Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 27 November 2005 and 19 December 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.  — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 21:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Abandoned?

Was Sawyer really abandoned when the tail-section survivors ran? 71.135.248.76 06:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't tape this episode, but I could have sworn that Sawyer was present in the final scene, Mike and Jin were carrying him in the stretcher and that is why they were at the tail-end of the group when Anna-Lucia shot Shannon. Doesn’t make sense to carry him all the way only to drop him for The Others. Shifter55 16:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sawyer was not visable in the final scene, but there's no way knowing if he was abandoned or not. -The monkeyhate 11:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sawyer was not "abandoned", when the camera pans round to capture Anna-Lucia you can see Mike and Jin in the background having trouble carrying the stretcher, then Mike proceeds to lower the stretcher to the ground. At this point the camera shows a close up of Mike's shocked face.

Trivia

In the final scene, Walt is wearing a different shirt than the first few times he is seen - is it the shirt Shannon has his dog smell to 'track' him?Shifter55 18:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't look the same, but I don't want to say no. No is too definitive. If someone could tell me how to do screencaps of AVI files (whenever I try it doesn't work) I could compare the two shirts (not sure whether or not I'd be allowed to post them on here because of any possible copyright violations that may breach).

Ana-Lucia Shooting Shannon

There is no evidence that Shannon was shot by Ana-Lucia, or even shot at all. The creators have left it so that it looks that way for now. However, much speculation is that Shannon was stabbed and Ana-Lucia shot the attacker. Until later episodes, when the truth comes out, I am editing the article so that it says something less definite. The speculation is possible, but Ana-Lucia, along with Michael, had a very shocked, suprised look on their faces at seeing Sayid and Shannon.

There's speculation about virtually every event on the show, but is there actually credible evidence that Shannon wasn't shot by Ana-Lucia? If you look around message boards, you'll find all sorts of wild theories like the plane didn't really crash, but we don't state that the plane "allegedly crashed" or such. Carbonite | Talk 17:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Considering that she just shot a woman that leapt out of the jungle, who is not exhibiting superhuman strength like she expected, followed by a man who proceeds to cry over the dying woman, I don't think it's mysterious that Ana-Lucia has a "very shocked, surprised look" on her face. Same with Michael, except he recognizes them both. I don't think a supposed third party stabbing Shannon with Occam's razor is a valid reason for making our description completely noncommital. Phoenix-forgotten 21:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think Occam's Razor is applicable to a work of fiction; especially one as convulated as Lost. I wouldn't be surprised either way; if Ana-Lucia did shoot her or if something entirely different happened. --86.135.179.53 16:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe that you have changed that. It was clear she was shot we heard a gun shot, heard a scream, saw shannon covered in blood from a wound looking remarkably like a bullet wound to the chest and Ana-Lucia holding a smoking gun less than 20 feet away. Secondly of course she looks shocked wouldn't you if you had just killed an unarmed girl and in Michaels case seeing one friend die a painful death in another's arms. It's like saying Sawyer didn't really shoot the sheriff in the first series as we didn't actually see it therfore it might not have. Your logic is to be honest completely ridiculous considering you place less value to the evidence I have set out and instead rely upon in your words "much speculation" to reach your conclusion.

Actually I rewatched that part of the episode after seeing that edit. And I have to admit that although it's 80% probably that Ana shot Shannon, it's not 100%. We are effectively being presented with Sayid's POV. Maybe Walt did it? :P Megapixie 23:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Based on what we actually see in the episode, it's equally plausible that Shannon runs after Walt, is stabbed by an "Other" (perhaps Cindy with one of the tail section weapons), Ana-Lucia sees the attack and fires a shot at the attacker. We then have Shannon turning back to Sayid with blood running down her front and Ana-Lucia holding a smoking gun. Until the next episode, we won't know for sure. Rillian 00:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll excerpt what I wrote in Talk:Shannon Rutherford about 67.86.8.154's vandalism of the Shannon Rutherford article:

Stabbing versus shooting

An anonymous person seems intent to inject his pet theory that Shannon was stabbed by John Locke, rather than shot by Ana-Lucia. While it may very well turn out that she was not shot, that's not what we, as viewers, have so far been presented in the episode. As such, any claim that Shannon was stabbed by an unknown assailant is Original Research and not to be included in the article. When the next episode comes around and Shannon's fate is revealed, we will know more fully who/what was responsible. Until then, please stop trying to formulate alternatives to what the show itself wants us to see. Save the theories for fan sites. Persons who persist in re-including misinformation or Original Research will be warned in accordance to WP policy, and may have their editing privileges suspended by an admin.

It comes down to this: the episode synopsis should present what viewers actually see— in effect, what the show's creators wants us to see at the time— not the inferences or guesses that we might make about what we think actually happened. If the word "speculation" is associated with anything that you might want to include (as in the first paragraph in this sub-section), then it's definitely not something that should be in the article. —LeFlyman 02:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The 'Abandoned' episode description can be changed to say that Ana-Lucia shot, and killed Shanon. I have an official source. If you look at the Lost section of the ABC Web site, you'll notice that there is now an official Lost podcast. In the 2nd podcast, executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse confirm that Shanon is dead, and Ana-Lucia is the one that shot her. Stilgar 19:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Also in a preview of this coming Wednesday's show, Ana-Lucia mentions that she killed someone he loved.

Season Summary

It was recommended by an anon user that Season 1 have one overlying (perhaps one overal and several character-based) summary paragraph. For those looking to join the show (or have joined the show) for season 2, the episode guide may be too long, giving too much extraenious information for someone who simply wants to be kept up to speed. The current summaries serve to inform a viewer of what they missed in any given episode, however for an overal rundown its is likely too long.

Well then it looks like that settles it! Hate to say I told you so!!!

Collision Info?

Where did the information under the Collision episode come from? Did it come from ABC? Because I know not all of that could be inferred from the episode preview, especially the bit about Sayid kidnapping Ana Lucia. Tigger89 03:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the info until after the episode airs. I have no idea what the source of the description was, especially the part about Ana Lucia's connection to Dharma. Carbonite | Talk 03:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, judging from the previews shown after the previous episode, it would appear that SAYID is taken hostage, not Ana-Lucia. The only thing we know for sure about next week's episode is that the tail section survivors meet the front-section survivors, and Ana-Lucia is paranoid about Sayid coming after her to avenge Shannon. JurgenHadley 03:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

All these info's come from special email that people sign up for at the oceanic airline website. They revial a small info about future episiods. 71.136.191.59 00:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

We need the expand the description of Collision. I added a few lines, but it has to be much bigger.

This, under "Trivia" is incorrect: "It is also interesting to note that the rest of the crossword puzzle is just a random assortment of letters, except for the word Gilgamesh." While many of the words are indeed nonsense, many aren't. I see: Ghent, ransacked, tiers, ate, led, Alain, tense, Edgar, age, log, its. Look at these screen captures of the crossword and the clues (go to previous pic for clues pic): http://www.lost-media.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimage&album=820&pos=225 Only Ghent and Gilgamesh seem to be correct answers from the clues we see, but in any case it's incorrect to say that Gilgamesh is the only actual word we see in the puzzle.

The Other 48 Days

There was no "flashback" in this episode. The only argument that there was a flashback would be because the other episodes had reached a certain point in time, and this covered a time period already covered in previous episodes. However, if you were to use that argument, you would have to count Locke and Kate's entire plotline in "Adrift" as a "Flashback" because it ends at the same point as "Man of Science, Man of Faith". --DDG 18:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, people keep modifying the article without discussing stuff on the talk page, when there is clearly a lot to discuss. First of all, someone re-added the tail-enders as the "flashback" for the other 48 hours, without responding to my concern here. Secondly, the same user added future speculative information with the tag "*Indicates speculative information, and/or unconfirmed or unofficial source". Let me make something clear to the newer users of Wikipedia. Wikipedia specifically should NOT include "speculative" or "unconfirmed" information. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --DDG 22:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I recieved an email from the writing team, which anyone could get from the oceanic arline website, and they said that the storytelling for this episode would be different from original episods.71.136.191.59 00:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the storytelling certainly is different. Among other things, there are no flashbacks. --DDG 19:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Is Shannon Dead?

From the preview from "The Other 48 Days," it becomes obvious that Shannon is dead. So why was that removed from the session summary? Vahan010 00:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC) From Ask Ausiello:

AA: Can you confirm that Shannon was, in fact, shot? Fans have been speculating that she looked like she had a stab wound.
Carlton: She was shot.
Damon: People are getting a little too…
AA: They're reaching a little too much?
Carlton: They totally are. And she did not have a Dharma Initiative stamp on her.
I was the one who removed the reference, which read "In the final seconds, it is confirmed that Ana shot Shannon as we see Ana's left arm in a shot of Sayid cradling Shannon's expiring vessel. In previews for next week's episode, it is also confirmed that Shannon has died."
There's just no controversy any longer about Shannon's death, so it doesn't seem in the spirit of Wikipedia to belabor the various confirmations. These are episode summaries, nothing more, nothing less.
--PKtm 03:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

New scenes

It says that Jin only has new scenes. But, Michael has a new line "What the hell was that?" after Shannon gets shot.- JustPhil 02:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That's an old scene with new footage. Maybe this should be clarified? Jtrost 18:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What Kate Did

It is implicit from ther excerpt below that the episode is on Kate. -- Q: On Nov. 30 we'll finally learn what Kate's precrash crime was that landed her in so much hot water. Any other big flashback revelations this season?

Damon: In the next string of episodes, one of the really compelling backstory elements is what happened to Jack's marriage. We think Julie Bowen is amazing and she and Matthew Fox are so great in scenes together, and I think the audience is really curious as to what went wrong there.

Carlton: And you should pay attention to Mr. Eko's stick. -- http://www.tvguide.com/news/askausiello/

--

I've been lurking here a little while and am struck by the way people fail to grasp what "speculation" means. If an interviewer from TV Guide states "implicitly" that an episode will contain flashbacks about Kate, then it's still speculation. It should only be considered "confirmed" after the episode is shown -- or if one of the producers (or an official press release) says "The Nov. 30 episode contains a flashback about Kate and the crime she committed." Mind you, if some sucker were willing to bet me that the flashback would not be about Kate, I'd take the bet and almost certainly win. But that doesn't mean it isn't speculation. --Clampton 20:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone put information under that episode(like someone did for collision), that I'm not sure where it came from. I removed it, so if it came from an official source could someone please cite it and put it back? Thanks. Tigger89 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Collision - Error in Summary

The summary contains the line: "Ana loses her calm, pulls her gun and shoots a TV set". Watching the episode back, she does no such thing. She merely pulls a gun and the guy drops the TV in fear. Could someone do a eloquent edit please? --Ernst blofeld 22:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It also says she asks for suplies from the hatch, but she just asks for suplies in general. She (nor any of the others there) know about the hatch.

Echo Park

There is an item in the trivia section for "Collision" as follows: "Ana-Lucia's mother mentions that Jason McCormick was arrested at Echo Park, linking it to the hatch." What does Echo Park have to do with the hatch? Could someone flesh this out a bit? Ahkond 02:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I was just about the ask the same question. --220.238.84.131 05:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I assumed it was the echo = Eko thing. Tigger89 02:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, does it? If there is any remote, valuable connection to be made here, the producers will make it. If not, it's cruft and speculation. Since no such connection yet exists, this is in the speculative side. Assumption = speculation = violation of Wikipedia policy. I'm removing it. Baryonyx 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Helen in "Orientation"

The summary for "Orientation" refers to Helen as a member of Locke's support group. I thought that she was its leader, and a therapist or counselor of some kind (which would make her relationship with Locke ethically dubious). Can someone with a copy of the episode check to be sure? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Helen (Katey Sagal) was a member of the group; another woman (Jeannie Leigh Allison) was the "moderator". Helen spoke to Locke for the first time outside the meeting, commenting about his failed attempt to light a cigarette. The confusion might come from Locke's calling it "your meeting":

HELEN: Probably a good idea. You know if you get kidney cancer you've only got one.

LOCKE: That's funny. I'm sorry if I ruined your meeting.

HELEN: Oh hell, you just said everything I've always wanted to say in there. Most of the time I want to stand up and scream: get over it, freaks.

—LeFlyman 17:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. (I had thought that the "get over it, freaks" line was Helen dropping her professional persona, but I'm sure you're right.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Man of Science, Man of Faith

In the summary for 'Man of Science, Man of Faith', it seems to be missing the dialog between desmond and locke. At first, Desmond thought Locke was someone he was expecting (a replacement?), but then latter asked him a riddle (I think it was "What does the snowman say to the other snowman?"). I could be wrong, but I think this is important to the plot and will be elaborated in future episodes if Desmond comes back or if the person Desmond was expecting actually shows up.

  • And at that time, the specific riddle can be noted. Until then you are speculating that this conversation will have an impact, and having specific lines like that before they're proven important is not only crufty, but violates rules on speculation. And by the way, that was in the episode "Adrift", not "Man of Science, Man of Faith," and that section has a generalized statement about their meeting which is more than sufficient.Baryonyx 17:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Episode titles

What are the sources for the recent outburst of new episode titles? I have left comments on User_talk:84.77.44.234, User_talk:219.88.183.60, User_talk:24.205.248.71, and User_talk:68.115.21.32 and temporarily enclosed all future episode information with the tags that make them not appear. Thanks. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hatch or hatch?

Someone edited the man of science man of faith section yesterday and changed all of the instances of hatch to Hatch(well, they missed one, but they tried to change them all). When I checked, the rest of the article seems to use both hatch and Hatch. So, is it capital Hatch or just hatch? Tigger89 13:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I would think that it's hatch because it isn't a proper noun. Sure, it's a place that we often see, but so are the beach and caves, but we dont capitalize those words. Jtrost 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
It should be hatch, as Jtrost has noted. Moreover, it shouldn't even be called a hatch in later episodes, since the object that can be very specifically called a hatch was blown off. Other episodes should be referring to this location as a bunker, again in lowercase. Baryonyx 17:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In an instance of fan coinage seeping into the dialogue, I seem to recall some of the characters referring to the "Station Three" bunker as "The Hatch" -- in which case, it could be capitalised (as a specific "place.") however, I'm still of the opinion that usage of "the hatch" is a misnomer, since the hatch itself was the portal doorway on the surface (and not the only entrance, at that!) It makes as much sense to call the station "the door." On a non-sequitur, I don't recall that we've had a good look at the other entrance to the facility. Is it left open all the time now? Is there a doorbell or a special secret knock so that the occupants let you in? Does it also say "Quarantine" on the inside as a reminder? And how did they get all that big stuff in there, underground, through those small openings? Ok, I'm being silly, but the point is, referring to "the hatch" (as Baryonyx points out above) doesn't make sense anymore. —LeFlyman 18:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • ABC's episode summaries call it the Hatch. I think if we're looking for an official usage of the location, that would be it. Jtrost 19:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say that the "the Hatch" usage is a typo, since in the two other instances of the word on that very summary, it is typed with the lowercase. So, that instance by no means makes it official. In fact, if you look at (for example), the summary for Exodus Part 2, the word hatch is used 11 times lowercase and only once capitalized. In this instance, grammatically correct usage should take priority, especially if it is treated variably by ABC itself. Baryonyx 20:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)