Wikia

Lostpedia

Random Page Wiki Activity
Watchlist Recent changes

Talk:The Shape of Things to Come

Back to page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Shape of Things to Come 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

Contents

Rename and ProtectionEdit

Hi, I made this page and im guessing the grammar is wrong, should be The Shape of Things to Come. Please could a Sysop change this and protect this page. --Lewis-Talk-Contribs 11:08, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Edit

The symbol of the Station on Ben's jacket.
Zackass240Added by Zackass240
Is it just me, or did the parka say Wickman on the left lapel? And what Dharma logo was that? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  20:13, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

I thought it said Halowax. (His name from the Orchid orientation video) Either way, it was one of the aliases of the guy from the orientation videos. If it was Halowax, I imagine that the logo was for the Orchid. Anyone have Tivo? Jimbo the tubby 20:17, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

It's definitely "Halliwax" - TiVo to the rescue! --Pedxing 20:21, 24 April 2008 (PDT)
Meant Halowax. But yeah, it's Halliwax. Lost Magazine lied on the spelling. lol. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  12:14, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • The logo on Ben's jacket is definitely from the Orchid. It should be added to the Orchid page. Anyone disagree? --CTS 14:40, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Yes- there's no proof (yet).--Chocky 14:55, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
    • I also disagree. That's what pops in your mind, yes, mine too, and many other people's perhaps. But there's no proof. There just, maybe a clue: Halliwax. Not enough though. Remind you that Edgar Halliwax did not have that logo on his chest, so we can't really assume anything. --     c      blacxthornE      t     17:22, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
    • I agree that there's no proof that the logo represents the Orchid station, however in the Trivia section it says that the logo "looks very much like the well-known celtic symbol "Triskel"" when it looks like absolutely NOTHING OF THE SORT! Look at the Triskel picture and then the logo; who in their right mind would think there's any similarity?! That line needs to be removed, it's ridiculous. The image looks far more like a simplified silhouette of the head of an Orchid in profile, (for example - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22165/22165-h/images/img211.jpg).Cunningmunki 02:14, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Here's an example of a triskellion which looks quite similar (http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/guinness/61/images/gifs/triskel.gif) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Triple-Spiral-Symbol.svg (linked from the triskellion article).. based on the trivia mention, the fact that he was wearing Halliwax's parka (the only instance in which he is named as such is in his appearance in the Orchid) and the fact that there seemed to be some form of time/location shifting going on... I'd say it's a pretty good bet it's the Orchid and no additional proof will be found for some time to come. Lostbutnotforgotten 08:17, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Sorry to harp on about this, but I just can't let that Triskel thing lie! Just because a symbol has got a swirl in it doesn't mean there's a connection (and certainly not "very much" so!). There are probably hundreds of symbols with swirls and concentric circles in them, and making a link between any one is just shooting in the dark. The closest pictorial resemblance is to the Time-Tunnel TV series, which Enzo pointed out, which also has a link in terms of theme (i.e. a way of travelling in space/time), but as that's just a link based on an unconfirmed theory as to how Ben arrived in the desert, it should, quite rightly, not appear in the trivia section. The Triskel link is way more tenuous, and just had no place at all in the trivia section. But I'm in full agreement that it's almost certainly the logo for the Orchid Station, but until it's officially confirmed, it shouldn't be reported as such, here, or on the Dharma Logos page. --Cunningmunki 05:20, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Was the blue shirt that Ben was wearing in the desert in the beginning not the same one that Richard Alpert was last seen wearing in the last few episodes that he was in? It was a distinct looking shirt with shoulder epaulets. Anyone? Significant? --Frenkmelk 22:12, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

Reused wardrobe? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:06, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Fence code Edit

I'm fairly sure the fence code is actually 16 23 (the number strike again!) Someone might want to check that on tivo.

I recall it being 1622. I'm pretty sure her finger didn't move for the last digit. Jimbo the tubby 21:14, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

    • It's 1622. I've rewatched the episode twice now. You clearly see her hit the two key twice. After the second 2 her finger obscured the three but she hit the two not the three. Slow down the footage. Every time she hits a key it makes a sound. You clearly see her hitting the 2 key twice. When her finger is blocking us from seeing the three key it never makes a sound. She never hit the three.


It's a little unclear because her other fingers are in the way, but it looks like the last digit is 3.

Juliet entered 16 23 last time. --Meerkat 17:15, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

  • BUT did that set off the phone call warning?? A 1-digit difference would make some sense for a warning - it's easy to remember.--Overworkedirish 17:19, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Alex punched in 16 23, i thought this both times i watched it, and i just watched it again in slow motion, her finger was definitely on the 3 four the fourth press. Thelordnyax 00:20, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

I've watched it several times after not seeing this in the recurring themes section and being discussed here. I first thought it was 1622 but she actually moves the finger towards number 3 as the camera changes... also her hand doesn't help to see it clear. But the finger was moving to number 3 before the fourth key was pressed -- Askadj

4x09 Alex pressing 3.jpg
BlacxthorneAdded by Blacxthorne

I never thought it was 1622 and I thought it was very obvious that it was 1623; I'm actually surprised that this is disputed. Here's the screenshot though. --     c      blacxthornE      t     15:44, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

I also think Alex entered 1623. But there must have been something that activated the code 14J call. On the article for "Left Behind", it says the code was 151623 (although actually I think that is wrong), so it could be that the omission of the first two digits is what triggers the call. Alternatively, When Juliet deactivated the fence she entered 1623 and the 14J call was triggered but nobody answered it because the Barracks were abandoned. I must say though that I'm not particularly convinced by either of these explanations...--TechNic|talk|conts 16:19, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

In "Left Behind", Juliet does press 1-1623. So the 5 is an assumption. The actual close-up shows only 1623, so we can assume that the first shot is a continuity error (she just enters 1623, but the first keystroke is also shown in the previous shot). Alex also did not turn the switch behind the keypad. Maybe it has something to do with that? --     c      blacxthornE      t     16:43, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
When Ben was young, the code changed daily. Do we know it doesn't anymore? That might explain any differences in the number presses, if there are any. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:31, 27 April 2008 (PDT)


I think we should remove the part that says 'This is a shorter number than the number Juliet entered in "Left Behind".' As I said, the Left Behind code was probably a continuity error, where we see her pressing the first 1, and then we see the close-up with her pressing 1 again, and then 6, 2, 3.--     c      blacxthornE      t     04:30, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

Rousseau and KarlEdit

In the latest podcast, the producers said we would find out who shot Karl and Rousseau and find out if they are dead. I don't remember being given an answer for this in tonight's episode. Am I to assume the lack of confirmation is, in itself, confirmation of their deaths? I assume Karl is dead but I thought that Rousseau would make it.

Then again some friends were watching with me tonight and they wouldn't shut up so I probably missed something.--HaloOfTheSun 21:48, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

Clearly Keamy and his men are the attackers, as they have Alex hostage. Also, Alex has a line saying that "they killed Karl and my mother" so it would appear that they are dead. Jimbo the tubby 21:45, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Ah yes, I meant to say we obviously know who shot them now but didn't know the latter. Still if they came and grabbed Alex and went away that doesn't confirm her death. I suppose I'll have to take that as confirmation anyway. For now at least. Thanks. --HaloOfTheSun 21:48, 24 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I believe the producers actually said (in the video podcast) that we would find out if Rousseau is dead or not at the beginning of episode 10, not this episode. They name the episode, so I'm quite sure it's not this one --Kaneda 02:13, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Damon: "That's the question, that's the $64,000 question. When Ben sent them going off into the jungle, were they captured by Others? Would the Others literally kill Rousseau and Karl, because we know Ben had a grudge against both of them? Or have they been captured by somebody else?"
  • Carlton replies about the guys on the freighter, etc.
  • Damon: "Carlton, will we learn it in 4x09? Will we find out by the end of 4x09 whether they've been killed by the Others, or by somebody else?".
  • Carlton: "Yes. Yes, we will".
  • Next question in the podcast:
  • Damon: "Here's the thing, you will know definitively what Rousseau's fate was next week, very close to the beginning of the 10th episode, "Something Nice Back Home". We will answer whether or not she is alive or dead."
  • They go on to discuss how dead isn't really dead on Lost. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:02, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Spoiler tag Edit

I took out the spoiler tag because it no longer seems necessary (since the episode has aired). If it actually is supposed to be up there, can someone lemme know what policy I'm missing that enforces this? Thanks. Jimbo the tubby 22:28, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

MoleEdit

Did you all catch the flash saying "The mole was here" before the episode started?

See The Mole. --Xbenlinusx 23:15, 24 April 2008 (PDT)
See Grant Bowler (The Captin) - The Mole. --gilby 08 21:42, 25 April 2008 (AEDST)
See the Mole

Jack and Bernard Edit

Isn't it an unanswered question why Jack wanted to talk to Bernard? --     c      blacxthornE      t     01:45, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I wouldn't think so. I think we can reasonably conclude the conversation was Jack asking Bernard if he knew Morse Code, Bernard answering he did, and Jack telling him to listen to what Daniel says the Morse Code is before letting that fact on. Notice Bernard looks right at Jack when he calls Daniel's lie out? It could be a more involved conversation discussing Jack's general distrust of Daniel and Charlotte, but I think we got enough out of the next scene to understand the gist of the conversation enough not to call it UA. But that's just me. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:49, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Well I thought so too at first, but it really didn't warrant such a "secret conversation" feel. They could've easily excluded where Jack told he wanted to talk to Bernard because the whole telegraph idea was Bernard's already. I don't know, that's why I didn't add right away anyway. --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:35, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Daniel is evasive about "when" (again) and Charlotte says they "don't know anything about this" (Ray), and then Jack is obviously exasperated at that point (look at his expression). Then as Daniel is explaining how he could make the phone into a telegraph, the camera again focuses on Jack's face before and after he turns around to face Daniel and Bernard. This is apparently where Jack "hatched" his plan in his head, as he calls Bernard over for "a second" as Daniel, Kate, et. al. walk away. I think the point to the secret conversation was not the telegraph, but for Bernard to keep quiet about knowing Morse code. Even though I thought Bernard would know MC by his question, Daniel didn't make the connection (obviously). I wouldn't say it's an UQ, but it's certainly soft plot -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:50, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
I wondered about that too. In retrospective, I think LOSTonthisdarnisland's answer makes sense. Indeed, soft plot! Thanks for clarifying.--Salvora 06:07, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
When I rewatched the episode, I noticed that Jack doesn't say "well," as in "okay then what is next" (as I first interpreted it somehow) but he says "well?" looking directly at Bernard, almost confirming that they talked about Morse code. Now why is this very question (obviously discussed here) listed under unanswered questions? --     c      blacxthornE      t     16:15, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, that's another good point. It's a logical conclusion, so not an UQ. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:56, 29 April 2008 (PDT) Also, with a re-watch, I noticed after Jack asks Daniel what he is sending and Daniel says "What happened to the doctor", Jack looks to Bernard as if for confirmation. 19:17, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

Black and White?Edit

"During the final scene, the light casts a shadow over half of Widmore's and Ben's faces. (Black and White)" Come on! Seriously? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:06, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Agreed. I like the symbolism references, but this is a stretch. It's a lighting effect which is cool, but I don't think it's that deliberate. --Uncertainty 05:08, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Oh, I think that it was entirely deliberate-- the fact that _both_ Ben's face and Widmore's face were half-black and half-white for that whole scene (with Widmore having the right side of his face illumimated, and the opposite for Ben) underscores the nature of these guys as equal and opposite adversaries. Spikebrennan 09:43, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

  • I disagree. It was dark in the room, with a single window and a single lamp for illumination. This is stretching things way too far, IMO. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:03, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I'm totally with you Spikebrennan. Black and white is a huge theme of the show. It raises the question: which one is good, and which evil? The answer is probably both Ben and Widmore are a little bit of both. Also, it paints them as foils for each other. And haven't we seen this kind of lighting before? I feel like there was something similar to this before...maybe Locke's face? Can't remember. Anyway, it's not a stretch at all, LNTDI. It was the first thing I noticed about the scene.
  • Anyone who knows anyhting about lighting knows that such a lighting effect does not just happen. It might have been motivated by elements within the scene, but the symbolism is clearly intended, as well...--paulski 11:53, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I'd uphold that this is intentional. Directors and cinematographers are SO AWARE of what's going on in a scene - and lighting plays a huge part in that. I feel that people may be thrown off by the phrasing "Black vs. White" instead of "Light vs. Dark" (which can obviously applied to black vs. white).--Overworkedirish 14:15, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Ben's black outfit and Widmore's white pjs. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 16:55, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

How Ben TraveledEdit

A zoomed in, blown-up image of snow on Ben's boots.
OverworkedirishAdded by Overworkedirish
The original image.
TheAma1Added by TheAma1
  • Obviously, there's something strange going on. His head is shaking, then suddenly his eyes burst open and he gasps for breath as he is suddenly is in the middle of Tunisia's Sahara wearing a DHARMA jacket. I suspect there's a link between this and the Tunisian DHARMA Polar Bear. Ben also mentions to the hotel concierge that this is not his first time in Tunisia. In addition, Ben being even unsure of the YEAR makes his (place AND time?)-traveling even more suspicious.--Overworkedirish 03:29, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Connection maybe between the jacket having the hypothesized Orchid symbol on it and the actual Orchid video (rabbits reappearing in space and time)??--Overworkedirish 05:00, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

That's no jacket - it's an insulated parka! Let's see - Ben wears a parka to appear in tunisia, and a polar bear was also found there. Sounds like the "gateway" to Tunisia is somewhere cold? --Pedxing 07:12, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Nice. Plus, take into account Ben's boots look frosty at the first wide view, and the cut on his arm has some snow/frost on it too. Which brings me to the question of Ben's arm injury...--Overworkedirish 09:04, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Well, yes, of course. The point I was making was it belonged to Halliwax, and there are clues in the film. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:04, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
I like how people jump to conclusions and assume he somehow warped there. For all we know, someone shot him in the arm and dropped him off there. All we saw was him waking up in the desert. --Xbenlinusx 12:41, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • ...just waking up in the desert with no sound of a plane overhead, no mode of transportation in view (he had to take over their horses in order to leave), no pack or water for a journey through the desert, and wearing a parka? With SNOW on it? Come on dude...--AmyMarie 14:10, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
There was no snow on his parka. Keep jumping to conclusions. --Xbenlinusx 15:00, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • ...you are incorrect. See Ben's boots in the images attached. Also, there's no screecap of it up yet, but if you watch the episode you can see frost on his arm wound.--Overworkedirish 15:14, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Ben's boots are NOT his parka. There is no snow on his Parka. And I am absolutely not convinced that this is even snow. Could be sand. He's in a desert. The color of the material on his boots is the exact same color of the sand on the far left of the screenshot. -- Xbenlinusx 12:29, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I really don't know why you're pushing this - it's starting to just get annoying. THERE IS snow on his parka. AS I SAID ABOVE snow/frost is clearly on his arm wound too - you can see it as he gets up. Listen. He came from somewhere else. Read the Bedouin conversation translation below on how "there are no footprints around him," "did he fall from the sky?" etc. etc., PLUS listen to the podcast and read into it what you will. They continuously say "how he appeared in Tunisia." And go as far as saying how "a strange vapor rises off of him" and "he seemed disoriented, and didn't know where he was when he arrived in Tunisia," implying that when we see him disoriented, not knowing exactly where he is - that's when he "appears" in Tunisia. He doesn't know not just the day, but the YEAR. Something fishy is going on. I'm not putting a name or anything on it, and we're not jumping to any conclusions or preemptive theories, but it's vital that this strangeness is conveyed when the episode is discussed in the main article.--Overworkedirish 13:26, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I think it's sand, not snow. There is no evidence he "warped" or "jumped" into the desert from anywhere, other than speculation that because he's wearing a parka, it's insanely obvious he magically appeared there. That's absurd. He's been out in the desert with no water for an unknown amount of time. He could easily be dehydrated and delirious. --Xbenlinusx 19:46, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Podcast verifies he arrives/appears at the beginning of that scene. Here are Damon and Carlton's words (scattered quotes): "...[reading a question] how indeed did Ben appear in the desert wearing a parka-like jacket? ... how Ben appeared in the desert is actually an excellent question ... we see Ben appearing in the desert, there seems to be some sort of vapor rising off of him, he seems to be disoriented as to where he is and then he, uh, once he arrives in Tunisia [transcribed word for word - hence stuttering] ... well, we know that Ben pops up in Tunisia..." There you have it my friend. And after closer inspection I agree with you, that's sand on his arm.--Overworkedirish 20:11, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Problem is we do not see Ben "appear". Ben's "appearance" is never observed. Therefore to assume he somehow "warped" there is just silly. "Appear" is a subjective term. Ben could have "appeared" at that location after someone shot him in the arm and dropped him off, where he then passed out from the injury. After laying in the desert for an unknown amount of time with no water, one would then be extremely dehydrated, and delirious. That is logic. Somehow suggesting that he "warped" there from a station that has never been observed because he is wearing a winter coat at the time, and this process left him disoriented, is not. --Xbenlinusx 01:16, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I think it is sand. When you stop the clip right there it looks like sand grains in a crease to me, which makes sense, given he just dropped into the Sahara. The time between him first laying there and the point where we see his arm wound is imo way to long for any snowflake to survive. However, when we see him close up there is a cloud of vapor getting off of him (he even seems to exhale) which suggests that he HAS indeed been somewhere cold before arriving there. So you are both right.--Simakperrce 02:40, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

Connected to this section, people should view the section below called Bedouin Arabic Translation.--Overworkedirish 14:15, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

  • If nothing else, it's very strange he would go from tropical island to the desert, and he's wearing a parka. 01:34, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

My thoughts were, supposing he somehow travelled from the Orchid station, that he didn't know where he would end up so he took a parka in case he ended up in the arctic or something--23 11:38, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

I posted this on the theories page but I thought I'd let you all know my theory. Looking at the earth, the exact opposite side of Tunisia (anywhere in Tunisia) is in the Pacific Ocean east of New Zealand near the International dateline, so perhaps the island is on the exact opposite side of the earth, and there's some connection between the two places!Thelordnyax 12:38, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
If you watch, he breathes out cold air, like one does on a cold day. You can see some sort of vapor briefly rising off him. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  19:38, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
Not quite. When one breathes out on a cold day and you get that kind of fog, it's caused by the warm, moist air from your lungs condensing in the cold air outside the body.--TechNic|talk|conts 19:50, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
Sorry for that error of fact. However, this vapor has been referenced by the 4/25/08 podcast. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  13:35, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

Miles & SmokeyEdit

  • Anyone else catch Miles's face when he sees Smokey? He looks HORRIFIED. Remember, he's tuned into things others may not be - a "ghostbuster" as Naomi puts it.--Overworkedirish 03:29, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
    • He's the only one in that group who had never seen the monster before. Of course he was horrified. Spikebrennan 09:59, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
      • Hell, wouldn't you be scared if you saw a huge cloud of smoke with lightning bolts coming out of it, and watched it kill people?!? Marko 13:18, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

"Rules"Edit

  • When Keamy kills Alex, Ben says, "he changed the rules." At first I thought he might be talking about Jacob, but I think it's clear he means Widmore - specifically when, in Widmore's suite, he says, "you changed the rules." That said, what "rules"? Is this a "war" (as Ben puts it to Sayid) or a game?? There's obviously history involving the island between Ben and Widmore.--Overworkedirish 03:29, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Well, there are rules in a war. At least, there are supposed to be. dposse 05:23, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
I was reminded of the implicit rules in the mafia -- or, at least, in The Godfather movies. There are soldiers and civilians, those involved in combat and those on the sidelines. Ben declared that Alex was a civilian, expected that Keamy would recognize what that meant, and was shocked at the outcome.
The existence of rules such as these also suggests that both sides have the means to "win." I suspect that means that either has the ability to take the island away from the other - but also means that taking it away is not the same as controlling it. Ben can unleash the Monster and Widmore can kill everyone, but neither really helps them with their ultimate goals. So, there is an understanding about what is allowed: Civilians aren't harmed, not because it can't be done but because it can be done, and with relative ease, and that wouldn't do the combatants any good.
This sounds like the rule Widmore changed. The difficulty isn't changing such a rule, it's dealing with the aftermath. If you are going to strike at the king, you must not miss.RanxeroxVox 21:56, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
I think it's some sort of game/competition, not an outright war, but it's turning into one. Thelordnyax 00:25, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Timeline w/ more Sayid InfoEdit

  • So we now know that Ben sees Sayid on TV on October 24th, 2005 where he says, "please, I just want to bury my wife." Then, when Ben seemingly cons him into working for him, Sayid says he buried Nadia "yesterday." So I'm guessing the recruitment is around October 25-30th? This means Sayid's flashforward is post-October-2005. Whether it's later in 2005 or in 2006, we should really consider BERLIN WEATHER (winter vs. spring/summer/fall) in his flashforward - I don't have time to check right now - if someone else wants to that would help us. Also, I think we can surmise that the reason Sayid didn't show up at Sun's place is because he was off trying to find Nadia, "the woman I love" for whom he'd been searching for "8 years."--Overworkedirish 03:29, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • In "The Greater Good", he'd been looking for Nadia for approx. 7 years ("7 years since you left Iraq -- 6 months here, 3 months there -- always moving."), even accounting for the time on the Island, it still took him some time to find her. In "The Shape of Things to Come" Ben does see the newscast on 24 Oct 2005, but he is jumped by Sayid in Tikrit as Sayid is a pallbearer. We don't know how long has passed between the newscast and this meeting, but Islamic funerals, if I understand correctly, are usually as soon as humanly possible, so it couldn't have been very long. I wouldn't even guess a day has passed; in fact, I assumed Sayid was on his way to the funeral, wondering how Ben chartered a flight so quickly, but he's Ben, so I suspended disbelief. After Sayid empties his entire clip and continues dry-firing (and Ben, looking down, quips "That should do it"—LOL), Sayid says, "I spent the last eight years of my life, searching for the woman I love. I finally found her, and I married her. And I buried her yesterday". So, yes, it would have to be within only a few days or so of Ben receiving the date from the clerk at the hotel. In the Economist, Mr. Avellino is before Elsa, but we can't know for sure yet how much time passed because Ben makes an obscure reference to Sayid letting his heart rule his head (which could be Nadia, herself, but might refer to an anger driven emotional reaction to her death leading Sayid to do something stupid). I just don't think we can narrow it down that closely without more information. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:06, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Whiskey Edit

I think we should include a reference to MacCutcheon since Charles has a bottle of it near his bed. --FrenchFlo 04:37, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Chicken Little Blooper Edit

The "Chicken Little" blooper should be removed. The computer-animated "Chicken Little" film may have been released in 2005, but the story of Chicken Little is a fable that goes back a long time so it wouldn't be considered a blooper. --Narte 06:39, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Definitely -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:08, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Ben in London Edit

Ben's little 'chat' with Widmore made me think that neither of them is able to get back to the Island (at that point). If that's true, how could Ben get to Sahara in the first place, if it had not been for the rumoured station? The Orchid is supposed to be explored later this season, both levels of it. I have always thought the Oceanic 6 were going to be rescued by Ben or another party but not the freighties.--Stan 07:13, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

  • What made you assume Ben can't get back? He said Charles can't find the Island, but I don't recall him indicating he can't get back to it. He was obviously lying about the Elizabeth, because it would be difficult for him to dock it in the middle of the desert. I don't think either will rescue. I'm guessing they take the helicopter after all the mercenaries are dead. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:22, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I think the fact that Widmore cannot return to the island deserves its own entry under "Unanswered Questions" as something like, "Why can't Widmore find the island again?" That's right, again. We know for certain that Widmore found it before otherwise he would not have been able to "change the rules". What has changed to make Ben think that Widmore is going to have trouble finding it again? I have a theory but that is not for this page. --Kaiden 08:38, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
I agree that deserves to be an UQ.--Salvora 05:21, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I figured the phrase "I guess the hunt is on for BOTH of us" refers to the hunt for the island. It might refer to a whole different thing, like usual on LOST.--Stan 03:52, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
    • I thought the phrase meant Ben is hunting for Penny, whom he'll never find according to Widmore, and Widmore is hunting for the island, which he'll never find according to Ben. --Sentient nebula 13:29, 26 April 2008 (PDT)


Ben indicates that he can't kill Charles Widmore. Is that because Ben is traveling through time, and Widmore is his "constant?"--Toasty 07:43, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

He can't kill Charles, because it would be a violation of the rules.Thelordnyax 00:29, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • These last two are theories, not for the article itself. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:05, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Widmore says, "I know who you are, boy!" This lends support to the theory that Widmore is much older than he appears, and possibly has been to the island and KNEW Ben *as a child*. Either that, or he knew him before his father joined Dharma and went to the island. But the line is relevant, I think, as not only is Widmore intending to be condescending to Ben, but also suggests Widmore as his elder from some time back. Widmore's connection, of course, to Hanso (buying the log book, Black Rock painting etc.) suggests his interest in the island is tied to those who visited it more than a century ago. Considering Widmore is, we'll say 60+ and Ben about 40-odd, there ages are closer than would normally warrant "boy" in an interchange... Frequency 21:17, 26 April 2008 (PDT) Frequency

I apologize, but saying that "boy" in this sentence has an important meaning is a clear example of apophenia. BeŻet 17:09, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

I don't believe Widmore and Ben were actually ever in the same scene together. Why would they have to fly to London to film this scene?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kasajian (talk • contribs) .

It would have been harder to build a duplicate set in Hawaii and edit shots of Ben and Widmore together though wouldn't it? Also, it is highly likely that they filmed other scenes for future episodes while they were over here.--TechNic|talk|conts 05:02, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
According to the latest podcast, M.E., the director and a few other cast members flew to London to film the scene because Alan Dale was unavailable to fly to Hawaii because of other arrangements. --Stan 06:36, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

The Doctor is ok? Edit

I am a first time user/editor here, and i only created an account to indicate something i noticed on the latest episode. when ray the doctor washed up on shore, he has STITCHES on his cheek, the same cheek where he (earlier) has a scar, which is mentioned, i think, in "the constant." we know real time travel (ben in tunisia) and/or possible duplicates (orchid video) exist, and editors have also speculated that ray is the right age range to be a hostile or DHARMA. could the ray with a scar be a doppelganger a-la-(daniel faraday actors name here) in the movie "solaris?" PLEASE tell me i am am taking this too far... but i think the stitches were meant to be noticed. Courageouscoward 12:53, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

My take on it: It is a time travel side effect. From the perspective of being off The Island, doctor Ray is not dead and not injured on the ship - yet. But the fact that his body washed up on the shore means 1) he will be injured, 2) there will be time for medical attention, 3) he will be killed and dumped overboard. And because of the weird time effects that depend on your angle of entry to The Island, the "when" of your point of entry will be different. Big "destiny" reference as a LOST theme here; the doctor is destined to die.

Malic 08:21, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Good eye on the stitches but I will oblige and tell you that you are taking it too far. His body washes ashore one island day after we last see him on the boat. He most likely cleaned and stiched up his own wound within that "day". There are a couple options for why the people on the freighter would say that he is not dead: 1. They're lying; 2. He is alive on the freighter but not alive on the island as suggested by Malic. It is possible that he has not died on the freighter by the time he washed ashore on the island because of the oddities with the differential in time on and off the island. Remember how long it appeared to take Desmond and Sayid to get from the island to the boat; this is probably a similar effect. --Kaiden 08:33, 25 April 2008 (PDT)


thank you for your honesty kaiden, and thanks for the ideas, but i am hesitant to buy into it, as i am fairly certain that his scar was present the first time we saw him with desmond and sayid. i dont know that the island's time discrepancies (minutes as suggested by faraday's experiment with a projectile, or days as you suggest) are so large that he could as yet not be dead. i realize that the freighties might be lying (which was proven by rose's husband, i forgot his name...), but it still seems unsatisfactory at best. i still cant get by the fact that stitches come before a scar, meaning he was killed and washed ashore basically before we meet him (which depending on the distance would support my theory, as flotsam takes forever to go anywhere). however, desmond and sayid still meet him without stitches, but with the resultant scar... i dont know, maybe i am missing something, but your idea still seems to leave more questions than answers.

Undoubtedly there is no certainty that our theory is right and yours is wrong. It is inconclusive and you are right that the whole situation leaves plenty of questions. Oh, sorry, I just realized my first comment was a bit direct; I really should have said, "I think you are taking it too far." One thing that struck me about Daniel lying to Jack and the others about the message from the boat is how vague and evasive Daniel has always been about the time differential issues. For example, at the beginning of this episode Daniel says that the doctor was "fine when I last saw him" and Jack replied with, "Which was when?" to which Daniel said, "When? When is kind of a relative term." I do not think the person on the freighter was lying; I think Farraday knew the doctor was probably still alive but just at a different time on the freighter and Farraday was trying to avoid having to try to explain that to Jack et al. --Kaiden 13:02, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
I just did a couple screncaps and I am not really sure those are sutures. On first glance that would seem to be true but the screencaps from this episode show that the wound is actually more open now then it was when we saw it on the freighter, the sutures are quite large and not under the skin and there are no suture ties. I took another screencap of the best look we get of it on the freighter; the wound is smaller (closed) and it looks like there are six or seven small points perpendicular to the wound which would indicate the ties of simple interrupted sutures. I am thinking that maybe something or someone scratched his face or he scratched out his own sutures. If anyone is interested I will post close-ups of both. --Kaiden 13:16, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

kaiden, youre awesome, i love the ideas. however, i think less important is the fact that faraday is/is not lying (maybe the person on the boat and faraday are both being truthful, at least about the doctor). when wounds heal, they close, like we saw when ray meet desmond/sayid. lets assume very briefly that the sutures are real, that the lack of knots is a production error. IF that is the case, and i believe it is, then the body the dog finds on the beach was killed PRIOR to desmond/sayid meeting him, no matter what timeframe/zone they are in (island or freighter). i also know that the producers mention explicitly that this season we will revisit what we learn in the orchid video, which relates both to time travel and to possible doppelgangers (or at least a person inhabiting the same moment in time twice). bottom line, of course, is that neither of us could be right, but it is very exciting imagining what could be, which is what i think JJ Abrams does very well (just saw cloverfield as well). i also think that the stitches/time travel/doppelganger thing is something that has been given way too little attention on the episode page... but i am a new editor, so i really dont feel 'qualified' to change it. but i would love to see your screen caps if you can post them.

I had not even considered that. If the body that washed up was an older version of the doctor then that could be the open wound from before he sutured it. I am not sure I buy it but it is entirely possible. I think revisiting the Orchid might have to do with the fact that Ben wakes up in the dig site where they found the polar bear; the producers mentioned that we should be linking the polar bears with the bunnies. Still, you could be right about it being the doctor too; it does not have to be just one thing. It is all just one more mystery about which we can wonder. --Kaiden 20:34, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Theory discussion Edit

I wanted to post this on the discussion page of the theory page, but as of now that page is not open. I have a question regarding this theory: "Ben knows everyone's past/credentials. He researches everyone that comes to the island. When Ben went underground to the secret hatch, he inputted all of the Widmore folk's identity information into the smoke monster's program (for lack of a better word). The monster takes pictures remember? Well, this is how the monster seemed to only attack the Widmore bunch and left Ben and the rest of their gang alone while they watched about 20 feet away. The monster compared the pictures and destroyed those Ben told him to." I've watched all the episodes but I actually have no recollection that the monster can take pictures, can anyone point me to whatever piece of evidence there is for this? --Salvora 08:55, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Can someone open the Talk:The Shape of Things to Come/Theories page please? People are using the Theories page like it is the discussion page. I know that is a common thing for the people on this site to do despite rule six stating that theories may be removed if "responding to another theory (use discussion page instead)" (not to mention how most of them break the other rules as well) but not having the discussion page open is not very helpful. --Kaiden 09:21, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

"I've watched all the episodes but I actually have no recollection that the monster can take pictures, can anyone point me to whatever piece of evidence there is for this?" - I think what the original poster was referring to was when the monster stared down Eko. You saw images from his past; it's almost like it was uploading information from Eko be reading his thoughts. So the poster is trying to say that since the monster has a capacity to preceive/store images that Ben could have "uploaded" them to direct the monster towards the military men. I personally don't agree; but just to clarify.--AmyMarie 12:27, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Ah, many thanks. No, I wouldn't agree to that either. I see now that was a theory relying on a previous theory!--Salvora 04:35, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Have you ever noticed that Ben tends to have a pause just before he info-dumps someone's whole life story? Like his mind is distant, if only for a second? I believe that he's like Desmond in the sense that he can bring information from himself in the past - he just has control over it unlike Des' did. I half-expect to see a flash back someday where Ben has access to some serious FBI database (or something similar) and looks up people like mad for his future self. Such an ability would be the most SERIOUS of all trump cards to hold. I mean really, how could you ever out-think someone like that? Malic 12:33, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I think everyone who has looked to so many files of people as Ben probably does on a daily basis is entitled to a few seconds of mental recollection before shooting away the information. I don't think he has mental access to any database except the database of his own memory! And yes, he is a very able man, that has already been proved by now. That's my take on this.--Salvora 04:35, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Did anyone notice Kate's outfit? Edit

Maybe I saw this wrong, but at the very beginning, when Jack walked past Kate as she was sitting on the beach, she appeared to be wearing a black strapless top (or with the straps taken down), and black jeans/vinyl pants. When she walked into the tent a moment later she was wearing a bright blue tank top (with straps on). Did she do a quick wardrobe change, was this a continuity error, or is it another one of those "time doesn't pass the way they think it does" moments? --Amberjet11 08:57, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Rewatch that scene. Kate took the straps down herself. dposse 09:01, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Ben's Inner-INNER ChamberEdit

  • We need to get a screenshot of this cryptic door.--Overworkedirish 09:04, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
[1] there you go. dposse 09:32, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I'm wondering how such an elaborate door exisit at ground level. It seems odd to have a ancient door like that at ground level. From the outside of the house what does it look like? Is the house built next to a cave? Or does the corridor go straight down?--Thedisturbance 21:54, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Smokey's Master?Edit

  • I find it interesting that Ben summoned Smokey. "Why didn't he just do that before?" I might wonder. "Or anytime the others have been under attack?" However, he looked very serious when he saw it attacking the mercenaries - there has to be a reason for its sparse use.--Overworkedirish 09:27, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Perhaps it's too dangerous to use at any time. It must only be used in extreme circumstances (or whenever Ben gets angry enough). dposse 09:38, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Also perhaps, Ben might only use it if and when he has the certainty that the people in question are not innocent or good people. In this case we can presume that this people were not innocent, since they Kill Alex, and we also know that Alex tells Ben that they killed Karl. So Ben is pretty certain that this people are bad people. Also, the monster might not be able to discriminate between good and bad people, or might not necessarily follow specific commands (like "kill this one, but not that other one"). --Salvora 09:43, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Ben wanted Karl and Rousseau dead. He felt nothing for them. Karl was hitting on his daughter, and Rousseau was threatening to take Alex away. So, he wouldn't really care if they killed Karl. However, in a unique situation, Ben actually cared for something more then himself or the secrets of the Island when Alex was threatened and murdered. If Widmore hadn't "changed the rules".... dposse 09:50, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
"Ben wanted Karl and Rousseau dead" is too strong of a statement; I just think he didn't care one way or the other, except he needed them to live to take Alex to safety. If Ben wanted them dead, he could have done it himself at any time during the 16 years he had Alex, or killed Karl instead of putting him in the room 23. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:08, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
I agree, the fact that Ben didn't care for Karl or Rousseau does not mean he would want to kill them. My theory is that he was being entirely honest when he sent them away: he does care for Alex, and Karl and Rousseau cared for Alex too, so he needed to rely on them for the protection of Alex, as he couldn't take care of that by himself.--Salvora 04:40, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Also, we have to consider that no babies that are conceived on island survive, so Karl was either brought onto the island with an invited parent to work for Ben, or Karl was stolen from someone and kept. Either way, punishment, not death, would be the order of the day. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:37, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I at first thought that the one who "changed the rules" was Jacob; that Alex was supposed to be protected, and when she died he decided he could use the monster (an instrument of the island/Jacob and not to be used for personal vendettas/tight spots). Of course we found out the last scene that it was Widmore that "changed the rules," but it still might stand to reason that up until last night the monster was only commanded by Ben to act out Jacob's commands (perhaps targeting those on Jacob's list?). Whether they were Jacob's rules or not, it seemed that Ben's obvious thought process was "well, since my daughter's dead and everything's different, I'm now going to do something I wouldn't have done before."--AmyMarie 12:27, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
I figured that using the Monster was against "the rules" (which, from the final scene in Ben's flashforward, I took that the rules had been set up by Ben and Widmore), so when the rules were changed by Alex's death, there was no longer anything holding Ben back from using Smokey. Jimbo the tubby 12:11, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Exactly. I think you said everything I did in half the space. :)--AmyMarie 12:27, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense. Ben went into a shock for a moment when he saw Alex killed, and then the first thing he says is "he changed the rules" and next thing we see is he goes out of a sudden into this room and does this. So, yes, I think it looked like a reaction to that: the change of rules. Also, we have never seen him before commanding the monster, or using the monster for his own purposes.--Salvora 04:44, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Anyone notice that the monster was a lot bigger than it was any other time we saw it? Does anyone think that the size of the monster has something to do with how angry Ben is, like the angrier he is, the bigger Smokey gets...? Marko 13:24, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • No, it's been pretty formidable all along. Remember it pushing through the forest and bending trees like Godzilla in the Pilot? I just think we've had precious few opportunities to view it so clearly...--AmyMarie 14:03, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I thought the monster was a bit bigger this time, too; but I also thought it was more smoky than usual. I mean, it actually looked like smoke, in that it was grayish black, instead of a deep pitch black like usual. -- Ao-bōzu 青坊主 * Talk * Contributions
  • Also, I think that the reason why the Others don't use the Monster much is because they can only summon it, they can't control it. Ben summoned it to appear at the Barracks, but he made it pretty clear to Locke and the others that they had to be far away from it. That tells us that if Ben were to get in its path, the Monster wouldn't necessarily recognize his authority and would probably kill them too. So he has some control over it, but probably not very much. -- Ao-bōzu 青坊主 * Talk * Contributions

Ben never summoned it before because it can't get through the fence. The strike tema left the fence open, and Ben was able to call it. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 17:00, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Maybe Ben can only "summon" the Monster once, and had to pick the best time. The death of Alex would certainly provide a worthy trigger for him to give up this terrific trump card. Sithboy 17:06, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Considering the following: Ben had previously told Locke he didn't know what the smoke monster was, Ben seemed hesitant before opening the ancient-like door, and - The basic translation of the hieroglyphics is "to summon protection" (pretty general)... leads me to believe that Ben didn't really know what exactly he was about to "summon". Seems to me that Ben and The Others have been pretty proficient at defending themselves in the past. I don't think he's ever used this method of protection before. He of course knew it was there to use if he had to, and knew of the monster's existence. He could have guessed what it was going to do but I just don't think he was sure about the outcome. Whatcha think?--Mr couchman 00:37, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Australia Edit

When Hurley says "Australia is the key to the whole game", even though ostensibly he's talking about the board game, it seems like it's supposed to have deeper meaning. Not sure where to put this though - literary technique/foreshadowing? Or episode references (but which episode? There's many Lost connections to Australia...). --Jackdavinci 10:25, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Added it as a "Literary Technique - Irony".Kevrock 11:53, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Absolutely foreshadowing. --Xbenlinusx 12:44, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
How is that foreshadowing? I don't see it at all. What do we know that's going to have to do with Australia in the future? I also don't think it's irony either. What's ironic about it? The only thing it is is a connection, a reference. -- Ao-bōzu 青坊主 * Talk * Contributions
Symbolism, not Irony: Australia in the game represents both the real-world Australia (key to the show) and the Island (easily defended, hard to get to if you don't start there, limited entry points, etc.). The game of Risk itself also represents the larger conflict for control of territory that Ben and Widmore are involved in. "Irony" would be Hurley saying "We're all gonna die" and him being the only one who survives. For example.RanxeroxVox 09:10, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

The writers can't do anything funny without fans jumping on it. It's a joke, a common tactic in Risk is to hole up in Australia because it's easily defensible. That's it. Maybe Siberia is important to Lost also. Kajillion 19:43, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I noticed this too, the first thing that occured to me is that Claire is Australian, and so far, she's played no significant role, other than having a baby, and her Hurley did see her father (Christian Shephard) in Jacob's cabin. Thelordnyax 00:33, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Further, everyone knows its Papua New Guinea that's the key -- all the extra men! :) AlaskaDave 02:18, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Does that make Florida the Key West? :P -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:29, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

2005 Risk? Edit

Someone added the citation "http://www.amazon.com/Hasbro-Library-Risk-Game-Set/dp/B000AFGV1W" for the blooper entry regarding Risk being from 2005; however, I'm not seeing a specific date on Amazon as to when this edition began. It's not on the Target site either. Can someone locate a reliable citation for it being 2005, and therefore, a blooper? I'm going to re-mark it citation needed in the meantime. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:45, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

That version of risk is absolutely the one my parents have from the 1970's-80's. I don't know the specific edition but it may be that they USED the 2005 edition but meant for it to LOOK like the 1970's edition to make sense within Dharma time. :) User:SirKirsten/

The version in the link is the old 1970s version. Like several other board games, the old retro versions are being remanufactured and sold. That started in 2005, but it isn't a "2005 edition" or anything. Not a blooper.--HaloOfTheSun 20:15, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

This seems to be the 1975 version -- see:[2] (scroll to the bottom for version rules in PDF format). --Litany42 15:10, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

I don't see how the PDF answers the question because it doesn't show a game board that I could see. I don't disagree it is, just the link isn't a clear indicator that it isn't :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:41, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
  • "The version of Risk being played by Hurley, Sawyer and Locke is the 2005 "library" edition of Risk." I'm removing this as no citation was given to prove it is correct. This is supported by the evidence here that it is probably not correct. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:37, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Widmore's accent Edit

Does this really warrant a mention in the episode article? The actor is a New Zealander. His British accent was never entirely convincing (I always assumed it was meant to be an upper-class Scottish accent.) It's probably a long time since he played the character. I think we can chalk this one up to pilot error, so to speak... DublinDilettante 11:47, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

LOL, I agree. I was thinking he sounded a bit Kiwi when I saw the episode :) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:55, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

You have got to be kidding. Have you ever seen that actor before? He has impeccable accents. Every single time he did the Brit accent on Lost he nailed it. This was not an attempt at a british accent--it was clearly Australian. My guess is Ben knows where Widmore is really from--also note that the quote" Australia is the key" was used in this very episode. Just because you cant tell how blatent the accent shift was doesnt mean it should be disregarded.--John Burger 12:39, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

It's not Aussie. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:56, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I just checked to see if anyone in the know noticed the accent---This is what KRISTIN from E Online said "Australia's the Key to the Whole Game": So sayeth Hurley during tonight's game of Risk, and I sayeth we listen! Flight 815 originated in Sydney, por supuesto, as did Aaron and Claire, who are supposedly integral to what Lost is all about...Not to mention Charles Widmore's obvious Aussie accent! (OK, that might be unintentional, since Alan Dale is from the Land Down Under in real life, but still.)

Ok..it was obvious to me as well. This guy does an American accent perfect. He does a Brit accent perfect. He plays the Brit accent to everyone but Ben--who even knows if Widmore keeps whiskey by the bed. It meant something people.--John Burger 13:03, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

It seems notable to me, although I don't think we can really say if it was intentional or not. I'd say mention it in the trivia section instead of the main plot summary. --Minderbinder 13:06, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I'd agree on putting this in trivia (both on this page AND on Widmore's main page) for now until there's more clarification (just like those Silver Gulls, eh, LOSTonthisdarnisland? hahaha).--Overworkedirish 13:39, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

First off, he's from New Zealand and his accent is a New Zealand accent. Second, for those of us who are intimately familiar with British accents, his was not impeccable (it was very good, and much better than most American actors' attempts; but there was a noticeable Antipodean twang.) Thirdly - what would it possibly signify? That he's someone else? That's he's not actually British? Lots of educated or upper-class New Zealanders speak with British-sounding accents. DublinDilettante 13:38, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

As a Scot who has lived in Australia, New Zealand, and the US (and having seen Alan Dale in his "Neighbours" heyday) I would suggest that his accent change was a mere slip. It definitely wasn't Alan Dale doing an Aussie accent. It definitely wasn't his OWN accent. It was just a tired actor--he's appearing on stage--doing a bad British accent. Enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ncllawcevans (talk • contribs) 26 April 2008.


I'm Aussie; it's not Aussie (regardless of the Australia clue, which sounds like a clue to me, just hopefully not related to a non-Aussie accent). It was Kiwi. The Brit was close, but no cigar. He does a fine Yank accent when he tries, but that's not that difficult to do. It's all trivia, regardless (LOL OWI :)) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:44, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
I'm British and i've always felt that Alan Dale has done magnificently in his voice; he didn't take the stereotypical British accent too far which happens a lot in American TV shows. However I did notice in this episode that his voice sounded different, but I would put it down to the fact that Alan Dale is currently preforming in the West end, in Spamalot - musicals often can strain actors voices.--4 05:20, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
I agree. When I first watched the episode I thought there was something different, but I didn't think a lot about it because I just thought I'm just noticing this. Then when I saw this discussion, I compared it to the previous episodes; although he doesn't seem to have changed his accent, his voice is really different. I think that's what made people think that he had a different accent. It's not the accent though; it's his voice. It's a lot deeper than usual. --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:46, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Nobody is putting him down; he's a fine actor. The strain to his voice is probaby why he sounded more like a Kiwi than a Pom. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:20, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
I'm a Kiwi and that was a Kiwi accent with a British flavour in it, and not very a strong one. Kiwis who live in London for a year come home with more British in their accent than that. Since Dale is living in London, and since a British accent is not difficult for a kiwi to adopt, its hard to see this not being a deliberate decision. I doubt very much its Dale's tiredness - the director could have asked for more Britishness if that was required. Maybe the director simply didn't know that a more British accent was needed. Why on earth would Widmore pretend to be British in front of Desmond and Penny but not Ben?--Mattb02 22:45, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Hurley and Jacob's Cabin Edit

Is it worth noting that Ben said to Locke that they needed Hurley in order to find the cabin? I'm assuming that this is because Hurley was the last person to have seen it. Neither Ben or Locke said this to Hurley, but he agreed to go with them at the end of the episode. However, when they struck off into the jungle, Ben took the lead.

Remember, they probably won't even get there until the end of 4x10 or the beginning of 4x11. Who knows what'll transpire in the jungle as they try and find it. --Halcohol 13:20, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
It seems that Hurley has the ability to see Jacob, and Locke has the ability to hear him. Need Hugo to find him, and John to communicate with him. Thelordnyax 00:36, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
I agree - this point stuck out to me during my first watch, but one thought is, because Locke and co. were only in New Otherton for such a short amount of time, maybe Ben was just leading them in the general direction - perhaps when they get close enough, they'll need Hurley to 'find' the cabin. However, the point still stands that Ben didn't seem to have any problem finding Jacob before. It's only implied from Ben's quotes during the last part of S3, but he seemed to have no problem finding Jacob earlier, right? I suppose we just don't know why only certain people are able to 'access' Jacob's cabin. Is it him reaching out to them, or is it just circumstance... is it anyone that gets close enough? Or is it just Hurley. I mean, Locke was taken to the cabin, Hurley just stumbled across it. Is Hurley more important than we know? These are things to think about. And, nice to see you on here, Halcohol! :) AlaskaDave 02:24, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Yes, I would agree to this being something worth noticing. I did notice and wondered. Many interesting questions you pose AlaskaDave!--Salvora 04:50, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

In the film The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, one person knows the location of the graveyard where the gold is buried (the Ugly), one knows the name on the grave (the Good), and one has the resources to get them to it (the Bad). Here, Hurley knows the location...but is Ben the Good who knows the name, or the Bad who has the resources to get them there? Alternatively, is Locke the Good who has the last piece of the puzzle or the Bad who thinks he's leading the expedition? Or am I thinking about this too much? RanxeroxVox 09:01, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

  • I'd say that Ben has the resources -- he seems to have fallen from Jacob's good graces, but he still knows how the game is played. On the other hand, Locke seems completely lost, though I imagine he would know what to do once he found Jacob. --Litany42 15:14, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Does this seem like a Literary Reference? Or is it too subtle an allusion? (And does it matter that it leads immediately to a mexican standoff here, which is pretty much how the search ends there?) RanxeroxVox 00:35, 3 May 2008 (PDT)

Before in The Man Behind the Curtain Ben explains to Locke that Jacob is not the sort of person you visit, he is the sort of person who summons you. They know that Hurley has seen the cabin which may lead Ben into thinking that Jacob was trying to summon him for some purpose. Thus if they want to find Jacob, bringing him Hurley would be the thing to do. --Messeis 11:33, 30 April 2008 (PDT)Messeis

Important: episode tense needs to be resolved Edit

As things stand now, the Episode Manual of Style and the general Manual of Style are in contradiction about what tense episode synopses should be in. The EMOS states that we should use *present* tense while the MOS states that we should use *past* tense. Up until recently, all of the episodes have been using the present tense. The current episode seems to have been written in past tense, and I notice that some users have been converting some of the older episodes into past tense recently. I think before we go changing every episode article, we should resolve this issue and reconcile the two MOS pages so that they do not contradict each other. --Jackdavinci 13:28, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

  • I had been under the impression that the Episode Manual of Style supercedes the general Manual of Style. The EMoS makes specific reference to the literary technique of historical present while the gMoS has one sentence. The point brought up by the gMoS is valid, as events CAN be overruled by new information gleaned in new episodes, but that is the sort of thing that is resolved in the Episode References subsection, isn't it? --Halcohol 13:38, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I'm referring to the MoS subheading specifically addressing the episode tenses. --Jackdavinci 13:49, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

This topic is being discussed in more detail on this page.--Halcohol 20:01, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Angel of Death/Passover StoryEdit

  • As some of you may be aware, it's currently Passover (Pesach) - the Jewish holiday in which Moses gets the Hebrew slaves of the Egyptians freed, etc. etc. So, this Smokey scene where it suddenly becomes DARK and the monster passes right by their door and attacks only the mercenaries - I was HEAVILY reminded of the scene in "The Ten Commandments" where the Angel of Death comes down to kill all the first born, but "passes over" all houses marked with lamb's blood (...would it be a stretch to propose that Alex's death represents the lamb's blood?). Anyway, do you guys think this deserves a cultural reference?--Overworkedirish 13:36, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Dude, you're a genius.Totally add it; I think it's a superb catch. Carlton and Damon DID say to "keep reading the bible" for clues...--AmyMarie 14:04, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
I wonder if there could be a parallel between the ten commandments and 'the rules'.Liquidcow 17:55, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Bedouins Arabic TranslationEdit

Hi, I'm a new user here all the way from Jordan. I'm a native Arabic speaker and I noticed something important in the bedouins speech and wanted to share it with you. When Ben was found in the desert by the bedouins, they were arguing about how he got there.

left bedouin says: Look!! there are no foot prints around him. (They all look around to see if there are any foot prints)

right bedouin says: From where did he come!! did he fall from the sky!!

After that Ben asks them if they speak English.

I think this is a hint that Ben teleported to there somehow. --Imarzouka 14:08, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Wow! Great to hear! Thanks for the helpful translation!--Overworkedirish 14:15, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I don't speak Arabic but I did notice them pointing around him as though indicating this. Thanks for the confirmation! :) Jimbo the tubby 14:17, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Thanks a lot Imarzouka. I guessed there weren't Ben's foot prints, but you confirming that is absolutely GREAT.--Enzo_2309

  • I'm not a native speaker but I also speak Arabic to a degree and I added that piece of information in the trivia. I thought it was important too, because it indicates that he didn't get there by natural means. The guys who played the bedouin were definitely not native speakers and it was hard to understand what they were saying, so I'm glad someone else confirmed the translation.
  • Imarzouka, since you're a native Arabic speaker, you must have an Arabic keyboard. I added something about the Arabic scripture that was shown throughout the episode to the Bloopers section. But I couldn't type the Arabic text because I don't have the keyboard. It would be very helpful if you could transcribe them in Arabic.
You don't need an Arabic keyboard to type in Arabic. You can use the table of system characters. BeŻet 06:51, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
  • By the way, although very useless, here are some other things people say in the desert scene:
    • Ben says: "Do you speak Arabic?" in Arabic when they don't respond to his English.
    • Ben says: "Do you speak Turkish?" in Turkish when they don't respond to Arabic either.
    • The bedouin says "Don't move!" before he approaches Ben to search him.
    • He says "What is this? What is this?" when he finds the weapon. --     c      blacxthornE      t     17:18, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
      • When they don't respond in Arabic, he asks "Türkçe biliyor musunuz?", which means "Do you speak Turkish?". It seems as a factual error as there are no deserts in Turkey and people he confronts are obviously not Turkish, but it is possible for a person in Middle East to know a word or two of Turkish because of Ottoman heritage. --dogac 12:36, 26 April 2008 (GMT)

brief tangent: naomi also similarly spoke many languages when she was incoherent after dropping from the tree, right? and ben seemed a bit trained in martial type arts with the club, maybe the two of them trained in similar schools of defense?

Yes, I have Arabic characters on my keyboard and I will re-type all the Arabic text that was in the episode. One more thing here, all the Arabic characters in the episode (TV news, street posters..) are not connected. Arabic characters should be connected to form words. I think the people who did the artwork and text editing did not have a software with arabic capabilities. Usually if you try to write arabic text in a software that does not support arabic, all the characters will be seperated as in the episode. --Imarzouka 01:12, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Another thing about the bedouins. Although I speak Arabic, it was hard for me to understand all the speech because they are talking in another accent (Tunisian Arabic). I will try to find somebody who understand it to get all their speech translated.

If you guys need anything regarding Arabic translation please ask. I'm also a software developer, if there is anything i can decode for you in the episodes please let me know. :) --Imarzouka 01:23, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

If you check out the blooper section, I already pointed that out about the Arabic scripture (second bullet there). That's why I wanted help, because I can't transcribe it, and it would be great if we could, at least some of it as an example to how things were wrong. By the way, I speak the Iraqi dialect, and I think that's close to the dialect spoken in Jordan, right? Maybe that's why I had a hard time understanding, but still, their dialect was more like an effort (i.e. the actors are not Arabs). Just like when Sayid speaks Arabic... It's a hard language for those who don't speak it. The things that they said as they approached on horseback is very hard to understand, I listened to that a dozen times and I came up with nothing. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:29, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Ok, here is the Arabic text. On the TV when they were showing Sayid, the text spells:

س ي د ج ا ر ه

ا ل أ ق ي ا ن و س ي 6

If you connet the characters, it will be:

سيد جاره

الأقيانوسي 6

Which translates to: Sayid Jarrah / Oceanic 6. But with many spelling mistakes.

Also on TV, the announcer says in Arabic: "Sayid Jarrah ..one of the members of ocianic 6.. came to Bagdad..after his wife passed away.. Sayid Jarrah and his wife are from the area of @#$%^&". Then Sayid says: "I just want to bury my wife please.." The announcer continues: "They met in the same place... Sayid Jarrah was on flight number 815.."

On the coffin of his wife, her name was written as:

نور شمار (Which is pronouced as: Nour Shmar)

You can copy the text and paste it in the article of you want. Hope this helps :)

--Imarzouka 06:23, 26 April 2008 (PDT)


Thanks a lot for your help. I think it looks a lot better with Sayid's name as an example now, because his name is already documented on the Sayid Jarrah article, so we have solid proof now :). --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:17, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

I just remembered something!! Isn't Sayid's wife name is Nadia!?!? Why was Nour Shmar written on her coffin?--Imarzouka 11:37, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Nadia is not her real name. It's Noor. This was explained in "Solitary", that nobody calls her Noor, and they should call her Nadia. --     c      blacxthornE      t     12:58, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
I'm learning to speak arabic in college. Since I'm not fluent and I haven't lived in the Arab world, I may be wrong, but should they be using the arabic term for "oceanic" or would it normally be spelled (this will probably be wrong but I'm going to try because things like this help me learn)"6 ﺃﺷﻴﻨﻚ" ? My textbooks usually spell things like that in the transliterated form of the English word, but I don't know if they just do that to make my life easier or not. Lovesayid 14:59, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
الأقيانوسي 6 is pretty close (pronounced something like awk-ee-ah-noo-see 6). Because the origin of the word "ocean" is the Greek "Ōkeanós", and other languages usually borrow that word, not the English "ocean". An example to this is the Turkish (a language completely unrelated to Arabic, by the way) word for ocean: "Okyanus". In addition to that, it has the prefix "ال", which is the equivalent of the English "The" and the suffix "ي-" is the equivalent of the Latin "-ic". So it's very close to "The Oceanic 6". But if you would transcribe the exact English word, it would be something like: اوﺷياﻨﻚ (it's copy+paste of letters from this discussion, that's the only way I can type, so it's a little crooked, sorry, but you must know how it's supposed to look like). So you're close, but you forgot to include any vowels, for the long O and A in Oceanic. This would need Imarzouka's confirmation, of course, but I think it's something like that. --     c      blacxthornE      t     15:28, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Thanks, that's really interesting! Didn't know about the Greek thing. Lovesayid 11:20, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
You are right Blacxthorne :) Maybe I should give you a text file with all arabic characters so you can copy and paste from there ;) --Imarzouka 17:49, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
I'd never thought I'd learn a bit of Arabic from LOST. This is awesome...great work, Imarzouka! :-D --JoeyBags1138 19:56, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

UQ Ben and Locke Edit

  • Why does Ben say that it is very important for Locke to survive?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that pretty much answered in the episode? (Locke asks this question, Ben says it's because of Jacob, Locke argues he can't even find the cabin.) Even if it was an unsatisfactory answer, I don't think we will get a better one in future episodes. I have removed it.--MetallichickX 14:32, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Was it not Ben that shot Locke earlier and left him for dead? That was like, not even a week ago in the show. I'm a little confused, though admittedly it may be because I'm not remembering everything relevant.--Overworkedirish 14:36, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
I think that Locke's survival finally made Ben realize that Locke is "The One" or whatever. ESachs 19:44, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Locke can hear Jacob, but Ben can't. So Ben needs Locke. Thelordnyax 00:39, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
I added that UQ. It's true that Ben says that it's very important for Locke to survive so that they go to Jacob, but I think the question was justified because that hardly tells us much about why it's "very important" that Locke survives (especially when Ben attempted to kill him not long ago). It's like saying: "it's very important that you survive because we have to do this errand" which begs the question: "why is it so important that I do this errand?" Also, Ben is well known for never answering the whole truth to questions such as when Locke asked Ben about the Monster. So I think there is more needed to answer the question than just "because we have to go to Jacob." I think the question should be put back and I hope others agree and put it back. I think it points to something of much transcendence in the series: an acknowledgement by Ben that he needs Locke to save the island from Widmore, and the possibility that the relationship between Locke and Ben changes completely given that they have a common interest in protecting/preserving the island and given that Ben might not be able to talk to Jacob any longer (if he ever was able).--Salvora 04:59, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Ben can hear Jacob; he was talking with Jacob last time in the cabin, even to the point of where Ben would stop speaking because he heard Jacob interrupting. The question needs to be rephrased to something similar to Why does Ben say that it is very important for both him and Locke to go see Jacob together? That wasn't answered. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:24, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
I agree that the question LOTDI suggested might be better, but at the same time to a basic degree that question has been answered. Didn't Ben say they needed to go there to get further directions/find out what to do next from Jacob? And I thought Ben not hearing Jacob say "help me" was a sign of Jacob's loyalty (not the best word) changing. So, Ben has to go to get further directions, Locke has to go so he can communicate/translate, and Hurley has to go to find the place. Or Ben is just covering all his bases. Or he's lying (wouldn't be a surprise). Honestly if others feel that a question to cover all this is necessary then that's fine with me, as I surmise we will have the answer soon in any case.--MetallichickX 02:27, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, you have a good point, so it was fully answered and we don't need the question then. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:41, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
I don't think we know for sure that Ben CAN hear Jacob...it seemed to me like it was all an at when Jacob was "interrupting". Locke heard him say "Help Me", but didn't hear him interrupting, so it may have all been a show.Thelordnyax 12:31, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
I keep on thinking it is an unanswered question. We know that Ben says he and Locke have to go to Jacob to find out what to do next. Still, that begs the question: "Why it is SO IMPORTANT that Locke is involved in doing this?" And we don't really know whether Ben can or cannot speak to Jacob, or hear him, (yes, as far as we know, Ben could have been pretending he was speaking to Jacob) and we don't really know whether Locke can speak to Jacob (again, here all we know is that Locke heard a voice saying "Help me", the voice didn't say "Hello Locke, I'm Jacob and I'm talking to you, because Ben cannot hear me, and I want to ask you to help me") Obviously, what this twist suggests is that Locke has a VERY IMPORTANT role to play in saving the island, maybe even in saving Jacob!, and none of this has been answered. Remember that Ben said "It's very important that you survive." He wouldn't care less if Claire and Sawyer died for no good reason. Obviously, there is something very important to be done, and Locke is crucial in doing this. But we don't know why. Thus, it is an unanswered question. At any rate, I don't mind that others are not curious about this. It just seems to me that the reason why others don't see it as an unanswered question is because they are relying on their theories, but theories are not shared, and insofar as there is no canonical answer then it should be seen as an unanswered question.--Salvora 05:10, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

I'm not entirely convinced that Ben did try to kill Locke. He was inches from him, and could have put a bullet in the back of his head if he really wanted to kill him. Remember too, Locke said that if he hadn't have had his kidney removed already, he would have probably bled to death. Ben shot him there on purpose, and left him to bleed in the pit (I suspect) because he wanted to prove to Locke that he was there for a reason. Call it a test, call it a manipulation, but I believe that Ben shot Locke for some reason other than trying to kill him. --Litany42 15:27, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

Image for article Edit

Someone changed the image for the article to be Ben's face, half-lit. Before it was Ben waking up in the desert in the Halliwax parka. Personally, I like the original image much more (plus it had the benefit of not having the ABC tag). Any chance we could change it back? Jimbo the tubby 15:41, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Apparently this one doesn't show up too well on laptop screens. I think a picture from the Ben/Keamy conversation would be best representative of the tone of this episode. --Halcohol
  • I like them both, but I prefer the parka image. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:56, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I put the parka back in since nobody seems offended by the idea, and for me personally it was the most defining thing about the episode. Jimbo the tubby 21:00, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

I also prefer the parka image. It is much more iconic to the episode than the picture of just Ben's face. The trick with these pics is to find a good image that represents a key moment of the episode and reminds you about it. A nicely lit pic of Ben may look good, but is not instantly associated with any particular episode.--TechNic|talk|conts 02:25, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Again, I really don't care which of the two (parka or window) is used, but I noticed that someone keeps reverting to the really dark nighttime one. Whoever it is, please stop, or else give a reason for doing so here. (By the way, it wasn't me who reverted back to the window one. If others wish, go ahead and change it back to the parka image.) -- Ao-bōzu 青坊主 * Talk * Contributions
  • Okay, at this point, we need to take a vote on what image we put up. Certain users (not any who have participated in this "Talk" section) keep changing it back, and we need to present a unified front if we are to tell them to stop. First 10 votes will decide it between DARK BEN, SAHARA BEN, or WINDOW BEN (it will go to 11 votes if it's 5 vs. 5 and 1 of the options wasn't voted for at all. Sound good?--Overworkedirish 17:28, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • SAHARA BEN. I just like the image, and it's my belief it's giving us a literal shape of things to come, plot-wise.--Overworkedirish 17:31, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Sahara Ben for reasons above. Jimbo the tubby 17:40, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Window Ben quite a nice picture, fits in with rest. The quality of Sahara ben is low. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  18:19, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Sahara The current one is too dark and boring. We know Ben exists, so the Sahara pic gives a better taste of the episode. Perhaps someone can find a better-quality Sahara Ben? --macosx 19:01, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Sahara Ben per comments above; since this was the status quo, I've returned the picture to that first change from the season 4 promo shot, and added a note that this is under dispute. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:14, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Sahara Ben per above. --Blueeagleislander 21:41, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Sahara Ben although one without black bars would look much better--Kivipat 22:11, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Alright, so we have a majority of 6 votes for Sahara Ben, so that's the image we'll keep. If someone finds a higher quality version of this image feel free to switch it out and mark the old one for deletion, but either way, if any user changes it to a DIFFERENT screenshot, we must make them aware of the vote here in the Talk section and that they can't just change pics on their own approval.--Overworkedirish 22:59, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • That's not how consensus works, but it's overwhelming enough for Sahara-Ben that the others might now agree to allow it. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:35, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
  • The image is good but the picture is not. Someone has to upload another version, without the black bars on top and bottom Malachi 03:48, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
Fix'd.-- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  08:25, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

Unanswered QuestionsEdit

"Why is Jack sick when the island cures people?"

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people have got sick or hurt as normal plenty of times so far on the island. Hurley is one example of someone getting a stomach complaint (early in season one I believe). I know people have been healed but that doesn't make them immune to a stomach bug surely?Liquidcow 18:02, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Agreed. I changed it to a general question asking about Jack's ailment. Jimbo the tubby 18:05, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

It's explained in the preview for the next episode. Are those spoilers or non-canon? Kajillion 19:39, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

They're spoilers. Jimbo the tubby 21:00, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Smokey comes from inside the sonar fence? Edit

As much as I liked Ben to be revealed as the monster's master (Release the Kraken!), it does not make sense to me that it is released from WITHIN the sonar fence, when in "Left Behind" it cannot pass it from outside!? Where did it come from then!?

Alex deactivated the sonar fence. Jimbo the tubby 22:25, 25 April 2008 (PDT)

Further, because Keamy and co. show up in New Otherton, we can assume that the code "1623" both turns the fence of and sounds the alarm (code 14J). This is an interesting point think about in relation to the episode Enter 77, where there are many different codes that set things off. By all means, I am not definitively saying that the people who programmed the Flame computer are the same that programmed the fence, but there is a parallel between the two. It makes sense to have all these... 'fail-safes', especially after watching the episode! AlaskaDave 12:24, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Even further, Ben is not the Monster's "master". All he did was summon it. That doesn't mean he controls it. Evil-pineapples 12:29, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
No, he can't control it, which is why he tells them to run for the treeline on his command. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:31, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

Freighter people intentionEdit

There is a lot talking about the freighter people intention. Many people write that Faraday reveals that their intention is not to save the losties. But we actually heard that in the second episode of this season. Daniel cleary said it is not their primary objective and it was pretty obvious all the time that they didn't want to take anyone off the island. Anyway I think Faraday already made it clear to Jack in that scene from episode 2. So I just want to make clear everyone knows that their intention never was to rescue anybody. Jared 01:33, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Gee, thanks for clarifying that for all of us. What a big help. --Pyramidhead 01:46, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Jared made a perfectly valid point. Users shouldn't be chastised or patronised for such comments.--TechNic|talk|conts 02:30, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Agreed. Some people have nothing better to do than make sarcastic comments on the internet I guess. Anyway, Jared is sort of right, what Daniel said early on is that rescuing the Losties 'isn't exactly our top priority'. It was fairly obvious to us the audience that they weren't here to rescue them. The plot point in this episode is that he confirms to Jack (not us) that they have no intention of rescuing anyone.Liquidcow 04:03, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Well, I think it was certainly a come-and-go situation. I did not believe that they were going to rescue them, and Daniel's first confession made me believe I was right, but it was definitely not a denial. Not for Jack, and not for us. I even began to think that they might rescue them because of Sayid's presence on the boat, and Jack's group almost holding the three boaties hostages. This new confession is absolute though. It is definitely a great deal for Jack's group. I think it also shows that how badly Jack wanted to believe that they were going to make it--Despite all the warnings of Charlie, Ben, and Locke, and despite Dan's first confession, he just did not doubt that they were going to go home. Now he knows that he was wrong. Maybe knowing that Locke was right made it even worse for him :). Anyway... As I said, I always believed that they made it off the Island some other way, but now that we heard Dan's confession, I think it's more possible for the boaties to have rescued the losties in the future. Because that's what TPTB do, they tell you something and do the exact opposite. Now I think that the boaties probably do get them off the Island. --     c      blacxthornE      t     04:42, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
I just wanted to point out that people shoudldn't write in the articles that it was the first time Jack heard something like that from Daniel, they shouldn't write it was the first time Faradays mentions that their intention isn't rescueing the losties. Anyway, thanks for the support ^^ Jared 05:03, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Well, I think in this last episode Daniel Faraday does say for the first time that they are not going to rescue the survivors and I think this is an important revelation in the series. I think what he said before is that "it wasn't one of their top priorities", but that is not the same as saying "we won't rescue you." So I disagree with Jared that this is not an important point, I think it is an important point. For several reasons: first reason has already been mentioned that this is the first time that he says "no", second reason is that since his arrival on the island he did keep up with the story that they would be rescued, and the survivors held on to that (remember Sun asking him? he wouldn't say the whole truth), and he lied to keep this hope up (such as when he lies about what the freighter people said about the doctor and the helicopters coming next morning to take them). I do agree with everyone else that I never though that the freighter people were going to rescue them, but that is because I took seriously Charlie, Ben and Locke's warnings. But not all of the survivors did, and that is why this revelation now is important, even if it is not a surprise to some of us in the audience.--Salvora 05:14, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Okay I see the importance of this but still, the way he said "rescuing you and your people, can't really say is our primary objective" made pretty clear that they doesn't want to rescue them even if only to Jack who just didn't want to believe this because he wants to get off the island so badly. So of course it is important for the survivors and it is the first time that he really says they won't rescue them but he never really lied about their intention cause he said from the beginning they didn't want to take the survivors off the island. First: "We don't want to rescue you" Now: "We won't" Jared 05:30, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
I'll have to disagree on that. The first one does not mean that they "don't want" to rescue them. Who says that secondary objectives are not wanted? He just said that the top priority was something else, which means he said that they were also going to rescue them. It's more like this: "We have something more important in mind, we'll rescue you after that" or "We will rescue you, but to be honest, we have ulterior motives".--     c      blacxthornE      t     05:40, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Okay I think I can't compete with that ^^ Yeah you're right but I always took it as "it's not our intention at all" and the way Daniel said it, but I guess it could be understood like "after we've done what we gotta to do your rescue is up next" or at least something like "if we got some seats we might take some of you with us". Jared 05:57, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
The audience can conclude they never intended to rescue the survivors because we know information to which Jack isn't privy (what was happening on the freighter, for example). Daniel and Charlotte's "primary objective" was revealed as neutralising the gas, so to Jack, et. al. on the beach, this would have indicated the secondary objective could now be rescue the survivors. This episode was a flat out no. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:35, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I also disagree with Jared that Daniel and Charlotte ever indicated they wouldn't take them off the island before this. On the contrary, they always pretended they would. Just because it wasn't a top priority doesn't mean they wouldn't do it. It just means they have other, more important things to do first. In fact, the first thing Daniel says to Jack is that "I'm here to rescue you." In this last episode, this is the first time the freighters ever give any indication to the survivors that they never intended to. -- Ao-bōzu 青坊主 * Talk * Contributions

What I want to know is, when Faraday lies and says the helicopters will be coming the next day, what was his plan for when they don't show up? Jack and all would definitely have some questions if they hadn't been rescued by the end of the day. Jimbo the tubby 18:19, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

A stall to allow the mercenaries to arrive? There will be a helicopter on the Island, just not "coming the next day" as Daniel lied. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:44, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Sawyer and the name "Widmore"Edit

When Sawyer hears the name "Charles Widmore", he asks who Charles is. Of course, the writers probably just though it would be natural for Sawyer to ask. I think it would be neat if Sawyer was interested because he read most of Bad Twin which is centered on the Widmore family. Vaholdem33 07:21, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

really nice thought! i havent read the book but is charles mentioned or is it just some other members of the family? Jared 07:36, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Yeah that's a good connection. In Bad Twin, the Widmores we know are not mentioned but there are other people with the Widmore surname. --Sentient nebula 14:07, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Episode reference? Edit

Does Ben's extendable baton count as an episode reference to Every Man For Himself? Remember when he uses it to lay the hurt on Sawyer in that episode? Evil-pineapples 12:31, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

I wouldn't think so. It could be the same thing, but just because it is doesn't make it a reference. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  17:10, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Best Ending Ever Edit

I think the twist at the end of this episode was one of the best ever. Of course, the theme of Ben versus Widmore, fighting for the Island, had been already revealed, but, why does Widmore say that the Island is his and always was? what could give him this "entitlement"? In what way is the Island "his"? And if it is his, how come he can't find it? And what does he mean by I know who you are, what you are, boy? And why do they have to compete for the Island? That is, what different plans/visions/ideas/uses they have for the Island that put them in competition for it? When they compete for the Island, what is at stake from their point of view?--Salvora 13:51, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

It was a good ending. But certainly not the best ever. Think "Through the Looking Glass, Part 1", "Deus Ex Machina", "The Whole Truth", and "Exposé" for starters. --Blueeagleislander 18:44, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
For my money, Par Avion's ending was one of the best moments in the entire series. Scarecrow 09:34, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
Lol, alright, I can't agree with any of that.--Salvora 10:38, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
Seriously? "Par Avion" and "Through the Looking Glass, Part 1"'s endings were a thousand times more shocking than this episode's. Evil-pineapples 18:02, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
Are we all forgetting "Two for the Road" here? Talk about a shocker of an ending!--Baker1000 18:15, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
For my money, "Walkabout" set the standard for endings. --Eyeful Tower 09:22, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
Walkabout's the best ending ever, in my opinion. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  19:22, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

Filming in London Edit

"The scene between Ben and Widmore was actually filmed in London, due to Alan Dale currently performing in Spamalot. Michael Emerson and director Jack Bender were flown from Oahu in order to do the filming." was removed from the Production Notes. A quick Google search suggests that this is true (WARNING - Some of the results may contain possible spoilers). Certainly Dale has been in Spamalot since 3rd March and was in rehearsal for several weeks prior to that. And as a Londoner it rings true because I was struck by how much like London it looked - particularly given how wrong they have got in the past! It's an interesting note so seems worth putting back.--TechNic|talk|conts 18:21, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Sorry, my mistake. It was a duplicate entry that had been removed.--TechNic|talk|conts 18:50, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Why does Sayid fall for Ben's con? Edit

Why does Sayid so easily fall for Ben's apparent con in getting him to believe Widmore's men killed Nadia? Shouldn't Sayid be asking for proof or a cast iron reason before he starts volunteering to blow people away? It is unbelievable to me that Sayid, who has a track record of good intuition about people's true motives, would take the word of Ben, whose word surely has zero credibility in Sayid's eyes by now after all of Ben's trickery.--Mattb02 23:10, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Yes, but Sayid has one weakness. Women. Shannon got him extremely full of anger towards Ana and late "Henry". I'm guessing this is when Ben would've first noticed it. Later, Elsa totally conned Sayid and that was only because he was attracted to her. And when the love of his life, Nadia, had just died, I'm sure he'd be pretty vulnerable to Ben's tricks. --Blueeagleislander 23:48, 26 April 2008 (PDT)
Is this really a con? Maybe Ben manipulated the situation to get Sayid to work for him, but is there any evidence that Widmore wasn't involved in the death? --Jackdavinci 01:12, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
I wondered that too. EXPLANATION 1: I thought the explanation would be that Sayid and Nadia were living a very simple and domestic life and that Sayid had no reason to think anybody would want to do them any harm. And when Nadia is killed, he needs to believe there is an explanation for it. Still, this is not so convincing as an explanation. If Widmore is really behind the killing of Nadia, then he would have fabricated some story to explain the murder. Remember Widmore is capable of faking the wreck of a plane in the depths of the ocean. If he wanted to kill someone, he could easily fabricate some cover-up story, like, say: Nadia was in the supermarket, and there was a gun robbery, and things went terribly wrong and Nadia received a shot and died instantly. That is, some story like that is needed to make Sayid believe that it wasn't an intentional murder, but an accident. And I think Widmore people would have been careful and would have fabricated some cover-up story. Assuming there was some cover-up story for the murder of Nadia, I don't know why it is that Sayid finds it so easy to believe Ben's story. Also, Ben gives him some proof that it was a murder (the picture of the driver), but he tells him he does not know why Widmore killed Nadia. And I think Sayid is too intelligent to accept such little proof without any explanation. Remember that Sayid has been an information officer. He needs all the facts of a story to make sense of it. EXPLANATION 2: Another explanation would be to say that Sayid is in such grief and in such pain, that he will just take anything and go with it. That is also the impression I got from the episode.--Salvora 06:00, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
I think the murder of Nadia comes in time before Sayid starts working for Ben, and therefore it comes in time before Sayid meets Elsa (before "The Economist.")--Salvora 06:00, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
"Faking the wreck of a plane in the depths of the ocean" has to be Ben; if he's capable of getting fake passports for himself and Michael, he's certainly capable of forging documents to "prove" Widmore was behind the plane in the ocean, and Ben's a known liar. Also, it makes more sense, since we know Widmore is behind the freighter, and the captain of the freighter had the black box from the fake wreck prompting him to look harder for the Island (leading us to understand the black box probably wasn't accurate enough to fool Widmore), that Ben staged the wreck to prevent anyone looking for survivors (that's why all bodies were there to be "accounted for"). Widmore, OTOH, has been looking for the Island, so his resources being spent on making a wreckage doesn't make sense. Ben is now out for blood for the murder of Alex, so anything is fair game, including manipulating the grieving Sayid. Did Widmore order the hit? Did Ben order the hit? A case can be made for either scenario. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:24, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
LOSTonthisdarnisland: I agree that a case can be made for either scenario. We still don't know who faked the wreck of the plane. I am inclined to think it was Widmore, but this is not the place for that discussion. What I'd like to say is that I don't think Ben's vendetta on account of Alex's death will be something that will change Ben's behaviour towards everyone. Widmore changed the rules, but those were rules that applied to them and their competition for the island. And in principle, Ben's change of strategy need not affect anyone else but Widmore. That is, we have no reason to think that is what will be happening. It is true that Ben is capable of doing something like killing someone else (in this case that would be Nadia) to manipulate someone else (in this case, Sayid), but I don't think we have any evidence to be sure that is what happened. But we do have evidence of the following: there was a bald man observing Nadia's funeral, and this is the bald man that is on Ben's picture. While it is true that Ben is very capable of forging that picture, we still need explanation as to why was this man observing Nadia's funeral (and indeed, it would appear, invigilating Sayid), why was Ben following him, and why was this man concerned that Ben was following him. Also, remember, that Ben tells him that he wants him to pass a message for Widmore, so we (and by we I mean you and I) know that that man knew Widmore and is connected to him somehow. So this man, the bald man, is a clear connection between Widmore and Sayid, and this is in principle evidence in support for the theory that Widmore may be involved with Nadia's death. May it not be the case that Nadia was going to tell the world about the island, the freighter, Widmore? Nadia has been known before for being some sort of political activist, so she might be the kind of person who is concerned about making the truth public. So that could give us a motive for Widmore to murder her. Obviously, all of this, is theorizing, but I think it is plausible theorizing.--Salvora 10:19, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
The bald man startles at the mention of Widmore's name, so I'd have to agree it would seem more likely there's a connection to Widmore rather than to Ben. But again, we know Ben is famous for manipulation, so I wouldn't put it past him to tell someone who works for him outside the Island to react a certain way, not telling him Sayid will kill him. I do think Ben's vendetta will change his way of operating; he lost his child, in every sense of the word except biological. No matter how warped he is, you can see evidence in the scene where he is gobsmacked and where he lags behind to say goodbye (even though the danger of the Monster is near). I can't see that not affecting his entire life where the vedetta will become the most important thing, and everyone else will be pawns in his revenge. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:38, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Right - remember what Ben says - even to Sayid: "Once you let your grief become anger, it will never go away. I speak from experience."--Overworkedirish 18:17, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
Of course, we don't know if this is a con by Ben, but whether it is or isn't the question remains why Sayid isn't just a bit skeptical before signing up for a job like this. Also, if it is a con then Ben has made an especially odd choice: a member of the Oceanic 6 and therefore one of the most recognisable faces in the world. I loved this episode but this part left me cold.--Mattb02 20:58, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
Grief can make people react very differently than they normally would; he just buried Nadia the previous day. NB Sayid's reason for remaining as Ben's assassin is revealed to be different in the Economist. Ben probably gave Sayid an expansion of the reason given in this episode, involving "his friends", as Sayid began to emerge from the most intense portion of his grief and started questioning Ben as we'd expect him to react. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:48, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

I remember back in season 2 or 3 talking with my friends and commenting that Sayid seems to NEVER be wrong, whenever he had an intuition about a person or a situation (Henry Gale is a good example) it seemed like he was always right. Maybe his intuition is still serving him here, and he just knows that Ben is right, or is telling the truth, about the people that killed Nadia, and the people that Ben coerces Sayid into killing. I'm not saying that Ben isn't manipulating him, but it's likely that he's doing it by using the truth, and Sayid knows it. And it isn't without concrete evidence, either, Ben had a traffic photo of the assassin taken a few blocks from where Nadia was killed (though I admit Ben could've faked that too) Sithboy 16:40, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Yes, good point about Sayid's intuition. I've been re-watching old episodes, and you're right: Sayid is almost always right in his hunches. One possible exception is in season one when he tortures Sawyer for information he doesn't have.--Mattb02 14:12, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
  • ...or Ben could have hired Ishmael to kill Nadia in the first place. The whole situation is a bit weird and I feel will be clarified in subsequent episodes.--Overworkedirish 17:22, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Iraqi Merchant Edit

There's and Iraqi merchant credited. But I can't find any mention of him in the synopsis or the transscript (I haven't seen the episode yet). Was his role deleted? --Hunter61 23:43, 26 April 2008 (PDT)

Widmore's Island Edit

I'm getting kinda confused know. Of course the producers of Lost always want to make twists in the plot and so on, trying to confuse us on every step, but what does Widmore mean saying that it's his island and that Ben took everything from him? Ben was on the island since he was a child, he "took" the island by killing the Dharma people during The Purge. So here is the confusion: if it was Widmore's island, he would be connected to Dharma. And Dharma knew exactly how to get to the island (they dropped supplies in 2004). So why would he be looking for it? I kinda don't believe he somehow hidden it from Widmore. Also, how could Widmore be when Dharma was created? BeŻet 06:47, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Remember from TLE how the Hanso foundation (Dharma), Paik Heavy Industries, and Widmore were all working together? Also that Alvar Hanso used to be on the board at Widmore Corp? I'm betting that Widmore Corp. was a coalition of sorts among the three companies, with Widmore himself at the head. Once Ben killed off all the Dharma men, who by extention worked for Widmore, Widmore had no control over the Island anymore. That's what I think, anyway. --Thenumbersdude 11:02, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

Sawyer gun battle Edit

I like how the freighter strike team gets three kill shots and then set their guns to miss while sawyer runs with practically no cover. That was a little hard to swallow and the fact that an RPG that incinerated an entire house somehow fails to kill its occupant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enzovalenzetti (talk • contribs) 2008-04-27T15:30:39.

You're right, I found the scene a bit unbelievable as well, but I don't watch LOST for the action scenes, so I'm going to let it slide. But they (TPTB) should be a bit more careful as they're trying to garner more fans and really fake looking scenes like that would turn people unfamiliar with the storyline away.--MetallichickX 19:48, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I realize this is a theory, but in answering the above post I'll say that we should anticipate the possibility of other forces at work - maybe Sawyer, like Michael in "Meet Kevin Johnson," has "more work to do" and is being protected by the Island or whatever the heck is going on there...--Overworkedirish 20:56, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I like this theory, it seems very plausible, Sawyer has not yet done anything significant and may still have a job today.Thelordnyax 12:23, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
Yep. It was a bit cheesy. When he flipped that wooden table to cover behind I thought, why not at least shoot him in the leg (it was wide open at the bottom). Also, Claire didn't have any signs of burning on her clothes. Kinda lame. I really liked the pacing and the drama of the episode, but that part was utterly ludicrous.--Simakperrce 02:08, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
Yeah, I laughed out loud when three redshirts ran out and died practically on top of eachother and then Sawyer gets untouched. Maybe he does have work to do. As for Claire, I thought she was in the backyard, no? I read it somewhere here on LP that she was hanging clothes in the back. So that part isn't unbelievable.--Sentient nebula 05:30, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

I suppose if Keamy and his team were really trying a "shock and awe" tactic as Ben stated, then it's plausible that they killed three people (the redshirts) and left the last man in sight alive on purpose. They needed someone alive to get inside the house and give Ben up to them. Vaholdem33 05:46, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

On the cheesy note -- it was also a little ridiculous that it took 10 minutes to baracade the front door, and then 8.3 seconds to unblock it to let Miles in... --Litany42 15:36, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

Why is that ridiculous? Construction by gathering things from around the room would take far longer than moving things to one side. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:53, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

I agree, I felt the scene with Sawyer and the fact that Claire was pretty much unharmed, while 3 other people were killed without difficulty, was quite lame. For a moment there, I believed that would be when Claire died, and it would explain why Aaron ended up with Kate. But obviously Claire isn't dying yet. At any rate, as others above, I don't watch LOST for the action, so I'm not too offended.--Salvora 04:50, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

Redshirts with Locke Edit

We saw Doug, Jerome, and that women get killed by Keamy and his men. But what about the other redshirts that went with Locke? Were they all killed off by Keamy and his men or by Smokey, or are they alive? (Personaly I'm going with they're all dead 'cuz in the jungle Hurley, Miles, Sawyer, Claire, Aaron, Locke, and Ben seem to be the only people that survived the freighter people's and Smokey's encounter.) Marko 14:43, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Not necessarily. Ben had the door blocked and locked, then told the people inside to run. We cannot presume the fate of the others there aside from the redshirts we saw die. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 21:21, 27 April 2008 (PDT)
    • I found it very interesting that they've killed 6 people on the island in the past two episodes (Danielle, Karl, Alex, Doug, Jerome, and "that woman") this seems to reduce the population quite a bit...perhaps setting up the exodus of the Oceanic 6, and having less people (if any) who are still alive get left behind.Thelordnyax 12:21, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
      • I too noticed that after the freighter people/smokey encounter that we don't see any of the background cast members of Locke's group. I think it's likely that more than just Doug, Jerome, and "that woman" were killed - considering the carnage, random gunfire and the 'storming' smoke monster... However since we don't actually see any of them die, and many of the homes (as far as I could tell) were left un-touched, I think its just as likely that a number of them could have survived. Interesting how Locke leaves with Ben and Hurley and basically abandons any potential survivors, though.--Mr couchman 01:03, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Just before the attacks start, two redshirts are seen walking around the Barracks grounds (middle of the 9th minute). [3] [4] The second one is clearly Jerome (same pink shirt as the one he gets shot in moments later), but the first one is unaccounted for. We don't hear any shots before Doug is murdered, so it seems fairly unlikely that he/she was killed. Although he/she may have been killed in subsequent gunfire. Aridd 06:37, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

pic of kate with strap down Edit

this should be the pic used for this article.Petrarch1603 19:53, 27 April 2008 (PDT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petrarch1603 (talk • contribs) 2008-04-27T21:24:06.

Exodus Really? Edit

I think it's a bit of a stretch saying that the whole deal with Aaron is just like in the Bible. There are tons of movies and books that deal with smuggling babies from hostile forces, and many are without religious overtones. I would be more apt to see the connection here if, you know, he was going to put in a river. But as it stands, it's just a common theme that may have it's roots in Exodus, but it's hardly a parallel. I seem to recall Willow having a similar plot, why isn't it mentioned?    Mr Vain    talk    contribs    email   21:34, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

Sahara Edit

"Sahara Desert" is tautological, like PIN number (Personal Identification Number number) or ATM machine (Automatic Teller Machine machine), because Sahara means the great desert, so we would be saying "The Great Desert desert". Corrected in article. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:54, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

In fact, "Sahara" (which is actually derived from the word "sahra") means just "desert". "Shara-al-kubra" means "the great desert". But you're still correct about the redundancy of the word desert. Although since it's not really a synonym and it's considered a proper name, it's really not a big issue. But Sahara is better than Sahara Desert.--     c      blacxthornE      t     04:26, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
Ah, thanks Blacx. That's what I get for believing Wikipedia :P. Regardless, Sahara Desert was driving me crazy. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:37, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
I don't see how it's redundant if they're in different languages. Scarecrow 23:01, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
I thought I illustrated why with the acronyms. There are many adoptions of words from other languages into English, and the meaning of the word should be taken into account before any additional English word is tacked onto it. Sahara Desert is as wrong as ballet dance, faux pas mistake, nom de plume name, rouge red, or sachet sack. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 23:17, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

Sat Phone Query Edit

I'm pretty surprised no one else has mentioned this (maybe i'm just too picky). When Juliet asks Daniel if he has had any luck with the Sat Phone, he replies that "the mic is smashed up pretty good" which is when Bernard suggests that Daniel use morse. We know the speaker still works because we can hear the reply code from it so my observation is why would the ship reply in morse when it would be easier and faster for them to simply reply by voice (ie "What are you talking about? The doctor is fine.") Discuss..

ScottishDan 10:52, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

Daniel sent the message in Morse Code, perhaps they don't know whether or not he'd be able to hear a voice transmission?Thelordnyax 12:17, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
A good and valid point, thanks ScottishDan 12:26, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
Plus this way the writers get to catch Daniel in a lie...--Litany42 15:39, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

Dean Moriar(ty?)Edit

  • Am I the only one, despite having listened to it over and over again, who hears "I'm actually a preferred guest. It should be under Dean Moriar." Even though "Moriarty" is clearly printed on the passport and Narjiss the clerk also clearly says "Certainly, Mr. Moriarty."--Overworkedirish 12:38, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Nope, he says Moriarty, not very clearly but he does ^^ Jared 13:01, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Maybe I'm going to far, but: DEANMORIARTY -> * E * * M * * I * * T * -> TIME... Yeah, I'm going to far. BeŻet 06:49, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
  • It's an anagram for "It random year", but that's too far, too. Olin 07:36, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

Morse Code Edit

  • Has anyone tried to decipher the morse code that Daniel sends and recieves? I'm pretty sure Bernard has no reason to lie, but i was wondering if it really is the things that Bernard says.. Also, the code at the beginning is too short to form a question: What happened to the doctor? - it's just a few letters long!! Please, can anyone try to decode it? or find a link to a forum where this is being discussed? Thanks, --   Steff    talk    contribs    email   12:56, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
Guys at The Lost Experience tried to decode it. They say it translates to "SAFER" or "SAFE G". Check out this link: http://www.thelostexperience.com/2006/05/08/--Imarzouka 00:42, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
It looks like that link pertains to the Lost Experience from 2006, where there also was some morse code involved. It does not decode the message from this ep. --DJVok 01:20, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
oops.. sorry, didn't notice that. I will try to decode it myself and let you know.--Imarzouka 01:30, 29 April 2008 (PDT)


Ok, I got the morse code translated. Nothing is hidden there. It translates to: "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, THE DOCTOR IS FINE". I ran the audio into some frequency filters to get a clear signal then translated it using this translator http://www.qbit.it/lab/demorse.php. This is the morse code:

.-- .... .- - .- .-. . -.-- --- ..- - .- .-.. -.- .. -. --. .- -... --- ..- - --..--

W H A T A R E Y O U T A L K I N G A B O U T ,

- .... . -.. --- -.-. . --- .-. .. ... ..-. .. -. .

T H E D O C T O R I S F I N E

--Imarzouka 07:17, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

    • Daniel uses Morse code to communicate with the freighter due to damage to their phone, however, the speaker seems to work since that is how they hear the freighter's reply. The use of Morse code in the reply from the freighter was unnecessary since the speaker seems to be intact.
It is presumptuous - as stated above in this Talk discussion there's absolutely no way for the freighter to have KNOWN that it's just the mic that's broken, not the speaker - Daniel didn't correlate that in the message, and therefore it's completely appropriate for the freighter to respond to the message the same way they received it.--Overworkedirish 14:04, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
Yes, I agree with this removal for that very reason. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:54, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

"English, Arabic, or Turkish" BlooperEdit

  • I've removed the following blooper:
  • Factual error: After Benjamin Linus wakes up on the floor of the Sahara, he asks the locals if they speak English, Arabic, or Turkish. Assuming that Ben had a rough idea where he might be, approaching the Bedouins with Turkish is irrelevant as Turkish and Arabic have completely different origins and belong to different linguistic roots. Turkish is not spoken in that part of the world, nor live Bedouins in Turkey or other parts of the world, where Turkish is spoken. Furthermore, French would be a better try as these territories were most recently part of the French colony.
It is presumptuous - how can a character decision (i.e. Ben trying out Turkish in addition to English and Arabic) be a factual error? It's Ben's own right to be stupid.--Overworkedirish 14:04, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
I agree. I'm a Turk, and although I thought it was kinda funny that he tried Turkish in the middle of Sahara, I removed that before, because it was a character decision as you said. We can at least assume that he took a desperate shot. I know I would even try Russian if I were in a situation like that. --     c      blacxthornE      t     16:05, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
I also agree. I actually thought it was an intentional, Ben trying to appear unassuming, so they'd drop their guard enough for him to get his weapon. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:20, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
When we talk about factual errors, we have to look at it from the script perspective. I do believe that this is an error in the script, and I do not believe that the writers wanted to have Ben look stupid, unassuming, etc. It seems possible to me that the writers of LOST have intentionally put Turkish in there, knowing that the Turkish community is sensitive not to be mixed up with Arabs. A similar "mix-up" occurred in the TV series "24", where Arab terrorists were mixed up with Turks. This created a lot of upset among the Turkish community but the viewers in the US probably did not know about that. Although this is a TV show for entertainment, I believe that there is always a political aspect of it. Besides all the discussions across relevant pages in Lostpedia indicate that Ben knew where he ended up (in Tunisia), so he was not in a confusing situation. I would like to ask also, how many viewers do you think knew that Ben used Turkish, when they watched this scene? And how many know that Turkish is not spoken in the Sahara desert, or Turkish and Arabic are completely different languages? I would say not many, except the Turkish viewers! Did you know? :) So, why would the writers pick Turkish intead of French, Spanish or Mandarin or Greek among all the languages in the world? I believe that the writers could have omitted the Turkish easily, if their real intention was to make Ben look desperate. It was an error and an intentional choice by the writers or everything is more harmless than it seems and the writers were ignorant, which I cannot believe. This is a series watched by millions of people, so the writers need to be more careful not to misinform people.--Messenger 21:35, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
If I understand your point, that it was intentionally added, then by definition it cannot be a blooper, right? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:48, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
No, it should be still viewed as a blooper, or a goof by the writers, if it cannot be justified within the context of the script. Again, there is no good reason why Ben tried Turkish. See discussion below and on my talk page. Also, please look at this example, which was accepted as a goof by IMDB.--Messenger 05:49, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
I don't understand your point. You are aware that this show does air in Turkey, right? Why would the writers suddenly say "Well, to hell with them, let's just piss them off, so what if they're sensitive about it"? Besides, you have to have realized that this show does have some attitude against that kind of politics: It has characters from many nations and races, and some mix-up situations are running jokes (Scott vs Steve) while others are more like messages (Koren vs Chinese, Iraqi vs Terrorist). Mind you that the "torturer from Iraq", who would be the terrorist or the bad guy in every single movie and tv series but this one, is one of the best and most reliable characters. And he made out with the hot girl of the show :). So I don't think the writers would be willing to illustrate such a union among races and nations, but just Turks they would want to piss off. As with everything, I think Turks would be too sensitive about such a trivial point. I know that many Turks make the same mistake about Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Mongols and even eastern Turks, who are of Asian race. So if there are many mix-ups between Arabs and Turks, then sorry, but that just means we don't make it quite clear that we're not them. There are many touristic areas that some stupid people just sell fez as a souvenir from Turkey. The very fez that was banned by Atatürk himself. So don't blame the writers for being politically sinister about it. It's a common (however big, old and frustrating) Western mistake. And just to be technically correct, they never said that he was in Tunisia at that time. He was in the Sahara. Let's not "just" get into politics; you have no grounds for that.--     c      blacxthornE      t     03:13, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
I have no intention to go into politics. But I feel that there is a subtle political message behind this, and trust me I am not the only one. The Turkish LOST fans are feeling mixed about this blooper. Let's think positive then and cosider this as an unintentional and random choice by the writers. I think then it qualifies as a blooper. The other way around if there was intention, but with no relevance or good reason, then it still qualifies as a blooper.Try walking in the writer's shoes for a moment: you are writing this scene and you want to portrait Ben as someone who wants to communicate somehow with the approaching Bedouins. Can anyone here give a logical reason why Turkish? English, because it is spoken worldwide. Arabic, because your see Bedouins in a desert (and Ben is most probably aware that he is at his destination point Tunisia). Why Turkish then? Why not French? Why not Italian? French and Italian would make perfect sense and would be recognizable by the viewers and would have relevance too, right? Why not Mandarin, also a widely spoken language and recognizable. But hey, Mandarin would be really hillarious, if the writers decided to go with that. And it would be absolutely non-sense and would qualify again as a blooper if you cannot explain why. But they chose Turkish for crying out loud. If you can give me a logical reason for that, then you would understand the point I am trying to make. Like I said, the writers should have known better, and they should be considerate when writing the script because the show is viewed by millions. The writers could have made any other language choice to steer away from possible polemics and upsets. --Messenger 04:22, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
I do not agree with the deletion and I think we should list this as a blooper. Here is a link to a very similar language "mix-up" made in the TV series "24". It is on record on IMDB as a goof (=blooper). There are several other examples on IMDB to justify this. So far I have seen no good explanation for the Turkish choice by the writers(a language spoken by only around 130 million people).--Messenger 04:46, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
I have seen that episode of 24. And the IMDB goof section says: "Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers)". That's exactly why I said we can't say it's a blooper. Again: It's a common mistake. You're giving examples from another show, I did it from Lost: People mistake Korean for Chinese or Japanese. Why don't you argue that? Because you know it's a common mistake. It was obvious that the writers deliberately did that there, and it is possible that they might have done it here too. At best, we can argue that it's an error made by character (possibly deliberate error by writers), as in the IMDB example you've given, and then add it. I wouldn't oppose to that, and I think that would be accurate. I know that Ben's supposed to be well-read or something... But that's an assumption: Ben was educated on the Island. He might not know about everything. That's why we cannot know for sure that it's a blooper. --     c      blacxthornE      t     05:57, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
Right. And as I pointed out above, it might have been a deliberate move on Ben's part, where he wasn't testing out languages, so much as appearing to test out languages to make them drop their guard slightly. Notice the guys look at each other and one gets down to check him for weapons? Ben's reaction is to continue the unassuming charade, acting like the black thing is nothing, when it's actually a telescopic baton he then uses as a weapon against them. I think it's in Ben's character to act all innocent, and using several languages, including a wrong one, would make him appear to be less of a threat and more of someone lost and in need of assistance. Either suggestion makes it seem intentional, so it wouldn't be a blooper. I like Blacx suggestion of something along the lines of what IMDB uses, "error made by character (possibly deliberate error by writers)" because that seems the most plausible. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:03, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
OK, but why Turkish following English and Arabic, which are most likely to be understood? We still cannot argue that it was a random choice by the writers. It is more likely an error rather then a random choice.--Messenger 06:17, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
Ersen, a common mistake is still a mistake/blooper/goof, whatever you want to call it, and here is a chance to educate viewers and avoid misinformation. I would definitely argue for the Korean example as well and I am sure that the Korean viewers questioned that, which I would agree on. Yes, as you said, Ben is portrayed as a smart and educated man, and more recently as a character with '007' qualities. So, it is more than an assumption. Still, no good reason for the choice of Turkish. --Messenger 06:09, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
I'm having trouble getting my point across. The reason I repeat that it's a common mistake is the answer to "Why Turkish". If you were a writer, and would think of a character trying out languages in the Middle East, you would go with Arabic first. Then, if you want the character to try out another language but make a wrong choice, you wouldn't say, "he would mistakenly try Mandarin", but "he would mistakenly try Turkish" instead, because the common mistake is Turkish for Arabic, not Mandarin. If he tried out Mandarin and someone asked them why, they couldn't say "well, he didn't know any better". But with Turkish, they can always say, "it's a common mistake, so he thought he had a shot" or even go with LOTDI's argument and say he wanted to seem clueless, so he decided to use a common mistake as a disguise. This is just as in the movie Juno, when Juno says that she was named after "Zeus' wife", while it's actually the name of Jupiter's wife: Jupiter is the Roman counterpart of the Greek Zeus, and again, it's a common mistake.--     c      blacxthornE      t     06:43, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
OK, then we should point at that common mistake made by the writers then. But the main point here is that Ben's Turkish speaking attempt inherently implies for most Lostpedia followers that Turkish and Arabic are in the same family of languages and that Turkish is spoken in the Tunisian desert. This is exactly the message that comes across when you read the episode description on the main page, don't you agree?--Messenger 06:58, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
I put the paragraph back in similar to the IMDB example and reworded it a little to make it more accurate. Let me know, what you think. Thanks.--Messenger 07:09, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I strongly disagree with this being a blooper. There are several legitimate possibilities for why this could happen in the plot such as 1) Ben did it on purpose to appear non threatening to the horse riders or 2) Ben has no idea where he is or even (though unlikely) 3) Ben made a mistake. It's jumping the gun to call this a blooper. This belongs in unanswered questions at best. --Jackdavinci 07:28, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I fully agree with Jackdavinci. Bloopers are bloopers. The Lost writers aren't idiots - we've already seen Charlotte's scene in Tunisia where the Tunisian man running the dig site was going on and on in French. They KNOW French and Arabic are the two languages most commonly spoken in Tunisia. That SAID, we need to review WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SCENE. Ben didn't ask them "ARE YOU TURKISH? BECAUSE I'M A DUMB UNASSUMING AMERICAN," (DISCLAIMER: I'm American) he asked them "DO YOU SPEAK TURKISH?" This is a huge difference. Who knows the life story of Bedouin #1 and Bedouin #2?? Certainly not us! Maybe Bedouin #2 went to boarding school in Turkey, or maybe Bedouin #1's mother fell in love with a Turkish sailor who stayed around in Bedouin #1's life just long enough to teach him the Turkish words for "I love you." Obviously, I'm joking about all this, but we have to take Ben's comment as it is. I would in fact go so far as to say that it's racist and elitest to assume that Bedouin #1 and 2 are uneducated in a foreign language and don't know Turkish. They didn't respond to him in Arabic either. Maybe one of them even knows Turkish. This is a ridiculous proposition to keep it as a blooper.--Overworkedirish 12:54, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
    • Thank you. I'm glad someone remembered that scene; it's definitely a good example. Even the newspaper article there was in French, and that's enough proof that the writers know what's going on. That fairly proves my argument: Whatever the mistake is, it belongs to the character. The IMDB-style was a compromise for me, but I think now that we have proof that the writers didn't make the mistake before (and have no reason to make it now), this point belongs to the Trivia section, along the lines of "Ben asks the Bedouin if they speak Turkish, although it is not a language spoken in that part of the world". As I said, it's just like Korean vs. Chinese, and we all know that the writers don't think that Jin and Sun are Chinese.--     c      blacxthornE      t     13:03, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Has anyone considered Ben might not know what year it is? He questions that very thing when he gets to the inn, asking about 2005 in wavering voice, as if he is unsure. Is it possible meeting two Bedouins in the desert, away from civilisation, he used Turkish because he was unsure if he transported back in time? If I remember my history correctly, wasn't the Tunisian part of the Sahara under the control of the Ottoman Empire? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:15, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I like you're thinking, LOTDI, but according to wikipedia the Ottoman Empire only existed until 1923. The AK-47 (that's what the Bedouins are packing) was designed in 1947.--Overworkedirish 13:30, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Yeah, Dogac suggested that too, but Overworkedirish is right: They make it obvious they're at least in the late 1900s. --     c      blacxthornE      t     14:04, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Isn't that pointing to an assumption that Ben immediately knew they were AK-47s? Anyway, I still like my theory best, so this was just a suggestion. (My theory is also supported by the fact that Ben is multilingual and he hears them speak before he starts replying in English, indicating to me the Turkish was intentional.) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:45, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
  • Overworkedirish and Jackdavinci, you should read ALL of the discussion above and try to understand the point I made. You are just restating what you said initially with new THEORIES. Can you give a logical answer why the writers included Turkish into this scene? Forget all of this discussion and the blooper, what did you perceive when you read on the Episode main page that Ben spoke Turkish to the Bedouins? Did you think Ben is just randomly picking from his list of languages he knows? Or did you think that Turkish is probably also spoken in the Sahara? When I watched the scene for the first time I thought Ben is trying to communicate with them and not to appear a confused tourist or something. Otherwise he would have not started with English because it was very likely that they understood English. If you watch the scene again, you will notice that when he didn't get any reaction he tried the next "VIABLE" language.--Messenger 00:03, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
    • They are theories because we don't know why the scene was written exactly that way. That it's a blooper is a theory too. At best, this qualifies as either an unanswered question or trivia. It's not clear that Ben knew where he was (when he first arrived) other than in some kind of desert. He definitely wasn't sure what *year* it was. He has multiple passports in his secret room showing that he's been to many places - possibly by the same method. We also don't know the complete list of languages Ben is able to speak. I sympathize with people who are offended by lumping Arabs and Turks together but I don't think we have enough information to automatically assume that's what's happening here, especially when there are plenty of other possibilities. Such as: 1) Ben wasn't sure where he ended up 2) Turkish was the only other language he knows from desert areas 3) He was playing dumb to seem harmless 4) He may have suspected they were feigning not understanding him and intentionally provoked them by speaking Turkish 5) He might not know the geographical range of the various regional languages. --Jackdavinci 06:19, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
      • Number 2 in your possibility list shows that you have not read the discussion entirely and thereby you did not understand why it is an error. There are no deserts in Turkish spoken countries! So, if you think plain and simple, in reality it would not be reasonable to try to initate communication with Bedouins in a desert. Note the order of the languages he tries, Ben WANTS them to understand him because he starts with English! He gets no reaction from the two men, he goes on with Arabic, still no reaction and then Turkish, which was thought of the writers to be the next likely language the men speak. Your other possibilites are theories, and if you think that Ben was not sure where he ended up then you should edit the main page of the episode because there it is pretty clear that he knows he is in Tunisia. There is nothing in the plot about confusion of the place, but there is confusion about the year. And I certainly do not believe he is playing dumb because he wants to communicate with them in English. Otherwise he could have just talked giberrish.--Messenger 06:40, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

Turkish Edit

I removed the blooper comment explaining that Turkish is not spoken in Tunisia. All of that was great, but it relied on the idea that Ben knew where he woke up. The comment explained that he knew where he woke up because he made small talk with the clerk about Tunisia in a later scene. This doesn't make sense. It's just as likely he figured it out between scenes. If he knew where he was, he wouldn't have needed to try more than one language. --Moo 17:53, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Yeah, this plus new comments above in the section "English, Arabic, and Turkish Blooper" should be enough for it to be removed.--Overworkedirish 19:33, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
There is no dialogue or scene on the episode main page indicating confusion about where he woke up, Ben was confused only about the year. What may have happened between scenes would be just Theories and we cannot remove factual errors based on theories. The main point is that Ben wants the two men to understand him because he is trying the most viable languages. At least the writers thought that these languages were the languages that would be understood by these two men. In reality one would never approach two Bedouins in a desert with Turkish because this is a language they would not know. French would be much more likely. Here is a similar mistake that occurred in the TV series "24".. This error was accepted and is on record on IMDB.--Messenger 06:55, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
Okay. There's no need to go through the whole discussion over and over again. Here's how the wiki thing goes: You make an edit. If no one has any objection, that means there's consensus. You move on. If someone questions it and/or reverts your edit, then there's no consensus, and you have two options:
  • You accept it, which means the old consensus (before your edit) is back on.
  • You dispute. That's what the discussion page is for. To gain consensus. You make your argument, if there's consensus on your edit now, the edit goes back on and there's new consensus. If people are not convinced, then there's no consensus, and the old consensus (before your edit) is back on.
That's why there's no need to repeat arguments. You make valid points, but the fact that we've seen people speaking French and a French newspaper in Tunisia, shows us that the writers are not mistaken on the language issue. Everything else is character error. If Ben thinks the Bedouin were angels, that does not mean that the writers believe the Bedouin are angels. That means Ben thinks they're angels although the writers know that is not the case. Your argument about one "never" approaching Bedouin with Turkish is false. The correct argument would be: Someone who knows about Bedouin likely would not approach them with Turkish. We don't know how much Ben knows about those people and why he did try the language. Whatever the reason may be, it's not a writer's fault, because we have proof against that. Therefore, it's not a blooper until they admit it themselves. There's no consensus on the blooper, we go with the old consensus. Please do not try to push it until everyone else decides to give up out of boredom.--     c      blacxthornE      t     08:12, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
Well, I thought we had already a consensus (character error similar to the goof posted on IMDB). It is not OK if someone comes and removes something from the page on an argument that was previously discussed and agreed on. If someone wants to remove something then the relevant portion on the Talk page must be read first, otherwise the discussion will go back to square one.--Messenger 08:30, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Aelci... stop. There was not a consensus. In addition, I find it strange that just because some reasonable non-blooper options proposed by us above are "theories" that default stance we should take is YOUR opinion (which, might I add, is ALSO a "theory"). This would be the same as saying, "Kate's possession of Aaron is a blooper because there wasn't enough time for her to have a baby!" That's ridiculous - we have no idea what the writers have planned, and it's the same thing here. This discussion is over. P.S. Jack and I did read the entire discussion, and I don't appreciate you implying otherwise. Trying to dismember our opinion by attacking our actions is low and despicable.--Overworkedirish 10:36, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
You seem to be very aggressive and certainly don't watch your words ("low and despicable"), maybe because of your young age, I don't know. Anyways, we all are here to improve a useful reference, nothing more. You act like you are some supervisor of this site. Who are you to say "discussion is over"? Also for future reference... do not call other's observations ridiculous just because you do not subscribe to that idea. It is insulting. I always tried to refrain from such wording and respected everyone's opinion by answering them properly. Please read the entire discussion once again with an objective mind-setting.--Messenger 11:05, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
  • That's right. It must be because of my young age (20). Keep attacking the poster, not what he/she posted.--Overworkedirish 13:46, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
Thanks LOST... I read that article. Maybe Ben ended up in Turkey in the year 2062? :)--Messenger 08:30, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
Heh heh. That was clever, LOTDI :). Anyhow, I added it as a trivia point. I hope everyone will be happy with this.--     c      blacxthornE      t     08:42, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
Fair enough. But I still do believe that Turkish was thrown in deliberately by the writers without any relevance to the plot. Blacxthorne, the scene with the French newspapers proves nothing but the writer's intention to throw in Turkish instead a more logical French choice. I also question how significant Ben's so-called language error is with relation to the plot, if that was the writers' intention. Anyway, I am done with this discussion, at least on my part, unless a reply is absolutely necessary. Thanks all. --Messenger 12:25, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

Keamy's Military Career BlooperEdit

  • I've removed the following blooper:
  • Ben says Keamy served as a first sergeant in the United States Marine Corps from 1996 to 2001. Typically it takes someone 15-20 years to achieve the rank of first sergeant in the Marines.
First of all, it's incorrect, Ben said Keamy was a "former first sergeant, United States Marine Corps, served with distinction from 1996 to 2001." But regardless, Keamy's former rank of first sergeant is at the very least plausible. This is pretty extensively discussed on Talk:Martin Keamy.--Overworkedirish 14:16, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
Actually, it's very implausible, as was discussed on that page. It's simply not possible to make it to E8 in 5 years (nor to leave in the middle of a 4-year enlistment contract.) Axemantitan 02:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of irony?Edit

I'm not the best at identifying irony, but isn't, "One of the redshirts is actually wearing a red shirt," the opposite of irony?Cononach 20:57, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

It would be ironic for the show to "break the fourth wall" in a sense by applying the term "redshirt" so literally. ESachs 21:45, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
I agree it's ironic. It would be akin to Mr Greenjeans wearing green jeans, or if Mr Waxman's occupation was designer of models for a wax museum. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:47, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
I don't think it counts as either; with this many redshirts and this many episodes, one of them was bound to wear a red shirt eventually, and the costume department probably isn't even familiar with these fan terms.Froglars 04:30, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
He was wearing a red shirt when he died, which is ironic and damned funny. As for them not being aware, they used redshirt as part of the script in "All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues". The use of the all-red shirt appears too obvious to not be intentional.-- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:45, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
Absolutely not ironic -- either red shirts or mr. greenjeans. It may be ironic if Mr Greenjeans was to look at someone wearing green jeans and say: "Those are really ugly pants," it would not be ironic for him to wear green jeans. --Chuck 13:00, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
You have a point. Perhaps we need to instead move this to trivia with a comment about how it broke the 4th wall. However, we fit it in, it bears mention because it appears to be intentional: he was the third redshirt to be killed, the shirt was all red, it was focused on more than the others, etc. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:48, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

Black Stick Edit

The black stick in the first episode "The pilot"
JekterAdded by Jekter

Please everyone watch The pilot from season one, the first scene when jack's on the ground in the middle of the jungle, he appears to have the black stick that Ben uses in the sahara desert. What do you think? It's about 15 seconds after the episode begins(on the right side of jack)--Jekter 00:30, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

  • Maybe if you uploaded a screencap, that would help show your point? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:54, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
  • I think it's unlikely that its the same thing, I think what's laying next to Jack isn't a baton - the expandable baton that Ben uses is a common weapon for cops - http://www.copquest.com/21-1000.htm --LOSTinDC 06:50, 30 April 2008 (PDT)
I think it's clearly the black stick.... --Jekter 13:00, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

The screencap is pretty small, so I can't say for sure, but it doesn't seem to be discernible from just random stuff that would be lying on the ground (branches, airline items, etc). Plus, the writers have said that they don't plan things out that specifically that far in advance, so I doubt such a small bit of foreshadowing would've been on their mind three and a half seasons ago. Jimbo the tubby 13:03, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

What's that old Freud quote? "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." --LOSTinDC 13:54, 30 April 2008 (PDT)

I watched the pilot, yes it looks a lot like it. But it could be anything from the plane, I doubt it's intentional. (Funny, I thought, that Jack falling from the sky on a bamboo field didn't cause any damage in the bamboos!)--Salvora 04:42, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

This is too much even for apophenia. Even if Darlton said "yeah, we planted that in the pilot", I would call them liars. There's no way and no logical explanation for that. Is someone suggesting that Ben, just happened to stumble upon an expendible baton in the jungle near the beach on his way to somewhere? Please. --     c      blacxthornE      t     07:52, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

  • I fear this was to lead the way for a theory about Jack arriving there in the same manner as Ben (some have pointed out the bamboo wasn't bent and Jack was in a suit), rather than on the plane. Except the theory fails miserably in that he was next to Rose, speaking with her, on the plane. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:14, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Yet, it looks like you were the first one to postulate the theory.--Salvora 17:32, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Huh? No, I said this question appears to be leading toward that theory, one that has existed independent of my mentioning it here, I assure you. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:36, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Well, in retrospect, some HD screen captures of the pilot have been posted [5] and there does appear to be a non-organic black object laying on the ground next to Jack when he awakes. That being said, it may just be a prop issue - i.e. using plastic/fake bamboo instead of real bamboo. Whether its the baton; a baton; or something else - we'll have to see. Good spot Jekter. --LOSTinDC 07:43, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

Onlooker during Ben/Sayid altercation Edit

When Sayid tackles Ben to the floor (18 minutes in) you can see a man on the balcony above watching casually. This is most likely the man that Ben walked when he went to the rooftop. This information is pretty useless at the moment but I should do my duty. Here's the pic (sorry for quality) http://i31.tinypic.com/303bxup.jpg

The guy leaves afterwards but since he was acting pretty casual he must be spying on Sayid on something MeatyDoughnut 13:34, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

  • Man (or woman) watching doesn't not necesarily = spy; it could just be rubber-necking. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:35, 4 May 2008 (PDT)
  • It's most likely not a spy. They're not in Los Angeles: This is Iraq. In a war zone like that, two people fist-fighting is even less interesting than "casual" events. Good catch, but I guess it's not a plot point. She was either overlooked, or deliberately shown to give a feel of the place.--     c      blacxthornE      t     08:13, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

Miles Edit

I thought that in this episode the character of Miles appeared much changed. When we first saw him he appeared to be a very unfriendly person, talking very angrily to everyone. But in this episode he appears a lot more relaxed in his interaction with others, and I thought this was strange because now he has more reason than before to be angry with the losties, insofar as he was made prisoner by Locke, who even put some sort of bomb in his mouth. In this episode however, he doesn't act angrily towards anyone and he even goes back to the beach with Sawyer and Claire. Now that is a weird change of personality.--Salvora 17:27, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

  • I think he's been listening to dead Charlie and is trying to protect Claire for some reason. That's my theory as to why he's been acting strange. Who knows what happened to him out in the shed? --Halcohol 15:04, 5 May 2008 (PDT)

Noor Shamaar?Edit

Considering how many Arabic orthography mistakes were made in this episode, should we consider it of any significance that Nadia's coffin read "Noor Shamaar?" I looked up the word "shamaar" in the dictionary - it means "fennel" apparently. I'm guessing this was a mistake, but the text is so very prominent, and they usually put so much attention to detail in this show... is this really to be ignored? --Somebodybody 18:39, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

Unfortunately this episode the details in Arabic were abysmal. Most of the text wasn't even connected as it should be, as if it was consisted of independent letters. Although Noor's name was the only text (aside from the background graffitti in Sayid & Ben's first meeting) that was connected and actually looked like Arabic text, I think we can still go as far to consider this non-canon. The Arabic text were obviously handled by someone who did not know Arabic (possibly at all) and did not have the software that supports Arabic (that's probably why the letters were not connected). Even Sayid's name was misspelled (and didn't just have one mistake) in this episode. I think Shamaar shouldn't count until we get confirmation from another, better-handled episode.--     c      blacxthornE      t     03:08, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
We do know Noor is correct, though, because it was mentioned before in the show (no one calls her Noor :)). -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:35, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Arabic dialogue redux Edit

I watched this scene again and looked at the discussion above but didn't see this addressed. When the Beduins first approach, they speak (in Arabic)? Ben then asks them if they speak English, Arabic, and Turkish. But if they were already speaking Arabic why would Ben ask if they speak it? Were they speaking a different form of Arabic than Ben? --Jackdavinci 09:07, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Actually Ben just asks this one question, and he's not a native speaker, so you can't quite know what dialect he was speaking. But people speaking different Arabic dialects usually do understand each other, plus there is a "journalist" or "literary" form (I don't know what one would call it in English) that is used in all kinds of media, and it is the same everywhere, regardless of dialect. So people from different Arabic cultures usually can communicate one way or another. I'd assume that Ben didn't quite understand them at first, which might be because of their dialect, so he asks those questions (I'm not a native speaker but I was born in Iraq and I can speak Iraqi dialect, but I did not understand all of their dialogue, and Imarzouka is a native speaker from Jordan, and he said he didn't quite understand all of it either). Alternatively, he preferred to be able to explain himself in English, thinking it would be easier if he spoke in English and they understood, and when they didn't reply (although at least one spoke "some" English), he tried Arabic, and Turkish for whatever reason. A third possibility would be that he wanted to look clueless, and the questions were just part of a play, as LOTDI suggested.--     c      blacxthornE      t     03:53, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
OK so the Beduins did speak Arabic to begin with, just possibly not a dialect Ben was overly familiar with. I'm only familiar with English and Spanish differences between dialects so I don't know how the experience in Arabic compares to that. Thanks!--Jackdavinci 11:41, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
Well Arabic dialects have greater differences than English dialects. An American speaker can easily understand a British, Scottish, or an Australian speaker. Words and sentece structure aren't that different, and mostly the pronounciation is what makes them different dialects. In Arabic, different dialects may have many different words, expressions and even different sentence sturctures. I'm not an expert though, but I can say that I understand the Iraqi dialect pretty good, while I have no idea whatsoever about what an Egyptian is saying when they talk.--     c      blacxthornE      t     12:53, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
I think Ben was "acting" in a way; trying to make the Bedouins think that he wasn't a threat to them by playing the naive tourist, one who does not actually speak Arabic or Turkish but knows a few elementary phrases. This could also explain why he's speaking Turkish. He could genuinely not know where he is (though much of Turkey has foliage and I'd expect Ben to be aware of that) or he could be playing a tourist desperately trying to communicate; over-estimating the prvalence of the Turkish language in the Arab world is not uncommon among average Westerners. Lovesayid 23:08, 13 May 2008 (PDT)

Possible Cultural Reference? Edit

Sorry for the delayed week reaction - for some reason I couldn't log in last week...

I know everyone is attributing a huge amount of importance to Hurley's "Australia is the key to this game" line, but is it possible that one of the writers is simply an Eddie Izzard fan?

From his 1999 concert, "Dress to Kill" (bold emphasis mine, quote text from "Cake or Death" fan site):

"So in Europe, we had empires. Everyone had them - France and Spain and Britain and Turkey! The Ottoman Empire, full of furniture for some reason. And the Austro-Hungarian Empire, famous for f*** all! All they did was slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard.

And the German empire, very organized, they'd always build an empire, "ein, zwei, ein, zwei, build an empire," very Prussian, and then they'd celebrate with a World War! And then lose the whole f***ing empire by the end of the war. In the 30's, Hitler, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, World War II... the Russian front, not a good idea...Hitler never played "Risk" when he was a kid! 'Cause, you know, playing "Risk," you could never hold on to Asia. That Asian-Eastern European area, you could never hold it, could you? Seven extra men at the beginning of every go, but you couldn't f***ing hold it!

Australasia, that was the one! Australasia, all the purple ones! Get everyone on Papua New Guinea and just build up and build up..." --Chasmosaur 07:52, 3 May 2008 (PDT)Chasmosaur

Another possible reference is Ben's being sick after time travel. Remember "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe", the second book of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series. Characters were feeling dizzy and seeing blurry for several minutes after time traveling to the end of the universe.

  • I think Ben's getting sick may be a reference to Alan Moore's graphic novel Watchmen. Every time Dr. Manhattan teleports Laurie she vomits.--JDMCMAMC 12:24, 19 June 2008 (PDT)

Did the podcast kill off Steve instead of Jerome? Edit

  • There's been some talk that the 5/8/08 Podcast says that Steve is dead. For the record, here's the relevant portion of the transcript:
Damon: Carlton it's been killing me, I know steve supposedly went with Locke so I want to know if the first meatsock that got shot was in fact Steve?
Damon: Steve - was that him?
Carlton: No, that was actually Doug.
Damon: Now, Doug was the guy who was holding the wood [they giggle], but then somebody else comes running out of the - out of the - house behind him, and there is speculation that that is in fact Steve.
Carlton: Oh yeah, that, that -
Damon: That was Steve
Carlton: [Sadonically] *That* guy was Steve.
Damon: That was steve. [giggles]
Carlton: He wasn't the *first* guy shot.
Damon: Exactly.
Personally, I think they were just joking around. The question is whether the first person shot is Steve, and Damon is very serious sounding when he says it's Doug that is shot first. Then Damon brings up the idea that maybe it's the second guy shot, and Carlton agrees, but by this point they are giggling and Carlton is replying sardonically. But I'll leave it to others to battle this one out. I'll just say, if Steve is really dead, then this leaves Jerome's fate in the air, since we had him tagged as the second meatsock. --Jackdavinci
It's obvious even from the transcript that they were kidding. Robert K S (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
I agree. But someone went ahead and changed Steve to deceased based on this podcast. And I suppose, we still have the lingering question of what happened to the rest of the redshirts who weren't killed off. --Jackdavinci 14:14, 8 May 2008 (PDT)

Producers have said that the podcast shouldn't be considered canon. In the event that something seen on the show contradicts something stated in the podcast, go with the show.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:55, 8 May 2008 (PDT)

I don't recall them saying that, but there's a difference between "non-canon" and "kidding around". Robert K S (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2008 (PDT)
Official_Lost_Podcast/March_10,_2008 around 11:22. They're kinda joking there but they've also made comments in the past about how, if they say something on the podcast that ultimately gets contradicted on the show, then the show is what is canon. I can't dig through hours and hours of podcasts to find it though.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:33, 8 May 2008 (PDT)

Unanswered question answeredEdit

Why can't Ben kill Widmore? has been answered in the last official ABC podcast (05/19/08) at 3:47 min. by Damon Lindelof. I don't think this can be considered spoiler due to them not raising a spoiler warning in the podcast but you might want to stop reading if you want to keep theorising :) : --------------------- Both adversaries "are basically locked in some sort of battle where they understand the rules" and "they know that unless the Island is done with them they cannot be killed, especially by each other." AWESOME! :D Anyway, there you go... Roger 14:31, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

"Did Widmore have Nadia killed? If so, why?" We don't know for sure that Widmore ordered Nadia killed, but after "There's No Place Like Home, Part 2", we can at least rule Ben out as the guilty party--unless he had some amazing way of planning ahead and ordering her death before he moved the Island. Robert K S (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2008 (PDT)

Audioslave Cultural Reference Edit

The title of the episode may be based on the name of an Audioslave song off the album Revelations.--Redsoxfaneb 09:56, 6 July 2008 (PDT)

Episode number... Edit

How can this episode be the "79th episode of the series", if Meet Kevin Johnson is the 77th? I think all the following episodes have this mistake. --Simone85 13:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that was my fault. It is now fixed. At least I messed up here instead of back in Season 1 or something! Smiley emoticons razz.gif -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 17:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Previously on Lost" Edit

Since when did we start putting a "Previously on Lost" section in episode articles? I think it's unnecessary and doesn't belong there. --Celebok 08:09, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Couple months ago, I think. Personally, I haven't touched them but I think they're a nice touch.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  08:13, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Ben's Breathing Edit

When Ben arrives in the desert he supposedly exhales a puff of cold air. How does one retain cold air?--Paleored 20:47, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

My guess is they just wanted to give more of a hint as to where he came from.--Baker1000 20:56, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that's why they showed it, but even if you breathe in cold air, it comes out warm.--Paleored 03:52, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come"

Pages on Lostpedia

7,272pages on
this wiki

Latest Photos

Add a Photo
24,233photos on this wiki
See more >

Recent Wiki Activity

See more >

Recent Questions

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki