Lostpedia
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Lostpedia
Lostpedia
7,457
pages

Talk: Dharma booth video

Back to page
Sign in to edit

People count[]

Are we sure that it's two different people (in addition to Chang) in the video? Regarding the person with red hair on the left (Chang's Right), remember that this is a VIDEO OF A VIDEO. The person on the left with the red hair may be in the Cheng Video, or it can be a person inside the booth along with Bronson/en and was caught in the field of view of his camera. Can anyone who attended the LOST panel say if any of the people called in to watch the film have red hair aside from Bronson/en -ManilaRaf Jul 30, 0341UTC

Yeah, I'm pretty sure.

  • The male(s) speak three times. The first statement sounds to me like a deeper voice than the other two.
  • The image of the red hair is constrained by the border of the video within the video; it's visible right after Chang returns to his seat. There is also some red hair just before or just as the Chang video begins to run; that, I think, is a different head.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 06:18, 30 July 2008 (PDT)
  • I only hear one voice. And I'm 99.9% certain it's Faraday.Evil-pineapples 04:06, 31 July 2008 (PDT)
  • There is no woman with red hair. If you watch the high-quality version available at ABC.com here [1] you will see that Dan is shooting the video behind and between two people. What appears to be woman with red hair or a red sweater is actually the person in front of and to the left of Dan. -ManilaRaf 20:14, 31 July (PDT)
  • There is definitely only one voice and I am 100% sure that it's Daniel Faraday.NicoleL88 09:58, 4 August 2008 (PDT)NicoleL88
  • Yes, Faraday. The way he says "Please" is a dead giveaway. This would also explain why he needs a constant -- he's been to the island before. I don't think he remembers it, but he knows it because of his journal. Perhaps he realizes that in his future, he went to the "universal" past. --Litany42 06:50, 23 August 2008 (PDT)

Jennifer line[]

Okay, I'm pretty sure that this transcript is unofficial so it might be beneficial if more editors looked into precisely what Chang says in the video. I simply cannot hear the name "Jennifer" anywhere in the film - including when the transcript purports it is said. I'm hearing something slightly unintelligible, maybe "Dammit, Laura," or something else with about 4 syllables. You can take a peek at a high quality version of the video on ABC's website here. Input would be greatly appreciated! :) ～Iridia talk contribs 19:43, 31 July 2008 (PDT)

I agree! I just watched it three times twice in hi-res, the other in low-res and it does sound like "dammit Laura" let's see if anyone else hears this or if we are just both crazy.:P--Jinx 21:49, 31 July 2008 (PDT)
Yea, I just watched the one on ABC and I heard Laura too.--Vster88 23:17, 31 July 2008 (PDT)
All-righty, well I'm editing the article to reflect this, but I'm still not sure he's even saying "Dammit, Laura," mainly because it sounds like the first word starts with an "S". Hopefully someone with better ears (or software) will be along at some point to either support or refute us. XD ～Iridia talk contribs 05:32, 1 August 2008 (PDT)
The first time I heard it I heard "Stanislaw" like the polish sci-fi novelist. I definitely can't hear "Jennifer". If it is "dammit Laura" he seems to pronounce "Laura" with a European inflection, the "au" sound like "cow" not "au" as in "August". I thought I heard a "st" sound preceding this... possibly something like "just... dammmit, Laura", but I may be mishearing. Sadiemonster 07:32, 1 August 2008 (PDT)
He says "Dammit Lara/Laura" (Depends on your accent.) NicoleL88NicoleL88
I thought I heard "Dammit, Lara." I asked my wife, who doesn't watch the show (and who thinks we're all off all rockers <grin>), and she thought she heard "Stanislaw."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 11:54, 1 August 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, I thought it sounded like "Stanislaw" or something similar, but was unaware that was a name! I'm really starting to think it would be best to leave the transcript saying that this particular line is "unintelligible." ～Iridia talk contribs 13:22, 1 August 2008 (PDT)
I just watched it again on ABC.com and I'm not saying it's definitively "Damnit, Laura" but I didn't hear anything that sounded like Jennifer or even J. I vote unintelligible. Vster88

talk | contributions 16:21, 2 August 2008 (PDT)

Diagree. He says "Jennifer" quite clearly, and it can be heard more clearly in the low quailty version of the video. I highly doubt that ABC would release a official transcript of the video, so we have to go with what we have. I don't know how you can't hear that, or think it's "Laura" or something. I mean, it's quite clear what he said. dposse 07:29, 2 August 2008 (PDT)
Considering the amount of disagreement among users, would it not make sense to leave that particular line labeled as "unclear" rather than choose to assign one particular interpretation as indisputable fact? As gaarmyvet said, "we need to all agree to disagree for a while." :) ～Iridia talk contribs 07:44, 2 August 2008 (PDT)
I don't think we will be able to come to a conclusion because people will generally hear things differently. We should come to a consensus on two or three things that it might be and put down, "unintelligeble, possibly Jennifer, Laura..."--Jinx 15:53, 2 August 2008 (PDT)
When the transcript siad Jennifer I clearly heard Jennifer, but now listening to it again it could also easily be something else. If it is importent who this person is we'll probably hear the name again sometime later --TimoVink 16:07, 2 August 2008 (PDT)
Dposse, insisting that he says Jennifer isn't the same thing as demonstrating that he says Jennifer. Unless you can contribute some concrete evidence for this interpretation, the article needs to reflect the fact that the name is currently contested. You may hear "Jennifer", but I personally can't hear "Jennifer" no matter how many times I listen, and that interpretation would never have occurred to me had others not claimed that that was what he was saying. We have to allow for the fact that people are hearing this differently. It is absolutely appropriate that until we have confirmation or reach a consensus, the article be left open with a phrase such as "unintelligible, possibly Jennifer, Laura..." as suggested above. Sadiemonster 18:52, 2 August 2008 (PDT)
    • Guys, if you watch the High Quality version you can CLEARLY hear that Chang says: "Dammiit Lara/Laura" (depending on your accent), he simply sighs/inhales/exhales beforehand which is causing the 's' sound you may be hearing. And he does not say 'Jennifer' seeing as what he says ends in an 'n' sound, and does not begin with a 'j' sound. The 's' sound he makes when he inhales/exhales/sighs could possibly be influencing what you may be hearing in that case too. Look at it logically. He says "Dammit" because he is annoyed and frustrated at the sound of the crying baby which is interrupting his recording. And then "Lara/Laura" because it's a simple female name, and IMO can clearly be heard in the HQ version. Also, it does not make sense for whoever it is to keep putting in 'unintelligable' as he can clearly be heard saying this.NicoleL88 05:18, 3 August 2008 (PDT)NicoleL88
    • I agree with Nicole. When I watched the TapDawg Youtube video, I thought he said Jennifer. But when I saw the ABC.com video, which is much clearer video and audio-wise; I can say that he definitely does NOT say Jennifer. I'm leaning towards "Dammit Lara", although I can't rule out Stanislaw/v. --ManilaRaf 06:20, 3 August 2008 (PDT)
    • I don't think he says 'dammit laura'. In such an exclamation he would have made a pause between the two words and his voice would fall. But as it is, there is no pause and the voice keeps rising in an anticipatory way, like THE WHOLE THING is just one word which he uses only to catch someone's attention before he makes his point. ('Dammit' is pretty much a point in itself;)What I hear is something like 'stan-it-lore'. I definitely hear an 'r' in the end but no vowel after it, like 'lore', not 'laura'. Is there any accent that pronounces Stanislaw like 'stanislore'? Incidentally, in Polish the pronounciation is stun-IS-wuff and in Czech, STUN-yis-luff.--Matochac 06:34, 3 August 2008 (PDT)
      • Again, while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I think that people who say they're hearing something like Stanislav/w or whatever else are trying too hard to hear something mysterious that isn't there. I honestly don't mean that in a bad way, I just believe there are far more important and mysterious things in the video rather than the name he calls out. Again I'll reiterate the fact that as Chang stands up he sighs just as he says "Dammit Lara/Laura" which makes the 's' sound some of you hear, he then pauses and says "just take him outside", pauses again, then says "please!" So to say that there is no pause in his speech is incorrect.NicoleL88 09:53, 3 August 2008 (PDT)NicoleL88
  • The reason we put [unintelligible], and I'm the one who last made that change, was to give the editing war time to cool off.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 10:43, 3 August 2008 (PDT)
    • Oh right! It's not really a war though! :) I just think everyone is hearing different things and it's obvious that not everyone is going to come to a unanimous decision. I hope the name comes up again so it can be resolved.NicoleL88 10:54, 3 August 2008 (PDT)NicoleL88
    • Likewise. My guess is that we will eventually see the scene portrayed from the 1978 perspective, so we can all see Chang, person, person, person, and little person!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 11:05, 3 August 2008 (PDT)
As I said earlier, it will be impossible to reach a consensus and so "unintelligeble" will have to suffice for the time being. Again, hopefully we will be able to see this again, but we can't bank on it. So we should put "(unintelligeble, possibly Jennifer, Dammit Laura/Lara, Stanislaw) Also, a transcript is what is said in the video, we can't look at the sentence from a grammatical point of view because often times people when they speak don't use good grammar. (like me! :P) There is no longer a need to discuss a mute point, it would just be a waste of time if you ask me...--Jinx 12:26, 3 August 2008 (PDT)
Francois said I could ask him a question anytime, so I'm gonna see what he says it was. That should settle it. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  12:33, 3 August 2008 (PDT)

Wow Sam really? It's be great if he could clear this up for us! NicoleL88 12:42, 3 August 2008 (PDT)NicoleL88

While that is great, I'm afraid, regardless of what Francois says, it is considered an interview and is therefore not cannon. I've already raised a point about this at the policy page regarding cannocity, so check out that article's discussion page. I think a change in policy will be nessecary to assure that we can fully regard the information as cannon and not have to put a disclaimer on it...--Jinx 23:17, 3 August 2008 (PDT)

But he said the line, who else is going to confirm it? NicoleL88 02:54, 4 August 2008 (PDT)NicoleL88

Jinx, if the ACTOR WHO SAID THE LINE's word isn't good enough, who's is? I sure we can make a small exception for the policy for something as minor as this, which has blown into a huge discussion. --Blueeagleislander 04:05, 4 August 2008 (PDT)
I'm pretty sure that if an actor says the line, and clarifies it, it's considered canon. He said it's Lara. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  06:22, 4 August 2008 (PDT)
And I'm also fairly certain that an actor confirming the name is more canon than us debating on what he said and then using our best guess. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  06:29, 4 August 2008 (PDT)

Wayhey I was right. Cheers for that Sam. NicoleL88 07:01, 4 August 2008 (PDT)NicoleL88

I understand that, but I'm hoping that for future instances we can simply regard them as cannon. That's why I raised a point at the policy page. Also, if we leave interviews as semi cannon people are going to get confused and will not accept it as fact.--Jinx 07:05, 4 August 2008 (PDT)

Sam, could you perhaps put up on your page what Mr. Chau said as some people still don't believe that he said "Dammit Lara". Cheers. NicoleL88 08:22, 4 August 2008 (PDT)NicoleL88

I think that you misunderstood me. I don't think that Sam is just trying to mess with us and put Lara because he just wants to take us for a ride. :P I was saying that we need to make a change to policy so that interviews are cannon. And now, I go on vacation. :):):D:):D--Jinx 08:26, 4 August 2008 (PDT)
How will people be silenced if Sam writes what he's saying Chau said?! All it'll be is "It was Lara". It doesn't change anything, as its still Sam reporting what he said. I love how people are so quick to say that things like DuaneIsInsane is real but then won't follow proper evidence. --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:28, 4 August 2008 (PDT)
I will be more than happy to forward my entire email correspondence with Mr. Chau to an admin. However, this is what was said regarding Lara:
    • ME: Hi Mr. Chau,

Your interview has been posted. You can read it here: http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/The_Lostpedia_Interview:Fran%C3%A7ois_Chau

By the way, there has been some debate on Lostpedia as to the name of the woman whom Pierre spoke to in the most recent video. After the baby cries, he says something like, "Dammit [unintelligible], just take him outside, please! I have one chance at this." Can you please clarify what name he said? Thank you very much, again.

Sam

    • FRANCOIS: Hi Sam,

The name is "Lara"-- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  08:36, 4 August 2008 (PDT)

Cheers for that Sam. I knew it was Lara from the start, I just suggested that Sam post the correspondence as some people weren't satisfied with just being told that it had been confirmed. Glad its all sorted now anyway! :) NicoleL88 09:37, 4 August 2008 (PDT)NicoleL88

Woo hoo! I'm about ready to do a happy dance. Glad that's clarified. :) ～Iridia talk contribs 02:31, 5 August 2008
They aren't satisfied with what Sam says he said, but are satisfied with what Sam says he said if he writes it out in letter form?! Not to initiate a flamewar, but these people are muppets. --Nickb123 (Talk) 03:46, 5 August 2008 (PDT)

Well it's nowt to do with me. Like I said, I knew it was Lara from that start, but some people just refused to believe me and wanted proof that I wasn't just making it up.NicoleL88 14:23, 5 August 2008 (PDT)NicoleL88

I also felt it was Laura/Lara, but there were plenty of others who felt it was yet another name. Because of that, it isn't a great idea to state something based only on gut feeling or personal decisions. I don't think anyone thought anybody made up anything, but each of us had our own interpretations of what was said. If it's questionable, it should be stated as such until a reputable source can verify the information. :) ～Iridia talk contribs 08:55, 6 August 2008 (PDT)
Well, geez, that makes me feel great, I'm a muppet. :| People seem to think I'm against Sam or Chau or whoever, I'm not, I'm saying we have two more years of Lost, Lostpedia is going to continue with the interviews, we need to make a policy regarding this. I am in agreement with Iridia however, if we just dismiss this as a minor instance and say, oh this will never happen again...no, it will happen again. People seem to be completely disregarding and just stepping around the issue at hand, a change in policy. Instead of trying to write this off as a one-time thing we should make a very clear policy regarding interviews for future references. Also, Sam, I hope you don't think I was trying to accuse you of lying, I simply am trying to make a point that I think is very important and could help lower the debate on future issues in regards to interviews. Sorry if you thought I was calling you a liar. :)--Jinx 21:55, 9 August 2008 (PDT)
It's okay. I can understand where you're coming from. I've added my opinion on Lostpedia:Ideas. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  06:09, 10 August 2008 (PDT)

Man in Static[]

At the point in the transcript where it says: "(another male voice in static)" - I believe what the man says is: "...this thing is on?" and should be added to the transcript.

Not quite sure of the significance. However, wasn't there some point when the Losties were exploring one of the stations and Pablo (or maybe Sawyer, maybe Locke...) said this line? --Litany42 06:46, 23 August 2008 (PDT)

Rename[]

Filming[]

Could we change it so that the article points out how this is a fake hidden cam video? The article makes it seem as if the guy filming this is actually some Lost fan who managed to get a hidden camera into the Dharma booth at comic con. Clearly he's not. --Flat20 11:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)flat20

  • It's a performance. "Dan Bronson" is a character protrayed by an actor, just like Hans. If a real person had penetrated a real secure area the camera would have been confiscated. However, if you want to clarify the article, go ahead; you're an editor!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

LaFleur?[]

Someone has decided that Pierre says LaFleur's name in the video but I'm not hearing it. At best this is trivia, and really it's better suited as a theory. The other voice that he's referring to definitely doesn't sound like Sawyer - if anything the voice sounds like Daniel, whose Dharma pseudonym we don't know yet. Thoughts? --Jackdavinci 20:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Definitely Daniel/Jeremy Davies' voice, no question. (see below, because I wrote it before I saw this, but left it so I don't highjack this conversation) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm the one who "decided" that Pierre says "LaFleur." It's based on an initial input at LaFleur. I listened to the video we link to from Dharma booth video and to two others on YouTube that are shorter ones that go directly to the Chang portion. At an absolute minimum, he says "Fleur."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Could you provide an (enhanced) audio file to prove it? // The transcript shouldn´t be changed untill this is confirmed...--erikire 05:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a discussion about this on LaFleur talk as well. I am really leaning toward this being La- the first time, and LaFleur the second time Chang says that. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I really think he does not say LaFleur Integrated (User / Talk) 12:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that if you go back in the history of the page that there were huge arguments about "Chang" vs "Cheng" and "Lara" vs a bunch of stuff. Were those things distractors?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This really belongs in theories. There is no proof that Sawyer is involved at all. We don't even know when the Booth Video was recorded in canon. dposse 01:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
And i definitely heard him say "Jennifer" when the video first came out. That was before the actor for Chang came outta nowhere and said it was "Lara". People can be made to believe they hear anything, just like those guys who used to spin Led Zeppelin records backwards and hear messages from Satan. dposse 02:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This LaFleur issue is just ridiculous! If he actually said Lafleur it'd be in the transcript months ago, people are only hearing what they want to hear. Plus he's talking to the cameraman, who is clearly Daniel Faraday, why is he calling him LaFleur? And now on various pages it's popping up under trivia that Chang says LaFleur here? This is getting out of hand, does anyone agree it should be removed that he says Lafleur? Integrated (User / Talk) 08:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, i see what everyone is arguing about! He doesn't say "La...", he says "look!" twice. It's like the phrases, "look here! stop that!" or "look, i know what im doing here!". im not saying he said those phrases, he just says "look". dposse 05:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no "K" sound at all in the second word in that sentence. It's not look, look. It's "No, no, no, look!. _______, what are you doing?" and that word is LaFleur. However, even if we can't agree on the word, there has to be a space left there in the transcript because there definitely a word there. And no offence, dposse, but you also thought Chang said Jennifer when it was Lara. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he ever says "Look" at all, actually. I think he is stuttering to say "LaFleur", much like he stutters to say "What" and "No" several times previous in the video. --Crazy Bearded Jack 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
-- LOSTonthisdarnisland - so, that automatically disqualifies me from giving you the facts? He says it almost with a British accent, like he's pronouncing it "luuk" or something. He definitely says "look" twice. Try listening to it again. dposse 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't disqualify you, but it should give you pause that you don't have the best track record for hearing what is being said, and prevent you from editing warring on the article. Perhaps it's your speakers or the quality of your sound card, but there are not two looks there. I've listened to it dozens of times now between this thread, the one on LaFleur, and the one on the forum. It sounds just like LaFleur, and if it's not, it's a word pretty darned close in inflection, beginning/middle/ending sounds, and length. I don't see what else it could possibly be, but it is most definitely not "look, look". ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
There is NO occurrence of the word "look," period.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I definitly hear a -er sound so its not look but im not hearing the Lafl sound but it is possible hes there; and for everyone who says he isnt talking to lafleur hes talking to daniel, come on there could be more than two people in the room at once you know maybee every1 from the future is in the room. So while i do think james is in the room and he may be saying Lafleur I dont think theres enough evidence yet --Czygan84 04:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This LaFluer issue looks like its been beaten to death, but I thought I heard Dr. Chang say "LaFluer" at the end on my own independently, so it's not like I was biased by anybody telling me this. The fact that other people have noticed it too lends this idea credibility in my opinion. I made a video and uploaded it to Youtube with this audio slowed down. Give it a listen and tell me if you think what he says sounds an awful lot like "LaFluer". The link is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUYrt7Y2bZQ MattC867 04:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Continue the research[]

Even without a high volume, I can clearly hear not "convince the researchers", but rather "continue the research" ("...and do it now"). Does anyone else make that out? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The first word definitely begins with "cont..." (with a "t") sound and I do not hear a "ers" sound at the end of the three-word string.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Continue the research also makes far better sense, since the researchers would all be dead from the Purge, and this was to be beamed 30 years into the future. I'm fairly certain that's what it says and the transcript of that portion is wrong in the article. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Daniel![]

One of the UQ's is asking who is the other voice? Is this a serious question? Or does no one else know this is Daniel's voice? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The original question, as I recall, which may have been rephrased, was about whose was the voice other than Chang's and Daniel's. It's a deeper voice that utters the line beginning "None of that matters." Many think there is only one voice, Daniel's.
  • I would be very surprised if that too isn't Daniel. It has the same vocal inflections that Davies uses. I think it was just skewed a bit by a static burst. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OFF-SCREEN VOICE vs FARADAY[]

Proposed. Change OFF-SCREEN VOICE to FARADAY. Several months ago, labelling the speech as coming from Daniel Faraday seemed premature. Since that time, Sawyer and party have been integrated into DHARMA in 1977, although Faraday has not been seen as of "LaFleur." Daniel has been seen deep in the Orchid ("Because You Left").--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes: Change. Definitely Daniel's voice, even if we did not know he was there, as Davies has a distinctive voice and manner of speaking. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No It is definitely Daniel, but we can't really say that until he's named specifically.. Integrated (User / Talk) 14:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not? Is there no where else that we've named someone on the other end of the phone or similar? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not confirmed; it's only speculation. Unless it is deliberately confirmed by an officially canon source, it won't be added to the wiki. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  17:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
What's not confirmed? That it's Davies' voice? It doesn't have to be because it's obvious. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with User:Sam McPherson. It's purely speculation. Until there's confirmation from either on the show or from the producers/actors, leave this in "theories". dposse 01:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I argued virtually from day one that we should not identify the off-screen voice, but that changed when we saw Daniel deep in the Orchid in "Because You Left". His presence in what we know to be at least 1974 and probably later provides all the glue we need. Sam will need to decide if he's going to be a sysop and judge the result or a regular editor and participate.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think this has been presented as a mystery and despite all the glue being provided we need to wait for some selotape (ANALOGY ALERT). When the video was presented everyone thought "It's Faraday" then when we saw him in the 70s at the start of the season we thought "Yep definitely Faraday" but us knowing this, it still is presented as a mystery until confirmed ... Integrated (User / Talk) 04:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
In a recent video interview Davies himself confirmed it is he in the video. He also stated that it is only the first half of the video. I forget if it was in Jeff Jensen's "Totally LOST" feature, or a podcast, but it die happen. -- Crazy Bearded Jack 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
We will unfortunetly need to find the source before we can make changes--Mistertrouble189 00:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Mistertrouble is right. The information should be added to the article if and only if verifiable sources are given. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If we can give a verifiable source for all this from the actor himself, that would be agreeable to me (unless something else comes up...). dposse 01:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
There's been a link to source added now -- Crazy Bearded Jack 02:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, i think you messed up the link. The link you provided leads to a video that recaps "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham". I'm going to remove it. Try again. dposse 04:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
MHm...either CrazyBeardedJack was simply mistaken, or he's misled us, because there is no Jeremy Davies interview on any of Jensen's videos. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Did you scroll down to the 1/28/09 video? I saw Jeremy Davies talking about the comic con (I believe, I'm hard-of-hearing so I can't really tell).--Mistertrouble189 04:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, i finally see the video you're talking about. However, all that the actor confirms is that the Dharma Booth Video is only one half of an entire scene. He does not say who is in the room with him. dposse 04:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It does appear that since Davies has any knowledge of the Comic-con video (which are usually filmed privately), it seems obvious that he was in the video, too. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I could argue that he just talked with the actor playing Dr. Chang or to the Producers, but whatever. I can concede that Faraday is in the room, but i also agree that any mention of LaFleur is a bit over the edge without a confirmation. dposse 04:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you there. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Watch the flow of the video content. Davies says he had ideas about developing his character, bemoans the truncated season, and says "they" got reckless with the Comic Con 2008 video, of which only half was released. He does not even pause to take a breath. He's complaining about how "his" character was used in the video.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
There is more to that interview that I saw elsewhere, and I've been trying to find it. By no means was I trying to mislead anyone, and if that happened, I apologize profusely. I totally agree on the LaFleur part, and I'm going to be working today to get some isolated sound forwarded on to Sam. -- Crazy Bearded Jack 15:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why everyone is so convinced that this voice is Faraday. It sounds more like Miles to me, and given the events of Some Like it Hoth, it seems reasonable that he would reach out to Chang with the truth. In any case, I don't think one can just assume that it is Faraday.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iduckles (talk • contribs) .

  • It certainly would seem to be more likely Faraday than Miles, due to the fact that they're dealing with a "pinhole in time." Miles wouldn't be able to tell whether the video would work or not, but Daniel likely would. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but Faraday would know such a video wouldn't work, so why would he even bother helping Pierre. Also, the note of frustration at the end doesn't seem like the response someone like Faraday would give, but is more in keeping with what we have seen of Miles.--Iduckles 03:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Ian Duckles

I think the "this is useless line" is said by Miles.The other stuff is saod by Faraday.--ThunderWolf 05:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)--ThunderWolf 05:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced Audio Ending[]

I tried to enhance the audio at the end of the video and eliminate some of the background noise. Here's a link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr0MF2gEu_s

Check it out and see what you guys think. -- Crazy Bearded Jack 17:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it's a noble effort, but if people do not want to hear the LaFleur there, it won't help because they are just dead set against it regardless. There has been HD video on Daily Motion, and someone uploaded a slo-mo version in a loop of just that bit with LaFleur. Both have been posted on the forum, where people still didn't want to hear LaFleur there. Also, if you slow down the video and watch the ending of the video in the video frame by frame, you see someone come over and shut it off. This has to be someone showing Daniel where the switch is located and shutting it off, because Daniel doesn't know (he asks where the switch is), and Chang wants it left on. That someone is probably going to be Sawyer/LaFleur, which is why Chang says that at the end. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh well...I know this has been a kind of a heated argument, and I wanted to try to contribute something to the discussion, other than "I think it's LaFleur." --Crazy Bearded Jack 18:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
That video is pretty convincing, Crazy. Robert K S (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL. I took me a moment to realise you weren't insulting someone. Smiley emoticons smile ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Compromise (LaFleur!)[]

I appreciate Sam's change to "[unintelligible]", which I think serves the transcript well enough until a source can be added to the article (to prove it says LaFleur!). It allows that something is said there (LaFleur!), without stating what it was (LaFleur!) or scrubbing it out entirely as if it (LaFleur!) doesn't exist. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But by the way, I'm not sure what it is you think Pierre is saying there. Smiley emoticons smile -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  04:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Smiley emoticons smile ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am gobsmacked people genuinely think he says LaFleur. He says, "No wait, what are you doing??". If they actually wanted the word Lafleur there they'd have made it very clear so that everyone would be coming up with silly teories about who Lafleur was. Integrated (User / Talk) 05:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That word (gobsmacked) made me LOL. Anyway I think the compromise is good for now. Perhaps add something of LaFleur being said to trivia?--Mistertrouble189 06:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll agree with the compromise to...That said, I've showed the Comic-Con video to a couple people who don't watch LOST to see what they thought - All of them heard something similar to LaFleur, and one even heard LaFleur. This coming from people who have never watched the show. As many people who are denying it, no one has a reasonable arguement why he doesn't say LaFleur. On the other hand, him saying LaFleur is beyond reasonable. I think those totally denying it are doing so for their own reasons, whatever those may be. -- Crazy Bearded Jack 16:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is, there is so much confusion over that one word of dialogue that it will be impossible to prove it either way, until it's shown on the show. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  17:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Just need to point something out - Jim in Georgia made a very good point on my talk page. In the Whisper transcripts there is a lot of information presented and taken as fact on the Wiki. I think we can all agree that the whispers are far more unintelligable than the Chang's voice in this video. I would argue that the Whisper Transcripts set a precendent. Aside from the video I provided, there has been a slow-mo audio clip presented that makes the voice even more clear. -- Crazy Bearded Jack 18:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
IF people could recognise the name Lafleur who have never seen Lost, how come the issue was never ever heard of until the episode Lafleur came about?--Integrated (User / Talk) 15:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Because until that episode it didn't make any sense. After that episode, everything fell into place. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Daniel?[]

Why does the article heavily suggest confirmation over the fact that Daniel is the cameraman that films it? When was it confirmed? --Orhan94 17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  • It's based on voice recognition and on a Jeremy Davies interview in which he was critical of the producers for being "reckless" with "his" character. It's all higher on this page....--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Daniel's alive![]

It looks like the shocking "death" at the end of "The Variable" is proven to be just a flesh wound, since Faraday still has to go on to make this video. Oh, well. Marc604 06:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I wouldnt bank on it, hes dead, I guess this video shouldnt be considered cannon anymore and weve known the producers to screw us before (ie: libby) so my guess is they made this with the intent of having daniel in it but instead decided to kill him off. This is getting ridiculous first they screw us with libby not to mention the 1000 errors (Charlottes age, Rosseau never surviving the purge) I love this show but this crap has to stop I was pumped to see how this video was made but im sure the producer will tell us in a podcast its not actually Jeremy Davies voice, a whole lotta bs as far as im concered Daniel was one of my favorites and im straight pissed off. --Czygan84 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't want to take this off-topic too far, but why do you say "Rousseau never surviving the purge" is an error? She did survive the purge, because she was still alive in 2004. What am I missing? Are you just confused how she survived? That can be explained by the fact that her camp was far enough away from the Barracks, and from the Tempest, to not be affected. But on the Daniel topic, I still say he's not dead, and that in the finale we'll see him filming the video with Chang. (Or, if he IS dead, that the Temple/Jacob will bring him back.) Marc604 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Danielle shouldnt have surived the purge and id bet any money the purge happened before she even got there which would make what horace said about twelve years bull if you dont agree with that whatever will se whos right, secondly you need to give up hope hes dead and hes not coming back spoilers have been going on for weeks about a major death well im guessing this was it and how many interviews do you need to see the producers have said they will miss davies. like i said i wish he wasnt but hes dead. --Czygan84 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
        • You'd bet money the Purge happened before Danielle got there? I'd take that bet! Danielle arrived in 1988 and the Purge happened in 1992, according to canon. Aren't you suggesting a very huge plothole if it happened the other way around? Isn't it easier to say that she was too far away to get infected? Marc604 06:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Daniel is dead (http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/what-the-keck/losts-shocking-death-893.html) and it really sucks because now Darlton is just pushing this off as promotional, semi-canon. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
      • True, but go here and read about what Carlton said and didn't say.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Per new podcasts the producers have officially confirmed Daniel IS dead. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  15:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove the Unanswered Questions?[]

Since this video is promotional, and not canon, I vote to get rid of the three unanswered questions. Marc604 05:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree the producers said it's a "continuity error" and seeing what happened in The Variable, the video isn't canon--Rod|talk 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's just been confirmed in the Podcast, the video was removed from the show due to time constraints and it it not canon--Rod|talk 15:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Not "time constraints", exactly, but factors which Damon and Carlton weren't comfortable discussing. My guess is a tiff between Jeremy Davies and the producers nixed his character for most of the season.  Robert K S   tell me  15:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Canonicity Resolved[]

The Producers stated in the latest podcast that the DHARMA booth video is non-canon. They were going to incorporate it into the show, but time constraints made it not possible. --LOST-The Cartographer 15:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah, this is stated above, but what's with repeating the baseless "time constraints" rationale? "Time constraints" was never a stated reason for the material not being incorporated--the producers instead cite "a variety of reasons which are way too detailed to go into" for why that story branch was pruned into what we saw in "The Variable". More likely, it was due to the failure of the ARG not supplying the intended background story material and an uncooperative Jeremy Davies (they hint at this when they draw the comparison between themselves and J.K. Rowling, stating that, unlike her, they don't have total control over their characters).  Robert K S   tell me  07:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I highly doubt that from everything being said Davies was very professional and pretty upset when he was written out of the show. This is just the producers doing what theyve done for 5 seasons and changing things on the fly. I dont think its right for you to say that Davies was "uncooperative" with no evidence to back it, if anything the producers have gone out of their way to praise Davies for not only his work but what they refered to as the best actor departure the show has seen. So I think your wrong. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  02:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I could well be wrong that Davies was the issue, but it doesn't change the fact that "time constraints" is no part of the explanation, stated or implied. And, the producers, being the class acts they are, have praised the skills and efforts of all the cast members who got fed up with/tired of the show and wanted to move on, a list that includes Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Dominic Monaghan, Mira Furlan, and, I suspect, Cynthia Watros and Rebecca Mader. The fact remains that the producers decided to write Davies out of the show and abandon an established plan, and, rumor has it, Davies was upset with their handling of his character. No one knows which came first, the chicken or the egg (i.e., the digruntledness or the Goodnight, Faraday). Moreover, I haven't read anything about Davies (interviews, etc.) from any point in his career that leads me to believe he isn't a control-freak iconoclastic talent in the vein of Crispin Glover.  Robert K S   tell me  02:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no "rumor" about Davies, IMO. He's on record as saying that "they" got "reckless."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah Id like to know where your getting these so called "rumors" from because I havent heard a peep about Davies beeing disgrunteled the only rumors I have heard were that he was very sadened by the fact that he was written out of the show and those arent from the producers and while they do praise everyone whos left the show only one can be the best and if you listen to their podcasts they specifically refer to davies exit interview as the best they have ever witnessed. This is off topic anyway all im saying is with no proof except supposed "rumors" and when everything you say contradicts the facts then you should lay off the actor. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  03:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. There is no evidence that Davies was the reason for the dropping of the storyline, and every reason to believe that is not true based on the evidence already mentioned that Darlton praised Davies' exit. The reference to Rawling was regarding characters, not actors. Darlton had an idea to go along with, but they did not have money (as they point to the bad economy in that last podcast) to see it to fruition, and therefore, they had to alter the storyline. The problem was not the actor, but the lack of time (only so many hours available for storytelling) and money (no ARG to flesh out that storyline), so they sent Daniel to Ann Arbor instead and made Chang believe the future story nearly right away, rather than dragging his disbelief out as they originally intended. I'm only sad that we'll never find out if it was "LaFleur", lol. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Video has been removed from Youtube[]

As you read. We should either find a new one or just delete the one from the article. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 01:45, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I found a new one myself, but it's not as long as the old one. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 01:49, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement