Talk:Lost season 1
Removed from the text
- Sun's father is an important gangster, and Jin was forced to work for him in order to marry Sun.
While a number of fans have argued that this is the case, very little has been revealed to prove this: Sun's father is apparently very wealthy & powerful, & Jin was involved in some kind of violent episode while at work for him -- but there are no clues that Sun's father is involved in a Korean version of the yakuza. As with so much in Lost, we are given only some pieces of the puzzle & are forced to fill in the still extensive gaps. -- llywrch 05:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As there is a discussion in the show's main category about whether Jack actually is a doctor, I altered the wording of the "Tabula Rasa" description to say that he is *apparently* a doctor. Hedgey42 07:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was reading on wiki just yesterday and on the first page of LOST under THE NUMBERS it had a theory a very interesting theory that is gone now i'm totally confused about what happened and why it was removed.can anyone lead me to Rousseau's Genetic Mirror Theory? 70.177.109.183
DeuX ex Machina?
A thought occurred to me, which revisits this topic (and why I'm top-posting): the correct phrase which originated in Greek stagecraft is "Deus Ex Machina" that translates (from Latin) to "God from (or out of) the Machine," a sort of supernatural intervention which ties up plot points, often a kind of cop-out. Deus and Deux are not homophones, synonyms or common misspellings. The first properly pronounced has the same "day" sound as deity should have; the second is French, pronounced like "duh"
However, the episode could have actually been called "Deux Ex Machina" -- which would be a linguistic hodgepodge: Deux is "two" in French, and thus seems very appropriate, considering the French scientific team Rousseau was a part of, and the repeating message including numbers in French. Thus, a rough punnish translation would be "Two from the machine" -- which would make a great deal of sense: the two, Locke and Boone, discover the airplane (a machine) by way of a mysterious vision (from a Deus?), and Locke finally gets a sign (the light) that there's something inside the hatch (yet another machine) which may unlock the entire story. So I'm now falling on the side that "Deux" would be the clever-er way of titling the episode. (To support the suggestion below that it may have been the original title, and possible been changed.)
To add to the confusion, IMDB, does list the episode as Deux, while ABC reports it as "Deus" --LeFlyman 02:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be deus ex machina?? Aknorals 12:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No. It's the correct spelling according to all the sources I've seen. Deux ex Machina is also an alternative spelling (common misspelling) of Deus ex Machine, FYI. It could also be play on the spelling. Virtually every episode title can be taken literally... "Walkabout" for instance was the name of Locke's expedition type thing in Australia, but oddly enough we found that Locke could also "walk about" when the man was technically handicapped. With that said it's possible the episode will 1) Have Locke finally open the hatch revealing island mysteries OR 2) "Deux" is French...perhaps things are revealed by the "French woman". K1Bond007 17:10, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- So I guess I should make a redirect for deux ex machina to deus ex machina... I thought it was a typo... also the deus ex machina page should list this as an alternate spelling. -Aknorals 02:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The ABC site says 'Dues Ex Machina", which seems weird, since I have never seen it spelled like that. Maybe a typo? Thunderbrand 20:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Something must be wrong at ABC. Both tvtome.com and epguides.com lists the name of the episode as Deux. So what's correct? The fact that ABC spells it "Dues" and not "Deus" makes me think that "Deux" is correct. :) --Elisson 20:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Odd. Until we get another source I guess we should go with Dues since thats what ABC says. Could be a typo.. could be a double meaning. Who knows. K1Bond007 01:02, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
tvtome has "Deus". If you search the net, you'll find "Deus" used in non-Lost contexts: [1], [2], etc. all use "Deus". I think there's little to no question about it... Cburnett 06:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You're right that "deus ex machina" (Latin for "God from the machine") is the correct spelling for the time-worn theatrical expression. "Deux" is not an "alternative spelling" for "Deus". However, the question is whether the episode title includes an intentional misspelling to create a pun on "dues" (as in paying one's dues) or "deux" (French for "two"). Our only sources for this information seem to be people who are easily confused by words they're unfamiliar with, and so they try to "correct" them or they just misspell them and move on. If I were a betting man I'd say it's probably supposed to be "Deus". I hope we don't have to wait for the DVD set to settle this. Ahkond 13:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I emailed ABC to see if I can get an answer... Cburnett 15:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "Deux Ex Machina" returns 14,100 responses on Google, which either means you're wrong or it's a very common misspelling which is virtually same thing. It should be noted that a number of these on the first few pages are references to Lost. The changes were merely going with the sources we had, which at one point were all Deux. Now some are Deux, some are "Dues" and others are Deus. It doesn't help that one misspelling turns out to be a common French word which is an important aspect of the show, and another misspelling is another English word, both coupled with the fact that most if not all episodes of this show's titles are a play on words. K1Bond007 17:05, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
- You'll note that of those 14,100 responses, if you remove the lost and lyrics (there is a song named that) hits then you only get 7,310. Switch it from deux to deus and you get 225,000 hits. Of the 225,000 hits you'll find the first several are refering to the latin phrase while of the 7,310 hits they are mixed with music sites (seems to be the primary usage), french sites, newsgroup postings. Don't apply google blindly... Cburnett 18:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to ignore the fact (as K1Bond007 says) that many of the episode titles are plays with words and meanings. As both "Deus ex Machina" and "Deux ex Machina" (and to a lesser degree "Dues ex Machina") are highly possible titles in that aspect, we can't be 100% sure that "Deus" is the correct just because that is the way the short phrase is spellt. --Elisson 19:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Blindly? Even with those cuts you made, 7000 is still a damn large number, hence a possible common misspelling as I've said, but this is really moot. I don't care. My main argument here is that the spelling may be a play on words, which you continue to ignore. It's currently at "Deus" because in all likelyhood, it's probably just a typo, but when 3 credible sources (one official) all say something different, we're not 100% sure of any spelling. I just read on a fan site that the original spelling was indeed "Deux", but was changed to "Deus", but I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere. K1Bond007 19:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Given that the episode titles are often given to irreverence, puns and snarkiness ("Whatever the case may be", "All the best cowboys have daddy issues", "Born to run"), and some are imprecise ("House of the Rising Sun" and "...In Translation" are possible references to japanese concepts, but deal with the korean characters Sun and Jin), it is possible that this misspelling is intentional for some kind of pun or intentional imprecision. Still, if someone has contacted ABC, that would be the most authoritative answer. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:03, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
- While it was possible, most sources have been changed to "Deus". So this ends the story on this. K1Bond007 18:16, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Air dates
Anyone have the original air date for each episode? --Pmsyyz 22:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You can get that info here: http://www.tvtome.com/Lost/eplist.html -- Mitluf
It's Jack Shephard not Shepard
It's Jack Shephard not Shepard. Please do not change back. If you doubt this, then check this page: [3]
Move
Since Lost was picked up for a second season, I believe we should move this page to Episodes of Lost (Season 1). Anyone disagree or have an alternative? K1Bond007 02:37, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me, but what about having subsections? BRO_co03 04:13, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- What do you mean by subsections? By the away, at some point we're going to have to move the list of episodes off the main page like other major multiple seasoned television shows do, I was thinking of just moving the table to here with links to Season 1, Season 2 (as previously shown above), etc. after moving the contents of this page to the new page.
Basically organized like this:
- Lost (2004 television series)
- Episodes of Lost
- Episodes of Lost (Season 1)
- Episodes of Lost (Season 2)
- Characters of Lost
- Episodes of Lost
K1Bond007 04:27, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would work good. Thunderbrand 14:23, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
What about List of Lost episodes like most other TV shows? User:Cburnett
- There is a List of Lost episodes. --BRO_co03 18:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- At some point that list that I believe you're refering to would have to be moved. Shows with only a season of episodes is usually ok, but shows with more than one normally get moved to their own page so that the page isn't just a giant list of episodes. "Episodes of Lost" or List of Lost episodes, doesn't matter to me, I just used "Episodes of Lost in my example because it's already there, no real reason to make it a redirect (after all links to it have been corrected). K1Bond007 18:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Journey
Since no one seems to want to, I've gone ahead and added the 'special' episode airing on April 27th. [4] --Etaonish 15:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Its just a clip show. I would add this to the top of the page along with an episode count instead of making it an actual section. K1Bond007 16:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Break up into one article per episode
Too much of a good thing?
The episode summary for Whatever the Case May Be is considerably longer than all the others. I'm not criticizing the quality of the entry, but I think it's too long for this article. Such text might go better in an in-depth Lost website rather than a wikipedia article where people would just want a concise summary. Maybe we could trim it down to be commensurate with the other summaries we've got.
If we're not careful this article will get too big by the end of the season and will be hard to navigate and too time-consuming to read. Bigger is not always better.
Just a suggestion ...
Ahkond 21:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I had the same thought upon seeing it. I've got it copied over to a text file on my PC and will try to whittle it down in the next day or two. I also cut down the summary I wrote for the most recent episode. --Hedgey42 08:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia --Pmsyyz 17:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Reading around, I find Jimbo supports (see m:Wiki is not paper) the idea that an episode is worthy of its own article. As such, I'm putting forth the move to break this up into one article per episode. Opinions? Cburnett 04:02, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I would probably be against this. Maybe like season finales or season premiers, but not every episode. I don't see how each one is "worthy". Thunderbrand 04:08, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I honestly disagree. I really don't see a problem doing it like this and I much prefer it this way since more people tend to contribute to an article like this rather than 20-something different ones. K1Bond007 04:28, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I think that a per-season break-out would be appropriate, but not a separate article page for each episode. IMO, the episode pages should be summaries, rather than transcription of everything that happens. However, I would suggest that there might be some additional line items per episode section, which I'll address below. --LeFlyman 02:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- Change of mind: Now in favor of splitting up. As each episode's section has expanded, I think that after the season finale, it would be appropriate to break them out into separate articles-- particularly as future episodes tend to refer/change events of previous ones, it might be worthwhile to track the plot developments more in depth. --LeFlyman 17:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Additions to episodic sections
| "Lost season 1" |
|---|
Ok, to follow up on my suggestion below, using the wiki infobox episode format, we might split out the episodes to individual articles, and include a side box, such as this: (at right)
--LeFlyman 16:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I propose that additional information be included at the top of each episode summary, as line items:
- episode number before each entry
- the name(s) of the writer(s);
- the director;
- A special note pointing out if there is a first appearance of a particular mystery elements or characters, such as "The Numbers", "The Hatch", "Ethan Rom", "Rosseau", etc.
This would help skimming the episode guide. Other ideas? --LeFlyman 02:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think waiting for the season to conclude would be a wise decision before doing anything. Besides, I'd rather see an infobox more specific to Lost. K1Bond007 17:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- If you do that, it would make sense to include a section for "Flashback(s)". --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 05:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with how the wiki Infobox format is set up, but I agree that Flashback would be appropriate. On a semi-related note, I just noticed that the numbering of the episodes on the page is off-- the pilot was split into ep 1 and ep 2, thus there were 25 episodes this season (not counting the special) -- would someone please fix this? --LeFlyman 02:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- The table of centents isn't meant to be a correct numbering. We grouped pilot together and we grouped parts 2&3 of Exodus. Not a big deal. K1Bond007 03:24, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with how the wiki Infobox format is set up, but I agree that Flashback would be appropriate. On a semi-related note, I just noticed that the numbering of the episodes on the page is off-- the pilot was split into ep 1 and ep 2, thus there were 25 episodes this season (not counting the special) -- would someone please fix this? --LeFlyman 02:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Did anyone notice...?
The television in "... In Translation":
In this episode when Jin is first delivering the "message" at the man's house, on the TV it looked like it showed a handcuffed Hurley being led into a car. Then in Numbers, Hurley was arrested after a fire broke out in the house he bought. Did anyone else seem to notice this? BRO_co03 20:45, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Hurley was certianly on the tv, but I'm not sure if he's being handcuffed in it. I doubt it, I think it's just him walking or something, but I would have to re-watch it. --Aknorals 23:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well it looked like he had is hands behind his back and someone was leading him into the car. --BRO_co03 00:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
- That isn't the case. I watched the scene again. He isn't handcuffed and he even opens the car door himself. --Elisson 20:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well I didn't record it so I can't check back. But if you say so, I believe you. --BRO_co03 04:50, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't have the recording anymore, but on TWoP one of the korean speaking board-posters said that the korean text on the screen while hurley is there is just a news notice about someone winning a huge lottery prize. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
- That isn't the case. I watched the scene again. He isn't handcuffed and he even opens the car door himself. --Elisson 20:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well it looked like he had is hands behind his back and someone was leading him into the car. --BRO_co03 00:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Did anyone see that in Sayid's flashback, during "The Greater Good", that the one guy has playing Half-Life? I just thought it was cool, and that the writers or whoever just didn't makeup some generic name like "Aliens Attack 7". Thunderbrand 04:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah I noticed, I actually laughed because of the whole controversy about violent games inspiring people.. or whatever.. :) K1Bond007 04:40, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Questions/comments about changes to summaries
Rousseau leaving the Black Rock
I think I might have added a piece of information to the wrong episode. In which episode did Rousseau leave the group at the Black Rock? Authr 09:30, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- I'm prety sure it was at the beginning of Exodus Part 2. Thunderbrand 15:52, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Exodus, Pt 3: The Others
I see that the identification of the boat of strangers as "The Others" has been removed. They were confirmed as "The Others" by Harold Perrineau on ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live" show on May 25. --LeFlyman 21:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Question: When Kate threw the dynamite into the hole that Locke was being dragged into and black smoke comes out of the ground, did it look to anybody else like the smoke formed some sort of shape and then kind of flew away? It didn't look natural. RickK 08:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Dunno...I just saw it was a black cloud. Thunderbrand 14:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's NOT 'just a black cloud', and this is HIGHLY CRUCIAL to understanding what the "security system is, and, in fact, WHAT THE WHOLE ISLAND ID HIDING. The black smoke Kate and Jack see before Locke gets attacked moves sideways and at high speed, not to mention that it does a curve up and then down in an instant, impossible for any kind of smoke... then, when the dynamite blows up underground, the 'smoke' not only goes up, but it spirals for a moment ALL in unison, then goes away and down to a SINGLE POINT back in the jungle, disappearing, totally inverse to what ordinary smoke does. This is why there's so much commotion all over the net about the 'monster' being much more than 'just smoke', maybe some kind of futuristic technology, paranormal manifestations, etc. and that is why I consider it EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that it is said to put at least that the smoke behaves "in a bizarre, almost supernatural way." That's what I'll do right now, thanks! Kreachure 20:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I know this topic hasn't been touched on for a while, but there is something definately something funny about the black smoke - see [5] for proof. Squidward2602 18:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
![[5]](http://img42.echo.cx/img42/1709/lostturbineenhanced1rd.gif){kind=link}
Looong summaries
The summaries for Pilot and Exodus seem way longer than the other episodes, the end result is that the article looks very uneven. I think we should trim the summaries down; the shot-by-shot recap seems more like twop territory than ours. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, they are pretty long. Maybe making an seperate article for each? A while ago, a proposal was put up to have each episode its own article. Originally, I was against it, but it seems every TV show has an article for 1 episode (e.g. The Simpsons and South Park.) So if there was another proposal to make an article for each episode, I would be for it. Thunderbrand 22:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- At this point, we should either split them into separate articles or even out the summaries (shortening some, expanding some). Many of them could do with an extended synopsis, which is probably better in separate articles. KramarDanIkabu 22:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- While seperate articles I'm sure has an appeal, I think a better idea at this point is to trim out all the fancruft before having to come to this decision. I read through a few episodes earlier and I thought it was horrible how much detail this page goes into. I know a lot of information here is necessary to explain some of the episodes or whatever, but I don't think we need to mention every detail and every moment of every character's life and interaction with one another. Lets cut this page down first, get rid of all the excess and unneeded information and then come back to the question of whether we need an episode per page. K1Bond007 04:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree here, I don't entirely like the separate articles for each episode ideas either. I think we can take no more than two paragraphs for each episode. I still think some of these need to be expanded because they really don't provide much information. KramarDanIkabu 04:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- I like a general paragraph limit on each episode (with slight leeway given to the pilot and finale due to the double-episode). We can decide that major plot and theme elements can stay, and a short section on special references is probably a good idea too. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree here, I don't entirely like the separate articles for each episode ideas either. I think we can take no more than two paragraphs for each episode. I still think some of these need to be expanded because they really don't provide much information. KramarDanIkabu 04:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Summary format
I am hoping to get around to new summaries soon that will hopefully be more balanced out, though it will likely take a while. Anyway, what I want to ask is what kind of format we should use for the summaries as far as flashbacks go. Should they be integrated into the plot summary where they appear in the show, or should a separate paragraph be lain out for flashbacks. I ask because I believe that it is crucial to the plot of the second season premiere that Desmond be introduced in the flashback before in the hatch. What are your opinions on the matter? KramarDanIkabu (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Black Rock
Hi there, Can anyone tell me what the "Black Rock" is? I searched Wiki, but with no luck. It was first mentioned when Sayid follows the metal wire from the beach to her hut. Thanks, 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- The Black Rock is the beached ship that Danielle leads them to, where they find the Dynamite. I believe the first reveal of the Black Rock was in Exodus Part 1. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Why didn't anyone notice?
Why didn't anyone notice that some anonymous IP made numerous vandalism and POV's to "Tabula Rasa" for a days without anyone noticing? I have left 165.21.154.116 a {{Test3}} on their talk page, and made sure Administrator intervention against vandalism know about it. Kilo-Lima 16:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- With the number of edits to this large article it is difficult to monitor them all. I would question whether this is vandalism or simply a new user not realizing what sort of language is appropriate for wikipedia. I have continued to remove the last few bits of POV in the section. Jackqu7 17:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- OK, maybe I was too harsh, but still the article was fine before the User decided to edit it. Thanks for finding the other POV's and removing them :) -- Kilo-Lima 11:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)