FANDOM


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sundown 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

Locked

Permission to edit the guest-stars in this episode. --Ainsha 12:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

No info can be added til it airs. --Golden Monkey 15:17, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
It is locked for that very reason. Please read the spoiler policy - LP:SP.--Baker1000 17:01, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something, or was the fact that Lighthouse was Jack-centric added much later than I thought? Because here we are only just over 24h from the first airing in the US of Sundown and nobody has added whose centric episode it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtozier (talkcontribs) 2010-03-01T19:23:18.

Centric info is not allowed til it airs. Both because it's a spoiler to some (personally I don't care and never did) but also because it could be wrong (after all, everybody's expecting this to be Sun & Jin based on the name and pattern alone. But we'd look silly if it turned out to be a zombie Nikki & Paulo centric flashforward, wouldn't we? To use an absurd example). --Golden Monkey 08:11, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
And if you had read my message above, you would have found a link to the spoiler policy, where you would find the answer to your question :)--Baker1000 20:33, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
The episode aired yesterday. Why does the centric still stay "Unknown"? This should have been fixed yesterday. Marc604 21:53, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well it's aired in the uk as well now!--Lizziejj 23:06, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

false impressions

i had been under the impression that lighthouse's centricity had been added before its airing, possibly because i'm in the uk and we don't get the ep until fridays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtozier (talkcontribs) .

US gets it on Tuesdays (Tonight!) and then we can update it with centricity. cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 00:42, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

episode image

even though this is very much like the one I edit myself ([1]), I think the one with sayid has a grim smile is describes best this episode, so keep it, but maybe a better version of it should be placed here.-- Sharon1234  Talk  Flashback  06:58, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Seconded! Dazzledog 15:49, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

UQ

Removing "Where did Ben go after talking with Sayid?" as it's a form of "What will happen next?" cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 12:25, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Replaced it with something similar, since Ben was shown not to have made it to Ilana's group, it's reasonable to question if he made it to safety before the Monster came into the Temple. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:14, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Answered Questions

ABC's commercials for this episode claimed that questions will be answered. So, what questions were answered with this episode? Clamshell 14:04, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

What happened after episode 5. :) Kidding... I agree, the hype is out of control this season.Mslade 14:11, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
It could be the question as to why Dogen was there and who got him there to the temple is what they were referring to, also his importance to the temple in that he was the only one who could prevent Smokey from getting in. But I agree in the great scheme of things those are minor LOL!Hunter2005 16:04, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
How about the series-long question of the war that's coming, and who will be on which side? As of the end of this episode, we can now take a reasonable stab at who's on which side. FLocke has Claire, Sayid, Sawyer, and to a lesser extend Jin and Kate (these last two haven't pledged their allegiance to the MiB, so they may jump ship as it were in upcoming episodes). Jacob's side has Hurley, Jack, Ilana, Frank, Miles, Sun and presumably Richard and Ben (if those two meet up with the rest of them in coming episodes). Even if you disagree with those two lists, or if they change around a bit in the episodes that are yet to air, it's perfectly reasonable to say that this episode begins to answer the question of "There's a war coming, and you've gotta choose which side you're gonna be on".

Is this really a blooper?

In the "Continuity Error and Bloopers" section of the article there is this line:

"The same background actors who are seen guarding the Temple door at the very start of the attack are seen with the Man in Black after the massacre is over."

I don't think that is a continuity error or blooper. I believe they just switched sides after been given the choice of living if they leave or dying if they stayed just like Flocke did with Jacob's bodyguard so i believe it should be removed given that it is very possible and reasonable assumption that some of the Temple guards decided discretion is the better form of valor.Hunter2005 15:24, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this as well and yes i think it is a blooper, one of them was seen in front of miles standing with a gun right when the monster attacked then he was shown with locke, I find it hard to believe he went from standing at the edge of the pond w/ a rifle to outside the temple so quickly. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  15:32, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but it is still possible they got religion quick when they saw that black smoke and the reality hit them and dipped out of the door when the creature entered! :-)Hunter2005 15:40, March 3, 2010 (UTC)


I think this blooper is valid. There is an easily identifiable Temple Other with white hair in a ponytail & a white goatee (aka "Jimmy Herring"). He's following Cindy to the exit as Lennon makes his last plea. He's also easy to spot being attacked by Smokey in the courtyard during Monster Madness. The other Others are dressed alike & brunettes, so I can see why the show thought they could get away with swapping (probably a shortage of background actors who were veterans of the show).Duncan905 01:53, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • 'Jimmy Herring' definitely is exiting the Temple behind Cindy with no rifle & sporting a Ben-purse. (In fact none of the defectors have rifles) There's a close shot of Jimmy right after Kate says "We gotta go now." and an Other tries to shut a doorway & Smokey busts through. He has a rifle & after he runs away towards the left & goes out of view he circles back counterclockwise. I doubt the actor was pitching for the extra screentime, they needed bodies. To drive the point home, seconds later when Kate yells "This way!" and starts rushing past Others among the pillars (on the left side of the courtyard) he is standing completely still without the rifle as the camera scrolls by.Duncan905 03:12, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars Reference

I don't think we actually had a reference or allusion to Star Wars in this. Just because Sayid was tempted to join Locke in order to resurrect Nadia, doesn't mean it was modeled after or anyway a connection to Star Wars. Padme would die in the future Anakin had visions of. Nadia had already died in Sayid's past. If we're this loose with our requirements, then Star Wars will be referenced in every single episode. 15:57, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that one can't be too liberal with the cultural references, but I think that Star Wars was particularly referenced in this episode. First of all, there are certain works that influence the overall story and plot of Lost--Watchmen, Donnie Darko, Alice in Wonderland, and Star Wars, to name a few. While Palpatine trying to seduce Anakin with a promise of saving a loved one is echoed here, I think that that scene in Ep. III is supposed to reflect a common trope (i.e. Last Temptation of Christ). Remember, George Lucas's Star Wars is supposed to be an amalgamation of sorts of common mythologies. Still, I think that that Palpatine-Anakin-Padme scene which echoes an overall common theme is intentionally referenced here because Locke does represent the Dark Side and is trying to win people over to that side. Only thing is, we don't completely know what side Jacob represents. If he does represent the good/light side, then is he as flawed as the Jedi were?

Part of the reason for the Jedi's demise was that they refused to adapt and take Anakin's personal feelings into account. They wanted him to be an emotionless robotic servant of the Republic and Jedi Order, somewhat similar to how God want persuaded Abraham to act in sacrificing his own son. Jacob might not care about feelings ("What about you?"), but we don't completely understand him yet. What we do know about the MIB is that he does appeal to people based on their own personal feelings--Claire and Aaron, Ben and losing Alex, Sawyer, and Sayid and Nadia. But once he wins them over, they seem to become his servants without remorse.

I'm not saying it isn't similar, but I just think it's not similar enough. It's a basic "temptation" story. There's no real parallel to Star Wars. And while Star Wars definitely does play a big part in the overall series, I don't think we should make connections where there are none. It would be like saying that when Dogan says to Sayid, "Go. Leave this place and never return!" that it was a reference to The Lion King because Scar says similar words to Simba. I think the Star Wars reference in this episode's article should be removed because it's being forced and isn't a real connection. Clayburn 16:46, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree, I say remove it.--Lucky Day 16:52, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • "Reference" is supposed to be a hard reference, like someone mentions it, or we see it in the background, not just thematic similarities or weak homage. --Jackdavinci 07:29, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Dogen can't kill Sayid?

We saw a few episodes ago that Dogen tried to get Jack to Sayid and at first I thought he was just playing mindgames. After Hurley stood up to him thanks to his candidacy we learn that its a violation of the rules. So the question is can Dogen stab him even if tried? --Lucky Day 16:52, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I think he can stab him, and probably even kill him. Though, there's a chance that he can stab him and it won't kill him (much like Sayid failed to kill MIB for whatever reason it violated the rules). If he can indeed kill Sayid, then I think he forfeits the deal he made with Jacob. Being the temple leader and doing the job he was hired to do involves adhering to the rules. So, if he were to kill Sayid, his own son would die. This could be why seeing the baseball made him let go of Sayid. -- Clayburn 17:11, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • that's intersting. So, do you think adherence to the rules is dependent on what or who you are then? That is some can, but won't such as Dogen and some can not at all like the MiB? Or maybe the MiB can which is why he was warned by the Mysterious Kid?--Lucky Day 17:23, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • I take it that he refers to neither Nadia nor Shannon but to "it died in my arms" as simply love. --Apyorick 23:41, March 3, 2010 (UTC)apyorick
      • Dogen's probably not allowed to kill any of the candidates...there are rules...of course, candidates can kill each other, (that's why he wanted Jack to do it) or people who are breaking rules anyway could do it (MiB)Thelordnyax 03:00, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Nadia

In three (as I type this) places, the article text refers to MiB offering Sayid an opportunity to be reunited with Nadia. While this is probably true, it is not an established fact.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:17, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably Nadia but Shannon died in his arms too. So yeah. --Golden Monkey 19:22, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
I Would bet on Nadia but i would not be shocked if it was Shannon, I mean maybee he didnt say a name for a reason we should leave nadia out of this for now as we are just assuming thats what he wants. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:28, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Or we could go on what Sayid said to Locke in the DomRep, two years after Nadia died, that his time with her was the happiest of his life. He has never even mentioned Shannon again. It's Nadia he's referring to. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:32, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
While I very much agree that he is very likely referring to Nadia, we do need to be careful that the article should state as fact what is actually said, and to use appropriate words to indicate that he is probably referring to Nadia, when necessary. But since Jim didn't point out specific occurrences in the article, I can't give specific suggestions as to what it should say in those instances. --Celebok 10:08, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Continuity Error?

Jack did not recognize Saiyd in the hospital: they both just had a memorable experience on the plane; Jack is good at remembering faces and Sayid is easy to remember. So, how is it that he did not recognize Sayid? I can understand why Sayid did not recognize Jack though – he was in a hurry. --V-vk 19:28, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • What's he going to say "Hey, I know you look like you're in a hurry, and your'e in the emergency room, but we were on the same plane, isn't that weird?" Kajillion 23:38, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • He could react somehow, not necessarily say something. But it looks very strange to me that he did not. --V-vk 02:04, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • But when Sayid was helping Jack on the plane, Jack hardly even looked at Sayid; he was focused on saving Charlie. To Jack, Sayid was just a random passenger who was able to kick open the door, and as soon as Jack saw Charlie unconscious in the lavatory and not breathing, he most likely completely forgot what Sayid even looked like. Sure, I'm just speculating here, but my point is that it's definitely plausible that Jack wouldn't remember Sayid from the plane. --Celebok 11:03, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
And we have no idea what Jack was up to when he passed Sayid. Being on duty, his mind was probably on more important things than Sayid. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:34, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Kate vs. the Smoke Monster

Is there any way someone can add a screen cap of the smoke monster when Kate looks at it, hanging from the ladder to the pit where Claire is being held? I believe there were some lightning flashes with images in them that might be significant. -Eternal Newbie 19:49, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

    • They were Temple dwellers being carried along by the smoke. I watched it in slo-mo, and while there are bright shapes, no real images presented themselves.--Emissary23 21:10, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think the look of Kate's face was more like amazement/revelation rather than terrified/entranced. Also notice that she made that expression right after a short burst of chain/crank sound and flashes of light from smokey, and continued holding the expression after smokey had passed (if I'm not mistaken). This implies that she saw something in smokey -- perhaps the universe of the flash-sideways timeline? Domokato 02:20, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

    • Thats a good reference and idea. I kind of think that she might have seen a reflection of the purge, it as well was a massacre. Staying with the purge, maybe the DHARMA wasn't killed by the Gas but by the Smoke monster. Maybe smokey was still on the Other side by then. That is why Danielle Rousseau might have survived. Back to the Temple massacre Kate now is the only 'normal' person. You might have realized that Sayid doesn't really count as normal. Before going to the MiB he was completely against killing anybody anymore. And now he killed Dogen (ok, for a reason) but Lennon not really. I know this is very random but it might have something to do with all that stuff.

oops, bad choices

MIB is the wrong body. Locke never was a follower. He was a pilgrim, may be again. sayid has problems with authority and likes killing people. The pool does change some things, but it does change basic character. Little Ben read of Mexican mystics before being healed. He then followed Jacob blindly as a disciple follows his master. And Sawyer, think before you act, then deceive. He learned that when James hides his feelings, they destroy him. Almost... until another sucker wanders in for a drink. MIB saved Sawyer's life; MIB is just a bigger mark. Sayid and Sawyer have not gone over to the "dark side". They were always there. Boas and alligators, lions and tigers are not meant to be pets. MIB does not realize this simple truth. He needs Richard, Hurley, Ben; they obey.--Flowers10 19:37, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

oops, missing hegative

I must correct myself.--Flowers10 19:45, March 3, 2010 (UTC)The pool does NOT change character. MiB is so stupid; he'd accept Charlie Widmore. Maybe he is working getting Randy Nations back on the island.--Flowers10 19:45, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Omar/Omer

Just a warning for those editing. There is a character named Omar (mercenary/body guard) and Omer (Sayid's brother). I made this mistake and corrected said mistakes.

JMockShepard 21:25, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Passover

I really think the 'Passover' reference mentioned on the main page is a bit of a stretch and think it should be removed. The people who stay at the temple are not "passed over," but quite the opposite. If anything, the Star Wars reference mentioned above in the discussion is more accurate than the Passover one. JMockShepard 21:29, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I would like for us to be more selective with our cultural references. Anything that anyone ever does can be somehow stretched to be an allusion to Star Wars or The Bible. We should make these sections less contrived. -- Clayburn 00:09, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I concur. I'm pretty sure the producers want us to notice themes/references without having to stretch it. JMockShepard 14:01, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to advocate this be reinstated. The metaphor struck me right as I was watching, the Angel of Death killing everyone in a dwelling that was not marked as protected.

Check out the angle presented in this EW blog post: [[2]Entertainment Weekly Blog]

It's noting correctly that we've seen one day's time since LA X, and that appears to point to a sum total of 3 days of Island time in the remaining episodes until the series finale, with the view that we're being presented with 'Holy Week'- The Last Supper on Thursday leading up to Easter Sunday.

The Last Supper is a valid reference given the Season 6 promo pictures. What occasion was the Last Supper celebrating? Passover. Duncan905 02:06, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Purge of DHARMA v. Purge of Temple

Everyone seems to be jumping on the MIB being evil because he killed all these people, but the reality is Jacob has already done a similar thing through Ben with the Purge of DHARMA. You can't isolate MIB as evil and Jacob as good unless you put their motives in the correct light (which we don't know). Perhaps they are both evil. Or perhaps just have different motives. Either way pigeon holing either character is not appropriate yet.

Maybe Ben was working for MIB all along and that's why Jacob never spoke to him; until the very end and reminded him that everything boils down to the choices we make.MsAngeliaS 22:46, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Aren't you negating your argument with the last statement? That sounds an awful lot like MiB is evil. Let's not forget the Black and White symbolism.JMockShepard 14:24, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • On the Black and White symbolism point, although traditionally we would assume Black to be evil and White to be good, we have no proof of this yet in the series Winegum 14:59, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Remember when the Others were the nasty people persecuting the Survivors and Jacob was the ultimate, enigmatic nasty one because of all those lists? When and how did Jacob get to be the good guy? Because he's attractive? Because he's soft-spoken? Because he's friendly and helpful? We may -- that's may -- be victims of the greatest act of misdirection in the history of fiction.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:44, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • At the same time, like previously mentioned, Jacob might not have been ordering the attacks for the Others. It very well could have been MiB. Someone was trapped in a cabin for awhile...JMockShepard 17:44, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • We cant forget that Ben asked black smoke help to get rid of Keamy's team after Alex was killed.--Enzo 2309 21:48, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Proposition: add boomerang under "literary techniques/irony"

Hi everyone, a small idea concerning the episode, I'm not sure where this goes. To be filed under Literary techniques / Irony: In the alternate timeline, Sayid buys a boomerang for the kids, which is then used inappropriately and thus an acciddent happens, the vase is broken. In the normal timeline, Sayid is the boomerang, he is sent out to hit a target but comes back and hits the sender. Adam Dobay 22:16, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Nice one. I would put it under symbolism rather than irony.--Emissary23 23:41, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sayid phrases it as an "incident".Duncan905 02:07, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

I will be deleting the following unanswered questions, if you object please state reasons why -

  • How is the Man in Black planning to get off the island?
    • Not relevant to the episode, he did not mention his plan to get off the island and would be more relevant to the LA X episode. Phobia27 22:17, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Where is the group of Others that were at the Statue?
    • Unnecessary, if Ilana and her group made it back then we can presume the Others at the statue got back and either were killed or defected to MIB. Phobia27 22:17, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Not necessairly. They were dressed differently than the Temple folk and were not seen at the Temple. They're out there somewhere, with Richard right? But they're missing at the moment.--Mistertrouble189 22:38, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but I just think it's just going to be another 'Lostie flaming arrow' thing in that we don't see them again with only about 10 episodes to go. Only can wait and see, I suppose. Phobia27 23:02, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Whether or not its a flaming arrow incident where we never see them again, this is still a question. And I agree with 'Mistertrouble189' the others at the statue had different clothes than the people at the Temple. AND it was never directed AT ALL that the group ever made it to the Temple. The people at the Statue knew that Locke took Richard by force, but nobody at the temple was like 'How do we get Richard back? Where is Richard?' since he was a high ranking other. Anyone else see my point? So I think this question should be grouped with "Where is Richard?" Shortguy457 21:55, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why did Dogen want Jack and Hurley brought to him?
    • Because they're candidates and they needed protecting. Or that Dogen may have used them to speak to MIB since he knew they couldn't be killed by him. Phobia27 22:17, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Similarly, why was Ilana asking for Jack, Hurley, and Sayid?
    • Obviously Ilana knows that they are candidates, she hasn't even formally met Jack and Hurley. Phobia27 22:17, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Also on the Unanswered questions front, I put in "Why were the Others in the Temple so quick to change over to the MIB" and it was removed today. I think it's noteworthy, if this guy was considered so evil just a little while ago.--Pittsburghmuggle 23:34, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Isn't the death threat reason enough? I know it would be a convincing enough argument as far as I'm concerned. --LeoChris 02:08, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

How did Dogen's death permit The Man in Black to enter the Temple? Has been removed, why isn't this a valid unanswered q anymore? Hawkdeath 17:12, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

  • Because this is a leading question and makes an unsupported assumption that it was Dogen's death that allowed MiB to enter. Leading questions do not qualify for good reason on a show like Lost. It also asks you to focus with more precision. So off the top of my head a valid Q might be ""Did Dogen's death allow Smokey (or whatever) to enter the Temple"?
  • Lennon directly stated that Dogen's death would let MIB in. How is that an unsupported assumption? lol! --Jackdavinci 06:09, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

How much does Ilana know?

When Ilana bursts into the store room and meets Miles, she asks immediately where Shephard, Reyes and Ford are. Miles tells her that they aren't here, Kate and him got separated, and he's the only one left. As implied above under the UQ section, it seems like Ilana knows they are candidates and is looking to protect them. She doesn't ask about Kate though (or she doesn't ask about Kate because Miles says they were separated). Also, she asks: "What about Jarrah, is he here?" and Miles responds that he was headed to the pool. Ben runs out to get him as Ilana says: "Ben wait-" It seems like Jarrah is set apart from the other candidates, and possible at least, that she was trying to stop Ben from going after Sayid. Maybe she already knew that he was infected? --LOSTinDC 22:51, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

She doesnt ask about Kate Miles just tells her on his own. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  23:26, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • she actually says "Linus, wait!" it is interesting to note that she refers to them by last names. --V-vk 02:20, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Ilana also doesn't ask about Jin, whom she stated she thought would be there. Is she receiving current updates from Jacob like Hurley? Probably not, Jacob wouldn't have Sun accompany her into danger (presuming she's the Kwon candidate). This could actually indicate that Sun is the Kwon candidate since Jin is unimportant to Ilana's mission.Duncan905 02:25, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Keamy

There's an unnecessary edit war going on between the use of "Keamy" and "Martin." Keamy introduces himself as "Martin Keamy" and Sayid responds (approximately), "Sayid Jarrah, but I guess you know that." The question of Ethan Goodspeed vs. Ethan Rom is completely divorced from this issue.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:13, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • I think using 'Keamy' would be better since nearly all of Season 4 he was addressed as Keamy (can't actually recall a time he was called Martin other than him formally introducing himself). In addition, the majority of fans would recognise the name Keamy instantly, whilst people may be confused if we used Martin. John Locke is called Locke nearly all the time on pages, so Keamy should definitely be used. Phobia27 16:13, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Keamy didn't do it

I didn't take notice of something the first time I saw it. Keamy claimed to Sayid to not have beaten Omer to near death and the doctor thought Omer was mugged. I assumed, as Sayid did, Keamy was lying but knowing this show...Its just as likely that Keamy and Co. were just trying to sweat Sayid for payments now that Omer was out of commission knowing that Sayid would likely be in charge of the business.--Lucky Day 18:12, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

The Whispers singing

Just added the - as I believe - noteworthy point that this is propably the very first instance in which we as the audience are able to understand the whispers' words without reversing the audio or splitting the stereo-channels... or something along that line. Except some weird distortions and variations in speed, the rendition of Catch a falling Star right after the Temple massacre struck me as.... well, pretty obvious as the work of the yet unknown whisperers. However, a user removed the trivia, arguing that it is merely background music. What do you guys think? My point is: It's obviously not Claire who's singing (her lips don't move when the song starts) and it being merely a non-diagetc piece of music is highly unlikely, given the rare occurance of these fourth wall-breakers in Lost. To be honest, the only other example of such an instance I can remember right now is I Shall Not Walk Alone, way back at the beginning of season 1. None of the characters react to them, but then again, they all look more entranced then frightend by what just happened. However, there are faint strings, supporting the song... Let's face it, the whispers MUST be addressed (and explained) in the very near future, so again, this is not THAT far-fetched. Could we agree on a consense that I put that trivia back under "General" and also note the alternative explanation, including a few words underlining the rarity of non-diagetic music in Lost? Either way, it's certainly more interesting a trivia then say, "there are 27 cans of soda. 4+8+15 = 27".HenrieSchnee 23:57, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • In nearly every other appearance of the whispers, the characters have visibly reacted to them, while in this case, not a single person did. There are also no diegetic sounds heard while the song is playing, indicating that the non-diegetic track has taken over. Also, we hear the whispers audibly in "Outlaws"- "It'll come back around."--Frank J Lapidus 00:02, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm... well, Claire and Sayid aren't reacting to them, but both are by now under the influence of the Monster (or are arguably.... "zombified", if you pardon the expression). Kate however reacts subtly, but very noticeable once she enters the courtyard, seeing the leftovers of the battle. Outside the temple, Locke has his Apocalpyse Now-moment, even sourrounded by people he killed moments ago (this is strangely marked as a blooper as of now!). The plot thickens... think about that. You are, however, absolutely right about the whispers in "Outlaws", I totally forgot about that!HenrieSchnee 00:14, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • The song is absolutely not the whispers, its just background music to creep us out, you cant actually think in the world of LOST as the characters are leaving the temple they hear the song being sung, it is most certainly not the whispers just a bg song for the viewers. -- B1G CZYGS  Talk  Contribs  00:10, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

It's a song over the soundtrack. Marc604 00:18, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • In "Whatever the case may be", Shannon sings La Mer, sitting next to Sayid. If I remember correctly, you then see a montage of various people on the beach, and quiet possibly accompanied by some score. I'm too lazy to get the DVD right now, maybe somebody can verify this. Also, I checked, the only other example of non-diagetic music besides the above mentioned song would be season 3's Slowly, FTWHenrieSchnee 00:42, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • There were numerous episodes in Season 1 that ended the exact same way. Modern or pop music playing until the credits with everyone walking in slow-motion. Just one of the many parallels that can be drawn between the first and last seasons.--DanVader228 03:52, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm convinced (in a Wikipedia-way, not in a professional way). If I'm right, and the whispers are indeed the source of the singing, I'm sure we'll find out soon. If I have some time left this afternoon, I'll going to put my 2 Cents on the Theories-page.HenrieSchnee 10:59, March 4, 2010 (UTC)


Sawyer and Jin

I don't think Sawyer's and Jin's whereabouts are that big an issue. Sawyer is on ice; MiB doesn't want to be seen by Sawyer in his (MiB's) angry mode because Sawyer is his ticket off the Island. Jin is on the "sick list;" his leg wound makes it impossible for him to move at an appreciable rate of speed before the Island begins to work it's magic, if it wants to and still can.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:56, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

No cultural reference to Deadspace

It's suggested that the creepy rendition of the nursery rhyme is a cultural reference to the videogame, Deadspace. I don't see how that can be, when very similarly rendered nursery rhymes have been used HUNDREDS of times across all mediums for decades. It isn't a cultural reference, just an overused story-telling technique in our culture. Nearly every movie (and modern videogame for that matter) that deals with dangerous children, moms going crazy, or the destruction of innocence employs this technique. I probably have 20+ distorted and eerie versions of nursery rhymes in my stock music library... Vrjim 05:20, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • For example? I don't want to piss on your parade, but I'm going to restore said reference - and please, fell free to add the missing 19 examples you have in your library, if there is some potent stuff that might cause an interesting debatte. I'm thinking... the little sisters creepy "Frére Chaque" comes to my mind (from Bioshock), but there's not much similarity thematicly. Nor with that creepy lullaby from the Nightmare on Elm Street-series. Dead Space seemed much more potent as a reference, given the overlapping of themes (Dead people reanimated), lyrical content (a nursery rhyme about stars), the story-situation (Kate being alone with a bunch of dead and "claimed" people) and the timely proximity. Never forget: one guys cultural reference is another guys pure synchronicity. Intertextuality (or intermediality, for that matter) seldom is that explicit as a book lying around in plain view.HenrieSchnee 10:55, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • To avoid any confusion: The cultural reference I saw in that was about Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star, not about Dead Space! Dead Space is merely the source of this specific version of the lullaby. I figured that the way I phrased it, it would be the most economic way to get the info across. However, if you can improve it, please do so! As you might have guessed, I'm not a native speaker, so this isn't always easy for me.HenrieSchnee 11:19, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • You've given several examples in the vein of Vrjim's point that nursery rhyme-type songs are often used to make a dire situation eerier. I think any thematic similarity between the scene in LOST and the advertisement for Dead Space is a weak coincidence. PS - "Dude, your English is awesome."Do a cannonball 13:21, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • "Don't mistake coincidence for a cultural reference!" Haha, thanks for the compliment. I'm never quiet sure about the to/of/in/about-stuff and have some syntax-issues when writing english... so... yeah. I've become kind of obsessed with that final scene and that creepy little song (as seen by the controversis I started naively when I assumed it was the whispers singing, which I now agree is kind of moot until we learn more). I've spent the last 5 years studying comparative literature science (which isn't exclusively about books, but has become more and more focussed on other medias like say, concept-records, ARGs, videogames and movies), and this is exactly the kind of stuff they teach us to notice & analyse in regard to it's possible implications for the narrative as a whole - or of the art of making this kind of stuffHenrieSchnee 14:18, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • In all the other films you've seen that use this technique, is it always a prisoner of the side getting slaughtered singing, and does the slaughter always mark the point where the power-balance shifts towards Evil? Is it always in the final chapter of the story, setting up a situation where it looks like there's no way back? Is the 'main' hero of the film always mysteriously absent, talking to ghosts? The parallels to Return Of The King are so strong they're almost blatant. (N.B. I can't work out who it was that removed the LOTR reference, so this isn't aimed at anyone in particular) ElessarTom 14:16, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Not to mention Richard who is 'leader' of the Others but isn't their leader - much like the Steward of Gondor. Having said that, I think I'd be a bit disappointed if Jack turns up with Jacob, Libby, Eko, Boone, Charlie, Ana-Lucia, Shannon, Faraday, Charlotte, Juliet and whoever else has died, and they destroy Smokey's army in a matter of seconds. That wouldn't be particularly satisfying! ElessarTom 14:36, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it still an assumption that Sayid couldn't have killed MiB?

Why does the "Recurring themes" section under "Trivia" assume that Sayid couldn't have killed MiB? We don't know that he couldn't have since he didn't follow Dogen's instructions and later Dogen didn't respond to Sayid's inquiry.

"Sayid kills Dogen after he tried to drown Sayid in the Temple pool, have him poisoned, and trick him into having MIB kill him. (Revenge)" Mike 111 12:51, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Direct References Only

Neither the Last Temptation of Christ nor the Egyptian Book of the Dead are DIRECTLY referenced in this episode (just because something reminds you of something else doesn't make the reference DIRECT... it's only direct if it's explicitly named or shown). Unless someone has a compelling reason not to, I'm removing those later today.--Faraday100 14:31, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree in part. The Egyptian piece is interesting and should be somewhere in the Trivia. The other reference to Last Temptation of Christ, however, should definitely be removed.JMockShepard 17:41, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Seconded. I've never read the egyptian book of the dead, however I'm well aware of his tremendous influence on the fundaments of western occultism, and considering the big roll egyptian culture seemed to have played in the islands history (and, given the amount of research that was done on say, time travel) it is absolutely conceivable that one or several of the writers have studied that book for inspiration. Go check out the cultural reference-section of Cabin Fever, it contains the link to Tibetan Buddhism. Basically the same situation: neither John nor Richard are Buddhists, the scene takes place in north america, not tibet, neither of them wears orange, and the "religion" in question is the Other's. However, noone would doubt that reference, and the show runners had even confirmed it later on in a podcast. You see, ideas like those are not conceived out of thin air, it's a cultural heritage beneath our modern day society. Plus, you have to admit that isn't quiet easy to determine the right criterias for a "direct" reference to an abstract or religious concept. Reading about that book in the trivia-section woke my interest, and as I said, I might check it out sometime. Don't deprive others from that inspiration. As for the Jesus-issue... I'm not sure if whoever posted that wasn't really thinking about the LAST temptation of Jesus Christ.HenrieSchnee 18:11, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Sayid can't forget

In the Flash-sideways timeline, Sayid can't forget:

a. Keamy was endangering his family.
b. Keamy was a mercenary on the Island.
The pieces have to start coming together eventually.

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:21, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

    • You've just made me think of something - Little Ben doesn't remember Sayid shooting him, so why does Sayid remember being shot? Continuity error, normal variation within pool healings, or indicative that as Miles said, Sayid wasn't saved by the Pool?ElessarTom 18:22, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd say it relates to him not being saved by the pool. JMockShepard 18:27, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
      • MIB probably brought Sayid back to life so that he can become a servant to MIB. This could shed new light on Claire and the French team; perhaps they died too before being resurrected to serve MIB? There were theories that Claire died in the 2004 Barracks battle, and the French team could have easily died when they went underground in the Temple. The big question then would be why these people were resurrected, and how come MIB did not 'infect' others when they died. Phobia27 19:37, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
        • On a added note, it seems candidates can only kill each other. However, Claire, who was a candidate, might have been 'killed' by a random mercenary, who was probably not a candidate. Sayid was ultimately killed by Roger Linus, who might have not been a candidate. The French team, who knows who 'killed' them. So perhaps MIB can infect candidates who have been killed by non-candidates? A lot of if's and but's, but seems to fit. Phobia27 19:49, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
          • Sounds a bit like Highlander. There can be only one! ElessarTom 02:53, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Jin's Korean

If it was posted already, then I missed it, so please let me know where it is. I'd like to know what Jin yelled at Sayid in Korean. I'm assuming it's just generic, "Let me go!" or "I'll kill you!" type stuff. But it could be interesting if it was something like, "What did you do to my girlfriend?" So, I'd like to know for sure. Anyone translate it? -- Clayburn 18:29, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • The English version is in the article at the end of the flash section; there may be a Korean text in the transcript, but that section isn't up yet.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:54, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • It definitely sounded like he called Sayid by name. I just watched it again, and Jin was like "blah blah blah Jarrah blah blah Sayid blah blah blah." Please forgive me if that was culturally insensitive.--DanVader228 02:45, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
    • to paraphrase: Jin said "don't kill me". The translation has been up on the Main episode page since within a day of screening. Keeping an eye on the main source might help you more than making guesses. --Charles Kane 05:44, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Episode Short Description

"Sayid is faced with a difficult decision, and Claire sends a warning to the Temple inhabitants"

  • But claire did no such thing? Most you could say is she sent a message.
  • I am reverting this to "Sayid is faced with a difficult decision. The Man in Black plays out his plan with help from Sayid and Claire." which is descriptive of what happens rather than the weak Claire sends a message which is hardly the central action of the episode. The stronger version has been around for days, has been edited to refine it but till now this Claire Message thing was let die the death it should.--Charles Kane 06:09, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

'Sundown' also cross-references

"Based on the episode title, which appears to be cross-referenced to season 1's "House of the Rising Sun", the producers may have intended the audience to anticipate this as a Sun centric episode."

Doesn't it also cross-reference 'Lockdown'? In all seriousness. Maybe this got overlooked because Locke's centric ep already happened, and folks were convinced that pattern would stick? (and I realize it's a light-hearted association now we've seen how heavy the ep wraps up, but I actually made it a few days before & thought as well it would be Sun centric. Just explaining since I'm new around here, trying out the contributing thing.)Duncan905 03:56, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Cultural References - Deep River

  • Removed from main article for lack of confirmation as to what evidence there is to support that this was the book Dogen was reading. The book appears whilst Dogen is reading it - when there is no view of the cover, and towards the end of the fight, where even a frame by frame gives me no assistance of what is on the cover" So the title is never seen on the cover, on the spine or on any inside pages. If I am wrong the entry should of course be restored. I suggest a satisfactory screen grab posted here would be good evidence.
  • "Deep River: Dogen reads Shusaku Endo's 1993 novel about four Japanese tourists on a trip to India, which is interrupted by the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Each of these tourists goes to India for different purposes. (Literature)"--Charles Kane 06:53, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Sayids Centricity

Can someone please add Sayids centricity to the season 6 template at the top of the page.--Joshm1995 07:31, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Dogen's Hands

I don't think this is something huge, and maybe not even intended, but food for thought. As Dogen explains to Sayid about the scale, he says "on one side of the scale there is good" while he holds up his right, clean, bare hand. Then he says "on the other side evil" as he holds up his left hand, shrouded in a black glove. Just felt like a subtle visual allusion to the whole white/black, good/evil thing.--Cpt cannibal 11:00, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this and added it to the Literary Techniques section. It's a nice piece of symbolism, and perhaps it was their intention as I don't see any other reason for him wearing that one glove.--Baker1000 18:05, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
Well, while we're on that, does he p[ick up the baseball that reminds him of his son with the "good" hand or the "evil" hand?--Pittsburghmuggle 21:36, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it is forgotten that when the healing pool water is brown, Dogen cuts his hand and puts it in the water but it is not healed, so he puts the black glove on. I am 98% positive thats where the glove originates from. Correct me if I am wrong. --Phryrosebdeco23 22:37, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
He was wearing the glove from the very first time we saw him. He removed it to cut his hand in the pool, then put it back on. --Cpt cannibal 23:21, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
Aha - undoubtedly to keep from having to apply a scar to his hand for filming.--Pittsburghmuggle 00:10, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sayid, the pool and "infection" and MiB

If Sayid was dead, reborn in the "dirty" pool and already "infected" why did MiB/Locke have to offer him the "impossible" to get him to take the "message" (manipulation) to the Temple.

The "deal he makes with Claire on the other hand seems puny especially since Claire is already convinced that Aaron is at the temple. It also means that at least one out of two promises he made in Sundown cannot be kept. Does MiB not know where Aaron is? Or is he just dishonest in all his dealings? --Charles Kane 07:20, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Mayhew?

The Keamy's henchmen who killed Omar is Mayhew, right? They looks like the same person.--Enos 17:48, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Others with Flocke

Okay! So I just received word from a person who has the script told me the following info.

How many were murdered in Sundown?

Kate and Claire walk through the destruction of the Temple. Kate sees the toppled columns, the sprawl of bodies, the uprooted vegetation.

How many were with Flocke?

Locke. Smiling. Victorious. Standing in front of a crowd of fifteen or so torch-wielding Others.

SO we may never know how many were murdered... I thought this info was pretty cool; Just thought I'd share with who ever were interested.

Seems pretty standard to me. Just like during the flaming arrow scene, and when Keamy's freighter commandos attacked Dharmaville they left the amount killed purposefully vague to establish A:"They killed everyone except the remaining principal characters" and B:"Most of those deaths are offscreen so that way in the unlikely event we need to fish an extra live survivor up for any reason, we can".--Pittsburghmuggle 17:42, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

"Times up"

Why wasn't the Other who said "Time's up" and dragged Kate away from the pit Claire was held in not credited? He had a speaking line and it was in the subtitles.--Mistertrouble189 01:44, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that the line was not said by the actor but instead by a different ADR actor later. Hence the actor proper wouldn't have a line. --Golden Monkey 17:38, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Who is Lou?

As seen in the article page, there is a Lou who portrayed by Addison Arquette. But the question is who is Lou?--Enos 01:23, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • Hey, no one noticed that?--Enos 16:14, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that Lou is the "Time's up" guy (see previous disscusion above) Blender83 17:32, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • But I just watch it again, and the one who say time's up is Lennon. Evan the transcript page also stated that it's Lennon's line. So I don't think Lennon is Lou.--Enos 17:38, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey, I thought the same thing, but when I read that discussion, I thought I imagined it. Just show's we can' always be right. Was Keamy's other henchman named? Or maybe Lou is a character who is on screen in this episode, but may have a few lines in an upcoming ep. I guess we have to wait and see. Blender83 00:11, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Could it be an error? Neither Lou nor Addison seem to exit on imdb or tv.com...--Jackdavinci 05:27, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
Now listed on IMDb [3]. You can find his photo on Facebook [4] so somebody with spare time can go through the episode and figure out whether he is visible. Since he's listed in the credits, maybe he had a speaking role with one line that got cut in editing. LOST-Kuzak 00:10, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Are we sure the Facebook person is the same guy? If so, I guess someone could try sending him a message, see if they get a reply... --LeoChris 00:38, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Has a page on hawaiiactors.com - judging from a comment there, he portrayed one of the Temple Others. The pic looks like a different guy from the Facebook page link I gave above. Still, the Facebook guy is in Hawaii too and "Addison Arquette" does not seem like a common name. Maybe they are related. LOST-Kuzak 21:17, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Same Restaurant?

Under Episode References, we find this:

  • Sayid was taken to the same restaurant kitchen Naomi took Miles to recruit him to join the Kahana. ("Some Like It Hoth")
Are we sure this is true? What exact indications are we given to suggest the two restaurants are the same? Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
I haven't watched that scene in "Some Like It Hoth" for a while, but I did think it looked familiar. It's unlikely to be the very same place within the show, but rather just the same shooting location.--Baker1000 16:39, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
I think the reference should be removed regardless. Just because it looks the same isn't reason enough to assume it is the same kitchen. A lot of restaurant kitchens tend to look alike. --Celebok 21:40, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

The Truce

I was reading The Truce earlier and noticed this line "Invite the mediators of the DHARMA Initiative and the indigenous inhabitants to communicate their acceptance of the resolution not later than sundown on 16 August 1973."

Does anybody know the date for the Island in this episode? I know with all the time jumping and stuff it got hard to keep up with, but it'd be an interesting, albeit minor, connection if the two sundown ultimatums were on years apart. Uzerzero 02:14, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

  • The timeline articles point to Locke's death somewhere in Dec 2007, and Ajira 316 a week after that, and this episode on the 7th day after that. Doesn't look like the date matches, but it's another occurrence of "sundown," making 3 with Zoe's. Duncan905 02:50, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yellow tinted end title?

I've noticed that the end title "LOST" screen has the logo tinted in yellow. Anyone else noticed this? I thought it was always my download being a little off colour, but having watched in on Blu-ray it is the same on there too. I can't think of any reason why it would be intentional. What would it symbolise? So should it be noted in the errors section, or at very least noted in the production notes?--Baker1000 00:23, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

  • I never noticed it. --Celebok 19:08, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • Take a look the next time you watch the episode, and then compare it to another end title.--Baker1000 20:12, November 11, 2010 (UTC)