Lostpedia
Lostpedia
Lostpedia
7,499
pages

Talk: Twist

Back to page
Sign in to edit

General discussion[]

A plot twist is a change in the expected development of a fictional work.

For there to be a change in expected development, there has to be some expectation that things will go one way and they go in a less expected way. Is that obvious? Apparently not. A very large number of the listed "twists" are not "twists" -- figured I would put that out there before I do any editing.

If you think I am wrong, please make your case.--Chuck 14:16, 11 March 2008 (PDT)

I agree with you. For example, the revelation in "Walkabout" that Locke was in a wheelchair was indeed a plot twist. It went against what we had be led to believe through his actions up until that point. It was a surprise. However, Sayid revealing he was a torturer in "Confidence Man" made absolute sense in context with everything we already knew about him up that point. Now it may have been a surprise (or at least unanticipated), but it wasn't something where all the evidence pointed in the other direction.--TechNic|talk|conts 14:42, 11 March 2008 (PDT)

Could someone explain how "Edward Mars is shot by Sawyer in order to end his suffering, but he survives, untilJack finishes the job" a plot twist? I might be missing something.--moss ryder 03:48, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Okay, I see there are alot of entries on here that I see as questionable. I guess I'll wait for some discussion.:)--moss ryder 03:51, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

I agree. There needs to be a cleanup here too, as not everything is a plot twist. I think we need clearer definitions (see below) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:52, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
There are also some plot twists that have been left out of the article, such as the Door being revealed to be empty. --CTS 19:58, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
That's a very good one, as it follows the before/after pattern I outlined below. Before, we are led to believe that the door is another hatch, guarded by the Others. After, it is revealed to be a major scam. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:05, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Categorising[]

OK, so should we look at categorising the twists into different types? And clearly defining what is and what isn't a twist. The first three types of twist that spring to mind would be:

Character - When we discover something unexpected about the character that seems to go against what we had been led to expect - Locke in a wheelchair, Kate being a fugitive, Jacob, etc
Narrative - When the storytelling techiques have deliberately misled us - 1st Flashforward, Start of "Exposé", mixed flashes in "Ji Yeon", etc
Plot - When the story itself takes an unexpected turn - Cooper being on the Island, 815 discovered in the ocean, Walt torching the raft, etc

All these are interconnected and there will be crossover between the categories, so maybe this article should be renamed to "Twists" and cover everything. The thing that links them is that a twist is defined as something that goes against what we had been led to believe or expect. This is different from a unexpected development or surprise (such as "Boone stops Jack from taking his leg to save him", "Jack and Kate stumble across a food drop in the jungle.", etc).--TechNic|talk|conts 06:59, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Also, we need a clear definition of proper terms, not slang, for any category, showing why it's a separate category. Wikipedia says "Some "twists" are foreshadowed and can thus be predicted by many viewers, whereas others are a complete shock.". So, it makes sense to categorise these as you suggested, rather than how big of a shock it is to the viewer, a subjective categorisation at best anyway. You might not be shocked because you saw all the signs, where I missed them and was shocked to the core (think friends of vs. wife of an adulterous husband; she spends more time with him, but might miss the signs that everyone else sees). The problem we have to foresee first is what to do with twists fitting "other" or more than one category. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:47, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Yes. We need to establish the categories and definitions first. I think we should keep talking this through and wait for some other users to throw their ideas into the melting pot before we start to clean this article up. Once the ideas start to come into focus, we can create example articles in our own userspaces so that we can hack them up as much as we like without ruffling anyone's feathers.--TechNic|talk|conts 20:08, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
I agree. I only did the 2 vs. 2 so that I could compare/contrast them for the section I created below. It's important to establish the foundation first, and then go from there. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:13, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

What is and isn't a plot twist?[]

I rewrote the following two entries, after deleting two others, to signify a true plot twist. A plot twist entry should outline before and after, and it should be more than a simple surprising development.

  • In a flashback on the plane, Kate who has been shown up to this point as gentle spoken and helpful, is shown handcuffed and revealed as a fugitive. ("Pilot, Part 2")
  • In a flashback, Locke who has been walking, is revealed to have been in a wheelchair up to the point where he boarded Flight 815. ("Walkabout")

These are now proper plot twists because they tell you what happened before (Kate was shown as gentle, Locke was walking) and after (Kate was in cuffs as a fugitive, Locke was in a wheelchair for 4 years) in the exposure of the twist. The following are the two I removed:

While both of these are unexpected developments, they are not true plot twists. The survivors do not expect to see a monster or a polar bear, but there is nothing leading them or the viewer to believe anything different before they appear; therefore, the plot is not "twisted". -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:02, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

'The survivors split off into two factions - one with Jack, the other with Locke.'
If this is a plot-twist, then I think 'The survivors split off into two factions - one venture into the caves and on stay on the beach.' is also a plot-twist.
(I don't think either are, but if one is than I think the other one probably is.)

Questionable entries on this article.[]

I'm about to list some entries on this article that I find questionable as "twists," along with the reason why i think they're questionable.

  • Sayid is knocked unconscious by an unknown assailant while trying to triangulate the position of the distress signal. This is just a surprise, not every surprise is a plot twist.
  • Sayid tells Sawyer he has experience with torture. This isn't really a twist. The fact that Sayid has military and torture skills does not deviate from what was expected before. Sayid is resourceful, the fact that he can torture people just adds to that.
  • Walt, out looking for Vincent, is attacked by another polar bear. This doesn't seem like a twist, more like a plot development. It wasn't entirely unexpected, he was wandering out in a jungle where polar bears have been seen before.
  • Ethan suddenly appears in the jungle, knocks out Jin, and confronts Charlie about Claire. Um...yeah. What'd you expect him to do, disappear? This one is completely expected, not a twist.
  • Boone stops Jack from taking his leg to save him. Not really a twist. Boone's noble.
  • The survivors are shown the Swan Orientation film, which introduces the DHARMA Initiative. This isn't a twist. It's as much of a twist as the survivors finding the caves.
  • While some of the Tailies carry Sawyer up a hill, Cindy mysteriously disappears. This was expected. It was mentioned that tailies had been kidnaped before.
  • Ana-Lucia hunts down the man who shot her (Jason McCormack), and kills him, revealing that she was pregnant. Knowing Ana's tough girl nature, this isn't a surprise, or a twist.
  • We also discover the extent of the information the Others possess about the survivors: their whole lives are seemingly contained in dossiers. Discovery, not a twist
  • In the future, Hurley has been institutionalised at Santa Rosa Mental Health Institute. He'd been in there before. And we saw the events leading up to it, so not surprising.

-- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:11, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

I agree with all your points here. I also think, as we are talking about above, we need a firm definition of what is and isn't a plot twist. Too many of the entries are not twists. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:16, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
I think the definition of a twist should be "something completely unexpected that shocks the audience and deviates from a predictable course of the plot." -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:18, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
All good points Sam. As you point out, some of these were unexpected, but not twists. Your definition is along the right lines, but I think it needs to emphasise the deceptive nature of the twist. By that I mean how we are deliberately misled or information is witheld to create a false impression of the situation.--TechNic|talk|conts 20:29, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
Agreed. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:30, 2 April 2008 (PDT)
TechNic asked for my input here, but I probably will be of no help in building a consensus because my ideas seem to diverge from the majority. In my view, the term ‘plot twist’ should be recognized as more specific than the term ‘twist’. (I find that many people use the two terms, ‘twist’ and ‘plot twist’, synonymously.) A plot twist should be defined as a change in the direction of the plot, with the word ‘plot’ defined restrictively as events that happen within the fictional universe, expressly excluding matters relating to how the fictional universe is depicted to the audience. In particular, something like “up til now we’ve had flashbacks but from now on we will also have flashforwards” is not a plot twist in my view because it concerns how the fictional universe is depicted to the audience, rather than the plot per se. Also note that I don’t think the concept of unexpectedness should be part of the definition of plot twist. Rather the emphasis should be on change of direction in the plot, whether expected or not. (Similar to the kind of twist you encounter when driving: if the road turns at a sharp angle I would consider that a ‘road twist’ even if you fully expected it because you saw the street signs warning of a twist 50 yards ahead, or whatever.) So we learn that Locke was paralysed before the crash: I don’t consider it a plot twist because it does not alter the direction of the plot, rather it is character backstory. It might well be relevant to the plot in future, and it might also shed light on the character of Locke, make him more sympathetic, more intriguing, or whatever, it might even elucidate past plot events but it does not change the direction of the plot from where it had been going. Learning that Locke had been paralysed is a twist -- but not a plot twist, as far as I’m concerned. (Call it a ‘character twist’ perhaps.) Now how would I distinguish ‘plot twist’ from mere ‘plot development’? I don’t think there is a clear bright line between the two, it’s just that if the plot develops in such a way to significantly change the immediate focus of the story, I would call that a plot twist. For example, the protagonists go down the hatch and find a man there, who tells them they have to key in certain numbers every 108 minutes or the world might end, that’s a plot twist because it alters the course of what the story will be about. But something like Sun learning that phew, Jin is her baby’s father after all, that’s an important plot point but not a plot twist. Karl comes to warn the survivors that the Others will be attacking earlier than expected, that’s plot development but not a plot twist. I hope that some of this will be helpful as points of discussion, but I won’t be offended if you want to ignore it. --Kuzak 02:51, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
  • While you have pretty much outlined how a twist could be perceived, I think that you aren't using plot in a broad enough fashion by equating it with story. The plot is more than just the story; it's the story plus all the devices used to take the audience from the begining to the end. I think our first job is to ignore labels, and instead identify the differences in the methods themselves. What makes a particular scene stand out enough to be noteworthy for an article? In the above example of Locke and the wheelchair, the audience was misled intentionally into believing something false by careful camera angles, currently observed behaviour, etc. And like an M. Night Shyamalan movie, there are clues given that make the viewer later slap their forehead in frustration that they missed the connections that seem so obvious in hindsight. Those things stand out from normal behaviour of the characters, the things that happen to them, and the manner in which the story is told. Learning Sayid was a torturer was not shocking in the sense that his character was built toward that point by first saying he was military, then where he was military, then his actions and behaviours on how he would take care of Sawyer, etc. That's an example of character building, and like story building, it might be "shocking" to some viewers, but it's not shocking in the sense that it's designed to be an unexpected twist, and not what we are looking for in an article like this. I think that we can actually find some clearcut lines by examining and agreeing upon what the writers intend to be unexpected to the audience vs. what they might have shocked us with, but were steadily building toward communicating to the audience. Jin appearing to be alive when he is dead (or left behind) was deceptively presented for the shock effect; Claire being kidnapped was shocking, but not deceptive. Let's work along these lines, maybe, separating the pieces first, then see if a clear pattern emerges to help us create accurate definitions, if that's possible. Lost isn't a "normal" show, so maybe our definitions need to be modified a bit to fit where abnormal is sometimes normal, and superabnormal is what stands out and needs to be mentioned in this article. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:52, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
"In the above example of Locke and the wheelchair, the audience was misled intentionally into believing something false by careful camera angles, currently observed behaviour, etc. And like an M. Night Shyamalan movie, there are clues given that make the viewer later slap their forehead in frustration that they missed the connections that seem so obvious in hindsight. Those things stand out from normal behaviour of the characters, the things that happen to them, and the manner in which the story is told." - Oh, you mean a mindf*ck?  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:44, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Wikipedia: "A plot twist is a change ("twist") in the direction or expected outcome of the plot of a film, television series, video game, novel, comic or other fictional work. It is a common practice in narration used to keep the interest of an audience, usually surprising them with a revelation. Some "twists" are foreshadowed and can thus be predicted by many viewers, whereas others are a complete shock." No, I meant what I said, but thanks for the attempted correction. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:03, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
    • I couldn't have said it better myself :) --CTS 18:06, 3 April 2008 (PDT)

Season 1[]

  • Jack sees his dead father on the Island, and comes across his father's coffin, which is empty. ("White Rabbit")
    • Were we led to believe his father was actually alive? IIRC, only Jack saw Christian Shepard and the sightings were first ignored by him (because Jack knew he was transporting the coffin), and dismissed by others as lack of sleep, etc. That the coffin was empty was certainly a big question mark, but is it a plot twist? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:22, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Plot twist, definitely.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:29, 4 April 2008 (PDT)
      • Why definitely? 22:58, 4 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Plot twist: We were led to believe that when he finally found the coffin, his father would be in it, and that would be the end of Jack's "issue". --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:23, 11 April 2008 (PDT)


  • Boone's rescue of Shannon, and her subsequent death at the hands of the Monster, are revealed to have been a vision, brought on by the paste Locke spread on his head. ("Hearts and Minds")
    • Undecided. I'll have to rewatch that again. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:22, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
    • mindf*ck  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:29, 4 April 2008 (PDT)
    • At least plot twist, since it is a change of direction: We were led to believe that all that was true. Mindf*ck, by Santa's latest definition, which I am for, might also apply, if this was the first of such a revelation. I don't recall which dream/vision revealed itself in such a way after we thought it was true. If this is the first one, then it's mindf*ck, as it makes you think over what Lost is. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:23, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Rewatched it since I responded here. Definitely agree. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:01, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Sawyer finally brings himself to kill the man who he thought was "the real Sawyer", but it turns out that he isn't that man. ("Outlaws")
    • I wouldn't say this necessarily fits the category. I think it's just plot. --18:22, 3 April 2008 (PDT)-- LOSTonthisdarnisland
    • Just plot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by plkrtn (talk • contribs) .
    • Plot twist. We thought what he said was true and this was how Sawyer took his revenge. But we later see that the other guy made Sawyer do his dirty work. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:23, 11 April 2008 (PDT)




  • Locke and his father are reunited, share time together, and Locke even donates his kidney to save his father. The whole sequence of events, however, is revealed to be a con on Cooper's part. ("Deus Ex Machina")
    • Both the audience and Locke are deceived. I'd say this fits. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:22, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Just plot/backstory - not a "plot twist"  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:29, 4 April 2008 (PDT)
      • Why? We are mislead, along with Locke, into believing he found his long-lost father who cared about him, hence a "before", then found out with Locke that Cooper was a con man, an "after". -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:58, 4 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Plot twist. Everything was going well for him, and many people probably even thought the kidney was the ultimate thing that would reunite them. Were it not all a con, the transplant would even count as symbolism. But it all turns out to be a lie. Twist. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:23, 11 April 2008 (PDT)


  • Locke reveals that it was he who knocked out Sayid when he was trying to triangulate the distress signal. ("The Greater Good")
    • The audience was led to believe that someone else did it and Locke deceived Sayid by suggesting Sawyer at first, enfueling the problems between the two of them. I'd say this fits. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:22, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Kinda.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:29, 4 April 2008 (PDT)
    • I guess it does. If he hadn't pointed to Sawyer before, this would definitely not count, but since we were led to believe someone else did it, it can be considered as change of direction. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:23, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I agree it's not the best example, and maybe leave it out for that reason if we all think it's weak. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:01, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
  • The Black Rock mentioned by both Claire and Rousseau is revealed to be a large sailing ship in the middle of the jungle. ("Exodus, Part 1")
  • Upon reflection, I think that I wasn't surprised because I watch with closed captions and they indicated it as The Black Rock, which told me it was more than just an ordinary black rock somewhere. I was surprised it was a ship, but not twisted from believing it was a rock (if that made sense). So, in the absense of anyone else agreeing with me, I say leave it. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:01, 11 April 2008 (PDT)


  • Yes and no. Rousseau indicates the Others are coming, which makes you think for a moment it might be them, but nearly immediately Sayid takes off in Danielle's direction giving the reason he thinks (correctly) it was her. So I'd say no for that reason. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:01, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Charlie is revealed to have kept one of the Virgin Mary statues full of heroin. ("Exodus, Part 2")
    • I wouldn't say this fits the category because it's just plot, not twist. It's not even an unexpected plot given that we see he was an addict. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:22, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Just plot. The plot twist is that the people who brought the statues to the island knew Eko, one being his brother  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  09:29, 4 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Yeah, I did expect it actually. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:23, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
  • When the raft happens upon another boat, it is discovered to contain four strangers, who kidnap Walt, shoot Sawyer, and blow up the raft. ("Exodus, Part 2")
    • I wouldn't say this fits the category because it's just plot, not twist. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:22, 3 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Completely a plot twist!! It sets up the WHOLE of Season 2, and twists the show from being about escaping to tackling the others. I'm putting this one back.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email 
      • blabber-- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:13, 4 April 2008 (PDT) Edit: Okay, I see where you are going with that on second thought. 20:14, 4 April 2008 (PDT)
    • It is a plot twist, basically because we're led to believe that something good will happen if the boat approaches. This is even supported by building up tension, when they seemingly miss the boat at first. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:23, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
  • We just rewatched S1 in order again, and are starting on S2 rewatch, so I just saw this again the other night. I agree completely with these points now. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:01, 11 April 2008 (PDT)


Okay, I've worked on the section for the first season, removing the ones that don't fit, and rewording the others to illustrate why they are plot twists. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:52, 4 April 2008 (PDT)

I know it's a little too late :) --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:23, 11 April 2008 (PDT)

  • No, it's not. If there are any we agree need to go back, feel free to add them again (or remove if I missed them). I'm going to go watch Lost :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:01, 11 April 2008 (PDT)

Assumptions[]

If an assumption can be drawn by the audience, or is drawn by a character, is it a true plot twist when it is found to be untrue? For example, in "Solitary" Danielle refers to Alex, then further states Alex was her child. At no point in the episode does Danielle reveal Alex is a girl, and Sayid incorrectly assumes Alex is male (and perhaps a portion of the audience shares that assumption), despite Alex being a unisex name. Is it a true plot twist when Alex is revealed female? I don't think so, because it really didn't affect the plot in any fashion other then some misconception about Alex's gender. Thoughts? I think it is important to present a very clear definition of plot twist, especially how it relates to Lost. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:36, 4 April 2008 (PDT)

As you said, it doesn't affect the plot at all, so I would say it's definitely not a plot twist... It's just a surprise. --     c      blacxthornE      t     06:26, 11 April 2008 (PDT)

Definitions from Reliable Sources[]

  • Plot:
    • In literature, a plot is all the events in a story particularly rendered towards the achievement of some particular artistic or emotional effect. In other words, it's what mostly happened in the story. Such as the mood, characters, setting, and conflicts occurring in a story. Wikipedia ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:53, 4 April 2008 (PDT)
    • An author’s selection and arrangement of incidents in a story to shape the action and give the story a particular focus. Discussions of plot include not just what happens, but also how and why things happen the way they do. Stories that are written in a pyramidal pattern divide the plot into three essential parts. The first part is the rising action, in which complication creates some sort of conflict for the protagonist. The second part is the climax, the moment of greatest emotional tension in a narrative, usually marking a turning point in the plot at which the rising action reverses to become the falling action. The third part, the falling action (or resolution) is characterized by diminishing tensions and the resolution of the plot’s conflicts and complications. In medias res is a term used to describe the common strategy of beginning a story in the middle of the action. In this type of plot, we enter the story on the verge of some important moment. See also character, crisis, resolution, subplot.Meyer Literature: Glossary of Literary Terms ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:53, 4 April 2008 (PDT)
    • The unified structure of incidents in a literary work. See Conflict, Climax, Denouement, and Flashback. McGraw-Hill Online Learning Center: Glossary of Drama Terms---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:53, 4 April 2008 (PDT)


  • Plot twist:
    • A plot twist is a change ("twist") in the direction or expected outcome of the plot of a film, television series, video game, novel, comic or other fictional work. It is a common practice in narration used to keep the interest of an audience, usually surprising them with a revelation. Some "twists" are foreshadowed and can thus be predicted by many viewers, whereas others are a complete shock. Wikipedia ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:53, 4 April 2008 (PDT)

Cleaning house after the merge[]

  • Now that the merge decision has been made, it's a good time to get this article in decent shape. I think there have been in the past too many examples that did not fit this article at all. My reasoning is that the nature of Lost is mystery, so every mystery revealed is not a plot twist whether it's expected or not. I think this is especially true when it's obvious that a new character or situation is introduced, creating a mystery, but the mystery is solved by the end of the episode or within a few short episodes (there would, of course, be exceptions to this line of thinking). For example, the "filler characters" Paulo and Nicki. They were brought into play for a few shows, but they were basically standing around saying "me too", i.e., they really weren't that important to the plot. In "Exposé", their story is told, and then there is a holy crap moment at the end. I do not think this qualifies as a plot twist, because what is it twisting from? The same with Arzt. As dramatic as his death was ("you have a piece of Arnzt [sic] on you" LOL), it's still not a plot twist because there was no evidence of an established plot for that character going in a different direction. I think the first order of business might be to get clear definitions in place so people know where examples fit (or don't fit). I have some above, and there were others on the mindf*ck talk page. Santa brought up some good points on the other talk page that we should probably bring over here, as well. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:16, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
  • There is definitely a need to clear up what is a plot twist and what isn't. We also need to make sure we merge mindf*ck in such a way that it references the facts we can find, and gives examples of what the fans believe fits. Paulo and Nikki's ending wasn't a plot twist I agree. We were told early on in the same episode that the spiders bite has a paralysing effect and makes you seem to be dead. It wasn't something unsurprising that Nikki opened her eyes, as we knew that they were being "buried alive".  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  05:21, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
  • "A man named Desmond is revealed to be living in the Hatch, surrounded by a fully-equipped kitchen, laundry machines, gun vault, and computer. ("Man of Science, Man of Faith")" I don't see this as a plot twist either. We aren't even aware of Desmond before he's introduced as part of the plot here (again, what's the twist?) and as far as the hatch, we are expecting "something", we just don't know what that something will be, so there really isn't a twist there either. I've added a few things to the article, but I'm open for suggestions if they aren't well done. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:47, 11 April 2008 (PDT)

Flashbacks are plot twists?[]

"The flashback plot twist is very common in Lost. The back-story of a character is shown to the viewer, and previously unknown information is revealed. For example, when the audience finds out that John Locke is paralyzed." While I agree that plot twists can occur in FB or be revealed by FB (as in the Lost example), I disagree strongly that FB should be catagorised as a plot twist. Flashbacks are Story Devices, which Plot-twists are Plotting Devices. [1] ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:57, 11 April 2008 (PDT)

Flashbacks are backstory, plot progression and information to guide us on character behaviour. There might be some plot twists in a flashback, but flashbacks aren't plot twists. I think whoever wrote that is mixing up plot twists and non linear narrative structure.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  06:25, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
Agreed. Gone? Any objections? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:48, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
I removed it, as well as Nonlinear Storytelling, for the same reasons (PT can be found in them, but NLST =/= type of PT). ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:55, 11 April 2008 (PDT)

Season 2[]

Let's do it for Season 2 this time:

Removed[]




  • A black horse appears out of nowhere, causing a car crash, and allowing Kate to escape from Edward Mars; the same horse appears twice on the Island.
    • Backstory. The appearances on the Island might count as mindf*ck, as per the latest definition by Santa. --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:21, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Its not anything except backstory. There isn't even a mindf*ck there really, as we expect to see poignant things from the past appear on the island mysteriously  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:39, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Agree with both plkrtn's points. After polar bears and the walking dead, this wasn't a surprise. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:55, 11 April 2008 (PDT)









  • After having been guided twice through dreams and/or visions, Eko and Locke find "the ?", which is revealed to be another DHARMA station, the Pearl.





Retained[]



  • Kate discovers the dirty and patchy clothes of the Others hanging neatly in a closet, along with a fake beard and some theatrical glue, implying that the Others are misleading the survivors with their appearance.




  • Libby is revealed to have spent time in the same institute.



  • Jack, Kate, and Sawyer are captured by the Others at the capsule dump, rather than at the site of the decoy village.
    • Plot twist. --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:25, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Why? (granted I haven't seen this episode in a while, so maybe it's more obvious it's a PT than I recall) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:55, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
      • In that episode Jack and Sayid knew that Michael "was compromised", so they were planning to go along with his plan, and surprise him and the Others at the decoy village (Sayid from the other side, by boat). We were led to believe that this was going to happen and they were to be captured in the village. Instead, Michael took them to the capsule dump, and before Jack knew it the Others came and shot them with tranquilizers and they were captured then and there.--     c      blacxthornE      t     03:52, 12 April 2008 (PDT)


Retained but changed[]

  • Michael shoots Ana-Lucia and Libby in cold blood, before setting The Fake Henry Gale free and shooting himself in the shoulder.
    • Plot twist. He said that he despised them for what they did to his son, and that he would shoot the fake Henry Gale. The fact that he worked for them was definitely a plot twist. --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:21, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Agreed -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:55, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
      • Reworded to show that the main twist is that he worked for them. Also removed the phrase "in cold blood" since it was unnecessary, plus he was obviously freaked out in Libby's case.--     c      blacxthornE      t     03:52, 12 April 2008 (PDT)



Review still needed[]

  • A man named Desmond is revealed to be living in the Hatch, surrounded by a fully-equipped kitchen, laundry machines, gun vault, and computer.
    • Not sure. I'd say the fact that there's a man inside such a building is not a plot twist per se. If we saw Locke go in there and see all these things, it would definitely be disqualified... But we were led to believe that this was outside the Island and no such building was there on the Island at that point. So I guess it could count as a change of direction, or even a mindf*ck, since it makes you wonder about what Lost is... again.--     c      blacxthornE      t     07:21, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • If its anything its a mindf*ck as if you listen to the DVD commentary, it was designed to make you think it was a 70's style flot flat in San Francisco or somewhere, then they reveal its actually the hatch... so mindf*ck if anything.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:39, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • (I'll forgo dwelling on the modern washer and dryer <rolls eyes>.) I'd agree that this might be retained, but it should be rewritten to match the points made here. As it's currently worded, it appears to be focusing on him living in the Hatch, which really isn't a plot twist. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:55, 11 April 2008 (PDT)


  • Eko is revealed to have been a warlord in Nigeria, and that the Beechcraft contained his associates and his brother.
    • Backstory. And maybe plot, about his brother. But no twist. --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:21, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Definitely a plot twist. We saw the beech craft in Series 1. We find out in Series 2 that its connected to someone on the island, which drives his motivations for the rest of his time in the show. If I don't comment on ones below... its because I agree with Blacxthorne and have nothing to add, so I've just signed it in agreement.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:39, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Although we saw the beechcraft, we knew it had to get there in some fashion. Finding the connection was freaky, but we had been shown other character connections thoughout the season, so it's not that surprising. I don't see where there's a "before" for it to twist. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:55, 11 April 2008 (PDT)


  • At some point after the lockdown in the Swan, Jack and Kate stumble across a food drop in the jungle.
    • Mindf*ck. We thought there was no connection with the outside world at that point. --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:21, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Agreed.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:39, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Disagree. We see the food in the pantry of the Swan, and while Desmond doesn't answer the question, Jack asked, "You don't get out, you don't see anyone. Where does your food come from?" This implied an ongoing resupply, supported by Hurley informing Jack, about the very stocked pantry, "Dude, there's enough food in [the pantry] to feed 1 guy, 3 meals a day for another 3 months" ("Every Man for Himself"). Des had been there for three years ("Further Instructions"). We aren't shown a second storage area for food in the hatch. I don't see how we could be led to believe anything other than the food was resupplied occasionally from the outside world. It would be more of a stretch to believe it was made on-island, since we weren't shown any food processing plants, canning factories, or farms. Apollo bars, not DHARMA labeled, tipped off "from the outside world" as well, because Hurley recognised them. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:55, 11 April 2008 (PDT)


  • Locke sees a glowing map that shows the location of a ? and several DHARMA stations.
    • Part of a plot. Not a twist. --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:21, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
      • This is a plot twist. We learn a lot more about the Island and the stations, and it changes Lockes path... as he now goes out his way to find the ?  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  07:48, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Continuation of plot. Locke's obsession with the Hatch is now expanded to other areas on the island. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:55, 11 April 2008 (PDT)


  • The new orientation video from the Pearl seems to imply that the "electromagnetic anamoly" in the Swan is, indeed, simply a psychological experiment.
    • First of all, it was not! Second of all, I think the actual twist is that it's this station is a psychological experiment. Since we were kinda always skeptical of the Swan hatch (supported by Jack's outburst), this was more like a confirmation at first. The actual plot twist is that this is a lie; the Swan really does "save the world", although it's debatable how that phrase might be interpreted. --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:21, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Hold on, this was a plot twist at the time it was revealed (i.e., not using current knowledge to define the circumstances in retrospect). It was twisted again later to reveal what you said Blacx, but at the time we see the Pearl's video, we didn't know the information was incorrect. This was not only a plot twist, but it also led to peripeteia for Locke. Remember, this video set up an entire misdirection of Locke thinking that everything he knew about the Swan to that point was false, causing Eko to take over pushing the button. I vote reword "seems" to "seemed at the time" and retain as a plot twist, as well as adding an entry under peripeteia for Locke. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:55, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
      • I didn't use current knowledge. I pointed out that at that time, we were already skeptical about it, and this was more of a confirmation than a twist. But still I'm leaving this be for now, just changing the word as you suggested.--     c      blacxthornE      t     03:52, 12 April 2008 (PDT)
        • Perhaps not intentionally, but watch the episodes in order without thinking in retrospect from what we know now, and you will see Locke was starting to lose his "faith" in the button as a suggestion it might be a personal struggle, not saying definitely whether the button was real or not. Therefore, the first twist comes when the Pearl video is revealed, showing the Swan is an experiment and everything was to be viewed and recorded by the Pearl. The twist is confused a few episodes later with the finding of the capsule dump (& Locke's map to confirm where the notebooks came from). It's twisted back when we hear Locke say "I was wrong" and we find out the Swan was not an experiment after all. There are two twists (or twist and retwist, if you prefer), so I've reworded it again and added the retwisting as a second example. I think the best way to determine plot twists are when the story diverges from what we think we know, and appears to go in a different direction in a WTH??? moment :).-- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:20, 18 April 2008 (PDT)


  • The occupant of the sailboat is Desmond, who, after "sailing west for two weeks", found himself back at the Island.
    • Mindf*ck. It was the first time the "snowglobe effect" was introduced. --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:21, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • We aren't misdirected to believing something different, so I diagree. Plot twist, maybe, because it is different than what our perception of reality would lead us to believe, but I'm not even sure that's appropriate because it's based on viewer assumption rather than actual plot. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:55, 11 April 2008 (PDT)


  • There are two men in the arctic who are searching for electromagnetic anomalies; when they find one, they report to their boss - Penelope Widmore, Desmond's girlfriend.
    • Mindf*ck. I don't think there's any plot twist there. But something huge, that we didn't see as possible happened. --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:25, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
    • If it's not a PT, how can it be an MF (which I thought we catagorised here as an extreme form of PT)? I'd say it'a a big surprise, but it is so implausible to think that Penny would be looking for him? She made the comment about finding anyone with the right amount of money (don't have crossref handy, but it was at the stadium picking up after the scene with stair running shown in "Man of Science, Man of Faith". -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:55, 11 April 2008 (PDT)

Other discussion[]

Okay I removed the ones that Plkrtn, LOSTonthisdarnisland and I agreed on, and left the ones that either we agreed on keeping or disagreed on removing, although I'm a little skeptical about the mindf*ck issues--but I'm not gonna get into that again, we'll deal with it later, having a clear definition in the article and all... Until we have more input, this should suffice. --     c      blacxthornE      t     03:52, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

  • I hope no one minds, but I reorganised this section so we can easily see what still needs to be done, as well as allowing the other editors to see definitively what changes were made, if any, and why. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:49, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

Censoring[]

Adult content and/or strong language
This article/section contains language and subject matter not suitable for younger readers or those who are easily offended.


I know there was a big argument over whether or not to call the article "mindfuck." But that was all settled and the term is still at least mentioned in the article. However, there is one thing that I still kind of find a bit ridiculous: Do we really need to censor the word "mindfuck?" I mean come on, this is the internet, there is no FCC here, no standards and practices, nothing, we don't need to censor anything here. This is not a "family" or "kid friendly" site, Hell Lost isn't even a family show by any means. Besides, what does replacing the "u" in the word "fuck" with an asterisk accomplish? We all know what the word is, what difference does it make? All it really does is make every editor on Lostpedia look like a bunch of tools. –Nahald 20:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing the status quo just puts us back into the can of worms. There was considerable disagreement as to the applicability of the term to the show, and little clarity about the term's basic meaning. The validity of the term as it applies to Lost aside, I think there was little disagreement that, though Lost was not a "family" show exactly, it has never been in the category of "explicit content" either. The show has only mild cursing. Probably, the intent of the censorship was to bring this site into alignment with the content ratings level of the show. Now, the show has never had explicit cursing, but it also has never censored any foul language with bleeps, which is essentially what was being done here, so it follows that if there is certain language we would prefer to omit from the site, then we should simply omit it, not censor it. Robert K S (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this may just be me, but this makes very little sense. Just who are you trying to pander to with censoring content on the internet? Lost may not have explicit content in it, but Lost is also a television show broadcasted on American television and must therefore adhere to FCC standards. Lostpedia, however, is on the internet, where information is free and uncensored (that is, as long as it's not copyrighted and doesn't contains child pornography). Hell, they don't even censor stuff over on Wikipedia, which is odd, when you consider that they have so many regulations there that we don't have here, yet the one thing they're lenient on is the one thing that we don't allow. In my experience, putting meaningless regulations like this in place is pretty much just asking for vandalism. Oh and also, I'd just like to say that I don't plan on starting an edit war over this. Yes I did edit the article and decensored it, but this was about a day or so after my post on the talk page. When no one responded, I figured that no one cared anymore, so I went ahead and edited it. Just wanted to make that clear, edit wars don't get people anywhere. –Nahald 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
"who are you trying to pander to with censoring content on the internet"--Lost viewers, although I think the word "cater" would be more apt than "pander". Robert K S (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It should be censored. There is no reason to not censor this, in my opinion. There's no need to make some people unhappy over it, so let's just keep it how it is. They can't say it on LOST, so we don't need to say it here. What they do at WP doesn't relate to or affect what we do here. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is a matter of whether or not the word is "bad"; it's a matter of seriousness. How seriously do we take the show, the website, and the people who visit this website? For the most part, this website, and to the best of my knowledge the administrators, have made efforts to create an environment where things are well researched and presented in a formalized fashion; these are encyclopedic articles with crossrefs, citations, and language that does not too greatly project the editors' perspectives. I've worked on numerous scientific publications, and no matter how foul-mouthed the PhD might be among his peers, he recognizes that using language that is too casual in a publication would detract from the seriousness, validity, and reliability of the information he is presenting. If he does not take the time and seriousness to write his article formally, then can we trust that he took the research, controls, and protocols seriously? Even the asterisk-enhanced version of this term gives an impression that the information presented is casual, unreliable, and detracts from what it is meant to be: an encyclopedia style article that has a democratic, but still existent, standard. In my mind a language standard is not terribly different from a standard of canonicity. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 18:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If we take things seriously then we should be able to use the word "fuck" without shirking. LOST-Figg 20:47, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Replace "Mindf*ck" subsection[]

On this page exists the subsection “Mindf*ck”. I am recommending renaming/rewriting the subsection as “Paradigm shift”, in line with the definition that a paradigm shift would “replace old assumptions, values, goals, beliefs, expectations, theories, and the like with its own.” [2]

1) “Mindf*ck” is, as stated in the article, a term with no clear definition.
2) While Lostpedia has no specific policy on bowlderizing, wikipedia policy discourages it. See here
3) Wikipedia also discourages the use of profanity except where there is no other way to share the material. See here
4) Using this profanity is not in line with the spirit of wikia’s guidelines.
5) Using such casual and potentially offensive language creates an impression that a source is less serious and reliable.
6) All descriptions of the meaning of “mindf*ck” would still be covered, and, other than replacing the subsection with “Paradigm shift”, would require no new categories.
Description from main page It causes a internal paradigm shift. It uses altered perception to leave the viewer and/or protagonists in a sense of confusion about the world, and the characters' position within it. It is limited to occurrences where the writers have gone to a lot of trouble to create a certain perception in the minds of the audience, and then right when the audience is comfortable with that perception, the perception is dramatically changed in a single moment.
Category Paradigm shift Plot twist and/or Unreliable narrator Unreliable narrator
Rationale By definiton As per Wikipedia:Unreliable narrator: “This unreliability can be due to psychological instability, a powerful bias, a lack of knowledge…” As per Wikipedia:Unreliable narrator: “This unreliability can be… a deliberate attempt to deceive the reader or audience”

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zholmboe (talk • contribs) 2009-05-12T23:52:40.

  • No Strongly disagree.
  • First, your links to Wikipedia rules are broken, BTW.
  • Second, a paradigm shift has nothing to do with the subject at hand: Wikipedia defines it as, "...describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science."
  • Third, your own definition of a paradigm shift was taken out of context. In that article you link to, it is discussing paradigm shifts as they relate to the law and science.
  • Fourth, I think the section does a good job clearly explaining why some people use the term and has links to legitimate, relevant sources that also use the term in the same manner.
  • Fifth, Wiktionary cites 5 literary references that use the term. [3]
  • Sixth, the "controversial" language is not being used as you are portraying it. Mindf*ck is used as a last, best description for what occurred when no better term is available. Profanity is used to emphasize just how shockingly mind-blowing the reveal was.
  • Seventh, it is easy to know when to use the term mindf*ck: Did the majority of viewer leap off their couch and yell, "Oh my god!", "What the f*ck?", "Oh sh*t!", or "Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick!" I know I did. If so, then that was a mindf*ck.  Kevrock   talk  contribs   19:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Rather than replace or rename it, why don't we remove it? There's still plot twists, albeit major ones, but I don't understand the need to distinguish between big and small plot twists, it seems pointless. Besides that, most of them are season finales or openers, so if we wanted to keep the still pointless subsection, that's a more accurate and serious name for it. Mindfuck is about as far away from official as one can get, it's a shock value word that doesn't really describe anything. We should eliminate the subsection and move the 5 "Mindfucks" into the same category as the rest of the page. Thoughts? --Jf518 18:02, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • The weird thing is, mindfucks are in a way not plot twists at all. Plot twists change the plot's direction. With mindfucks reveal the story to have been different from how you thought it. Take "Walkabout". Locke's paralysis is a twist ending. It's a mindfuck because of how he'd been filmed up to that point. "The island heals" may be a plot twist. But nothing happens in the revelatory scene that changes the plot. Or take "Ji Yeon". "Jin dies" is a plot twist. But the revelation that Jin's scenes were flashbacks is not a plot twist. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 04:48, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • You make a good point, they aren't necessarily plot twists. To me that's even more reason to remove it altogether. --Jf518 18:02, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Hide in plain sight[]

there are certain obvious clues that elude us. We see them so often we discount their significance. Two examples: the cocaine filled madonnas -- Clearly a symbol of Mother -- the evil goddess. Hugo never lost any weight -- How did he managed that?

There are moments of obvious free choices: 1st example: Hawking kills his son with absolute knowledge of her actions. No wonder, she then helps Jack et alia. She has eliminated the brains behind the plan. She thinks that she has destroyed any chance for the survivors. Only in the final episode, does Desmond casually inform her that her son has arranged her death her death.

And finally, the moment where MIB has returned and tossed Alpert into the high grass seemed to be shot like High Noon. The Napoleon of LOST has to make a decision; Ben makes the most unexpected decision of his life. He allows MIB to walk away alive. Such an irony! That was the twist of all twists. The man who never doubted his ability to kill without mercy refused to foil the elaborate plan that Faraday, God, Christian Sheepherder, had conjured up.--Past recaptured 16:11, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Free will exists.[]

I am compelled to point out that while God exists, so does free will. Free will is hard to obtain. Ben worked all his life under the illusion that he was working for one demon when he was serving another. Personal vendetta is much more benign than war. man against demon, beast whatever you choose to call MiB. Ben failed at the critical moment: The fight was his to wage. Not Jack, not Desmond, not the ghostly Faraday who haunt the alternate timeline. The final scene between Ben and Locke may be seen as the point where Locke regains faith in himself and Ben admits that his redemption was an act of supreme error.--Past recaptured 16:28, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Twist[]

Looks like some people discussed this before, but we should look again at it.

The article covers some twists that aren't plot twists. It also skips some twists that it can't cover but that we should cover somewhere.

For starters, mindf-cks are not plot twists.

  • In "Ji Yeon", Jin's apparent death is a plot twist. But the episode's twist ending, that Jin's scenes were flashbacks? That's not a plot twist. That doesn't affect the future plot.
  • In "Walkabout", the news that the island heals people is a plot twist. But the episode's twist ending, that Locke was paralyzed during the flashbacks? That doesn't affect the future plot.
  • In "Through the Looking Glass, Part 2", Jack's escaping the island and wanting to return is a twist. But the episode's twist ending, that we had been watching flash forwards? That doesn't affect the future plot.

In fact, twist endings are never plot twists. Plot twists affect future plot. Twist endings wrap up a story surprisingly. There was a period when many flashbacks ended with a mild twist.

  • That bank robbery where Kate was a victim. Turns out she was PULLING A CON!
  • Shannon's bad relationship. Turns out she was PULLING A CON!
  • Anthony Cooper's kidney transplant. Turns out he was PULLING A CON!

All twists. We should list them somewhere. And now that I look back, I see we already list some here. But they aren't plot twists.--- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 09:03, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • No It makes the article contents much more vague if a visitor were to see the title "Twists". Just keep it. --  Blackout0189    talk    contribs    email   15:21, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply It's vaguer, yes. But the vaguer title describes the current contents. "Conflict" is vaguer than "battles," but we name the article "conflict" because the article's more general than a list of battles. We could also edit this article, removing all but plot twists. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 15:36, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes I suggest we name the page "Twists", then have subcategories of "Plot twists", "Character twists", and maybe a third "Location & Time-related twists". I actually just went through rewording some of the twists and deleting others that weren't twists because there was no set-up; they were just surprising events. --Jf518 16:52, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes Yes, I like those categories. I think "Setting twists" might cover place and time twists. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 17:22, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment I like what you've done with the page, I think it looks much better now. Do you still want to wait on renaming until we get more input from others, or go ahead and change it now that the subcategories are there? --Jf518 13:07, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
        • Only an admin can rename the page. But I'm ready to call it "twists" instead of "plot twists" in the opening paragraph. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 15:03, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing specific twists[]

Locke and the case worker[]

I called this a setting twist, not a character twist. It doesn't reveal something new about Locke. Even before this episode, we knew he could at one point walk and later got into an accident. The scene doesn't change that. The twist instead affects the scene itself. The scene sets us up to believe the scene takes place post-accident. It actually takes place pre-accident. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 17:13, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • I was the one who moved this from "setting" to "character", but honestly it doesn't seem to fit either. You're right, it's not really a character twist, but I don't think it's really a setting twist either. To me, a setting twist is one that changes the perspective of that setting once "twisted." However, I do see how it plays on the setting to twist the audience's expectations of that character....could be either or neither as I see it, but feel free to change it if you feel if belongs back in "setting" section. --Jf518 22:26, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Jack's wedding[]

Calling this a setting twist is pushing it a little. But it's also more than a character twist. The character twist would be the reveal that Jack is married, or that he at least was at one point, if that's a big enough twist to merit including. That "twist" could be revealed simply by opening the scene at the wedding. But this scene adds an additional twist. It sets us up to believe that regardless of whether Jack ever married, we're about to witness MARC's wedding. Then comes the twist -- no, this flashback is about Jack's. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 17:18, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • Once again, this could be a setting or a character twist, in my opinion. Like Locke and the case worker, this one uses the setting and dialogue to establish audience expectations of the character. Either way works for me. --Jf518 22:26, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Remove mindf*cks - new discussion[]

Even ignoring the above censorship debate, we should now remove this section because it contains almost no content. "Setting twists" covers all the old examples save one, and that one's categorized elsewhere too - twice. Besides examples, the section contained a list of media references to Lost mindf!cks. I looked at them, and only one checked out, some random person's blog. All we have left now is the definition, which mostly tries to explain what mindf^cks aren't.

Also, someone bowdlerized the heading into "mind boggling." We can't do that. A mindf©ck isn't "that which f♪cks or boggles the mind." It's a specific phrase with a definition. --- Balk Of Fame ♪ talk 04:56, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

YesThat section is kinda pointless now that we've established the multiple types of twists. Besides, mindfuck just doesn't seem like an official word, it seems more like lazy slang in my opinion. --Jf518 13:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms