Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 19 2006 and June 4 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Stations

There is a clip floating on the internet which labels all six of the stations on Lost, and what they are for. You can download this using bit torrent look for "LOST special files." Is the info from this something I should add to the appropiate articles, or is this not "Cannon". Too me it seems to clearly be from the official LOST people, even if it hasn't been offically released.--128.59.143.41 07:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. That clip is bogus anyway as it doesn't feature any of the newer stations revealed at the end of Season 2. Even if it was original, it wouldn't be eligible for inclusion in the article until it appeared in an actual episode, on the ABC website itself or was referred to as legitimate by the creators in a podcast or a magazine interview.--Werthead 15:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD A-go-go

Well, it's that time again -- we have a glut of crufty articles to delete.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Artz (Lost) (Note that Arzt's name is misspelled in the article's title)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Mars (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Mr. Friendly" (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Rom (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Gale (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Chandler (Lost) (Is "Chandler" her actual last name? Does anyone have proof of this?)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Littleton (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desmond (Lost)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodwin (Lost)

Oh, and one more, for an article that was recreated despite having had an AfD vote for deletion just a week or so ago. This one PKtm put up for speedy delete, so it's listed in CAT:CSD. Here's the prior discussion.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau (Lost)

Enjoy! Danflave 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating all of these :) Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are two more that the same user has added just today, without discussion. I've also put these up for AfD, and left the user a note.

• stop being boring, and let them create articles! 'kin 'ell.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashback Characters of Lost
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostflashback

-- PKtm 21:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Chain bot

Why is there no mention of 'the chain' anywhere about? What I mean here is towards the end of the first series when the crew that go for the dynamite are returning to the camp they are attacked by some sort of monster, we do see a smaller version of THE monster but then some sort of chain grabs Locke and begins dragging him into the ground. This seems like a pretty important clue to the mystery of the island- something definatly mechanical going on there. It at least warrants a small mention even if there is no definate idea of WTF was going on--Josquius 18:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See also

• Stanford prison experiment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.198.22 (talk • contribs)

....why?--Josquius 19:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would surmise the anon-IP is speculating that the Island (or at least Swan Station) is part of a psychological experiment (as many have suggested.) A better example, in terms of DHARMA, might be the Milgram experiment. However, this is all pure speculation, and not appropriate for the article (or this talk page). —Leflyman^Talk 05:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Excised Lost Experience under Mythology

I removed this section, as "the Lost Experience" is not actually a part of the TV series, itself, but a sort of ancillary creation. A brief mention in some other place may be appropriate, rather than this extended (and redundant) description:

The LOST Experience

Main article: Lost Experience

As of May 2 2006, coinciding with the début of Lost season 2 in the UK, the Hanso Foundation website returned with a completely new design and new sections, as the site has now become part of the show's ARG - The Lost Experience, which ABC had previously announced on April 24, 2006.

It was announced that the game would be launched on May 2 in the UK, May 3 in the USA and May 6 in Australia, it also stated "the first clue requires finding a toll-free number that will be released during the show or commercial breaks": this phone number was 1800227717. On May 2 2006, the début of Lost season 2 in the UK, included Hanso Foundation advertisements in the commercial breaks. It included a freephone UK telephone number, 0800 66 66 40, and calling this number on May 3 played a recorded message and gave several phone menu options. In Australia on the May 4, during the screening of the episode The Hunting Party a toll free number and advertisement to contact the Hanso Foundation appeared. The phone number was 1800 22 77 17. A recording of the call is included in the external links below. The recorded messages included several pieces of information which, when entered into the www.thehansofoundation.org site, yields further information. A similar advertisement aired in the US on May 3 for the second season episode Two for the Road. The listed toll-free number was 1-877-HANSORG (1-877-426-7674).

--Leflyman^Talk 20:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't fit under Mythology. I think we should wait and see how it turns out before making mention of it on this page. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Should "Good People" be listed under thematic motifs?

Both Goodwin and Henry Gale used the statement that they were "good" people to defend their actions. Also, at the end of the Long Con, Sawyer states that he is not a good person, and has never done a good thing in his life. I think quite a few of the castaways actually talk about goodness/not goodness. One interesting point there is that "good" hasn't been given a dualistic pair. Its always either good or "not good". Not good or bad, good or evil, etc. Ignus 01:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

my vote is to let it sit for a few more episodes and see if anything changes. Tobias087 04:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for asking first! In my view, "good people" is not a "thematic motif". Apart from the couple you mentioned, there hasn't been any real meaningful, on-going references to the concept. It's already hinted at in the discussion of dualism. If anything, being "one of the good ones" is part of the mythology about The DHARMA Initiative, rather than its own separate category. Clearly "The Others" have some sort of particular intention about whom they consider "good" which is not necessarily the common understanding of "goodness"; I'd suggest that this may be clarified by the show eventually, but only within the context of the DHARMA Initiative/The Others. —Leflyman^Talk 05:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, but there are actually more references than those, including this quote by Goodwin from The Other 48 Days: "Nathan was not a good person. That's why he wasn't on the list." The list has also been mentioned at other points in the show, but I guess it's OR to connect it with "good people". --Kahlfin 18:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems the general consensus is to leave be for now, so i won't do anything. Thanks for the input. Ignus 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC) "Good people" was brought up again in the season finale, "Live Together, Die Alone"-

    Michael: "Who are you people?"
    Henry: "We're the good guys, Michael" ShadowUltra 19:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but right now, there's nothing to go on except saying "The Others consider themselves 'good people'." I'd rather wait and see what comes next season, but right now, there's nothing notable to put into the article. Lumaga 19:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thing comicbook reference

Regarding unsourced mention of The Thing (# 6), Javier Grillo-Marxuach, supervising producer & writer for LOST, has also written for Marvel comics. I can't find the direct reference for the LOST numbers being used as a bomb sequence, but would understand why it would be an in-joke. Hopefully the number of the comic will help editors with more comic book experience find the source. agapetos_angel 13:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Cast and Characters

The Cast and Characters section has been changed to say that Ana-Lucia and Libby are only in season 2. While probably true, I don't think we know for a fact that they're dead, do we? I mean, sure, Ana-Lucia got shot in the chest, but to say that she's dead is original research, right? Granted, this will all be resolved once and for all next week, but until then, shouldn't it be changed back to the way it was? --Kahlfin 18:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I love the idea of this being original research. Some mad Wikipedian's tried shooting people in the chest to see if they die. Seriously though, I agree, we don't know that they're only in season 2. They could very well appear in flasback cameo roles in season 3. SillyWilly 15:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Ana-Lucia is dead. Damon and Carlton did an interview with TVGuide that was posted immediately after the episode aired. However, they never explicitly said Libby is dead, so it's best to assume she's alive until there's irrefutable proof to the contrary. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Cynthia Watros, who plays Libby, will be starring in the CBS series My Ex-Life next fall, according to E!Online and The Hollywood Reporter. It's kinda hard to star in two television series at one time, especially when one films in LA and the other in Hawaii.--Sixtrojans 03:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Exclude death of characters until confirmation on the show, I think. If and when they are buried, then the information can be updated. agapetos_angel 05:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Have edited Libby twice now. Please do not place character as Deceased until the death is confirmed. Everyone knows Ana-Lucia is dead, and it was confirmed in an interview. --163.156.240.17 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Has anyone noticed the similarities between Desmond and Odysseus, what with the wife being named Penelope and Desmond being lost on some kind of voyage for an extended period of time and being trapped on a strange island, much like Odysseus was trapped by that sorceress lady, and the fact that both Desmond and Odysseus were (at one point) soldiers.
• Libby is deceased as she was buried with Ana-Lucia in the finale of the series.

Creation of Lost tie-in novels article

There are currently four tie-in novels related to Lost: Bad Twin, Endangered Species, Secret Identity, and Signs of Life. Bad Twin already has its own article, which really isn't a bad idea since it is encyclopedic, but in the spirit of not having 100+ Lost articles I would much rather have one article that covers all four novels and any future ones. I am currently reading these books and would be happy to supply the article with content in due time, but I'd like to gauge a consensus first. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion on this? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the lack of response was due to the lack of people who've actually read these? I know that I personally have little interest in tie-in novels. However, organising the print fiction connected to Lost in a single break-out article, with short book descriptions and summaries seems like a good idea to me. Is there a standard title for tie-ins -- i.e. is the preference for something like List of Star Trek novels or the simpler Buffy novels?—Leflyman^Talk 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

Spoiler warning: this page seems to contain minor spoilers, i highly recommend we put a warning at a top. what do you others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.140.39 (talk • contribs) May 10, 2006

There is one before the Cast and Characters section, and I don't see any spoilers before that. --Kahlfin 19:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the TOC itself could be considered as having spoilers. Secondly, if you click on a link in the TOC, it will take you past the spoiler warning. I see no reason why it shouldn't be at the top of the page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.140.39 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 May 2006

• Wikipedia is not a fan site; it is an encyclopaedia. Every article about fictional subjects here has "spoilers". There's no getting around that some sliver of information someone will consider a spoiler. If you want to avoid seeing something you don't want to know, avoid reading Wikipedia articles altogether. —Leflyman^Talk 19:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

more informations to the page

About the monster: "The smoke creature is a metal in a magnetic field. It most likely has something to do with the electromagnetism on the island. It's controlled by the Dharma scientists."

About the black rock: "The shaft is dug deep in the ground, 'cos of the electromagnetism. The electromagnetism is very strong on that island. So strong that it can indeed cause the poles of the Earth to change places. That's why Desmond asked if Sidney and LA are on their places."

About the button: "Pushing the button at the science base on the island every 108 minutes sends information to the scientists outside of the island. If the button isn't pushed all exits of the hatch close until the code is entered again."

About the crash: "The crash was caused by the monster."

I don't know where I write it, please who knows where's the place, write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.182.129.176 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 May 2006

• Sorry, but this has no place in the article; it's speculative Original Research. Try the Lost Wikia instead. —Leflyman^Talk 19:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A Lost-related puzzle

... is the article Valenzetti. I followed a link from a fan site to this article, & was surprised at what I found: a fair bit of detail that I haven't seen elsewhere -- yet at first glance appears to be compatible with the plot of the series.

Is this article a hoax? Is it valid information that someone associated with the series planted in Wikipedia? I checked the edit histories of the other people who contributed to this article, & they all have sketchy histories behind them with nothing that would clearly link them to the series -- nor link them to credible Wikipedians. (Well, all but two: I did some wikifying to the article, both under my own name & under an IP address -- I forgot I wasn't logged in the first time.) I have to say, I'm a little uncomfortable with Wikipedia being used to reveal clues about Lost in this manner. -- llywrch 05:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

PS -- Here's the page that linked to this article. Even more intreguing is the fact that no other page on Wikipedia linked to it until I created one above! -- llywrch 06:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Where should I put this?

J.J. Abrams was on Howard Stern's show last week (early May 2006), and he said that the "Previously on Lost" voice is Lloyd Braun's voice slowed down a bit. Where would one place that information on this page? Oodus

In my view, one wouldn't. That's not notable or encyclopedic information; it's more along the lines of fan trivia. It's very suited to a site like LostPedia, however. -- PKtm 18:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mythology section

I understand having separate articles for the Dharma Initiative and the Hanso Foundation, but to have separate sections for each of them under "Mythology" seems silly. The mystery of the Dharma Initiative is the mystery of the Hanso Foundation- there's not enough known about either to make a distinction.

Another thing: I attempted to write a sub-section that described the other mysterious phenomena on the island- dreams, hallucinations, healings, etc., but the section was deleted. I think that the general weirdness of the island is an important mystery/aspect of the show that deserves its own section. --Silentword 00:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't know if the Hanso and Dharma is the same mystery. That's speculation. Right now, they arent. The mystery of Hanso could be described as its agenda and particular involvment with Dharma, and Dharma mysteries include things like purpose of the stations, why it is abandoned, etc. Right now Dharma and Hanso are two seperate entities. Another reason for including Hanso in the listing, it has an entire official website and alternate reality game dedicated to it, Dharma does not. --Jake11 01:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Main Characters debate

Recently people have been playing around with the "Seasons" part of the Main Characters section. What I mean is next to Ana-Lucia, for example, it has been fluctuating between "Season 2," "Season 2, recurring Season 1," and I was wondering what people would think of putting "2005-2006" or something of the sort that identifies their time in the cast in actual time rather than seasons. -- Wikipedical 00:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Seasons, rather than years, are used because the show airs different seasons at different times in different parts of the world. This article should be written for everybody, not only North American viewers. Lumaga 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should we be able to put Walt (Season 1, recurring Season 2)? People on the other side of this argument said to only list characters with star billing. Should we list Walt as Walt (Season 1)? No, we should add that he was in season 2 but because of his small role and guest star status, it should read Walt (Season 1, recurring Season 2).

How do you define recurring? I believe that word adds a gray area because Libby, for example, could be defined as recurring because of her small role. The main character list should be limited to people who are credited with starring roles throughout a season. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Recurring is when a character appears a number of times as a guest star. Libby was credited with a starring role, and thus is not a recurring character.

So are Boone and Ana-Lucia recurring, because they each made a guest appearance in season 2 and season 1 respectively? If not, how many appearances does it take to be considered recurring? --Kahlfin 05:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Boone and Ana-Lucia's appearances are cameos. I also think that should be added in the cast and characters section on this page.

So the question is how do you differentiate recurring from cameo? What if Boone made appearances in two flashbacks this season? Would be be recurring? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I read an article saying Michael probably wont return next year, and if he does, he'll be a guest star, not a regular. So I changed Michael's name to (Season 1 - 2)

Why was the Season Synopsis section removed?

It looks like it might have been deleted in an act of vandalism and never replaced? The last good edit that contains that section seems to be 23:18, 19 May 2006 Unless there was some sort of decision to remove the section. There's no link to the "episodes of Lost" page from here now though... Ignus 19:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Airdates of Lost" article

What hapened to it? Where did it go? I mean, it was there a moment ago, and now it is gone!

It was voted for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airdates_of_Lost. --Kahlfin 06:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Leg injurys under motifs?

Leg injurys seem to happen a lot on Lost, it seems like a motif to me.

Some examples: - Locke's handicap - The man in the pilot caught under wreckage - Sayid after coming back from being captured by Roussou - Sayid shooting himself in the leg to let Nadia escape - Boone's leg needing to be amputed - Locke's leg caught under blast door in hatch

There's more too...

Please don't flame me! *hides* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.44.224 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 May 2006

• It's been noticed before, but it's not exactly a "motif" -- just another of the many ways one can come up with non-notable plot repetitions. See: Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Story_elements#Leg Injuries & Other Themes?—Leflyman^Talk 20:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lost Template

The main Lost template is looking at major edits after the finale tonight, there has been some discussion on how the design should look like, and what the contents of the new template should be, the Current template is as follow

and is looking to be replaced with this one

and others that are listed in there, Please do not share your ideas here, go to Template talk:LostNav#More "spacious" template to share your thoughts, thank you very much and enjoy the season finale tonight 9/8c on ABC --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

How close are we? -- Wikipedical 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should wait a couple weeks then start cleaning up this article for FAC status. I think any edits we make now will be ruined by people who are exited about the season finale and want to add as much information as possible. Here are some links I think we should keep in mind:

• Previous FAC nomination
• The West Wing (FAC discussion)
• Arrested Development (FAC discussion)
• The Office (FAC discussion)

Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Another AfD, folks

Please see and vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Arzt. Yes, again. -- PKtm 00:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag keeps being removed

I have added {{In-progress tvshow}} as seems to be wikipedia standard procedure now (see My name is earl) numerous times however it keeps being removed. Why does this keep happening? Is the Earl article wrong in having it?--Josquius 18:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the tag is HIGHLY disputed. See it's TfD's and the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Basically the idea is "it's ugly, interrupts your reading of the article, and has no clear benefit". If you have to put this banner on a page, it means you haven't written that (part) of the article as a proper encyclopedic article. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Season Two - Number of Episodes

There are only 24 episodes in season 2. Not 25.

Season Three - Number of Episodes

"List of Lost episodes" says there will be 25 (in blocks of 7 & 18). "Lost (TV series)" says there will be 23 (in 6 & 17). Which one is right? (I thought the producers said 25 - but I could be wrong).

I found out. 23 from the podcast.

Yes. The podcast [1] states that there will be a block of six episodes and a block of seventeen. --Kahlfin 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That means that they are going down 1 every season: 1st - 25, 2nd - 24, 3rd -23. That's sad.

Look at it like this: 23 more seasons to go :D - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In the second season, they had 23 episodes, but 24 hours. This will probably happen in season three. Lumaga 14:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Deletions

Why have comments been deleted from this talk page? --Chris Griswold 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed some extensive multiple vandalism (stemming from a single user) this morning, and the perpetrator has now been blocked for 48 hours. I don't believe I removed anything of substance. Follow the edit history to see the specific edits that I removed; I don't think my action is controversial. Thanks, PKtm 16:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Episode titles?

Question. Where do the episodes titles for the Farscape episodes actually come from? I've watched nine episodes and they're not actually mentioned anywhere in the episodes themselves. Why not? They're on the title screen on my DVD version though. Are they officially released, or just invented by fans? --Mark J 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I'm guessing you mean the titles for the Lost episodes. The titles for the episodes do not appear on screen, but they are the names given in the scripts. They are also listed on the ABC website, are referred to by the actors, producers and directors in interviews and podcasts and are used for titling purposes on the DVDs.--Werthead 15:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Video Game

Is it worth mentioning that they are making a game based off the show? Here are some links with proof (The first is the actual link, the second is an english version)

http://www.gamer.nl/doc/32639

http://www.shacknews.com/docs/press/052206_lost_ubisoft.x 03:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Damn... looks like there's alreay one there. Ah well. Hope it does good!03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to User:SergeantBolt

Recently active editor SergeantBolt has uploaded an excellent audio version of the article, which he reads with professionalism well beyond his years. Well done, SB! --Leflyman^Talk 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Leflyman. I'll be doing more Lost articles in the near future - and I'm considerably happier now that I know how to pronounce Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje! SergeantBolt 17:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Lost's Pilot is NOT the most expensive in history

I see this quote so often it's annoying. No matter what ABC wants you to believe, it is not the most expensive pilot in history. The original Battlestar Galactica's pilot cost $7 million in 1978, which is more when adjusted for inflation. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine's pilot was $12 million in 1993, not counting inflation (source: The Deep Space Nine Companion, published by Pocket Books). Voyager's pilot episode was also in this ball-park. This quote should be removed or adjusted. It is possible that ABC meant that Lost's pilot is the most expensive in terms of not having to fund series assets as well: i.e. the pilot budgets for BSG, DS9 and STV all included building standing sets that would be reused throughout the series, whilst Lost's did not. Nevertheless, this is splitting hairs. Lost's pilot is not the most expensive in history, end of story.--Werthead 15:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you bring up an valid concern. More to the point, however, is verification of how much was actually spent on the Lost pilot. Sources appear to disagree. In October 2004, IGN.com wrote, "The 2-hour pilot episode cost a reported $14 million, making it the most expensive pilot in ABC's history." (Note their "in ABC's history" qualifier.)

Last year, an article in the UK's Telegraph about Lloyd Braun notes, "While he, swept along on a tidal wave of enthusiasm... lavished £7 million on what was to become the most expensive television pilot in history, his bosses at Walt Disney, which owns ABC, looked on in horror." [2]

£7 million is equal to just over US$13 million, which may be a rounding error on the Telegraph's part, as a bit further down, the same article quotes from the book DisneyWar: "'If Eisner or Iger decided they wanted rid of him, he'd handed them the ammunition: he had green-lit a $12 million pilot that still didn't have a script'."

Other sources stick to the $10 million (as we currently list), possibly based on this article itself. I'd suggest that the number quoted in DisneyWar be used, and we qualify the statement as "one of the most expensive..." to cover the issues you raised. --Leflyman^Talk 18:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

While some good points are raised here, I just want to jump in and say we cannot adjust these numbers for inflation because that is impractical. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)