FANDOM


Saint-Exupéry book

I am starting to read the book "The little Prince" (Le petit prince) by Saint-Exupéry just in case this is the book that the writers are referring to ;) --Mephiztofel 03:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Knock yourself out. It's a book that everyone should read once anyway. But it is no mystery that the writers are certainly directly referring to Saint-Exupery's book. The name of Rousseau's boat even matches the name of the asteroid the Little Prince is from. Not to mention the obvious connections between lost space/time travelers.--MonsterEatsthePilot 03:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You might be onto something here.

The Little Prince certainly sounds like the rich kind of work that the writers of Lost would mine for treasure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Prince --Foucalt 20:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • The Little Prince is my favorite book of all times, and I think that it is a reference to Locke's death, possibly will see it by the end of this episode, per the fact that the Prince dies at the end of "The Little Prince" trying to go back to his planet (Locke has to be brought back to the Island after his death). Orhan94 13:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This could mean a few things

Not having read the book, although it was referenced many many times in my French classes, I wouldn't put it past the writers to include this into the "book club". There are some similarities that I drew when reading the Wikipedia aritcle above... The article begins to describe adults that the Prince encounters

- "The Drunkard/Tippler who drinks to forget that he is ashamed of drinking." (Jack)

- "The Businessman who is constantly busy counting the stars he thinks he owns. ... The Prince owns the flower and volcanoes on his planet because he cares for them and they care for him. Because one cannot maintain the stars, he argues, the Businessman cannot own them." (Widmore to an extent)

I am sure that we could relate more of the adults to various characters, but these are the ones that stuck out when I read the descriptions... I found this bit interesting as well: "On the Earth, he starts out in the desert and meets a snake that claims to have the power to return him to his home planet (A clever way to say that he can kill people, thus "Sending anyone he wishes back to the land from whence he came.")" Kinda sounds like the island and the frozen donkey wheel... "After some thought, the Prince bids an emotional farewell to the narrator, explaining to him that while it will look as though he has died, he has not, but rather that his body is too heavy to take with him to his planet. ... The next morning when the narrator looks for the Prince, he finds his body has disappeared. " This reminds me of Christian, or pretty much any other character that has died on Lost that has made a recurrence thus far... The spirit is still alive but the body isn't, not to mention that the body had disappeared... Hmmm..... Just a few thoughts I had while reading the wikipedia article... --Chef855 01:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not read the book, however I noticed several other notable similarities when I read therough the wikipedia article as well.

The quotes are from the wikipedia article on the book...

"Finally he draws a box, which he explains has the sheep inside. The Prince, who can see the sheep inside the box just as well as he can see the elephant in the boa, says "That's perfect"." -Ben told Locke about a box that could contain anything you wished for in season three

"The Prince spends his days caring for his "planet", pulling out the baobab trees that are constantly trying to take root there. The trees will make his little planet turn to dust if they are not removed" -The 'monster' pulls trees out of the ground

"The King- who can apparently "control" the stars but only by ordering them to do what they would do anyway. He then relates this to his human subjects; it is the citizen's duty to obey, but only if the king's demands are reasonable. He orders the Prince to leave as his ambassador." -Maybe a reference to Ben(?)

"The Lamplighter- who lives on an asteroid which rotates once a minute. Long ago, he was charged with the task of lighting the lamp at night and extinguishing it in the morning. At that point, the asteroid revolved at a reasonable rate, and he had time to rest. As time went on, the rotation sped up. Refusing to turn his back on his work, he now lights and extinguishes the lamp once a minute, getting no rest. The Prince empathizes with the Lamplighter, who is the only adult he meets to care about something other than himself." -This sounds like Desmond while he was living at the swan station.

"The narrator is dying of thirst, but then he and the Prince find a well. After some thought, the Prince bids an emotional farewell to the narrator, explaining to him that while it will look as though he has died, he has not, but rather that his body is too heavy to take with him to his planet." -Sounds like a reference to the well that Locke climbed into to get off the island

LalaLindseKitten 07:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Aaron-centric or Kate-Centric?

I'm going to go with Kate. The episode starts with her flashback, and then cuts to her current location. One can argue that Aaron was there both times, yet I'm sure she was the one remembering that event and not Aaron. Also, even though the title might refer to Aaron, he appeared in two scenes, while Kate was the driving force of the main plot. ObiDanKenobi5 04:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why choose? Arguments could be made either way. I think it centers around both Aaron & Kate.    Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 04:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Good call. ObiDanKenobi5 04:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Aaron is really central enough (the kid is what, three years old?) to start getting centric episodes and such. Kate was obviously the centricity of the episode. ShadowUltra 05:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I had been thinking Kate, but I think putting both is fine. Seems like the easiest way to do it. -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Kate. While the action was about Aaron, the reaction and story was based around Kate's responses to the situation with Aaron. Aaron was only in a few minutes (at the start and end) of the episode. I don't see how you can make the case that his character was central to the episode.
Plus, in the end, Aaron was just a red herring from Ben to get Kate to reach out to Jack. I think this episode falls clearly in the Kate category.    CANADA DRY    talk    contribs    email   05:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that we are seeing fewer and fewer episodes centric to one character only. This might require a change in how they are categorized?--Emissary23 05:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Aaron shouldn't be included in centricity. By the logic being used here, Vincent would also get centricity for the episode Special, because he was in the flashbacks too.--HaloOfTheSun 06:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
In terms of how things are being done so far this season, it should be "Kate-centric" only. --Makiwolf 07:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The pattern I see this season is that each episode is centric to whoever gets the flash at the beginning of each episode, the subject of which is whoever's face has a closeup at the end of the flash. In this case I think it was Kate holding Aaron? That would indicate both in my opinion, especially since the title of the episode refers to Aaron, and the flash, central storyline, and even some of the on island action centered around Kate's relationship with Aaron. --Jackdavinci 08:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Except, once again, Aaron was missing from a good 2/3 to 3/4 the episode. It was about him but not central to him. I know it may seem like I'm cutting corners here, but we don't see Aaron's reaction to anything except Mac n' Cheese in this episode.    CANADA DRY    talk    contribs    email   15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The off-Island parts of the episode were not about Aaron; they were about Kate's agony over the possibility of losing Aaron.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's Kate-centric. I don't like saying centric, because technically Libby didn't have a centric episode, but had a flashback episode, but nonetheless, it's a Kate-centric or flashback episode. You can include Aaron as part of the Oceanic 6 episodes because you don't have to separate that centric by each of their names and he technically didn't get a flashback, but here, when it's so specific, it's clearly a Kate episode. I don't think we'll get an Aaron episode until much later in the series if at all. Also, this argument is like "Hearts and Minds." That's Boone centric and not Shannon, but it was their story. Aaron wasn't even in all the acts in this episode. Alexisfan07 5 February 2009
  • I agree this is a Kate-centric episode, not a Kate/Aaron one. Tranquility 20:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. If we're going to include Aaron in the centricity simply because he was with Kate, then we need to include Aaron with Claire in all of her episodes. This isn't consistent and it simply just doesn't make sense to include him.--HaloOfTheSun 21:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The consensus generally seems to be Kate. Can we change it then?  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be changedMattfarley1008 23:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Alright it looks like the majority agrees with this. I removed Aaron from the centricity. Tranquility 23:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove Aaron from the template at the top too? I can't go in and edit it. Alexisfan07 5 February 2009

  • I disagree. I think it's Kate/Aaron as it focuses on Kate as Aaron's mother, and how there is a threat to take him away. And concensus isn't determined in less than 24 hours. I'm sure there are other interested parties who'd like time to ring in. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd say the episode was Kate-centric. Aaron, in the first flashback, was really more like a prop. The conversation, while *about* him, could have happened without him actually being there. Just like most of the episode. --LeoChris 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I choose to refer to this episode as a Aaron centric, because the plot on and off the island focuses on him. [SPOILER REMOVED]
  • Disagree I know the consensus seems to be that its Kate centric BUT I really think this is a Kate & Aaron Centric episode. This episodes story revolves around Aaron. His birth scene, flashback to 2005 when Kate decided to keep him and in the present Aaron is the main topic of debate. Both Kate AND Aaron are the central characters to this story, Please consider changing. --Frw22 13:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Aaron is a side character. He has never had his own centric episode, aside from sharing centricity with the Oceanic 6 flash-forwards in "There's No Place Like Home" and the arguable flash-forwards on "Because you Left". This episode is indeed Kate-centric. However, if we are trying to stick with objective, factual-based information, the main story arc of the series is what's taking place on the Island. Since the focus of the Oceanic survivors on the Island for this episode is supposed to be the 2004 versions of them shifting through time, and most of the Kate story for this episode takes place in 2007, then it should be considered a flash-forward, not a flashback. Just saying.--Killermike2178 07:25, April 13, 2012 (UTC)Killermike2178

Does anyone here speak French?

Can anyone translate what the French people were saying and post a transcript? Thanks. dposse 05:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • There's a start of the French transcript at The Little Prince transcript, but it's incomplete and could use correction. Robert K S (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well ... if you know which one is Robert (I don't, because I don't understand a word), you can update the picture here - Robert --Running 05:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Robert's the one who's kneeling in the picture at science expedition. He's the nice one. Robert K S (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • It could also use some translation for the rest of us who don't know French. dposse 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I translated what's written in act 5. It's not perfect. --Ka'lel 05:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I have faith that the Lostpedians can make it perfect. dposse 06:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
            • I quickly translated everything. Nothing significant... Montand is a suspicious douchebag... and he finds the numbers are emitted from within the island. Says he's able to find the source easily
              • Great job! Thank you very much. dposse 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
              • I can help you for further informations (I'm french). Just contact me on my talk page

Chronology of the On-Island storyline

Should the time flashes be grouped together, or should they be listed in order of their respective time periods? I edited it in order of time flashes as the survivors experienced them, followed by 2005 flashback, then the Off-Island portion in 2007.Dman176 06:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Order as they experienced it makes the most sense. --Jackdavinci 08:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Chronological order would make the events too confusing. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I definitely think the flashes should be ordered in the way they are experienced on this page but it might also be helpful if we had a different page that showed all the flashes in chronological order as well.
I think the timeline page covers that --Jackdavinci 10:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

yemi

in this scene

Ben and Sayid meet Dan Norton in the police garage where Dan informs Ben that the charges will be dropped against Hurley and that he should be out by the next morning. When Sayid asks who Dan is, Ben says he is his lawyer.

dan norton quite clearly says that YEMI is the source of his information. this is a pretty rare name and unlikely to be unrelated to YEMI, brother of EKO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primative (talkcontribs) .

Norton said the M.E. (Medical Examiner) is the source of his information about the dead man outside the mental institution. He never mentioned Yemi.--tripsgame17 17:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Apophenia!

Leaked call sheet

Is the leaked call sheet for this episode okay to be refrenced in the article? As far as I can tell, there are no details for future episodes mentioned in it - on the other hand, it specifically dates the island flashes, which might be considered a spoiler in some instances. So should we

a) consider the call sheet off-limits altogether for the time being
b) reference any useful information from it
c) like b), but with spoiler warnings where necessary?

Call sheet can be found here.--Nevermore 17:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • With the exception of the spoilerish information provided, there is nothing else we couldn't figure out from the context of the show. So, I would say that inclusion is unnecessary; more-so given the spoilerish nature of some of the information.    CANADA DRY    talk    contribs    email   17:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Blooper?

When we see the light shining from the hatch, it appears to resemble the light from Man of Science, Man of Faith after the hatch door had been blown off, as opposed to when the hatch door was still attached and Locke was beating at it. Opinions? --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Also, why did Locke know which night it was? Why did he know it was the night Boone died, rather than the one he lowered Kate down into the hatch?--Nevermore 21:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The light that appeared in Exodus, Part Two only lasted a brief instant. The one that was in Deus Ex Machina lasted longer then that, like what we saw in this episode. I think that Locke would know the difference since he lived it. dposse 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Light in Exodus? but the light in Deus ex was no bigger in size than Locke's head! Looked much bigger there. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The narrow shaft of light would not be truly parallel, like a laser, but would spread slightly as it rose. Not only this but the atmosphere, particularly the damp air over a jungle covered island, would scatter the light and make the beam appear much wider than its source. The beam in The Little Prince could easily have been the one in Deus Ex Machina. --Cpt.Forrest 11:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Daniel said that light doesn't scatter on the Island. So this is a perfect representation of what the light would look like (from "Man of Science," not from "Deus Ex")--Mrmagic522 20:29, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
  • Danile states in an episode that light behaves strangely on the island. I believe he specifically said it does not scatter correctly or something to that effect. {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Location on the Island

On Rousseau's map there is a wreak located near some reefs, and near that is "le premiere camp". Can we assume Locke and the other survivors are near there since they found some of the wreckage on the beach? They made a comment something like "it just happened". Hugo815 19:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is if that wreckage floated to the shore there, or had the crew already been to shore and went in the raft to collect more supplies from the main wreckage? I think it's safe to assume that they are on the part of the island indicated on the map as 'the first camp' though. --Jackdavinci 10:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Danielle's team's second female member

This promo picture for 5x04 lists actress Alexandra Tobas along with the other actors portraying the French expedition's members. Even though it was a silent role, the fact that she is listed in the photo's headline means she is not an extra. I am therefore adding her as an uncredited role. --LeoChris 22:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks! Specifically the source is an ABCMedianet promo still credit showing the seven science team expedition members and Jin here:

"The Little Prince" - Kate discovers that someone knows the secret of Aaron's true parental lineage. Meanwhile, the dramatic shifts through time are placing the lives of the remaining island survivors in extreme peril, on "Lost," WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4 (9:00-10:02 p.m., ET) on the ABC Television Network. (ABC/MARIO PEREZ) MARC MENARD, ALEXANDRA TOBAS, BRUNO BRUNI, GUILLAME DUBINPONS, MELISSA FARMAN, DANIEL DAE KIM.

—"Photography Caption Information, ABC Medianet [1]

-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  19:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Literary Techniques

The point "Locke says he has to make the Oceanic 6 come back, even if it kills him, which it will (Irony)" does not necessarily have to be irony at all. Richard Alpert told him that the only way to save the island is for him to die. So Lock knows that he eventually will die, thus render his remark somewhat compliant or sarcastic, but it's not irony. I'd delete that point. One08 22:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Right, it's more like destiny. Locke knows his future fate and accepts it. --Cpt.Forrest 10:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

IMO the question "What is Ben's motive for separating Aaron from Kate?" is a bit too obvious - Ben wants to create an incentive for Kate to go back to the island. What's unanswered about that? Timich 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was gonna remove it earlier, but decided to leave it in case there was anyone who disagreed.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming to make this very point. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. He doesn't want to separate them at all. He was just giving her something to run from. The island being the place to run to. --Cpt.Forrest 10:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Remove it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's just for the off chance that that's not Ben's intention (although we have no reason, thus far, to think that Ben has alterior motives with Aaron). --Crash815 00:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sun's report

Despite the finding of a report online that is very similar, the text we can make out on the screen is somewhat different than the report online. I've tried to transcribe the first page as much as I can make out, and I've removed the link to the report as it is different (first glaring point is that it says Tuesday through Thursday, not any mention of 2004). Obviously it was used as a guideline, but it's not word-fo-word as reported elsewhere. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I propose that we move the text to a seperate article, it's cluttering up the episode page. Also we can add there the trivia concerning the source text, the named adress and persons. --LOST-Hunter61 15:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

outrigger canoe

Why doesen't the outrigger canoe disappear when they move back in time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helohe (talkcontribs) 2009-02-06T19:33:31.

  • Because they have it in their possession.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • IMHO the concept of "possession" is quite vague. They "possessed" all the stuff in the camp. It's probably whatever they touch during the flash, even if it doesn't make real sense.
    • Noted. "Because they were touching it."<shrug>? In the first flash (the one the Oceanic Six saw from the outside), everyone dropped anything they were holding to shield their eyes or cover their ears. Maybe that's why Juliet no longer has her bottle of DHARMA rum.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • i have to disagree - In episode one, there were a few flashes while they were at the hatch, yet the zodiac is still around at the beginning of episode two even though no one was touching it during the flashes. This could of course just be a blooper?Adklerk 20:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Note that Jin "touched" the wooden board that he was floating on. It traveled with him in time.--Gelsias 19:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason they still have their clothes, weapons, etc.--Sabatorius 06:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting wrapped around the axle on this one. There are two considerations: Getting the science of time travel right and writing a good show. Since no one really knows anything about time travel, we have to go with writing a good show.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have watched that scene back with Daniel, Charlotte, Miles, Sawyer, Locke and Juliet. On the other canoe were at least 3 people. But who?--Station7 21:10, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Zodiac

I just realized that Locke's plan was to use the Zodiac boat to get to the Orchid. They know time is jumping around, so how can they expect it to be there when they get there? Even as they arrive at the abandoned beach camp, they are surprised to not find it, and even believe the beach camp survivors may have used it to escape intruders. This makes no sense, since by the time they get there not only do they have no idea when they are, but most of the survivors are dead by that time and they have no clue if that's where the flaming-arrow surviving survivors would be. And why are they shocked that there's no one at the beach camp, anyway? Wouldn't they assume, like the audience did, that they've simply jumped to some time after it was abandoned? --Cobblepot 09:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • In "The Lie", Juliet and Sawyer discuss the strange fact that the Zodiac raft has jumped in time with them, and Juliet conjectures that whatever they made the initial travel with will continue to travel with them. A better question is why Locke's compass, the hand bindings on Charlotte and Miles, and the outrigger canoe travelled in time with them. Is there some kind of proximity factor? What else could they take with them if they happened to be holding onto it at the time? Robert K S (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's clear that whatever they're at least holding or wearing or sitting in at the time will jump with them. Like the outrigger and the guns from Widmore and friends. But I had assumed that once they were no longer holding/wearing/sitting in them they would stop jumping. Thanks for bringing up that conversation. I had forgotten about it. Still, it's strange that she would assume it would jump with them even after they abandoned it. And it's strange that it would jump after abandoning it. Still, they jumped several times since they left the Zodiac, including to the time when Claire was giving birth. If the Zodiac jumped as well, wouldn't the Losties see it mysteriously appear and disappear during the time the Island was in that "when"? My guess is that it won't ever be explained, or that they were wrong about the Zodiac jumping with them forever and it was simply in a different time. --Cobblepot 11:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • My guess is that lack of possession equals loss. If the Zodiac had travelled to the night of Aaron's birth on 1 November it would have "popped" into existence on an occupied beach. It was dark, but people walked around all the time. "Hey, where'd this boat come from?"--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Not only that, we've got a dead Frogurt, among other "survivors" who died during the flame arrow attack, who should be jumping since they did skip until that time. The dead bodies should be along for the ride for the same reason the zodiac is. Then, and I put this as an unanswered question but it got removed, if Sawyer saw Kate and Claire, what happened at the beach camp where I would think the time-skipping losties could have run into their original selves. --Makiwolf 18:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • They've only jumped once into a period within the hundred or so days and they never got as far as the beach.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Makiwolf means the likes of the time-skipping Rose and Bernard who are back at the beach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kasajian (talkcontribs) 2009-02-07T21:18:32.
    • This is a really interesting point. Explanations could be: some survivors already used the Zodiac to try and leave the island in the same timezone were they got hit by the flaming arrows so it never appeared on the beach. And also Rose and Bernard probably have gone far far far away from the beach where the attack happened so there was no danger of them running into themselves. Integrated (User / Talk) 11:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Expanding on the "lack of posession" idea, if the Others or someone else who is not skipping thru time took the raft, then it would probably stop skipping. Also, it would seem that dead people stop skipping. We know that a bunch of dead bodies didn't appear on the beach on November 1st, and then mysteriously disappear later that day. This would suggest a link between consciousness and time travel. Anything inamimate can only time travel if it is in the posession of a time traveler. Andrew1976 03:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncredited

  • What is the source for crediting Alexandra Tobas? Is it an editor scoop, or is it referenced somewhere, or did someone just make it up? In either case it needs to be noted in the "Production notes" section and credited, or else removed. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  19:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did the island disappear?

The people are moving through time, then why did the island disappear to jack and the gang? kasajian 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The main point of the donkey wheel was to move the island, as Christian and Ben indicated. The time jumps seem to be an unexpected side effect, which several characters have implied is somehow related to the O6 leaving. --Jackdavinci 10:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The Orchid is both "dangerous and unpredictable" ("There's No Place Like Home, Part 1") Integrated (User / Talk) 11:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It was moving the Island that is "both dangerous and unpredictable". It's also "a measure of last resort". ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yea.. Integrated (User / Talk) 11:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

I propose removing the following "unanswered" questions:

  1. If the "sickness" first strikes individuals who have spent more time on the Island, why are Charlotte and Miles affected? This question answers itself: Obviously it's because they have spent more time on the Island. Notice that Charlotte (who claims to be born on the Island) gets sick first, followed by Miles (which we don't know about his past) followed by Juliet who has been on the Island for several years. The real question is what is Miles' past with the Island.
  2. What happened to the rest of the survivors? I'll agree that this *is* an unanswered question, but it isn't raised by this episode. We can't keep asking "what has happened to Rose/Bernard/Vincent/etc every single episode until they show up again. Only questions SPECIFICALLY raised by the episode belong in the UQ section of the article.
  3. How come Jin has been moving with island, but the helicopter did not? Because the helicopter was outside of the area of effect. This has more or less been answered on the podcast, but even so, it's pretty obvious.
  4. Did Danielle remember saving Jin? This is in no way relevant to the events episode. Again, questions should be SPECIFICALLY raised by the episode to be in the UQ section. Furthermore is equivalent to asking a "what will happen next?" question.

 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Concur.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd disagree on [Point 2] based on the fact that Locke et al returned to the beach in this episode and the other survivors are not where they thought they'd be. We don't know where they went and only assume they escaped on the Zodiac. It is a valid question coming out of this episode. --Makiwolf 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


  1. "Miles and Charlotte have spent more time on the Island" is a theory. (It's a strong theory, of course, but until the show proves it, it's a theory.) No UQ can be validly answered by a theory.
  2. This was a valid enough UQ to be addressed in a podcast. (I believe that Damon and Carlton were more or less coy on the fates of Rose and Bernard but gave some indication that we'd be seeing them again; and they offered definitively that Vincent will survive until the end.) Any question raised in a podcast is certainly a valid UQ. Well, up until the producers answer it, at which point, it's been answered.
  3. I don't recall them answering this on the podcast. Which podcast? I don't think it's "obvious" at all--the helicopter was way closer to the Island than the freighter when the Island vanished. Unless Damon and Carlton have really said as much, a non-spherical radius of effect is a theory.
  4. The argument here is persuasive, though, reworded as "Why did Danielle never mention rescuing Jin?" I'd be much more tempted to keep it. Jin was conspicuously missing from her story.

Robert K S (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. The fact that Charlotte has spent more time on the Island is all but confirmed in the finale of Season 4 when she more or less states that she was born on the Island (I don't remember exact wording). The fact that this suggests Miles may have been on the Island previously is what the UQ should be (if anything). As worded, the question answers itself by saying "People who have been on the Island before get nosebleeds. Miles gets nosebleeds. Therefore, Miles has been on the Island before." (To the mathematicians out there: yes, I know that's a logical fallacy, but in terms of storytelling it makes sense.) We don't need a question stated in the form of a conclusive argument. I'd have no problem with a question along the lines of "When was Miles on the Island previously?" or "Why doesn't Miles remember being on the Island previously?"
  2. Like I said, I agree that it is a valid UQ. Where my issue lies is that it isn't a question raised by the episode. Yes, the beach camp was deserted, but... yeah... because the survivors are no longer living there, they're travelling through time. We can't keep asking "where are the other survivors" every single episode until they show up again. This question is valid for "Jughead" but is redundant showing up here.
  3. I'll re-listen to it when I have a chance, but I'm pretty sure when they're rehashing the episode, and specifically Jin being alive, they say something along the lines of "he was inside the area of effect during the time shifts".
  4. I'm still not a big fan of your rewording, although I'd accept it if others really wanted it. My problem is that it doesn't seem like a question that will be answered since it's been established that you can't change the timeline. So Danielle tells her story and leaves out Jin, Jin goes back in time and meets Danielle. That's great, but by the rules they've set out for us, these events can't change the story that Danielle told in Jin's (subjective) past (or Danielle's future, however you want to look at it).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think it would require the timeine to be changed for Danielle to remember saving Jin 16 years before he came to the island on 815. I definitely think that does Danielle remember saving Jin or something along those lines should be an unanswered question. I was unaware the probability of having an unanswered question answered had anything to do with whether or not the unanswered question should be posted. {{SUBST:User:jdray/autosig}} 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean the survivors are travelling through time and are no longer living on the beach? Locke, Sawyer, Juliet, Daniel, Charlotte, and Miles returned to the beach to get the Zodiac and seemingly expected to see Rose, Benard and whoever else is a part of that group. It is then assumed that the escaped on the Zodiac from whoever came in the outriggers. Sawyer specifically asked the question himself after picking up Vincent's leash, "Well, where's the rest of the dog? Where's the rest of our people?", which confirms it was raised in this episode and we did not find the answer by the end of the episode. --Makiwolf 18:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo, I note in your #1 the "all but". She states enigmatically that she's still looking for the place where she was born, "if that makes any sense". "People who have been on the Island before get nosebleeds" is a theory--a theory presented inside the show, but until it is borne out, we shouldn't be hasty to cross off the UQ. #2, I agree with Makiwolf that it is a question raised in this episode: Sawyer calls out for Rose and Bernard at the beach camp, and the presence of those mysterious canoe people and the fact that the raft is missing imply something strange going on. #3--they might have said this. If so, a new question is raised--"how is that even possible?" The Island disappeared right before the O6's eyes; Jin, being further away, should have observed the same thing. I suppose one could concoct a theory that with the flashes the Island might pop back into its old place, and Jin, having drifted closer to there, would now be caught up in it. But there's still something unanswered here. #4, that you can't "change the rules" is a theory--another of Daniel's. Maybe the rules can be changed. With all of these I think we're taking the answering one step too far, either by giving credence to unproven assertions laid forth in the show, or by introducing our own logic to try to solve the UQ. I'm happy to be more patient with UQs, and let them remain up until the show solves them, definitively--my $0.02. Robert K S (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
1) If a theory is presented within the show, I think we should accept it until disproven. 2) The presence of the mysterious people and the ransacked camp are their own questions and don't need to be brought into asking where Rose/Bernard/etc are. I stand by the idea that we shouldn't keep asking the same question over again for every episode where it isn't answered. 3) The idea that there will be a scene at some point in the show where they explain that the area of effect was some irregular shape and that's why Jin was trapped, seems ludicrous to me. I am 100% sure that the writers are expecting us to just suspend disbelief and accept that Jin was just inside the AOE when it occurred. If you honestly tell me that you think such a scene is forthcoming, however, I'll drop it. 4) The idea that you can't change the past has been flatly stated by the producers on the podcast. Also, see point 1) in that we should accept theories presented in the show.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
"If a theory is presented within the show, I think we should accept it until disproven."--then the title of the section needs to be "untheoried questions" instead of "unanswered questions". Letting aside the fact that various characters have had all sorts of theories that haven't panned out (Locke thought the light in the hatch was a special message; Ana Lucia thought Nathan was the mole in her group; Locke thought the button was just a psychological game and could be safely neglected; Jack thought getting off the Island would solve his problems, etc., etc.), what do we do when we have competing theories? Widmore and Ben both blame each other for the faked 815 wreckage. So does that mean that "Who planted the Oceanic 815 wreckage?" is no longer an unanswered question? Robert K S (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The difference between those two cases is that the theories of Locke, Ana Lucia, Jack, Widmore/Ben, etc were presented as questions (although I'd argue that your point about Jack thinking getting off the Island would solve his problems doesn't actually answer any questions), vs. Faraday's theories which have been presented as facts. If we start questioning everything that a character states as a fact, we will end up with a UQ for every line of dialogue. We ought to just suspend disbelief until something in the show suggests that he's incorrect. Furthermore, his theory about not being able to change the past has been confirmed multiple times by the producers.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Faraday's theories aren't presented as facts. He keeps saying "I don't know...", "I'm not sure...", "I think it's..." Robert K S (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
And don't forget that he visited Desmond, in order to change things, right on the heels of making that statement, and then covered it up by lying about looking for his pack and getting lost. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


I strongly agree with number 3. Even if it's not in the podcast (which I haven't heard yet), Faraday mentions that he himself was "inside the radius." I think we can safely assume that Jin was in this same radius. --Uncertainty 16:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Gah. Maybe you don't see the issue here. How is it possible that Jin was in the radius, when the O6 were outside it, even though they were headed back to the Island, from the point where Jin was on the freighter, when the Island disappeared? Does the radius have donut holes (or Swiss cheese holes, as it were)? Does the radius have a maximum height? Robert K S (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I was stuck on this same issue. My only thought was that the O6, et. al, were on Daniel's coordinates and therefore were not subject to the effect, while Jin was just floating on the debris and got caught up. But it's only a theory. In the meantime, I think it's a valid UQ since so many of us are pondering it. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see The Little Prince/Theories#Jin and Time Travelling--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But What About...

Just a thought here, but if the nosebleeds are related to length of time spent on the island, wouldn't Ben have gotten a nosebleed at some point? How would he know how to stop the nosebleed? --Chef855 15:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ben isn't teleporting through time like the rest of them.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jin within radius but not helicopter?

Now that we know that Jin was within the radius of the island to time travel, I wonder why the helicopter was not within the radius. Remember that after the helicopter left the freighter, it was headed towards the island. As a result, the helicopter was closer to the island than the freighter. But obviously, Jin time traveled with the island and not the helicopter.
Here are some explanations:

  • One explanation that comes to mind is that they had to take a very specific route to get between the freighter and island, and this route might have taken them further away from the island at that time
  • The radius only extends at sea level and does not grab things in the air
  • The radius is a bad description and it is really a squiggly line that grabs things at different distances (hence Jin but not the helicopter)

Another question is why has Jin time traveled and not the freighter that he was on which blew up? Platypus3 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The freighter probably did time travel, but it was in the form of wreckage at the time. (At least the fragments that were with Jin.)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jin is touching the wood, which is touching the water, which is touching the island. Like their clothes or the outrigger....I guess you could argue the helicopter is touching the air :) --The Slider 21:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see The Little Prince/Theories#Jin and Time Travelling--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

2008?

Why 2008? Weren't they on 2007? -- Lucas Benicá | Talk | Email | 21:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Main Pic

This is such a weird angle and not such a memorable moment. Slim pickings but how about: http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?pid=122942&fullsize=1 or http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?pid=122803&fullsize=1 http://www.docarzt.com/wp-content/gallery/lost-504-the-little-prince-official-promo-pics/lost-504-the-little-prince-100.jpg

Bloopers

I've removed the following two bloopers:

  • The tranquilizer gun that Tony tries to shoot Sayid with is only capable of a single shot before having to be reloaded. He fires two shots, then Sayid fires two shots. Why not? It's a fictional show, with time travel and genetically modified polar bears. Does it really break suspension of disbelief that in the fictional Lost universe, a tranquilizer gun that can fire more than one shot exists? If the argument is that this is a particular brand/style/etc of tranq gun that can only fire one shot, then that needs to be added to the blooper. As it stands there's no reason for this to be there.

 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I added the entry again, this time with the particular information you called for, your highness.--//BNTK 05:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • When Kate puts Heinz 57 ketchup on Aaron's plate, it comes out very quickly (about a second) and she does it without tapping the bottle. Most people know that it takes much, much longer for ketchup to come out of a bottle, and you have to tap it to help speed up the process. This is just ridiculous. A blooper about the speed at which ketchup comes out of a bottle? For the record, first of all, I've gotten ketchup out of a glass bottle immediately. Secondly... if this is impossible, then how did they film the scene? Clearly the ketchup must have been able to come out of the bottle this quickly.

 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  03:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I've read bloopers and entries that have been more seemingly ridiculous than this, Mr. Blooper Police. If you want that kind of ketchup (Heinz 57, --I added the "brand/style/etc" to make the point clear-- which is famed for it's viscosity) to come out of that bottle quickly then you need to break the bottle or make a forceful motion to get it out, neither of which Kate did. You must've used some sort of off-brand ketchup that runs like a drunk gazelle. As for your second point, I never said it was "impossible", I merely stated that it takes a long time for that kind of ketchup to come out. How did they film this? Well, they cut out a bit of footage to make it seem quicker than it really was. This is the same type of thing when someone states that something someone is holding goes from one hand to another or that a character's hair changes slightly from one scene to another. Nonetheless, you can keep your undo.--//BNTK 05:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding the information about the type of gun. But in the future, there's no need to be snippy. This wiki is a collaborative effort, and discussing these things is how we get to the best possible article. All I can do is discuss whether or not I think something should count as a blooper. All you can do is the same. When enough people do the same then we can form a consensus on an issue. That's simply the way wikis work: through discussion. Remarks like "your highness" or "Mr. Blooper Police" really don't help anything and, frankly, remove some of your credibility.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Good, now that you've made my point... my "snippiness" was to draw attention to you talking down to me from the start. If you want a respectable discussion in the manner that you suggest, then don't say that peoples' comments are "just ridiculous" and then proceed to state what is "clearly" obvious to you, but not to them. It's insulting.--//BNTK 13:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you feel my post was directed at you personally. It was not. I'm going to leave this conversation now because if you take offence at benign words like "ridiculous" and "clearly", then I'm not sure what I could say that wouldn't upset you.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If Locke moved towards the hatch instead

What is the likely outcome if Locke convinced the group to move towards the hatch once they saw the sky lighten up?

When Kate is lowered by rope. What is the main reason for not go for the hatch?

  • Locke decides that they shouldn't go towards the light and need to keep moving.
  • Locke later explains to Sawyer when they were. He didn't want to run into himself.

https://youtu.be/JzkOZt1yZZU?t=3m22s

https://youtu.be/AUHNubg0zPg?t=3m25s

From episode: The Little Prince at 17:20

Maxwell123 (talk) 12:05, June 4, 2017 (UTC)

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