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.)
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
What evidence is there to suggest that Jacob visited Hurley in January 2008? Is this just an estimate? This is important because Jacob was stabbed and burned in 2007. Thus, if he visited Hurley in 2008, he must not have died from his wounds.--Derekallison960 21:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This raises some interesting timeline questions, but the current timeline has Ajira taking off in 2008 and crashing on the Island in 2007... There's a justification for it somewhere. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 21:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Woah I never thought of that! Hurley was leaving the jail, and this was happening in 2008, and when Ajira landed it time travelled to 2007, so yeah he visited Hurley after being stabbed and burned. --Robbie 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone cite the justification? I looked around but couldn't the rationale as to how we know Ajira traveled back to 2007. Closest I could come was taking "thirty years later" literally looking forward from 1977 which is a bit weak. Ajira did transition from night to day in arriving at the Island, tho' this of itself doesn't necessary signify anything other than the plan moving through the Island's time discrepancy. We've seen this sort of thing happen before with the helicopter arriving/departing the Island (ref: the Constant from S4). Spiral77 17:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe once Jacob had died he end up in Tunisia like Ben and Locke. That is why he wasn't defending himself and wasn't so scared to die.--GreenRabbit 12:35, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
This has to be an error considering the discussion of time being slower on the island (ie. Hawaii time) was debunked.--Lucky Day 06:45, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
Centricity
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.--Steeletalkcontribs 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 disagree. The Libby and Karl flashbacks weren't flashbacks in the typical sense. The former still concerned Hurley's story and the latter was written to play into the present on-island story. Lostpedia has always been 'by the book' so I don't see why this situation is any different. The idea that Jughead held the centricity of both Desmond and Daniel was rejected because not ALL the flashes focused on Daniel, yet here is the same situation. If not ALL the flashbacks concerned on Jacob, how can you call the episode Jacob-centric? It's various.
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)
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)
Jacob - It definitely revolved around Jacob. But if we're going with that, we're going to have to take all the "Exoduce Pt 1" and "Exodus Pt 2" stuff off of all the characters' pages. Because if this doesn't count, then neither should any of those.--Nick40292 21:10, 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)
Completely Disagree The difference between those two episodes is evident. In The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham, the flashbacks are told from Locke's point of view: we always follow him and we know what he knows (like for example we do not learn who shot Abaddon until Locke does). In addition, the on-Island storyline follows him and close-ups are on his face. I would also like to point out that in "The Incident," each flashback is followed or preceded by a shot of the character it centers on. User:Spoutnik 44
Not true. In The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham, Locke has no idea what Ben does after Locke is dead. However, we see Ben cleaning up the scene and telling John that he'll miss him. Flashbacks and centric episodes are NOT as clear-cut anymore as some here would like to believe. This is a Jacob centric episode, without a doubt.Gefred7112 21:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Various Jacob wasn't shown as much as any other prominent character in this episode. Juliet's flashback didn't even have Jacob in it and I'm not just saying this because I love Juliet but if I were to give the centricity to one main character it would be her. She features most prominently, especially in part 2. -- Bringlibbyandcharlieback Talk Contribs 16:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Characters
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)
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)
Rename
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)
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)
I agree. It should be called "The Incident". dposse 03:27, 14 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)
In the press release and on the episode description on TV's (you know, when you press guide and go to the description, which is written by ABC I believe) it says "The Incident" without the parts 1 and 2. I say rename it. The press release and episode guide titles is what ABC wants people to refer to it as, not people's assumptions from a credit phrasing in the "written by" part at the beginning of the show. --Nick40292 02:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, the episode was called "The Incident." I don't understand any of the arguments for "Parts 1 & 2" being part of the title. It simply wasn't. It never was. And it is never called "The Incident, Parts 1 & 2" (except on Lostpedia).
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)
An interesting cultural parallel: In the film The Godfather, the presence of oranges is a bad omen. Theartandsound 02:51, 24 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 (talk • contribs) 2009-05-13T22:25:19.
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 talkcontribs 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In the spirit of Mr. Friendly, I think he should be called Mr. Loophole. Jack Dutton 19:52, 15 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)
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)
Just thought I'd throw this out there, but one of the Twitter accounts in the ARG (@epithetalpha) recently posted this tweet: "I am the Bennu bird, the Heart-Soul of Ra, the Guide of the Gods to the Tuat." According to Wikipedia "Tuat" is an alternate spelling of "Tawaret." Perhaps that should be seen as a sign. Anticrash 00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This is my first post on here so I apoligize in advance if there are any formatting mistakes...but the Lost page on abc.com has confirmed that the statue is in fact Taweret.
http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/index?pn=recap#t=162212&d=201648
"The camera pulls back over the ocean, and we see they were sitting on the base of a giant stone foot. And next to the foot is another foot -- and both feet have four toes. And as the camera pulls back, we see what we've been waiting to see since we first glimpsed that four-toed foot over three years ago... the towering, majestic statue of the Egyptian goddess Taweret." I also apoligize if this has already been established--JCal 23:18, 17 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)
Jacob has the powers of "white" magic, so he would be Prospero, making his nemesis either Caliban, who was powerless to kill Prospero himself and allied himself with Trunculo and Stephano. The problem with this analogue is that Caliban ultimately fails. TheEndingDay 14:41, 22 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)
In Greatest Hits. Jacob is the mugger that Charlie 'scares' off from taking Nadia's purse. It could also be said that in any of the 'coincidental' meetings of the characters before the original , Jacob may have appeared.Theoryomatic 06:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Yazzy Bengharsa
I think this is a great theory. The second best thing on Charlie's list was being called a hero by Nadia after he stopped her mugger. This could be a push from Jacob for Charlie to want to be a hero again at the Looking Glass. And also a way for Charlie to be touched by Jacob. We could end up seeing a scene of this flashback again where it is revealed that Jacob was the mugger. While Mark Pellegrino may not have been used in this flashback, maybe he was. The mugger appears to have blond hair. Is their a way to find out who was cast as the mugger? Here's the picture.
I don't think its him, but similar. Annarboral 01:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In The Man Behind the Curtain when Ben takes Locke to the cabin in the jungle we see a flash of a brown eye and a silhouette sitting in a chair. Ben tells Locke that this is Jacob, even though now Ben says that he never saw Jacob. However, in the audio commentary for this episode, done by Damon, Carlton ad Micheal Emerson, Carlton clearly states that the audience is seeing flashes of Jacob. For my full rant about this, see my user page. Iburnedthemuffins 14:14, 19 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)
Whilst for me, it is definitely the Black Rock, they didn't mention it was during the show, so until we get confirmation (either via podcast or an official show like Lost Untangled) we can't even speculate. -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 10:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It is the Black Rock, if you guys are good at spotting symbolism. Jacob WAS cooking that fish on a Black Rock, an obvious allusion to the ship that appears less than two minutes later. Given their clothes, the timing, the fact that a 19th century ship did crash into the island, the mysterious presence of that ship being on the island, the fact that Jacob's nemesis claims that that ship will bring death, the fact that Magnus Hanzo, a relative to Alvar, who ended up creating the Dharma Initiative for what seems to be specifically for inhabiting that island and using it as a testing ground, it's safe to say that given Widmore's warning of a war that's gone on for generations between two groups, all of it linking back to the Black Rock, that that is indeed the Black Rock. Why would the writers put a random ship at the end of the penultimate chapter? Oh right, they wouldn't. Too many threads of the plot come together in that scene for it to not be the Black Rock.
You say it's the Black Rock, but you have no concrete evidence for it. The ship may have been shown just to show that this scene takes place in the past. We don't know for sure if this ship is the Black Rock. It may very well turn out to be the Black Rock, I wouldn't be surprised, but something like this isn't clear-cut enough (Remember the whole confusion with Naomi's and Elsa's bracelets?) We need more evidence before we decide when the opening scene took place. Has anyone who works on the show said anything on the matter yet? --Uncertainty 16:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the vessel is probably the Black Rock, and that's why we have theory and talk pages. If and when we see the vessel's name, she becomes the Black Rock.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is significant evidence or a canonical source regarding the opening scene of the episode, I strongly suggest we begin Jabob's flashback with "Sometime in the past" or "Sometime prior to 1974" for now. My reasons for this are that we do not know yet if the ship on the horizon is the Black Rock, and that the statue was not seen intact in 1974. Thoughts? --Uncertainty 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Somebody give me one good reason to doubt that that's the Black Rock. The opening scene was obviously meant to tie into iconic Lost mythology by using Jacob, the Statue and a mysterious ship. How many mythologically iconic ships have appeared in Lost? Only one which matches the appearance of this ship: The Black Rock. We're obviously meant to take from the scene that this is the Black Rock, and we are not given any reason to doubt this. The argument "we don't have 100% confirmation" is a bogus argument, because otherwise we'd never be able to say anything concrete on the the wiki. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 04:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree Jimbo. One good reason to doubt that the ship is the Black Rock is the lack of evidence. I can not disprove that the ship is the Black Rock, but my inability to refute your idea does not imply that I am wrong. While I agree with you about the "100% confirmation" part, I would have to say we don't even have 50% confirmation on this issue and therefore should remove anything stating this as fact from the wiki. The reason for my edits was that since we don't know what the ship is, a good compromise would be to have the lines "Sometime prior to 1974..." and "...a ship similar to the Black Rock..." since we know both of these lines to be factually true. Also, using the word "obviously" to begin your theory does not create an implication of truth for the rest of us. --Uncertainty 16:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
When the episode re-aired (with the text pop-ups at the bottom of the screen), a note identified it as "an early 1800s wooden sailing ship."
The Black Rock is a sailing vessel from the mid 19th Century. The upper deck is a straight line which runs from bow to stern and at least that feature is visible on the shipwreck on the island.
The ship on the horizon in the opening scene has characteristics of a 16th Century galleon. A noticably "puffed" bow and an elevated extra deck near the stern.
These features are characteristic of a galleon and assuming we are in the Pacific ocean, would most likely be a Manila Galleon as these ships were cruising the Pacific in the 16th Century.
This would possibly place the encounter between Jacob and the Man in Black in the 16th Century.
I fail to understand why the subtitles would say "an early 1800s wooden sailing ship" as the exterior features (especially in HD) tell otherwise.
I guess "Ab Aeterno" will probably shed some clues so we may finally put this issue at rest--SokratesOne 07:18, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not the Black Rock. The Black Rock approached the Island at night during a violent storm. When Jacob and MIB are watching from the beach, it is a bright, clear day. --Butseriouslyfolks 14:03, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
The latest podcast confirmed that storms around the island can whip up very fast, in response to questions about the difference between the two scenes, so looks like it's the Black Rock, which places the scene in 1867 or not too long after. --Jackdavinci 18:14, March 25, 2010 (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)
I'd argue that anyone who thinks it's OK to look for sunglasses inside the bag while crossing the road, then stop and turn back in the middle of the crossing is someone who is very likely to get run by a car at some point in their lives. Also, were we not lead to believe that Nadia had been killed by someone working for Widmore? I'm very confused about this. Did Nadia die in a traffic accident? Or was she intentionally killed by Widmore's people?--Salvora 20:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
She was intentionally killed by Widmore's people in a traffic "accident" that Jacob prevented Sayid from being hit in as well. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
On the significance of Jacob transmitting objects from the material world to Kate, Sawyer, Jack and Hurley: remember that Locke (as a dead body) returned to the island wearing shoes belonging to Christian, which was a clearly made as a necessity. To become the incarnation of a divine entity (either Jacob or the black man), the transmission of a material object might be a condition. We can therefore assume that Jacob, by meeting the losties, made his own selection of several potential “candidates” to his future incarnation. His final sentence “they’re coming” could then refer to the above-mentioned Losties.
yah, i thought he prevented somthing as well.Omggivemaafningusername 04:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
How about the fact that Jacob says "I'm sorry" in precisely half the flashback incidents? The following are paraphrases from memory, but to each of the following characters he says "I'm sorry": Sawyer: "I'm sorry about your parents; Sayid: "I'm sorry, I seem to be lost..."; to Ilana: "I'm sorry I couldn't come sooner..."; to Locke: "I'm sorry this happened to you." It really stood out to me -- foreshadowing of something to befall these characters? Jacob is apologizing in advance for sufferings he knows they will undergo, because of his own intervention? Squadrato 21:48, 28 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)
He did not touch Ilana. The difference here is that they already seem to know each other. He is probably wearing the gloves to make sure that he doen't touch her. Perhaps the gloves are very important... maybe he wears them to prevent himself from accidentally touching someone with his hands who he is not supposed to touch.--Mrmagic522 15:25, 15 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)
We don't know a single thing about this candybar yet, it could mean something. --Metalpotato - Talk - Contributions - ✉ 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't foresee a candy bar-centric episode that focuses on the candy bar's flashbacks. But I guess anything could happen in S6.--Mrmagic522 15:21, 15 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)
In the story of Jacob's birth (biblical Jacob), doesn't he fight with Esau in the womb and grab onto ankle so that he couldn't be pulled free until Esau pushed him out? I think this is the metaphor portrayed through the candy bars. --Mrmagic522 15:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Black/white
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?--Galaxie.cr 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 talkcontribs 23:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, everyone is getting so imaginative with this. Maybe I'm a simpleton, but it just seemed to me that it happened right as the bomb blew up, and therefore was a representation of the flashpoint of the explosion. When a nuclear weapon blows up, Hollywood has portrayed this as a flash of bright light (that you supposedly can't look at), and that is what we saw. Let's remember, they changed the opening logo during Follow the Leader to preview the new Star Trek movie, so this isn't necessacarily some big reveal. NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 13:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The key is 'inverted'. They could've had the white flash then still used the same LOST logo at the end. The changed it because.. because MockLocke said it himself, once Jacob is dead, things will change. Now he is dead.. things are going to be inverted. --Integrated (User / Talk) 11:19, 16 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?
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)
what is more mind blowing... is that Jacob's Enemy is the one that made Locke return and "Die". He is the on that has manipulated the entire 5th season. --Badger1O1 23:29, 15 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)
It would not kill most of the cast if the bomb went off, as their future would of been changed, and would not of died, as they never arrived in the island in the first place. I have my own theories that i will discuss here and look at both sides.-- Nzoomed talk contributions 23:24, 15 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.
Let's assume the bomb went off. We know that our main characters are inexplicably tied to time. We also know that anything that's occured will occur. The only thing one can change seems to be the present, but not the relative present. Jacob's death occurs at a relative time to the incident, from the perspective of each of the characters. For our heroes, regardless of the time period they are in, Jacob's death coincides with the Incident. Many of us knew that this season would end with the Incident, or at least had a feeling that it would given the throwback to the 70s, and the unexplainable way in which the characters would return to the present. In the episode, The Variable, Faraday challenged his mother's beliefs that they could indeed reverse all the events that occured, simply by blowing the shit out of the island, stopping the Incident from occuring. Then he is killed trying to do this very thing. I mean, come on guys and girls, you must smell the determinism at work. Our characters are simply working history as they have to. The Incident had always occured, and would never have been able to have been stopped. As Miles mentioned, what if the actions they take cause the Incident to occur. There is a precise moment when Jack drops the bomb into the shaft, and nothing happens. All the characters look prepared as though they are going to jump in time. The failure of its occurrence tells us one thing: Faraday was wrong. They are variables, but not necessarily so for the past. Or, they are variables, but they are so much so that even if they change, the end result stays the same. X + Y = 45. Two variables on the left, a finite answer on the right. X and Y can equal a number of things, a variety of different numbers, but the end result can still be 45. Either way, they were meant to be the reason for the Incident. I mentioned relativity and the real present, the present in which Jacob dies. We know the link between these characters and Jacob, they're inextricably linked: That the event which, I believe, propels them back to their proper present is so closely linked to the death of Jacob suggests that the island's mystical properties are still at work within the plot, allowing for our characters to travel through time. The bomb went off. Our characters, having made sure that the past stays on its proper course are now propelled back to their proper time; they've done what they've always been responsible for doing.
Alpert's claim that he watched them die could simply mean that he was well aware of what they planned on doing, and that they disappeared after the Incident occured.
Therefore, both the bomb went off, and our characters returned to present. Everything coincides with the death of Jacob. Perfect, really. TheEndingDay 15:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's reasonable to think the bomb didn't go off... I mean... the device was set to detonate on impact... and it fell down a well on a rocky bottom(barely 2 fingers high of water). And on the fall, it wasn't only being dragged by gravity... there was the unique magnetism of that place. So the bomb should hit the ground at a speed so high it would either go boom-boom or get smashed like a thin piece of paper. Just imagine yourself stepping on a empty coke can. But we know the bomb didn't go Boom-boom and didn't get smashed like paper. So it would be assumable that Sayid rendered the bomb inert trying to make it go off on impact. I mean... IMHO Juliet would not be strong enough to hit that rock on the bomb in such way to detonate it, as it just survived the death dive from jack's toss... --Zico714 16:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Possibly the casing was sufficiently weakened by the fall that she was able to set it off with a rock. Alternatively, it's just much more dramatic to have the bomb set off like that. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 21:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There's zero evidence to suggest the bomb went off, while there's tons of evidence to suggest it didn't. Charlotte left the island because this already happened in the original timeline, as did Lara and Miles, it also got Chang's arm crushed, and Richard says they died. All this proves that the attempt to detonate jughead was also made in the original timeline, and failed as the Losties crashed there anyway.--Decepticon Rhinox 14:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
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 (talk • contribs) 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)
I also think it's the Black Rock, but how does it get so far inland then? The original thinking was that it was apart of an island move, in which the island basically appeared under it. Obviously that's not proven, but if this is the Black Rock, then we have to come up with new theories as to how it got so far inland. NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 13:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
We don't actually know how far inland the Black Rock is. There's a lot of supposition about about it's depth into the jungle and it's elevation, but we've only seen the exterior from one perspective. BTW, I think that (I want?) the offshore vessel is the Black Rock, but it wouldn't be the first time TPTB have thrown us a curve. --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I also think it's the Black Rock, but I also believe that we should not say it is definitively the Black Rock. We should all learn to keep our theories off the main page. That said, I believe omitting it completely or adding "...a ship similar to the Black Rock..." would be fair. --Uncertainty 01:29, 28 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)
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 (talk • contribs) 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? --SparqManTalk 05:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes I did I thought it was very interesting especially with the whole mysteries of the universe.
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? This question was removed... but isn't this one of the major mysteries we are supposed to be thinking about?! --Mrmagic522 06:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a valid UQ; it seems to be their point of contention. Spiral77 02:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Whose eye opened after the white flash? - I'm removing this... it is clearly Jack's eye from the very first shot of the series.--Mrmagic522 23:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Same as Jimbo the tubby. I saw no eye.--Salvora 19:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is Sun in 2007 (2008?) with Locke? What is her purpose? Why is she not in 1977? - Removed... not brought up by this episode at all.--Mrmagic522 23:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did Jacob choose to visit each person at pivotal moments of their lives? - Are these all pivotal moments? Thinking Kate stealing a lunchbox wasn't terribly pivotal as far as major events in her life. Possibly question could be rephrased. Spiral77 02:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
How about "Why did he choose to visit each person when he did?"--Mrmagic522 05:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the lunchbox has been seen before -- as the time capsule that Kate and Tom dig up later. More significant than I'd thought -- tho' still not quite on par with other events in her life. Spiral77 05:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Who left the cloth at the cabin for Ilana? - Why is this always deleted? I think it's a legal UQ. Obviously it wasn't someone of the Other, because they didn't recognize Ilana and her group at first? And did Jacob left it?- We're not even sure who used the cabin! So I will add it AGAIN and please discuss before merely deleting.--Asian_Dawn 08:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, this question must be removed because it seems that the writers of the episode want to point at Jacob for leaving the cloth. Jacob left the cloth as a message to his followers (in this case Illana and others) indicating that he is at the statue. We should not see everything as a mystery. The matter with the cloth is quite simple.--Messenger 09:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a valid UQ. Jacob hasn't been there in a long time.--Integrated (User / Talk) 22:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It is assumed that Jacob put the "cloth" there when he left to let people know where he left to.--Mrmagic522 05:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but we have to consider the fact that Jacob apperently lived in the basement of the statue, not in the cabin. We can only assume that he inhabited the Cabin, too. It could also be Jacob's enemy who lived in the Cabin and lured Ilana's group to the statue.--Asian_Dawn 20:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have added "How does Ilana personally know Jacob?--Mrmagic522 05:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did Richard say "There can only be one leader on the island at a time" while Eloise and Charles were both leaders at the same time in the past? Do we know for sure that Charles and Ellie were both leaders, much less at the same time?--Mrmagic522 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
When Richard take little Ben from Sawyer and Kate one of the others said "Charles and Ellie will not be pleased if they find out." That pretty much indicate they were both in charge.--IceCrash 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably she was in charge and he was only taken in consideration for being the "first man", as Ellie's BF. Remember when Richard and Eloise take Jack and Sayid to the bomb and Richard knocks her unconcious because he doesn't want to risk their leader's life? So she was clearly the leader. --Zico714 16:22, 3 August 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)
I thought it was pretty clear: Jacob brought Charlie's guitar from the island to Hurley to show him he was actually from the island. Willo talk contribs email 06:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
And to help Hugo recreates the circumstances of Flight 815 as best as possible. — Iimitk T C 15:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hurley is carrying the guitar in more than one episode as when they were in the plane and when LeFluer first met them. So, he did take the guitar to the island with him.--Kurovski 15:03, 22 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)
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)
Im not sure if he did ever loose his arm, as in the pearl orientation film, he had both hands, and both films are made in 1980.-- Nzoomed talk contributions 23:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The same goes with The Orchid as the construction haven't finished but he use both his hand in the Orientation Film.--IceCrash 13:34, 22 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)
That's the song, I just checked. Thanks! I'll add that info as well. :) Dman176 14:30, 15 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
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 (talk • contribs) 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)
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 (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T18:23:02.
There's no such thing as a Medusa Spider either. So if they can invent a medusa spider, why can't they invent a red herring? :) --Chesebrgr 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The term Red Herring has a particular meaning, which you all know. It stems from the fact that there are herrings, but they aren't Red. Therefore, a Red Herring is a symbolic representation of something that either a) doesn't exist, or b) is meant to confuse and misdirect. But you guys already know this. The fish we saw was likely a red snapper or something of the sort, but something seems foolish about people who see a red fish and immediately claim "red herring", when as it's been previously stated, herrings aren't red. *smiles* TheEndingDay 15:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I really think we need to discuss this in depth and much further until we've found the answer.--Lucky Day 06:48, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
it looks like red herring is already in the Literary Devices page as a type of Foreshadowing meant to mislead.--Lucky Day 06:58, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
The executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse confirmed on the March 30, 2010 Official LOST Video Podcast that the fish in the beginning of the episode was not a red herring. LOST-Malachi 19:36, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
So...
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)
Does that mean Jack will merge with Locke's Spark to become Optimal Jack?--Nevermore 15:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Loved the Optimal Jack comment, way 3 go nevermore --Thehostile 04:45, March 28, 2010 (UTC)thehostile
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. --johnjsal@gmail.com 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. --johnjsal@gmail.com 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 didn't know this actor. I didn't like their choice of actor. I expected an older actor - someone in his 50's or 60's - because I associate age with wisdom.--Salvora 19:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Richard is so old he may not even remember his birthday any more, all you have to do is not associate the appearance of aging with actually age, so far I think Jacob has gone through so many time loops that he's actually thousands of years old that this point, and if your gonna depict some one who hasn't been aging 30s - 40s is as good an age as any. Besides who would want to become ageless at 60, lol would that ever suck. --WhyDidntUKnow 21:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Guys, all of this belongs on a blog somewhere; it has nothing to do with improving the LP page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Bloopers??
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)
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. --johnjsal@gmail.com 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. --johnjsal@gmail.com 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 leg.--johnjsal@gmail.com 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))
How did 'Jacob's enemy' know that Ben had murdered Locke? If it wasn't really Locke who awoke on the island how would he know about what happened off the island?Holstar 12:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Once Jacob's Enemy gained control of Locke's duplicate body, he also seemed to gain a copy of his memories. --WhyDidntUKnow 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Flashbacks
someone should put the flashbacks in order
Kate
Sawyer
Sayid
Illana
Locke
Sun & Jin
Jack
Juliet
Hurley
You know you can edit the page yourself, right?--johnjsal@gmail.com 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)
Yes, this is method we use. We order them (as best we can deduce) in chronological order. I'm also not sure I agree with that for episode articles, btw, but this would be something to be brought up as a site-wide change, like in Lostpedia:Ideas. -- Graft talk contributions 19:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Now, the order is really messed up. Someone has Ilana as listed very last, right after Juliet's flashback. I don't want to change it back in case this was done for a reason, but it should either be timeline chronological, or in-show chronological, not this random mash-up. Marc604 00:23, 16 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. --johnjsal@gmail.com 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)
It appears to me that the Incident was made less dangerous by the A-bomb trigger but that this IS what always happened. The protocol was established because Change knew that the next time something like this happened they would not be so lucky to have time-travelers from the future available to save them. The magnetism definitely matches what happens when the button isn't pushed, therefore this was the one and only Incident.Asymetric 11:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes that does make sense to me, the only downside being most of our main characters are now dead :/ --Integrated (User / Talk) 12:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Not really. The bomb didn't go off- the core of the bomb that they removed went off. Therefore it wouldn't actually have the force of a hydrogen bomb explosion!--Chocky 00:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Jacob has some sort of connection to the energy beneath the island, and his death is what catalyzes some sort of flare up in that energy, resulting in the Incident. I don't get how an explosion could purge electromagnetism, anyways. Anticrash 00:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. Jacob was alive at the time of the incident and lived for 30 years after it.--Mrmagic522 05:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah. I don't know why I spaced out on the time difference. Nevermind. Anticrash 07:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
These are all really good points, and i still dont know what path it will follow. The bomb was a nuclear device, and faraday knew it should be enough to make a huge explosion and fuse the rock back together, possibly destorying the magnetic material in the process.
What really fustrates me is the fact that it appeared that the swan was completed before the actual incident happened in season 2. You can actually see where the walls were filled in, sealing off part of the station it seemed, it also looked like molten rock had melted out where these walls were sealed. Even more fustrating is that the producers said on the special features on the season 3 DVD that the swan was built for the purpose to control the magnetic energy from getting out of control. I beleive it became a total psychological experiment in the end, as theres no way they would need to manually enter the numbers in to discharge the magnetic field, it could be automated, and besides all of that, DHARMA even had a fail safe key! If they really wanted to prevent another incident, all they have to do was activate the fail safe mechanisn at the time. Anyway i dont know why they had to try and blow up the area with the bomb before the incident happened, they could of snuk in the station say in another year or 2 when the station was complete and turn the fail safe key if they knew where it was, or convince mr Chang that it needs to be destoryed, you have to remember that the incident ended up bringing the people from 815 to the island, which then in time led tothem going back in time, so you could actually say that the incident is partially the crash of 815 itself! Or the swan station being the whole incident, wither way you look at it, the swan station is the whole problem, perhaps they were too scared to turn the fail safe key all those years ago as they thought it may bring the end to mankind, hence leaving it for a real emergency. I also think the original DHARMA fail safe key actually activated a nuclear device of some sort similar to the jughead bomb. Eloise Hawking knows that Faraday is the solution to correct the future. that is why she wanted him to go to the island on the freighter. lets wait and see in season 6 anyway.-- Nzoomed talk contributions 23:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
In Orientation, Chang said The Swan was originally constructed as laboratory where scientist could work to understand the unique electromagnetism and blabla.... My point is actually what kind of laboratory need the drilling like 100m deep into the ground? But well they seem to have the habit to construct a station underground (The Pearl, The Orchid etc.) But they don't really seem to build a lab there and now after the incident it looks like the reason they build the swan is to keep discharge the electromagnetic energy by sealing it off with high amount of concrete and press the button every 108 min.--IceCrash 03:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
When Desmond turned the failsafe key the Swan was still destroyed and there was a flash that disabled much of the communication systems on the island (the Flame no longer worked because of the flash). A don't say it was because the Looking Glass was jamming the station because the Flame had been used for communications even after the Looking Glass had "flooded" and ceased working when the Swan flashed that light. Dr. Chang also said that communication systems were "inoperable" which means they no longer operated not that they were jammed. So I don't think the Dharma Initiative wanted to disable all their stations by turning the failsafe key, that's why it's a failsafe key, it's to be used only in the most dire circumstances. --Gorbeh 18:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Characters
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)
Isn't she the customer inKate's flashback, talking to the store manager?--Mistertrouble189 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought she was the woman who said call 911 in Locke's flashback. --Gluphokquen Gunih▲ 13:23, 20 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)
Yes, it was this i meant in my statement.--Acolyt3 21:30, 17 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)
I think "Mock Locke" has a ring to it :) --Integrated (User / Talk) 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Mock Locke. I like it. --Mrmagic522 15:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
He should be referred to as Locke. He may be under the influence of Jacob's enemy, but it's still Locke. Yes, Locke's corpse is in the box as well... there are two Lockes, just like there were two of the same rabbits in the Orchid video. Twalls 13:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
No. This definitely isn't Locke (be it under some evil influence). They made it pretty clear through his conversation with Jacob that this is Jacob's enemy (the MIB). He is simply taking the form of Locke's body and knows what Locke knows because he has "looked into his soul". --Mrmagic522 15:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. This isn't Locke. Locke has always been dead. dposse 15:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Impostor Locke is as much the real Locke as Ghost-Christian is the real Christian. Locke may have certain physical capabilities that Christian does not, but the same principle applies. I'm sure Christian's body is stuck in a tree or floating in the ocean somewhere, just as Locke's body is in the box, and yet he still shows himself on the island as an intangible entity as does Locke, who appears in a more tangible capacity. I'm sure the details of this will be revealed when we find out what the 'loophole' is. Anticrash 07:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that he is not Locke is only revealed at the end. It's the main twist in this episode. Therefore, no, he should be referred as Locke until the revelation that he is not occurs.--Salvora 19:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It's fine by me if it says Locke in the article, but it should probably link to Jacob's enemy, as that's who it really is. --Gluphokquen Gunih▲ 13:22, 20 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 .... superwesmantalkblogcontributions 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)
They got a faceful of dynamite, remember?--Steeletalkcontribs 18:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
ah, right - SOME of the others got blown up - I had forgotten about that - thanks superwesmantalkblogcontributions 20:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
why would you have dynamite on a slave ship, that just came to me?Omggivemaafningusername 19:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Mining ship -- see Exodus in S1 Spiral77 22:11, 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)
He also speaks BE during the Jughead scene in the cavern. Twalls 13:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It's too short to be interpreted either way. It could be Iraqi-English as well as British. Acolyt3 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a semantic point; Sayid's English is rather impeccable as it stands. Given his background as an Iraqi, as has already been mentioned, we have no clue what sort of accent would develop in his voice. *chuckles* And least he does pronounce the h's in where, and what, as Ben tends to do. TheEndingDay 15:29, 22 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 Stell 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 (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T22:51:04.
Great point. Sounds logical to me.--Mrmagic522 04:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
um, they were in Horace's house in this episode but were there his uniforms in "Shape of Things to Come?" Also, doesn't Ben enter the passageway from another room that's not in the basement but rather the first floor behind the bookcase in the living room?Asymetric 11:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Answering the original question of whether or not they make the entrace in which Ben uses to summon the smoke monster, "assuming" it's the same house....... No. The entrance to the secret room was from the 1st floor. In this episode, they knocked out the wall in the house's basement and went up the stairs. But, I do believe that they are connected somehow, but that isn't the same location in the house. NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I recall Ben entering the secret room on the first floor that revealed some stairs that led down to the tunnel. But that's just me, I don't know for sure. Anticrash 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
How did Dharma even manage to build this basement, without stumbling onto the tunnels? Sithboy 21:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ben doesn't need to go downstairs to summon the monster. He just pulls the book shelf, and press a button on a hidden room. Then a hole appears and he crawls... there's no stairs... And I don't think Ben took over Horace's house... --Zico714 16:06, 3 August 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)
Yeah it sounds a little messed up to suggest she would kill everyone else to save herself suffering.Asymetric 11:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we should just report her actions and not what may or may not be the emotions behind them. --Outpost road 14:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That's really the main point I was trying to make with this. We can't possibly recount all the emotions that characters are feeling, even if they are obvious. --KevinS6 16:19, 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 Stell me 07:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Those questions are what Lostpedia is for.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asymetric (talk • contribs) .
Keep. It's the question we get to deal with for the next nine months.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, UAQ should only be used for "Why", "What" and "When". Only about things we do not know if we will know in the next episode or not.--Acolyt3 21:32, 17 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)
I guess it was explained but some angry thought police removed it; in my opinion people like that she be banned from this site, not people who come up with creative theories.Asymetric 11:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Asymetric, let me start by saying I didn't delete this theory, and I've never read it so I can't guess on the reason it was deleted. As someone who edits, I can say that according to the theory policy, there must be evidence to back up theories posted on any items Theory page. (ex: The Incident Theory page) If there is no evidence then it can still be discussed, but on the Talk page for that theory. Otherwise, creativity could spew for so much un-substantiated gibberish that it would be hard to move through the actual theories. The Richard is an android train of thought isn't a theory but pure speculation based on the fact that he doesn't age. That shouldn't be on a Theory page due to no evidence. If the Black Swan Theory you speak of had any real evidence to back it up, then you are correct and it shouldn't be deleted. Hope this helps. NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 12:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, this isn't a site for any creative works, this is a site of collating and transcribing information from a show that we all love to pieces, as well as discussing and theorising on that show. The theorising must be kept to theory pages, anything on the main page must be cold hard fact. Otherwise we wouldn't be an encyclopaedia we would be a.. graffiti wall. --Integrated (User / Talk) 12:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The original poster, as any editor, has the right to create a Fanon page and see who salutes, but it doesn't go here.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Guys, the Black Swan theory isn't a fan made theory, it's an actual philosophical theory about unexpected events ("since all swans are white..."). dposse 15:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought cultural references had to be direct/straightforward. Unless the writers of the show deliberately mention something in the episode (like Homer), or make mention of something later in an interview, etc., I think it shouldn't be included as a cultural reference. Lorite 21:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Laws of Thermodynamics blooper
"Daniel Faraday talks about "destroying energy", which contradicts with the first law of thermodynamics: "...the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. (...) The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form (...). "
I'm pretty sure Faraday didn't talk about anything in this episode, given the fact that he's dead. This scene might've come up in the "previously on Lost" section (I don't quite remember), but if so, wouldn't this blooper belong on the page for The Variable, not here? Rawr? 17:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
i think he means daniels notes. i didnt catch that.Omggivemaafningusername 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Daniel may not know what he's talking about; some of the other '77-ers regard him as a crazy person. Miles: "He's on an all new level." Also this is an island that has miraculous healing powers, where turning a wheel can shift the Island in time & space, etc.
Also the Swan had a failsafe designed - presumably per Kelvin - to destroy the energy pocket. Spiral77 23:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Editing Navs
How do you edit Nav's like for Jacob...other characters like Young Tom appeared in his flashback.--Redsoxfaneb 18:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
New Dharma Logo?
In the scene of Rose and Bernard's camp there is a logo that appears to be like the regular ones but has a kind of swirl through it. It doesn't appear to be the Swan logo. It's on the can farthest to the left.
I just saw this part in the episode and uploaded a better version in 720p.--Blopa 00:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Any idea what it is? I mean it kind of has the same shape as the Swan logo but it's in the opposite direction and there's no body. And if this is 1977 I don't think there'd be Swan food yet. What do people think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gorbeh (talk • contribs) 2009-05-15T22:07:21.
Is this bit of latin used anyone else besides LOST? I mean, what was the original use for it? Was it used in religious ceremonies, on graves...what? dposse 20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Los Angeles intersection
The establishing shot for Sayid and Nadia's flashback showed the same intersection as the establishing shot for Kate's meeting with the lawyer in "The Little Prince" - except it's inverted left-to-right. [3][4] If someone wants to edit together an image of both the shots, we could include it in trivia. I don't have access to an image editing program currently. -- Graft talk contributions 00:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Good catch! And before Sayid's flashback, the word "ONLY" in the left turn only lane is backwards, proving it's the same shot only inverted. I think they filmed Sayid's flashback in a different location from the overhead shot though. The overhead shot shows a one-way street, and the street sign on the street they are crossing says Brea Ave. But I don't think Brea Ave intersects any one-ways. But that only goes to show that the intentionally showed this bird's-eye view to show that it's the same intersection as in Kates FB.--Mrmagic522 05:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Too much of a good thing?
I don't think we need a picture from every flashback, or we could use more text per image, the big gaps in the text make the article look poorly planned/laid out.-- Roobydo talkcontribs 11:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to use images for some characters and neglect others. Besides, the episode itself was so concentrating on the scenes where Jacob purposefully touches every one of the losties he has visited, so we could say we're following the episode's technique of telling their stories. We also cannot simply "use more text" for the mere purpose of filling white space gaps between images. These white spaces are caused because of using the {{brclear}} template. I suggest removing some to allow more engaging text flow. Just my 0.2 cents. — Iimitk T C 15:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the spacing issues. Not sure I like what it did to the code (images are now placed before the titles of their corresponding sections), but it looks a lot better now. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 02:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Man in the box
So.. Locke was in the box.. and ... what was Locke's job before the island? He worked in a box factory. Significance? ;) Luminifer 15:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope --Integrated (User / Talk) 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
No. Corpses are usually put in boxes, no matter what the person used to do in live. --Salvora 19:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Technically it was a cardboard manufacturer, which primarily made boxes ;-) --LOST-Frink 06:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Well one of Locke's nicknames was "Box-man" and now for 3 season finales in a row he has been the man in the box.--Sentient nebula 03:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
For all season finales, if you think of the hatch as a box. Kind of. :) Luminifer 04:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Sawyer looks at Kate
Cindy.
I think this would be worth mentioning in the article summary since it's the driving force for Juliet changing her mind about the hyrdrogen bomb. We clearly see Sawyer look at Kate when Bernard says "we just care about being together... that's all that matters in the end." After this, Juliet has that uneasy/sad look on her face. I'm pretty sure Bernard noticed, and offered her tea. -- CTS Talk Contribs 17:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone notice that Juliet after Bernard offered her tea, was putting her hand on her stomach? Maybe she was pregnant with Sawyer's baby and didn't want to have a baby from someone who actually cares about another woman. — Iimitk T C 18:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't, but thanks for pointing it out. It's a interesting development. I wouldn't be surprised that was the case. Juliet also seems to be very sad when she looks back at the submarine going away. Maybe she knows she is pregnant and thinks that the only way for her (and the baby) to survive is to leave the island?--Salvora 19:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Since when does touching your stomach mean you're pregnant? I thought she just rubbing her tummy like "mmm tea that sounds tasty" --Integrated (User / Talk) 03:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it's well-known that when a pregnant woman feels insecure about besetting circumstances, she instinctively puts her hand on her stomach as an unconscious attempt of being protective of her child. This is why some people assumed that Cindy Chandler was pregnant. Anyway, I wasn't imposing that Juliet is definitely pregnant. Actually rewatching the scene, Juliet was putting a gun under her tummy all the time, something I wouldn't say a pregnant woman would feel right about doing. — Iimitk T C 10:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd buy it either way (Juliet pregnant or not), but a female friend of mine did scream Juliet's pregnant when she saw her hold her stomach in the finale. So I will agree that the stomach holding thing is a frequent action of worried pregnant women. --Gluphokquen Gunih▲ 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess it's a moot point unfortunately, given she was decimated by the H-bomb :( --Integrated (User / Talk) 15:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
it's a common actors/directors subtle cue to the audience. In Cindy's case though she is probably just trying to be modest and keep her blouse tucked in. Also, did anyone not notice the giant gun in her pants that was ready to fall out any moment?--Lucky Day 06:38, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
Template
How come the template at the top is weird on this article? Same goes for Follow the Leader, but it seems fine on the other articles for season five? Mikay 22:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. It's been drained of color, and now I have to click "show" in order to see all the episode titles. Hmmm.... Marc604 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Jin & Sun
Was this the first time that Jin and Sun were in the same scene since the finale in season 4? Millergd2420 02:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Well they were seen in reused footage from said finale in the first episode....... so not really--Integrated (User / Talk) 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is the first time Daniel Dae Kim and Yunjin Kim acted together in Season Five. Marc604 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Jacob's Enemy and John Locke
I've posted objections to the talk page of the entry Jacob's Enemy to the assertion that it's been "confirmed" and "obvious" that
1. Titus Welliver's character is Jacob's Enemy
2. This character can change his shape
3. This character has changed his shape into John Locke and stolen all his memories
4. Jacob recognizes Locke as his Enemy the same character who he knew over 100 years before.
I feel like there's no debate on this issue. Everywhere I go no one is seriously questioning the logic behind these assertions based either the contents of the episode or the progression of the narrative and characters. If someone can logically use evidence from the show to back up these claims I would appreciate a good response to my objections that uses complete sentences and thoughts and does not use the word "obvious". Thanks. Mister vijay 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
What are you suggesting instead? Do you have another theory? The 4 things you listed are all revealed in this episode through the dialogue. --Mrmagic522 16:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we don't have a certain definition of 'evidence'. So it's a very relative issue that if any information provides a certain evidence or not. But if we expect evidences like in the trials, there'll be no certain information on this site, we'll only see theories and speculations. I remember that i wasn't sure about if Faraday's mother was really Eloise. Because it hadn't been confirmed by neither Eloise, nor Daniel. But actually all the information was referring it was true. So mine was just speculation. In this case we have more certain evidences, but you don't find them satisfying. It can be, but in my humble opinion we should analyze our current knowledge better, and we shouldn't wait for them to tell every detail on the show very very clearly.
I can't imagine a scene where Jacob turns, looks at us and says: "Hello. I'm Jacob. And this is my enemy. I won't tell his name yet, but he's evil. He appears in John Locke's form, but actually John Locke is dead. His corpse is outside. This is not John Locke. 'What about you?...Argghhh...They're coming!...'" I'm sorry, there's not an evidence we can all agree on it, but all the information we have points the grim reality.--Paintbox 17:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that everything is potentially unverifiable. There are things established in the show that not only make logical sense but are asserted by different characters in different episodes. I was going to respond to the dialogue slowly but the page blocked me from updating because it was updated already. Anyways, one major point was that Titus's character talks about "them" meaning "outsiders" who bring fighting, corruption and destruction to the Island. These are negative, "evil" things that he is against. Why again is he "evil" when he is against these things? Also, again I bring you back to the logical fallacy of assuming because two people are searching for the same goals or objectives that they are the same person. But that is not the extend of my objections. I can not only cite multiple charcters, episodes and story arcs that contradict this premise but my gut tells me that if the theories and assertions based on these premises were true this wouldn't create the kind of complex story telling I've seen evidenced in this show for a variety of reasons.Mister vijay 17:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with this assertion of lack of evidence. Before this, everyone was sure that that cabin was Jacob's, and that Christian spoke for Jacob. So, going forward, maybe we should be more cautious. Luminifer 05:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The wiki should present information as it's presented to us at the time. If that information later turns out to be misleading or false, we can always change it. Looking back, I don't regret listing that Christian spoke for Jacob, because that's what we were meant to believe. If that turns out to now be wrong, we'll change it, but the important thing in a narrative is to go with the narrative, not second guess it at every turn. Similarly, I don't regret listing Naomi as "deceased" after season 3, etc. Some skepticism is healthy, but if you start questioning literally everything that happens on the show, then there will never be any answers for you. Thus, now, since we've been presented with two characters (Fake Locke and Jacob's enemy) that have been presented as having a connection between them, which has been presented as Jacob's enemy in the form of Locke, then that's how the information should be presented on the wiki. If you look at everything that happens on the show as "well, we don't know that for sure", then I can't imagine how you possibly enjoy the slow drawing back of the curtain, so to speak. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 06:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
At this point, though, it is much hard to believe everything at its face value - having that knowledge is part of the "information as presented to us at the time", so I think we should edit the guide accordingly. All of this pondering actually, for me, makes the show more enjoyable, not less. Luminifer 04:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Black Swan
The rule for cultural references is "DIRECT REFERENCES ONLY". The words "black swan" are never mentioned in this (or any) Lost episode. So no matter how much some people think it's a reference (and it may be, although personally I don't think so) it's not a DIRECT reference and should be deleted as it's not a DIRECT reference and thus violates the rule.--Faraday100 22:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Umm --- The Black Swan non-reference is still there (and still not a direct reference). Should I remove this myself or will an administrator take care of it?--Faraday100 16:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
You can remove it yourself, since the case seems to have been made it that it is not a direct cultural reference. --LOSTinDC 20:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Done and done.--Faraday100 20:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Macbeth direct quote
Hi folks. Newbie here, but logged on to point out something I can't find referenced anywhere. Hope I haven't missed anything. Sawyer's oft repeated "What's done is done" is verbatim in Shakespeare's Macbeth. Lady Macbeth says it in Act III Scene 2, and she has a parallel line in Act V Scene 1: "What’s done cannot be undone"
Mainly wanted to bring that to attention, but going back through the play conjures some interesting possible similarities to "The Incident" considering the Duncan was stabbed and killed to be usurped, like Jacob maybe is. Take these lines from Macbeth having doubts about killing the king (Act I Scene 7): "If it were done when ‘tis done … But here upon this bank and shoal of time, We’d jump the life to come" --GretelNick 04:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Methinks you misuse the words "direct" and "verbatim"... Robert K Stell me 15:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Where's Locke's Coffin?
How did Locke get out of his coffin and into the "box"? Can anyone enlighten me? --Mrmagic522 15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Illana tells Richard they found the body in the cargo hold. I believe the implication is that on impact, the body spilled out of the coffin, and Illana and her team transferred it into the metal crate for easier transport.--Faraday100 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Ilana said they found him in the cargo hold, "in a coffin". So maybe they just put him in the cargo hold and dump the coffin.--IceCrash 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think there is more to the box then, it is easier to transport him that way. Seems like a big bulky box isn't the easiest way to move him. Maybe wrap his body like Locke did to Cooper and then take turns carrying him. I know, I'm not there to help them with that decision, but I think there's more to it. NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If I were trying to move a body, I wouldn't put it in a box big enough to hold ten bodies; I'd get or make a litter. The only real purpose of the box is theatrical --to conceal the contents through its size.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Jim, I totally agree the main purpose is theatrical. Nevergiveup, I totally disagree... putting the body in a box that holds it in place and lets multiple people lift at once is way, way, way easier than wrapping it up and taking turns lugging it around. If you doubt this, try carrying a full grown man's limp body over your shoulder (in real life I seriously doubt Locke could have carried Cooper very far at all).--Faraday100 02:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Flashback characters in infobox
The infobox is pretty dang long for this episode, with all the flashback characters, guest stars, and co-stars. I had previously changed the listing of the flashback characters in the infobox to not have breaks, in order to conserve vertical space (see the result here), but that was reverted. I think that even though we usually have the breaks in there for other episodes, it's better in this case to keep the infobox not so huge. What do you guys think? -- Graft talk contributions 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea to me. Especially, where the flashback characters are listed without the actor/actress' name. NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks silly when you compare with other multi-centric episodes' infoboxes (Exodus, just to name one) ... Who cares if it's long ? We're not using paper. --LeoChris 18:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Who cares if it's long? It's not paper. --Golden Monkey 15:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Jacob's Loom
Under the Jacob section of unanswered question it asks: "What does it say on the wall above Jacob's loom?" However, I believe the writing above the loom is the quote from the Odyssey already translated in the cultural references section... was there another quote? If not, this question is answered and should be removed. --Faraday100 20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you're right about the top quotation as well as the middle one. There is, however, a partially obscured line of Greek text at the bottom. The one hasn't been translated.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
These have been translated in the enhanced version and are displayed in the trivia section.--Lucky Day 06:35, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
Not A Pisces Not An Error
Ben is a compulsive liar, of course he was lying when he said he was a Pisces. This is not a mistake, it is just his character. --Robbie 02:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, we might as well call his comment about his mother teaching him to read an error. Ben would lie about what he had for breakfast if he thought it would benefit him down the road. ShadowUltra 20:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Or even if it wouldn't benefit him - after all, practice makes perfect! Luminifer 05:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
"So I lied.. that's what I do"--Integrated (User / Talk) 03:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. It was probably an error. That said though, I don't think it's noteworthy. Probably on the same level as Charlotte's age. I can't blame the guys for this simple screw up. --Uncertainty 13:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it was a lie, more a joke. Similar to "my mother taught me" which wasn't meant to be deceptive, just humorous. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 03:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
broadcast
was "The Incident" aired in the US as two seperate episodes or one long one? In Ireland RTÉ 2 aired it as one long one (no credits after part 1), as they did with the season 3 and 4 finales. However in the UK Sky aired it as two seperate episodes (complete with ending credits after part 1, "previously on Lost" at the beginning of part 2, etc...) might be worth noting Niall88 18:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 22 May 2009.
Rose & Bernard
When watching this episode on RTE 2 (Irish station), there was definetly a few lines in which Sawyer mentions that he had Jin out looking for Rose and Bernard, and how he could have got them into the Dharma Iniative. However, on watching the episode again on Sky (UK station), it seems as though this scene was not included. Maybe I just missed it but can anyone confirm if it was in the original broadcast? Niall88 19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It was in the original broadcast in America. It is on my downloaded version. However I did notice it was taken out of the episode on Sky1. Sky also swapped a lot of scenes around in order to split it into two separate episodes. Such as removing the "previously on Lost" from the start of Part 1, and changing the order of the flashbacks. Hurley's flashback was the last one in the US version, but on Sky Locke's was last. Also, Locke and Richard arriving at the statue was aired half way through Part 2 on Sky, whereas in America it was aired around the 43 minute mark, which should be the very start of Part 2. I have a feeling Sky actually aired the DVD version of the episodes (they get split on the DVD), since I know they do swap a few scenes around on the DVD version of finales because Season 4 was slightly altered. You can find the Rose and Bernard scene on Youtube if you look (if it hasn't been removed since I last looked).--Baker1000 19:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Always best to watch the US aired version I think, they seem to wanna change things when it goes overseas.--Integrated (User / Talk) 05:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
16th Episode? 16th and 17th.
The article states ""The Incident, Parts 1 & 2" is the 16th episode of Season 5 of Lost". Should it be changed to ""The Incident, Parts 1 & 2" is the 16th and 17th episodes of Season 5 of Lost", since Season 5 was meant to have 17 episode like season 6 will.--Joshm1995 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hindu Myth
I accidentally posted this on the Season 5 discussion page, but it is really more apt to this finale episode, so I am reposting here:
Joseph Campbell's "Myths to Live By" (Penguin-Compass edition) on page 19 says:
"... but as an orthodox Hindu I cannot believe that there is anything in the universe earlier than the Vedas." And he meant that. "Okay," said I. "Then why did you ask?" To give old India, however, its due, let me conclude with the fragment of a Hindu myth that to me seems to have captured in a particularly apt image the whole sense of such a moment as we today are all facing at this critical juncture of our general human history. It tells of a time at the very start of the history of the universe when the gods and their chief enemies, the anti-gods, were engaged in one of their eternal wars. They decided this time to conclude a truce and in cooperation to churn the Milky Ocean--the Universal Sea--for its butter of immortality. They took for their churning-spindle the Cosmic Mountain (the Vedic counterpart of Dante's Mountain of Purgatory), and for a twirling-cord they wrapped the Cosmic Serpent around it. Then, with the gods all pulling at the head end and the anti-gods at the tail, they caused that Cosmic Mountain to whirl. And they had been churning thus for a thousand years when a great black cloud of absolutely poisonous smoke came up out of the waters, and the churning had to stop. They had broken through to an unprecedented source of power, and what they were experiencing first were its negative, lethal effects. If the work were to continue, some one of them was going to have to swallow and absorb that poisonous cloud, and, as all knew, there was but one who would be capable of such an act; namely, the archetypal god of yoga, Shiva, a frightening, daemonic figure. He just took that entire poison cloud into his begging bowl and at one gulp drank it down, holding it by yoga at the level of his throat, where it turned the whole throat blue; and he has been known as Blue Throat, Nilakantha, ever since. Then, when that wonderful deed had been accomplished, all the other gods and the anti-gods returned to their common labor. And they churned and they hurned and they went right on tirelessly churning, until lo! a number of wonderful benefits began coming up out of the Cosmic Sea; the moon, the sun, an elephant with eight trunks came up, a glorious steed, certain medicines, and yes, at last! a great radiant vessel filled with the ambrosial butter. This old Indian myth I offer as a parable for our world today, as an exhortation to press on with the work, beyond fear.
I would suggest the gods and anti-gods represented by Jacob and Jacob's Enemy, or by Ben and Widmore, one of their eternal wars to the approaching war widmore referred to. The Ocean and Cosmic Mountain remind me of the Island itself. The pulling on the serpent causing the mountain to spin reminds me of the donkey wheel, but also of the drilling that Dharma was doing at the Swan station. The black cloud of absolutely poisonous smoke is "smokey." The "unprecedented source of power" is what Dr. Pierre Chang was warning them not to drill into. Its negative, lethal effects which had to be experienced first were things like the childbirth problems. The one who was capable of swallowing the smoke could refer to an individual such as John Locke who could confront the smoke and live, turning the throat blue, to his hanging? After this period of negative effects, positive effects come forth, the "certain medicines" refer to the Island's healing powers, an elephant with eight trunks reminds me of the eight I Ching trigrams on the Dharma Logos. This is ripe with possibilities. I wonder what Campbell's source material is? I don't know if this qualifies as a theory, because it's just a connection to an outside source (albeit a very deep one). So, I humbly submit it for your consideration. Jeffd1830 02:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
UQ Section
Someone keeps changing the "Unanswered Questions" section back to the way they want it without discussing it. I keep changing it back to the way it has been determined via the UQ section of this talk page. But someone keeps changing it back, and they need to stop.
Why did Jacob choose to visit each person at these particular moments of their lives?...Someone keeps changing it to "Why did Jacob choose to visit each person at pivotal moments of their lives?" Although it has been agreed upon that they are not all pivotal moments (Hurley, Kate, Jack). Please stop changing this!
What is Jacob trying to prove his enemy wrong about?... This is one of the major mysteries brought up by the first scene. Stop deleting that question without permission!--Mrmagic522 04:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The ships, "Black Rock" irritation
Can anyone describe the three ships (The wrecked Black Rock, the ship off the coast and the ship in the bottle) in terms of estimated size, rigging and other nautical "stuff?"--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I've been wondering the same thing. My main concern is that a lot of people are assuming that the ship in the beginning is the Black Rock or a ship from the 1800s. While this may end up being the case we don't know for sure yet. So if someone has any expertise on the time period of those ships it would be greatly appreciated. --Uncertainty 02:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to do an approach in the "Black Rock Theories" section. Given the uncertainty whether the "Black Rock" in the beginning of "The Incident" is actually the ship that ends up shipwrecked on the island or merely a ship which happens to bear the same name, I've just made several alterations.
QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION: At this point I'm not quite sure about the Lostpedia policy:
Do we just describe an episode with the objective information we can derive from that particular episode (i.e. "The Incident" shows us an unknown ship off-shore) at the time it was broadcasted?
Or do we rewrite the original episode storylines and pimp these up with information we receive at a later time.
In a few weeks the show is going to be over and I wonder what will happen with LOSTPEDIA. It will only serve the function of an archive (worthwhile revisiting) if the "evolution" of information / knowledge can be retraced.
Rewriting episode storylines because of new information makes this practically impossible.
I'd also like to point out that for the long-lasting function of an archive it's equally counter-productive just to erase all the wild, good and mind-boggling theories. They are part of the LOST Legacy and should get a decent burial on that website and not just be "burned". --SokratesOne 08:37, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
"Ille" in Latin
In the main page, someone has added "a more accurate translation" of the sentence.
It says that "Ille" does not necessarily refers to a person.
This is wrong.
"Ille" is a masculine pronoun. Latin has three genders, masculine, feminine, and neutral, with living beings generally having the same gender as in reality. True, inanimate objects can have any of the three genders, so there may be a "masculine" object. However, Latin uses masculine terms for "generic people" and neutral terms for "generic objects."
The answer by Richard is a sentence is out of context: no masculine name (neither object nor person) was pronounced before. Thus, "Ille" is perfectly equivalent to English "He" and is necessarily a person. If an object was meant (does not matter if the gender of the object is masculine, feminine or neutral), the sentence would have been different ("Illud quod nos omnes..." or "Quid nos omnes...").
Hence, what said in the tab-comment in the main page is wrong, the first row got it right. "Ille" is a person and the translation "He who will save us all" is appropriate.
"He who will save us all" is the intended translation according to the enhance version. Lucky Day 06:33, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
The Goodspeeds are not at home
I'm not sure why this is here, but could someone please do something about it. It appears to me that it's either someone being random or some kinda message.
Whatever it is, I don't think it belongs here.
"Afterward, he leaves Sayid and Jack on their own. The Goodspeeds are not at home. There is a lot of activity at the Barracks and Jack wonders how they'll get to the Swan."
Actually, I'll just do it myself ;)
00iddy 04:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Other than the awkward phrasing, I'm not sure what the problem with this was ... ? Luminifer 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The original phrasing didn't point out the significance of the Goodspeeds' absence: It allowed Sayid to steal one of Horace's jumpsuits.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Pointless Trivia..
Such as "this is the third time Sawyer is seen crying" and "Sun asks Richard Alpert if he has any alcohol for her to drink, which is ironic since the actress Yunjin Kim does not drink any alcohol because she suffers from a common genetic disorder known as alcohol flush reaction, which is often referred to as "Asian red"". Come on people. That's just...pointless. Especially the Yunjin Kim one; how is this relevant to the episode? I would remove it myself but I want to see if anyone else agrees with me. --Golden Monkey 15:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Bloopers & continuity errors also has some stretches such as the time of Locke's fall being unrealistic. Rather a high bar here for a show with time travel, polar bears in tropical climates, people who can change shape, etc. Spiral77 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It might -- might -- work as trivia on Yunjin Kim's page, but it doesn't belong on the episode page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the item. Whether an actor does or does not or can or can not drink alcohol does not apply to the actions of a character.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, that's why it's called "trivia". Why is this so unusual? When sections on this site debate whether someone is good or bad based on the color of their shirts/shoelaces/hairstyles. Tdstom 13:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Great. Put it on Yunjin Kim's page, but it has nothing to do with the character or the episode. I'm pretty sure no one drinks alcohol during filming. After repeated takes, they'd start to get drunk.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It has been noted in Trivia that the items given back to Hurley by the security guard resemble those given by Jacob: money to Kate, pen to Sawyer, candy to Jack. This seems a bit of a coincidental stretch to me for a number of reasons. Jacob gave money to the storekeeper, not Kate, for the lunchbox; one could argue he gave her a lunchbox not money. Jack had already paid for the Apollo Bar; he'd given up and Jacob was just giving it back to him. A fruit-rollup is more of a snack than candy. Jacob also gave a blessing to Sun/Jin, directions to Sayid (ostensibly saving his life) and presumably healed Locke -- so there is no significant correlation here. Spiral77 17:50, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
Okay, while this may be a case of coincidence and over-analysis by LP-ers, there are a few points to be raised here. First of all, this is all happening to Hurley, who was proven throughout the series to have a special status (like Locke or Desmond). From being the one to most publicly use an Island item, the Numbers, winning the lottery, to seeing "Jacob" and the cabin, to getting special abilities (without direct exposure to anything, unlike Desmond). In this very episode, Jacob spends more time with him than any other Lostie, and only talks to Hurley about the Island. If it was any other character, I would seriously doubt this being intentional, but it being a Hurley scene, the chances are significantly raised. Secondly, the three items are the physical representations, so I don't see the problem in that. As you said, Jacob gave his blessing to the Kwons, healed Locke, and, actually, stopped Sayid; there's no items really dominating any of these scenes, save from the map Jacob is holding if you want to go into details. And, although I didn't want to over-analyse as well, Jacob payed for the lunchbox, so essentially he gave Kate the money that she didn't have. On the other hand, Jack bought the candy, but couldn't get to it; Jacob just returned the candy. I could be painting the target around the arrow here, but it just looks intentional to me. Bwanartalk|contrib 19:46, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
Juliet and "Sawyer"
Just a random thing I noticed whilst watching The Incident again, but when Juliet is being dragged down by chains down the hole, she cries out for "Sawyer". Not James, not Jim, not even LaFleur. Considering he hasn't used that nickname for three years, and Juliet presumably calls him James (she has been calling him James most of the time since they first met in 2004 and then continues to in 1977), anyone else find this odd? Understandable if Jack or Kate calls him Sawyer, since he used that nickname before they left in 2004. But for Juliet, is this blooper worthy? Phobia27 16:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it's an expression of affection. Juliet's a very guarded person who doesn't betray her emotions very often but in a moment of panic she drops all that and cries out for the man she loves in the name she doesn't typically use. At least that's how I take it. Certainly not a blooper, imo. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 18:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it Juliet or Kate who cries out for Sawyer twice? It sounds like Kate's voice to me. --Paintbox 15:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The transcript has Juliet calling Sawyer "James" just before she slips away from him.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair point Jimbo I guess. And yeah, I did question whether it was Juliet or Kate screaming for Sawyer, but it definitely sounds like Juliet, in my opinion, and the transcript also has Juliet saying Sawyer. Juliet does call Sawyer 'James', just when she is about to let go of him, however, when she is being dragged down and Sawyer is looking at Phils dead body, I believe she calls him 'Sawyer' twice. Phobia27 20:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Acceleration as a blooper
We need a thread on this.
The amount of time in Locke's fall is NOT worthy of comment; TPTB are faced with getting content into the allotted time.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Remove it. There is no television show out there which is going to calculate the appropriate amount of time a fall should take. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 02:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Remove it!!! It is completely irrelevant if Locke's fall took half second more than it should... and it doesn't have accurate data to begin with... the calculations are done using as a base of calculation the height of an average 8-story-building. But who said that the building Locke fell from has the same measures from other buildings? Delete it! --Zico714 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Who has the time to sit there and calculate how long the fall took and how fast it should have been. Now go down to the next post.--BenKilledDharma 15:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Juliet as the Variable
Sorry i made a new topic for this, but couldn't find where to put it.
Another possible hint to the fact that juliet is the variable, that succeeded in changing time where they had failed before is that All of the losties, everyone that Jacob touched is wearing Dharma, whereas Juliet is wearing a bright pink T shirt. It seems irrelevant, but stood out to me.
Paradox?
If the losties go back in time to change the past/present/future it would be a paradox because if they never crash they never have the motive to change everything with the nuke which just further supports "whatever happened happened"
Pure and Simple
The EP's have said that this season is about answers and not questions. It is going to wrap things up and nothing will be confusing. So if it makes your brain hurt its wrong.
--BenKilledDharma 14:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Kate changes her mind about Jack's plan
Currently, the article says that it's unclear why Kate changes her mind. When I re-watch the conversation between Kate and Jack at ~57:00, he tries to convince her that his plan will give Claire the best chance to ultimately be with Aaron. Kate's stated purpose for coming back to the island is to get Claire and bring her back so that Aaron can be with his mother. Has Kate bought into the idea that preventing the Incident will prevent the 815 crash and increase the probability that Aaron will stay with his mother? Does this make sense to anyone else?--TarHeelGuy80 18:45, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
Continuity error?
In "LaFleur," the statue's legs are separated, but in "The Incident," they are close together. Or am I just imagining things? Jinxmchue 19:12, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
That last thing, i can't remember that!--Station7 13:09, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
Juliet the only other
The trivia section says that Juliet is the only flashback character to become an Other, which isn't exactly true as Locke has a flashback too and he becomes an Other. --Orhan94 11:24, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
I agree.This line should be removed. --Paintbox 14:19, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
Blu-Ray Easter Egg
POSSIBLE SPOILERS This is apparently on the Blu-ray as a easter egg and appears to be the original plan for the episode's ending, with a extra scene. But would this count as a spoiler? It's about a previous episode but contains new content. If it isn't, should it be noted as a alternate ending, like the Charles on in LTDA? Golden Monkey 17:17, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but wasn't the 'alternate ending' in LTDA actually shot? This seems like it's just a written sketch for the ending which was later changed for the actual script. I would say it belongs in the Blu-ray easter eggs section and not in the actual episode page. (And for the record, it doesn't seem like much of a spoiler to me. I don't think anyone's doubting that the bomb went off. --Cul-de-zack 17:42, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, LTDA's was shot, but I think it should still be noted here that this ending was considered if never shot. We do include rejected plots here: for instance, "The Brig" was originally gonna have Malkin in it and we mention that there. --Golden Monkey 21:46, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
That's true. "The Brig" does mention Malkin, and this seems like a similar situation. It's a cool Easter Egg, and could probably be put under Production Notes. I'd say if it's a matter of whether or not it's a spoiler, does it matter? Richard Alpert does say, "I watched them all die"--which means that Richard seeing the explosion from the distance isn't necessarily something no one ever considered.
Deleted scene
An other french admin and I noticed that a scene from the finale was deleted in the season 5 boxset. It is the beginning of the scene in wich Rose and Bernard bring Sawyer, Kate and Juliet to their camp (at 28'00'' in the first part of the finale). We'd like to know if it also the case in the region 1 DVD. Thanks in advance! Nico 17:43, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
I've just seen this so I have the answer. Nico 13:54, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there was part of the scene deleted, but the Region 1 DVD kept it. It happens because of the episode split on DVDs with finales. The channel which airs Lost here in the UK aired the split versions, so it is a good thing I downloaded the episode. You can see all of the other changes which were made on the Region 2 DVD in that trivia.--Baker1000 13:59, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
Blooper: The Others unaware...?
How were the Others unaware of the Swan's existence if Juliet mentions in S5 that Desmond was under there saving the world? -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 03:25, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
Not really sure what you're referring to, but Juliet had just spent 3 years and a month with the Losties who had known about the Swan for about 3 years and two months. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 04:37, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
"Sayid mentions the name of The Swan in front of Richard Alpert and Eloise Hawking. The Others, however, appear unaware of the station's existence in 2004." The conversation transcript: MILES: So... what was this thing before you guys blew it up? - JULIET: A DHARMA station - MILES: For what? - JULIET: There was a man named Desmond living down in it. He was pushing a button every 108 minutes to save the world - MILES: Really? - JULIET: Yeah. Really. Juliet said it when they go to the buried and imploded hatch in Because You Left, and it may give us the understanding that they knew about the hatch and about Des. You could be right, cause someone could have told her, but it wasn't shown and we don't know for real if the Others knew about it or if they didn't yet. It would be a THEY KNOW 1x1 THEY DON'T KNOW. And that's the reason why I don't get it as a 100% confirmed blooper or continuity error. -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 05:10, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think I see what you're saying, and I agree that this should not be a blooper. I shall delete it. Another possible explanation is that maybe only some of the Others knew about the Swan. I'm not really sure where the claim that they don't know about it is coming from. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 05:58, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
Obviously Ben and Juliet know about the Swan - in the classic episode Expose, Paulo hides in the toilet and watches those two watching Jack in the Swan on the Pearl's monitors. --Lanpesci 10:46, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Did anybody record the Enhanced version of this episode?
Yeah, I saw it, I'll see what I can do. Is it on Hulu/and/or ABC.com cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 13:36, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
If it is, then there's no issue. We need someone who recorded the show. Anybody? Robert K Stell me 20:42, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
Links to it online here. [5] --Golden Monkey 22:14, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
Correlation between the Bomb and Jacob's Death
I thought this was a little obvious the second time I watched it but no one has mentioned it. I'm surprised I missed it the first time. It was likely due to getting our heads around who Locke is and the intensity of Juliet's death.--Lucky Day 06:44, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
Locke killed Jacob
You know technically Ben only fatally wounded Jacob and Locke killed him by kicking him into the pit of fire. --Taynez6392 13:24, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
backwards flame a blooper?
Something I noticed when this episode first aired, was that the flames in Jacob's pit are seen to burn backwards, in one of the cuts, right before the camera cuts to outside.
I still wonder if that is a blooper or intentional....Iamafractal 01:02, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Regarding my edit: Yes - Jacob touched Ben! See for yourself --->
Look at Ben's elbow! It was hidden in plain sight the whole time! Think about it, in flashbacks of "The Incident, p 1 & 2", our attention is explicitly drawn to the people Jacob touches (Jack, Hurley, etc) and those not touched (Juliet). We didn't notice Jacob touch Ben because it was the only touch that did not occur during a flashback! --Qwerty7412369 07:57, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Main Image change
Main Image needs to be changed. New pic would better symbolize episode.
Out of focus shot, including non-centric character. I would be in favor of changing the image to something more generic, such as a screenshot of the battle at the swan, or Juliet's hand hitting on Jughead, (see precedent set by Exodus) as Jacob isn't the sole centric character for this episode... --LeoChris 23:47, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
Would have to disagree with both of you. The standard is to have an image of the episode's centric character, which is without question Jacob. It's not the same situation as Exodus, which is a great example of a Various-centric episode. Jack, Hurley, Kate, and the rest of the characters all appeared in JACOB'S flashback, not vice-versa. We don't label "Sundown" Jack centric because he appeared in Sayid's flashsidways. But in any case -- it's a Jacob-centric episode and the image should be only Jacob. (Kdc2 00:38, March 22, 2010 (UTC))
Actually, Jacob appeared in everybody's flashbacks, as well as having his own (the first one)... just follow the transitions, they'll focus onto a character, then we'll see his/her flashback. Pretty much the normal procedure, it's also one of the major point why Follow the Leader is considered Richard centric, right? Also, the fact that Juliet has a Jacob-less flashback pretty much proves it is not 100% Jacob centric. But I guess that's not the debate here...--LeoChris 01:23, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
Will you help me? - Option 1
What about you? - Option 2
Well, you found your loophole - Option 3
How about one of these images? I always thought Jacob's head looks kind of weird in the current photo. I prefer option 1 but all 3 are fine. What do you all think? (Kdc2 07:28, March 30, 2010 (UTC))
All three are better than the current which is absolutely HORRIBLE. I like #1 because of the shot but id go w/ loophole because of its symbolism. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 22:26, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
I agree the pencil-neck Jacob pic is lousy. Choice 1 here has nice lighting & a caring face, the other two are okay but would need to have brightness raised. Duncan905 19:02, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Any decent image that features only Jacob is fine by me. Not the one with MiB too. Mhtmghnd 02:47, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
I like Kdc2's option 1.
1867 or...
A recent change is probably well-warranted. We know it was 1867 at the beginning of "Ab Aeterno", but we don't know when in 1867. We don't know how long Richard was in jail, although I suspect "justice" was swift. We don't know how long the Black Rock was at sea before it encountered the Island or in what ocean the encounter took place.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:47, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Parallels between Juliet's action and Desmond's
I'm not sure where exactly it should go, but I think some mention of the parallelism between Desmond and Juliet is warranted.
Juliet's detonating of the bomb and Desmond's pulling the fail-safe in Live Together, Die Alone. In each case, the person is acting in a self-sacrificial manner. In both cases, the desire is to cause an explosive event designed to save the island from a much greater catastrophe. Both occur at the Swan, and both are aimed at neutralizing the electromagnetic energy there. [I further believe both lead to the ability to see glimpses of the future, because I believe the flash-sideways are actually Juliet's visions of the future her action has caused.FireBones 04:46, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Try adding a Juxtaposition entry - "Juliet does x. In 'LTDA' Desmond does y." But Juliet's alone-ness has been covered, and all the survivors at the Swan were risking their lives in the same gamble as Juliet. (Juliet was sacrificing her relationship with Sawyer for his sake) Maybe a phrasing of "this last resort falls to Juliet alone." which mirrors Des. Also caution about declaring the Incident's intention as saving the Island - everyone was intent on preventing 815 from crashing, with no regard to the Island or anyone else living there in 1977. Duncan905 20:30, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Episode References
Removed the following, they don't directly refer to the previous episodes mentioned:
"*Miles asks whether the detonation of Jughead was in fact the incident, much like Sayid shooting the young Ben and Jack refusing to help him led to Ben being the man who tormented them. ("He's Our You") ("Whatever Happened, Happened")"
"*The conversation between Jacob and his enemy is very similar to a conversation between Jack and Locke in season 1. ("Hearts and Minds")"
no direct reference
"*When Frank is shown the contents of the box, he says "terrific," mirroring the way Charlie said it. ("Pilot, Part 1")"
Regularly Spoken Phrase
"*Locke looking through the flames at Jacob dying mirrors Locke looking at his wheelchair through the flames of the burning Flight 815 wreckage. ("Walkabout")"
Coincedence
"*Radzinsky does not believe Pierre is right about what will happen when the pocket of energy is unleashed, just as Locke did not believe Eko about the same subject. ("Live Together, Die Alone, Part 2")"
no direct reference, Locke/Eko didn't argue specifics of the Button
scenes of the Incident don't directly refer to the future actions of Locke & Desmond years later - Button/Failsafe not built at the point of Jughead detonating
"*The Others' funeral garb is similar to Jacob's tunic. ("The Cost of Living") "
"*Frank says "I'm no tree-hugger, but isn't that a good way to torch the island?" while Ilana's groups sets fire to Jacob's cabin. Keamy told Gault they were going to torch the island. ("Cabin Fever")"
"*Sawyer says "What's done is done," in response to Jack when he asks why he didn't stop his father shooting his mother. He said the same to Juliet when she asked him why he didn't approach Kate when he saw her delivering Aaron. ("The Little Prince")"
Regularly Spoken Phrases, covered
"*Kate talking to Jack near the Swan construction site is similar to them speaking near the cockpit about how events seem like a "a million years ago". ("The Beginning of the End")"
Ben doesn't need to go downstairs to summon the monster. He just pulls the book shelf, and press a button on a hidden room. Then a hole appears and he crawls... there's no stairs... And I don't think Ben took over Horace's house... --Zico714 16:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea to me. Especially, where the flashback characters are listed without the actor/actress' name. NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It might -- might -- work as trivia on Yunjin Kim's page, but it doesn't belong on the episode page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
