Talk: Through the Looking Glass

Talk:Through the Looking Glass
	Pre-Broadcast; Archive 1; Archive 2; Archive 3; Archive 4; ; designates most recent archive

Ben's Decision[]

Ben says "Not so long ago, Jack, I made a decision that took the lives of over forty people in a single day." I've put that in the UQ's on the episode page, and it's been deleted by people who are certain it's a reference to the purge. That's not clear to me for the simple reason that our estimate of the date of the purge really doesn't qualify as "not so long ago." Add to that that we don't have any real idea of the number of DHARMA people on the island and I think the question is clearly valid. --Bastion 12:39, 1 June 2007 (PDT)

It's clearly a reference to the Purge. To Danielle, 16 years isn't so long ago, either. Robert K S 01:21, 3 June 2007 (PDT)

What makes that clear? --Bastion 09:57, 7 June 2007 (PDT)

The solemnity of Ben's delivery, and the follow up line "History is about to repeat itself", indicate that he doesn't kill forty people in a day every other week. This is something that has only happened once in Ben's life. "Not so long ago" is obviously spoken in the wistful "gee how time flies" sense and not the literal sense. No other explanation holds weight without contradicting some other part of the exchange. Robert K S 14:28, 7 June 2007 (PDT)

The episode's number[]

On the article, it states that it is the "twenty-second" episode. I think we should make it the "22nd episode" Because when i read it, i thought it was a mistake. Like it was a twenty second episode. (or, 20 second). Tell me your feedback because maybe I'm just a moron. :D --Tehfrog 00:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack's Sunglasses[]

Does anyone know what brand of sunglasses Jack is wearing prior to entering the funeral home? I've been trying to find out but haven't had any luck. They're aviator sunglasses, but I can't find the brand. --MrMonkey 18:09, 1 June 2007 (PDT)

In which Island they are?[]

The first thing we see is Carl running to the kayak to go and tell the survivors about the other´s night strike, but later we see that just before that Benjamin came (after shooting Locke ) to the same island that Carl was and gives back to Alex the gun she gave to Locke, just after that she runs and asks Carl , which was hidden between some trees, to go and set the alert. Later on we see that Benajmin is going for a "walk" and Alex suggests to go with him and he accepts, but they never use any boat or they never show when they leave any island, the same island they were when Carl went to alert the survivors. In addition to that, Locke, apparently wounded, gets out of the hole and walks very fast and catches up with the survivors to kill Naomi. So that makes you think they are all in the same island. The Others, Locke and the Survivors.

So if that's true, why Carl went to alert the survivors by boat?

- Because Karl could get down the coast by boat to the beachcamp faster than anyone else could walk it, thus giving him the time to warn the survivors. --Blackannis 13:06, 3 June 2007 (PDT)

Literary Techniques[]

Removed a sentence where it was stated that the episode uses an 'unreliable narrator'. Sorry, but it's not an unreliable narrator, the narration is deliberately deceptive, but that's different. The story is not told 'by' a character - as in a film like The Usual Suspects for example, where we can't be sure that anything the film shows us is the truth or not because we are being 'told' the story by someone obviously untrustworthy. As the show is presented in the third person, what we see is definately 'true', it's just that the writers are selective about what they allow us to see i.e. they only reveal at the end that we're looking at the future. Not the same thing as an unreliable narrator.Liquidcow 04:01, 4 June 2007 (PDT)

How do you reconcile "definitely 'true'" with the clearly subjective nature of Hurley's flashbacks in "Dave"? Hilker 10:18, 11 June 2007 (PDT)

Right, I see what you're getting at, but actually the flashback isn't subjective, it's just that we the audience are able to see what Hurley sees. If anything that makes it more objective because we aren't placed in the situation of one of the characters who can't see Dave, we are shown everything that's going on. Yes, at the end we are shown something we maybe didn't know - Dave isn't real. When we watch the episode again we can look at it differently, knowing what we know, but we still know that the events are correct, as it's narrated in the third person. Hurley doesn't swallow the pill for example, because Dave tells him not to. That is an event that happened whatever way you look at it. Maybe instead of 'Dave says to Hurley...' we can put 'Hurley imagines that Dave says to him...', but it's effectivey the same and the realness of his actions are unaffected. A case of 'unreliable narrator' might be that it is Hurley telling the story and perhaps there is doubt as to whether he is telling the truth and he really did swallow the pill, or whether not swallowing the pill has made him recall things differently.

Many stories, including Lost, are narrated in the third person by a sort of omniscient narrator (as in, there is no 'narrator' as such), so there isn't any reason to doubt that the events are 'true' in terms of the story. We might not be clear on why they happen until later, but if we are told that 'Jane picked up the cup' then Jane picked up the cup. We are often not told things until later, but we are never at any doubt that what we are told is true. We might even be cleverly misled into assuming something which turns out to be wrong, but again, what we are told is not wrong. In fact the reason that facts are hidden from us is so that the writer doesn't have to actually lie, as this would not be acceptable to the viewer. Some stories, however, are told by a character, or several characters. The ultimate example is Rashomon, in which three people relate very different version of the same event. Each has their own reason why they might not be telling the truth, and each says something which sheds light on why the other might be lying. This actually is a case where if one of them says 'Jane picked up the cup' then we can't be sure that she did.

So basically, there is a difference between an Unreliable Narrator who might be lying or otherwise not recounting the exact truth, and a plot that deliberately misleads us but essentially doesn't lie. Lost is the latter as it never lies to us or gets facts wrong (and continuity errors or writer's mistakes don't count), it just witholds certain truths.Liquidcow 03:06, 12 June 2007 (PDT)

Kate's phone number[]

What evidence is there that Kate's phone number is 310-555-0148? (27 May) or even the earlier assertion that it's area code 310? (24 May) I'm removing that entire line from both General Trivia and Recurring Themes. The sound of the number Jack dials is clearly 645-23523466, with a slight pause after the third digit to sound like an area code. Note that it's 11 digits (not 10), it doesn't begin with 1 or 0, and 645 is not a valid area code. This is obviously a "random" number done by a Foley artist. And anyway, on a modern cell phone Jack would not dial the number manually; it would be in his address book and the phone would put the call through silently. So this phone number is not a clue or even a red herring; it's just sloppy, which is to be expected for a TV show on a tight production schedule. MJ 04:26, 5 June 2007 (PDT)

Isn't the 310 number the number given by the automated voice on the line when the call is not connected? I no longer have a recording to refer back to so I can't check. --Bagpuss 04:52, 5 June 2007 (PDT)

Two different scenes. I'm referring to the penultimate scene with Jack alone in his disheveled apartment, and we know it's Kate who answers that call. In the earlier flash-forward when he gets the recording, how do we know who he was calling? It could be a wrong assumption. MJ 17:44, 5 June 2007 (PDT)

My two cents on this is the same recording is played twice, first when Jack is on the bridge (though I never have heard the number 4 said) and the second time when Jack is in front of the funeral home. You are making an outlandish assumption of your own in that Jack is actually dialing anything. There is no way a microphone on set would have picked up the dialing that clearly. So the numbers that we hear are merely just a sound effect added in post. Also, in the realm of original research is your own assumption that no one who owns a cell phone would ever dial the number completely.

Veridicum 21:15, 5 June 2007 (PDT) If I watch the episode Through The Looking Glass Part 1 with closed caption on-when Jack makes the phone call in his car while on the bridge-it does say the number you've reached 310-555-0148. Is the argument that we don't know it's Kate he is calling because all it says is the number and not a name? Also, what is the issue with dialing a number on a cell phone? Not everyone programs all the numbers they know. Maybe Jack deleted Kate's number out of his address book in fear of drunk dialing her-since he was having some issues with the booze and pills.--Dani2066 07:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jamming satellite transmissions[]

Under Bloopers in the episode article there is an entry that states that it is not possible for radio waves to block satellite waves. There is no such thing as satellite waves. Satellites transmit radio waves the same as any other radio transmitter, they just happen to be a much higher frequency than terrestrial radios use. It is possible to jam satellite communications, I have seen it done. I can think of two ways to do it: at the transmission point (hard), and at the receiving point (easy).

At the transmission point: Communications satellites run on batteries, and they share power across all channels in use at any time. For instance, if the max power output from a given satellite is 100 watts, and there are ten active channels on that satellite, the max power output from any one channel would be ten watts. If one channel suddenly boosted itself to 90 watts, the other nine channels would be limited to sharing the remaining ten watts, which would effectively drive them below the noise floor. This situation wouldn't last long, since terrestrial satellite controllers would quickly block the offending channel. It also would be very hard to implement. This would require that the transmitting unit to know not only the access code for the satellite, but also to know the codes required to take control and change the power balancing. Possible, but not likely.

At the receiving point: Much easier, all this requires is a transmitter in the vicinity of the receiver to transmit a much more powerful signal on the same frequency, effectively stepping on the satellite transmission. For this to be effective on the island would require multiple transmitters to cover the valleys, but it wouldn't be too hard to pull off.

On a related note, once the jamming system was turned off, Naomi complained that all she could receive was Rousseau's message. This is highly unlikely, since Rousseau's message was assumed to be transmitted in the VHF/UHF band. If this is true, then Rousseau's message would not interfere with satellite reception. Otherwise we have to assume that the trasmitters at the tower are broacasting across a broadband spectrum, on all frequencies at all times. Not impossible, but not likely, and if true then the island is a huge beacon that would garner the attention of the whole world.--DocWatson 05:59, 5 June 2007 (PDT)

There is another discussion on this topic in the Looking glass talk. Its possible for radio transmissions like Rousseau's message to unintentionally generate interference that would block a sat signal.

As far as the phone receiving Rousseau's message, that should be considered a mistake or explained away by the phone having shortwave support. Even if it were being broadcast on the right frequency, it would not be in the right format (as far I as know) for a phone to pick it up.

The nature of the jamming of signals going on/off the island is not so easy to explain. We have seen numerous examples of signals being received on the Island (Sayid hearing the distress signal, Boone picking up the tailies radio) which suggests that the broad-spectrum jamming effect has to surround the island at a distance rather than being on the island itself. Because if it were close to the Island, the signals would be jammed on the Island. I personally don't think the type of jamming suggested has a plausable explaination. Dharmatel4 19:11, 5 June 2007 (PDT)

I think there has to be lateral thinking on this. While a powerful enough wave of any frequency can block out most frequencies, perhaps it is another form of jamming. I.E. electromagnetism? There have been a few bloopers with regard to use of correct frequencies on the island, i out this down to joe public not really knowing that all radios magically operate on the same frequency.--DannyRamone 19:03, 15 June 2007 (PDT)

4 (number)[]

I'm getting really tired of people pointing out minor things like "Jack had a newspaper opened on page B-4! 4 is one of the Numbers!" The Apophenia article should be recommended reading for Lostpedia contributors. I mean, the producers would have to INTENTIONALLY feature a sequence of numbers or a code or whatever that doesn't include any of the Numbers to make some folks admit that the number is of no particular significance, and even then someone would try to come up with some convoluted mathematical construct to create one or more of the Numbers out of it. Seriously, people. Larger-scale combinations of the Numbers, such as "Oceanic 815" or "4 o'clock, August 15 (8/15), 16 miles" qualify as occurrences of the Numbers for me, but stuff like "79941016 4 4 4136523102" is really reaching for straws. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nevermore (talk • contribs) .

I agree, considering that two of 'the numbers' are single digits, that gives you a one in five chance of any single-digit number that happens to come up on the show being on of the numbers. Not exactly unlikely. I have seen a few occurences here and there were it seems to be reaching for it. In any case, the producers said that The Numbers aren't necessarily going to be that significant in the long run anyway, so while it's nice to spot them, perhaps documenting every possible occurence of them is a bit unnecessary?

Incidentally, I remember someone posting something somewhere about when Ben say to Juliette that the thing with Claire will take effect in 48 hours. The thing is, 48 isn't one of the numbers, nor does it relate to them. Someone had obviously just thought 'it's a number! quick, post it as a Number occurence!'.Liquidcow 02:34, 12 June 2007 (PDT)

Ugh. I mean, if it was an unusal number like "42 hours", I could see that, but... 48 hours is literally just two days.--Nevermore 06:02, 17 June 2007 (PDT)

Well, 4 and 8 are the first two numbers.

I agree with both of you. Some of the number occurences are just stupid coincidences. But others are done on purpose, but probably just so the props crew to do for fun. Like how the vaccine has 4-81516-23 42 on it. Or how the clock on the Looking Glass has the time 8:15. They do that stuff on purpose, but that doesn't mean it's the key that will get them off the island and save the world. --User:Bestskier

Music[]

The arcticle says something about new music themes debuting in this episode (mentioning the island motif in particular). I found however, that this very motif has been used in Pilot, Part 1 and has - as far as I can remember - not appeared anywhere inbetween. What do you think, does this have any significance? Or am I completely mistaken? --Mainaim 10:51, 10 June 2007 (PDT)

Is that the one where they're walking along the beach (in the finale episode I mean)? I don't remember it but I guess I wouldn't if it was only in the very first episode. Perhaps change it to 'uses themes not used since the pilot episode' or something. Were there any other new musical themes introduced? The article is quite vague about that, it would be good to maybe have a list of where they all occur.

Alias Homage[]

At the end of Alias, season 2, Sydney wakes up in Hong Kong with no idea how she got there or what happened over the last two years. She gave her identification code, and her confirmation word was "Looking Glass".

That's probably because JJ Abrams really likes Alice in Wonderland. LOL

Robinson Crusoe[]

Many people dont realize this, but Daniel Defore wrote a sequel to Robinson Crusoe. In the sequel, Crusoe has returned from the island after 24 years, but tells his wife he has a strong urge to return. Is this a possible LOST tie-in? DeGroot 08:47, 19 June 2007 (PDT)

Really a flashback[]

People keep talking about how this finale "Flashes foward" to the future losties, but the episode started with strung out Jack on a plane trying to crash on the island again. Since it started this way, would that be the present story and the island scenes be a flashback? Couldn't we assume it's possible that this is the start of them off of the island and during season 4 it flashes back to how they got off and perhaps the reason why Jack wants to get back so badly?DrodJenkins 12:07, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

While that could potentially be true, I think the flashforward approach is much more likely to be the narritive device being used, because it keeps the main storyline of Lost as one continuous storyline with flashes to the past and future of the Losties. It just sounds cleaner as an explanation, in my opinion. Furthermore, the term "flashforward" has been used in interviews with the producers and they havn't contradicted the term (though I can't specifically recall them using it themselves). I think unless we find out for sure (ie: from the producers) that the show really takes place in the "future" with flashbacks onto the island, the simpler explanation should be used (Occam's Razor in action). Jimbo the tubby 22:33, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

Really a flashforward[]

I think the whole section of "not a flashforward" should be deleted. People are trying to over-theorize the subject and try and suggest it's not really a flashforward. IT IS a flashforward, it's been openly discussed by Lost producers, writers and cast, and therefore it is confirmed as a flashforward. Surely this debunks the "really a flashback" theory, and it should be deleted? Everyones entitled to theories etc, but I thought once they had been proven false they should be deleted?

Future Jack Shepard = Gerald deGroot??!!!![]

W/ his beard, Jack looks like deGroot from the DHARMA video! Maybe somehow he goes back in time and really the DHARMA initiative is a selfish means for him to get back to the island and change things!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4815162342108 (talk • contribs) .

I think it would be too far-fetched of a plot twist. Jack and DeGroot bear no physical resemblance beyond the beard. They do not have a beard for the same reason : Jack became a mess, and Gerald was some sort of a hippie/anarchist from the 70's.

Besides, assuming that Jack was able to travel back in time, why would he bother going back as far as the 70's, founding something as complex, expensive and venturous as the Dharma Initiative when he could just go back moments before the crash. Karen DeGroot kinda looks like Juliet though...--Oliverdevor 05:53, 21 July 2007 (PDT)

It could be that Jack's time machine doesn't have a very good navigation system, and the DHARMA initiative was the best way he could think of to return to the island, partly because he knew creating it would preserve the timeline. Particularly if he killed the real DeGroot for some reason, a la the Weishaupt-Washington Conspiracy and That One Episode of Deep Space Nine. I'm not espousing this theory, but I absolutely love it!--Ex-Pope Cardinal Richard Corey 16:45, 30 August 2007 (PDT)

jin[]

what did jin say in korean to ryan--Connor401 08:35, 11 July 2007 (PDT)

Format[]

In every other episode page (I think), the FB comes before island events. Why is it done differently here, with the FF (in this case) being after island events? Just curious. -- Lost Soul talk contribs 01:11, 16 July 2007 (PDT)

Presumably to be chronological? -Silence 01:14, 16 July 2007 (PDT)

Bloopers[]

"Charlie cannot actually drown, because the water can only reach the top of the porthole due to the air pocket."

Is this really a blooper? If the room has a suspended ceiling or there is any way for air to leak out without immediately flooding the whole station then it would still have filled the room and drowned Charlie. --HypnoSynthesis 17:23, 23 July 2007 (PDT)

I agree with HypnoSynthesis. An HVAC vent in the ceiling would explain the "blooper". - Umutcan 09:47, 6 August 2007 (PDT)

The air could easily have leaked out of Charlie's room if the grenade had done sufficient damage to the station superstructure, specifically the area around/above the porthole. We would not even need to see the damage for it to be large enought to let the air out.Sithboy 13:45, 6 August 2007 (PDT)

While it's true that additional damage above the level of the porthole would have allowed the water to rise higher than the porthole (up to the highest point of the damage to the outer wall) it is not true that a suspended ceiling or HVAC vent would allow the water to rise higher than the highest point of damage to the outer wall. If the room Charlie is in is air/water-tight, then the air would go out of the hole in the wall, and the water would come in the hole until the water level reaches the damage high-point. If the room is not air/water-tight then the air would go out of the hole and the water would come up from the moon-pool until the water level reaches the damage high-point.

"Charlie locks the door to his death chamber from the inside, but in submarines and underwater facilities, the water tight-seals in case of leakage, and thus, would lock individual chambers from the outside to protect the main chamber. The inner seal wouldn't have had a reason for a lock to be installed--thus, Charlie shouldn't have had a way to seal that chamber in any way that would prevent Desmond from opening it. The only logical thing to have happened would have been for Desmond to seal Charlie in, not the other way around."

This one doesn't make much sense because: a)submarines have a dogging wheel on both sides of every water-tight hatch but no locks on any of them, and comparing a fictional facility that was built by Dharma (who might have had a hundred reasons to change the design) to real-world submarines is kind of silly anyway; and b)if the hatch had been open when the grenade went off the air would have rushed out of the hole while the water rushed up from the moon pool, so 'protecting the main chamber' that already has an enormous vent to the outside water (i.e. the moon pool) from the potential 'leakage' in the comm room wouldn't be logical.

Incoming Transmission[]

This question is getting a lot of editing and there seems to be a lot of confusion about who contacted who. How about this: Charlie DID initiate the conversation. Penny thinks Charlie contacted her because that's what happened. If Penny is seeing Charlie then she has an 'incoming transmission' from Charlie. If Charlie can see Penny then there must be an 'incoming transmission' coming to the Looking Glass from Penny. Hence, the 'incoming transmission' indicator being active. It's a two way conversation, but it was initiated from the Looking Glass.

Was Penny sitting at someone else's desk? Her fathers? Is she involved in a conspiracy with her father that involved Naomi and explains her possession of the Polariod?

Dunno, but this business about the button is a red-herring, I think. --Bagpuss 03:15, 2 August 2007 (PDT)

Why does Charlie jump to the conclusion that this boat isn't Penny's??? I don't get this at all. All Penny says is that she isn't on a boat and that she doesn't know who Naomi is. This doesn't disprove that this isn't her boat. When a search and rescue operation is initiated, usually only the people hired do any of the searching, not the person hiring. So it's logical to assume that Penny would be back home in England, not on a boat. And since this is such a large operation, why should she be expected to know the name of every person that's looking for Desmond/the Island????--OrangeXenon54 16:47, 14 January 2008 (PST)

This is what the transcript says:

CHARLIE: Hey, are you on the boat?

PENNY: What, what boat?

CHARLIE: Your boat, eighty miles off shore. Er... Naomi, parachutist.

PENNY: But, I'm not on a boat, who, who's Naomi?

Based on this, Penny has no idea about any boat existing. If the boat is Penny's, she would know about a boat, whether or not she was on it.-- #1LostFan talk contribs Lost Wiki 17:42, 14 January 2008 (PST)

I agree. Charlie had very little to go on when he assumed the boat wasn't Penny's. We already knew from Naomi that Penny and Naomi had never met, so "who's Naomi?" obviously doesn't mean anything. And considering the context of the Charlie/Penny conversation (i.e. a guy she'd never seen before suddenly appears on her screen and asks her if she's "on the boat") I don't think it's at all strange for her to say "I'm not on a boat," because, whether she hired Naomi's team or not, Penny was not on a boat. We might find out in a couple of weeks that Charlie was right, and Naomi is lying, but since there was no time for Charlie to clarify who he was, where he was calling from, who Naomi was, and what boat he was talking about, I don't think the fact that Penny said "I'm not on a boat," can be construed as proof of anything.--Bonefishj0e 18:01, 14 January 2008 (PST)

Sadly, Charlie didn't have the luxury of the pause button or re-viewings to ponder this fact before dying. Sure, it was a pretty flawed assumption on his part, but Charlie just interpreted what Penny said as meaning she had no knowledge of the freighter. He had to think fast, and he was pretty panicked at the time as well (y'know, considering he was about to drown and everything). Evil-pineapples 18:05, 14 January 2008 (PST)

I'm not criticizing Charlie (I've never had a grenade detonated outside my underwater window, so I can't say I'd perform much better than he did given the same circumstances), but I think we,the viewers, shouldn't automatically assume he was correct when he made that assumption. We do, after all, have the luxury of the pause button and re-viewings, so while we can mourn poor Charlie, and justifiably excuse him for jumping to the conclusion that he did because he was under a lot of stress (what, with dying and all) we can nevertheless question the veracity of those conclusions.--Bonefishj0e 18:20, 14 January 2008 (PST)

Jin and Sun on the airplane?[]

Why are Jin and Sun sitting behind Jack on the airplane in the flash forward/back? The plane that he first sees the newspaper that he rips the article out of. --PureEvil 10:10, 6 August 2007 (PDT)

It is not them...This has been discussed before. Check the archives and the forums. -Mr.Leaf 10:29, 6 August 2007 (PDT)

Questions[]

Some of these "unanswered" questions are whack.

"he" is probably Sawyer
When Jack said, "Bring my father down here", he ment to bring him back.

On the island

The Others control the radio station, they just don't have an army waiting there.
You can see that there are generators outside the radio tower as Locke walks away.

About "him": I don't really sure, whether "he" is "Sawyer". I have strange feeling, that Kate means by "him" her baby. Because the baby (son in this case?) could be wondering, where she is. So we have here perhaps to do not with her fears about jealous husband, but concerns about her child. Kosmomerz 12:05, 21 October 2008 (PDT)

Getting saved a good thing?[]

Ok so we all know that the plot of the show is based on one goal, the losties getting off the island. And for a while I was thinking that it would be the end of the show when they do. But now we know that the losties getting off the island dosn't meen the end of the show. I just can't see the show being as good as it is now when they are off the island.--Connerxcountry57 13:11, 6 September 2007 (PDT)

Hey let's face it, i cant see the producers doing to show off the island for very long, the scene we saw at the end of the season finale hints towards them going back to the island, so IF they do get off at the start of next season (which I can't see happening just yet to be honest..) then it won't be long before they come back! --Lewis -Talk-Contribs 13:13, 6 September 2007 (PDT)

The writers/producers have repeatedly stated that a whole section of the story they want to tell takes place off-island.

If you think Lost is about getting off some random island, you have completely and utterly missed the point of the show.

Orchid Video[]

ok so has any one seen the orchid video on the official lost website? Its pretty intense but i'm not sure what to make of it.--Connerxcountry57 13:48, 7 September 2007 (PDT)

Sign of the Cross[]

The article states that the Catholic Church no longer dictates which way it is proper to sign oneself. I challenge this statement's validity. --Xparasite9 16:49, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

I too would like to see a citation. --The_Swan 21:04, 30 January 2008 (PST)

The Longest Journey - the adventure game[]

I don't know if anyone played that game here.. Very popular game with awards. The game's second episode's name is exactly "Through the looking glass", thats the ep where the weird things begin. It has a long strange story.. Maybe Lost writers are inspired of the story? Or should this information written as a reference? Any ideas? Thanks. Baris.

Although possible, it's more likely that 1) both "Lost" and "The Longest Journey" were inspired by the Lewis Carroll story of the same name; or 2) they are both making use of the meaning that that phrase has taken on since Carroll's story (which is, as you said it, the point in the adventure where the weird things begin).

Dumb[]

The writers strike is super dumb they need to make more lost episodes or i think i will cry! --Connerxcountry57 05:16, 27 November 2007 (PST) ='[

Well, I'm sure all of the writers who work on LOST would not agree that the writer's strike is "super dumb". The industry treats their writers pretty unfairly. They're just campaigning for what they deserve. But what does this have to do with 'Through the Looking Glass'? This is totally irrelevant. Evil-pineapples 18:01, 14 January 2008 (PST)

You think the writers want to be on strike? They'd like to get back to Lost too, unfortuanatly, the AMPTP aren't willing to give the writers a fair deal. So let's not blame the writers. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 18:53, 30 January 2008 (PST)

Enhanced Version[]

I was watching the "Enhanced Version" of this episode as a way to refresh my memory on the finale before the new season starts tomorrow, and I gotta say, it really sucks. I made it through the first five minutes before I had to get away.

The "enhancement" was limited to subtitles that added nothing to what was plainly visible on the screen, telling the viewer what happens exactly as it happens. It's thoroughly insulting, and too distracting to simply ignore - I had to turn it off.

Maybe they'll get better as it goes along, but I wasn't sticking around to find out.

--Jim 18:11, 30 January 2008 (PST)

If nothing else, it was interesting when the subtitles were silent. For example, they chose not to comment about Jack's whole "go find my dad" business while at the hospital in the flash forwards. Some minor points were clarified (Jack says "neither" when asked if the dead person is friend or family), but nothing I caught that was super substantial. --The_Swan 21:02, 30 January 2008 (PST)

- It has just started on the West coast, and from what I have seen, I think the subtitles are used so that those who are new, or those who have forgeten everything the past 8 months to catch up. Personally, I already know what is going on, and I've already seen the episode so many times over the summer. I'm not concentrating on the subtitles that much. -- #1LostFan talk contribs Lost Wiki 21:11, 30 January 2008 (PST)

I'm kind of curious as to who wrote it. Obviously it wasn't one of the writers, since they're on strike. Maybe that explains it sucking so badly. Jimbo the tubby 23:25, 30 January 2008 (PST)

I transcribed the Enhanced Version. My notes and the regular episode transcript don't indicate where the rest of the act breaks are so I'll add those in a few hours. Jimpoz 12:25, 1 February 2008 (PST)

Why is Jack insinuating that his Father is still alive in the flash forward?[]

When confronted by Dr Hamill in the hallway of the hospital, Jack challenges Dr Hamill to call his father "down here" and check who of them would be more drunk. If this is a flash forward - why doesn't Dr Hamil bat an eye at this since he must know that Jack's father has been dead for several years by then - let alone work at the hospital anymore. -- Meista 17:10, 16 February 2008

This is usually just attributed to Jack's messed up state of mind at the time. He is on drugs, an alcoholic, severely depressed to the point of being suicidal... I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that in his delirium, he thought his father was alive and working at the hospital. Of course, it could turn out later that Christian really is still alive in the future. Lost has a way of pulling crazy twists like that. ;) Wstonefi 08:35, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
Not drugged up at all. When Jack says to get his father "down here," it seems obvious to me that his father must be "up" somewhere, in order for Jack to want him to come "down." Jack's talking about his father being in Heaven. -Marc604 00:21, 13 August 2008 (PDT)

Jack was obviously being sarcastic. He meant that his father was so drunk, that even death wouldn't sober him up.--Decepticon Rhinox 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Kate and Jack's Airport Meeting[]

Since we learned in "Eggtown" that Kate is not allowed to leave the state of California as a condition of her plea bargain, we have to assume that Jack and Kate's meeting at the end of this episode takes place somewhere in California. Possibly LAX? --Voo 22:28, 22 February 2008 (PST)

Was there ever any reason to believe it took place anywhere but LAX? Jack lived in L.A. He asked Kate to meet him at "the airport". A jumbo jet took off. Where else could it have been? Robert K S 23:43, 22 February 2008 (PST)

Survivor Tent Explosions[]

Is it worth noting somewhere that out of the three tents that exploded or were set to explode, that Kate's tent exploded, and Claire's tent was supposed to explode but Jin missed. Also I'm not entirely sure but one of the tents I think was Desmond's tent. -- LostCloverfield42 Talk 22:03, 7 July 2008 (PDT)

Far too many images[]

We cannot possibly justify fair use. Images are supposed to be used to illustrate key points, not to create a pictorial version of the show. Can we please get a few images (Like 1/3rd) removed please. Plkrtn talk contribs email 20:01, 5 November 2008 (PST)

Removed some, but I still think more need to be removed. Plkrtn talk contribs email 20:06, 5 November 2008 (PST)

Charlie's Death[]

Aside from the 'blooper' noting that the room Charlie was in would not have completely filled with water, his death was completely pointless. He could have just as easily gone outside the room and closed the door after the grenade went off. Furthermore, he didn't even need to close the door as the switch had been flipped and the conversation with Penny had commenced. It would have taken a great deal of time for the whole station to flood, leaving Desmond and Charlie ample time to escape. Coupled with this is the fact that the diving gear was relatively unnecessary as they reached the station without it and surfacing would be much easier. It also appears that Charlie could have escaped out of the porthole that Mikhail blew up. On top of all this, Claire does not even escape the island, as prophesied by Desmond. --Christian BC 17:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek epi similarity[]

Dont know if this is dismissed already, or considering "uninterresting" or whatnot, but there is a Star Trek episode that shares the same name as this LOST epi. The Star Trek wiki also meantions the book by Lewis Carroll. So, the similarty might end there....

[1]

Rename[]

Per the new press releases, episode 5x14 is the 100th episode special. Therefore this counts as 2 episodes, and should be either split up or renamed accordingly. --Pyramidhead 03:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Which press releases? ABC Medianet only goes up to 5x11. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 03:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

These ones. --Pyramidhead 03:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Each finale needs to be split into two episodes. Marc604 06:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren't there a bunch of other two and three part episodes that weren't split? Why pick this one? And are we sure they aren't just celebrating the 100th *hour*? Typically it's the number of hours that are important since syndicated episodes are always split into single hour portions. --Jackdavinci 04:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "pick" this one. All of the 2-hour episodes will need to be split up in order for 5x14 to be #100. And the press release calls it the "100th episode milestone." --Pyramidhead 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this would eventually happen. I've always suspected that TTLG counted as two episodes (since they are two different episodes on the Season 3 DVD). I was a little unsure about "Live Together, Die Alone, Part 1" because the Season 2 DVD counts it as 1 episode. Although I'm sure the press releases confirm it is 2. -- CTS Talk Contribs 19:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's too much trouble, we could just leave this article as is, treat it as 2 episodes, and adjust the season3nav template to have a #22 and #23 that both link to this page. That is, unless the two halves have different guest casts, like LTDA, in which case we might as well split it up. --Pyramidhead 21:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We definitely need to split the entire episode into two different pages. For one, casting (Malcolm David Kelley and Terry O'Quinn only appear in Part 2, and so might others). For two, because that's how it's listed on the DVDs (as two eps). And for three, to make 5x14 the 100th episode. I definitely vote that we need to create a brand new 3x23 page with everything that happens in Part 2. Who cares if it originally aired as a two-hour block? The future of Lost is the DVDS, NOT how it premiered on one lonely day in May. Marc604 02:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Split: it would be best if we slit this article into TTLG Part 1 and TTLG Part 2. This would be the best way to refer to them as separate episodes. -- CTS Talk Contribs 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AGREE No question, this is the way to go.

It aired as one episode and that's all that matters. ABC's creative counting is absolutely irrelevant in my view. It should not be split.--Golden Monkey 16:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Golden Monkey, "Before You Left" and "The Lie" aired as one episode, don't forget, but they're listed on two different pages. We can't always go with what airs. Marc604 09:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
No offense golden monkey but i think everyone on this site would take "Abc's creative counting" over "your view" anyday. You need to present an argument as to why not to split up the episodes not just say oh well i dont like the idea of a split. This is about whats best for the site not your personal prefrences.--Czygan84 21:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For a good example of treating a 2-hour episode as a single episode, because of how it aired, not how it was syndicated see MemoryAlpha:All Good Things. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 17:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree I just suggested the same thing in the character appearances pg but if we do this we got to get it right for example Marc604 says locke and walt dont appear in part 1 but they do; there scene is the last one right before the split. --Czygan84 21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you may be right here, Cyzgan, but the point still exists. Example: Sonya Walger only appears in Part 2 -- and I'm sure there's a lot of other characters who only appear in Part 1 or in Part 2. It'll only take a simple rewatch of both parts to see who appears in both. Marc604 09:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Its alright yeah I was rewatchin some of them last night and there are a lot who only appear in 1 half of the episode i was really surprised.--Czygan84 11:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So is it settled, then? These two episodes will be SPLIT into two different pages? Marc604 09:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the link I posted above to Memory Alpha. What is your problem with they way they have kept a two-hour episode as a single article, which is how I'm suggesting we do it as well. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple, because "Through the Looking Glass" is NOT a two-hour episode. It's two single episodes that just happened to air in a two-hour block. Want proof? Check out your DVDs of Season Three. Marc604 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They were considered one episode by the press release. It's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 05:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is currently happening in about 5 or 6 pages. Please continue it here so that we can get everyone in a single spot. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 05:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should not actually split the guide up into part 1 and 2 on separate aricles, it should stay like it is, just rename the article Theres No Place Like Home Part 1 and 2. All 2-parters should remain on the same article page, but simply rename the episode page part 1 and 2 etc.

I know Synication and off-seas airings airs it as 2-episodes. We should just rename the pages part 1 and 2, but no actually split the 2-hour finals into two separate article pages, that would just be annoying. 13:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivia question[]

The 2nd General Trivia listed on the main page states that Jack is going to the funeral parlor on Apr. 8th. It states that you come to this conclusion because the song on the radio is a Nirvana song & Kurt Cobain died on Apr 8, 1994..... therefore the writers must be alluding to the date of Apr 8th as the actual date Jack is driving to the parlor. This is not only very far fetched & shouldn't be put as cannonized trivia, but it also contridicts the Timeline:2005 and beyond page, which shows the date of Locke's death as Jan. 2008. I vote this be removed from Trivia. Does anyone else agree? NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 17:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, as of today, this is a Lostpedia featured article so we should get it right. NEVERGIVEUP Contribs Talk 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy Set Trivia[]

"The hospital scenes with Sarah were filmed on the set of Grey's Anatomy, another ABC show." How is this possible? It is widely known the entire show is filmed on location in Hawaii, and the only times this hasn't been true is with Alan Dale (Charles Widmore). Furthermore, the external link 'proving' this leads to Kristin at e!'s blog page, but not any particular article which proves this. --Robbie 19:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually some filming has been done in L.A. Such as the underwater scenes in 1x12. But I don't know about this...

Cast[]

As we decided not to split up the parts, I'm not sure what caused this...but I notice that not all the cast is listed, like the funeral director or the people in the pharmacy. I'm not sure what all of them were credited as though, so can someone complete the cast listing? --Golden Monkey 23:07, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

"This episode (part 1 and 2) are considered by the fans at the best episode of LOST." Well, it is regarded by most fans and critics as one of the best, but should we really include this? --Golden Monkey 18:35, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. It's too much of an opinion. I think it did win DarkUFO's episode cup this year, but last year it was The Constant so how it has jumped in popularity despite growing a year older is beyond me really. But even so, just say it won the episode cup in the article if you must, don't state that "the fans" consider it the best episode, because that's just simply not true. I don't consider it the best episode. If you must know, Cabin Fever is my favourite episode. There aren't that many people who would vote it over TTLG or The Constant, which makes it my opinion. Plus, putting this in the article will just cause arguments with people who disagree. By all means note that it is a popular episode, include that it won a bracket contest (if it even did) but don't state something that is false as solid fact. Phew, I didn't mean to rant there.--Baker1000 23:56, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Woman behind Desmond as Charlie drowns[]

Is the "woman" in the black tank top behind Desmond a mannequin?

What is interesting is this "flashback" scene is not in the previous episode Through the Looking Glass, only in this episode, The Beginning of the End.

In the previous episode, Desmond is holding up his hand to the glass in all scenes as Charlie drowns. Anno1404 06:18, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Charlie - Non-centric flashback?[]

When Charlie sees the blinking yellow light, he recalls Desmond's explanation of how he is supposed to die. I realize that one obvious argument that this is not a non-centric flashback is that we've already seen it in a previous episode. Now Ifrealize that the three or four users who are stalking me just LOVE to snub my suggestions on the grounds that they are invalid. But, seriously, are were really going to ignore a flashback because it doesn't fit in with the loose and sometimes inconsistant guidelines for centricity? Your favorite, DieYoungStayPretty 04:46, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

God needs martyrs[]

Seth Norris, Boone, Eko, Charlie ( the beginning of BIG deaths), Faraday (who may be a god that antedates the God of the Bible and Koran), Locke, Juilet, Jin and Sun, Jack--Past recaptured 13:18, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Bonnie's Good Vibrations[]

It took Bonnie almost three times as long to explain to Charlie about the Beach Boys, Good Vibrations, the keypad and that it was programmed by a musician than it took to recite the code the first time. Wouldn't it have been simpler to just repeat it while Charlie wrote it down? How would Charlie know what key to play it in or whether to start on a verse or chorus? I think his rhythm was off, too. Just saying.--Paleored 01:53, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Parodied in "According to Jim"[]

Does anyone remember which episode of "A. to Jim" parodied LOST? Esp. "We need to go back". Jim says he knows how to earn money, to which wife Cheryl responds "You can't sue Hollywood just because LOST gives you a headache", then Andy the wife's brother starts saying "We need to leave the Island. No we need to get back!". (I watched it in Russian, so dialogues aren't word-to-word) Gevorg89 (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)