(→‎Sun's report: new section)
(→‎outrigger canoe: new section)
Line 123: Line 123:
   
 
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. --{{User:LOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 
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. --{{User:LOSTonthisdarnisland/sig}} 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  +
  +
== outrigger canoe ==
  +
  +
Why doesen't the outrigger canoe disappear when they move back in time?

Revision as of 00:33, 7 February 2009

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

Asteroid

I have restored the wikipedia link I'd originally included in drafting the 'Besixdouze' trivia. The name on the wreckage is spelled the same as the (linked) real asteroid named in honour of the one in the book, so it cannot be a coincidence. Amuk 04:25, 5 February 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Danielle's team 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)

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)

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)

outrigger canoe

Why doesen't the outrigger canoe disappear when they move back in time?

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