created a time storm that threatened to rewrite history and left the heroes in character limbo until next season.--Gibbeynator 13:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references: stop posting irrelevant topics!

Please, just post cultural references that we have a decent reason to believe actually *are* intentional references. Noting that Juliet's fall down the shaft is similar to Gandalf being dragged down in LotR is just stupid. Do you really think this was intentional or adds any meaning to the show? No, it's just LotR fanboys wanting to add something to the Lost page. 13:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Actually, for the sake of argument, Gandalf being dragged down in LotR parallels the false theology of Jesus sdescending to hell to take the keys of death from the Devil --Lucky Day 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)l.

i agree, but next time please word it a little nicer. Omggivemaafningusername 18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you deleting my posts without even reading it (I assume it was you, I'm talking about my additions of both "The Descent" and "The Black Swan Theory"). And thanks for posting insults here instead of bringing arguments. I'm putting both of my edits back on, and since there is much more reference to the black swan throughout Lost (especially in the ARGs), I am willing to writhe an entire article about it over the weekend. Let the folks decide what aspects of the narrative or the philosophy of Lost are relevant, not your own bias. Thank you.HenrieSchnee 21:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I see someone deleted the "Blondie" cultural reference. Between the comic strip, the band, and the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly I think that's a pretty obvious one.--Lucky Day 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Casting a known actor as Jacob

Just curious if anyone found this strange. For a role as significant as Jacob, I thought it a little odd that they would cast someone who is already known, since it might be a distraction from the character. It wasn't a big distraction for me, but I still stopped to think about it during the show. 14:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I had no idea who he was :) Luminifer 18:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I only know him for minor roles, I would argue actors like Terry O'Quinn and Matthew Fox are more famous than him. It is not like Brad Pitt is Jacob. --Robbie 19:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought it strange that they cast an UNKNOWN as Jacob.. I was hoping like Anthony Hopkins or Robert De Niro would play him. --Integrated (User / Talk) 23:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Unless you thought it was Tim Robbins as Jacob. ;) Luminifer 23:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I hated his character in Dexter but certainly made my peace with him as an actor in this role :) AlaskaDave 04:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


I might be the only one to notice this because I work the company, but in the Kate flashback to the store, they have bottles of Malibu Tropical Banana and Absolut 100 Black on the shelf, both were introduced in 2007.--Poppin' Fresh 14:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham

So this episode showed that Locke is in fact Jacob's enemy. So I think the Jeremy Bentham episode's central character was not Locke but Jacob's enemy. I am aware that the flashbacks were of Locke before he died but in the present the episode focused on Jacob's enemy instead of Locke.(YKADAHK 15:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

  • But that doesn't mean that the 2007 "Locke" (i.e. Jacob's enemy) isn't having real memories of what happened to the real Locke. Or, they aren't memories at all but just a separate story being told, as most or all of the flashbacks were. I don't think we ever had a reason to believe that centric character of any given episode was actually remembering or thinking about the memories of the flashback as they were happening. 15:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I too believe that Jacob's enemy has Locke's memory from the past but in the present the central character was the enemy not Locke.(YKADAHK 15:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
    • I see your point, but to say the episode is centered around Jacob's enemy is sort of like saying Follow The Leader is centered around Richard. It doesn't really reveal much about that character, so it's hard to really claim such "centricity" is even relevant. 15:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • But I will say that we did learn at least one important thing about Richard, which was that he didn't seem to be as all-knowing as we might have thought. For example, it turns out that he didn't really know what he was doing when he removed the bullet from Locke's 15:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • True, but I thought in the end it was decided that Follow the Leader is actually a Richard centric episode. (YKADAHK 15:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC))


someone should put the flashbacks in order

Sun & Jin
  • You know you can edit the page yourself, right? 15:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I know but I'm afraid I'll make a mess of it cooldog 15:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ya gotta try. Use the preview button and just close the window if you get in trouble.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Isn't it this wiki's policy to order scenes in in-universe chronological order, rather than in the order they were shown in the episode? Not sure if I agree with that policy personally, but I think that's been the established standard for episode summaries. --Cornprone 10:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What was the actual Incident?

Can we all agree that "the Incident" started happening before the H-bomb detonated? And had they not detonated the H-bomb, the Incident would have happened? (as opposed to Miles' theory that the H-bomb is the Incident)--Mrmagic522 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think we can truly know the answer until we see the consequences of the detonation. Going into the finale, I was convinced the bomb wouldn't go off, because the Incident had to happen (because it already had!) and preventing the Incident just wasn't an option. When it became clear that it was definitely going to happen, the I began to think like Miles, that this *was* the Incident, or at least a part of it. We saw that the electromagnetism started before the bomb went off, but perhaps the Incident is simply the entire situation. Without knowledge that energy would be released, Jack wouldn't have planned to detonate the bomb in the first place. So it seems like it all had to happen just that way. 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • i think the bomb going off might be part of the incident. remeber the casing was broken, and so only the conventional bomb would detonate.Omggivemaafningusername 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If the bomb is part of the Incident, like Miles suggested, then the Losties will have to live through it because they are in the same proximity to the bomb as Radzinsky and Chang and they live through it, because Radzinsky doesn't die til the hatch and Chang still has to film some DHARMA videos. Unless they changed the future, of course. -Kaisle 20:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • A quite good point, but I think they made a point of Chang and Radzinski escaping, so they are actually not as close as the others to the bomb, so who will live and die is up in arms.--Integrated (User / Talk) 23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is just stupid or if someone else has already posited it, but is it possible that the bomb and the electromagnetic incident canceled each other out? I also wondered why, after Desmond turned the failsafe key, did the electromagnetic pocket under the Swan cease to be active? --Lauraswartz 23:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Well Faraday's whole plan was to use the H bomb to cancel out the EM.. that's why they detonated it.. the question is, did it work? --Integrated (User / Talk) 23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Can anyone confirm who is the "woman" Sally Davis portrays in this episode? --Orhan94 15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • It's hard to tell, but maybe she's Jack's assistant in the surgery room. — Iimitk  T  C  17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we change the mentions of fake Locke?

In the article. Should we change every mention of "Locke" to something like "Jacob's enemy" or "Pseudo-Locke"? Or we should leave the article narration resemble the original story telling of the episode? — Iimitk  T  C  16:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Leave it i say. It could be a plot twist for the people reading the article without seeing the episode --Acolyt3 16:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • But with that logic you'd not have this encyclopedia at all, just in case people haven't seen the episodes.PeterR 21:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
      • A typical fiction synopsis presents the information the way it is presented to someone viewing the material. Calling Locke something else throughout the article before his true identity (or lack of) is revealed is confusing. ShadowUltra 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Totally agree with ShadowUltra. It´s important to leave the episodes from 5x07 to 5x15 as they are.--erikire 23:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree with ShadowUltra as well. dposse 03:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Some people are referring to the fake Locke as "Not-Locke", "Evil Locke" or just "Flocke". I like "Flocke" best... it's catchy.--Mrmagic522 04:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

the others blew up?

the article talks about season finales all ending with a plot device blowing up. for season 3, it states that the others blew up - huh? I took a brief look at the episode guide as a refresher, but the only blow up I can think of is the looking glass station .... -- do it to it. 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's talking about the trap Jack set up in their camp. You know, when the Others attempted to invade the camp but then they got blown up with the bombs. dposse 18:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Blooper or not?

I posted this blooper to the article:

  • At the beginning of the scene featuring Sayid and Nadia, Naveen Andrews can clearly be heard speaking the words "What? Yes it does" in his natural English accent.

...but this entry was removed and so can you please watch that part of the episode, check it out for yourself, and give your opinion on whether or not he is indeed speaking with an English accent? PeterR 21:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Just rewatched the scene. The actor's accent was perfectly in-character. — Iimitk  T  C  21:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, didn't realise Sayid was an English character. PeterR 23:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed it, being British, I thought it was a nice little quirk, but really not worth calling it a blooper, it was like for 2 seconds --Integrated (User / Talk) 23:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Horace's Basement

I don't know if it's noteworthy, but I haven't seen this posted anywhere else and thought I'd give it a mention. Ben took over Horace's house in Dharmaville, correct? So considering that Richard knocked down the wall between Horace's basement and the underwater ruins, he in fact created the access point through which Ben later enters to summon the Monster. Am I right? Anticrash 22:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure Horace's house is Ben's house?  Robert K S   tell me  22:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
yah. I agree, and it was horace's house because it had horace's shirts. Omggivemaafningusername 22:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Where was Horace this episode ? :( --Integrated (User / Talk) 23:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
We know in the "original timeline" (if the post-Incident one is indeed different), Horace, Roger and Ben survived, whereas Radzinsky was allegedly living in the Swan. Chang was nowhere to be found. So I'm going to guess (there's that magic word again) that Horace was on one of the subs with his wife. -- LightSpectra 01:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
We know Chang survived because he went on to make the Orientation film mentioning the incident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Integrated (talkcontribs) 2009-05-14T22:51:04.
  • Great point. Sounds logical to me.--Mrmagic522 04:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Realizing her mortality..."

Does it bother anyone else the way this is worded? This is in reference to the part where Juliet picks up the rock and starts hitting the bomb. Do we really know she did that because she was going to die anyway? She could have known that the bomb needed to be detonated and knew that she was the only one who could do it. It just bothers me when we put in characters' feelings when the actions could be interpreted in different ways. --KevinS6 02:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Yea I agree with you, poor wording.--Integrated (User / Talk) 03:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed 100%. Perhaps she detonated the bomb to try to save herself (i.e. this is not the way she wanted things to end, and she believes that she can get a second chance). There are a lot of options out there.--Mrmagic522 04:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed also. Juliet made it clear that she agreed with Jack's plan to try to detonate the bomb and she basically realized that she still had a chance to continue Jack's plan when she saw it down there... I really don't think she did it just for herself... -Kaisle 07:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

UQ - Will the detonation of Jughead change the future?

The question "Will the detonation of Jughead change the future?" is currently listed as an Unanswered Question. Normally I would be in favour of removing it, since it is of the form "what will happen next?" but I think it's the big thing that we're meant to be wondering coming out of the season finale so I wanted to preemptively state here that I think it belongs, just in case someone tries to remove it.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Would the following question work if this were the S1 Finale: "What is inside the hatch?"... To me it is the exact same type of question. Would that be okay at the end of S1? I don't know.--Mrmagic522 04:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • i dont think they are the same type of question, the "will jughead change the future" is a pivotal question that was left unanseard.Omggivemaafningusername 04:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "What is inside the hatch?" was a pivotal question that was left unanswered. That's why they're the same type of question.--Mrmagic522 05:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Valid UQ for the reasons above... it's a question explicitly put into the minds of the audience by Miles in this episode, for those of us who didn't have it already.  Robert K S   tell me  07:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Black Swan Theory

This theory was coined after the show was created, and after the Swan was named on the show. Does it belong here? -- Xbenlinusx 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain the theory?--Nintendo_Warrior 05:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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