This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Something Nice Back Home article.
General discussion about the article's subject is permitted as a way to aid improvement of the article.
Theories about the article subject should not be discussed here.
(Instead, post your theory to this article's theory page
or discuss it on this article's theory talk page.)

  • Be polite, don't bite, have fun!
  • Admins are here to help
  • More discussion at the Forum
Article policies


Don't delete - I agree this is a spoiler right now, but after tonight it will be made and added to the Season 4 template just like "The Shape of Things to Come" anyway. So we may as well keep.--Baker1000 11:55, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

Well if you know it's a spoiler and against policy, then don't fan the flames. Just let it be until that time comes. Creating new redirects and so on just extends the problems. It's not a race and we should wait until creating such articles.--TechNic|talk|conts 12:00, 24 April 2008 (PDT)
Yes, who cares if you're the first to post this? You shouldn't break the rules, especially since you yourself stated that you were breaking them. Thelordnyax 00:44, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
I never posted anything first other than the redirect, I never made this page. It was a mistake and I will wait next time. I wasn't trying to get it in there first, just thought I might as well since the page was made. Sorry for any trouble caused.--Baker1000 07:09, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Keep. It is the official name for episode 10. Information from the Seven Network in Australia also reflects this.




--Lakeyboy 21:21, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

There's no point in deleting it now, but as per the spoiler policy, episode pages for unaired episodes shouldn't be created until the previous episode has aired. Furthermore, the press release information shouldn't be posted until after this episode has aired. A sysop needs to format this page, add links to the press releases, and lock it. Jimbo the tubby 21:33, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

Is there a way to lock out titles from being created before someone does this again? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:07, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

Date proves that the newspaper is August 30, 2007.

The Yankees swept the Red Sox in a 5 game series in August 2006 (18th-2--Srsnyder 11:46, 5 May 2008 (PDT)1st). Also, August 2006 makes far more sense than August 2007 since Through the Looking Glass shows that Jack was already a huge mess and near suicidal in April 2007. LostInMass 20:36, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
The article says it was 5-0 and that Robinson Cano hit two homeruns. Cano only hit one during that series. Furthermore, the Yankees were in first place at that time. Unless I'm reading the article is August 30, 2007. Furthermore x2, it says that Schilling pitched that day...Schilling pitched August 30, 2007. Furthermore x3, it says they swept, this 5-0 game on August 30, 2007 was the last game of the series. Furthermore x4, doesn't the article say that the Yankees pull within 5? At the end of the series, they were within 5.
It wouldn't make sense in the timeline to be set in August 2007. This episode shows the beginning of Jack's drug use and downward spiral. In Through the Looking Glass (April 2007), Jack has is near suicidal, Kate won't talk with him and he seems on the verge of losing his job. It makes plenty of sense for this episode to be 8 months prior to TTLG, but not 4 months after it. LostInMass 20:44, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
So the article is a prop? Sense, yes. But it is what it is. I don't think there is room for speculation. Also, where does it say that TTLG is set in Aug. 2007?
The info in the article doesn't agree with the timeline, so I suggest leaving out the date for now. My guess is that someone in the prop department pulled an article from the wrong year (2007 instead of 2006). Looks like a continuity error to me. LostInMass 20:50, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
Pretty careless if someone like me is finding a continuity error. :). Hopefully someone comes in with a screenshot of the article and it can be clarified. I have a hardtime believing that they'd make an 'oops', but who knows...
Continuity error or not, the date of the paper has to be 8/31/07. See Mariners/Indians score for corroboration. 21:36, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

Hasn't it been said that the April 07 newspaper from "Through the Looking Glass, Part 1" was a prop and the date isn't right. Checkout Talk:Timeline:Post-Island. --Gluphokquen Gunih 21:58, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

  • If the producers said to disregard the newspaper date from the obituary clipping in "Through the Looking Glass" then maybe they are paying more attention to those props at this point, meaning the Yankees/Red Sox clip (2007) is accurate to the timeline. However, the prop/page is not entirely accurate though. It has a box score for an Angels vs. Astros game. The Astros did face the Angels in 2007 but it was in late June. The teams did not face each other at all in 2006. --Flash 00:34, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

The two boxscores visible on the paper, "Angels 8, Astros 4" and "Brewers 7, Giants 5," come from games played on June 20th, 2007.

  • There is a similar discussion on the post-Island timeline talk page. The article also mentions "Yankees increased that lead over Seattle to a full game last night when the Mariners lost to the Indians 6-5" which was 30 Aug 2007 and that sentence comes directly word-for-word from this NY Times article; so the date Jack reads that is 31 Aug 2007. Also, Jack goes to see Hurley this second time "last Friday" from when he tells Kate about it. 31 Aug 2007 was a Friday. The bigger problem is that if the paper is dated 31 Aug, then Jack sees Hurley the NEXT day, which can't be Friday 31 Aug. We know it's the next day because Aaron was read a bedtime story in between (and if it wasn't bedtime, before 11am is a bit early for a nap, since the consult was 11am in the next scene)-- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:17, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

A different thought about the newspaper article: So the big debate is about the date of the game. The date doesn't bother me so much. What I find interesting is that the Angels played the Astros. That may not have happened in real life, but I think it was another subtlety empahsizing the man of faith, man of science notion. --Scottyus 10:11, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

  • The Angels did defeat the Astros 8-4 at home during the 2007 season, but it was on Wednesday June 20, 2007. Not a bad thought about the faith/science thing. Does the score also point to the fact that faith will win out over science? -- Flash 10:18, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Very good catch, Scottyus. Darlton already said that the show is not meant for watching just today, so it does not matter if Angels vs Astros game was really played or when. They said it was for us to watch 10 or 20 years later, and all we needed to know was what was told in the show. So the date of the actual game is not very important, and definitely not canon unless it is confirmed in the show. Faith vs Science... I like it. --     c      blacxthornE      t     03:59, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I also enjoyed Scottyus's point about Faith vs. Science. This gives some weight to the theory that this is a fictional game being played. Also, I just wanted to throw this out there: could this game possibly be in the future from now? Maybe these games are being played in 2009? Just my two cents. --Srsnyder 11:46, 5 May 2008 (PDT)


What do you all think of this episode?

Personally, I thought it was a drag on... another 'okay' episode... I just felt dissatisfied because there was nothing really very much relevant. It was just an episode where Jack gets hurt, and then gets better... I don't want another episode like this... they should do better!!!! But, No doubt... the upcoming episodes will be intense. --     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email   20:22, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

What about Claire disappearing and Christian showing himself to her? That was pretty intense. Something is going on there, something that I think will have big consequences. -- Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

I agree that the episode was a drag. Felt like filler. The Claire/Christian developments occupied all of 3 minutes of the episode, and can hardly be used as justification for this weak episode. Good thing last week was a strong episode...--paulski 04:43, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

I loved it, felt like a season 1 episode, more character centred, after all the(kickass) mythology and plot centred episodes. Christian Shephard on the Island physically holding Aaron freaked me out! And more later when Miles had seen him too. 8/10--Deus ex Machina 05:06, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Jack's appendix seemed like manufactured drama to give the beach people something to do, and we all knew he was going to be ok. I don't care about Jack and Kate's relationship. Other than that, it was a decent, solid episode. Merick 05:42, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

I don't think Damon and Carlton just throw things into an episode. Everything they do has a meaning. For instance, a person's appendix seems to be an unneccessary organ vermiform appendix, that once removed, really has no bad effects. Is that symbolic of something? An appendix is also at the end of a book. Is that the meaning they were going for? --Scottyus 08:54, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

I thought it was very weak. Very little in the way of important developments (as far as we can see), and the Jack story was a big indulgence. Really, it doesn't seem to add anything to the story, except the question: Why is Jack sick?--Salvora 09:00, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Funny, how tastes differ. I thought it was absoulutely brilliant, and one of the best episodes ever. I generally like LOST more when it centers around the characters, their personal struggles and their complex reationships among each other rather than indulding in some sort of James Bond-ish storyline with people chasing and killing each other across the globe. I think this one was a very clever counterpoint to the action-heavy episode of last week. I particularly liked how they managed to portrait the sense of doom that hovers above the Jack-Kate thing. It just didn't feel right from the get go.--Simakperrce 10:11, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

I liked hearing from Jack that the other 'Losties' are still on the Island. We all thought this was true, already, but it is nice of the producers to give us a cold hard fact like this in an episode that mostly just gave us questions. I think there was a gratuitous amount of Kate's body filmed in this episode when interesting things could have been filmed. (Kate is hot, and all, I just don't wat ch Lost for the girls.)--DeepForestGreen 08:54, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

I was a little underwhelmed by this one, although knowing the circumstances of Claire's disappearance helped with next episode. I didn't remember Christian as being anything but an absentee father. I was surprised when Claire said, "Dad!" But I just wish Kate and Jack would either accept each other, warts and all, or quit. Pick one, EITHER ONE<grin>!--Jim 17:19, 9 May 2008 (PDT)

Worth noting in the main article?

Hi all, question for you. We know the theory is that the smoke monster can manifest itself as dead people -- for instance Yemi. In "Something Nice Back Home," the smoke detector was beeping just before Christian appeared to Jack. Is there a proper place to mention that in the article, ASIDE from the theory tab? Or is that too theory-ish? --Jeff 21:52, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

The smoke detector was beeping probably beeping because of a low battery, but then again, it is possible that it could be from the smoke monster.--Lost PiLam 22:12, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Definitely a low battery noise. If it was an actual smoke alert it would have been a lot faster than that!--Chocky 23:17, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I noticed that Christian Shepard only appeared after the battery was taken out. Sort of like he was waiting to appear.Petrarch1603 11:29, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

The Whispers

I'm pretty sure the whispers in the episodes were of a different kind than we're used to. It seems like Miles can see/hear/sense the events of someone's death when he is in the area where the person died. On a side note, what beer was Jack drinking? --Lost PiLam 22:07, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

  • I think the beer might have been Tsingtao. --Doc 11:45, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
    • Seems like the first letter on the bottle is "p".But I love QINGDAO--ej 12:07, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
    • Definitely NOT Tsingtao. I live in Shanghai and there is no variety with a bottle that shape or color. It looks like a type of Octoberfest from the colors, or possibly "Penelope" but upon careful examination the fist letters seem to be PENZB... After some research I found there was a Penzberger Brauhaus beer. German and likely to be an Oktoberfest, but the brewery closed in 2001. Springfinger 20:14, 6 May 2008 (PDT)
      • The issue of the beer has already been addressed. Somehow, it got deleted from the article after I accidentally moved it to the bloopers section. It's back where it should be, in the production notes. Robert K S (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2008 (PDT)

The whispers would seem to be Danielle and Karl. I even think they sounded like Danielle. Just my two cents. Jimbo the tubby 22:59, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

It was not the whispers we know. It was Miles' ability of getting information from the dead. He saw or heard the scene in which they were shot. --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:26, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

I don't think it was our traditional whispers either. I think it was some sort of phychic residue or something that Miles was able to pick up on. --Messeis 06:29, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Maybe it was the traditional whispers, and we just heard them the way Miles hears them. --Foobar 15:33, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Well all the traditional whispers were heard by someone when we heard them. Everytime there was a spin motion around the character, and the whispers were all alike, except this one. This time the whispers were different, much, much clearer, and the camera motion was not like the whisper scenes but more like (and in fact, almost identical to) Miles' communication on his ghostbusting flashback.--     c      blacxthornE      t     04:02, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
But Sawyer and Claire didn't hear anything which is why I think that it's Miles's powers in action.--Lost PiLam 13:30, 5 May 2008 (PDT)
It definitely was the sound clip from the scene in which Danielle and Karl died. If you listen closely with a loud volume on the ABC high-def version, you can distinctly hear the bullets whizzing and Alex sobbing and saying 'No... Karl!'. --meggie ~ Talk & contribs 15:11, 8 May 2008 (PDT)

Tattoo on Jack's back

Is the tattoo on Jack's back new? I can't remember seeing one on his back before. Any chance of getting a picture of it.? Jimbo the tubby 23:00, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

Pretty sure they haven't shown that one before. It may be significant since they go to a lot of trouble to cover some of Mathew Fox's tattoos, but not others. or they might have let it go because it was small. I didn't get a good look at it. Did anyone? Lanpesci 04:47, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Here is a link for the tatoo --Messeis 06:33, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

  • Or he got it during his stint on Lost, and they've covered it so far, with no need to do so when he is off the island. Please, no more tattoo speculation, before we get another horrible Jack's tattoo episode, LOL. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:55, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Agreed. The episode in which Jack got his shoulder tatooed may have been one of most useless in four seasons.--Gaarmyvet 09:27, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Agreed fully about the episode, but if the tattoo isn't one of Fox's real ones (which would make sense if we hadn't seen it before), and is something Jack got after the Island, it is probably relevent. Also, Lanpesci, according to interviews they don't actually cover any of the tattoos for any characters, which I find kinda interesting (though not the the point where Jack's tattoos ought to have their own centric episode :P). Jimbo the tubby 12:25, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Fully agreed another tattoo episode isn't necessary (don't know that it was the worst episode, but up there)! Jimbo the tubby - I read an article this last offseason that says Fox does have some tattoos covered. He has a skull & crossbones on the inside of one forearm (the right one I think - since his other ink is on the left) he got since the show began filming (they might have left it alone if it was there when the show started). This is completly covered to the audience. I think they mentioned that part of the "FIVE" tattoo is also covered all the time, but I'm not as sure about that point. Know for sure though, he is covering one decent site tat on his arm. That's why I too thought the back tattoo might be a clue -- the Other's have a tattoo parlor! Lanpesci 13:20, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
Hm, okay, that makes sense that they'd cover ones he got since the show started, but I know in early interviews they talked about the fact that they don't cover any tats. I still suspect that the back one is a clue, though. Jimbo the tubby 23:57, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

You can see this tattoo briefly in "Pilot, Part 1" when Kate is stitching him up. --Gluphokquen Gunih 11:15, 7 May 2008 (PDT)

Any chance of a screencap? My season 1 DVDs are currently lent out.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  12:24, 7 May 2008 (PDT)
Mine are lent out too sorry. There's always --Gluphokquen Gunih 18:54, 11 May 2008 (PDT)
Yes, I think I saw it, very briefly. There are further tatoos in the internal side of his left arm. They look like stars. I don't know how to take a pic from the video, sorry, I hope someone can help.--Salvora 14:24, 7 May 2008 (PDT)

Pic for episode

What are people's thoughts for the pic for this episode? I'm a fan of the idea of either Christian and Jack or Christian and Aaron, but if people wanted to go with Jack and Aaron, I'd be for that too. Thoughts? Jimbo the tubby 00:41, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Standard seems to be a pic of the centric character only. --Pyramidhead 00:47, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I'd agree. This was more on Jack then Kate (Kate and Aaron are more like Jin in Sun's centric episode). So Jack would be good. However, I wouldn't fuss over a Kate, Jack, and Aaron one. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:27, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Jack-centric, hence the Jack pic. The current picture (taken from the "Hurley confrontation") is not only better suited for this episode (reflecting Jack's indecisive state of mind vis-à-vis of Hurley, the visions and Kate) but is also of better quality (HD cap). - TheAma1 04:59, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • However, it is not "Jack leaves Kate" as someone put it later in the article to represent. We don't know for certain whether they broke up at this point, and as pointed out, the picture is from the Hurley scene earlier in the episode. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:20, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I think it'd be great to have a pic of Kate in that thong, although this is kinda a family sitePetrarch1603 11:31, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

Jack's scar

The scar for the appendectomy isn't shown when Jack gets out of bed, but the later photos of him in the towel do indeed show a scar very low on his right side, just where it should be. --Pedxing 06:32, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

  • Yep. Blooper removed. See here [1] --Jackdavinci 06:54, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • but comparing with the Cut during his surgery, the scar is not on the right position when it appear in the flashforward.see here [2] --ej 11:36, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Sorry :\ It's pretty hard to see though. Merick 08:49, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

What's up with Jack's chest hair? In a season 2 episode, I forget which one, we see Kate catching him fresh from the Swan Station shower in a towel, showing that Matthew Fox is a pretty hairy guy, but now he's completely shaved and smooth chested. I realize we saw Juliet shaving him for the surgery scene, so that might explain why they shaved the actor for the episode, but then why not film the shirtless/flash-forward scenes first, and then the shaving scene later? Are we just to assume he shaves it for Kate? I know it's hardly important, but it just seems weird. Sithboy 14:03, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

I didn't want to say anything, but that was actually my first thought when I saw him in the flashforward. I guess something post-Island brings Jack to the decision that he wants to regularly wax his chest. :P Jimbo the tubby 14:12, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
Or maybe Jack just reeaally wished he had chest hair, and the island gave it to him... :) --Foobar 15:35, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
Perhaps after the surgery, Jack shaved his whole chest just to even things out, and like it that way, so he kept doing it...Thelordnyax 18:46, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
While I love these ideas (especially one about asking Jack to get rid of "chest scruff" or something), I think the creators just wanted to point out the scar. --Alilamba 09:28, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

Danielle and Karl buried

Would they be buried by Keamy and his soldiers? That seems weird.--Salvora 09:04, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Yeah, why would Keamy and his troops take the time? Does this suggest that someone else took the time and, if so, is there another message in the fact that the bodies were not buried "properly?"--Gaarmyvet 09:31, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

To maintain the element of surprise is my guess. Keamy's team has little intelligence about whom they will be engaging, & so would be acting very cautious. How would you like to be the one to later explain that the mission failed because someone stumbled over those bodies & set off a warning? Those mercs might be bad asses, but they are only a handful of bad asses. -- Llywrch 10:03, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
OK, that makes sense. I think not liking the character, I was perhaps inclined to underestimate his "expertise."

You make a good point about burying the bodies to maintain the element of surprise, but I'm still not completely convinced that Keamy and his team did it. They also had to work under time constraints. By the way, how big is the island? There are some neat maps out there, but none with a scale that I remember. Knowing distances would help us "guesstimate" better.--Gaarmyvet 13:24, 7 May 2008 (PDT)

  • The soldiers are prepared for their mission. And they have some idea about the secrets of the island. I maintain what happens to a body after death is important on the island. Exposed bodies are able to manifest themselves in one way or another. Keamy and his crew know that if you kill someone you had better bury them or they might still be around and angry at you. They just were in a rush and didn't do a very good job, so Danielle and Karl were able to make their presence felt as Miles and co. traveled by.
    • Think of what happens to the bodies of dead people on the island, and whether or not weve seen the last of them. I think you'll agree with me, visions of dead people with exposed bodies tend to show, while those buried people we haven't seen or heard from in awhile. Make a list, i did :)
I think it was a plot device so that Miles would have an opportunity to use his psychic abilities to sense them.

If you have a list regarding those burried and those not and their "after effects" please share. How do you explain victims of the purge, or Adam and Eve? calderh

They weren't buried properly, which strongly implies it was the soldiers trying to hide the bodies. If we aren't meant to assume that it was Keamy et al., then the show would have to take the time in some future episode to revisit the burial and show us who buried them and why. I can't imagine that digression making narrative sense.--Hylas 15:51, 7 May 2008 (PDT)

Jack's prescription from Erica

Is everyone certain that he asked her for a prescription for "clonazepam"? I thought I heard him ask for "Diazepam", which is another name for Valium. It would raise fewer questions to ask for a tranquilizer from a fellow doctor than a medicine used to treat anxiety disorders & mania. ("Hmm. Jack wants some serious psychoactive drugs -- should we allow him unsupervised access to our patients?") -- Llywrch 10:03, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

He asks for Clonazepam. I just watched it again.--Simakperrce 10:14, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

It appears Jack is trying to walk a fine line...trying to get something to medicate the "hallucinations" under the guise of a sleep and stress problem. He's seen what Hurley's like off his meds...--Eyeful Tower 08:07, 5 May 2008 (PDT)

The unbelievable character of Charlotte Lewis

This character is so unbelievable. By the time she is on the island Charlotte is supposed to be 25 years old, have been born and raised in England, have achieved her undergraduate and graduate degrees (no less than a PhD from Oxford) in the UK (thus there is no account she has spent any time living abroad), and now we are to believe this woman speaks Korean? It requires an awful lot of imagination to believe this character's story. --Salvora 10:40, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

  • She's an anthropologist, correct? One of the four (five?) branches of anthropology is linguistics. It's completely plausible that a young woman with a PhD in cultural anthropology would know several languages. That said, she does seem to have the least characterization of the freighter four so far. Her mini flashback really didn't say anything about her personality. Merick 10:51, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
    • I think this is entirely plausible. If she was in a "fast stream" at secondary school, she could have gone to University at 17. Most UK undergrad degrees are 3 years, so she graduates at 20. 3 more years for a PhD (actually it's called a D.Phil at Oxford), and she would be 23 when she gets her doctorate. - ukexpat 10:49, 6 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Bit strange that she needs a French interpreter but speaks fluent Korean, although not inconceivable I guess... DublinDilettante 10:56, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
    • Not if she was trying to hide her language abilities. This time she got caught. Walter L. Newton 11:06, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • It isn't impossible that a woman so young has accomplished so much. But no, it's not like most PhDs of that age speak several languages; just to get a PhD in itself takes a lot of time and work, so it is quite unbelievable that she has gotten a PhD by 25 AND learnt foreign languages. So what I maintain is not that her story is impossible but that it is rather unusual. For the character to work, a lot more information would have to be supplied about her, such as say: her mother was Korean, of her family moved to Korea when she was young, or she has a degree in Korean studies, or she got a job in Korea after graduation... It's just lame that the creators have made no attempt to make this character a little bit more believable, and pull out a twist like this just like that.--Salvora 11:11, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
Didn't bother me. It's entirely possible that the fact that she knows Korean may be a major part of the reason she was hired for the mission - Widmore or whoever probably knew there were korean speakers on the plane. --Minderbinder 11:56, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
Yes, but we have no reason to think that Widmore KNEW before the freighter made it to the island what passengers had survived and what passengers had died.--Salvora 12:17, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
I assume he didn't know, but he could have been playing it safe. Although who knows if Widmore had a spy amongst the others? --Minderbinder 12:29, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
Ben has done plenty of reconnaissance to find out about people. I am surprised that Widmore's people don't know every last detail of the people on the island using similar techniques.

Is it anymore unbelievable than the time-traveling psychic? ;) Jimbo the tubby 12:20, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

You mean Miles? The thing is: Lost is a combination of believable and unbelievable things. The things that are extraordinary and beyond rational understanding, we just accept them as they are, not because of their plausibility, but because we know they are the kind of things that are beyond rational understanding. But when you are dealing with characters and situations "from this world", you want to make sense of that. I just thought that as a plot twist, to have one of the characters speaking a language that, no offence, not a lot of Westeners speak or show interest in learning, was a very lame twist. And the more "unbelievable" the "believable" stuff gets, the most difficult is to get interested in the show. You have to keep the balance between rational and beyond rational within some reasonable proportion. --Salvora 12:33, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
Actually, I meant Desmond, but I was kidding. I agree that the plausible stuff should be believable. Jimbo the tubby 23:59, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
Didn't you all think that maybe she's possibly a genius? It's entirely possible that Charlotte, with a high intelligence, graduated at a very young age (14 or 15 possibly), and spent the next decade in academia.--The Cartographer 12:36, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
The point I was trying to make is that she likely learned a lot about linguistics (and several languages in that process) as part of her PhD. It's not a case of "she has a PhD and also found time to learn Korean". Merick 12:57, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
She could be a genius; she could have learnt Korean as part of her PhD... Yes, but so far this is unaccounted. Hopefully, we can expect we will learn more about this character in the future? Indeed, I'd be happy to learn more about the 4 of them! (Miles, Daniel, Frank and Charlotte)--Salvora 13:07, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
I don't know why people think it's so farfetched that a smart 25 year old speaks a foreign language. --Minderbinder 15:44, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Are we positive she is only 25? Where was her age brought up? I thought Ben said she was 28 a few episode back. Lanpesci 13:23, 2 May 2008 (PDT))
    • On her page in Lostpedia it says she was born in 1979. Ben says she was born in 1979 in Confirmed Dead. Thereotically the show is happening in 2004. Thus, she would be 25.--Salvora 16:14, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

OK, well the first thing is that it should be D.Phil, not PhD. It's just one of the quirks of an Oxford education and a simple blooper on the part of the writers. Now if she was born in July 1979 and followed a standard path through education, she'd have been doing her A-levels in '95-'97, her BA in '97-'00, then started her D.Phil in September 2000. A D.Phil takes three or four years, so that would mean she graduated in the summer of 2003 at the earliest.--TechNic|talk|conts 20:18, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

So she can't learn a language before asking the audience now? Kate could've learnt to speak Korean fluently if she wanted. It's not like hard labor, if you're interested, you can learn a language. Who says French is better a language to speak than Korean? Plus she didn't really need an interpreter, she did read the newspaper in French. Her interpreter asked "in how many languages do you have to read that to believe it?". Can't she be interested in Korean? Can't she speak like, 9 languages? We all know that the freighter team consisted of very special people, as Abaddon suggested, and she's one of them. Questioning her linguistic abilities is maybe less unnecessary than questioning Jack's chest hair, but it's still unnecessary. Just like shaving your chest, learning a language a matter of choice. It actually takes less time, because you don't have to take lessons forever to speak a language perfectly, but you can't shave a couple of times and stay hairless forever.--     c      blacxthornE      t     04:14, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

  • I have known people who skipped grades, finished high school in 3 years, finished college in 3 years, and went on to get advanced degrees at young ages. Add a background that involves the Korean language--DeepForestGreen 09:02, 3 May 2008 (PDT) and it is OK. It is exceptional, but not impossible as it has been done by others before her.
  • Getting back to her intransparent character in general, it reminds me of Juliet's. For both of them it holds true that you can't really see through them. For instance, even today I can't tell if I should assign Juliet to the survivors' side or to something else.

I never meant to say that the things this character is supposed to have done or achieved, can't be done or achieved by a character like her. But her story is rather unusual: for anyone that young, who has spent most of her life in the same country, who has also been involved in doing something so time-consuming as a PhD, and to learn a foreign language that is not so easy to learn in any western country (because no, it's not like there are Korean language schools all over the place in England, and it's not easy to learn a language without instruction and practice)... all that is a rather unusual and interesting life story, but the thing is that we haven't told her story. You may remember that in the past the creators would help us understand a character with a flashback of that character, and that would make sense of their personalities, or of their expertise, and of whatever happened in that episode. With these new characters we have very little to go on, and that's rather unsatisfying. So I think it would be desirable to have a background story to account for the things that happen in the show. Also, because it feels that with such "empty" characters as these (by which I mean they are empty insofar as we don't know their background story), the creators can use them in any way they like to produce the plot twists that they want to produce, whatever those are. To me, and until we don't get more of a background story, this appears very lazy and lame tricks, and as part of the audience, it feels to me a bit like cheating. So, yeah, the character might be a genius and that's fine with me (and no, she definitely does not need my permission - what kind of nonsense is that?), but if so, I'd like to get a flashback of this character telling us just that.--Salvora 06:32, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

  • I was obviously sarcastic with that "permission". But you still demand an explanation, which was exactly my point. I guess I couldn't get it across. The thing is that they did not need her to speak Korean, since they could've done many other things to get Sun and future Ji Yeon on that chopper. So it doesn't seem like a cheap trick to me; it's probably what they were planning since the beginning. Again I remind you that they hinted that she knew many languages ("how many languages") in her first flashback. It was even before she was introduced to Locke's group, and they obviously had some plan for her, I don't think that this character was a blank sheet in the beginning... It was probably the plan all along. The lack of flashbacks of the freighties, however, was what Darlton complained most about this season. They said they loved the freighties but they had to cut out much of their history because of the elimination of the episode count from 23 to 16 to 13. They also said that they would want to evaluate the extra hour, should they get it, with the background of some of the freighties.--     c      blacxthornE      t     08:07, 4 May 2008 (PDT)
    • Right, that seems plausible, that there was some plan all along for this character and that circumstances may have affected the original plan. I also take it that you understand why I express this dissatisfaction with the character so far. Double emphasis on "so far": for her background story might be delivered some time. I certainly hope so. Also because so far, again, I find her quite difficult to like (because of her "bad attitude", in Daniel's words), but I expect she has a better side that has not been shown yet.--Salvora 08:37, 4 May 2008 (PDT)


The main article currently mentions that John Terry appeared as Christian but wasn't listed ahead of time in the "official" ABC press release. Is that really relevant? It is a fairly common practice; there are plenty of instances where characters are left off network press releases, especially if the producers of a show want an appearance to be kept secret. I really only think it would be worth mentioning only if he appeared without being credited in the show proper. --Jeff 11:03, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

I think them wanting to keep the character's appearance a secret is relevant in and of itself. Jimbo the tubby 12:19, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

John Terry has been consistently listed ahead of time in the ABC press releases. He was credited ahead of time when Christian appeared in Jacob's cabin ("The Beginning of the End"). To not list him was obviously to build a bigger surprise and I would say that is relevant, at least as 'Trivia". Lanpesci 13:49, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Update Season4Nav Box

It should list the flashforward as Jack's, not unconfirmed. --Mapleleaf50 11:08, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

The template above the episode shows, that it is unconfirmed whose flashforwards are in the episode, despite the fact that the episode has been already aired. It's funny though. BeŻet 07:37, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

Yeah, updating is a little behind here for some reason. Same for the page for Season 4 episodes. Jinxmchue 21:22, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

Is there any reason why is says "Unconfirmed" next to the episode title "Something Nice Back Home"? We know that this is a Jack-centric episode sense it has already aired. Anyone wanna fix this...? Marko 09:36, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

Unanswered Questions

What about who buried Rousseau and Karl? Granted they were not buried very far, but it still would have required some work.--Messeis 11:09, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

It's an interesting question. Why would the freighter people bother to bury them? They don't seem to care who they kill. It seems a little odd if they did bury the bodies.--Baker1000 12:00, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

The freighter people in order to not leave a trace of where they've been. It helps to prevent them from being tracked. Unless, of course, you have a psychic who communicates with the dead on your team... :P Jimbo the tubby 12:18, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

This is discussed above, on this page, under the title "Danielle and Karl buried."--Salvora 12:19, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Omar isn't in this episode!

Anthony Azizi is not credited, and as far as I can tell, that mercenary doesn't look like him. I don't know why everyone thinks it is. --Pyramidhead 13:09, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Correct. Omar was NOT one of the mercs shown on the Island with Keamy. Lanpesci 13:44, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
It's strange. Lapidus's sat phone shows only five colored blips, but there are actually six mercenaries: Keamy, a black man in a visored cap (like the kind Omar wears while skeet shooting), the wounded man and the two flanking him, plus a final mercenary taking up the rear in a fully-brimmed hat. All six mercenaries are clearly visible in Image:LapidusKeamyteam.jpg; the hat and rifle barrel of the sixth man can be seen above the left shoulder of the man to Keamy's right. I suspect that the special effects team didn't notice him when they added the simulated display on the sat phone. The only explanation around this blooper is that the sixth mercenary lost his (or never had a) GPS transmitter. Robert K S (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2008 (PDT)
Smokie ate it :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:14, 5 May 2008 (PDT)


Are we confirmed about that name (for Kate's friend)? I didn't watch the subtitles, but I was sure Kate said "Maureen." Maureen is a common American name, but Noreen would be unusual..... Lanpesci 13:42, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Noreen's not that unusual. There are several people I know named Noreen. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  14:10, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
Seconded, Noreen is a plenty common name in the States. Not as popular as Maureen, granted, [3], but still a very popular name, especially between the 1910s and the 1980s. Robert K S (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

I stand corrected on the popularity of the name Noreen. BUT - can anyone answer the original question: was the name Noreen or Maureen? It has been both on these pages. I was counting on somebody who watched it with captions to kind of lay down the hammer. I thought I heard Maureen too, but I only get the broadcast in two stereo channels (as opposed to 5.1) so it's not as crystal clear as it could be. Plus Jack mumbles alot :-) Lanpesci 20:08, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

I never doubted that it was Noreen, but I thought I'd check for you anyway, i just watched it again with captions turned on it IS Noreen...but I guess it doesn't really matter, since she was lying.Thelordnyax 00:04, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

Is there a chronological conflict here?

In "Through the Looking Glass" Jack looked at a newspaper clipping from April 5th, 2007, while the one about the Red Sox/Yankees would have to have been from months later. This conflicts with the notion that "Something Nice Back Home" is supposed to take place after "Through the Looking Glass," yes? Kisonakl 13:49, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

    • The paper shown in ("Through the Looking Glass, Part 2") was NOT cannon as far as the date went. This has been stated previously by the producers. See the "Date" discussion above for more info. Lanpesci 13:51, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Also, I think the events in the "Something Nice Back Home" flashes do take place before those shown in "Through the Looking Glass" as evidenced by Jck's deteriation. Lanpesci 13:53, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Regarding the blooper about the smoke alarm...

The battery is a backup in case of power outage and when the backup battery has been used up, it will beep as normal. Nominate point for removal?Peterricca 15:44, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

  • Is that really the case? And do industrial smoke alarms just use 9 volt batteries, or do they have a built-in battery that is just charged off the AC power? Still seems like a blooper to me that a hospital would have what seems like a consumer unit. --Minderbinder 15:46, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Perhaps it was placed in an area where someone decided the "industrial" smoke alarms were't close enough. There's many possible explanations for this. I don't think it should be deemed a blooper.Thelordnyax 18:47, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • It might be different in the US, but all the industrial fire alarms I've encountered in the UK are hard-wired to the mains supply. The backup batteries are not in the individual units, as they are also hard-wired back to a large central battery. It should not be possible for regular users of a building to isolate smoke detectors. Also, the low placement of this particular unit is unlikely as smoke detectors are generally placed at the highest point - because smoke rises. I'd call it a blooper.--TechNic|talk|conts 19:23, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I second the removal of this so-called blooper. The argument is that this type of smoke alarm is not found in a hospital, but Jack is not working in a hospital there. he's working at a private neurosurgery clinic, which could very easily have that type of alarm.--Offput 01:03, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I agree. I doubt a doctor's office would have the same kind of set up as a hospital or industrial building. The model shown works exactly like those found in newer residences or office buildings. This blooper should be removed.--Dawgmatic 15:58, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
  • It could also be a battery-powered Carbon Monoxide detector, many of which look like smoke detectors. It was just assumed a smoke detector. I vote non-blooper. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:06, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
  • There's also the fact that this happened at the same time Jack saw his father sitting in the chair. It's easily explainable that there was no smoke detector at all. It was only there inasmuch as Christian was there. After all, there was no indication that Dr. Stevens even heard the smoke detector's beeping...Cononach 09:33, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
  • It did strike me as unlikely that a battery operated smoke detector would be in that location, but in any case, I don't think it was a blooper, just intentional use of artistic license.--Hylas 16:18, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I live in an apartment in California and my smoke dectector is hard wired into the power. I too think its unlikely a commercial bulding in CA, like the one shown, would have a battery operated unit. But of course, Jack would have nothing to change, not see daddy, not turn into a suicidal basket case. So I vote the smoke dectector is artstic and that we can be a little neurotic ;-P Lanpesci 20:13, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Maybe the smoke detector is actually the Monster or the Island or Jacob or whatever, luring Jack into a position to see Christian. The actual smoke detection system is hard-wired into the building, and Jack just didn't notice that this one was out of place because he's never had to mess with it before (but we're all familiar with how to recognize and repair a beeping smoke alarm). Yeah, we can all be a little neurotic sometimes, analyzing the smoke detector. Sithboy 00:51, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

Star Wars

"Jack steps on a Millennium Falcon toy. Luke Skywalker was raised by his uncle, as Aaron has started to be raised by his uncle in this episode. Star Wars also contained a brother and sister that did not know they were related."

Does that make Aaron's sire Darth Vader? Is this guy related to the Flight/Ben/Widmore somehow? Is the island trying to lure Aaron to the Dark Side? (Sorry, can't help myself) --Xbenlinusx 17:41, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

map behind kate and aaron

when jack and kate are fighting, aaron comes into the scene and there is a map in the hallway. At first it looked like the southern end of south america but upon further inspection, maybe its not. anyone seen this map before?Petrarch1603 11:26, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

Kate's voice in Jack's head

Hey, uh...that was Kate's voice. And as per the episode, it seems pretty relevent. Plus it's creepy; could implicate a downward spiral early. --Alilamba 14:47, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

If you mean the opening scene, it sounds like Juliet's voice the entire time to me.--Hylas 20:14, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
No, it's Kate's voice twice. --Alilamba 01:05, 5 May 2008 (PDT)
I know it resembles Kate's voice a lot but it really is Juliet. I listened to it a bunch of times and that is absolutely Elisabeth Mitchell saying "Jack." They just have similar intonations I guess. --Namesnotannie 03:25, 5 May 2008 (PDT)
If anything the voice in the shower sounded like Juliet. Although that was probably done purposely to throw us off. Perhaps it sounded like Kate at the start to throw us.--Baker1000 03:39, 5 May 2008 (PDT)
Without a consensus or any evidence either way, perhaps it would be most appropriate to not mention it in the main article and include it on the theory tab?--Hylas 09:24, 5 May 2008 (PDT)
Ohhh, le sigh you're right. But so am I :P (joke) It's the second and fifth "Jack"s that I was talking about, and you'll notice that they're actually the same audio clip - the sound quality is completely different. Should I find the other reviewers who back me up? --Alilamba 09:29, 5 May 2008 (PDT)
Having more people weigh in on an issue is generally helpful, though if we are seeking input, it shouldn't just be limited to the ones who back you up.--Hylas 09:51, 5 May 2008 (PDT)
It seems like there are enough people here who disagree. Eh? --Alilamba 10:59, 5 May 2008 (PDT)
They are all Juliet. --Chuck 10:00, 5 May 2008 (PDT)
Why would I make that up? Nah, I'm still convinced. Wait for the commentary, I guess. But until then I would really appreciate getting a mention in the 'theories' section. --Alilamba 10:59, 5 May 2008 (PDT)

They probably just directed Evangeline to try and sound as much like Juliet as possible in order to fake out the audience. Maybe a mention that the scene starts with a female voice that turns out to be Kate? But I think it's just speculation to say Jack is hearing things. --Minderbinder 14:56, 8 May 2008 (PDT)

Juliette's medical experience

Under "Episode References," it is stated:

"Juliet is involved in a surgery she is not exactly qualified for."

Juliet states that she did appendectomies in her residency. Certainly it has been a while since she's done them, but I find it hard to support the idea that "she is not exactly qualified" to perform them. Jinxmchue 21:17, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

Agreed. I think if she performed them during her residency, then she could definitely be called qualified. If stuck on the Island, Juliet would surely be anyone's second choice to perform surgery (Jack being first). I'll remove it now. --Blueeagleislander 21:40, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

Jack's Coffeemaker

I just noticed re-watching the episode that the coffeemaker Jack turns on in the first scene makes a noise suspiciously similar to the less urgent of the two hatch timer alarms. If indeed the island is sending them signals I would think hearing this noise every morning would count.

As an aside, this is my first post here, so if this should go somewhere else (theories page?) please let me know though it might be worthy to include in the "Episode References" section.

--Airport Whiskey 07:44, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

Well, at first i thought that too. The beep from the swan station was a "normal" beep sound from a bar code scanner. Yet it had been slightly modified. But the beep in this episode sounds quite normal to me. If you remember Penny's microwave from "Flashes before your eyes", it had exactly the same sound as the hatch alarm. However this is quite an unusual sound for a microwave. So i think this sound doesn't have to mean anything. Even though the island sending signals in some way is a nice theory. --Flateric 02:34, 5 May 2008 (PDT)

"i'm going to break his fingers"

just an interesting thing i noticed, but i'm not sure if it's worth putting on the page or anything:

in "something nice back home" jin threatens to break daniel's fingers while talking to charlotte in korean

in "confirmed dead," while jack and sayid are asking daniel and miles a lot of questions about the freighter people, miles tells daniel not to reveal his last name and says that if he says one more word "i swear to god i'll break your fingers"

--Charlierulesss 09:10, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

Kate on the phone

Can anyone get me the transcript of what we heard kate say on the phone--Enzovalenzetti 18:10, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

Yep, here it is: KATE: Yeah, I'll just have the nanny stay for an extra couple hours. Jack's never home before 8:00 anyway. I could stay for at least an hour. (Keys jangle) I--I gotta go. Jack's home. Yeah, okay. I'll call you later. Bye.

There is a full transcript for each episode on the main articles. This episode's one is here: Something Nice Back Home transcript--Baker1000 18:30, 4 May 2008 (PDT)


I removed the following: "When Jack first picks up the newspaper, the article above the fold is "Dodgers 5-4 Win Over Astros," It's also a fictional game, according to the Astro's 2007 Schedule.", because, firstly, it says Angels, not Dodgers, and secondly, the 8-4 Astros loss was not a "fictional" game, but rather one played Wednesday, June 20th 2007. If anything, it would be a blooper for being shown on a sports page from 30 Aug 2007. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:35, 5 May 2008 (PDT)

I think the most important thing is: It could've said "Archangels 42-23 Win Over Archdemons", and it wouldn't have been a blooper. I don't see how fiction can be interpreted as blooper. The whole thing is fictional. It's not based on actual events. Geez. That's what fiction is, right? If the newspaper said that a spaceship crashed on Istanbul, we wouldn't say "the spaceship is a fictional vehicle, and nothing like that ever crashed on Istanbul" and call it a blooper.--     c      blacxthornE      t     06:22, 5 May 2008 (PDT)

Kate's Refrigerator Art

There appears to be a reference to Jacob on a collage/drawing attached to Kate's refrigerator. It is visible in the scene where Jack overhears Kate speaking to "Noreen" on the phone. In what appears to be a child's handwriting, the words "star" and "Jacob" can be made out between yellow cut-outs of stars and a sun. Given than 2-3 year olds don't typically write, especially ones that are constantly refered to as "the baby", I guess it's worth asking who made the picture. --Eyeful Tower 13:27, 5 May 2008 (PDT)

That is interesting. Do you have a screencap of that?--Messeis 14:06, 5 May 2008 (PDT)

Sorry, no. I have a DIRECTV/DVR and I haven't tried to hack into it with my PC. But if you look at the high def version of the episode at, you can just make it out at 33:15.--Eyeful Tower 14:48, 5 May 2008 (PDT)
I think at this picture with the moon and the stars, above the dog or whatever that's supposed to be, there could be written "Jacob" but I cant really make it out.. and there's also a word before that, something beginning with "S", maybe.. Jared 13:34, 6 May 2008 (PDT)

Couple of minor points

First of: "Jack is seen taking self-prescribed pills both on the Island and in his flash-forward." - this is labelled as 'Juxtaposition', but it's not. Juxtaposition is taking two opposing things and placing them near each other. This is taking to of the same thing and putting them near each other. If it were Jack refusing to be prescribed pills in one time, and self-medicating in another, that would be juxtaposition. As it is, I'm not sure what this counts as, maybe foreshadowing, altough that usually means pre-empting something before we see and, and we've already seen it in this case. I kind of think it's just not really anything worth noting since we already know before this episode that in the future Jack gets hooked on pills and in the present he's started to self-medicate.

Second, in the unanswered questions: "How did Keamy and his team survive the Smoke Monster attack?" - they sort of didn't really, did they? Several of them were killed or injured. In any case, there's nothing to say that the Monster would definately kill all of them, we've seen people escape from it plenty of times. They managed to escape, they're soldiers, I don't really see an unanswered question here.Liquidcow 03:34, 8 May 2008 (PDT)

  • You're right and I removed those points. There's also a UQ saying "How does Christian appear on the Island?"--I don't get it. Is it the first time? This question is not raised by this episode. Anyone agree?--     c      blacxthornE      t     04:16, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
    • Is there any policy somewhere on Unanswered questions?--Salvora 06:01, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
    • The article "Episode Manual of Style" doesn't say whether an UQ has to be one that is raised for the first time. It says that the UQ must point to mysteries that are still unresolved. This question points to a mystery in this episode and an unresolved one, so I think it can stay. Also, what I do not get about this question is why it asks "how" instead of "why." Asking "how Christian appears" is looking for a response addressing the mechanism by which he appears. "Why" is looking for a response addressing the reason for his appearance. I think the most interesting question is "why does Christian appear on the Island to Claire?" Also, in connection to your question above, I think this question ("Why does Christian appear on the Island to Claire?") is new and addresses this episode only, insofar as it is the first time that Christian appears on Island to Claire. So perhaps I would recommend rephrasing it to "Why does Christian appear to Claire?"--Salvora 06:11, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
      • He's not appearing to Claire. He's there, and Claire's there. Miles saw him. The question about Christian's physical presence was raised in mx13, when he talked to Vincent even before Jack woke up. This is not a new mystery, and I don't see why the policy should explicitly say that it has to be the one that raised for the first time. Since Christian appeared, should we put a question about how he talked to Vincent too? That is a "myster[y] that [is] still unresolved". Sorry, but absolute technicality doesn't always work just fine. The MoS omits that because it's common sense. I don't think he should be questioned about how he appears to each person individually. There are several references to him being physically there (regardless of whether he's really Christian or not), including his "conversation" with Vincent, and most notably him holding the baby.--     c      blacxthornE      t     07:07, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
        • Even with the case of appearing to Vincent, Christian was there with the purpose of communicating with Jack. This is the first time he's taken interest in his daughter or grandson--four seasons into the show! While I agree that in general UQs need only be addressed in the article of their episode of origin (and not re-addressed in every subsequent episode article), I don't see a big issue with having some mild redundancy here and there so long as it is meaningful. Certainly, there is a lot of redundancy, as far as UQs go, between the various episode articles, character articles, and the unanswered questions page. As the show progresses they will all be removed anyway. When the series ends, hopefully there will be no UQs left. (For the ones that remain, we can hound Darlton until they have no more "work to do".) Robert K S (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2008 (PDT) PS--I'll also add that we can't be sure he meant to "appear" to Miles--it's a possibility that Miles would see him whether he appeared to Miles or not. Robert K S (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
          • I agree to the above point. Christian has appeared before in the show, but it's the first time that he appears to Claire and this is a new development. In fact, several things hint that there is a major story coming up for Claire, so I think Christian's involvement in this is interesting in itself.--Salvora 07:43, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I think "Why did Jack become ill if, as Rose said, "People do not get sick on the Island?"" should be readded, as it is definitely an open question posed by the show. Jack's illness, like Ben's, is quite explicitly implied to have some deeper implication regarding the Island's healing powers.--Hylas 08:11, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
Legitimate UQ, and addressed by Darlton on Kimmel, IIRC. I've tried to word it as best I could. Robert K S (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2008 (PDT)

'Agree with Robert K S about both questions. This is the first time Christian has appeared to multiple characters at once, so it is a new question, and a major question raised by this episode. Jack becoming ill is also specifically raised in this episode in dialogue, so I don't see why it shouldn't be added. I'm usually the first person to go and remove UQs that shouldn't be there, but in this case, I think they belong.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  12:19, 8 May 2008 (PDT)

It's funny because last week I removed the same question on the grounds that clearly people have gotten sick or injured on the island before and just because it heals people doesn't mean they can't get sick, but then in this episode Rose brought it up herself and in the Podcast it was mentioned. I guess it's just a bit of writing inconsistency.
As for Christian appearing to Claire... I'm a little sceptical about that UQ, because you could ask the same question about any time any strange person appears to anyone. We've long ago established that strange apparitions including people who are dead or off the island appear to people, so it's not a new question. The fact that he never appeared to Claire before it obviously to do with the fact that we didn't know there was any link between them until it was revealed last season. A cynic might say that the writers made that fact up after the show had started, but you could also say that even if they knew, they didn't want to give it away before that point, which having Christian appear to her would have done.Liquidcow 17:51, 8 May 2008 (PDT)

Deleting Questions

We need a dialog on deleting questions, specifically:

  • Since Sawyer jumper from the chopper to save others, why is Jack upset that he "stayed?"
  • In "You're not supposed to raise him, Jack?", whose "him?"

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:02, 1 June 2008 (PDT)

For the first one, I don't think it's reasonable to expect any further answer there. It's just Jack being jealous and unfair to Sawyer. He said a few other things in the scene which were equally unfair, we just didn't know the story behind this one at the time. An equivalent question would be, "Why does Jack angrily point out that Kate isn't Aaron's natural mother?" The question as to why Kate doesn't want Jack to know about the favour has the same answer as well: Jack is being jealous, possessive and irrational due to mental strain and substance abuse.
For the second one, who else could "him" be, but the child whom Jack is raising? I like the more open-ended version of this question, "What is meant by...", which goes more to the significance of the message, but also throws a bone to any far-out interpretations.--Hylas 18:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
Well, this gets into usage of "raise" versus "rear." One rears children, one raises the dead. The question applies when Claire, in the next episode, Tell Kate not to take "him" back.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:31, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
"Raise" is quite definitely used with regard to children in Lost, most notably in both the episode title and dialogue of Raised by Another: "MALKIN: It is crucial that you, yourself, raise this child."
All the more reason to change it back to "What is meant by 'You're not supposed to raise him'"? That covers both radically different interpretations, and the deeper significance of the most natural interpretation.--Hylas 08:11, 2 June 2008 (PDT)
That's good. That's what I'll put. My original problem was with deleting the question.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 11:16, 2 June 2008 (PDT)

Lead infobox picture

While #1 has been the lead image of the article for a year now, I believe that #2 reflects the episode's story better. After all, the title refers to "something nice back home" - how is Hurley's creepy message in a mental institue "something nice"? In my opinion, the image of Jack reading a bedtime story to Aaron while Kate looking on better reflects the idea behind the flash forwards.  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  13:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)



4x10 JackFlash


Pictogram voting support - #2 -- Graft   talk   contributions  14:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support - #2 The current picture is sterile. --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose - #1 I like that pic better. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
So I guess it's #2?  ODK  Talk  Sandbox  21:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The place at The Staff is different as where Claire found it. Claire found it behind the trees or something. While Sun and juliet found it not by trees or something (D.O.C), just like Jin, Sun, Farday and Charlotte in this episode. I think it's a blooper.--Station7 14:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Main Image change

Main Image needs to be changed. New pic would better symbolize main episode plot which is Kate/Jack relationship.

4x10 LoveIsInTheAir

Pictogram voting support -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:05, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose Kate is not a centric character, and the Jate relationship being called the main focus of the episode seems very shipper-ish, ergo biaised. --LeoChris 23:43, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
HA really because I hate both Jack and Kate and ships, your centric character argument is weak. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:45, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
I'm just saying this how I percieved it, regardless of your intentions. As for the centricity argument, it's been the norm ever since the wiki started ... Just take a look at the episode pages, they all reflect the centric character(s), except for multi-centrics, such as Exodus. In fact, when I'm navigating episode pages, I often use the picture to determine whose centric it is (because I'm too lazy to scroll down to the centric field ... I know, lame excuse, but I'm probably not the only one doing that.) --LeoChris 23:50, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
You aren't, LeoChris. I do the same. A Jack/Kate image is misleading. What exact image to put of Jack is a different story, but the current is fine. (Kdc2 00:41, March 22, 2010 (UTC))
Pictogram voting oppose I like the one of just Jack better. -- Graft   talk   contributions  23:26, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram replyPictogram voting support As do I. Jack episode; Jack picture. (Kdc2 17:03, March 30, 2010 (UTC))
Pictogram voting oppose Absolutely not. The current one is awesome. --Bish-Fiscuit 20:39, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose We have always use a picture of just the centric character/s for each episode and I am strongly oppiosed to changing this. That said while I love the current main picture I feel that this is not ideal either due to Aaron's inclusion. Perhaps one of a moment close to the proposed one with Kate still obscured by the shower. She'd still be there which hopefully would satisfy Czygan84, but it would also be a photo depicting only Jack. Just an idea, but definately not the suggested one. Mhtmghnd 02:31, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose The current one is fine. In fact it's great. Rachel P 08:37, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.