Why has no one updated the centric-status to say Ben? And why does the front page of lostpedia say that Sundown is the last episode that aired? Bueller? Marc604 20:39, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Could someone with an HD TV check to see if Paulo's surname is visible on his cross? Promotional pictures in the past have shown that Ana is listed as Ana Lucia Cortez while Libby is simply listed as Libby on her cross ... --LeoChris 03:16, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I'll check in the morning if no one has done so already. I enjoyed seeing Miles with the diamonds though heh.--Mistertrouble189 04:13, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Watching it in real-time, nothing is legible on the cross. Frame-by-frame shows what looks like something carved into the upper portion of the cross. In my best estimate, it says simply "2004", which is the year in which they died and were buried. --Cpt cannibal 05:36, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Alright thanks for checking it out. Gee what a missed opportunity by TPTB to throw us a bone there :( --LeoChris 06:43, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
LOL:"...which is the year in which they died and were buried" How about "...which is the year in which they were buried and died" ??? Not ur error Cpt, just fun to point out! Talkster 13:38, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
Regarding my edit: Yes - Jacob touched Ben! See for yourself --->
Look at Ben's elbow! It was hidden in plain sight the whole time! Think about it, in flashbacks of "The Incident, p 1 & 2", our attention is explicitly drawn to the people Jacob touches (Jack, Hurley, etc) and those not touched (Juliet). We didn't notice Jacob touch Ben because it was the only touch that did not occur during a flashback! --Qwerty7412369 08:16, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
eh... but maybe he was already dead by that point? (Tdstom 18:46, March 10, 2010 (UTC) tdstom)
No, he's still alive at this point - Immediately after touching Ben, he whispers "They're coming..." --Qwerty7412369 19:18, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I agree: very clear that he touched Ben, and that Jacob was alive. We just weren't paying attention.--Cfcincalifornia 23:16, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
Given Miles' revelation of Jacob's last thoughts, it's kind of extraordinary that he decided to grab on. I fully support this wrinkle, but Jacob's one wicked chess player if he can improvise like that so late in the game (promoted a pawn that reached the last row). Was hoping he was wrong about Ben Jacob's despair about the likelihood Ben would be an easy recruit for MIB? In the emotional staging of the scene it's portrayed like it was about his death. So his last thoughts could've been as simple a wish as 'let this cup pass', and he has plenty of faith he can keep working Obi Wan Kenobi-style. Duncan905 04:03, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I believe that what Jacob meant was that "Hopefully Ben doesn't join MIB." It makes a lot more sense. Jacob brought all those people to the island for his masterplan. And part of that plan is to deceive MIB into thinking he were finished. But as we all know, he returns "Obi Wan Kenobi"-style, and acts through Hurley. Thus, obviously, his plan incorporated dying at the hands of Benjamin Linus. Furthermore, though this is pure speculation, this would mean that Miles isn't infallible when reading dead people. He just "heard" Jacob's last thought, but maybe he doesn't/can't know what it was about. That would also give a totally new, ironic, meaning to Ben's statement: "Psychics, totally unreliable..." So, anyway, I'm convinced that he is talking about Ben's final decision as to on which side he's standing, and not whether or not he'll do Jacob in.
Again, I agree with both point above. First, I think Miles doesn't really get very invested in analyzing what the dead are saying; he is really just reporting. This makes sense: as Miles usually doesn't have a relationship with the dead folks, it is probably better for those that hear his pronouncements to figure out what they mean. And his head would probably explode if he got invested in everything someone dead told him. In this case Miles, reacting only to Ben's past action (killing Jacob) adds his judgement, NOT that of Jacob. Jacob died hoping that he was RIGHT about Ben, which I hope that he is too. Given Ben's nascent awareness of himself and what his real and deepest yearnings are, and how that influences him not to fall prey to the MIB's lure of being the Island's little Napoleon, I think we are meant to think that Jacob is right. Again, I hope so. I really do think that Jacob does have faith that Ben will repent and join the 'good guys.' I think 'repent' here is used as in the sense of the french, repenser, to rethink, to change your mind. In religious education I was taught that this is the true meaning of this word by the way, not merely the act of seeking atonement, which is what happens after repentance and is less important that the actual 'becoming oneself' (e.g., one's better self). Notably poor Sayid did not repent, though I'd argue that Eko, though he was not sorry for his life, did actually repent (in the religious sense) when he became a priest. I still hope for Sayid, however, as Ben says there is still time, even if Sayid thinks that there is not time for him.
...Or Richard wasn't being literal; "touched" may mean a bit more than simply making contact. Not doubting the possibility, just avoiding jumping to a premature conclusion. MannyF 19:18, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
We're operating under the assumption that everyone else Jacob made contact with in "The Incident, pt 1&2" was "touched" - why is this instance a "premature conclusion?" --Qwerty7412369 19:21, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Just saying that there may be more to it, an intent to pass along the power, as opposed to just making contact. It's a "premature conclusion" because there's nothing confirming or denying it. Yes, Jacob physically touched Ben, but does that necessarily mean he imparted any power? All I know is my heart says "maybe". I'm not shooting down the theory, just saying that any conclusion drawn without all the necessary facts is premature. Also, if just making physical contact is what Richard was referring to, let's expand this question ask if it has to be bare skin. Can anyone confirm or deny, based on his contact with Jack, Kate, etc? MannyF 20:47, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe - but then the problem is how do you prove that Jacob had an intent to pass power to anyone. What does intent look like, and how do you prove a TV character has it? Rewatch "The Incident" - there was no spark that jumped from Jacob to Jack when he touched him - No divine light shined upon Kate after being touched - No angelic chior began singing when he touched Sawyer. By your standard, we should doubt that Jack, Kate, Sawyer and the rest were really "touched", because all we saw is Jacob make contact; sometimes skin-to-skin (i.e. Kate, Sawyer, Sun and Jack), sometimes not (i.e Jin, Locke, Hurley and Sayid). I appreciate the discussion, and I don't claim to have it all figured out, but you position seems to boil down to your heart telling you "maybe", and, no offence, that isn't enough for me to think this is a premature conclusion. I may be wrong. Thanks --Qwerty7412369 22:03, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I'm just saying maybe it's like being blessed by a priest - they can do the gestures and say the words, but it's not a blessing unless it's intentional (if that even makes sense). And to avoid an endless debate, I'll state that I DO like this theory, and I think it'd be interesting if it's shown to be true. But until it's confirmed on the show that Jacob imparted some power to Ben, there will be doubt in my mind (as everyone should have, given the way the writers like to toy with the audience). Also (I'm just kidding here, don't take offense), admitting that you may be wrong is a good reason to consider it a premature conclusion. Let's call it a belief right now, and a fact when it's proven. MannyF 01:06, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
No offense taken here, and I hope the same is true for you as no offense was ever intended, just friendly debate. You are correct that we don't know what happens when Jacob touches someone - whether that someone is Ben, Jack, Hurley, or so forth - and that there are legitimate questions as to what this or any instance of Jacob touching another character actually implies. For example: Did Jacob impart some power/gift to Ben? Did Jacob impart some power/gift to Sayid? Or Sawyer? Or Kate? What is it - exactly, specifically - that Jacob's touch did to these characters? I don't know, nor do I claim to have the all answers; however, I doubt anyone could answer these questions with any certainty based on the episodes we've seen to date. That is why I'll freely admit that I may be wrong, but likewise you and I may both be wrong and both jumping to premature conclusions based on insufficient evidence. This is, of course, a typical problem with LOST since, as your rightly note, the writers do like to toy with us. My intent was simple: I merely wanted to share what I found, namely that the picture above shows that a "touch" in the common-sense meaning of the word did occur, and suggest that lacking contrary evidence we should treat this instance of Jacob touching a character exactly as we have treated the other instances of Jacob touching a character - as if those touches are somehow meaningful, even if we as viewers don't quite grasp how or why they are meaningful. This is a consistent approach to the issue. But perhaps this line of discussion, like all good things, should end for now. Thanks --Qwerty7412369 02:18, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts, we'll just wait to see how literal Richard was being with his use of the word "touch". I just keep picturing Jacob catching someone as they trip and going, "dang it, now he's immortal!" Although I feel we're doing the internet a disservice by not arguing this forever (with less than appropriate words), I think the concensus is, as usual with Lost, "WTF is going on?!?" MannyF 07:57, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the reason Jacob is so absent for much of the series is that things happen when he touches people, like Rogue from the X-Men. Hawkdeath 20:56, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Quite a good point, this could be a partial explanation of his hermit-like, secret abode, and notsomuch his physical safety. After all, Jacob told Smokey right where to find him. Now that we know FLocke's identity he could easily have just taken Ben for a solo mission. I doubt that Richard was asked to provide direction to the statue, but rather to ensure he would be available directly after the assassination to be recruited, along with the band of Others. If Jacob were a 'man of the people' that would almost have to involve contact. His contact might have unpredictable effects, or it might automatically choose a candidate, or otherwise seal a fate. But with his lighthouse he could do lots & lots of observing, then choose his moment to touch. Although Richard could be implying a metaphorical 'touch' I feel it's in addition to a moment of physical contact he had with Jacob. That moment was when Jacob freed him from the chains. Duncan905 03:43, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
all jacob needs to do is to touch u in anyway, in jacks case all he did was touch his finger when he handed him the candy bar,hurley he patted on the shoulder locke, he sqweezed his shoulder jin and son he touched both of them, ( this means that illana has to protect both of them,)saywer he also touched his finger when he handed him a pen to right his revenge letter as a child at his parents funneral, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Travisjorgensen (talk • contribs) 2010-03-10T15:59:19.
For me, in short, as folks have already made the good arguments above, I'm in agreement with those who think that a) it can be on skin or clothes, b) it probably has to be intentional, and the gifts might (likely do) vary, and finally c) he is very careful about who sees him and who he touches, which I also think is intentional -- I think he strategizes very carefully about who is ready to/needs to see him, be touched by him, etc. and for whom it would be counter-productive.--Cfcincalifornia 23:16, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
As Locke died, who is the sixth candidate that Ilana talked about? Does she include both Jin and Sun, or is there a possibility that she may talk about another character except Locke,Hurley,Sayid,Jack,Sawyer and Kwons? Also i think she may have dropped out Sayid, since she learned that he had killed Dogen. --Paintbox 14:04, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
"51 - AUSTEN" --Jackdavinci 18:34, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
can we add into Unanswered Questions: "How does Ilana know the current count of remaining candidates?" or "Does Ilana actually know the current count of remaining candidates?" There has to be a non-leading question that opens possibilities like she had a list beyond "the 6 Numbers" since she knows that Locke is dead (six minus one - plus Kate?), or she's getting real-time updates (from Jacob?) since she wasn't witness to Jacob touching Ben (if that indeed made him a last-second candidate), and she also might have discounted Sayid.Duncan905 18:46, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
The 6th candidate could be 108: Wallace. --AddictedToLost 19:47, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Wallace is crossed out. Austen is not crossed out. Marc604 19:52, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
What would Ilana know (assuming she isn't in contact with Jacob)? Locke is dead, Sayid is allied with MiB, and she called both Kwons candidates before she said there were 6 (also, Jacob touched both of them, so it is possible that they both totally are candidates). She doesn't know where Sawyer or Kate are, but has no reason to assume they're gone. So we're left with Jack, Hurley, Sawyer, and the Kwons from the cave wall, and Kate from the lighthouse. I guess it's a toss-up as to whether it actually is Kate, or if Sayid is still a candidate despite his actions (I'm leaning more towards Kate). MannyF 01:35, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, I'm questioning *how* Ilana received all this information from Jacob (hard to doubt the source after she used the secret exit). Her other significant quote this episode I saw was responding to Sun's remark: "I thought we would be safe at the Temple." Ilana says "That's what I was told." Told, as opposed to being given a static list of instructions. What's hard to discern is whether it's old information from a briefing by Jacob, say at the hospital after that scene cut, or real-time guidance Hurley-style. I don't see the latter as too likely, since Jacob got Hurley & Jack out of the Temple & wouldn't want Sun going there (assuming she's the Kwon candidate). But if it's old information Ilana's count might be off, or include 'Austen' as a substitute for the deceased Locke, and/or validate that Sayid is still a candidate although claimed. Duncan905 18:30, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
The Six Candidates are: Jack, Hurley, Sawyer, Kate, "Kwon" and Frank Lapidus the pilot. Remember when Ilana's team brought Lapidus from Hydra island and said 'he may be a candidate'? Also, he was supposed to be the 815 pilot, but overslept, but Ben said in this ep. that he's on the island after all....Lapidus is supposed to be on the island. Further, it's Jin, not Sun...look this up: Korean wives do not take their husbands name!! I know, I live in Korea. Talkster 13:53, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, Sun did take her husband's name. It's an error on the part of the writers, if anything. But her name's been Sun-Hwa Kwon since Season 1. Cerbo 22:09, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
My addition that pointed out the visual homage of the reunion scene at the end to a similar scene at the end of "Collision" has been removed because "similarities are not direct references". But the articles for "Further Instructions" and "316" do list the visual similarities between those episodes' opening scenes with the opening scene of "Pilot, Part 1" as episode references. So this line of arguing is at the very least inconsistent.--Nevermore 14:20, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
You're right Nevermore... the "Direct References Only" rule is the absolutely worst enforced rule on Lostpedia. The references section often include things that aren't even remotely close to being directly referenced. For example, on this very page, someone counted William Atherton's appearance as a "direct reference" to the film Real Genius, which it obviously is not. I'm removing said reference.--Faraday100 14:31, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
fair enough nevermore, since I was the one who removed it - I'll add it back. --LOSTinDC 14:37, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Arzt frets about getting something (formaldehyde) on his shirt - could this be a reference to Arzt blowing himself up in Exodus, Part 2 resulting in "Arzt" on Jack's and Hurleys shirts? J.nc 15:33, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say that it isn't. It is a demonstration of Arzt's generally 'fretting' nature, but not a direct reference.--Chocky 16:20, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I'd actually say that this IS a direct reference; a blackly humorous one, but one that directly connects to what happened the original timeline to the poor unloved Artzt, similar to the other direct references made in other character's flash sideways.--Cfcincalifornia 23:22, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
I am removing the alleged references to Nash Bridges and Walden because (obviously) neither would be direct reference. --Faraday100 00:10, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
The black/white association for Richard & Ben on the beach is a Recurring Theme, but what about their positions? It's visually similar to the scale in the cave in "The Substitute". It would probably need to be cropped before thumbnailing though: [Tipped?] Duncan905 08:02, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
The opening lecture about Napoleon on Elba given by "Dr. Linus" parallels a lot of what Ben has gone through on the Island. I wanted to get opinions on where this should be added on the Wiki. I figured we could discuss before we bother to post it. The episode was thick with this kind of excellent writing. JMockShepard 15:22, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I thought that was a *HEY LOOK AT THE REFERENCE!!!* from Lost, so yeah I think so. I think it was on there and someone removed it. --Phryrosebdeco23 20:44, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I was just thinking about this and glad to see someone else bringing it up. The lecture Ben was giving said Napoleon's greatest test was on the island of Elba with his loss of power. We then see Ben make a power play only to sacrifice it for Alex. In the OT Ben has an epiphany when having to choose whether to go with Llana or stay with MIB and regain his power on the island as its leader. I don't see this as a theory but definite character development.Throwing in Elba just gave a nice tie in to THE Island but I think what we were really being shown is how Ben in the OT, who was power hungry, could choose to go with Llana.--Destinedjourney 23:09, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Elba is also a part of the famous palindrome "Able was I ere I saw Elba." The indication of this as a palindrome ties nicely into the developing theme of the season, in that the standard and flash-sideways timeline seem to be merging from two different, mirrored directions. --Everyplace 01:25, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
His discussion of Elba and Napoleon's frustrations in losing his power by being exiled there, I thought, was directly related to MIB. I didn't even think of Ben, but I can see how it also mirror's Ben's situation in this episode perhaps more so than MIB. --Cpt cannibal 02:17, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it was more evocative of someone who had power, but was exiled. It would correlate more with MIB or perhaps Widmore. (Mirth23 02:51, March 11, 2010 (UTC))
It was a forward reference to the offer MiB gave him on the island. Everyone was going to leave, except for Ben, who would stay to protect it. By himself, he'd lose all of his sense of power with no one to command. Although in a larger view, it could also describe the fate of whichever candidate is chosen, or the past of Jacob and MiB (boy, I really wish they'd reveal his actual name) who have apparently been alone on the island for a long time, although we've now seen them both in command of others (or, more directly, "the others"), so the analogy kinda falls apart there. MannyF 08:34, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Just want to refer, here, that Napoleon, while exiled on Saint Helena, was also a good friend of a teenager girl (Lucia Elizabeth Balcombe).--Solitary rousseau 01:57, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
I really enjoy the detailed references such as this and there are many ways in which this might be relevant to Ben, the MIB and the Island. I think that it should stay in as an indent or link to a fully detailed discussion. This is what is great about Lost. I agree that these very detailed flash-sideways scenes helped you understand Ben's character development and why he 'repented' (re-thought in the religious sense) in the original timeline as well as in the f/s. Interestingly enough the MIB, who was, I think hoping to get Ben to kill Illana AND join his 'side' seemed to have no clue that his (the MIB's) offer was no longer tempting to Ben; that Ben had re-ordered--or one might say, finally admitted-- his priorities. Directly seeking connectedness and belonging, as well as love and honor in one's actions are triumphing over the seeking of power, which he used in the past to try to get those first things indirectly.--Cfcincalifornia 23:30, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
AND the front page of Lostpedia still says that Sundown is the last episode that aired. Is someone asleep at the wheel? Marc604 19:54, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Under Trivia - Production Notes, it was noted that this was the last time we saw the Black Rock since "The Brig". We've all been assuming that we also saw the Black Rock in "The Incident, Pt 1", but that's an assumption. Should it perhaps read, "the land-locked Black Rock"? Jbillones 17:20, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
This description reads like a novel. Does not follow the same protocol as other episode pages. I think a few people need to work together to remove the unnecessary text on the page and only leave in that which is relevant to the story. I can't get through the article without rolling my eyes at the dragged out descriptions of how characters are feeling. --ErikGerm 17:33, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. This is absolutely terrible. --Halcohol 18:15, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
The page is nineteen hours old. It'll get better. Ya know, you're both editors; go ahead and get started.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:13, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Pointless to say somewhat, but I fully agree with the episode description reading too wordy. Ive got 5 hours free now... AlaskaDave 05:43, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Beginning is ok, it's the end that's a bit much. Also the scene in the library with Ben and Alex needs revision - it's not quite as it happened.--CountryMom27 19:14, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Personally I tend to prefer the episode descriptions that are very descriptive as this is LOST and over time, you never know what patterns/clues you will wish to research or revisit. Also I do know that press, LOST staff, etc. use Lostpedia when they have niggly questions about details. What I dislike are when people condense too much and especially dislike when, in condensing, assumptions are stated as fact. --Cfcincalifornia 05:33, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
I think that most of the wordy stuff was written by the user Citizen Kane, and CK, I'm hoping you're not too offended that I did some editing in the "At the beach scene" section. You are an awesome writer, but I just think the style that you were using was a bit too flowery for the purposes of summarizing the episode, and that you were giving more detail than necessary. If you're against any changes I've made, just let me know.--Lionofdharma 03:25, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
Benjamin Disraeli: Justice Is Truth in Action Edit
Although the summary reads "Ben finds a copy of... 'Benjamin Disraeli: Justice Is Truth in Action'," as far as I can tell, this book does not exist. Anyone have a screengrab of the book?
--SvenBoogie 19:12, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
While we're talking about grabbing a screencap, I read the title as 'Justice and Truth in Action' not Justice is Truth. I know the latter is a famous quote of Benjamin Disraeli, but I'm telling you I can see a three letter word there, and it ends in "nd". It could have been intended as Justice is Truth, and it's a simple production error. So if anyone can get a screencap of it, that would be great because I'd like to know what others think.--Baker1000 19:43, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Added screencap to right. Book title is "Justice and Truth in Action". --Cpt cannibal 02:38, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
I'm a noob, so I'm not sure where to post questions like this, but it seems that Ben had a genuine redemptive experience that drew him back into Jacob's fold. If Jacob was hoping that he was wrong about Ben up until he died, and Ben has had a change of character, does Jacob know about this change? Also, if Widmore is the friend of Jacob that was coming to the Island (possible reference to "they're coming" in S6E1?) would that functionally put Ben and Widmore on the same side? If so, when do THEY find out about it (that was more rhetorical, as they'll probably hate each other until the end even though they're being guided/manipulated by Jacob the whole time). If this talk page isn't the proper place for my comments, feel free to note that or remove them. Rlee1185 (total newbie)
Welcome Rlee1185, This could be LOST purposfully confusing us, but I thought that the person coming to the island as mentioned by Jacob in the Lighthouse being a rouse (sp) for getting Jack to see his family home in the mirror. I took the "They're coming" spoken by Jacob at the time of his death to mean the survivors from 1977. I was the one who beefed up the Ben vs Widmore page and honestly, it seems that maybe in the beginning both men had the Island's best interests at heart but as their time went on they were just acting on self interest. I don't think that Jacob would want Widmore back, because he was banished, because he did bring that awful group of "mercernaries" (sp)to bring back Ben. To them it's all about the power. But I think Ben is good now, I think he had a "break-through". That is an interesting idea about Jacob manipulating them. He does have a tendancy to do that to people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phryrosebdeco23 (talk • contribs) 2010-03-10T15:50:07.
Just to throw this into the discussion: I am not quite convinced that whoever is coming has to be a "friend" of Jacobs. He just states that "they're coming". So maybe, or as I think most likely, whoever is coming to the island with Widmore ("They") doesn't even know he's being manipulated/led there. This has been the case with almost every single person on the island, except maybe for Ilana and her crew. So the utmost we can deduct from Jacobs statement is that he brought someone who has a part to play in his plan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dooferhai (talk • contribs) 2010-03-11T09:02:21.
I suspect whoever "they" are who are coming are not on Jacob's side - he seems to be warning Ben. Perhaps he means Widmore, who may be on MIB's side?--CountryMom27 19:14, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Check this out! In Locke's high school locker, there is a Geranamo Jackson poster. (I think that is their name) Behind that is a picture of an old english Adventurer. (Remember he told his principal that he is in to cars and sports not science, but alas). The Black and White picture is of Sir Richard Burton that either worked or founded The East India Trading Company. The East India Trading Company is on the page that Ben is teaching to Alex during their tutoring session!! Why is this connection here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericislost (talk • contribs) 2010-03-10T14:29:31.
East India Trading Company, I'm sure we've encountered this elsewhere. The Black Rock journal that Charles Widmore bought seeking to find the island, wasn't there a connection with the EITC? I don't have Season4 at my home right now, so can't rewatch that episode. --Cpt cannibal 02:44, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
About "Where was Richard coming from?" - I read Jack's actual question: "Where'd you come from?" and Richard's response to possibly mean Richard's origins. If Richard had replied "the Temple, everyone's dead" that would have been believable (Hurley probably would've volunteered Jacob's warning). Richard did want to manipulate Jack & Hurley to accompany him to the Black Rock & aid his plan to die, so his response was either a) another yet-to-be-seen place on the Island too fantastic to reveal just yet, or b) Richard turned the question to suit his purpose (he admitted to lying about their destination & withholding knowledge of the Temple massacre) & stalled for time. The first scenario seems unlikely given he intended to die asap. Richard did 'come from' the Black Rock and eventually revealed that to Jack & Hurley (granted, not physically that day), but perhaps this at least merits the removal of the sub-question "When will he tell them?" One last thing, if Richard's response is found to mean his origins (or just a lie), then he was 'stalling' & it should be added to 'Irony' since Jack accused Hurley of stalling.Duncan905 19:43, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
When he says, you wouldn't believe me if I told you, could also mean, I will then show you. He might not know that they found the ship yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericislost (talk • contribs) 2010-03-10T15:39:50.
They used the dynamite in the beach battle, so perhaps the others know they found the black rock. Hawkdeath 20:44, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I think Richard is doing the standard "Others" thing, where he's so much cooler than the losties that they have no idea about the island's secrets. In this case, he was detained by the man in black, who was posing as John Locke (at first glance, at least), who is also the smoke monster. He didn't realize that Jack's faith had, at this point, surpassed his own, and thought they'd just pass off this story as baloney. Interesting to see how loose Richard's tongue will become now that he knows Jack will accept the more outlandish secrets; he believed he was so important that fate wouldn't let him die - and he was right. MannyF 01:46, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Gotta disagree, Richard blurted out quite a bit to Sawyer about MIB, and was about as cool as a deep-fried pickle. He does lie coolly, however, that he knows the correct way to the Temple. It's possible (see 'a' above) he is concealing a very important place, except that we discover he intended to kill himself by the most expedient means he can think of. Either Richard wanted to forestall the news of the massacre (Jack & Hurley were discussing going *back* to the Temple so its existence was no secret), or it's 'b' above. Remember how cynical Richard has become - he says his gift is really a curse. Saying disloyal things about Jacob to Hurley indicates he's let go of his vested interests in the Island. I could see Richard drawing a map to the Very Large Box if Jack agreed to light the fuse. Duncan905 02:34, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I tend to disagree alot on this site... Anyway, all in good fun, right? Well, in the end I have to agree with you about something sounding mysterious about his statement. But first, I have to point out there is a possibility he was telling the truth, in a way. He wanted to conceal that everyone at the temple was dead and didn't want them getting up in arms and arguing about the "right way to the temple". He wanted to land that punch at the last possible moment, to get them agitated then and not earlier, keep them from stalling for more explanations. The reason this falls in place is simply the fact that he knew everyone was dead. There's no other way for him to have known if he wasn't there to see for himself. He wouldn't go near the others that turned, just to stay away from MiB, and any other survivor would still be with him, so no one could have told him. The only other way he could have known is if he was, in fact, with Jin before meeting up with Jack and Hurley. Jin may have still been at Calire's camp and told Richard about the expected outcome while MiB and Claire were away. ...Of course, he may have just been referring to the ordeal that he had gone through for the past couple of days as being unbelievable, because the expression on his face was as if to say "whew, if you only knew". A bunch of possibilities. At any rate, he said "not yet", so either he has told them, or will tell them. Hopefully soon, if the latter's the case. MannyF 08:21, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
I was the one who posted the UQ's about Richard. My mistake if I jumped the gun; I didn't realize that there were channels and procedures to having your thoughts authorized. I still feel strongly that Richard's comments were meant to be foreshadowing of a much more impactful revalation. The reason I posted the questions was I perceived his comments to be far too poigniant to have an obvious answer. You know the dialogue, but Richard said "not yet" before indicating he had to die. How would he have told them anything if he were killing himself (unless, maybe, we're talking ghosty Richard!). We "know" that Richard had gone the Temple some time after the masssacre, but there is an undeniable passage of time from event A (Temple massacre) to event B (Richard's meeting the guys). We also know that Richard has had a long history with the island. Either of these answers to his questiong would be too simple (to fulfill me!) given the circumstances. I also feel that, with how stellar the writing was in the episode, it would be far too contrite for his comments to be in reference to his history. Perhaps I am mistaken, but regardless, I wanted to explain my thought process. I believe that Richard was somewhere very significant between the Temple and the jungle meeting (I won't suggest where I think!) and that this place is not your typical island locale. Jack and Hurley have been to many special places and seen so many "unbelievable" things on the Island, I have a hard time buying that they wouldn't believe anything (unless it were MAJOR!). For Richard to say "you wouldn't believe me if I told you" implies that even we, the viewers, may be surprised by the answer. Again, I could always be wrong, but, for how much they engaged me in it, I sure hope I'm not!!! P.S. Keep up the good work everybody; Lost is the greatest TV show ever and this site is the authority for all things LOST! Jwilkinson 18:01, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
So true, this site rules, especially since barely any of my friends watch Lost, and there are so many things to talk about. Anyway, you make a good point about there being plenty of time. I had trouble picturing Jack and Hurley spending a lot of time at the lighthouse, but they did spend at least one night there (the night that the temple got sacked). If he were in the right place, Richard had plenty of time to check out the massacre and go somewhere else before meeting Jack and Hurley the next morning. However, your point about him saying "not yet" is significant, since he was planning to kill himself (indirectly). If he was at least being honest about that much, then he's already told the guys what he was hiding, since he would have had to do so before he died. My money is still on him referring to either the temple massacre, which he told them about, or his ordeal leading up to him losing his faith, which he described to Jack. If he was honest about "not yet", which I admit is a large assumption, then he has already explained where he was, because he wouldn't get a chance to tell them anything after he died (as far as he knows). All the same, I will have no confidence in any of this until the next episode (or the one after that). It's still an unanswered question to me. As always with Lost theories, make sure you don't just see what you want to believe, see it all (which is why I visit this site daily). MannyF 22:07, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Excellent dialogue, and I anticipate after 'Ab Aeterno' the question will either be put to rest or reinstated as valid. And no worries, Jwilkinson, the chief 'authority' really is consensus, so don't hesitate to put something up & see if it sticks. Take it from a gn00b> Duncan905 19:59, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't make this out on my TV, does anyone know what was scratched on the wall (presumably by Richard) next to the shackles in the Black Rock? MannyF 20:52, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Viewed it several times, frame by frame. They appear to be simply scratches, possibly unintentional. Not sure what the camera was doing focusing on that pillar though. Richard seemed to be staring at the pillar as well, and then reaches for the shackles off to his right. He may have been chained with his back to the pillar, one shackle on either side? That would make sense of him staring at the place he was sitting, then reaching for one of the shackles beside the pillar. --Cpt cannibal 02:55, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
I viewed the scene a few times in HD as well as Cpt cannibal and they looked to like markers counting something (weeks, days, people who have died, etc). They look like someone scratched them in with something (rock, nail, etc). Its definitely not writing for sure, though. AlaskaDave 05:48, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Are we going to say something about Ben having been on the Island even in the flashsideway timeline ? --FrenchFlo 21:01, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
The timelines split in 1977, and Ben arrived several years before that. It would only have been important to mention if Ben HADN'T been on the Island in the FS world, not the reverse. Marc604 21:50, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I think it's important to note, if only for the theory-hounds. Maybe in the trivia section, it could say something like: "Roger's and Ben's discussion of the Dharma Initiative and the Island is the first mention of the Island in the flash sideways timeline, and seems to confirm that the Island sunk sometime after Ben and Roger left."--Emissary23 22:29, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Also, we assume, (correctly, I think,) that the timelines split in 1977, but we've had no confirmation. This is the first bit of info that will help to lock down the date of the split, if that's even what happened.--Emissary23 22:32, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Do we know that Roger and Ben were evacuated, the last you see of Roger is shooting Sayid, and the last you see of Ben is at the Temple, you don't see them in the scene where Marvin Candle is evacuating his family. There is no specific evidence to say they left the island with the rest of DHARMA. In the Flash Sideways Roger says to Ben, "what would our lives been like if we'd stayed?", this does not sound like something you'd say if you had been evacuated under threat of a massive disaster. I read that scene as them having left prior to The Incident.--ShemWhistler 12:56, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad someone else thought of this. I think it's safe to assume that everything up until the Incident (the event, not the episode) is one unified timeline. The difference between the timelines (speculation only) is that in one, Jughead detonated, the Island sank, and Oceanic 815 didn't crash. In the other, Jughead failed to detonate and the Dharma folks built the Swan station around the anomaly. Kind of weird to think, but the latter scenario would mean that the bomb is buried in the anomaly in the original timeline. If it is, then wouldn't the bomb have gone off when Desmond turned the key? --Blackirish23 03:07, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
It's really not an assumption that the timeline split in 1977. Listen to the official podcasts from early this season. Damon clearly says that they changed the future by setting off the bomb, but that they just didn't realize what else they would change by doing so, when all they expected to change was the salvation of Flight 815. Robert K Stell me 05:09, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
I know this will cause uproar and protest by quite a many of you folks, but: I distinctly remember having read theories about the FS-Timeline being one in which Jacob didn't intervene. Sooooo, my question is, since we know for sure know, that the DI has been on the island in both timelines, and we also know for a fact that someone, whoever it is, by the name of Goodspeed is one of the candidates (don't remember if it was on the compass or the cave wall), then shouldn't we deduct from that that Jacob brought, at least some of, the DI to the island on purpose? And if so, then we must reason that the Flash-Sideways timeline cannot be one in which Jacob never intervened, since, as said above, the DI was on the island in both times. Curious what you think about this guys... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dooferhai (talk • contribs) 2010-03-11T09:14:14.
There's still plenty of room for disagreement, but my take on this is that Ben's presence on the island in the FS timeline blows the "no intervention by Jacob" theory out of the water. The timelines were at least similar, if not identical, until 1977. My money is still on Jughead being the splitter, and Roger and Ben got off the island before it sank (presuming the explosion from Jughead's core didn't wipe out all the people). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MannyF (talk • contribs) 2010-03-11T18:41:14.
Actually, Roger Linus never said they were on the island, he said they were with dharma. Maybe dharma never found the island on the FST ?
Roger Linus - "Thats why I signed up for that damned Dharma Initiative and took you to the island, and... they were decent people, smarter than I'll ever be. Imagine how different our lives would have been if we'd stayed." --Cpt cannibal 23:09, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
Also, you're forgetting about the underwater Dharma village shown in the first episode of season 6!
In one scene Hurley asks Richard Alpert 'Dude, you look the same as you did 30 years ago. How is that possible?' I don't think I ever remember those two meeting before. This seems like an error and if it is should be listed. --Tpbaxter 15:23, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Not really, because Hurley at first correctly acts like he's never met Richard, deferring to Jack. The next scene's after a break, in which Jack tells him about his and Richard's previous meeting.--BalkOfFame 18:38, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
When Richard first meets them, Hurley does not identify Richard by name suggesting his unfamiliarity; it is likely Jack commented on Richard's youthful appearance to Hurley off-screen, Jack having first met him in 1977. Not my comment, but in view of its feasability I removed the blooper Charles Kane talk contribs email 02:51, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Removed:
In 2004, Alex would have been 15, and only would have been in the 10th grade, and most likely not attempting to apply to colleges yet.
Being born in 1988, she could have been 16. Also, being the "brightest student" Dr. Linus had ever seen, she could be completing her high school education ahead of
schedule."
Alex tells Ben she has an AP test coming up. Students take Advance Placement course exams, usually starting sophomore year, if they took AP courses. While she is a little young to start applying to College, it is possible.--Goose123 22:18, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Given that this is the flash-sideways timeline, we don't know when Alex was born so its not really a blooper or continuity error. We can't presume that she was born at the same time since some past events have vastly changed (e.g., Jack has a kid). --LOSTinDC 22:27, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
What makes you think that the events that were shown in the flash sideways time-line were from year 2004? Maybe it was some years latter. Mominshahab 18:55, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Alex was born in January 1989, so she would still be 15 in September and October 2004 (this might take place in October, but it's still shortly after Locke became a substitute on September 24th). Flash-sideways or not, "Alex" looks the same in both universes (universi?). We should assume a similar birthdate, only seperated by a month or two at the most, until and unless proven otherwise. Presumably the circumstances surrounding Alex's birth are drastically different (unless the Island *didn't* sink until after 1989, but that's another issue). Hurley probably mispronounced mispronouncing Arzt's name, which incidentally caused him to correctly pronounce it (too bad Arzt didn't live long enough to see it -- in this timeline).--Tim Thomason 04:22, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
In the original timeline, Alex was born on the island in January 1989. In the alternate timeline, she clearly was not born on the island since it was underwater then, and may instead have been born earlier or later. Or perhaps she was conceived at a different time as well. As has been shown in other flash-sideways, more than just 815 landing and the island not being there happened. After all, Jack in his flash-sideways has a kid, something which had no relation to his being on flight 815. --CountryMom27 19:23, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
When Hurley sees Richard handling the dynamite at the Black Rock he mentions Dr. Arzt and pronounces his name correctly. Hurley was never able to pronounce it before and always called him "Arnst". Anyone agree that this is an error?--Slimeham 06:19, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Hurley may have been able to pronounce it anyway and was simply trying to annoy Arzt.--Pittsburghmuggle 23:40, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
When Ben is inside the "library" tent the camera shot from inside shows the Disraeli book ON TOP of the magazine. Ben begins to reach with his left hand. Then the close-up shows the book and magazine SIDE BY SIDE as Ben's left hand picks up the magazine and he picks up the book with his right. Minor continuity error?--Paleored 22:38, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
I'm still getting up to speed on direct/indirect references, so I understand whomever yanked the Cultural Reference. I added it to the Indirect References section of the SW page, which looks a little 'looser' about content, so I took the entry a little further. Hope I'm course corrected now!Duncan905 22:48, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Is Widmore the "friend" Jacob mentioned that was coming to the Island? Closed ended question
Why and when did Ben and his father leave the island? All the children were evacuated in "The Incident, Part 1".
We don't know definitively if Ben and his dad left earlier, however. Still a valid question. --CountryMom27 19:24, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
How did the island become underwater after Ben and his father left? This question isn't raised in this episode. The Island being underwater is a valid UQ for "LA X, Part 1", but not for this episode.
At the time Jack and crew detonated the bomb, Ben was at the temple and Roger had just shot Sayid, we cannot say that they were evacuated. They certainly weren't seen during the scene where Miles is watching his father evacuate the younger version of himself. --ShemWhistler 12:50, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
This is supposition. We don't have enough info for accurate times, but Richard assisted with the Jughead plan after he took Ben to the Temple. We're shown an additional flashback scene in 'Dead is Dead' where Richard has returned from the Temple & Widmore visits the recovering Ben. Widmore says Ben can return to the DI soon but he'll always be one of the Others. Faraday doesn't arrive on the sub until the end of 'Some Like it Hoth' & takes a while to get his Jughead plan in motion, so with an unspecified gap of time before Goodspeed finally agrees to the evacuation (and allowing for Daniel's side trip to the Orchid), it's reasonable that Ben could have returned, and that once Roger had helped with the 'hostiles attack' he was escorted with the others evacuating children. Agreed, however, that since we do not see them evacuate & FST Roger doesn't specify it's a valid UQ. Duncan905 18:03, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Also to point out - Sayid was wearing the bomb when he was shot by Roger, it was not already at the Swan with Jack. I still agree time was tight for this possibility - Roger & Ben would've had to evac right after the escape in the VW bus, given that Kate was the last one to board the sub & that she Sawyer & Juliet managed to surface, paddle ashore, kick it with Rose & Bernard briefly & still intercept Jack. Duncan905 02:52, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Lots of assumptions here that the Island sank immediately because of the Incident. In the OT, DHARMA has time to seal the breach with concrete, set up the protocol, etc. We don't know exactly what happened in the X-timeline -- possibly they tried to seal it & failed which resulted in the sinking months later. My point is more that there could well have been plenty of time to leave the Island for Ben, Roger, Ethan, other DHARMA folks, etc. Hard to draw meaningful conclusions on the timing here. Spiral77 19:26, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
I won't remove it myself, but why do we have "Why is Charles Widmore going to the Island?" under UQ? We know he has been looking for the Island for 20 years, this doesn't seem like an UQ at all, but definitely not for this episode.--Frank J Lapidus 19:18, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
I'm a hugeDoctor Who fan, but I think this is quite a stretch and have removed it from the "Cultural references" section:
Doctor Who: Sideways Ben's outfit closely resembles that of the Doctor, the protagonist in the long running British Sci-Fi series about a time traveller who can change his appearance. In particular, Doctor Linus' outfit mimics the outfit worn by the 7th Doctor; Doctor Linus is the 7th episode of the season.
There's a very slight resemblance in costuming to the Seventh Doctor, but I don't think that a sweater-vest and a paisley tie are sufficient to indicate any sort of intention. If the sweater-vest had question marks on it, or if Ben carried an umbrella, there might be a case here, but it's far more likely that the costumers on Doctor Who in 1987 and on Lost in 2010 were both going for an "academic" style and arrived at similar destinations. Besides, there are ten other Doctors, most of whom have more distinctive costumes. —Josiah Rowe 15:23, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
I removed "When viewing the group on the beach, the periscope is pointed to the starboard (right) side of the submarine, at almost a 90° angle. Thus the submarine is traveling parallel to the beach." and replaced it with a single bit saying the sub was going "alongside" the beach. The editor who wrote that made an excellent point, but that section is worded more like an explanation that belongs here in discussion more than on the actual page where it feels clunky.--Pittsburghmuggle 22:31, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Hi! First time, here! I just add the names of Vasco da Gama and Columbus. Their pictures were among others on the walls of the classroom. Gama and Columbus were navigators, men of the sea, i guess they were forshadowing the Black Rock appearance. The ship's picture on the history book, too.(Congratulations for the work you have all been doing!)--Solitary rousseau 02:46, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
UQ please do not remove without reading discussion Edit
Given the frequency that UQ's get deleted I hope this one will at least be discussed and so am making a pre-emptive strike with this defense. I asked what sacrifices Alex's mother had to make in the FST. I am not trying to write the show. We know that the OT and FST have paralled or mirrored each other with twists. In the OT Danielle went through the ultimate sacrifice of a mother on the island when Alex was kidnapped and all that entailed for her islolated on the island, hoping to find her daughter. What could mirror this in the FST? I hope no one will, but realize they will, say that all parents sacrifice for their children in many ways and that's all Alex meant. Of course they do, so if it's that obvious why even bother writing it into the script? The writers were alluding to something that Danielle has gone through in the FST and I believe we aren't meant to know what is was yet. --Destinedjourney 17:25, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
"Of course they do, so if it's that obvious why even bother writing it into the script?" Where in the flash-sideways timeline script does Alex say that her mom sacrificed? --LOSTinDC 18:38, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Strong disagree, the sacrifice is very obviously just meant to be the hard work she's doing to support her daughter. We know this because of the mention of Alex's mom working two jobs, which from a writing point of view is meant to illustrate the hard work and sacrifice she's putting into raising her daughter. At the moment we have no indication that it's anything more than that and so the UQ you want to remove is begging the question, ie: assuming that there is some greater sacrifice and then asking what it is. Until we have an indication that such a sacrifice took place, there is no question here. Jimbo the Tubby talk contributions 19:15, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Jimbo. this should be removed. Alex never says the word "sacrifice" or any variation on it during the show. --LOSTinDC 19:17, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Under Trivia:
"This is the first flash-sideways where the character did not seem to have any "sixth sense" about their alternate timeline."
Really? Aside from Jack, how did Kate, Sayid, and Locke have a "sixth sense" about the original (island) timeline? --LOSTinDC 19:14, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
I think this should be removed. It is not at all apparent that any of the X-characters have a "sixth sense" about the original timeline. There's some weirdness going on with Jack, but not enough to draw any meaningful conclusions about it methinks. Spiral77 19:20, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Thirded. Only Jack seems to think something's weird, albiet not enough to really add anything up yet.--Pittsburghmuggle 03:49, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it should be removed. There are specific cues the actors have been given in the script (according to the Geronimo Jack's Beard podcast) regarding their seemingly 'deja vu' moments, but nothing has been confirmed or explained in canon (i.e. on the show) at this point...not enough to comment on the main page about it. Also, for the record, there WAS a moment like this with Ben in this episode, when he reacts to Arzt calling him a "real killer."--User:BrouhaJoe 11:29, March 13, 2010
This was on the mainpage and i moved it here for more discussion because this is probably the most appropriate place for it. Jdray 22:38, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
The timing of the flash-sideways setting is left unclear by contradictory indicators. Alex's mention of the European History AP test being on Friday places the episode in early May, the only time the test is offered, but her request for a letter of recommendation to Yale places the episode earlier, during college application season, September through February.
The test may be a "mock" test; Alex may be taking the past year's test in preparation for the current year's test. The undertaking of mock tests are done occasionally at different points throughout the year. As such, the test may be a mock, and thus has no bearing on what time of year it is.
The test may also be a periodic class test for the course "AP European History" which would be standard at a mid-semester point.
During Ben and Roger's dinner at home, in the background a TV or radio is playing a football game which would place the episode sometime in the fall.
Is NO ONE going to ponder how she and Danielle got off the island?
Are you serious?!--Joshm1995 00:56, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
Danielle Rousseau and her science team originally arrived on the island in 1988. Since we don't know the exact details surrounding the sinking of the island, its well within the realm of possibility that Danielle, her team, and of course Alex, were never on the island in the FST. And remember to sign your comments =] --Cpt cannibal 00:57, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
I wonder how they ended up in America, what with both her parents being French. --rabbitinahat
That's interesting. At this point its obviously unknown, but perhaps Danielle and her team completed their science expedition unimpeded by the island and eventually ended up in America. It could be that their original expedition set sail FROM America, even though they are French scientists. Could be explained a number of ways, but like you I'm also interested to see if that is ever cleared up for us. --Cpt cannibal 03:59, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
In the original timeline the science team picked up the Numbers transmission, changed course to investigate and were subsequently sunk in a "strange storm". No island, no transmission, and the science ship continues on its merry way. Eventually Danielle and Alex end up in L.A. I'm sure the details are interesting but ultimately unimportant to the storyline.
About 39 minutes into the episode there is a scene where Alex is shown walking outside. On the back of her backpack are several patches. A few are flags. I thought I had seen a flag of France but in re-watching saw that it was the Confederate Flag. She also has a U.S. and Mexico flag, but no flag of France. I think this is curious because even though it is true that whether Danielle did or didn't make it to the island doesn't necessarily change a lot, I would think it would be too big a switch to not have her be French still. Since Alex is into flags, and the producers decided to put certain flags on her backpack, wouldn't it make sense to have put one from her mother's homeland? I know some will think this minor but in light of the oddities we're seeing in the FST it just one more.--Destinedjourney 21:29, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet. Ben seems to magically get a bloody nose halfway through this episode. When he is digging his grave, and the camera pans above him, he has no blood on his face. The next scene we see him in is when MIB comes out of the bushes, and Ben has dried blood running down from his nose. We never saw him get hit in the face. My guess is that Ilana hit him for some reason, but that scene was deleted. Should we add it to the bloopers and continuity errors?--Baker1000 00:27, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
I was bothered by that too, so I think it should go in the continuity section too. Iamlost23 14:58, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
It is explained in the 6x07 DVD commentary. Ilana beat Ben (pretty badly apparently) but it had to be deleted for time constraints. What's a Ben episode without a beating? I'll add it to the bloopers section.--Baker1000 18:25, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
There were way too many images on this page. The rule that I follow and used in editing this is that there has to be text in between images. If there's no text between images, there's too many and code needs to change or some images have to be removed. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 20:15, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
It's not too bad on a regular monitor, but on my widescreen laptop it's particularly noticeable.--Pittsburghmuggle 16:41, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
Why does Linus thinks Reynolds has the upper hand when he threatens to "torch" Alex? Wouldn't it be obvious that Ben could have simply responded to Reynolds that writing a good recommendation for Alex would also be necessary to keep him from showing those emails? Or even later, after Reynolds had written the letter, Ben could have gone up to him, and blackmailed him again on the same terms.Namaste1 21:25, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
His letter wouldnt have any weight if he was fired. Omggivemaafningusername 21:43, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so Ben could take charge without having Reynolds fired, by making Reynolds into a figurehead. Namaste1 21:47, March 14, 2010 (UTC) Also by your very argument, having him fired would make any "torching" letter lose all their weight. Namaste1 23:41, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
I'm probably the last one to realize this, but it just suddenly hit me that since Roger is musing about whether their lives would have been better if they had stayed on the island, then there's a good chance that he has no idea that it's now underwater! Hmm, I suppose that's not all that surprising, given that he wasn't exactly high up in the chain of command at the DI, and it's not as if that info would end up in a newspaper. But i don't know, I just found it interesting to think about.--Lionofdharma 20:37, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
This is along the lines of an explanation of Dharma that we haven't had yet and I'm going to be very disappointed if we don't get. There has to be a zillion folks out there who remember being on the island as kids and adults. With the Internet, food drops (real timeline), and the fact that people connected to the island tend to cross paths there must be some group out there.--Pittsburghmuggle 23:48, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
I know this sounds nit picky, but to have in the "Prevously on lost" section, it has been changed a couple of times from jacob "touches" ben or "falls aganist" ben. The word, "touches" while accurate, insinuates that Jacab TOUCHED Ben, like he did to Richard and etc. I think it is jumping to conclusion, yes in a matter of speaking Jacob does touch ben but we don't know if that means he give ben the gift when he touched him. Change it back is my vote--Phryrosebdeco23 06:31, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree (and I know this will also sound nit picky, but...) - in the standard-dictionary usage of the word, Jacob touched Ben. His hand makes direct contact with Ben's arm - emphasis on hand. This is significantly different than saying that Jacob simply "falls against" Ben. "Touch" implies something one does with one's hand - bringing one's hand or finger in contact with an object. "Falling against" implies a clumsy collision of the body. In this picture of the scene in question there is a touch in this standard sense - again, Jacob's hand to Ben's arm. Now, I realize the problem is that the word "touch" has taken a certain mystical meaning in recent episodes (i.e. a magical gift-giving), and the question, as raised by Phryrosebdeco23 is (to quote) "we don't know if that means he give ben the gift when he touched him." As I have noted elsewhere this is a fair question, but if we are honest we must likewise acknowledge that we don't know if Jacob gave any character (except perhaps Richard) a magical-gift-touch. Can anyone tell me - specifically - what magical-gift Jack gained from being touched by Jacob? Or Swayer? Or Kate, Sayid, Hurley, and so forth? Yes they were physically-touched, but were they magically-touched? I can't find any proof based on the episodes broadcast to-date, yet numerious articles throughout lostpedia say that Jack, Kate, Hurley, etc were touched (physically and magically) and no one is contesting those entries. Why is it okay to say that these characters were "touched" but we have to say Ben was "fallen against?" Following your logic, shouldn't we change all those articles to say that Kate was "poked," Jack was "brushed against," Sayid was "tapped," and so forth since using the word "touched" is "jumping to conclusions"? We both know that no one would take that suggestion seriously. So why is there a different standard here? Why the inconsistency? --Qwerty7412369 09:50, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
i think we should change it untill such time that we no if he did or did not gift himOmggivemaafningusername 17:58, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
Let's assume your point, Omggivemaafningusername - whether someone was "touched" is dependent upon whether they recieved a "gift." A few questions logically follow, questions that no one here has answered: Was Kate touched? Was Jack? Was Sawyer? If so, can you tell me - specifically - what magical-gift they recieved? Can you tell me - specifically - in what episode they were first shown using their magical-gift? Can you tell me - specifically - what you saw or what you heard that proved they had a magic-gift (as, of course, sight and sound is all we get from the TV)? If you can, then kudos - please, share your answers. But if you can't answer these, if you cannot prove that Kate or Jack or so forth have a magic-gift, then you must logically conclude that they were not touched! Thus we should change all the lostpedia pages that say these characters were touched, because they are all wrong! They wern't "touched" - they were "tapped" or "poked" or "fallen agianst"! Unless, of course, your assumption that a touch only occurs when a gift is given is wrong. It seems easier, more logical, and just plain connon-sense to say that a "touch" occurs when Jacob phyically-touches another character with his hand - and by this definition Jacob did touch Ben! --Qwerty7412369 22:29, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
We do not know that any of the other losties have received a gift either. By this logic, we can not say that Jacob touched them either. So I think it's better to say thatg Jacob did in fact touch Ben, since he in fact touched Ben.--Timeloop 18:15, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
Right-on! --Qwerty7412369 23:09, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
This is my first entry here, so please forgive me any potential error style-wise. I think the word "touch" does also imply an intention. From what we know, Jacob did not believe in Ben, so why would he grant Ben the gift of not aging? It could of course be something passive which is not "done" by Jacob but rather be some sort of automatic function like a spark jumping over... But recalling the "touches" Jacob did to all the others, it seems pretty intentional when he does it. --Luke1304 17:35, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
There seem to be a few logical gaps which are bedeviling many of the above posts! Luke1304 gives us a new one - the issue of "intent". So according to this argument Jacob "intended" to touch Jack, Kate, etc, but did not "intend" to touch Ben. I have a simple question - how do you know what Jacob intended to do? Let's be honest here: all we have is what we seen and hear on the tv-screen, that is our body of evidence. All you, I, or anyone saw was Jacob physically-touch Kate. I saw no magical-gift being passed: no divine light shined upon Kate, no angelic host began to sing. So did Jacob magic-gift-touch Kate, or did he just plain-old physically-touch her? You assume a magic-gift-touch, but that's your assumption - what evidence do you have? Please, prove me wrong. And by the same logic, how do you know Jacob did not intend to touch Ben? Doesn't it seem odd that Jacob got so close to Ben? That instead trying to move away from the man stabbing him, he moved closer to him? Ben said "Why didn't he fight back?" - well, why didn't he? What was Jacob's intent? I don't know his intent, and I would bet good money you don't either. So that argument goes right out the window. What we are left with is just what we see: Jacob touched Kate's nose and he touched Ben's arm. Whether those touches were magic-gift-touches or just physical touches is beside the point - by any common-sense usage of the English language, Jacob touched Ben's arm. --Qwerty7412369 22:03, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
I think Jacob's intent of touching Ben was so that Ben is helped to eventually see the error of his ways and help do something different. Just maybe, the same intent for all of the other candidates. Iamlost23 15:06, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
So earlier I was looking to see whether the writers had maybe chosen Yale for some particular reason as Alex's school of choice, or if it was just chosen because it happens to be a hard school to get into. So I discovered through wikipedia that Yale was named after a guy who worked for the East India Trading Company for 20 years! When Ben was quizzing Alex in the library, she couldn't answer a question about the East India Trading Company. Would it be appropriate for me to add this as an example of irony?--Lionofdharma 01:40, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
Here's my argument for adding it. One of the definitions of irony is "an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected." Alex is studying for an AP History exam, which indicates that she is quite knowledgeable about history in general, more so than your average high school student. That she belongs to a History club indicates that not only is she knowledgeable about the subject, she is interested in it to such an extent that she sets aside some of her free time to discuss it. I see her as likely to be a History whiz or genius. I don't know how school was for you, but for me I was more likely to remember something from class if I had some sort of personal tie to it, if that makes sense. So, in a nutshell, I would expect Alex to not be stumped on a question about the EITC of all things, given the tie EITC has to Yale and given that she desperately wants to attend the school. Perhaps this argument is far fetched, but I'm putting it out there.--Lionofdharma 06:12, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
It is far-fetched. I attended Yale, and until it was mentioned here I'd forgotten Elihu Yale's connection with the East India Company. It's not something that leaps to mind when you mention "Yale". Bulldogs, "Boola boola", the Yale-Harvard game, residential colleges, secret societies... these are things that people associate with Yale. The East India Company? Not so much. That's pretty tangential. —Josiah Rowe 03:32, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
I'm a Yalie as well (what year/college? '97 Berkley here). I didn't know that Eli Yale was associated with the EITC. But I just thought since our friend Alex is a history whiz that she might have gotten it. Of course, I might have just been looking for an excuse to add our alma mater yet again to the page. Also, I'm horrible, absolutely horrible at history. Anyway, I won't add it, though psst, I'm the one who added it to cultural references. heh heh. --Lionofdharma 23:42, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
I recognized the orange tray that Ben used when serving Roger his dinner as being a souvenir tray from Florida, identical to one that my mother had for many years. From my memory and the brief glimpse shown in the scene, it has a drawing of the map of Florida and several orange blossoms. I believe it may also say "Florida" and "The Sunshine State" on it as well. The tray was purchased by my grandparents on a trip to Florida in the early 1970's. This may imply that Ben or Roger or both may have been in Florida during that time period, perhaps Tallahassee?
As the one who chose the main image, I chose a moment when FS Ben was forced to make a moral choice, and was addressed as "Dr. Linus", hence the title of the episode. I think the image is just fine. ODK Talk Sandbox 14:13, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
If we go by titles eggtown should be a picture of eggs. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 19:58, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, come on, that's just stupid. You know exactly what I meant. ODK Talk Sandbox 05:51, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
how is it stupid? If anything your reasoning is stupid. You specificaly say quote "hecnce the title of the episode" all i did was point out how horrible that argument can be. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 05:43, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
I too believe the image should be the one at the school, as "Dr Linus", not the redemption one. He wasn't "Dr." then. Iamlost23 15:14, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Either the school image, or this.School image or this image
one of the redemption shots is better than all of the school shots combined. I put this one up again. It refers to a pivotal moment , one of the highlights of this year, has great visual impact, focuses on the main issue of the episode, and is a better image overall. It's got the damn stamp on it - I'll clean that up shortly. I also note that this image or a similar one has been accepted for an extended period, to replace it with an untested and inferior shot at this point is not good. Charles Kane 13:28, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Pivotal moment in the whole series. Ben's FST story was engaging, but not like this moment. Duncan905 22:13, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
Edit
Added by ObiDanKenobi5
Added by Cpt cannibal
i think we should change it untill such time that we no if he did or did not gift himOmggivemaafningusername 17:58, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
Added by Bish-Fiscuit
--Phryrosebdeco23 05:18, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
As the one who chose the main image, I chose a moment when FS Ben was forced to make a moral choice, and was addressed as "Dr. Linus", hence the title of the episode. I think the image is just fine. ODK Talk Sandbox 14:13, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
If we go by titles eggtown should be a picture of eggs. -- B1G CZYGS Talk Contribs 19:58, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Added by Charles Kane
