Talk:The End (Lost)

Juliet

The referencing to Juliet being back on the show (Elizabeth Mitchell) is wrong. I checked the reference which lead to refrence 1, and there is no mentioning of her being in the finale...any confirmation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.175.52 (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

shes there.--24.34.132.106 (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Is it just me, or is protection in order? Everyone's gotta be the first to vandalize the page, it seems. Drjayphd (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article should be protected, especially taking into account that lots of people will be confused by the plot, and fight over what happened. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Rsquest at WP:RFPP Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Guest stars

The eagle-eyed will notice that, as of this episode, most of the cast that either guested on the show or was on the main cast before (i.e. Maggie Grace, Ian Somerhalder, L. Scott Caldwell, John Terry et al) were upgraded to "Starring," while people like Neil Hopkins and other less prominent actors were guest stars. Should this be reflected or somehow worked into this page and the main Lost cast page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aresef (talk • contribs) 05:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm misremembering, this is the first and only episode in which François Chau is actually credited onscreen; I believe all his previous appearances were uncredited. Unless somebody objects I was thinking of adding "(making his only credited appearance on the show after 17 uncredited guest appearances)", or something like that, after his name in the paragraph beginning "All former series regulars..." in the Production section. Thoughts?

Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Why

Is it not mentioned that basically everyone in the end dies? Cause that's exactly what happened. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

While it isn't really appropriate to address this here, I will note that yes, everyone dies eventually. All the characters in the church obviously did die at some point later in their lives, as Christian explains, but it's not as if they all die catastrophically. Come on. 66.242.49.253 (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for example, there's no indication that Hurley and Linus died (other than eventually). I think it's clear from the article that the reunion in the church is some kind of afterlife, even though it makes almost no sense (why there? why was Sun pregnant again? what's the story with Jack, Juliet and their son? Claire having her baby again? How/why was Jacob's brother going to destroy everything?). Oh well. Guess there were too many loose ends to tie up. Would be nice if some of the confusing aspects were addressed in the article - people are surely talking about them... Destynova (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Hurley says Ben was a good number 2 and Ben says Hurley was a good number 1, suggesting they spent enough time together as number 1 and 2 for this to make sense. It's also clear that some people lived a lot longer then Jack. In fact while it's not clearly shown in the show, so everyone can believe what they want, it's clear that one of the possibilities is all of the people on the plane and Desmond live some sort of life outside of the island, and Frank and Bernard probably some sort of life on the island. Of course none of this belongs in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

They all died! It also should be included that the show did not said what the island was/is. No mystery solved! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.101.185 (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the episodie, I need a reliable source that say that all died, also "the show did not said what the island was/is" is irrelevant. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard

I noticed that Richard wasn't there even though he began to age and he was just as much a part of the group as anyone else. Will someone please include everyone who was in the church? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.190.119 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

His original timeline was in the 19th century, a flash sideways with him in the 2004 doesn't make sense. 70.125.201.78 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure this is true

"The 2004 flash-sideways timeline is revealed to have been a purgatory created by the survivors so they could find one another, independent of the time at which they died, and move on to "the next phase" together." Christian doesn't say that the whole alternative reality was purgatory created by the survivors so they could find one another. I believe there is an alternative explination to this and so I was wondering if there was a citation for this. Remember (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is going to be the central talking point about these two episodes, this season and maybe this show as a whole and I believe it's left intentionally vague. The idea that the Island is a kind of purgatory is one that has been around without real basis since the start of the show and I think people are letting their suspicions bleed over into what can actually be proven. Let's just state what happened on the show using as neutral language as possible and then let people work out the answer for themselves. Nilzy (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we should probably include as much quotes between Christian and Jack because I think the way they discussed the issues at the end was purposely ambigious so that there could be multiple interpretation of events. Remember (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ashes to Ashes

[1], among other non-reliable sources (i.e. Twitter) noted similarities between this finale and the Ashes to Ashes finale on Friday. Strange minds think alike, huh? Sceptre ^(talk) 15:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Simultaneous Airing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I assumed that the "simultaneous international airing" was simultaneous with west coast feed, seeing as it was at 9pm PDT - was there an east coast feed, or just one broadcast at 11pm EDT/9pm PDT? Thanks! Fin©™ 21:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you aren't sure, why are you changing the article? It seems idiotic to me to suggest the rest of the world simulcast was made two hours after the first US broadcast - the whole point was to show it at the same time everywhere to avoid spoilers, this is how it was justified in Britain. If you don't have a ref to the contrary, then it should be changed back to stating it was simultaneous everyhwere. MickMacNee (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources I've read all say simultaneous at 9pm PDT. Each week, Lost broadcast at 9pm EDT, then again for west coast at 9pm PDT. I assume there was still an east coast feed this week. It's still technically true to say it was "simultaneous", because it was simultaneous with the US's west coast feed. Until there's a source saying otherwise, I think that's the logical thing to think. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I find it utterly ridiculous that the entire world would screw around their schedules to air the show at a time when nobody is going to stay up and watch anyway (5am BST!), if that is not for the obvious reason of avoiding spoilers. Or do the people on the east coast not know how to use the internet? If this article has been changed only on the basis of this assumption, then clearly it has has a rather large risk of containing total rubbish. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be aggressive, and remember to remain civil. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I think we should wait for an editor from the east coast, and see if it actually was broadcast at 9pm EDT. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

9pm EDT is 01:00 UTC right? So your contention is that the last ever episodes of Lost first aired from 01:00 to 03:00 UTC in the east coast right? Before the west coast and several countries in the rest of the world, who had to wait two more hours. Looking at the article history, it was editted a grand total of 8 times in those two hours, and once at 03:00 precisely. All of them are trivial, and give no indication the epsiode had begun - I checked - 01:28, 02:10, 02:11, 02:14, 02:15, 02:24, 02:48, 02:49, 03:00. The edit rate does not take off until 04:00 - 06:00, corresponding to the two hour window starting at 9pm PDT, with edits to include plot details appearing around half way through, as you would expect. Frankly, on this evidence, and based on simple common sense as detailed before about why this was simulcasted, I would be astounded if your theory, based on nothing but last week's tv schedules it seems, turned out to be true. The only other explanation is that, either I can't tell time properly (I'm not ruling it out, which is why I include my 'workings'), or people on the east coast really don't know how to use the interwebs. MickMacNee (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in Pennsylvania. The pre-show for Lost aired at 7pm EDT, but the finale itself started at 9pm EDT. I hope that helps. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks lots! =) Fin©™ 14:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And so, the explanation for zero plot edits to the article in that time is what exactly? MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

People were watching it rather than on Wikipedia editing? That's a guess, I've absolutely no idea. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It was also semi-protected shortly before/after the end of the finale. I was editing this page within 10/15 minutes of the end, but for the 2.5 hours before it ended I was busy watching the show. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Which diff exactly? Because it was also not editted with any plot details from 03:00 - 04:00, which covers the last half hour of the 9pm EDT show if it existed, and the half hour after it ended, but before the 9pm PDT start. And in all the time, it was being editted by IPs, from 01:00 UTC. It was not protected from IPs until 04:40, which is 40 minutes into the 'west coast' feed, and a whole 3 hours 40 minutes after it supposedly started on the east coast. If these timings are correct, this simply not believable for the scenario of an east coast broadcast 3 hours earlier than everywhere else. MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I'm imagining the fact that I sat on my couch from 9pm EDT until 11:30pm EDT watching it? Clearly the rest of the world is imagining it too. Referring only to your earlier statement tha people on the east coast must not know how to use interwebs, do people on the west coast know how to use a watch? They did when I lived in LA...

Fans in the US, Canada, Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Israel, and Turkey enjoyed the Lost finale unspoiled last night and this morning. It was shown at 5 am in Britain, simultaneously with West coast transmission in the US. Time magazine says this is the first time that a drama show has broadcast live internationally.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0524/Lost-finale-broadcast-live-in-eight-countries-but-Australians-outraged Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking for the UTC timestamp of the diff you say you editted the article. 9pm EDT is 01:00 UTC, are we clear that this is a fact or not? All article revisions are shown in UTC time, are we clear on that as a fact? If so, the diff of you editting this article would be around 03:45, 15 mins after the end of a 2 and a half hour show. But I don't see it. I don't see any plot details until well after 04:00, which is 9pm PDT. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent, e/c) I'm sorry, why are you being so confrontational? My original question was "was there an east coast feed", which Erikeltic confirmed above that there was, at 2100 EDT (0200 BST/0100 UTC). Are you saying Erikeltic is lying, has forgotten what time zone he/she is in, or simply can't tell time? Here's a source, albeit not reliable, that also says it was first broadcast at 2100 EDT. The fact that the article wasn't edited in a certain timeframe is not a reliable indication of anything. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This edit of mine [2] was done at 11:59pm EDT. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Because nothing anybody is actually saying is backed up by the editting history of the article. How many people on the east coast? You are telling me not one of them editted the article during or after, but this happened before the show even ended in the west coast? And it was not even semi-protected in that time. It is not believable. Not in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that at all. I do, however, believe you cannot tell time properly. The edit I just listed was done at 11:59pm -- 29 minutes after the show was over. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c again) Using editing history as proof of something is absolutely ridiculous. Split/Second was released in the US last Wednesday - there's been about 20 unique editors on the article since then, does that mean only twenty people have bought the game? There is now a reliable source stating it was simultaneous with the west coast feed (CSMonitor). Unless you have a source, and not conjecture based on editing patterns, saying there was only one feed worldwide, then I think that's the end of the discussion. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is your diff I believe. Marked clearly as 04:59 UTC. That is, by my reckoning, 12.59am EDT, because EDT is UTC-4. MickMacNee (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your reckoning is incorrect. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And your edit history is displaying in BST - mine shows the edit at 0459, and the rest of the edits are in BST (eg my current edits are 16XX), so I assume it is too. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Just had another look through the article edit history - how do you explain this article version, from 0720 BST (10 minutes before the end of the simultaneous broadcast) that aptly describes the last five minutes of the episode? I think that's that. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You've both lost me now. Is the diff above saying 04:59 for you two or not? Is that UTC or not? MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It says 0459 for me. Considering the most recent edits on this page start with 16XX and not 15XX, I assume it's BST and not UTC. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When I look at the revision history, it shows me that I did my first plot edit at 11:59pm EDT. I was the first person to add a plot entry in this article. In fact, if you look at my contribs you'll see that I asked the admin who protected it if he did so to prevent spoilers. I left those comments after the finale was over, but before my edit at 11:59pm on Sunday. I simply do not understand why you're basically calling me a liar, despite the fact that there are multiple sources that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was shown on the east coast before the west. I'm almost wondering at this point if you're doing this as a joke. Are you? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing... it was at 03:59 UTC, not 04:59. Check out this edit [3] which I made to the admin that protected the article. It was minutes before the plot summary I wrote. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Reuters as yet another source? [4] Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I do get it now. I am of course not calling you a liar, and none of this was a joke - the issue is clearly that Wikipedia is, unlike any credible worldwide IT system, mixing up its time formats, and making local time logs look like UTC logs - if any of you have IT experience, you would know this is the standard way to do it. If a diff says to me, 04:59, then that is as far as I'm concerned, UTC, not my local time. If you look at it from my perspective, thinking that these logs were UTC, and the not unreasonable assumption that if ABC were billing this as a worldwide simulcast then they are lying bastards too, then what you two were saying would seem incredible, and not backed up by the evidence of the logs. Yes, you said you watched it at the right time, and all I asked you for was evidence of that that matched my analysis. That was after I hade made absolutely clear where I was coming from, and that I could be wrong, and I'm sorry, but I don't care who you are, nobody can credibly stand there with a straight face and tell me that a plausible explanation for my scenario of nobody touching the article after what I thought was 01:00 UTC was simply that everybody was just watching the show. That was patent nonsense, and justifying this belief based on last week's schedule alone, was similarly so, given everybody else changed around for this one off. God knows why ABC thinks the east coast is so special, or why the other countries networks thought anybody would stay up until 5am to watch a not live broadcast, I guess we will never know. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept your apology, but to answer your question -- the reason why the east coast is so special is because the majority of the United States population lives here and we're first ones in America to see the sun go down. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Understandable - but that begs the question, why not air it in the UK etc at the same time as the east coast - which would have been 2am, a time when most normal people would have stayed up to take advantage of what they were being lied to as a chance to see it 'live', rather than 5am, a time which only the most obsessed of fans would have stayed up for. The irony is, it is those types of obsessive fans who are likely to be the most upset that their 5am broadcast wasn't as 'exclusive' as they might have thought (and for the record, I drv'd it and watched it the next day, and was frankly not paying as much attention as I would have when I did watch, because Sky in their lying bastard wisdom chose to insert a distracting 'you are awatching Lost LIVE from the US' ident into the show every 10 minutes.) MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It'd probably help to be less aggressive and confrontational in the future. /closes discussion Thanks! Fin©™ 15:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LA Times Review

Someone is using the article to shame the Times:

http://discussions.latimes.com/20/lanews/la-et-lost-review-20100524/10

awfish13 at 2:11 PM May 24, 2010 Just edited the Wikipedia page for the series Finale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_%28Lost%29 Thought I'd include the bit about this review - hopefully this will shame the Times into retracting or revising this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.163.26.18 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Links for later use

Reception

• http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/review/2010/05/24/lost_season_finale_recap/index.html P. S. Burton (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-lost-review-20100524,0,289843.story
• http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0524/Lost-Law-Order-24-finales-and-the-legacy-of-big-drama-TV
• http://news.google.com/news/more?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=lost&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=db5PlwCffDhqjlMwo4WpMALhheSNM&ei=eP76S_yTKcqKOJGbpJUM&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&cd=1&resnum=1&ved=0CB8QqgIoADAA

WEWS

Is the fact that one local tv station had a glitch really notable? -mattbuck (Talk) 04:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That local TV station is in Cleveland, not a really tiny media market if you ask me. The incident has been covered in the Cleveland Plain Dealer twice. ("WEWS Channel 5 sets another re-broadcast of 'Lost' finale" and "WEWS Channel 5 explains technical glitches during 'Lost,' attempts to appease fans") Perhaps this reflects more on WEWS than this show itself. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Light

There is clearly a connection between the light at the heart of the island and the light in the church and yet individuals continue to delete this portion. Even if it is just to compare the two, as they were shown opposite of one another within the episode. The comparrison was in the article before the bulk of editing began in the 24 hours after the finale--instead of the 30 minutes following it, when I began the initial work on the plot outline--I would like discuss it before it is deleted again, presumably by anonymous editors. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 11:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't edited the page. Though in my own speculation I do consider the light in the church similar to the light on the Island, I do not think it should be noted in the article because it can only be speculation. Even if shown in close juxtaposition on the episode, it would still only remain speculation for us to make that connection on our own. Furthermore, if we were to note that by stating:

"Then Christian opens the church doors and everyone is engulfed by a bright light, which is speculated to be similar to the light of the Island because they share color and saturation and they were shown in juxtaposition with one another."

As you can see, that sentence doesn't flow too well and contains extemporaneous info. This page's chief responsibility is to provide a concise plot outline (at least in the plot outline section :) ) where people can come here and just get the information free of fan-interpretation. Otherwise, any speculation not expressed by the producers or not stated explicitly by the show itself should be left for Lostpedia.
(at least in my oh-so-humble opinion)
Watemon (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not see the light as similar, I have to say. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I included citations that draw comparisons. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 12:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Both sources of light were bright, but speculative comments shouldn't be included here. This would be different if one of the episode's writers said something about this. LovesMacs (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I read both your citations and I had two major problems: 1) your citations don't prove your theory at all. Neither the post-gazette nor the york daily record made any such comparisons that you are trying to make here (and again, even if the press makes the speculation, how does that "verify" what you're trying to argue? It will remain speculation until the producers clarify otherwise.
2) The York Daily Record article completely missed the mark on the finale, claiming that the point of the finale was that everyone died in the plane crash; the majority of the article then goes on to mock the creators of the show.
Watemon (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you willing to compromise with the word similar when describing the lights or do we need to head to arbitration? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 12:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Any such mention would be making a connection between the two and that constitutes original research unless the claim is supported by a citation from a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and you also seem not to realize that I agree that the lights are similar, however that is only our observation. Furthermore, your citations from before were hardly "reliable", so even if you want to include the statement (which honestly, is hardly makes/breaks perception of this finale or series) you would need to dig a little deeper for that source.
Watemon (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is another review, drawing a comparison between the two with a quote from Damon Linelof.

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/watch_with_kristin/b182506_lost_redux_see_you_in_another_life.html Erikeltic ^(Talk) 12:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The reporter draws the comparison, yes, but Lindelof doesn't. If Lindelof (or Cuse) doesn't explicitly put the two together, then we can't include it here because the episode didn't do it either. Maybe at Lostpedia, but not here
Watemon (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the quote from D. Lindelof, "Always has been. Always will be.", doesn't go anywhere in proving your point...
Watemon (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll find you a better source. For the time being however, I am content with simply having the word another. If you'll concede to letting that stay I won't feel any urgency in looking for that source. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me, however I can't guarantee others won't change it. I'll try to redirect them here.
24.89.59.228 (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Low importance television articles.

I noticed that this articles is categorized as a "Low importance television article". while it is just a TV show, I think somebody is subtly vandalizing. Anyone want to edit that? 192.158.61.144 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Top importance would be an article about Television or Sitcom. High importance would be an article on one of the most watched series of all time, like The Cosby Show or The Simpsons. Mid importance might be an article about a mid level series, or a famous character. There's no way an episode of anything would be more than low importance, unless it sparked a controversy that blazed across all media. Either way, you and I are splitting hairs, and nobody really cares about article importance rankings except to know if someone has bothered working on the right articles. 99.231.248.190 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Lost is one of the most-watched series on television (well, was, I guess, because it's over now), and this episode is one of the most important lost episodes, so I think that should earn this article "mid level" importance. cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I put it "Low" when the talkpage didn't have {{talkpage}} and wikiprojects because there have not ratings, but well, I re- assesed it to "Mid" (and not going to go further than this) because it is one of the most seen finales. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, that the series is the most watched one compared with other series. But the increase in viewership is because, the viewers wanted to know the answers to many unanswered questions. Even after the end of the series, there are still many open questions to be answered like "How the black monster was generated?", "How the island disappeared in earlier series?", "How does the barricades stop the black monster?" and more importantly, "Why those numbers were selected on the hatch door and broadcasted repeatedly?". The series ended so abruptly that all the suspense was lost, which was created in the earlier episodes. The hidden facts should have been much slowly revealed. The series tried to explain some incidents using science but others incidents, it failed to even talk about them. --Thaejas (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ubik?

Shouldn't Philip Dicks Ubik be mentioned somewhere in the article? Same story - they all dead and everything isn't real. Ripoff if you ask me, a decent one though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricitydrive (talk • contribs) 07:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a well known trope. See "Ann Occurence at Owl Creek Ridge" (Not exactly the same, but an influence on many things after. 91.108.81.236 (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge) P. S. Burton (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Stay up?

Is it just me, or are others confused about the above discussion on "Simultaneous Airing" as well? I'm not referring to the whole silly time zone confusion but why there's any expectation of people staying up to watch a 5 am show? Okay there are some people who do so, I'm one of them, but on the whole I would expect the average person wouldn't stay up if they wanted to watch a 5 am show (or do whatever at 5 am). Instead, they'd go to sleep early say at 10pm or so, and wake up at 4.50am to watch a 5 am show. In fact I would go so far as to say that for the average person (which as I've already said isn't me), a 5 am show ending at 7.30 am is far better then a 2 am show ending at 4.30 am. Particularly if you have to work later that day in normal working hours. Definitely for a 6 am show vs a 3 am show as e.g. in Spain. However I have no idea if this has any relation to why the show was broadcast at 5am or 6am. It may also be rights issues or costs issues, perhaps ABC was reluctant to let others broadcast it before they'd broadcast it in the west coast US.

The reason why I'm writing this now BTW is because Lost didn't broadcast until Saturday in NZ. BTW, as far as I'm aware, if you choose to put a timezone in your user preferences then all displayed time without a timezone will be in your local time. So I'm not sure what this is about 'mixing time zones'. If you don't want your local timezone to be used, then the simple solution is not to put a timezone. I don't get why you'd bother putting itif you don't want it to be used anyway. Times with a timezone, such as signed comments are of course still in the timezone displayed. Unless you enable the gadget in which case signed comments should display in local time as well, and with the timezone changed.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Category "Christianity in popular culture"

Is this really an appropriate category for this episode? I've noticed that the page for the series, and even the sixth season, isn't classified as such. The stained-glass window shown in the church/temple/whatever in the final reunion scenes has symbols for all the major religions, therefore it doesn't make any sense to restrict this episode to only one religious category. Packcigs (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I've seen no response here, I am going to go ahead and remove this category, unless anyone has any objections.

Packcigs (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the name of the guy in the temple thing? Christian Shepherd. That one kind of hits you over the head. Wrad (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That has been his name since episode 5, though. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but he wasn't a religious figure until this episode. Wrad (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The End (Lost)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

First Notes

I am placing the review on hold to allow some things to be fixed first, otherwise it would have to be quick-failed.

• The external links need to work. Many of them are either dead links or redirect to different sites.
• The 'Plot' sections need to be cited

-- Lord Roem (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Section by section review

I will go through each section to make suggested changes. These need to be changed by next Sunday (along with the changes required under 'First Notes' above) or this GAN will fail. It can still be eligible in the future if improved.

Lead

• I don't see why you need to include all the nations where it aired. That last fact can probably be omitted.

Episode Box (on right side)

• I'm not sure why you have to list all guest stars. It seems you listed anyone that wasn't in the main cast.

2007

• The first paragraph here would be incredibly confusing for anyone who has not seen the show. It should be completely reworked for the purposes of clarity.
• As I mentioned above, there may be a need for cites to this plot section of the article. Otherwise, it may fall under WP:Original Research.
• In the last paragraph, you have a sentence that has parenthesis at both ends. This should be incorporated into another sentence.

Flash-sideways

• "Desmond gathers many islanders at the concert". You need a segue sentence because no one would no what's going on here. I suggest something on the lines of "The charachter Desmond, in this flash-sideways*, is attempting to bring the other castaways on the island to the concert because X".
  • The (*) indicates that you should provide a link to an article or maybe external link on what a flash-sideway is.
• You may need to put in-line citations here to statements by the directors about the meaning of this scene, to prevent possible 'fan disputes'. Looking at the talk page, that appears to have already been an issue.

Production

• Great section - but incorporate some of the cites here about the meaning of the scenes into the actual plot sentences above.

Ratings and viewership

• Good!

Critical reception

• Whoa! This section needs to be shrunk down. It reads like a long listing of different people's opinions. Instead, pick the more notable discussions of the episode - primarilly one that is very positive and one very negative.

International reacton

• First sentences need in-line citations.
• "Some viewers...left puzzled" - says who? Needs an in-line citation.

Awards

• Some of these awards are not for the episode but instead for the show. These should be removed.

Broadcasts

• Maybe incorporate this into the 'Ratings and viewership' section?
• The first sentence seems very out of place here IMHO.

External Links

• There is a wikiquote box that links to the episode 'Adrift'. If you want to include such a box, change its destination to the correct episode.

Concluding Thoughts

• There is a significant amount of work for this article to be passed for GA. I wish all contributing editors luck. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fail

I will fail this GAN because the fixes that were needed to improve the article were not implemented in the usual 7-day time. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mostly positive reviews?

The lead curently states that "The End" received "mostly positive reviews", but I wonder whether that statement actually best reflects the main body of the article. In the Critical Reception section, the paragraph detailing the negative reviews is every bit as long as the paragraph detailing the positive reviews, and it cites just as many sources. There are even a couple of reliable sources that state that the episode received mixed or negative reviews: [5] [6] I propose expanding the sentence in the lead to better reflect the Critical Reception section, saying that the episode received a wide variety of mixed reviews (maybe saying that Metacritic reported that the episode was positively received). What do people think? A Thousand Doors (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No? All right, I'll do it myself... A Thousand Doors (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception in lead

There have been a number of reversions of edits recently concerning exactly how much detail the lead should go into about this episode's critical reception. I suggested about a month ago (see above) that perhaps the lead's sentence on the critical reception needed to be expanded to better reflect the main body of the article. Nobody responded after a week, so I thought that I'd just be bold and go ahead and make the change. The paragraph that I ultimately wrote was largely inspired by the article "The Other Woman", which mentions specific reviews at the beginning. Since "The Other Woman" has been featured, it has obviously gone through a significant community review, so I considered it acceptable to mention specific reviews in the lead for this article as well. If others disagree, I'm keen to discuss the situation. Thanks very much. A Thousand Doors (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael

The article currently states that it is odd that Michael isn't in any of the scenes at the church. However, Michael confirmed Hurley's hunch that he (along with the other whispering voices) was trapped on the island. That would make it impossible for him to participate in some alternate afterlife. One might ask why Walt isn't included, but there is already a clear reason why Michael is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westsider8 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Retrospective reviews

Regarding this revert: the lead needs to summarise what's in the main body of the article, which at the moment doesn't contain details about any positive retrospective reviews. I've just had another look, and I simply cannot find any – every single reflective review of "The End" that I can find (e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10]) described the episode negatively. We can't say that critics consider it "one of the greatest series finales of all time" unless we can find some critics who actually say that. Happy to discuss further. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Should we consider public opinion as well as critical? Because the data cited around half of people hating it and the other half loving it. That sounds more mixed than negative to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.5.185 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Rewritten. Let me know what your thoughts. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am skeptical of using these kinds of sensational/tabloid-esque articles that will naturally be expected to take potshots at a controversial work. I think it would be better to leave the article referencing its polarized reception by actual critics and audiences, which I think more accurately reflects the general consensus, than to suggest "it's more hated now" with these flimsy sources (and more than likely the only people who hate it now are the same who hated it in the beginning.) However, since we're on this route, I feel it only fair to include positive articles as well, and I shall direct you to a few reflective articles that comment on the finale positively. Entertainment Weekly ranked Lost finale as the 7th greatest series finale of all time: http://ew.com/tv/20-best-tv-series-finales-ever/1 This DigitalSpy article defends the finale and notes its polarized reception: http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/lost/feature/a599216/in-defence-of-the-end-losts-divisive-and-controversial-series-finale/ TV.com includes Lost finale in this best finales article: http://www.tv.com/news/best-tv-series-finales-142912045069/ And since you mention Watch Mojo, it's worth noting that Watch Mojo included the ending in its honorable mentions for Top 10 Lost moments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOTie7wKxlk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axemblue4 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Added. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose that's fair. I'll let you know if I see any more articles as well. I stumbled upon another one a few days ago but forgot where it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axemblue4 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The End (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828071726/http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/comic-con-hawaii-five-0-cashes-in-on-its-lost-battlestar-galactica-nerd-cred to http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/comic-con-hawaii-five-0-cashes-in-on-its-lost-battlestar-galactica-nerd-cred
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100901070718/http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/05/lost_finale_john_locke_terry_o.html to http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/05/lost_finale_john_locke_terry_o.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100730034322/http://gawker.com/5545877/ to http://gawker.com/5545877/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/2013/09/27/the_worst_finales_ever/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The End (Lost). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100521035329/http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/kecks-exclusives/lost-to-continue-in-season-six-dvd-5119.html to http://www.tvguidemagazine.com/kecks-exclusives/lost-to-continue-in-season-six-dvd-5119.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101228211210/http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-detail/the-end/440915 to http://abc.go.com/shows/lost/episode-detail/the-end/440915

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Much needed clean-up to review section

The latest revision as of 10:31 on April 24th, 2019 is a detailed restructuring of the reception section as a whole. "Reflective reviews" are not required to be highlighted (all original reviews are still listed and completely untouched), as the only logical reason for listing reflective reviews would be if, for example, a specific reviewer originally gave the episode an extremely positive "A" type rating and then that very same reviewer reflected on the episode years later with a much more negative review. Citing an episode as "one of the worst of all time" simply because some completely different, random critics are reviewing the episode years after its original airing just defies all use of logic and common sense. Especially when there can be (and are) several examples of more recent critical re-looks which either praise the episode or list it as being "the most misunderstood of all time". In other words: it's a completely divisive split, not a vast majority hated reception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.14.231 (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There are many examples of articles on Wikipedia that have sections dedicated to both contemporary and retrospective responses. The Thing, for example, has #Critical response (which discusses the film's initial negative reviews) and #Critical reassessment (which details how it is now regarded more positively). Similarly, Psycho has #Reception (initial reviews were mixed) and #Recognition (recent reviews are positive). Citizen Kane has #Contemporary responses and #Re-evaluation. Several articles on James Bond films (e.g. From Russia with Love, Licence to Kill, Thunderball, Never Say Never Again) use the exact same section headers as this article (i.e. "Contemporary reviews" and "Reflective reviews").

All of these articles are either featured or good, meaning that they've all been through some kind of community evaluation. And, in each instance, the reviews in the latter section haven't necessarily come from the same people as those in the former. So it's certainly not true to say that "the only logical reason" for structuring an article in this way is to highlight how the opinions of individual reviewers have subsequently changed.

Per WP:BRD, I have reverted the article to its most recent stable version, but I'm more than happy to continue discussing here if consensus has changed. Also pinging User:Greyjoy in case they would like to contribute to the discussion. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Following disruptive editing by Special:Contributions/SNF-87 and Special:Contributions/FSL-34, which made 10 edits simply to circumvent semi-protection, I've set ECP on this article for a month to see if that is sufficient to stop the disruption. Please let me know if you have objections and I'll be happy to reconsider. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)