Talk: There's No Place Like Home, Part 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the There's No Place Like Home, Part 1 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.)
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite, don't bite, have fun! Admins are here to help More discussion at the Forum	Article policies Canonicity Spoiler policy Theory policy

Orchid Logo Confirmed

• Now confirmed, as per Faraday flipping to the page in his journal with the logo we have come to see on Ben's parka and on Keamy's secondary protocol. However, it's important that we note that in Faraday's notebook, the hexagrams were in a different orientation than every other DHARMA logo we've seen so far. This was agreed upon for the logo on Ben's parka, but then withdrawn - in Keamy's secondary protocol people seemed to be under the impression that the logo's hexagrams were the same as all others and leaped to the conclusion that the parka was a prop error. I believe the reference in Faraday's journal is enough to show they're not making hexagram errors.--Overworkedirish 20:32, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

Agreed, but only if someone compares the hexagrams from the parka to the journal and they match. As soon as we get screencaps, I'm sure this'll be cleared up.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:36, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

I checked the screencaps. It's just a rough sketch, it doesn't even have full hexagrams, just random sketchy lines to indicate hexagramishness. So Keamy's standard version stands. --Jackdavinci 23:36, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

Wooden Chest - DHARMA Logo?

• Anyone happen to catch what logo was on the items in Ben's wooden chest? Was it Temple?--Overworkedirish 20:32, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

• Swan station soda crackers. --Jackdavinci 23:39, 15 May 2008 (PDT)
• I'm wondering tho - Doc Arzt says the chest is 15 years old - when did we learn that? --Jackdavinci 01:01, 16 May 2008 (PDT)>

• In the dialog, Ben says the crackers are 15 years old which would indicate that the chest was hidden 15 years ago Walter L. Newton 02:33, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• Not really, just because the crackers are 15 years old is no indication of how old the chest is. The crackers could have been several years old already before they were stashed in the chest.Bob LeMaster 10:40, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

That's a possibility, but do you honestly think that Ben would have told the exact date of the cracker's production? It's more likely that he was referring to the chest. In any case, putting "about fifteen yeasr old" would be fine. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  12:30, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

I hope we're not fixating on numbers again as in "He's twice your age." Ben knows the crackers were in the chest fifteen years ago and that the turnover in the food supply was regular. He doesn't need to say, "Fifteen years, four months, and seventeen days." Knowing Ben, he might not even be telling the truth.

• Does this chest have any relationship with the box the Tailies found in The Arrow way back in the season 2 episode The Other 48 Days? Or am I imagining connections where none exist? -- Llywrch 14:42, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• ...I mean - they're both used to store things. That's... what boxes and chests are for. What do you even mean by connection?--Overworkedirish 23:40, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

Rating

• Superb episode!! I loved it, all the various flashforwards of the characters... the orchid... and the cliffhanger... I cannot wait for the 2 part episode in 2 weeks!     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email  20:34, 15 May 2008 (PDT)
• Yes! I loved every minute of this episode. I can't wait for more! The top five best parts of this episode: 5. The numbers on Hurley's odometer! Creepy!, 4. Nadia and Sayid reunited, 3.Learning more about the Orchid and seeing Sawyer again, 2. Sun buying up her father's company (you go girl!), 1. Jack finding out that he and Claire are related. --4Toes 21:04, 15 May 2008 (PDT)
• You forgot the return of the Others. That was pretty cool too. But why did they wear their fake dirty shirts now that everyone on the Island now who they are?

That being said, I'm kinda frustrated to have to wait TWO WEEKS before the finale. This season was a nightmare when it comes to TV scheduling, we already waited 5 weeks between 4x08 and 4x09, and now that. I hope it doesn't happen again.--Lauridsen77 05:16, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• Fantastic episode. The two week delay is necessary for the same reason as the previous delay - there's simply no way they could have finished producing a two hour episode in time for next week - they just finished shooting last friday! And I thought the four thursdays off wasn't too bad considering how fast they were able to get new episodes shot and on the air. I wouldn't exactly call it a nightmare, there were only two breaks in the whole season after all (way less than the first two seasons) The only reason it happened was the strike, assuming there isn't something similar in the future, it shouldn't happen again. --Minderbinder 10:21, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
• Nowadays, it seems every series gets a two-hour season finale. They had to give time to both "Grey's Anatomy" and "Lost." It's possible our producers asked for the extended time so they could do a better job on the post-production stuff after having recently agreed to do an additional hour this season.
• I felt that way because I was used to watching the previous seasons on DVD in like 2-3 days (don't live in the US), so even waiting a whole week between two episodes was painful to me. But you're right, Darlton did a pretty good job saving Season 4 given the circumstances. The episode was indeed great, especially for a pre-finale, everything is in place for a classic climax, which is why I hope I could use the Orchid to teleport myself two weeks from now.--Lauridsen77 11:36, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
• I didn't love the episode, because it involved too much going around the place (from the freighter to the beach, and back; after the helicoter; to the orchid; after jack, etc...) Just too much travelling really. But I did enjoy it, especially the flashforwards, and I'm also now looking forward to seeing the 2 hours finale to see how it all unravels.--Salvora 13:11, 16 May 2008 (PDT) I did love seeing the Others again, about time! Hopefully, they'll play an important role in this finale! --Salvora 13:36, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Sayid/Nadia Kiss?

• Do I not fully remember the Sayid/Nadia relationship 8 years ago, or was this "greeting smooch" after 8 years of silence/searching a little excessive?--Overworkedirish 20:35, 15 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I kind of thought it was underwhelming to be honest. After 8 years of searching for your lost lover, I was expecting a big more passion. But maybe that's just me. I'm still kind of grumpy that he hooked up with Shannon only a month after he was originally going to go meet up with Nadia.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:37, 15 May 2008 (PDT)
    • You're not alone, that always bugged me too. However, the Nadia/Sayid kiss would be somewhat awkward if both are Muslim. Even if they're Americanize/westernized there would still be some lingering humility since her being that close to a man who is not her husband would get her stoned to death in some Muslim nations.--Camper 10:33, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
  • They knew each other for so long, from when they were kids... other than that, Im not so sure either. --     Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email  20:38, 15 May 2008 (PDT)
    • Sayid's eye blinking in this scene totally ruined the moment for me, initially I was like finally Sayid is with Nadia, then he started blinking and I was like why is he doing that, then I was like are they kissing or aren't they. Anyways yeah very anti-climax.(Lankeymarlon 03:10, 19 May 2008 (PDT))
  • They were both in shock, especially Sayid -- hence why he was blinking the way he was... he wanted to make sure he was awake and not dreaming. --4Toes 11:46, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

Orchid Dress

Right after they reach the Orchid Station, there was an Old Navy commercial, featuring an "Orchid Night Dress." Is this a coincidence, or a marketing tie-in?SDSpivey 20:52, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

I want to say it was coincidence. but with the Lost producers, you never know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmcp429 (talk • contribs) 2008-05-15T23:29:44.

I noticed that, too! Totally a coincidence, though ... Or WAS it ...--Vico 21:48, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

• What was referenced in the commericial as the "Orchid Night Dress" is officially the "Women's Georgette Halter Dress", #485828, in the "All-Over Print" that retails for US$39.99[1]. A high-res pix can be found here[2]. If you go to OldNavy.com/Next [3], you can see a copy of the commercial and other marketing videos. This site describes the dress as having "an island inspired print"! Coincidence? Kevrock 22:58, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

I also noticed this. Clearly an Old Navy-Lost joint promotion, not a coincidence. --Xbenlinusx 23:03, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

• I agree that this isn't a coincidence - aren't advertisements usually localized unless in some way hosted by the station (i.e. ABC/LOST?)--Overworkedirish 02:40, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Maybe we should make an Orchid Dress Conspiracy page? I'm sure we can extrapolate a ton of Numbers references off the website. (J/K!) Kevrock 08:55, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
    • Don't even think it<grin>!--Jim 08:58, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• I live in Canada and they did not show the comercial. And after all Damon and Carlton ut us through do you really think that hints will be in a commercial.
• I don't think we meant to say that there were hints in the commercial, only that putting the add for the dress where it was made the dress more sellable. It's not exactly product placement; it may be worse.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 07:05, 28 May 2008 (PDT)

Change flashes to "various"

Other articles with multiple characters in the flashbacks have (various) in the episode table at the top (see "Exodus, Part 1", "Exodus, Part 2", "Confirmed Dead") and not a name used to refer to the group. Otherwise Confirmed Dead's should say (freighter). ShadowUltra 21:58, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

I actually think that "Confirmed Dead" should say "Freighter", but the difference between this and Exodus is that there's a specific name for the group of people who have flashes.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:03, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

In the Season 2 table, "The Other 48 Days" says "Tailies," and it seems to make sense to use a specific group name if one's available. And yeah, I'd love it if someone changed "Confirmed Dead" to "Freighter." --Compossible 22:14, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

I guess it's just a bit OCD but I hate seeing "Various" up there because it isn't a blue link. Besides, it makes perfect sense to list it as "Freighters" or "Oceanic 6" if there is an appropriate article to link to.--HaloOfTheSun 22:35, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

I disagree, Freigther would be wrong because it weren't flachbacks of all the people on the freigther, if we'd have a name for Charlotte, Daniel, Frank and Miles I'd agree to take that one but we don't so we shouldn't. Jared 02:59, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• Don't forget Naomi! And the 5 (not 4) of them do have something in common - they're all Abaddon's freighties.--Overworkedirish 03:12, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Aw forgot her, anyway. Yeah they do have something in common but we don't really have a name for their "group". Jared 04:16, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

What about "Science Team"? They were referred to as such by Naomi. -- Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions

I prefer *not* to have "various" at all. Usually there is some distinction such as the Tailies, or Oceanic 6, or the Freighter Team. Even when it's the Losties, we could say it's a Fuselage or Losties flashback. Science team is fine, although Naomi is debatably part of that team. Maybe Abaddon's team. or F-Team1 lol. Science team is probably fine since Naomi helped put together the team. Freighties is probably less accurate but easier to identify. Maybe we can use the shorter term for the season infobox and list each memeber individually on the episode infobox. --Jackdavinci 14:14, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• For these flashbacks/forwards with various characters, I'm interested in exploring a new format for the synopsis that provides consolidation and clarification. Here's just a thought / example using this episode:

==Synopsis===
===Flashforwards===
'''Group-centric'''
Group on rescue plane, blah blah blah...
'''Sayid-centric'''
Oceanic press confrence, blah blah blah, Nadia, blah blah blah...
etc.

Funeral

Given that it is presumed all of these people are dead by the public (plane on the bottom of the ocean), why would a funeral for Jack's father occur 10 months after Jack's rescue? Wouldn't a double funeral for both Jack and his father have occured during the time they thought he was on the bottom of the ocean? Bit of a stretch to me...--Xbenlinusx 22:56, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

Sure, maybe they did...but Jack didn't get to go, and if they didn't have another one, there'd be no excuse for Claire's mom to be there and tell Jack that they're related.Thelordnyax 23:06, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

Jack's back so they have ANOTHER funeral? I know it's TV and fiction, but not realistic to have the whole thing again with a huge crowd of people anyway. --Xbenlinusx 23:16, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

• Hold on there, cowboys and girls - I don't think anyone besides Jack KNEW that Christian was dead! Remember, Jack went down to Australia to FIND his father (ALIVE, presumably). It was a shock when, after doing a good bit of searching around, he found Christian dead in the morgue. I think we should absolutely be assuming he was going to wait to get back to tell his mom face-to-face. I mean, besides, you think he called up his mom to tell him that news? Talk about an awkward phone conversation... "oh hey Mom, it's Jack. Yeah it's beautiful down here. Oh, by the way! I found Dad! Yeah... he's dead. Sorry about that. I'll bring his body back tomorrow. Make sure to make funeral arrangements! Okay now, bubye."--Overworkedirish 02:48, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• Wasn't it a memorial service, rather than a funeral? And as to Jack being the only one knowing - Surely the authorities and Oceanic knew? I'm sure word would have reached Jack's mum. She'd sent Jack to Australia to get him in first place (albeit alive), so I'm sure when she learnt of the crash she would have tried to trace Christian. He would be on record as being dead, so she'd hear the news soon enough.--TechNic|talk|conts 03:44, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

I thought Jack was trying to get his dead dad on the plane in the first place, to take him directly to the cemetary. Maybe it was funeral parlor? Anyways, if the arrangements were coordinated to this point youd think Jacks mom would have to know. Matt 04:35, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Right. The first thing Jack would have done from Australia would have been to phone his mother, and then make all the arrangements for the funeral. Remember he told the lady at the counter that the hearse was to be waiting for them when they landed? That's why he had to get his father onto the plane when she tried to stop it. So his mother would know, and after Jack had been home for a bit, then he could re-arrange the memorial service (no body, so it's a memorial). This has to have taken place before Kate's trial, as meeting Claire's mom was evidently the catalyst to why Jack couldn't face Aaron. We see Kate, Aaron, and Jack acting like a family of sorts at the funeral, so it makes sense to me that the trial came next, then Kate and Jack getting thing straightened out and living together, then the later split. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:27, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

No one has mentioned the possibility that someone of Jack's celebrity would be able to hold a memorial service for his father simply because he didn't get a chance to before. That's what I'm going to tell myself happened anyway, and then move on to more pertinent mysteries. Jacob's Lather 07:49, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

It's only been about thirty days since the discovery of the phoney Oceanic 815 aircraft underwater. Jack's mother may not have been able to come to terms yet with the idea that she had to have memorials for BOTH her husband and her son.--Jim 08:38, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

With the plane crash, there was no body for either, so there would only be a service, not actually burying anyone. Either way, I don't find it odd to do another ceremony after Jack came back and confirmed that dad's body was gone. People definitely would have known before the crash that Christian was dead - the airline had a record of the body on board, and Jack certainly would have called his mom and told him about the death, it sounds like he had already made funeral arrangements as well. What seems odd to me is that Jack says he wrote the napkin TEN months earlier - why not do it much sooner after he got back? --Minderbinder 10:26, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Maybe the public is lead to belive Christian's body wasnt ever on the plane. After all, it was against Oceanic policy to transport the body. Actually I forget how Jack even convinced the lady to get the body on there, I thought she denied him. So perhaps, according to Oceanic, the body wasnt there and the service was only being held after ten months of "searching" Austrailia. EDIT TO SIGN Matt 10:49, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Re. Jack's mention of "ten months" - that's how long since he wrote memorial notes on a napkin in the Sydney airport - September 22, 2004 to be precise. If that was 10 months prior, then the memorial service takes place in July 2005. If the Oceanic Six were "rescued" in early January of 2005, then that puts the the memorial service at 7 to 7.5 months later, not 10 months. Dwtno 12:43, 16 May 2008 (PDT) Jack is wealthy and powerful. He decided to throw a funeral because he wasn't around for the first one. He even said "This is for me, Goodbye Dad." Not only was the sentiment for Jack, but the entire memorial service was for him to get his closure.--Crabapple 12:50, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• Mmm... I'm not so sure. If Christian had already had a funeral, and Jack specifically didn't "invite" Claire's mom to this funeral that he's "throwing" (as you put it), how would she know there's a second funeral? And how would she know to come? I think it's usually safe to assume that a person will have one funeral.--Overworkedirish

The Oceanic 6 are celebritys so every move they take will be covered in the news. One of them having a memorial service for his dad, because he couldn't be at the official one, will surely be reported. And being directly affected by the crash, it is not unusual for Claire's mother to look for everything she find's in the media. --Flostim

23:56, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

Merge/separate?

What is the reason that we are dividing episodes up into the way they were aired? Isn't that kind of an arbitrary consequence of network scheduling and not really a matter of how the show is written? In syndication, Lost would just be divided up into single hours regardless of if any two episodes happened to air together. And presumably if network scheduling weren't a factor all three hours would air at the same time, since the writers made a point of calling them the same episode. Wouldn't it be better to either separate each hour into a different article, or merge all multipart episodes into a single article? Some questions which might help: How are the multipart episodes presented on the DVD - as one episode, two parts, or three separate hours? How do the production numbers correspond? Was Exodus really listed as a one hour part one and a two hour part two? How does that jive with this season being listed as part one and then parts two and three? --Jackdavinci 23:06, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

• Whatever is decided, we definitely shouldn't merge until the season is over. Someone in a country like the UK where they air a few days later might want to read up all about Part 1 without Part 2 being spoiled for them...--Chocky 23:18, 15 May 2008 (PDT)
• We're in a society where television show writers take into account the fact that they are writing episodes. Each episode has (in the case of LOST, various) plot arch(s), cliffhangers, etc. For example, this episode (a Part 1) was a clear "set up" for the next ep., hence them being one, but it still had it's own arch - and for all we know, its own centric-character(s). Also, we have to be able to make reference to certain events in the show, and we should follow the convention in which they are released to do so.--Overworkedirish 02:54, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
• I think they write each hour with the fact in mind that a 2 or 3 part episode will eventually turn into separately aired episodes at some point, whether or not it's the first airing. It's very likely they wrote the pilot with a two hour premiere in mind but the network decided to split up the airings. It seems to me that which parts of multipart episodes happen to air the same day or not is a network decision and not something we can read into the writer's intentions. It seems to make more sense to either break all multipart episodes into one hour chunks or else make them all one article. But I'd like to hear 1) how the DVDs handle the issue and 2) how the production numbers correlate. I think that would give us a better sense of the writer's intentions. --Jackdavinci 03:35, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
• I checked the DVDs. Looks like they split the episodes based on how they happened to air in a given region. So Exodus is in 2 parts in the US DVDs but in 3 parts in other regions' DVDs. Seems kind of wonky to me but I guess it makes the article easier to edit. --Jackdavinci 03:48, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
• I would merge only if the episodes themselves are merged when the Season four DVD comes to light. People who have not yet watched Lost (Yes, there are such people<grin>), might appreciate being able to watch an episode, then reading about it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 06:39, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

Press Conference

Just making sure this isn't just in my head...the reporters seem to be figuring out that something's wrong with their story, right? --Lovesayid 23:20, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

The press conference scene was what we call exposition, and it was solely there to fill in the gaps for the audience. Ditto Sun's question of Michael, which, apparently, the producers didn't want to spoil the details of in "Meet Kevin Johnson" until we knew similar details about for the Oceanic Six. What would have been way cooler was if the camera zoomed out of the press conference through a TV set to see Charles Widmore watching it from deep within a high-backed chair, his arm stroking a white pussycat. Robert K S (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

I definitely got the impression that the guy asking about Kate was skeptical, although there's no way to know for sure. --Minderbinder 10:27, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Good catch. I noticed that. If Kate were really Aaron's mother, wouldn't there have been something in her record to reflect that she was pregnant when arrested?--Jim 10:41, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• It's possible for the marshall to not have noticed she was pregnant. 6 months is 24 weeks - usually just around the time pregnancy starts becoming unavoidably visible.--Overworkedirish 00:13, 18 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Wouldn't she be nursing! I mean what did Aaron eat on the island.--Straus75 09:43, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Possibly, but not necessarily during the press conference.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:36, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I realize she wouldn't be nursing during the press conference, but what about the entire flight to Hawaii? As well, her chest doesn't exactly show signs of being, how best to say it, full of milk.--Straus75 17:50, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

Oh I suspect the press are very skeptical. We have seen people acting quite supersticious concerning the O6 (in flashes father into the future). I'll bet that rumors fly all about and people associate some type of "voodoo" or something with them. Matt 10:53, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

What does the crew of the C-130 know to cause the co-pilot to announce that the cargo is "bad mojo?"--Jim 11:01, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

What does he need to know aside from the fact that the last time his passengers were on a plane they kinda... well, you know... crashed into the ocean and killed nearly everyone aboard? Kevrock 11:24, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

These guys are professionals. They're used to pulling people out of situations that you and I probably don't even want to think about. (I used to work for a retired Coastguardsman.) The question is not what they need to know, but what they learned that spooks them.--Jim 11:30, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• Could have something to do with the fact that Oceanic 6, from the pilot's perspective, basically came back from the dead - the fake 815 seemed to have been reported as a full body count.--Overworkedirish 00:13, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

Why didn't any of the reporters ask why the plane was in indonesia? A plane taking off from sydney to LA would never fly in that direction. I dont get it, maybe i'm missing something that's obvious to everyone elsePetrarch1603 21:42, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

I would say that the fact that 815 had lost communication and had turned around towards Sydney would be common knowledge at the conference, yeah? Or was the map different than I remember? Dvno 22:27, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

• The reporters were focused on asking questions of the survivors. It's not the survivors job to know that the plane turned around, etc. etc. - especially considering that according to their story they were never aware that the plane turned around - it crashed in water and they got out immediately - no chat with the pilot.--Overworkedirish 00:13, 18 May 2008 (PDT)
• Petrarch1603 is right to question the script in the press conference. The flight path, the location and cause of the crash would be the subject of intense speculation and questioning by the reporters, who would also want to know precise details of their journey since being rescued. They would ask: did no-one notice the plane was flying in totally the wrong direction, north-east for hours with the sun from Sydney across Australia to the Indian Ocean instead on north-west across the Pacific Ocean against the sun? When you were rescued were you taken to the nearest US diplomatic or military facilities in Australia or the Philipines, did they organise medical checks for you in Darwin or Manila? What did you think about being flown 6500 miles from Indonesia to Hawaii in a slow, uncomfortable US Coastguard Hercules with many refuelling stops instead of to the much nearer US territory at Anderson Air Force Base, Guam? Or why didn't Oceanic or the US government fly you by jet from Darwin or Manila? Oniswakimalypants 06:21, 27 May 2008 (PDT)

• Those are all great questions, but they're questions for the Coast Guard or for the survivors at a later time.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 08:27, 27 May 2008 (PDT)

Why is the neighbor island not mentioned or at least present on the map? Why are all the journalists shouting "Dr. Shephard!" when they start asking their questions? Is he known to be the O6 leader? --Rg 16:12, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

• The reporters zeroed in on Jack because he was the white male in the group.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 08:27, 27 May 2008 (PDT)
  • So what is Hurley, a pink leprechaun??--Chesebrgr 07:38, 30 May 2008 (PDT)
  • No Hurley is not "a pink leprechaun." He's an hispanic male.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 09:34, 30 May 2008 (PDT)

"Kate's" flashforward

Somebody broke the flashforward section up into characters, which is fine, except I don't really think that the first flashback (the flight) can be considered as Kate's flashforward - it was a shared flashforward between the Oceanic 6. Additionally, the press conference isn't Sayid's flashforward, except for the end where he meets up with Nadia.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  23:37, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

Well then Hurley's flash can't be his either since the O6 were at his party and Jack's can't be his since the O6 were at the funeral, etc.Only sun appeared alone since she was in another country. I personally think it's better to just stick them all together in one section, but each one definitely did seem to focus on one character more than the other even though they were all there. The others showed each O6 with their loved ones, and the first one focused on the fact that no one was waiting for Kate and Aaron. I'm not sure whether Aaron is better considered part of Kate's or Jack's though. --Jackdavinci 23:51, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

Hurley appeared alone coming to the house, and later with his dad, so that's clearly from his perspective. Jack talked alone with Carole, so that's from his perspective.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:01, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• I'm a little confused by the use of the word "perspective." At the beginning of the ep. we're in the cockpit, hearing the pilots' words. None of the 06 were in there... so who's perspective is that? I dunno, I just always saw flashbacks as centric around ____'s actions, but not necessarily making them privy to all information that the "camera" / flashback perspective may capture.--Overworkedirish 03:03, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• • • Okay, well in that case, the first flashback isn't centric around Kate, but around the whole Oceanic 6, talking about their story and whatnot. In fact, I'd argue that when Karen Decker is talking to them in the cargo hold, it's mostly centric around Jack, but I still think that overall the flight and the press conference are centered around the Oceanic six as a whole. I don't mid saying that Sayid meeting up with Nadia is centered around him, though, because that's obviously the case.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:40, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

There are five flashback sequences, five main characters in the Oceanic 6. For simplicity, I think we should just assign Kate the first and Sayid the second, since their characters are the primary focus of each when they switch back to the present. --Pyramidhead 04:05, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• But in the first FF, nothing really happens to Kate specifically that doesn't happen to everyone else. It's not a Kate FF. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 08:03, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
  • They specifically focus on Kate and Aaron last, contrasting her with the other survivors who all have people waiting for her, and she and Aaron stand there all alone. --Jackdavinci 10:05, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
  • It's correct to say that nothing happens to Kate specifically. The point is that there is something that doesn't happen to Kate. She is not greeted. I'm surprised that there wasn't a Deputy US Marshall waiting for her. Maybe he's in the audience and Jack and Kate will never leave the base together.--Jim 10:19, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
• If I remember correct, at the end of both the Kate and Sayid flashforward the camera returns to Kate and Sayid on the island. I agree with Jackdavinci. If you are going to put Oceanic 6 flashbacks whenever they are present, Hurley's can be Hurley's until he joins the party, then it's Oceanic 6 until he leaves with his dad. Genosoa 01:30, 23 May 2008 (PDT)

The camera follows Hurley fairly closely for almost his entire party, it's quite clearly primarily about him; the same is true of Jack at the funeral. In the first flashback, the camera gives them all fairly equal time, it just happens to end on Kate. Labelling that little bit at the end with Kate alone as a separate flashback seems very misleading to me. If I were reading the article without having seen the episode, I would interpret that to mean a completely separate scene, rather than just the closing shot of the preceding scene.--Hylas 08:13, 23 May 2008 (PDT)

Except for the Sun scene, all of the flashforwards have more than one O6er. And they each vary in the proportion of time spent on the focus character versus time spent on the group in general from least to most: Kate, Sayid, Jack, Hurley, Sun. To draw the line at some point on that continuum would be arbitrary on our part. If the producers really did mean to focus on Hurley in Hurley's scene and Jack in Jack's scene it seems silly to suggest that they just ignored the other O6ers. Either each O6er really does have their own "focus" scene or all of the FF scenes are just supposed to be O6 FFs. It's probably better to just name the subsections after the location, which is what we do for the realtime subsections, and put in trivia that it is possible that each FF scene is meant to focus on a different O6er. --Jackdavinci 13:43, 23 May 2008 (PDT)

I think those new headings are excellent, as they are much more descriptive; their purpose is after all to help guide the reader through the article. They nicely sidestep the problem of imposing a dramatic structure that may or may not be there.--Hylas 14:31, 23 May 2008 (PDT)

I agree, the new heading are perfect. Everybody wins. Genosoa 21:41, 23 May 2008 (PDT)

Charlie at the press conference?

I was reading some posts on the Forum pages and someone mentioned that he/she thought that Charlie was sitting at the back of the crowd to the right of the aisle...if anyone can get a great screenshot of this to prove/disprove this, that would be great. And if it is true....sweet!!!--Lost PiLam 23:45, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

• I don't see him, but here's the press conf screencap from DarkUFO.[4] Kevrock 00:37, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Not all of the timeshifts are flashforwards

If you watch the episode carefully and listen for the distinctive "time change" sound effect, you'll note that some of the time period changes are flashbacks, not flashforwards. The episode starts in "the present" with the arrival of the Oceanic 6 in Hawaii and then flashes BACK to Kate's perspective on the beach. Then we return to "the present" when Sayid meets up with Nadia and then he flashes BACK to arriving on the beach in the zodiac. When Sun is on the zodiac with Jin heading to the freighter, "island time" is the present and she flashes FORWARD to when she buys her father's company out from under him.

The changing back and forth of what is considered "the present" in this episode matches what Lindelof and Cuse have hinted about in recent interviews, which is that "the present" and flashforward post-Oceanic 6 time will catch up with one another.

Sorry... the above was by me, aka Joeyconnick 01:10, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

But returning to the present is not a flashback; it's just the end of a flashforward.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:57, 25 May 2008 (PDT)

I don't see what the "time change" sound effect has to do with it. Maybe I'm just missing something or am up too late, but I just don't get why that means the off-island stuff is the present. It seems by that logic that any episode starting in a flashback/flashforward would be starting in the present. It's all relative anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

The time change sound effect happens for both flashbacks and flashforwards.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:42, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Currently, they ARE flashforwards. It would appear that by the end of the 3 hour closer, current time (what's happening off Island) will catch up (catch back?) with what is happening on Island. Nothing that we have seen happen in this first hour is a flashback. Walter L. Newton 02:39, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Real time is still the time on the Island. We don't know the date that the C-130 landed at Barbers Point or the specific dates of the events that follow.--Jim 06:41, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Another person on the plane

Did anyone else notice that there was someone else on the plane except the Oceanic Six, the Oceanic representative, the pilot and copilot? The lady representative nods to him/her as she walks up to the Oceanic Six to inform them they are landing..then the camera avoids showing him/her..significant or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knave84 (talk • contribs) 2008-05-16T09:45:01.

• A few seconds later, when the camera pulls back and shows the interior of the cargo bay, there is definitely another person sitting in the shadow. The is nothing insignificant in Lost.--Jim 09:47, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
  • nice! haven't noticed that one before. here's a screenshot. someone should put a better version of this picture in the artice. Jared 10:05, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
    • HD Capture - below 3 zoomed in versions including one with increased brightness You can clearly see a guy who appears to be a crewmember. It seems to me that he's wearing headphones and is bald. So i guess this is just a background cast with no further meaning.--Flateric 11:04, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
      • I don't think a man who's sitting in the dark like that has no further meaning, it's lost you guys ^^ I put a question on, it might need to be changed or deleted if too many people disagree.. but I just can't believe this is meaningless. Jared 11:09, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
        • He's just the crew member that opened the door for them to get off, you can see his headset in the HD version. --M0tSiE 11:10, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
          • too bad, i first thought of christian.. took the question off Jared 11:13, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
• Yes, the figure could be a member of the crew of the C-130. Each aircraft has a crewchief. Why hide the guy if he's an extra? The headset doesn't matter; Decker weas wearing one, too.--Jim 11:19, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
• Finally the man with the headset. It is more likely that he's just a crew member because of the fact that there is a lot of military personnel on the Kalaeloa Airport.--Flateric 11:25, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
• He can be seen sitting in a starboard jump seat in this pix[5]. In this pix[6] it appears as though he is enlisted, as there doesn't seem to be rank on his shoulders (compare w/ the pix of the pilots[7]). Most likely, he is an Aviation Maintenance Technician[8]. He was most likely serving in the capacity as a flight engineer[9] or loadmaster[10]. Kevrock 14:03, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Claire is missing

Very sad, indeed. But what about six other people that got killed? Sawyer hasn't even told Jack about them, not even about Alex, Karl and Danielle. And of course nobody pais attention to the redshirts. Embarassing =(

• I think asking about Claire occurred to him immediately since Kate was there holding Aaron. He probably assumed that otherwise, they just split off from everyone else.--Evil Shark Erik 10:40, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
• That said, the original statement is valid. Considering that they've all been stuck on the island together for so long now, it seems that someone would at least have acknowledged, on some level, the redshirts who were blown away by Keamy and his crew. --paulski 08:10, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

Claire made a deal

When we saw ol' Claire last, she was relaxing with her dad in Jake's dimly lit cabin. She was convinced of something, and saw value enough to leave her child, with a man she could trust now that they are stuck on the island together. Christian can also 'speak for Jacob'. Christian offered up a deal to Claire - leave Aaron and come with her to save her mother. I'll put money on it.

• --Devinma 20:30, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

You do realize we have a theory page? --Minderbinder 08:28, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

Bloopers?

Are we too quick to judge bloopers?

The example is the speedometer/odometer on the car Hurley's dad rebuilt. Granted, the original had no trip odometer. However, the elder Reyes rebuilt the car and might have installed a new device. As far as I know, changing an odometer is not illegal as long as the act is disclosed at time of sale.--Jim 11:11, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

I completely agree with you. Hurley's dad could have changed any number of things on the car. And there are other bloopers on other pages that I feel the same way away about ... I think the whole blooper sections are useless anyway. They have nothing to do with the show, and shouldn't be on the main articles, if you ask me.--Vico 12:11, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

After the C-130 lands at Barbers Point, it travels on the ground. At one point, the aircraft number and base painted on the right side of the nose may be seen. "1717 Barbers Point" on two lines. On the left side of the nose, visible to us for a longer period of time, the marking is "1717 Barbers Point Hawaii" on three lines. There are several pictures of Coast Guard C-130s available on the web in which the state in which the base is located is not painted on the fuselage. Conclusion: This is not a blooper. It's a production tool. The producers "rented" the aircraft from the Coast Guard, repainted it so it would have a number that related to the numbers, and added "Hawaii" to reinforce to us the location of the event.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:46, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

One possible blooper that bothered me the more I thought about it was that Oceanic gave Sun a settlement big enough to buy a controlling interest in her father's company. Does anyone have any idea of how big that would have to be? To give you an idea, Hyundai Motors, which is a real automobile company in Korea (& admittedly fifth largest in the world) had a captialization of US$ 9 billion in 2004. To gain a seat on the board of directors, an investor usually needs to own 5% of the outstanding shares -- which would be a lot of change in the case of Hyundai. But even if we juggle the numbers, & say that her father's company had a stock value of only US$1 billion (which makes him an also-ran, yet considering his implied wealth not unreasonably large), she would still need at least US$ 50 million to gain control. (If so, just how much cash did Oceanic have available on hand to settle out of court? 6 x 50 million is more than most successful corporations have in cash, total.) Obviously a lot more than the average US airline would these days.) And this assumes that it just so happened that there was that much stock available for purchase on the open market -- which is also rare.

1 board seat does not give you control, it gives you 1 vote at board meetings. To get control you would need considerably more than 5% depending on the terms of the company's bye-laws etc--ukexpat 18:38, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

Either Sun is bluffing her father big time -- or the PTB behind the show failed to do their research on this detail. Which would be a great disapppointment. -- Llywrch 13:25, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• Either that or Ben/Widmore/??? is backing her up. We don't know the whole story, so it's not a blooper. Lovelac7 18:01, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

I'm positive it's not a blooper, but it bothered me that the color of the blanket that Aaron was wrapped in kept changing from light blue to dark blue. When Kate gave Sun Aaron, it was a light blue blanket. When she got on the ship, it was dark blue. And it changed back and forth on the boat ride from the island to the ship. Knowing Darlton (as we all do), it probably means something. I may add this to the literary techniques section on the main page. --Scottyus 18:58, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• The lightweight, light blue blanket was around Aaron when Kate handed Aaron to Sun; however, another darker blanket was added over the top (evidently secured off-camera, as the next shot shows him bundled in them both, rather than one wrapped loosely from the previous). When Sun turns to see Michael, there is the barest of glimpses of the light blue edge peeking from the dark blue blanket (between the blanket edge, mixed in with Sun's hair). It makes sense they'd put two blankets on the "baby" for the ride over the water, as he was only wearing a diaper and wind over the water when they are in the Zodiac would be too cold for a baby even in the tropics. It's not a clue or a blooper. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:05, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

• • In one of the promotional photos for the episode, Sun is holding Aaron with the light blue blanket. Standing next to Sun is an extra holding a dark blue blanket. It looks as thought the extra is going to help wrap Aaron wiht another blanket, so we can assume that there are two blankets. User:Lostcloverfield42

Sun may have also borrowed a good deal of money to complete the purchase of Paik Automotive. Recall Underling mentioning that "whoever it was, they used five banks". Possibly Mr. Paik was upset at the news at having been bought out by a mysterious entity. Robert K S (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Or maybe she's blackmailing the unknown second person who is responsible for Jin's death.--Vico 21:11, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

When Daniel leaves the freighter to pick up another six survivors, it can be seen that there is no island whatsoever visible in the horizon, even though the highest peaks on the island are apparently several hundred meters above sea level and the weather seems pretty clear. Is this really a blooper? Surely it was intentional. Has the island ever been visible from the freighter? I thought we were led to assume that the freighter is outside the ¨snowglobe¨ and can´t see the island. NytzovNee 04:09, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

Good point! Can't remember any scene that shows the island from the freighter's point of view. Anyone? --Tom 13:18, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

I might be wrong.. but i seem to recall they state that the boat was 5miles off shore.. and the curvature of the earth mean that on the flat.. you cant see any more than 4miles to a horizon.. i know the island is taller (quiet a bit with those volcanic cliffs) than the flat ocean.. but it might be enough with distance haze and all to hide it in that extra mile.--MRNasher 13:29, 26 May 2008 (PDT)

Hendricks states he will not go any closer than 5 miles off the coast. The boat is 40 miles away.--Baker1000 05:41, 26 May 2008 (PDT)

Cool.. so according to: http://madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-08/967050923.Es.r.html (if i'm reading it right) at 4' you see 2.4 miles and at 1000' you see 40miles. Oahu's volcanos peek at 4,003 feet.. so if you were on the side of the volcanos you could technically have a chance of seeing the boat.. and from the boat you could see something of the upper 3000' of the island..--MRNasher

Another thing I noticed about the island was when Sayid landed on the island. At first glace, you could see no people or even the structure of the church (I'll leave the sea turtles out for now) and hardly any foot prints. But the second he lands on the island, all of a suden you can see people, the church structure, foot prints (no sea turtles). I think actually touching the island plays a significant part in its visibility. --Scottyus 14:53, 21 May 2008 (PDT)

• When Hurley was presumed to be dead, his money would have gone to his mother, as his next of kin, assuming he didn't have a will (and there's no reason to assume that he did). As such, his mother (and thus father) would have had access to the lottery winnings. But his father says that he fixed up his car before Hurley "gave" the money to them -- when they still thought that Hurley was dead. Which means they didn't have the money. So what happened to the Hurley's winnings after he was presumed to be dead? It's implied that no one else got it, which is unusual to say the least. It's likely an error on the part of the writers and not some kind of a clue. Recall that his father said this response to Hurley not wanting anything that was bought with the winnings, and that any money he spent on fixing the car could not have been from the lottery winnings since Hurley hadn't given his parents the money yet. --Kasajian 19:57, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

• Inheritance is not automatic. Even after Hugo would have been declared dead, they'd still have to go through probate court to get the money "given" to them. And remember that the Losties weren't declared to be dead from the beginning of the crash time; that was a later development. I actually thought it would be too soon for the family to have probated the winnings. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:12, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

• I think Hurley's Dad's point was that he owned the car and fixed it up as a hobby before the money, so even if he continued to work on it after the money (and presumably used some of the money for parts, etc) it's still a gift that's more sentimental and predates the money moreso than if he outright bought Hurley a new present. Under this reasoning, it's neither a clue nor a writer's mistake. -TimelyPersuasion 15:04, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

• Hurley's dad said "I got this before you gave us the money" - I think he was kind of being a jokester - he's had the car for years.--Overworkedirish 16:10, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

"How is Aaron being fed? Presumably Claire was nursing him, but it's now been a day since she last fed him and he isn't crying from hunger. Further, how would Kate explain how she now needs baby formula after supposedly being able to nurse him since birth?" Is this less of a blooper and more of an unanswered question? Or should the question/blooper be why has no one else realised this fact within the real world? --El geeko 14:17, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

I could see that going under unanswered questions, at least the last part. Either way, they are definitely questions raised by the episode, I don't get why people keep trying to delete them. --Minderbinder 14:38, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

• Using baby formula over natural mother's milk is the choice of the mother. She doesn't have to explain herself to anybody. It's her prerogative. Furthermore, it even makes SENSE she'd want to use baby formula. If she was on an island for 100 days, she is not in a position to be nourished enough to feed two. This is a ridiculous UQ and an even more ridiculous blooper.--Overworkedirish 16:55, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
• I disagree that it is ridiculous as a blooper. Ok I will meet you on the subject of formula, so let's focus on the first part. How is Aaron being fed? Claire was feeding him, Dharma didn't drop formula on the island (no babies), Claire is gone for a day, how is Aaron fed. Plot hole. Minor, yes, but still a hole/blooper. macgregr

• "Using baby formula over natural mother's milk is the choice of the mother." Really? When a woman gives birth on a tropical island and there's no formula available, how exactly can she choose to not nurse and use formula instead? Obviously once she's back she can say that she's tired of nursing and use formula, but at the time of the rescue the baby would be starving and she'd have to try to find something to feed the baby. That would definitely arouse suspicion - why try and stop nursing for the first time during or immediately after a rescue when she should be able to just nurse the baby? It absolutely is a question raised by the episode. I restored it, but under UQ since it is probably more appropriate there than under bloopers. --Minderbinder 12:01, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

In my opinion this question is not relevant to the main storyline. We need to deal with more primary questions. Otherwise the list of questions can be infinitely long.--Messenger 12:32, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

Are we going to have to vote on the inclusion of this or something? Multiple editors have brought this up, and has been removed with no more justification than "I don't like it". --Minderbinder 12:46, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

The UAQ that you are insisting on are really secondary and trivial questions. Who cares how Aaron was fed and what does it have to do with the main story? You are trying to put back something that one of the Lostpedia admins have previously removed. I think we need to respect the admin's decision otherwise there will be chaos here. The admin previously decided that your UAQ's are trivial and subsequently removed them. Instead of voting I suggest calling in one of the admins. --Messenger 12:54, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

An admin removed one of them, when it was under bloopers. You consider it trivial, other editors obviously don't. What is your objection, other than you personally not caring about the answers? --Minderbinder 13:00, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

How Aaron is being fed after being separated from Claire is a minor plot hole, not an active mystery. I'm not expecting flashback scene that dramatically reveals Sawyer feeding him... coconut milk! (Bwaaaaaaah!)

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Kate would have raised any suspicions by not nursing Aaron, or even that anyone else has noticed whether she is or is not nursing him.--Hylas 12:59, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

The people who rescued them certainly would have noticed if her first request after being saved was that she needed formula because the baby was starving and dehydrated. If you think it's more of a plot hole, move it to bloopers. --Minderbinder 13:05, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

In an attempt to improve this, and maybe all, episode pages, I created the headline and asked the first question: "Are we too quick to judge bloopers?" and cited the odometer as an example. Somehow, we're talking about baby formula. This thing is beginning to remind me the the wandering blogs that appear after the news items on AOL! I know talk is supposed to be sacrosanct, but I'd be glad to have the whole thing blown away. Maybe I started in the wrong place.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:12, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

It's not a blooper or a mystery. There are dozens of explanations that could consistently explain it away, each more trivial than the last. Perhaps she said she had been having trouble nursing. Perhaps she kept some Dharma Homogenized Milk stashed away until she could buy formula on the sly. Perhaps a wizard did it. Unless something suggests that it is of any importance to the narrative, it's not an active mystery.--Hylas 13:18, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

Any unanswered question can be answered by making up theories. The point is we don't know the answer to that question. And I think it's very important to the narrative - Kate is pretending to be the mother of someone else's kid, and there are a number of holes in her story. Why wasn't she visibly pregnant when she got on the plane? Why is Aaron two months older than she says he is (especially when they were supposed to be on an island where they had to forage for their own food)? And now, if Kate was nursing the baby for 108 days, why does she suddenly need formula? The show has told us that her story is fishy in a number of ways - either it will show excuses being made, it will acknowledge that people are suspicious, or it will leave us with a situation ranging from extremely implausible to outright plot hole. --Minderbinder 13:36, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

I think that suspicion of the reporters has been satisfactorily addressed; the O6 just present their somewhat implausible story and clam up, leaving them without anything to go on. In any event, it requires four significant leaps away from the thread of the narrative to suggest that Kate needs formula at all, that anyone would have noticed if she obtained some, that they would have thought it odd, and that they would have been in a position to demand an explanation for it.--Hylas 14:14, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

Hurley Musings

Tutkhamun 11:13, 16 May 2008 (PDT) Okay Gotta Ask. Anyone else notice The Whispers were Present just before Hurley Got His Birthday Party Started.
Number Two. Is it just me but did that Jesus statue look a lot like the Statues in Season Two that Contained Heroin.

• thought the same thing about the statue.. but i guess the whispers are from hurley's friends and family behind the wall. Jared 11:14, 16 May 2008 (PDT)
• The statues containing the heroin were of the Virgin Mary.--Jim 11:24, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Insert non-formatted text here

• You were meant to believe that for about a minute, with the coconut and the whispers. Then you find out that there was a surprise party with a beach theme, hence the whispers (people hushing each other) and the coconut (somebody was carrying a tray and dropped one)--Ainulindale 11:13, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

Unanswered Questions (removal)

Considering that this episode is actually only a part of an episode, a lot of these questions don't matter as they'll likely get resolved by the upcoming parts immediately. For example it's not some sort of mystery what Ben's plan is. I'd like to suggest to remove the following questions:

• What is Ben's plan? [...]
• What is the nature of the Orchid station? [We'll find out rather sooner than later, but for starters: Moving the island.]
• Who left the lock box that contains the crackers and the mirror? [Not relevant, can't expect an answer.]
• What is Richard's purpose for taking Kate and Sayid prisoner? [We'll find out]
• How did Ben get his baton back from Locke? [Theory baiting]
• When Jack and Sawyer leave the helicopter, is Frank still handcuffed to it? [We'll find out]
• What happens to the survivors that we don't know that ended up on the freighter? [...]
• How much money did the Oceanic Six receive in their settlement? [Not relevant at this point]
• What plans, if any, does Sun have for her father's company? [Not relevant at this point]
• It is mentioned that 8 initially survived the crash, who are the 2 (or 3 depending on how you count Aaron as a "crash survivor") that didn't make it? [This is being discussed on various places, let's keep it there]

Does anyone object? --MacCutcheon – Talk? 15:18, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• A couple of them are mine, but you're right.--Jim 15:27, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

I've removed a few of them, including the following:

• Was Ben in on Kate and Sayid's Capture? - Theory baiting, nothing in the episode suggests this.
• What happens to the survivors that we don't know that ended up on the freighter? - Pointless question, I think whoever wrote this is assuming that the members of the Oceanic 6 who end up on the freighter in this episode will get rescued from there. But remember that Desmond and Jin are on the freighter as well. Basically there's nothing to prompt this question.
• How much money did the Oceanic Six receive in their settlement? - The amount is not really relevant, we know from other episodes that it's a considerable amount and that they received 'golden passes' for plane flights, knowing the exact amount is not going to clarify anything.

The one about the 8 members and the 2 that didn't make it is a pretty convoluted question, I'm sure it's been asked before as well, but apart from that I'm going to reword it to take out the number confusion. 8 is not 6 so some people didn't make it, that's enough info.Liquidcow 18:17, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

The producers have already said the other 2 that didn't make it are irrelevant and won't be answered. I don't see why people keep bringing it up like it's some huge mystery that needs to be solved. It's just part of the lie the O6 are telling to make their story more believable.--HaloOfTheSun 19:38, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• Neither producing nor writing television is my forte, but it would have been neat if Dr. Jack had said something like, "Two people died on the beach; they drank too much salt water." Absent that, BadRobot has been playing with our minds for so long, we're bound to want to fill in the blanks. To BadRobot: Keep playing!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 06:02, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
• "What plans, if any, does Sun have for her father's company? "' I know this question has already been put back into the article (not by me), but I want to contest the removal of it anyway, since I think it is relevant. We were obviously shown this flash-forward for a reason. The writers obviously wanted us to wonder about it. I think it's unlikely that Sun did what she did just for revenge. Please keep this question in the article. -- Michael Lucero * Talk * Contributions
  • I agree. It should stay.--Vico 21:16, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

• I don't see why we should remove real central unanswered questions (like the one on the nature of the Orchid) that are likely to be answered sometime in the future. Aren't they all? --Tom 01:55, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

• "Was Ben in on Sayid and Kate's capture" : nothing suggest this? What about the mirror Morse code message? It is said in the article that it translates as "seize". Besides, when Locke asked Ben who he was communicating with, he answered "who do you think?". This strongly suggests it was Richard.--Lauridsen77 12:58, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

It's a leading question that suggests an idea rather than poses a question brought up in the episode, therefore it's theory baiting. "Who was Ben communicating with?" is fine, but questions like this that are theories in disguise (even if it is fairly likely) are always removed.Liquidcow 06:48, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

• "Whom was Ben communicating to with the mirror and what did he say?" What he said is already answered just a few inches above in the General section: seize. Roger 11:04, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

• "How does Faraday know how to navigate to the freighter?" Frank talks about "Faraday's bearings" and uses a Daniel-made cheat sheet, so presumably he's the guy figuring out this stuff in the first place. --Apeliotes 16:57, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

• For the record Jack says that 8 people survived the crash. I'm pretty sure that that means that there are 3 other people that die before rescue, not two, in their story. Only 5 survivors of the crash came home, plus Aaron. He wouldn't have been born until after the crash making 8 - 3 + 1 = Oceanic 6. I know we didn't want to belive Aaron counted in the O6 because he wasn't a ticketed passenger. I think there is a difference here between whether Aaron "survived the crash" and "is an Oceanic 6". Wikistoriographer 15:50, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

Synopsis?

Why doesn't the synopsis start with the beginning of the episode? The opening scenes are only described a half-page later? Can someone wikisaavy reorder the synopsis section. Getting rid of the subheadings, where possible, would be rad too. --moss ryder 00:35, 17 May 2008 (PDT) The synopsis for this, and all other, episodes is chronological, split up into the various plot lines. It doesn't go in the order that they're shown on the episode. Notice that the first scene of the episode, which is the flashforward, is in the flashforward section. The same can be seen in all other episode articles.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:03, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

• How in the world, though, are the opening scenes "Kate"? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:35, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

• Kate is unique because of her isolation.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 09:39, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
• I don't like how cut up this page is. Maybe it would be better if we split it into Ben, Hurley and Locke's story, Jack and Sawyer's story (including bits at the beach) and the beach story
• Let's wait. This thing is a muddle, but it will start to shake out after the 29th. A lot of the text, probably including some of mine, will become pointless.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 10:25, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
• The reason it's split up going back and forth between the beach is because we see Jack and Kate on the beach, then we see Jack and Kate in the jungle, then we see Kate and Sayid on the beach, then we see Kate and Sayid in the jungle. To split it as "at the beach" and "in the jungle" like we usually do would be confusing because the article would have Jack and Kate in the jungle, then Kate and Sayid in the jungle, then Jack and Kate at the beach then Kate and Sayid at the beach. If you can come up with a way to maintain the order of the events relative to their overlap that reads better, please do, but I think it's a mistake to split it up into "beach" and "Jack and Sawyer's story".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  13:18, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
• I've been lurking for awhile and am new to editing, but this topic has made me emerge. So far this season the "On the Beach," "At the Barracks," etc has worked out well when the Losties were split up, but with them coming back together in this episode and overlapping locations so much I agree it makes more sense to revert to the old "On the Island" format used for the early seasons that served Lostpedia so well. One huge example of the problem: As it stands reading the article now, Kate and Sayid are captured before they perform all of the other tasks they did in this episode, which will make someone's head spin if they come into the article cold looking for a synopsis. - Lbdg 17:45, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Exactly. That was why I had set it up the way it was originally.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:33, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

• I raised some discussion about synopsis format for multiple character flashback/forwards above in the "Change flashes to various" section above.--Overworkedirish 00:24, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

Surely the flashforward only needs to be 'Oceanic 6'. I know there are moments where individual characters are the focus, but at the moment it makes no sense the way it's split up - the first scene on the plane is clearly all six of them (Jack does most of the talking in fact) yet it's labeled 'Kate'. The scene with the press conference, again, features all 6 of them pretty much equally, yet it's labelled 'Sayid'. I know Sayid has a scene on his own at the end of that section, but that's not enough to label that whole section, from the press conference to then, 'Sayid-centric'. The general point of the episode as a whole, flashforward-wise, was seeing what happened to the Oceanic 6, so that's how it should be labeled.Liquidcow 07:10, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

The C4

Is it really that big deal? I know it is explosives, but C4 needs to be detonated by electricity. So can't they just pull out the rods that is supposed to detonate the C4? Or have i misunderstood how it works? --Acolyt3 03:11, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
There could be a booby trap somewhere in the circuitry....--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 11:40, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

• With all the wiring and what was probably a deadman's switch on Keamy's arm, I'd say the chances for a booby trap were very good. Besides, just being near that much C4 would make me twitchy. I've seen what a single pound can do. --Doc 13:04, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

UQ

"What is causing the interference on the freighter's fathometer?" Desmond went to check this out; the interference was the device on the C4, caused by the connection to the kill-switch attached to Keamy's arm. Can we remove this one? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:52, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

• I think the logical connection is obvious: Keamy has a device communicating with the explosives, otherwise, what would be the point of the device on his arm if it's not communicated with explosives? But this has not been revealed yet, not by the show, and if we are going to be rigorous, then it does count as a UQ. I wouldn't worry a lot about it. In two week times this will be addressed, by the season finale, and then we will be able to remove it. --Salvora 08:58, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
• That's fine. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 09:05, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
• Receiving devices don't usually generate much interference because they're in "idle mode." Think of battery life on a cell phone when it is being used versus when it is not. The C4 isn't related to the fathometer; Desmond just happened to find it while he was looking for whatever is causing the interference.
  • But there could be a transmitter as well. If the captain tries to leave everyone on the island and breaks contact with the deadman's switch, then it also explodes. In other words, it is a two-way switch. Not sure if this changes the equation i.e. whether that would cause enough interference, but I would think that it would have to be a powerful transmitter to ensure that sightlines, trees, mountains, the island's properties, etc. don't throw the switch by accident. --Litany42 12:22, 18 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I think that would still be a receiver, but it's a good point, requiring negative logic. The receiver of the freighter is getting a periodic "I'm still here" message from Keamy. If the Kahana moves out of range or if Keamy dies, the receiver doesn't get the message and triggers the power supply for the detonators. You've raised an interesting question about sightlines. Radios are funny things. A tree can interrupt transmission. Ouch!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:44, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

Desmond and the Crew

How did Desmond get so friendly with everyone?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 09:44, 17 May 2008 (PDT)

• I'm guessing the rest of the crew just wants to get the hell out of there, same as Desmond. They have no captain and they don't give a damn about the mission. So why should the crew and Desmond not have the shared objective of rescuing people and getting away from the Island? Robert K S (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
• Basic human decency. The crew most likely didn't expect to find the survivors and Des on the Island, and were not part of the plot to get Ben/kill everyone else. They are just there to move the boat through the water. When they find out, helping to rescue after Keamy and crew leave would be a humane thing to do. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:39, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
• Bingo! Gault was nasty. Maybe the members of the crew have a gut feeling that Keamy will never survive his trip and they won't have him to worry about, either. Thought: We're almost at the point where everyone left on board is an "innocent" ("Meet Kevin Johnson"). Ben has no reason to destroy the Kahana and he knew in his gut the train of events would come to this point. The C4 is part of the Keamy plan.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 10:42, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
• (Well, now that you changed your wording, Robert, my reply seems silly, LOL.) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:54, 18 May 2008 (PDT)
• They spent a lot of time building Gault up as a scary guy, but when we eventually met him he was pretty nice, and in fact a bit of a pussy when Keamy was intimidating him in Cabin Fever. Anyway, I think the crew are unsettled after witnessing Gault's murder and are keen to escape before Keamy gets back. Scarecrow 21:53, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

rem UQ

"Why did Karen say they had crashed in the Indian ocean when they where [sic] flying to Los Angeles?" I removed this because to me it's obvious that the cover story involves them turning back toward Australia. Is this not an obvious answer? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:17, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

But flying from Sydney to Los Angeles leads northeast. To get to the Sunda area, the aircraft would have to transit the entire breadth of the Australian continent in a westward direction.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 11:41, 18 May 2008 (PDT)

Doubling back from NE is basically SW, so while questionable from the reporters' standpoint, it's not an UQ for us as we know it's simply part of the fake cover story. It's like placing a UQ about Kate giving birth to Aaron; we know she didn't and that it's a lie to the reporters/world, so again, not UQ. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:36, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

Take a look at a map. No feasible cover story could ever place them in the Lesser Sundas when their flight path was going over the Pacific. I think this is a screw-up on the writer's part rather than an UQ, though, especially given Jack's statement in Eggtown that they crashed in the Pacific (the Sundas are in either the Indian Ocean or Arafura Sea, not the Pacific). Guess the writers should have invested in an atlas before plotting out this story arc. Scarecrow 21:55, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

Jin + Sun + Freighter

Does anyone speak Korean? What does exactly say Jin to Sun on the freighter? Enzo 2309 17:26, 18 May 2008 (PDT) Probably something like, "Get you and our unborn child on deck, now!" The exact words are not critical.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:29, 18 May 2008 (PDT) Of course, i also believe he said something like that. Anyway, even though the words are not "critical" i wish i knew them. Enzo 2309 06:40, 19 May 2008 (PDT) Yeah..., we want know everything!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 07:35, 19 May 2008 (PDT) Jin said to Sun on the freighter "Go up there with baby and wait." "Now!" jcora4--jcora4 02:48, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

why does kate need to be aaron´s mom?

I just realized now that there isn´t necessarily any reason why the oceanic six should make up a complicated story about kate being six months pregnant when she took the plane in australia. why does kate have to be aaron´s mom? why couldn´t they just say that claire survived the accident, had the baby but died later on? maria madureira 12:28, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

• They could admit to Claire being Aaron's mother, but Kate would probably have to go through a custody hearing to keep him. Courts would probably give Aaron to his grandmother, Carole Littleton. As a suspected, albeit unconvicted, felon, "Kate the woman from the island" might have trouble keeping custody. The authorities would have to work harder to take Aaron away from "Kate the mom." Aaron's one of the Six. We don't know the reason yet, but it's important that he be kept close to the other five. I've guessed, elsewhere, that Aaron may someday be Locke's successor.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:46, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
• my question is why the hell does kate need to have aaron? why can´t he stay with his grandmother? we haven´t seen anything yet that says aaron needs to be close to the oceanic 6. why do you say he´s got to be close to them? maria madureira 12:58, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

• ...how about the fact that without Aaron, Kate's basically just a recaptured fugitive. With a child (Aaron) she's humanized - easier to sympathize with. I also concur with the below argument that Claire isn't aware of family around to care for Aaron and may have asked Kate to do it.--Overworkedirish 18:28, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
• I like the humanization idea....--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:10, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

• oh, and what we DO know is that Jack is NOT supposed to raise him. maria madureira 13:06, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
• I don't know, really, but here's one scenario: Kate may not need to have Aaron; Aaron may need to be with Kate. Before Claire left Australia, Richard Malkin told her that she had to raise her baby. We don't know Claire's status. From the Losties point of view, she missing. From Locke's point of view, she was with Christian; I can't remember if Locke knew about their being related. Some have suggested that's Claire's dead, but we don't know that. It's possible that Kate took Aaron because Claire resurfaced in some scene not yet broadcast and asked Kate to temporarily care for her child. Claire's mom may be thought as being less likely give up Aaron than Kate. The producers almost never do anything that's unimportant. There are more possible scenarios than either one of us can imagine.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:55, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
• Claire cannot know that her mother is out of the hospital. Her father is on the island with her, and we know that Jack is not supposed to raise Aaron. Not many people left to take care of him off the island. --Tom 14:14, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Claire could know about her mother, she's been hanging with Christian, who knows what the dead know? Sithboy 13:35, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
  • As of yet, it's not settled that both are dead. Besides, Claire didn't abandon Aaron after she'd been hanging around with Christian, but before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom Lebowski (talk • contribs) 2008-05-21T12:55:30.
    • I'm not saying that Claire is dead, just that she could have gotten this or any other info from Christian. Sithboy 11:48, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
    • How would Christian know unless he's dead? He's been seen on the island from the time of the crash. Yet even if Claire knew about her mother being healthy again: why should she just abandon Aaron in the jungle without telling anyone about her intentions? Quite unlikely Aaron would end up with his grandmother this way.. (Kate, for one, certainly doesn't know about Claire's mum being a potential caretaker for Aaron off the island) --Tom 02:15, 23 May 2008 (PDT)
      • But we already know that Christian IS dead, he died in Australia, Jack was flying his body back home. Other dead people have been seen on the island, Ben saw his mother, Eko saw his brother. The visions of dead people on the island after their deaths is a central mystery of the show, don't miss this important fact or you'll never be caught up! Sithboy 10:05, 23 May 2008 (PDT)
      • We know Christian is dead; there's reason to belive Claire is too, but we can't be sure as of yet. The point is it's hard to imagine they just left Aaron in the middle of the jungle and figured he would eventually end up with his grandmother. Reconsider Jim's and Overworedirish's arguments above. They make a lot of sense. --Tom 11:08, 23 May 2008 (PDT)

• • • Speaking of this, didnt Christian try to get Claire to pull the plug on her mother?Matt 08:10, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
• I forgot about that one. Do we solve the Jack problem by him crawling inside a bottle, by getting Aaron back to Claire, or both? I really don't know, but I think a lot of it hinges on what Kate is doing for Sawyer.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:10, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

Claire was 8 months pregnant when the plane crashed. Kate claims to have been 6 months pregnant. How do they explain that Aaron is 2 months older than he should be?--Chesebrgr 07:50, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

• well, shouldn´t there be an unanswered question like "why did kate have to lie about being aarons mother?" well, the phrasing could probably be different, but the idea is that this IS an UQ that should have been added already, probably in the article about 'Eggtown". maria madureira 15:13, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

Tiny bit of trivia

Just wondering, should I add in the trivia section that this is the first LOST episode title to have an apostrophe? It's probably not worth noting but I thought it was an interesting fact, so I'll put it here to see what you think. --Baker1000 13:23, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

• I don't think so; there's trivia and then there's trivial... I think this one is clearly the latter. Kevrock 13:28, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I think it's interesting, but has no real relevance at all. I mean, "Pilot, Part 1" was the first to have a comma. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  14:23, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
  • And "Expose" was the first title in French. :) Jacob's Lather 07:11, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
    • Par Avion.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  18:29, 25 May 2008 (PDT)

"Pilot, Part 1" was the first one with a P too!!!!!!!!! (Enzo 2309 11:29, 22 May 2008 (PDT))

Special encore?

The trailer for next week said "Special encore with all-new footage" for part 1. Does this mean we will have to watch it AGAIN?--Nevermore 14:27, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

Yeah. But I think they added some stuff to it. Maybe the scene that's talked about on the Talk:Oceanic 6 page? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  14:31, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

Hm...this may seem like a stupid question, but how will the added scenes be integrated into the article? Just as part of the plot, or as an additional segment? -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  15:11, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

I think we should wait till this special encore airs and see what kind of new footage it is. I hope it's some good stuff and not just infos like in the enhanced episodes. I'd say though, if it really is new plot information it should be added right into the plot. Jared 04:46, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

I'd agree with that. If it's added in seamlessly, it should probably just go in the main article. It would probably also make sense to have a section at the end of the article listing the scenes that were added for the rerun. --Minderbinder 06:56, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

Does anybody have a link to this trailer? Is the extended edition going to be aired Wed. May 21 or Thurs. May 29? There's nothing on Medianet about this. Robert K S (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

I don't think it's a whole extra scene. They trimmed part of the press conference for running time and had to cut out info they intended to be canonical ... by rerunning it as an extended version, they can make that info 100% canonical and include it on the DVD and reruns as part of the episode as opposed to a "deleted scene," in which case the validity of the info would be questioned. (Incidentally, I'm goosestepping around what that deleted line entails because I just now saw the HUGE blowup on the O6 talk page after being offline for several days, but I'm sure by now we all know what it is ... I think to avoid the same argument on this page, we'd better tread carefully until the rerun airs with the line re-inserted)--Jeff 11:29, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

Robert, I don't think there's any official info yet, but it sounds like the rerun with added bits may be on thursday at 8 eastern, an hour before the two remaining hours of finale. --Minderbinder 11:42, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

Minderbender, 4x12 will also re-air Wednesday (tomorrow) at 9. Robert K S (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2008 (PDT) I misread the press release, it's 4x10 and 4x11 airing Wednesday. Robert K S (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

Yeah, I'm listening to the podcast and they are saying it will be more press conference footage. Padraic 07:19, 21 May 2008 (PDT)

Jack's Information

Am I right in thinking that in the flashforward, Jack now knows that at least TWO other people on the plane had links with his father? Sawyer had already told him on the island that he'd met Christian in a bar in Australia. Jack must have thought that was just a weird coincidence. But when he ALSO finds out Claire is Christian's daughter, apart from the inherent shock, he surely must be starting to think it's too much to put down to mere coincidence that he, Christian, Claire and Sawyer all ended up on the same Island together? Perhaps the revelation about Claire not only shocks Jack but also forces him to realise that the passenger list couldn't just be totally coincidental. Did Jack ever find out that Ana Lucia knew Christian as well? If not, he could still stumble across that by digging for information about Christian's last actions in Australia. Does anyone else know about Christian and Ana Lucia? (Quick check: I think Lindsey, Claire's aunt, saw Christian with Ana Lucia and could theoretically still tell Jack about their pre-island connection (though only by giving a description of Ana Lucia) -that would really freak Jack out, though.) --HypnoSynthesis 17:38, 19 May 2008 (PDT)

• Remember Claire's mom told Jack to "check [his dad's] phone records" if he didnt believe her. Jack could stumble accross the Ana Lucia connection this way.Matt 08:15, 21 May 2008 (PDT)

Wow, I hadn't thought of that possibility. Taking that presupposition further, Jack would have to confront the very distinct possibility (nay, REALITY) that Locke was right all along. This might not only shatter his ego and throw him into that depression we saw him in at the end of Season 3, but it might even explain who is in the coffin: Locke. Think about it. Right now, Locke has very few friends on the Island. Most everyone who sided with him has either died, changed their mind, or is really starting to doubt him. If he (for some reason) left the Island, but then died, it's quite reasonable that nobody would care to show up at his funeral--and why Kate seemed disgusted that Jack would even think she would go--and it would also explain why, in the end, Jack was so despondent over the mystery person's death. Locke understood things about the Island he never did, and now, when Jack has finally come to realize it, its too late. Locke is gone. I think I'll add this to the theories page. (The only question it doesn't answer is why Locke left the Island he loved so much.) Jacob's Lather 07:08, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

• Indeed, if Jack does check his father's phone calls, he should find Ana Lucia's number, albeit under an alias. I guess if he called it, he might get her voicemail and click that she knew his dad as well, and/or Lindsey could say she saw his father with Ana Lucia and describe her to Jack, I guess. That would confuse him! --HypnoSynthesis 08:31, 24 May 2008 (PDT)

Countdown?

I'd quite like to have a countdown thing on the front page, counting the days for the season finale. That was quite nice when Lost stopped for a month. I wonder if other people would like this too, and I wonder if any of the administrators of lostpedia would be kind to do this. --Salvora 05:15, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

I second that. It was a nice feature. Jacob's Lather 06:59, 20 May 2008 (PDT)

I second that too. (Enzo 2309 11:26, 22 May 2008 (PDT))

Travel time to the freighter as a continuity error?

I think it's completely incorrect to list the following as a continuity error:

While a significant time displacement occurs during other trips between the freighter and the island, it appears this does not occur as first Sayid and then Daniel travel between the ship and island in the Zodiac.

...yet some editors seem very insistent on keeping it. We don't know exactly how travel to and from the Island works, but what we do know is that veering from "the bearing" seems to cause bizarre side-effects (Sayid and Desmond's trip to the freighter) while staying on it allows for an uneventful trip (all other trips we have seen).--Hylas 15:39, 23 May 2008 (PDT)

I think we can list it as an UAQ.--Messenger 05:17, 24 May 2008 (PDT)

I already moved it. Kevrock 07:53, 24 May 2008 (PDT)

It's always one same editor, some Randallintacoma guy who doesn't read the discussion or history pages. I certainly don't see anything in this proposal or question other than mere speculation, since we don't know anything about the Zodiac travels and they're actually barely seen in the episode. Should be removed. -. Grillage .- 18:22, 25 May 2008 (PDT)

I don't think it should be an unanswered question... after all, Sayid and Daniel followed the correct bearing. All the incidents have not involved this bearing: Minkowski didn't know about the bearing; Frank, Desmond and Sayid got knocked off-course by the storm; Ray's body drifted in at God-knows-what bearing. There's no reason to suspect that something should go wrong with Sayid and Daniel.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:19, 25 May 2008 (PDT)

OK, I'll join in here. The travel time question is certainly either an unanswered question or an error. I don't care which. It is certainly as unanswered as the question about "what's Ben's plan?" which is rather silly and not far from asking "what will happen next?" Several minutes of episode time have been used to establish that time may be altered in some manner as it relates to the island. We have seen that a 20 minute helicopter flight seemed to take far longer both to those on the island and to those in the copter. The bearing that is needed to be followed allows travel to and from the island to occur. It is NOT been established that following the bearing negates any travel time issues. Desmond and Sayid's flight drifted slightly off course and Desmond was effected by the "side effects" because he had been recently exposed to an electronmagnetic event (either turning the fail safe key or flying through the thunderstorm could count). The travel time problem was not explained as also caused by drifting off course, only the "side effects." If a future episode explains that following the bearing allows travel to and from the island AND avoids consciousness jumping if you've been exposed to electromagnetism AND also avoids the travel time issue, then my quesiton will be answered. It just has not been yet. --Randallintacoma 23:00, 25 May 2008 (PDT)randallintacoma

You're analysis, Jimbo is exactly as I understood it was being conveyed in the show. I don't really have a problem with it being an Unanswered Question, since it isn't entirely clear. However, I think we can all agree that tying the travel time effects to following the bearing is at least a plausible explanation for why the first helicopter trip was so different from the Zodiac ferryings, and therefore we can not claim that it's an error.--Hylas 23:56, 25 May 2008 (PDT)

Let me say I don't disagree with you that following the bearing is a possible answer to the travel time question. The reason it can't be THE answer however is that the travel time issue was noted by those on the island who didn't travel; ie. Jack and beach gang also noticed how long it was taking for the helicopter to reach the freighter. That seems to mean that the effect is not experienced only by those traveling. Daniel has also more than once mentioned that perception of time is different on and off the island. He doesn't mention "unless you follow the bearing" as part of those comments. He only notes the bearing is important to allow travel to happen and to avoid "side effects". Secondly, it may well be that the Zodiac trips were effected by the travel time issue and just went un-commented on. I simple line on that point by a cast member "Gee that was the longest 20 minutes of my life." or something like that would clear it all up. --Randallintacoma 09:10, 26 May 2008 (PDT)

New Footage

I was watching ABC the other day and I saw and ad for next weeks episode. It said that and encore presentation of There's No Place Like Home, Part 1 would be shown (thank you Jacob). It also said that there would be new footage in the episode. Does anybody have a clue what the "new footage" will be? I have theories but I'm not sure where to post them. On the theories page? (most likely) I would put them here but I fear that Jacob and the Lostpedia people will purge me just like poor Roger ... how sad ... User:Lostcloverfield42

See above... Robert K S (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2008 (PDT)

Yeah, after I wrote that I saw that ... I feel very stupid ...User:Lostcloverfield42

Is there a Youtube video or perharps a torrent file of this scene? Can't find it anywhere... Malachi 15:06, 30 May 2008 (PDT)

It is available here: [11] --Blue blade 13:25, 31 May 2008 (PDT)

Thanks. I'll put it into relevant article. Malachi 14:46, 31 May 2008 (PDT)

blue blanket "blooper"

Aaron in light blue and dark blue blanket

Aaron is wearing first a light blue blanket when Kate gives him to Sun, but then Sun wraps him in a second blanket of dark blue, as seen in the background of this shot (mostly, it's easier to see in live action; the light around Aaron's head is light blue). The light blue inside the dark blue can also be seen through Sun's hair just as she turns toward Michael. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 23:38, 29 May 2008 (PDT)

• Also in this promo shot: http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/080514/lost-mysteries/aaron_l.jpg ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:18, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

Hurley's Money

Is there substantiation for Hugo giving his money to his parents or have we created an urban legend?

• Before Hurley left for Australia in "Tricia Tanaka Is Dead", David told him he should give his money away, but Hurley did not actually do that.
• While on the Island ("Numbers"), Hurley told Charlie "I'm worth" $156 million dollars; present tense.
• Hurley puts a message leaving $160 million to his mother in the general sense of a will, but the bottle eventually washes back up on the shore ("Everybody Hates Hugo").
• In "The Beginning of the End", Hurley told Bernard "I had like" $150 million; past tense.
• At the press conference ("There's No Place Like Home, Part 1"), a reporter asked Hurley how it would feel to get his money back; Hurley replied that he did not want it. His parents are presented ("There's No Place Like Home, Part 2") as having done substantial spending during his absence.

None of these things, separately or together, equal Hurley having given the money to his parents. --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:05, 7 July 2008 (PDT)

Bloopers and Continuity Errors

• I as well as several other users have noticed that the part where it says about how it is impossible that Sun could have bought a controlling interest, etc, etc. This is clearly speculative, I'm not removing it as an edit war has already begun. It seems as if there is a debate going on, in the article. We need to form a consensus on whether or not to have this information on the page.--JinxTalk Contribs 08:05, 7 October 2008 (PDT)
• So, keeping it:
  • Disagree We should not have the speculative information, because it is just that, speculative.--JinxTalk Contribs 08:05, 7 October 2008 (PDT)
  • Disagree We should not list plot tools as bloopers. Nothing in Sun's exchange with her father is in contradiction with any other scene.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 08:41, 7 October 2008 (PDT)
• A blooper is also defined as a „mistake made by a member of cast or crew”. The lack of research by scriptwriters is a mistake by crew. Even though there are many other uprobable events in the plot (like polar bears, time travelling etc.), they're all purposeful and belong to the convention of the movie. In contrast, the oversight we are debating is unnecessary and very disappointing to fans around the world convinced that the filmmakers have a geniuos masterplan. I don't agree the fragment is speculative because there is no hypothesis based on uncertain assumptions- just facts. IMO we should keep it to let the readers judge.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Important (talk • contribs) .
  • While that sounds all fine and good, this article is not meant so that readers could decide on one or another. This article is to simply recap the episode and cross reference it with others.--JinxTalk Contribs 16:21, 7 October 2008 (PDT)
    • I'm sorry. I should have made the irony clearer.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Important (talk • contribs) .

The thing is, that there is way too much speculation. Things such as that are best on the theory page as stated before.--JinxTalk Contribs 17:10, 7 October 2008 (PDT)

• Disagree: speculative trivia and theorizing has no place in the episode trivia section. This is better suited for the theories section. Although it may seem like a "blooper" or "mistake", you are disregarding the circumstances that were presented in the episode. Saying something like "large Korean corporations are worth billions of dollars" is not fact. Rather, it is speculative theorizing. The consensus thus far is to DELETE this from the episode page. Unless there are more votes to keep it on the page, do not add it back. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 17:47, 7 October 2008 (PDT)
  • CTS and Jinx, you keep deleting this information without logical dispute. I get the impresssion you're both somewhat emotional. The statement that Korean heavy industries corporations are worth billions of dollars is a fact - neither speculation, nor a theory. The plot UNIVOCALLY implicates that Paik Industries is one of the biggest in Korea. Sun would need to afford half of its capitalization to buy the controlling interest. There has never been that high compensation granted to one person in the history of legal system. In conclusion, the crew responsible for research behind the show has made a mistake. This is called a blooper. I'll phrase the fragment more precisely to address some of Your objections. I think we should try to reach compromise.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr Important (talk • contribs) .
    • Please remember to sign your post by putting four tildes. Okay, so bear with me for a second, let's say the Oceanic Six all assisted in purchasing a controlling interest, which they then gave to Sun. Now that is a popular theory as if you read the transcript they mention something about 5 seperate bank accounts. Which would mean the Oceanic Six minus Aarron, since he's a baby. That may be what the creators are aiming for which means it is not an error. Bottom line is that one person may have never been given that ammount, but 5 people together, perhaps. --JinxTalk Contribs 21:04, 7 October 2008 (PDT)
      • Oh sorry I haven't noticed Your answer... Well, that would still require unrealisticly huge compensations.... In the meantime I've contributed an edit You might want to look at :) I tried to make it neutral and informative. I think many ppl may find it interesting. Is there really a burning need to delete it? That was just a rhetorical question:) I doesn't fit the theories panel. Its place is in bloopers section`Mr Important 21:38, 7 October 2008 (PDT)

From the transcript: SUN: (In Korean) "Oceanic paid us our settlement for the crash. It was very significant. This morning, I bought a controlling interest in your company. So you will now respect me." Sun did not say that all of the money used in the buyout was from Oceanic; although we may infer otherwise, she did not actually say that any of the money was from Oceanic. Sun did not necessarily say she had bought fifty percent of the stock; in practical terms, a lesser percentage can be a controlling interest, depending on circumstances. A blooper is the appearance of a crew member's hand in the very early scene of Kate seeing a horse on the Island. A continuity error is the question (apparently solved) of the color of the blanket used to shelter Aaron on his trip to the Kahana. If you think the statement by Sun is a blooper, you have insufficient appreciation of the craft - and craftiness - of TPTB. Go to Theories/Mr. Paik's Business; that's where you'll find the text of your "blooper."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 06:15, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

• • I think any factual error in the plot introduced by the story writers can be also counted as a blooper or goof. For example stating a countries capital incorrectly, language errors etc. Although Mr.Important has a point here, the argument that a "controlling interest" does not have to be >50% of a company's shares renders the dialogue of Sun with his father plausible and acceptable. --Messenger 13:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)
• From the transcript:

MR. PAIK: (In Korean) How could this happen?! UNDERLING: (In Korean) Whoever did it, sir, used five different banks. Five different banks, so Sun did not solely have bought it herself. I know, she could just have 5 bank accounts under different names, but I think that the creators were hinting at something more. Also, as Jim said, a controlling interest could be, say 2 percent if everyone else owned one percent. So really we don't know how much it cost.--JinxTalk Contribs 07:50, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

Alternate Press scene on DVD?

Well, the other day I was watching my dvd and I pressed on the last Episode Disc "Play All", and the thing I noticed is that the press conference scene is not the same as the one from the broadcasted episode, is the same as the enhnaced re-run.

At first I thought it might be an esater egg or something, but I tried to change the setting of the episode (subtitles, audio, and I even accessed it via episodes menu) and the scene was the same, so apparently this scene was replaced on the DVD.

Does anybody have this scene aswell?, or is just my DVD? jrcaporal 17:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I compared the dvd and tv rips, and I found the differences too. There are the ones that I noticed:

Jack: One of them, his name was boone carlysle suffered tremendous internal injuries and died a few days after the crash. A woman, libby, she didn't make it through the first week. Charlie Pace, he drowned a few weeks before we were able to leave. --- Reporter: Are you aware of the situation in Iraq, Mr. Jarrah. Do you have plans to return? Sayid: there is nothing for me in Iraq. --- Reporter: And you Mr. Shepard, what are your plans? Jack: I haven't really thought too much about it. My father died in Sydney, i was bringing him home for the funeral when the plan crashed. I'd like to put him to rest.

George47 18:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• So, it was replaced after all, isn't it?, then why it isn't adressed on TNPLH page? jrcaporal 19:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• It is. There's an italicized entry explaining the difference between the conference in the original airing and the conference in the enhanced episode.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Character headings

I've been considering this for a while, but someone just added 4x12 and 4x13 as Aaron-centric episodes, so I think we need to readdress this. To be consistent with Parts 2 and 3, I think we should go back to the original FF subheadings: Kate, Sayid, Hurley, Sun, Jack, and leave Aaron out of the "Flashback" row. For the most part, it's pretty clear that this was how the episode was put together. --Pyramidhead 08:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, Aaron doesn't have any flashes here and it's not really Aaron centric; I mean, he has a tiny role in the flashes, unlike the other O6. --Golden Monkey 22:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, not Aaron.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No Aaron cgmv123TalkContribsE-mail 22:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No Aaron ... --LeoChris 05:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii

In trivia someone wrote "The plane lands in Hawaii, making this the only episode of the series to actually have scenes set in Hawaii". However i always assumed that Jack's wedding took place in Hawaii in "Do No Harm". I'm not removing this until someone confirms this though. --Anfield Fox|talk|contributions 13:09, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

• It did. :P I added it, but I had completely forgotten the flashbacks of Do No Harm. --Golden Monkey 16:10, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Erasef07 (talk) 01:05, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

The Cover Story of the Plane Crash

The fake plane crash was found near Bali, Indonesia, shortly somewhere completely different compared to the plane's original route. Assuming that the take-off and destination airports of flight 815 are known to the world, how is it possible that people don't question the location of the fake plane and the cover story of the Oceanic Six? Was this made clear later on or is this a geographical error made by the writers? If so, that is a really messed-up error...

I may be wrong, but didn't they say it ended up there after going off-course? Have a watch of the Conspiracy of Lies mockumentary on the Season 4 DVD, I'm sure it explains the full story given by the Oceanic 6, and it definitely questions much of it such as how the plane would end up in the Sunda Trench after leaving for LA.--Baker1000 (talk) 17:04, July 21, 2014 (UTC)