Talk: The Last Recruit

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

Protect

This page should being protected, like normally.--Station7 06:38, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Note

I think we should add that the preview had Wonka's boat poem.- JustPhil 14:33, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

• I, for one, would like to know WHY they put it in the preview.--Gibbeynator 19:49, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Because There's no way to know which way we're going...--Pittsburghmuggle 01:55, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, that had to be the absolute worst promo in Lost history. And that's saying something. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
  • I disagree, watch this promo of Outlaws and remind yourself of the episode :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1c_ULZoA8g Phobia27 13:53, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • Watched it. It was bad, but its badness was mainly from misdirection (a common flaw with Lost promos). The promo for The Last Recruit, by contrast, was bad from pretty much every perspective imaginable. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
• Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is all about 'candidates' being chosen to become the next Wonka, but eventually they all get picked off one by one and ends up with only one 'candidate' left. Remind you of any other show? ;) Phobia27 13:32, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Correct me if i am wrong but i did not hear the willy wonka poem/song anywhere in the episode. Jdray 02:17, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• The "trippy" trailer was for an episode that aired on 4/20.--Frank J Lapidus 04:50, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Carlton and Damon said they did not choose the music, but thought the promo department did a good job. They were concerned at first, not about the music, but some of the scenes shown, but then said that it was very well put together. And thought the music choice was strangely good and weird/haunting Iamlost23 19:37, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Press Release...

... it's here.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:34, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

The Last Recruit

Who is it? I'm guessing it will be Jack, as Jack will probably be the hardest to convince to join Locke. After the real John Locke convinced Jack so thoroughly in the goodness of the Island, in the idea of destiny, and in fulfilling his purpose, I can't see Jack throwing away all of that. Considering what he's been through to come to this place in his life, he will probably be the least likely to be recruited. The other best possibility is Hurley, as he seems to trust Jacob pretty thoroughly. Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

• Perhaps it's Jin? The Man in Black has everyone he wants in his camp now except Jin, so now he is going to pick up 'his last recruit'. Phobia27 13:29, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
• It's someone whose name ends in "oundelay." In the latest issue of Wired (10.05), there is an interview with Carlton and Damon. In it, they muse about the show's arc and philosophical meanderings--nothing any of us Losties haven't heard already. The opening page of the article shows a photo of Carlton and Damon in their writers' office. Behind them is a whiteboard with all kinds of Lost-related plot notes and other interesting tidbits. On the left side of the whiteboard are a few recent episode names and their respective episode number. Episode 610, "The Package," is shown along with 611; 612, although the number isn't visible but "Everybody Loves Hugo" is. The central character of the next episode, which is already known to be called "The Last Recruit," is "...oundelay." Hmmmmm.... --Oedipus 23:00, April 18, 2010 (UTC)Oedipus
  • That's a spoiler, but from what I've read you're wrong, so it's not a bad spoiler. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 15:18, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • Wow, Oedipus, your knowledge is wonderful! I'll tell all my friends. Marc604 05:56, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm betting it is a character we may not have met as of now. Remember that Jacob wanted Jack and Hurley to turn the lighthouse to 108 degrees. When Hurley tells Jacob that Jack broke the lighthouse mirror, Jacob shrugs and says, "They'll find a way here." I am speculating that 108 is the number of the "Last Rercruit."

Who was the last candidate? Did the episode make it clear? Jdray 02:18, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• After the epsiode is over, I find it hard to believe that Jack is on the MiB's side. I understand that he kinda saved Jack's life but I certainly don't think his idea to do the way of Jacob is going to go away. --Phryrosebdeco23 04:41, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Going by the conventions of the episode, clearly it's Jack. Since he's the last "Candidate" still in Locke's group. Not that I believe for a second Claire and Dogen's assertion that merely talking to Locke brings you over to his side. After all, all the others except Sayid have talked to him and then abandoned him, and even Richard and Jacob himself have talked to him and clearly changed sides...--Jackdavinci 10:41, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Is it possible the episode title is a reference to this book? "The Last Recruit of Clare's: Being Passages from the Memoirs of Anthony Dillon, Chevalier of St. Louis, and Late Colonel of Clare's Regiment in the Service of France (1897)" -- it's hardly a famous work, of course.--Mblase75 15:47, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Its obviously David Shephard. The FST had to exist in order to recruit him sideways. Its why he was prominent in this episode.--Lucky Day | message 16:00, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Removed from Storyline Analysis

• With the suggested distinction that (Jacob's) people are "candidates" while the Man in Black's people are "recruits", the ambigious episode title and the final scene suggests Jack to be the "last recruit".--Lucky Day | message 16:17, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, centricity...

So, obviously, various. Locke, Sawyer, Claire, Sayid, Jack, Jin & Sun are definite centrics... but should we also include those others who appeared (Ben, Kate, Miles, Desmond, Ilana)? My guess is no, because there weren't any flashes from their POV...(Kdc2 02:03, April 21, 2010 (UTC))

• Agreed, various with Locke, Sawyer, Claire, Sayid, Jack, Jin & Sun. --LeoChris 02:10, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Best show ever in the history of the universe, I don't think anything will compete with it in our lifetime. Fastest hour in my life. That being said...no centricity Annarboral 02:26, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• No centricity, or various if you will, a bunch of Losties for the flash-sideways. Felt like a mini-finale. Phobia27 02:27, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • No centricity is much different from various... and it was the latter. (Kdc2 02:32, April 21, 2010 (UTC))
    • Various then. Phobia27 02:47, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Various. Specifically: Jack, Sawyer, Locke, Sayid, Jin, Sun, Claire.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:58, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

I would say, Jack - all situations are related to him and happen arround him. and specifically the end. clearly, it is his story. --V-vk 03:29, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Jack has nothing to do with Sayid, Sawyer or Kate in this episode. Plus, some segments of the flashsideways were clearly from their point of views. --LeoChris 03:33, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say no to it being a centric for others apart from Ilana, considering her presence in more than one character's POV, sort of like the Jacob centric The Incident. 01lander 03:53, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind now actually, I agree with it being Locke, Sawyer, Claire, Sayid, Jack, Jin, Sun, Ben, Kate, Miles, Desmond and Ilana. 01lander 14:43, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I'd say for centricity: Jack, Locke, Claire, Sun, Sawyer and Sayid. I'm not sure about Jin, since the flash was from Sun's POV, but Jin was also there the whole flash. --NK-Metaltalkcontributions 05:38, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I'd say leave Jin, it was mainly Sun/Jin throughout, unlike Illana, Kate's appearences. Buffyfan123 06:16, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I agree, it is a multi-centric episode, but Jack has a dominant part considering that he had his mirror moment in FST. By the way, so close to the end of Lost, when all loose ends are picked up and all(?) questions will be answered, I expect every show to be multi-centric. There is no room for a single person centric episode. --Akege 09:11, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• For once I agree with multicentric / flashsideways of Jack, Desmond, Ben, Locke, Sun, Jin, Ilana, Claire, Sawyer, Sayid, Kate, Miles, Jack... OK centric may have been Jack. But flashsideways was definitely multiple. The behind the scenes whiteboard picture as "roundelay" whatever that means...--Jackdavinci 10:37, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Where was the flash from Locke's POV? You mean the ambulance ride? I think FST Locke had more screen time in the "previously on lost" Cabeckett 13:39, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, the opening. It began and ended with Locke. Most of the dialogue was Ben's...but he was talking about Locke. That flash advances Locke's story, and Jin & Sun's story, but does not advance the story of anyone else. That's how we can tell it's Locke's. --Golden Monkey 13:58, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• did I miss something? Where is the rule which says that there has to be some special sort of centricity? Isn't that something we have "made up" on Lostpedia? This ep paid attention to a number of characters which means that none of them were truly central. Could be Sawyer or Jack or MiB or Claire - doesn't that mean "various"?    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   14:04, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Rolls eyes. If "This Place Is Death" was a Jin/Sun episode and "Follow the Leader" was a Richard episode, this was a Jack episode. Even though the flashes were ambiguous, all the island material was about Jack's choices and Jack's perspective. The title even refers to Jack. ABC and Hulu always represent the episode with the character whom they think is the centric character, and for this episode, they feature Jack. But we don't need anything like consistency on lostpedia. --Tuttlemsm 16:42, April 21, 2010 (UTC)tuttlemsm
  • ABC and Hulu always represent the episode with the centric character? So "Some Like It Hoth" is Hurley-centric, "Dead Is Dead" is Widmore-centric, "He's Our You" is Sawyer-centric, etc.? Gefred7112 03:44, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
• It's clearly various. And Damon and Carlton said in the podcast beforehand that this episode wouldn't focus on any one character like usual.--Frank J Lapidus 19:11, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Desmond Dead

I don't think Sayid shot Desmond, I think after the talk the two of them had. I don't want to think that Sayid is all evil now, I have some hope after that scene that he isn't totally evil. Lying is a given on LOST, it just matters who is lying when. I think Sayid lied about killing Desmond.--Phryrosebdeco23 04:47, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Good guess. Marc604 06:03, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• We are close enough to the end of the series where if someone was going to die, we'd see it. There's no hope for next season - or even more than four episodes in the future now.--Pittsburghmuggle 06:29, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Point of the ep seems to be that the whole sickness thing is a construct of Nemesis' twisted mind. That the infection is belief in obfuscation. That truth and love may rescue us in the end. So Sayid and Claire can still be saved.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   07:12, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oooo Kane great idea about the infection! I remember when the season started I thought, "man I almost wish that the FS would become the real reality" but the sickeness thing I don't know how they are gonna come back from. So that would be really great if they were able to get out of that "sickness" veil on their own. --Phryrosebdeco23 09:20, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • On a side note its not clear when anyone is dead dead still. It seems like the refugee others (including the ex-Tailees) may be dead but we won't know that for certain yet (remiscent about the fire arrows and the 48 other Losties from the front cabin). Case in point is Ilana sudden;y showing up in the FST even though she blew up good (yeah, real good).--Lucky Day | message 17:19, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah I'm pretty sure Sayid just flat out lied to MIB about killing Desmond, but what does anyone think of how sayid reacted at the realization that he could lie to MIB and MIB believed him. That look suggested that Sayid just had some kind of plan click together in his head when he realized MIB was not all knowing and could be lied to.
  • Not convinced MiB believed him.Cabeckett 13:45, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Sayid's excuse for being late was the "he just killed a man and needed a minute". A few episodes back he claimed not to feel any emotions. I would expect MiB to be familiar enough with the infection to know better.--HOTDON 14:25, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't assume for a split second that Sayid killed Desmond, nor that MiB believed Sayid when he said he did kill Desmond. TBD, as with so many other things in Lost. Hatchbanger 03:19, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• I remember at the beginning of the episode, somebody making a star wars/force comment about the infection. It really stuck in my mind when it happened, and the first thing that I thought was that at some point, Sayid would be able to somewhat control the infection of MIB, and would eventually turn against MIB. I think that may have foreshadowed Sayid perhaps not killing Desmond. Think Darth Vader, Luke and the Emperor. --6bigz6 17:22, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• One thing we're missing, and this was a minor UQ from last week, is how did Smokey know that Desmond wasn't dead even after throwing him down the well? Remember Dogen tried to get Jack to kill Sayid. So this again begs the question, does it take a candidate to kill another one? Remember the scene at the end where the MiB fireman carries Jack? I can't help but think he did that for protection and not necessarily Jack's safety.--Lucky Day 05:18, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Image

1	2	3
4	5	6
7	8	9
10	11

• This episode had various centrics, and also if anyone was the "star", it would be Jack. It was all about his decision to stay on The Island, and he was in a lot of the Flash-Sideways scenes. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 06:38, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• I'll just make a sentimental mention for Sun & Jin's reunion, though the caps at Eastereggs make it between one of them, or both looking at Zoe apprehensively. [[1]]

That said, I agree it's Jack. Found 2 decent closeup caps - Jack picked last for kickball [[2]] and "I have a sister" [[3]] (meh).

• • I feel like since it's a multi-centric episode, we shouldn't really have a close up on any one person. Even if it only shows one person, at least don't do a closeup, so we know the focus isn't only them. Ya know? -- Clayburn talk contributions email 07:43, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, then it has to be 'Jack flying through the air', or Sayid tripping over the hose. There's just no ensemble pic I can find. Maybe this 'action' shot - [[4]]? Duncan905 08:24, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
      • I love the image of Jack blown up. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 09:00, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
        • You have NO IDEA how much I had to resist adding "Kaboom!" as a caption to that picture on the main *page.--Pittsburghmuggle 12:12, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage-1546-3.html I like this picture, shows a lot of the flash-sideways characters 01lander 15:39, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Claire's arm is in a weird position, but it's alright. No Jin, though. If there's a bit of consensus that Jack is MiB's last (remaining) candidate (in his camp), how about the image I linked above as "picked last for kickball"? It's a much more complimentary shot of Jack than the current one. Duncan905 16:17, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I just think it should have as many people in the image as possible to reflect its status as a multi-centric. Perhaps one of the Flocke group walking through the jungle or one of them on the Elizabeth? Here are the two I found, hopefully there are some better ones out there: [5] and [6]. Gefred7112 16:21, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, the shot below of the Elizabeth isn't bad at all. Duncan905 18:59, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Ninja Jack explosion is WAY better ;) [[7]] Phobia27 19:02, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I'd say let's go with image #4. If someone could upload one with the color altered a bit, that'd be great. (Kdc2 19:10, April 21, 2010 (UTC))
• I brought forward a fifth option. What do you guys think?  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  20:50, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• If Jack is the eponymous last recruit, I agree with ObiDanKenobi's #5. It's Jack returning to the Man in Black's group as his "last recruit". -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:26, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• There's also a promo picture that could work.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  21:35, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a very good shot in #6, but could use a little exposure tweak. It can also infer Claire was the last recruit to Sawyer's boat. Just please, someone swap out the Woozy Jack pic soon, it makes me woozy every time I see it. Duncan905 23:12, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

*I vote for #6 —   lion of dharma    talk    email   02:41, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• I'm for 6 but I would prefer a shot of Zoe holding the gun to Sawyer's group.--Lucky Day 02:56, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Listen guys if this is a vote for the main photo you need to make that clear. Put a banner up on the main page. Next there is already a photo being used on the main page - wouldn't it be appropriate to include it in your little list? Next I'm going to be direct here: the 5 photos offered are all terrible, weak images. The promo shot is low res, as a group shot it fails because Jack is nearly out of sight, Claire is not in it etc. No 1 is just a blurgh shot which really shows nothing - Sayids back, "Locke's" back!. 2 is fun but what does it talk about - Widmore - the one person not relevant to this ep, 3 is getting there but is just such a bad cap. Nearly half is a shoulder and then Jack is in the middle ground and you can barely see his face. 4 is OK but a shot of the boys having their talk on the Elizabeth would be closer to the mark, if at all. 5 is just a dull shot, you can't see Jack, you can't see MiB well. Compare to current shot where you get a closeup of the moment of recruitment, with the antagonists hand on the body of the recruited.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   03:37, April 22, 2010 (UTC).
• as votes go that one stinks. Worst possible outcome a weak shot at low res which doesn't show the main two candidates for "last recruit" (OK Jack is way in the distance), without the image dispute banner to give everyone a chance and not even 24 hours for the vote.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   03:44, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Not to make an excuse, but I haven't learned the wiki mechanics you're talking about yet. But there's no reason a proper poll can't be run now is there? I'm glad someone changed it from what it was, but regardless don't you think we should be prepared to do this - find a screencap to depict a non-centric ep - a couple more times? Duncan905 05:08, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to do it either but you could research it, don't think it's hard, someone will probably tell us now anyway. Meantime I'll see if I can find a group shot. The bad news is - I don't think there is one, that's why I would push for a shot of "the last recruit".    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   05:17, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• I think the current image (#6) is certainly our best option. Gefred7112 08:15, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• lol @ number 2, but the current one #6 is the best imo Hawkdeath 11:35, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• There's a great image I added as #7 - but there's no Jack (who's the strongest focus of all the various centrics this episode) so I understand it's probably not suitable .... just throwing it out there for you all everybody to see :) Peace, SHERYL --Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 12:27, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• I say # 6 as well--Goose123 15:23, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• I just uploaded another one (#8) and I change my vote to that one. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   15:44, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

— woops, I just realized that's similar to one we already had! I just noticed a "woozy" comment in this section and thought I'd go and check the history of the page , and sure enough... sorry. Anyway, I really do think it's the best to capture what the episode was all about. But I like #6 too. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   15:53, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Changing to 7. That's definitely what I was wanting even sans Jack.--Lucky Day | message 15:57, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• If Jack were in 7, it would be perfect. But he's not.

— Adding another, just for the hell of it. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   16:32, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Isn't #7 a promotional shot? Can we use promotional photos as the main image on an episode? Phobia27 16:39, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

It's been done before, but it's rare. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   16:53, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• • I suggested one before for "RECON" that must people liked and it was used. So now that there's 9 options above should we start an official vote NOW? (Below here.)--Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 16:59, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• I vote for my own suggestion - # 7.--Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 16:59, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• How can we have an image, especially a group image that doesn't have Jack in it. His role on the Island in this episode is central to the narrative from beginning to end, and at the very least is the likely subject of the title! The current picture is pretty poor but really #7, pretty as it may be, misses the point entirely. It also refers to a point in the storyline which is somewhat secondary. (also it's a joke. Claire looks like a drowned rat, Sun like a Korean drowned rat, I can't begin to describe how Hurley looks without causing great upset to someone, and Sawyer looks as if the whole thing is a big giggle. Frank looks like he's about to head off in another direction entirely maybe to see if the gaffer has got any hooch!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:41, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• I also The original image was fine. I like #7 too, it's dramatic and cool and should be put into article but agree with user above, that the absence of Jack is just too jarring. It may indeed be a centric episode, but Jack's focus was the key. Besides, Hurley and Lapidus weren't focal points, whereas Jin was, and is missing from this image too. Group image is a nice idea but without getting them all in it (and based on the layout of the episode, I don't think there's a shot that makes that possible), I think it's best to leave it at Jack. But #7 is a great promo image and by all means put somewhere in article. Just not main image. So if we're counting votes, my vote goes for #8. Others are nice, but a lot of them are blurry or out of focus. --Jonahwriter 21:12, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Heres 2 more Last Recruits !! just for the hell of it - 10 is kinda bizarro but works due to Jack/MIB/Locke focus but if people just want Jack 11 is a good one coz he doesnt havent that weird dazed look like in 6 --Somanysnowcherriesfallinginfrance 23:03, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Whoever captioned 'woozy Jack' like that in the article - that's solid. Duncan905 06:08, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

• I'm liking #2 and #11 -- Clayburn talk contributions email 08:04, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
• Honestly we could argue forever about which picture so we may as well put #2 up and get a chuckle from everyone who comes across this page ;-) Phobia27 14:51, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • -- Clayburn talk contributions email 19:47, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
• I guess the boat image is fine... but it's waaaaaay too bright. (Kdc2 02:56, April 24, 2010 (UTC))
  • I fiddled with the Histogram, dropped the gamma ab it, and played with the contrast. I'll do a more targeted fix when I get a chance later coz really it is the sky which is throwing it. But despite all that this is a shocking picture. It's a promo shot but at 624 x 351 it is very low res and it is a shame to use it. Can someone at least find the proper promo shot at decent res?    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   03:16, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Not that anyone is following this but I have put up a final version of the Yacht Scene. I think it looks better . Bit like putting cucumber in a s..t sandwich! I vote #8    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:25, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Bloopers

How do they sail without sails?

sailing without sails

• the current?Bassrockindrew 06:47, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• The Elizabeth has a motor & prop. The noise is audible, though faint. Recall the Others taking her at night from the Pala dock? Duncan905 07:09, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • yes, you are right, the noice from the motor is audible. and Sawyer is not a great sailor too. --V-vk 07:47, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sawyer/Anakin/Star Wars

I say remove this one. This might sound crazy to a Star Wars fan, but Anakin isn't necessarily part of the typical trilogy viewer's vocab, especially presumed childhood fans like Sawyer. Everybody knows Chewie and Han, but the name "Anakin" is barely mentioned in the original trilogy. Sawyer would probably know him as "the old white guy Vader turns into."

• See entry "Sawyer not knowing Anakin isn't a blooper" below.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   10:55, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • I just figured it was a joke, you know, Sawyer didn't know who Anakin was because he was stuck in 1974 when Revenge of the Sith came out.--Gibbeynator 17:33, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Kate's Hair

I am removing a claimed Continuity error regarding Kate's hair which claims "Kate's hair moves from behind her ear to infront of it and back several times during her conversation with Claire while trying to convice her to leave the island with them." - this is just not so. There is one variation in the position of Kate's hair behind her ear on her right side. In the medium shot early in the take most of her hair is forward. Before and after - all the close ups appear to be one take and the hair sits identically throughout. That one variation can easily be explained as the camera is not on Kate all the time and moves away from her entirely to Sawyer. She could easily have moved her head and then re-adjusted it.   Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   15:01, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Jack healed by Flocke

I read in the bloopers : "After Jack is bombed he has blood on his neck but after "Locke" carries Jack inland there is almost no blood there." Can't it be that Flocke healed him while carrying him ? FrenchFlo 20:54, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Are you on the same Island I am?--Lucky Day 01:02, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Sawyer - Did he say "Chesty" or "Chesley"? Possible blooper

The episode page says he called Lapidus "Chesty" but I heard it as "Chesley" as in Chesley Sullenberger, the pilot of US Airways flight 1549 that crashed into the Hudson River. Calling him "Chesley" makes a lot more sense sine both Sullenberger and Lapidus are airline pilots. "Chesty"? What does that even mean and why would Sawyer call Lapidus that? The only problem with "Chesley" is that he became famous after the crash which happened in January, 2009 which is obviously AFTER the time currently on the island - 2007. While I need to review this myself, I wanted to put this out there for a fact check and see if anyone can confirm which they heard, "Chesty" or "Chesley".Qhorque 15:25, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• It was shortly after he made a comment about Lapidus looking like he was from a Burt Reynolds movie. "Chesty" would be referring to the manly display of chest hair, which along with the long hair and lambchops were staples in Burt Reynolds' heyday in the late 70's. This is in danger of having too much read into it.--HOTDON 15:44, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Even if on some crazy WTF planet he *did* reference the Hudson River crash, no one would say 'Chesley', they'd day 'Sully'. But he said 'Chesty', plain as day. PhillyPartTwo 16:16, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Now now PhillyPartTwo, no need to imply anyone here is from a "crazy WTF planet" or that the question is without merit. If it was "plain as day" I wouldn't have brought it up. Sometimes Josh Holloway can mumble a bit and sometimes writers are not as smart as they seem so I think it's a valid point and at least deserved a comment/question. And who's to say what anyone would say, Chesley or Sully? Writers write what they write and people say what they say.Qhorque 16:27, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think it was Chesley. Even if it was Chesley I don't think it was any kind of reference to to Chesley Sullenberger because he is almost universally referred to as "Sully" or Capt. Sullenberger. I didn't even know his first name was Chesley until I read this talk page.Cabeckett 17:03, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Closed captions show he said "Chesty".Demiller9 17:54, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• It was clearly Chesty. Most likely referencing the epic chest-hair being displayed.--Frank J Lapidus 19:21, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with above he most definitely says chesty, as we all know sawyer loves his nicknames, only minutes before he refers to lapidus as someone out of a burt reynolds movie, both burt reynold and lapidus seem to wear their shirts unbuttoned showing their manly hair chests, thus we have sawyer calling him chesty. --Kennybob27 19:41, April 21, 2010 (UTC)kennybob27--Kennybob27 19:41, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Time issue here. Chesley Sullenberger landed on the Hudson in 2009, and the island is in 2007 (insofar as our intrepid protagonists can tell), but Sawyer has spent the past three years in the 1970's and hasn't asked to be brought up to speed on the news since 2004.--Pittsburghmuggle 20:55, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

The Well

(Continuity talk moved by me from top of page    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)) When Flocke pushed Desmond into the well at the end of 'Everybody Loves Hugo' he throws a torch down the well to show that it is very deep. After being told by Flocke to kill, when Sayid confronts Desmond, Desmond is injured lying in a pit, sorta sitting against the wall The pit Sayid sees Desmond in, is clearly not the 'very deep' well that Desmond was thrown into by the MIB (Flocke, Mocke, whoever) if I remember correctly the well Desmond sits in (in 'The Last Recruit') is nowhere near as deep as the well shown in 'Everybody Loves Hugo' I may be completely wrong or this is to big to be a continuity error. Desmond changed something about the well. (JohnQPoster 16:01, April 22, 2010 (UTC))

Wheelchair=

I don't know if I would consider the paramedic saying Locke's wheelchair was "smashed to pieces" as a blooper. Do humans not exxagerate sometimes? MoeT 14:00, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Cultural References

"Drinking the Kool-Aid"

Sawyer tells Kate that Claire can't come with them because she "drank Locke's Kool-Aid." This is a reference to the Jonestown cult mass suicide of 1978, when over 900 followers of cult leader Jim Jones committed suicide via cyanide at their Guyana camp. It is believed that Jones had cups of Flavor Aid or Kool-Aid (both were present at the camp) poisoned with cyanide to kill his followers. (History)

• • This isn't mine, but not sure how this can honestly be pulled. Kool-Aid's a brand name for one, and there's no acknowledging that reference without the context of "drinking". I say reinstate. Duncan905 07:13, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I pulled it. Not only is there no direct reference to the Jonestown madness but that is not even the obvious reference made famous by Ken Kesey et al. Its just sort of a sideways reference to LSD which has got into the language as meaning a drink that will make you believe things which aren't true. Edit: meaning something which will make you believe "crazy" things.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   07:16, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • I found this reference to be very obvious, and agree with it. -- Xbenlinusx 07:35, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry to disagree CharlesKane, but Jonestown is exactly the reference being made, not the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test, since it's "Locke's Kool-Aid." It's completely about a group blindly following a charismatic & suspect leader. Obvious? That's a face-value reference, and a grim foreshadowing/warning. Duncan905 07:36, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • Completely agree with Duncan905. It's painfully obvious in context as well. The question is, how can you not see it? AlaskaDave 10:23, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • The reference stands. I don't think there's any doubt he was referencing The Jim Jones/Jonestown thing.--Pittsburghmuggle 12:16, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Can't it just be a reference to Kool-Aid and the popular saying "drinking from the something or other Kool-Aid"? After all, I don't think Sawyer was referencing LSD or the Jones suicides. He was just using a common phrase. Its origin would merely be a side note. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 07:41, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• The suicide Kool-aid is exactly what I thought of. I agree with that being the reference. --Phryrosebdeco23 09:23, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• It's obviuosly a Jonestown reference, that's where the saying "drinking the kool-aid" comes from. Who seriously can't grasp that? --D Toccs 11:32, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Let's just get this perfectly straight. Kool-aid started to be used early 50s with the beats. It was widely used in the 60s (I know - I was there!). The Jonestown usage was based on that earlier usage but the phrase had already been adopted as a colloquialism well before the massacre. Thus as "obvious" as it may be to some of you - especially "unsigned" prior to this edit - you are quite simply wrong (as to obviousness). I'm not saying the writers may not have thought of Jonestown but it is as likely they were simply using the colloquial term, which fits quite as well with the meaning intended. Either way, it cant be a cultural reference because it is just using colloquial language.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   10:49, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • There is nothing perfrectly straight about it. Of course people drank kool-aid before the Jonestown massacre. But that's not what the phrase means, or else Sawyer's use of it wouldn't make sense. It clearly means - you're listening to someone or something that is crazy. Everything I've found online indicates that it was first used after the Jonestown massacre and references that event. There is no indication that people used the phrase "drinking the kool-aid" to have this same meaning prior to the Jonestown event, but if you have such evidence, please provide it. --LOSTinDC 12:57, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Undoubtedly a Jonestown reference, I just finished reading all about it, that's where the phrase comes from. I know it's been 32 years, but it's a bit scary that the phrase has been detached from the event! Given it was the single largest loss of life on American soil until 9/11, or so I read. Incidentally, you can actually find the 45 minute audio recording "death note" on the net of them drinking said Kool-Aid. It's very disturbing. --Anthem47 10:54, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Anthem47, just as an fyi, Jonestown took place in Guyana, not in the US. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   11:14, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Charles Kane in that the discussion of the electric kool aid acid test and/or the jonestown massacre should not be included on the page as a reference. The fact that some people are saying it is an obvious reference to LSD and that others are saying it is an obvious reference to Jonestown means it is not obvious. Jdray 13:19, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• It seems that Charles Kane is the only one who is saying that it's an obvious reference to LSD, whereas there are several people who see it as an obvious reference to Jonestown. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   13:32, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Jonestown reference > LSD reference. Until I'd read this I'd never heard of cool-aid colloquially being used to refer to LSD. In the context of a "camp" and blindly following a "crazy leader" how is this not a Jonestown reference? Whether or not this belongs on the page is debatable. Whether or not this is Jonestown or LSD isn't, in my opinion.Cabeckett 13:51, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• The Highest Authority gives Jonestown as a primary source and The Merry Pranksters as an alternative. Even if you argue that the latter is the correct cultural reference (and I think Jonestown is correct), that is only an argument to add a second reference -- not to delete the original -- Jbillones 13:54, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Funny that I never said that the use here is a reference to LSD! Please read with a critical eye. What I said was that the use by Sawyer was a colloquial use of kool-aid. I gave a short history of the term based on my personal experience of the term which included a statement that early on it had a link with the beats and the use of LSD. I explained that out of that early use the term got into the language as a colloquialism which was then used in connection with Jonestown. Later colloquial use therefore carries some of the cultural attachment to its use in connection with Jonestown. Its meaning hasn't changed much - it means believing a crazy thing or idea and this is exactly as Sawyer used it.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   13:57, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with CK. It's a very popular colloquial expression and that's how Sawyer used it. Nothing more in this case. Hatchbanger 14:41, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I re-added the reference to the main page before I read this Talk page. Sorry. If you do a Google search for the phrase "drink the kool-aid", your top three results include Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia, both of which refer to the Jonestown massacre.
  • look I know that it is 10 to 5 at the moment, maybe as an Australian the Jonestown thing didn't quite cause the trauma of conscience for Australians as it did for Americans and thus the determination of the posters here. I've put my argument and a kind of accurate history. The last post from Mblase took it to another level entirely where "Peoples Temple" was given as the cultural reference. This got no mention at all in the Episode of Lost I saw so despite this disagreemnt here I had no hesitation in removing it immediately. If someone were to put up Sawyers "Kool aid" as the reference I would still object to talking about Jonestown OR Merry Pranksters or anything else because there is NO direct reference to them, therefore the reference doesn't qualify! A properly worded reference might encourage me to give up!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   15:18, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm gonna side on Kane's side for this reason: Jonestown was not explicitly stated or referred to in the episode. Only Kool-Aid itself was mentioned. It can be inferred from Sawyer's phrase that he was metaphorically comparing the Jonestown incident to Claire, but it isn't said. What I would suggest is rewording the Cultural Reference to something about Kool-Aid as a popular drink. Any mention of Jonestown could be brought up in the General section under Trivia, but not in Cultural References. I'm not against posting the Jonestown info, but it does not fit with Lostpedia's direct reference guideline. Leave Kool-Aid in Cultural References, but move Jonestown to General. That's my vote. --   Atomic Mystro    talk    contribs   15:51, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • We're talking about enhancing our Wikipedia article, and there is a companion Wiki article "Drinking the Kool-Aid". Identical match. It explains the context of the phrase and btw also provides additional information about references to LSD. Context is important if you're trying to dismiss this as a general colloquialism; again, it's "Locke's Kool-Aid" - one charismatic figurehead & his influence. I objected to 'bizzarro' in "ELH" as being a colloquialism (which it is, even outside the comic book world) but given the character who speaks it loves comic books/sci fi, as does Jorge, I have to concede it's intentional & specific. I hope majority rule is respected on this, I'm reinstating the original quote above. Duncan905 15:58, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid You people are ridiculous. It is clear to any sentient human being that this is a reference to Jonestown. I highly suggest that everytime it is deleted, every person should put it back. And stop deleting posts in the discussion too. That's just juvenile. PhillyPartTwo 16:10, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm back again, not to defend my argument but to defend all of us from PhillyPartTwo's rudeness. No one here has been ridiculous, I and everyone else here have shown mindfullness (and therefore are sentient). We may hold different opinions and disagree but we have engaged in a reasonable conversation - which is the one thing PhillyPartTwo has not done. As to the idea of gang mentality - well that says more about PhillyPartTwo than any of us who can take reasonable action on our own. If there are post deletions here I haven't noticed them and I've been here pretty well all day. So just cool it PhillyPartTwo.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   16:25, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
      • Community user-created database decorum refresher and words to live by - Quoting Josh Lyman: (West Wing): “They don't seem to be taking my response in the spirit in which it was intended. Seems to be a very unusual social structure. For instance, there is leader who seems to pride herself on her organizational skills and a certain amount of discipline. That's what's called a control freak. She does seem to do an awful lot of scolding. "You've posted in the wrong place. Stay on topic people. Don't use capital letters. I don't have time to tell you twice," when clearly, she does have time to tell us twice. But that's not the problem. I believe I'll use capital, lowercase, or Sanskrit, right up until the moment the font police cuff me and read me Miranda! See, I think these are good people, by and large, but they've come under the thumb of a dictatorial ruler. So, as with a small, Central American country, my role is to incite the people to topple her.” And I bet you’ll delete this too. PhillyPartTwo 16:36, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• PhillyPartTwo, nobody deleted a single post you've made on this talk page. That's very easy to see simply by looking at your contributions page. Please stop with the bullshit. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   19:05, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• a) nobody said it was on this page. b) nobody said it was today. c) nice language. d) pbbfflliitt. PhillyPartTwo 19:52, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• a)Everyone was having a nice logical discussion weighing in on different sides of the issue and acting with complete decorum until you began posting and calling people rediculous and juvenile for things that have not occured. It is not acting with decorum to suggest that an individual making a post here is not capable of making observations that any sentient human being can make. b)No one here is acting as a leader as your post from the west wing suggests. In fact they have started this very discussion to allow others to weigh in and not to be a "control freak" as your quotation implies. c) No one here was scolding until you began making the references I have already discussed. I agree with lion of dharma - posts that you have made such as these are BS. Jdray 21:19, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• "Drinking the Kool-Aid" is a meme that refers to Jonestown. Nothing else. --Tuttlemsm 16:48, April 21, 2010 (UTC)tuttlemsm
• Sawyer's use of the phrase makes no sense unless it refers to following someone blindly regardless of how crazy they are. Charles Kane and Atomic seem to imply that it's just used off the cuff - like hey Claire drank kool-aid so she can't come along. Are you saying that he meant that literally? It doesn't make any sense unless it's a reference to Jonestown. --LOSTinDC 18:07, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I feel like we should say that it's a reference to the phrase, and then maybe mention Jonestown as a side note. I'm sure Sawyer wasn't mentioning Jonestown specifically. He was just using a phrase that is common and means what he wanted to say. If it originated from Jonestown, then fine, but that wasn't what he was referencing since it's a common phrase many people say. If he coined it just then and there, then it would be a reference maybe, or to the LSD tests. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 19:28, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• OK, of course its a reference to Jonestone but its not a direct reference. Its implied by the negative connotation used. Per policy it should not be posted. However Kool-Aid itself is a direct reference and that should be mentioned. Then we can spend the next week changing it back from people who don't know how to read this page.--Lucky Day 00:59, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Aren't we literally debating semantics? I mean by this logic unless a character says, "Wow, she sure drank Locke's Kool-Aid, just like they did at Jonestown," we aren't allowed to call it a reference? Difference between simile and metaphor anyone?Cabeckett 01:44, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• You may be right. How direct is direct? If someone says "I Yam what I yam" is that not a reference to Popeye or could you argue a Biblical reference? This is a bizarro debate.--Lucky Day | message 15:55, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• This is why we shouldn't have this stupid direct reference rule. Yeah, they didn't say "like at Jonestown"...but the phrase has no other meaning than as a reference to Jonestown. It cannot mean anything else. --Golden Monkey 16:13, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• But there is another possible meaning, it's just you don't think that is the meaning being used here.   Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:21, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• For a line of dialog the touchstone should be whether or not the character was making an intentional allusion. If Hurley says "the dark side", he's clearly thinking about Star Wars: cultural reference. If he said, "I'm going to take a crap", he is most probably not thinking about Sir Thomas Crapper: no cultural reference. A phrase that was a cultural reference in the past may lose the association and become just an idiom. In a generation or two, people may say "dark side" and mean just "evil" without knowing anything about some 20th century movie. To judge "drink the Kool-Aid" we have to get into Sawyer's mind: Given his age he almost certainly would say "drinking Kool-Aid" as a direct reference to Jim Jones. It's highly doubtful he was referring to LSD.EdwardLost 16:40, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually there is a perfectly good explanation in an authoritative place, which apparently people just refuse to read. Its actually tougher than EdwardLosts attempt to explain it - see the official policy Lostpedia:Episode Manual of Style. Its really quite clear - a quotation from a film is indirect, a mention of a film, or a film poster, or a clip of the film on a TV is direct. A mention of a character in a book is not a direct reference to the book, ie it is indirect.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   17:21, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • This was the argument to why Bizarro is not posted as a Superman reference in last week's ep.--Lucky Day | message 16:52, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • My reading of the manual of style finds this quote:

However, like cultural references, we ask that they are concise and generally seen by the community as intentional.

Aren't we seeing concise, intentional and generally seen by the community in the form of "drinking the Kool-Aid"? I think an over strict interpretation of "direct reference" sort of kills any artistic license the Producers/Directors might have. Are we going to have to remove Desmond contemplating his reflection in the window because it wasn't a "direct reference" to a mirror? I agree sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and bizzaro might not actually be a Superman reference but "drinking Locke's Kool Aid" in context of Claire following a fanatical crazy man is only marginally debatable as a reference to Jonestown. For lack of the minor dialog "just like at Jonestown" this isn't a direct reference? Seems like hair splitting just to split hairs. Cabeckett 17:58, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

The statement could have been interpreted as concisely talking about one thing or concisely talking about another. The fact that this debate is going on probably means the statement was not that concise. He intentionally said those words but what he intended those words to mean is ? I am not sure generally seen by community is right either. (Isn't that just another way to say consensus?)Jdray 20:05, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• At this point there have been very few debates as to what the reference actually refers to. If you read the discussion it is mostly about the whether or not the reference is direct. Personally I don't think the reference could be any more direct. However, in my opinion, the idea of cultural references is useless anyway. We aren't talking about recurring themes which may or may not be important to understanding the story. We're talking about whether or not chracters are talking about Casablanca, Superman comics, Jonestown, etc. which basically bears almost no relevance to unraveling the mysteries of Lost. TLDR: keep it or not I think I'm done with the debate. Cabeckett 13:43, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

• • • When I watched the show, I immediately thought of Jonestown at the Kool-Aid comment. I knew exactly what was 'implied', and I do think it was an implied direct reference, if that makes any sense. If I didn't know about Jonestown, I wouldn't have made the connection. I don't know anything about an acid test, so i didn't make any connection. Should we make a section for each episode of all 6 seasons titled "Cultural Implications"? That should cause a lot more stir on the wiki that a single Kool-Aid comment, don't you think? MoeT 14:07, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Casablanca

• "Casablanca": Sawyer says to Kate, "Of all the cars in all the world, you crash into mine," mirroring Humphrey Bogart's famous Casablanca line, "Of all the gin joints in all the world, she walks into mine."

• I thought this was worth putting in the discussion. I think this will get brought up in the article again. Its almost as direct as the Kool-Aid ref above.

• Kool-aid is a direct reference to Kool-aid. A line of dialogue, vaguely similar to a different line of dialogue in a film whose name is never mentioned is not a direct reference to Casablanca. See Lostpedia:Episode Manual of Style.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   05:55, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, if the dialog had been exactly from Casablanca it would have been a nice reference but this is just similar. Cabeckett 17:59, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry but no, despite the similarity. I felt pretty sure about extending Jacob's line about wanting people to "help themselves" back to the old Ben Franklin/Poor Richard quote, but direct is direct. There is talk of using something like "allusions" over on the Ideas page, meantime. Duncan905 06:30, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Moby Dick

I'm removing the following for the second time because it is not a direct reference as nowhere in the episode is Moby Dick referred to. Cultural references must be direct (as stated in the box to the right of the section), further information and examples of "direct references" are given at the official policy page - Lostpedia:Episode Manual of Style.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   13:57, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Moby Dick: When Kate and Sawyer arrive at the boat, Sawyer says "There she blows", a famous line from Herman Melvilles book "Moby Dick". (Literary works)

But that phrase only exists' in reference to the book. How is that not direct? --Golden Monkey 16:13, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• The whaling phrase was made popular by the book, yes. It's also become common parlance, so it's a probable allusion but not a direct reference. Also consider context - they weren't searching for the Elizabeth night & day, nor had to catch her, nor is she a whale. Actually it's another great Sawyer quip that doesn't quite fit. Duncan905 17:22, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Sawyer not knowing Anakin isn't a blooper

Maybe he just hasn't seen the prequels. That may be an in-joke from the writers of the episode that they don't like the prequels. I know that they refer to Vader as Anakin a few times in Jedi, but still... Bassrockindrew 10:39, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Note: as far as i can tell from the Star Wars page on this wiki, the only real specific references to Star Wars Sawyer has used were from A New Hope. He also mentioned "Yoda" and "Jabba", but they're both pretty big icons, and even if he hasn't seen Empire and Jedi he could still reference them. I think its kind of silly to regard him saying "who's anakin" as a continuity error.Bassrockindrew 10:42, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• It was a Sawyer put-down. How could it ever be a blooper? It was written in the script, it contains no error of any sort.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   10:53, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Well, it would be classified as a continuity error, not a blooper. But I disagree that it's a continuity error. I loved IV-V| when I was a kid, but I never picked up on the fact that Darth Vader's original name was Anakin until watching the (awful) prequels as an adult. So I think we can assume here that Sawyer used good judgement and never watched the prequels, hence his lack of familiarity with the name Anakin. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   11:20, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that When Sawyer crashed on the Island only The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones had been released. Revenge of the Sith(2005) was released while Sawyer was back in the 1970's. I don't know what bearing this has on all this, just wanted to point it out.--Pittsburghmuggle 12:22, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Or maybe in the midst of Sawyer fearing for his life and trying to come up with a plan to escape from a mysterious island wherein he has been time traveling and to save his friends along with him - his first thought wasn't "Star Wars"? I love those movies but I can pretty much say with certainty that if I were in Sawyer's position, it may not be on my mind. NandR
    • Except that Sawyer uses "gone over to the dark side" to try & convince Hurley. It's consistent with Sawyer to infer he's savvy about something only to display ignorance. "Who the hell's Nicki??" This isn't a blooper. Duncan905 19:58, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I do not think this should be listed as a blooper or a continuity error. Jdray 13:24, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Not a blooper. People are overanalyzing. Hatchbanger 14:43, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• This is not an error and seeing the prequels is not a prerequisite for knowing his name is Anakin as stated in the Trivia section right now. He is called Anakin multiple times during the original trilogy and everything needed to understand Hurley's statement is in Return of the Jedi. It's more likely that Sawyer just isn't geeky enough to know his name after seeing the original trilogy. Dudemeyster
  • The name Anakin was referenced once and only once in the original trilogy. He was named by Obi-Wan to Luke on Dagobah in ROTJ when explaining how his father became Darth Vader. Outside of that short conversation, that's the only time it was ever mentioned. Bwallace
• Nobody knows who Anakin is. Sorry. It's not a blooper. You can say "Han Solo" or "Obi-Wan" and people will know you're talking Star Wars. If you say "Anakin", without adding, "Skywalker", you're not going to get a great response unless you're talking to geeks or little kids. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 19:31, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • If I could agree twice I would. Sawyer even stages the "old Wookie prisoner gag". He just wasn't paying attention by the time RotJ came around. It's a classic Sawyer moment, like when he references 'Of Mice & Men' to Ben but minutes later is baffled by a direct quote. Duncan905 06:09, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Sawyer reads books. He doesn't waste time watching silly movies.--Lucky Day 01:01, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • To my point just above, we see him reading left right & center and assume he's a sponge, but there's repeated clues otherwise. Maybe it's all entertainment to him, he retains what he likes. Duncan905 06:17, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. Sawyer is at a moment of high pressure. He is trying to further their escape. Hurley blurts "does he have a sub", Sawyer tell him to quiet down, Hurley reverts to his ga ga world of star Wars and cinema adventure, and starts blathering on about dark side and Anakin, not surprisingly Sawyer says "who the hell is Anakin", the equivalent of "what has that got to do with it, we have a real life situation here, shut up and focus". He may or may not know about Anakin but that is not what the interchange is about. Its about Sawyer being the action man doing the best he can, and Hurley proving he's not the leader of anything and that the Hurley of last week as a leader was a disaster.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   04:09, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Haha Charles, tell us what you really think about Hurley's leadership abilities. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   04:12, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Poor Hurley. At least he had better luck in the FST. Hope the FST is the one that stays and the OT goes ka-boom. How can we start a poll on that? AlexDeLarge 14:11, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• I'm trying to be polite about our beloved characters! Locke is the only man who really changed on the Island (maybe Mr. Eko too). So the island stories are about using what you've got in life rather than trying to be different. In FST Hurley is the only one different from their OT selves. Jury has to be out on FST Locke, but I'm very suspicious.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   04:41, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• I thought Sawyer's line is "That was Anakin." In other words, that was Anakin, a fictional character; this is reality.

--Tuttlemsm 15:45, April 22, 2010 (UTC)tuttlemsm

• "# Sawyer won't countenance Hurley's desire to talk about the Star Wars universe. He may not know who 'Anakin' (as in Anakin Skywalker) is, though he has used Star Wars references before, e.g. nicknames."

I'm pulling this; at the least I think this needs a big rewrite. Isn't there consensus that Sawyer blanked on the identity of Darth Vader & pressed on? Again, Sawyer brought up "the dark side". Not disputing that he got frustrated & didn't want to debate the applicability of the Star Wars universe any further with Hurley either. Just saying that it reads more into "Who the hell's Anakin?" by assuming he knows & wants to press on, versus Sawyer showing his ignorance of later story detail (despite knowing earlier aspects like the Wookie prisoner gag well) and pressing on to cover embarrassment. Which has been exampled above by 'Of Mice & Men.' with Ben. Duncan905 07:07, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Production Notes

Did Cindy Chandler appear in this episode?

In the scene where the MiB is leading his followers towards the beach where he expects to meet Sawyer & Kate, I thought I recognized Cindy marching in the group. A few moments later, when he decides to go back & find out where Sayid is, I thought I heard him tell Cindy, by name, to lead the group while he went back to find Sayid. Or did I let myself see/hear things that weren't there? -- Llywrch 07:31, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• If that's the flight attendant, then yes. She was seen, possibly twice. If she blew up, though, which she probably did, then so too did those little kids. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 07:39, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• She is obviously listed as a guest star. Weird question. Marc604 07:40, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't consider it weird, just cautious. Almost every fact I've added to articles have been reverted. My experience with the Lost community (not just this website, but all of the other ones I've tried to participate in) have been to ignore or remove my contributions. So I've come to conclude that I'm considered a troll, a clueless newbie, or not a real fan -- whatever "a real fan" means. -- Llywrch 15:52, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you feel this way. I can assure you it was no one's intentions. Usually contributions are reverted or removed by other new users who are still not sure of the rules or guidelines. I can try and keep an open eye for your contributions and make sure they are not changed for no reason. Welcome to Lostpedia :)  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  05:16, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Of course she did - we see her 3 or 4 times, particularly when Locke goes to her after talking to Sun and getting all annoyed because Sun (rightly) blamed him for something. He talks to Cindy who, as usual is with both kids and is sort of a surrogate leader of the remaining Others. I did not see her or the kids on the beach when they got hit by the artillery (?) so there is yet again - hope yet.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   09:43, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • There were only 4/5 others on the beach when the Artillery hit, I believe Locke had just taken a small group. The other others are probably at the rendezvous point waiting for the boat to arrive, along with Cindy and the kiddies. --Integrated (User / Talk) 09:03, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • There were eight people on the beach to greet Jack. Seven are seen, the shadow of another is in sight. I think one is a woman but it isn't Cindy, but none are children and Teddy is not seen. Some or most of these should be dead or maimed. I believe his group is now about 19 including two children. After the beach attack there could be as many as six less which makes 13. Not that I think this detail will matter much.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   09:20, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Widmore's Weapon

Pretty sure it was mortars rather than missles.Pictish 15:00, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. They acted like mortars.--Pittsburghmuggle 12:19, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Having watched a lot of war movies, I don't think they really act like anything. The explosions didn't act like mortars (too far away unless they have really massive mortars), or missiles. The closest thing I can reckon is some form of specially guided howitzer. Unless it's a freaky type of artillery that air-bursts a foot off the ground, it's more special-effects explosion than anything else. All the explosions were mostly fire that exploded in all directions. When a shell hits the ground, it sprays mostly upwards because of the ground. These didn't do that.--Eliav Milelov Valtarov 04:42, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

The Well Cont'd

That well looked about 60'.--Lucky Day | message 06:26, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• The well was really inconsistent in this episode IMO. Last time Locke emphasised how deep it was, he even threw his torch down there, and now we see it's just a fairly shallow little well? The people digging it looking for 'answers' can't have been very motivated. And also, why did he send Sayid to kill Desmond rather than go himself. Like Frank said, he can move a lot faster than people can. --Integrated (User / Talk) 09:35, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• I don't remember exactly but did Locke demonstrate the depth of the well in order to impress Desmond with how deep it is or did he just drop a torch in like a tourist dropping a rock into he Grand Canyon? The tourist isn't trying to show how deep the Grand Canyon is, just idly dropping something. Maybe he was showing that the well wasn't deep at all. Maybe the depth of the well changed when Desmond was thrown in, we are talking about a "magical island" afterall. Personally I think the well wasn't meant to be deep, that all the figuring with terminal velocity etc. was way beyond what the producers were thinking. Locke was just trying to be impressive and dramatic by dropping a torch into the well and there was a little bit of foreshadowing. The well depth wasn't meant to be impressive or part of a fatal fall.Cabeckett 14:12, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• I can answer the last question. So that Des and Sayid could do some "catching up"! I'll ask one. Why did MiB send Sawyer and Kate to fetch the yacht? Tell you - he's been on the Island too long, he's an idiot, but we gotta have a story.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   10:51, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Is it significant that this is the 2nd episode in a row where we are left with a cliff-hanger as to Desmond's wellbeing?Cabeckett 14:12, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • ...*rimshot* Nicely done, heh. Duncan905 16:34, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • We should have a category regarding puns.--Lucky Day | message 16:53, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• There certainly isn't much water in well for the torch to make such a splash. Maybe Dez started drinking it to try and save his life? As for the people digging it not being very motivated, consider what Dez was sitting: bedrock. They dug as war as they could go, and for some reason they dug straight down, and built plastic stones around it instead of an ever widening hole they left as dirt.--Lucky Day | message 15:50, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• The two episodes jar - and personally I'm a bit miffed at them introducing MORE landmarks on the island that conveniently have never been seen before, despite being there the whole time (Richard's bench anyone?). Episode 1: We see a deep well that Mock-Locke says was dug by hand in a fanatic attempt to find answers regarding magnetic anomalies. Episode 2: A shallow well with no "answers" of any kind at the bottom, merely a place to 'store' Desmond. Why bother with a big speech about people searching for answers? --Integrated (User / Talk) 01:07, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered questions discussion

Claire said that she has been living with John Locke (The smoke monster) ever since Jack and others left the island. However, The Smoke Monster got into John Locke's body only after he arrived dead in his coffin along with everyone else on their return to the island. Is there something I am missing here?--Prady16 09:48, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent question that has a clear answer (for once). Claire already knew that "Flocke" wasn't whom he appeared to be. She admitted this to Jin. Second, the MiB admitted to Jack that he impersonated his father (see below in AQ) and mentions him as Claire's father as well. We have seen the real John Locke in the presence of both of them at Jacob's Cabin.--Lucky Day | message 17:14, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Sun FST

I am removing "Why did Sun recognize Locke at the hospital?" because we know the answer. We know now that FS losties are experiencing "memories" of the OT. While Sun may have seen Locke on the flight this would not lead to this sort of reaction. So, as we know of no other connection that Sun could have with Locke and as we have been led to believe in the OT memories - it could only be that Sun recognizes Locke as being the MiB from the OT - being she is frightened of. So lets not make this more complicated than it is - in this case what seems to be so, must be so and we have a definitive answer. Therefore UQ is not unanswered.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:21, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• I agree on your removal, but Sun might have recognized John Locke as John Locke too, rather than the MiB.--Pittsburghmuggle 12:25, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Wouldn't make sense, because if you mean John Locke from the Island why would she react with shock and fear    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:31, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • While I agree with your original point Charles, the "shock and fear" could just be situational. She has a gunshot wound, and this person she's just recognized (John or MiB) is taped down to a backboard. Shock and disbelief might be a better description. The "why" is obvious as you said, the "who" is a bit more debatable.--HOTDON 14:39, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Sun just had a near-death experience which is triggering "memories" from the OT. If Desmond is able to see the latest I think is safe to assume than Sun recognizes Locke as the MiB.
• I will have to agree here, given her strong aversion to FLocke in the OT, and given the fact that she believed Locke had Jin, it is within reason that seeing Locke frightened her in the FST. She even believes she lost her 'english' voice because of Flocke VeryBadRobot 20:12, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the removal. We don't know anything yet. I think its a legitimate question.--Lucky Day 01:21, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• I agree on the removal. Just as has happened before, Sun is seeing the Original Timeline in her near death state. --Integrated (User / Talk) 09:13, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• And where exactly did we see the flashbacks of memory or hear directly that she was seeing Locke from the OT? The powers that be made a deliberate point of not telling us directly what she saw. Both she and Locke were on the plane and in the OT I believe they saw each other at the airport in Sydney in that timeline. Plus she was an an extreme emotional state at the time, having been shot, her pregnancy and probably pumped full of drugs on the ambulance. Any any small thing could set her off so her reaction is not proof of OT memories.--Lucky Day | message 15:22, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Restored it per my arguments. I'm not saying I disagree with you on what she saw. I'm saying there are multiple points on the situation that make it vague and it will take another episode to make it certain.--Lucky Day | message 18:09, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• I count more votes for removal. Fact is, she wouldn't poo her pants with fear recognising a guy she saw on an airplane. I believe this is clear enough, happy to put it to a proper vote if needs be, but given there's currently more people saying remove, I will remove. --Integrated (User / Talk) 01:11, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

How did Miles and Sawyer get an identification on Sayid so quickly and a location to track him down to off of a brief image from a video. Even if they lifted prints from the crime scene, that's pretty quick work. Unanswered or just supposed to take it on faith (or I missed something in the show): I'm guessing we're not supposed to think about it just go with it.--J.nc 18:19, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Didn't they catch his vehicle/license plate on camera?--Jackdavinci 00:02, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Why did Charles Widmore renege on his deal with Sawyer?
  • Coz Sawyer didn't come back with MIB as "promised". AlexDeLarge 14:20, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why did Sawyer try to play both sides? Widmore has his own agenda.
    • All the parties to that agreement have their own agenda. They all know they were playing a high stakes game with each other. MiB even thanked Sawyer at one point for his loyalty, indicating that he is very much aware that Sawyer isn't a man whose loyalty comes easy. Zoe's rushed move to go and capture Jin, forced Widmore to play his hand, and this began the unraveling of the agreement. Consequently MiB also moves to capture and unveil the secret package (Desmond). Without Desmond, Widmore's plans are more or less useless. I actually doubt his bombs can fatally harm MiB if at all. And as mentioned, Sawyer arrives without MiB and Desmond....instead a bunch of candidates whose purpose or allegiance Widmore has no idea of. Widmore will be foolhardy not to renege on the agreement....at this point, he seems to be the one with worst end of the deal after all his troubles, followed by MiB. Sawyer is halfway to getting to the submarine. Unless of course Widmore or MiB is well aware and puts actions in place to scamper his plans.VeryBadRobot 08:17, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
• How did the Man in Black revive Sayid while still barred from entering the Temple?
  • We are not certain entirely how one is claimed. It has been suggested by Claire that Smokey needs to talk with you and possibly he needs to take your hand.
    • I think someone's comment got scrambled; my watch showed a summary that mentioned something like "the ash had not been poured yet". In any case, I'm fine with this not being here, it belongs on the MiB page. Duncan905 02:00, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
      • That was my original argument but as I typed it I realized that it could be argued that Dogen was somehow protecting the Temple as well. This last is not certain and Dogen did order Jacob's Ashes poured out for a reason. So those arguments aside I knew there was more to it as well. However, its a good topic for discussion because Sayid did make the claim it was the MiB that was responsible. IMO the MiB was lying to him.--Lucky Day | message 15:42, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
      • Sayid made the assumption to Miles that it was Dogen's temple rituals that brought him back to life. But Miles corrected him saying that Dogen was as surprised as they were when he woke up and whatever brought him back it wasn't Dogen. Miles, is a fairly convincing guy with matters of death. I think to the candidates the main powers on the island are MiB and Jacob. Sayid must have assumed then it was MiB, given the fact that he was unable to kill MiB as well.

With the death of Jacob, it makes sense to think the essence of the healing pool is changing as well, since it's source may actually be coming from outside the temple. MiB's influence is gaining ground. Dogen was indeed protecting the Temple, that was his work assigned by Jacob, however, the source of the pools healing ability was not his, either Jacob's or even the island's depending on your point on view. By virtue of protecting the temple, the pool is as well; probably prevented its contamination.VeryBadRobot 08:37, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion's moving to the MiB talk page, but some good points to consider, especially that Sayid could have a mistaken conclusion. Duncan905 15:40, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

• Was Man in Black lying when he told Jack he could only impersonate someone who was dead?
  • See discussion on Locke and Smokey in AQ. --Lucky Day 01:26, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Why did Locke say he "was" going to marry Helen?

• I'd like to add, but does this sound valid without being leading? He either believes he's about to die, had a falling out since last we saw, or is glimpsing the OT and accepts he won't be able to keep the FST. Duncan905 01:31, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

What did Sayid do with Desmond? I have to bring this up! Isn't this one of those 'what happens next?' questions that we all know and hate? Any thoughts? --Integrated (User / Talk) 01:14, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Answered Questions Discussion

Why don't people from the FST remember their time on the Island?

• Sun seems to remember John Locke. In previous episodes traumatic events have caused Losties to remember events, especially experiences with lost loves. This is the first time there may be a memory without a romantic attachment. However, its not 100% certain if it was memories of the Island she had. She could be remembering Locke from the plane.--Lucky Day 01:16, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Det Ford and Kate seem to recognize each other.--Lucky Day | message 17:07, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Desmond is stalking Claire but as usual with creepy, bad people who are no good for her, she goes along.--Lucky Day | message 17:07, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Ilana is amazed by the fate of meeting Claire whom she was looking for.--Lucky Day | message 17:07, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Jack is shocked to see John Locke on his operating table whom he talked with at the airport.--Lucky Day | message 17:08, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Did falling down the well kill Desmond? In the FST will Sun survive? Is John dead?

• No, on Desmond. The MiB sends Sayid to finish him off. Sun is recovering nicely. John didn't die right away but is in the hospital waiting for a miracle from his surgeon, Jack --Lucky Day 05:21, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Did Sun's baby survive in the FST?

• According to Jin it did. We still don't know if its a boy or a girl.--Lucky Day | message 06:27, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

How did Sayid come back to life? How did he become "evil"? Why did the Temple waters not bring him back to life? Why were they polluted?

• Sayid claims that it was the MiB that saved his life in the Temple waters. In addition, Claire says that once Locke talks to you, you are in his camp whether you like it or not.--Lucky Day | message 16:09, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Is the MiB causing the infection?

• Claire claims to Jack that talking to the MiB automatically puts you in his camp and that you have no choice. Jack seems to fall in this pattern by returning to the Island. Claires attempt to escape the Island fails as well.--Lucky Day | message 16:11, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sayid claims it was the MiB who brought him back to life.--Lucky Day | message 18:13, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't Detective Ford arrest Kate at the airport. Why did he protect her?

• Kate figured out that Ford didn't want anyone discovering he was in Sydney. Ford didn't deny this.--Lucky Day | message 16:48, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Will Sun and Jin finally be reunited in the OT?

• Yes. Yay!--Lucky Day | message 17:10, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Christian/Locke/Smokey

The MiB needs a dead body in order to appear as them.

• Jack asked why he chose Locke. The MiB claims it was becasue Locke was "stupid enough" to believe he was brought to the Island for a reason. As well, it was simply because they brought his body back.

The MiB claims he appeared to Jack as his dead father.

• He said he did it to help Jack by leading him to water (he was helping him). In previous episodes the MiB is revealed to be attempting to prove Jacob wrong by tempting the people he brings to the Island. As well, the Mysterious Boy has told the MiB that he can not kill two of the candidates (Jack is very likely a candidate). It seems like his claim to help Jack may be only a half truth at best.

Previously, it was stated that Smokey was trapped in Locke's form, however it's now been revealed that he was Christian as well. Why wasn't he trapped as Christian, and how could he assume both Christian and Locke's forms simultaneously (5x9,5x12) ? Should these go under unanswered questions? -- Xbenlinusx 03:03, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• MiB also assumed both Alex and Locke's likenesses over a short period of time. I'm pretty sure TPTB have said that him being stuck in Locke's form has to do with Jacob's death. --LeoChris 03:09, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• There is no guarantee that MiB is telling the truth when he claims he appeared to Jack as Christian; remember he is a known liar when it suits his purposes.MarkFunk 03:11, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Ilana said MIB is now trapped as Locke because Jacob is dead.Annarboral 03:26, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Can't believe it took so long for someone to mention this, but yes, Annarboral is right. Marc604 06:03, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• So it was Christian the whisper appearing to Michael on the freighter right, MIB cant travel over water. Buffyfan123 06:17, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems so, but we don't know it ironclad yet.--Pittsburghmuggle 06:27, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • None of this is addressing the fact that he assumed 2 forms at the exact same time. -- Xbenlinusx 06:44, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • If you're referring to him being Locke and Alex, that was before Jacob was killed and also Locke went to "go find some rope" before the smoke showed up and later manifested as Alex. If you mean when he was Christian in the barracks with Lapidus and Sun and Locke outside, I'm pretty sure Ben wasn't with Locke, but Locke came out of the jungle after Christian disappeared. As for being on the Kahana, we don't know his travel limitations yet. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 07:08, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
      • No I'm not. At the exact time he was Christian in New Otherton, he was also John Locke over on the Hydra Island while the crash victims were wondering who he was. -- Xbenlinusx 07:32, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
        • We can't be certain it was the exact same time, as they occurred in two separate locations. [8] I guess, though, this would mean that he can travel to and from Hydra if he wanted to, without a boat. -- Clayburn talk contributions email 08:08, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• What about the time Christian was seen inside Jacobs cabin? It was surrounded by a ring of ash which we know keeps the smoke monster in or out. How could Christian be trapped inside the cabin while the smoke monster is roaming the island if they're supposed to be the same person? --KeithM999 08:58, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Wasn't Christian also seen by Jack in LA? In Something Nice Back Home, S4? Who was that? --Mwexler 10:39, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Go back and watch that episode again. The SMOKE ALARM gets Jack's attention when he comes out and sees his dad. --Tenaciousd 22:14, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Either the continuity control guy is doing a very sloppy job, or it wasn't smokey as Christian. Here's what we know. We know that the Man in Black can't travel off the island, or through ash rings, while Jacob and Dogen were alive. Jacob was alive during Something Nice Back Home and Cabin Fever. We can assume that Smokey can't travel across water, so he could have just offed a survivor in secret, shapeshifted into them to get on the Kahana, and THEN turn into Christian to appear to Michael, but then, the Kahana was outside the radius, which might just constitute "getting off the island".--Gibbeynator 10:55, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • The Kahana may have been inside the radius: Jin, who was at the site of the ship wreckage, moved with the Island.EdwardLost 16:20, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
      • The Kahana WASN'T inside the radius, remember, the Kahana vanished after the first time jump, and Daniel said that he must have been inside the radius.--Gibbeynator 17:09, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
        • The Kahana could have been inside the radius -- when the island jumped, it would have disappeared in any case since it wasn't there at that point in time.
        • I'm pretty sure that Daniel said that Jin only moved with the Island because he was blown into the radius. So Jin wasn't in the radius already. --Golden Monkey 22:24, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
          • Michael's body went down with the Kahana, but his ghost remained with the Island and joined the Whispers. Duncan905 22:34, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Just because he claims to have appeared as Christian does not mean it is true. Furthermore just because he has appeared as Christian once does not mean that every manifestation we see of Christian is MIB. Jdray 13:11, April 21, 2010

(UTC)

• • If "Christian" has always been the same entity it will be hard to reconcile all his actions as working toward a single goal.EdwardLost 16:33, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• The spiders were multiple manifestations of Smokey appearing at the same time.EdwardLost 16:15, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but the spiders were tiny little things. Turning into Locke would probably take a lot more Smokey than turning into a spider.--Gibbeynator 17:28, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• This is a good discussion. Interesting, indeed, that if Christian at the barracks was Smokey (who conveniently told Sun and Frank to wait for Locke - himself) then he does seem to be able to travel to and from hydra with no problem. Another example of multiple appearances would be appearing as Richard's wife and the smoke monster killing her at the same time. As a guess, his ability to appear in multiple locations, create apparitions, and change forms all seems to have been removed after Jacob's death, at which point he is finally trapped entirely in the body. Whereas before he was much more versatile. --Integrated (User / Talk) 09:25, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Smokey was the more stern Christian that helped the losties find water. Other manifestations of Christian had a completely different gait and disposition, he also tended to have strong ties with all his family including Claire, Aaron and Jack. This suggests that though Smokey appeared as Christian for that time (and possibly others) that in fact Christian could've been himself a few times. Take for the example in the So It Begins clip, he gets Vincent to get 'Jack' as he has work to do. However other times he has clearly referred to Jack to everybody else as 'his son'. One counter argument you could have however is that even though Christian seemed to have a connection with Aaron, some time after that he also told Claire that the Others took him (which is a lie, or at least deceitful) and was also the same thing that Smokey said, hence he was Smokey in the Cabin. Do we know yet who the second guy in the Cabin was when Hurley was there? The Whisper Transcripts suggests that Christian was in the whispers during that scene, if this is the case, knowing Hurley can see dead people and that Michael said whispers were dead people, perhaps Hurley saw Christian's actual ghost and the eye that appeared was the MIB. Finally, there is the Kahana issue, not just because of Smokey's inability to travel across water, but the simple fact that he is against the island, yet Christian on the Kahana seemed to be voicing the island.
  • Maybe Jacob lost some weight and shaved between when we saw him in the cabin and when we saw him in The Incident.--Gibbeynator 00:47, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Claire's claim / freewill

Claire reinforces the 'magical rule' that if you MiB let speak to you it's too late, you're recruited. Seeming validation to a debated topic, but soon after Kate convinces her she still has a choice. Claire changes sides, convincingly. This squashes that 'rule' & the sequence qualifies as irony, but I'd like to make sure it stays as an example of fate vs freewill. I'd originally portrayed it as such, but it was modified to only be about how quickly Claire switched after being with MiB for 3 years. Please discuss before tinkering. Duncan905 18:14, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

My view is the Claire is 'Crazy', emphasis being on her mental state. Claire is purely driven by the need to find her baby, Aaron, nothing else means anything. At this point, anyone who can offer Claire the opportunity to be with or have Aaron back will get her Allegiance. MiB recognizes this need and uses it to recruit Claire to his cause. Let us not forget that Claire very well saved Kate's life at the temple, yet tries to throttle Kate at MiB's camp. MiB needs to scold Claire because even MiB recognizes that she is crazy or 'sick'. MiB never takes your choices away from you, he merely has great powers of persuasion as testified to by Dogen. Relative to Jacob's his offers are sweet and much less of a hard bargain. The question is will changing sides absolve Claire of her past actions, will it remove any darkness in her heart, has she gained some redemption which will validate her changing sides. Does it imply that MiB has no influence on her; probably not. For all you know she could turn on the rest anytime something triggers her 'crazy' state. MiB was a friend, now she has another friend Kate who is going to give her the same thing MiB was, and if it is worth anything she can still kill her after that. It's a good deal isn't it VeryBadRobot 20:21, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Good argument. Kate does (gently) take Claire's rifle as she comes aboard. But are you agreeing that the 'magical rule' is bogus & amounts to nothing more than a warning about the persuasiveness of MiB/Jacob? Duncan905 20:50, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Its clearly a fate vs freewill topic. The fact that Jack comes back is meant to pique the idea that it may be true. As well, Claire didn't quite make it out in the sub yet. Its still an open question, and may be a legit UQ.--Lucky Day 01:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• this was the most interesting show in a long time because it introduced the idea about what the infection is and how it works. MiB works on people in extremis. Claire was effectively abandoned (in her eyes at least), she was always the least well connected with a childish response to life in general. Shown her father, supported by the sweet lying promises of MiB her infection was easy to achieve. But it was a mental infection. Kates's concern, her turn the other cheek attitude over the last month's episodes, her speaking of the truth seems to have overwhelmed the infection. Claire was never crazy - she had a skeleton in her cradle but she recognised it for what it was ("it was all I had" she said to Kate") - that is the antithesis of being crazy. (Much of this probably applies to Rousseau too). Sayid is more complex because of his apparent death. But the Main thing is that Sayid was extremely vulnerable. Here is the killer/torturer with the soft heart. He is probably the most romantic and tortured of all the Losties. So when those around him say to him that he is "dead" and "doomed", that he lacks all human feelings - he accepts that as true. He shuts down. He stops acting from his own will because such action is too painful. MiB is his staff Sergeant. Then a man down a well more doomed than he, looks up to him and asks a question. A question that cannot be answered without truth and recognition of what love is - then we have a crisis. The infection is being bled. The "let him speak and it is too late rule" is both true and not true. It is not true for Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Sun, even Hurley. It is not true (as far as we have seen) for Jin. It is not true for Richard (tho it nearly was). For all these people their time on the island has given them strength and "maturity" despite all of them being "troubled souls". It is not over yet but, but while I am sure MiB has some tricks up his sleeve, Jacob's argument looks more powerful despite his demise than ever.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   01:24, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• • The thing about Claire and the infection. Claire has appeared to have developed a personality very much like Daniel Rousseau who also was crazy. I find significance when Flocke claimed that his mother is crazy. My thought is that infected people gain the personalities of those who originally involved in the Islands founding.--Lucky Day 01:39, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• • • Good discussion. On the lighter side, if there's no free will Zoe is with Locke now too. He even greets her first.  :) Duncan905 03:28, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
      • He didn't take her aside and talk to her alone. There may be a "take my hand" action to it as well. On your reasoning, Dez have a well deserved time out at the bottom of (yet) another well is part of Flocke's group. I don't necessarily disagree with that.--Lucky Day | message 06:35, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
        • "On the lighter side" meant I was joking. I don't subscribe to any 'magic rules' of recruiting, not anymore. They provided some tension with Dogen's mission for Sayid, but that's about it. It's all about persuasion & whether someone believes they have a choice or not. Although Zoe is careful to toss the walkie talkie to FLocke instead of hand it to him. ;) Duncan905 16:39, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Locke the Life-giver topics

• Sayid claims MiB brought him back from the dead. This can get noted as 'Life and Death', but should it satisfy striking old UAQ about how Sayid was revived? Duncan905 18:45, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Can we infer that the murky water in the Spring indicated his presence *within* the water? That is, a form of contact with Sayid seems necessary to accomplish this, whereas Sayid's body laid dead for an hour & just 'woke up'. I think an UAQ of how MiB was able to affect Sayid with the Temple barrier intact/Dogan alive is warranted. The murky Spring water was the only thing amiss inside, but I realize that's drawing a conclusion. I'll get some talk going on the MiB page about water being a new potential form. Duncan905 18:45, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Did MiB revive Jack from the dead on the beach? Does this make Jack 'infected' or is that all mumbo jumbo now? Duncan905 18:45, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Can't say this. I realized Jack regains consciousness with his ears ringing & watches Locke approach him. Possibly healed, but not re-animated. Duncan905 21:10, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

• • IMO the Nemesis was using Jack as protection. Remember, you can't kill him.--Lucky Day | message 06:37, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • So instead of "human shield" it's "Candidate shield"? Hilarious!! Duncan905 16:41, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
      • :-D--Lucky Day | message 00:58, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

• Did Claire die at the barracks, as has been speculated, and MiB quickly revived her? (should I just be signing once? I'd like discussion on any of these points) Duncan905 19:54, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

"Locke" Usage

Someone went through the article and removed all the "" from around "Locke" in reference to the Man in Black's character. I can't find every example right now but I know just for starters a reference was made to this very issue at http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Everybody_Loves_Hugo#Section_.22The_Man_in_Black.27s_Group.22 and http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:The_Package#Consistency among numerous other places in which consensus was reached that there were three ways that were accptable for referring to this charater - the Man in Black (not MiB or MIB), "Locke", and Locke. I feel this was a unilateral move against previously established consensus and that the dit should be reverted. And if i can just add please I think if one of those 3 names should be removed from the list it should be Locke and not "Locke" Locke should only be used for the actual John Locke who is buried in the cemetery on Boone's Hill. Correct me if I am wrong - I just know that this issue has been discussed ad naseum. Thanks. Jdray 02:41, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks - I don't know how this got changed - I didn't get a notice of the edit. Who did it? Anyway I've reverted it to "Locke" after the initial link to MiB. To try and avoid argument - we have been consistently using this approach since most of this season. We have discussed it at length. It is recognised that it is not a perfect solution, simply the best and least awkward, especially since the characters themselves continue to call him Locke.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   04:57, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • • http://lostpedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=The_Last_Recruit&diff=841032&oldid=841028 Jdray 08:24, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • This just looks weird. I think I would prefer to switch all instances to the Man in Black rather than using "Locke" in quotes like that, if it's really an issue. The producers have confirmed on the podcasts that they just refer to him as Locke, and in the scripts he's just called Locke (not "Locke").  Robert K S   tell me  05:15, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Well the producers have to direct an actor. Its written as a script to be acted, and not meant for the public.--Lucky Day 06:05, April 22, 2010 (UTC)--Lucky Day 05:24, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• I know I said I would never speak of this again but looks like I lied. I understand "Locke" (in quotes) and MiB being used more or less interchangeably in reference to the entity currently using the physical form of the original Locke. I do not understand the logic of writing his name as just Locke (without the quotes) when referring to this fake Locke. It just makes no sense to me. At this point in the series all Losties know the difference so we get it. But Lostpedia, as a reference source for anyone interested in all things Lost, now and in the future, should scrupulously avoid introducing possible confusion in the minds of future Lost recruits who might drop in in the middle of the series. Locke and "Locke" are not the same. It matters not one iota whether the show's writers use the quotes in their scripts or whatever as a convenience. This is about keeping the Lostpedia record clear and accurate for its readers. At this point in the series Locke is dead. "Locke" is something or someone else entirely. Hatchbanger 18:01, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Notwithstanding, repeated usage of "Locke" in quotation marks is little else than annoying and a tad insulting to the intelligence of the reader. "Hurley" is a nickname, but it's not necessary to quotate every instance of it. If we can't agree to refer to him as just plain Locke as the producers do, we should stick to only using the Man in Black. (I'll also point out that Locke being dead in the original timeline only means that there is no ambiguity as to who the name Locke refers to, so disunity of personhood is not an argument for not using the name Locke for the Man in Black.)  Robert K S   tell me  19:23, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the quotations. They're just ridiculous. Like people have said before me, the survivors know The Man in Black as simply Locke. The producers refer to him as Locke as well. The quotations are ugly and annoying and not needed. Anyone with a brain knows when the name Locke is used in the OT summary, it's the MIB. It's nauseating to having to keep reading "Locke." Example:

""Locke" says that he was hoping Jack would come and invites him to "catch up". Jack tells Hurley it was his idea and asks if it is OK that he goes to talk to "Locke". "Locke" sits on a log and Jack squats in front of him saying that Locke looked just like him. Jack says that what bothers him is that he has no idea what the hell "Locke" is. "Locke" says he chose Locke's body because John Locke was stupid enough to think he was on the island for a reason and he pursued that idea until it got him killed."

It's just plain awful. (Kdc2 20:29, April 22, 2010 (UTC))

• Is it stated somewhere that Lostpedia's episode summaries are intended to be understood only by hardcore Lost fans who have watched the show from the beginning? If so then the policy of using Locke, "Locke", or MiB interchangeably is reasonable and I withdraw from the debate. Well actually I withdraw from the debate regardless. I've made my point. Hatchbanger 23:43, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I think the number of articles on Lostpedia that would be understood by someone unfamiliar with the show would be quite few. The encyclopedia is written for the benefit of fans, not for the benefit of a mass audience as would be, say, a general reference dictionary. Even so, that's really not a consideration when it comes to how we refer to characters. Quotation marks used for euphemism around a word lose their meaning with repeated instances and simply become annoying. Repeating "Locke" over and over in quotation marks is simply linguistically improper.  Robert K S   tell me  01:06, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

I like Mocke or Flocke, as he is a fake John Locke or a mock of Locke (JohnQPoster 13:41, April 23, 2010 (UTC))

• I would argue FOR the quotation marks. I don't see how they're annoying? The fact is, this is an encyclopedia- regardless of how the script, or other characters in the show refer to him, he is NOT Locke and shouldn't be called Locke. --Integrated (User / Talk) 01:21, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you.  :) Hatchbanger 02:30, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

FS Sections

Do we really need the different sections for each character, especially in a various-centric episode like that, where characters cross paths with each other? i mean, in Claire's flash, we also see Desmond and Ilana. In Jin and Sun's, we also see Jack and Locke. Can we just have all the paragraphs under one heading?  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  05:18, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

That's how I originally had it. Bit unnecessary because the story is told chronolgically so it suits one narrative    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   05:49, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• It looks completely stupid right now... at the very least we need to add that last bit about Jack with the rest of his FS description, even if it means that it's written out of chronological order, in my opinion. —   lion of dharma    talk    email   16:28, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

The trivia and analysis can get confusing because of this. I think we need to break that section up more and not just in the UQ's.--Lucky Day | message 16:57, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

What is Claire Packing

This is at 18:23 just after "Locke" tells his camp to gather their things as they are going to the other Island. Claire puts a sphere into a stocking (?), there is one in there already. What are they?    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   05:46, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Mangos? --Integrated (User / Talk) 10:11, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• I think you are right. At first I thought home made bombs! This site is getting to me!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   10:44, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Or is it papayas--Lucky Day | message 15:51, April 22, 2010 (UTC)?

Jorge discusses this in the latest Geronimo Jack's Beard.  Robert K S   tell me  19:24, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

• • • For the sake of those people out there who are too busy in their day time jobs to spend 1/2 hour of excellent, quality time to listen to the great thespian, do you have transcript?--Lucky Day | message 01:02, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
• Or just tell us what he said coz that pod is unlistenable.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   01:15, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • They're mangoes. -- Graft   talk   contributions  01:30, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
• They are tropical mangoes. The large variety, not fully ripe yet I suppose. You've got to love Claire, she makes crazy seem so effortless that anything she is seen doing alone seems to raise eyebrows. I wish they had given her more thought provoking dialogue in the series, her character would've have been a stand out.VeryBadRobot 07:39, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Claire is 'currently packing heat', by the way. When she packed up at her hut the camera pauses on the big knife, but seconds before she put a pistol in her backpack. Mentioning just in case there's a payoff - everyone let their guard down when Kate took Claire's rifle as she came aboard.  :) Duncan905 20:21, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but by the time they made landfall on Hydra Island, they'd given her her rifle back.  Robert K S   tell me  22:39, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, true. It's even in the pic posted above. Yeah, Claire's probably cool now. Duncan905 00:31, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

laShade or Shaw?

I don't think the man that was checking Kate out before Officer Ford came in was named laShade. I replayed it in slowmotion a couple of times, and I'm pretty sure his name is Shaw.--Rikdewinter 15:17, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Sawyer's picks - worth an UAQ?

"Why does Sawyer choose to include Frank in his plan, when they only just met and were not ever seen to speak?"

• Proposing this or something similar. This gnaws at me; we know why he discarded Claire & Sayid, but why pick up a stranger? Not to pilot the sub. It's also pretty cold to abandon Cindy, Zach & Emma, whom he is at least familiar with. (I had hoped that Sawyer's deal with Widmore for the people 'on his boat' meant to include Cindy & the kids) It might be reasonable for Sawyer to want another 'guy' for group strength, and Frank's alliance being towards Jack made him trustworthy, but that's alot of assuming. Duncan905 00:43, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • He took everyone who isn't an Other.. he hates The Others. Can't really blame him. --Integrated (User / Talk) 01:23, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • how is Sawyer "familiar" with Cindy, Zach and Emma. sure, he's seen them around, but that's about it?    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   02:51, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
• Remember that Sawyer and Frank met during The Shape of Things to Come. And even if he didn't remember Frank (which he would) he probably doesn't want MiB to have the pilot of the plane.--Frank J Lapidus 03:06, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Jin/Sun Reunion

This is minor, but did anybody else get scared that Jin and Sun would get shocked by the fence when they reunited? My friends were nervous about the reunion (especially after Ilana's unexpected death), so I feel like the director intentionally created the tension. But why? AletheiaAgape 04:43, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. So much. But I basically thought they COULDN'T do that. Just very strange having a 3 year reunion through a sonic fence of death. --Integrated (User / Talk) 13:02, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Desmond's voice changes in the elevator

At first I thought it was the TV, but later when I was watching it on iTunes it was the same. When Claire and Desmond are in the elevator together going to the 15th floor, Desmond says, "Look, this attorney I'm seeing, she's excellent." From "I'm" to "Seeing", Desmond's voice unmistakably changes tone. Is this a blooper? Or could this be a possible crossover between the FST and the OT? Thoughts? Rddswim 06:12, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

• Look, Rddswim, I know this shrink, she's excellent - specializes in Lost Mania. (Changes tone) Get a life!    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   08:13, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Now-now, Charles. As it says on the top of every talk page "Be polite, don't bite".--Pittsburghmuggle 11:49, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, that was supposed to be humour, I have to stop trying that stuff. Regrets.    Charles Kane     talk  contribs   email   12:55, April 24, 2010 (UTC)