Talk:Lost (TV series)/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.

Contents

Survivors

Most of the information on the survivors is duplicated at Characters of Lost. Whatever information isn't duplicated there should be moved. "Characters of Lost" is better suited this. K1Bond007 05:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't found the list on "Characters of Lost" when I changed the "Survivors" section. After finding it I wasn't comfortable with the "Characters of Lost" page because it lists the count under deaths and Claire's baby isn't a death. Also, a character count is more trivia then it is information about characters. I believe that the death information should be part of the individual character bios, but that a tally doesn't belong on "Characters of Lost." --Nosilleg 04:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Theory regarding Ethan Rom:

I don't know who added the last two sentences of the following, but it seems absurd. You people think it should be removed, or is there evidence to support it?

Second is Ethan Rom, who is first seen hunting with Locke as one of the survivors. However, in "Raised by Another", Hurley discovers that Ethan is not one of the survivors of the plane crash. Ethan's real name is Erwin Rommel, one of the original Nazi's who discovered the Island. Island contains the fountain of youth hence his young features.

Mattlach 18:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone took care of it. Gone now. Mattlach 22:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Character fears becoming true?

I don't know if this really is something to add to the themes section, but I think it is worth mentioning here at least. My friend and I talked a bit about Lost today and he mentioned something that I haven't noticed earlier, but that seems reasonable. Many of the characters have, on the island, been facing what might be fears and nightmares. We found at least four "coinsidences" worth looking up:

  • Jack Shephard seeing his father, whose death Jack was partially responsible of.
  • Shannon Rutherford lost her step-brother which she loved very much.
  • Clair Littleton dreams(?) about her baby and herself being attacked, before it actually happens.
  • Walt Lloyd meets the polar bear which appears in one of the comics he read.

Might also mention the fact that Sun that above all wanted to leave Jin before the flight is forced to spend time with him on the island and that Sayid is tortured by Rousseau, something I would guess he fears a lot after seeing things in Iraq. --Elisson 21:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Related musings: there could be a future connection with the things characters have Lost
  • Jack doesn't "have what it takes", finds that he does on the island
  • Kate lost the man she loved, finds love on the island
  • Locke lost the use of his legs, finds that he can use them on the island
  • Sawyer his humanity, Walt his dog, Michael his son, Shannon a good guy, Sun/Jin their marriage, Danielle her companion (lost Alex (could it be Ethan), finds Saiyd, etc. --anon 13:50, 12 Apr 2005 (CST)

Theories and Other Items

I've removed the following from the page, and include my reasoning:

  • One newer theory about Lost is that the events of Lost are an interpretation of the events about the final battle between good and evil foretold in the Book of Revelation. One reason why this could be plausable is that the producers claimed they know how they want to begin and end the series, and that it is just a matter of how many stories they can put in between. Up until this point in the series, there are many interpretations one can make between what has happened on Lost, and what is written in the Book of Revelation.
    • This strikes me as a personal theory, and I've removed it for a variety of reasons. In addition to what I cite above concerning the numbers (that is, this shouldn't be a page for individual speculations), the justification of "the producers knowing the start and end" isn't the same as a latter-day retelling of the story. For example, J. Michael Straczynski knew where he wanted to start and end Babylon 5 from the very beginning, and David Chase has also claimed he knows exactly where he wants to take The Sopranos (and yet, he keeps adding seasons, I know). As the poster notes, there are many interpretations, even within this one theory, and I personally feel that this page should not be about what our theories are (could you imagine that page?!... if so, I have a good dozen to add) but what the show has provided, and the reader should be left to draw their own conclusions.

Note, however, that I do draw a distinction between this and the "themes" posting on theories from EW and USA Today and interviews with cast and crew. That is inner circle stuff, from the people directly involved with the production. For example, Damon Lindelof saying what the show is NOT is valuable information. If any disagree, feel free to remove it too or discuss here.

  • Also, some believe that the numbers has a biblical significance. The 4 could refer to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and hatch that Locke found could be one of the seals. The number 8 is associated with the Scorpio Zodiac, which could represent a great beast in the sky. The number 23 is sometimes associated as being an important number in the occult. Lastly the number 42 is how long, in months, Satan will reign over Earth according to the Bible.
  • However, the 8 itself might not be important, where if you turn the 8 in its side, it becomes the symbol for infinity.
  • However, it should be noted that according to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 42 is The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.
    • The section on the numbers is NOT about our interpretations of them, as I note above in Numbers, Numbers, Numbers. These numbers COULD mean any number of things. There's at least one interpretation per fan, if not more (I have at least 6), and speculating on their significance outside of saying "they may mean something, or not" (which we do) is just not what this page should be about. That's what The Fuselage and other fansites are for. In the same vein, Hitchhiker's has NOT been referenced on the show, so including it in this section, which is about the numbers as pertains to the show, is beyond the scope of the section... and unnecessary since that information can be gleaned by reading the page on the number 42, which I linked to in the numbers section. Finally, the inference about eight being important because it's really infinity strikes me as being of very dubious value. Even if you disagree with that point, however, it again doesn't relate to references on the show itself, which is, again, what this section is ultimately about. --Baryonyx 07:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

On May 5th, I also removed:

Again... this information can be acquired by clicking on the wikified numbers. While we are having a debate in duplication on information in the show's subpages, I realize I may be hypocritical saying, "Do not duplicate information already contained in the pages about a specific number." However, I feel that duplication of information about the show on the different subpages is inevitable, but recreating the contents of pages which have purpose outside the show (like the numbers) must not be done. And, what's more, if this information is NOT present on a page about the numbers, it belongs there and not here.
Also, note that that last entry at the end of the numbers section is not proposing a theory on the meaning of the numbers within the show's mythology, which every other numbers' related entry I've removed has. Instead, it is explaining that the use of these particular numbers may simply be another example of common writer's practices throughout the history of television and film. That is why this section has remained: because it objectively looks at the numbers outside the show's context, and does not advance a theory pertaining to the show's mythos. Baryonyx 15:47, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

On August 27, Leflyman removed from the Themes section:

"Along this vein of thinking, the Island itself can be thought of as another problematical father figure for all its inhabitants. Locke’s near-religious acceptance of the Island can be interpreted as something akin to battered victim syndrome. According to a newspaper article on the officially-created website for Charlie's band (site is called "second tour of finland"), Boone's father is not around (either he died or he got divorced from Boone's mother) and Shannon's father (Boone's stepfather) passed away a couple years previous to the plane crash."

The theory part is original research. While the Website referenced is outside the scope of the televised series, and may or may not relate to the actual story, dependent on the writers' whims. LeFlyman 19:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

A Note Specifically on 42 and Hitchhiker's

Though this has already been posted above, I'll reiterate for this very specific example, since I've dealt with it twice today: HHGttG has not in any way been referenced on the show, and therefore, has no business being in a section that is solely concerned with references to the numbers that have appeared in the show. As I have repeatedly said, if we are going to feature POSSIBLE connections to the numbers, then we should give open space to any and every theory about them. I do not want to manage such a page, and I don't think anyone else does either. If one wants to assert a link between 42 in the show's mythos and HHGttG, then by all means, get a confirmation from a creator of the show, or find some reference to the book in the show itself. Baryonyx 02:08, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the following creeping original research -- for reasons already explicated by Baryonyx:

  • The sum of the differences between the first five numbers in sequence plus the fifth number equals the sixth number. 4+7+1+7=19 and 19+23=42 - However, this curiousity is true for any sequnce of numbers 4,x,y,z,23,42. The differences between consecutive numbers in the sequence are x-4,y-x,z-y, and 23-z respectively. Also their sum along with the number 23 is x-4+y-x+z-y+23-z+23 = x-x-x+y-y+z-z+23+23-4 = 0+23+23-4 = 46-4 = 42. In fact, this is due entirely to the fact that 23 is the average of 4 and 42, and as such, any sequence of six numbers where the fifth number is the average of the first and the sixth will provide a similar result. - Take for example the sequence 10,12,14,16,20,30. Since 20 is the average of 30 and 10 ((30+10)/2 = 20), 30 will be the result of the sum of 20 (the fifth number) and the differences of the first 5 numbers.
  • Significantly or not, 42 was also the answer to "life the Universe, and everything" in Douglas Adams's Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy series.

--LeFlyman 02:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Inside the "Hatch"

In the last episode, we find that in the hatch, there is a long dark vertical shaft with a ladder leading downward, looking similar to a sewer passage from the top of a street; the ladder is broken-off just a little ways down the shaft. The question is: what is down there?

The answer is: Hell.

Maybe. That's a good reason why Walt warned not to open the hatch. But whatever may be down there has to creat that light that comes on at the end of Deus Ex Machina. BRO_co03 05:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
There are many theories, the most likely of which is Pandora's Box. Why? In the myth, Pandora opens the box, which supposedly contained evil and hope, and releases the contents. However, she slams it shut from fear. When Locke was questioned on what he thought was inside, he said hope. This could possibly mean that when Pandora shut the box, she left some hope inside.--69.156.204.85 22:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Pandora's box. It's an interesting theory, but flawed IMHO. First: if hope was left in the box, with the hatch now opened it's supposed to come out, right? That's sounds like the end of the show. Besides, why would Walt tell Locke not to open it? - FB

The Monster

I found a picture hidden on the Oceanic Airlines website. The image appears to be of a crumbled up draft of an Exodus: Part 2 script in which the monster is revealed to be:

"HUGE. Mechanical AND biological. Godlike and profane. A massive, multi-tenticled robotic beast resembling a primordial mapinguari ― only partially obscured in a cloud of aerid smoke!"

Black smoke can be seen when Locke, Jack, Hurley, and Kate encounter the monster on their way back from "The Black Rock." In red ink is "NOT YET!" which may imply that this is the monster but should not be revealed yet. BRO_co03 06:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's tough to call that website canon. A lot of the info on the site conflicts itself and what is on the show and it's difficult to know if that is because it's trying to hint at things or if it's just inaccurate (for example it says that flight 815 left at gate 15 when it actually was gate 23).
I also have a hard time believing that after only hinting as to what the monster is on the TV show that they would use a slightly well hidden easter egg on their website to give away the surprise. I think it's more likely a red herring or just a joke, at best some sort of clue to the real answer.
BUT... The web site does have a lot of information on it and it could be added in a seperate section or a new page (I'm new here and unsure as to what would be best). There are messages from background characters hidden in the HTML source (which sound like the letters in the bottle that the boat crew took with them). There's a seating chart built in flash that has all sorts of images and info and even a hidden teaser trailer for season two (edited with footage from Season 1, though, as Season 2 hasn't begun filming AFAIK). Mee Ronn 09:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Combination Lock

Could the numbers be something as simple as a mystical combination lock? The ship carrying Mira Furlan crashed after they heard the Numbers, and the specific positions of the right people (or the Hurley influenced people) in the right places could have cause an opening into what is to all extents and purposes, the Bermuda Triangle.

Such a theory does not preclude the Radio signals being able to pass in and out, though garbled (no survivors/we are the survivors of Oceanic Flight...).

Also, it should be pointed out that since the order the numbers were placed in different revealed areas (the radio transmission, the numbers on the side of the hatch) it can not be ascertained which is the origin and which is a copy. The 'insanity' surrounding the numbers can excuse anything, storytelling wise. --82.6.182.220 23:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article name

Suggest a minor change from Lost (2004 television series) to Lost (ABC TV series) or something similar? It just keeps bothering me that i see the "2004" in the title when it'll soon be in its second season and has gone well after 2004. Thunderbrand 21:21, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • What's an ABC TV series? A spelling show? You must be talking American there. Don't forget about the other people in the world who speak English — CuaHL 23:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"The Hatch" and Alias

I was watching some old Alias episodes, more specifically the episode Time Will Tell from season one. In this episode, Sydney encounters a hatch in the wilderness that resembles "The Hatch" from Lost greatly. The only difference is that the Alias one is smaller, is ornamented, and has a wooden ladder. Something to add to the "miscellaneous section" as a reference to Alias?--Imperialles 19:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, go for it.  :) I wish I found a hatch in the bush.  :(

Stephen King connections

OK, please humour me. I've only seen the pilot of Lost, but...it sounds from the episode summaries (particularly Special) that Walt is like Patrick Danville from Insomnia and, ultimately, The Dark Tower. mat_x 08:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole Stephen King section smacks of Original Research. While there may very well be references to King's writings woven into the plot, these may as likely be ascribed to any of the other numerous similar story concepts. Every writer borrows ideas, consciously or not. Remember, this is an "encyclopedia", not a theory site. Let's leave the analysis and enumeration of references for Lost fan sites devoted to that purpose. It's enough to note that series co-creator Damon Lindelof is a self-admitted Stephen King fan, if that can be sourced-- and I would suggest the entire section be excised. LeFlyman 01:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Numbers

The whole section seems like some very dodgy numerology, and probably original research, especially the smaller numbers. It needs to be seriously cut back. ed g2s • talk 22:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Like many elements of the show, the "Numbers" lead to a lot of speculation. Clearly, there's quite a bit of material already generated for the section. How about breaking it out as its own article? LeFlyman 18:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Totally unneeded. As Ed g2s states, some of it is dodgy, speculative, and original research. I've felt this way for quite sometime. If you break this part of the article out, it would surely be deleted by VFD. The section should be cut down, IMHO. Some of them are just stupid: "Hurley buys a scooter from an old man in the airport for $1600.", "When Kate is found in the sheep pen in "Tabula Rasa," Ray Mullen says the nearest town is 15 km away", "Shannon asks for a 4 letter word for "I don't care" in "Walkabout"". Come on. These are dumb. All of this can be summed up by saying "the numbers are frequently inserted into the show, either intentionally or coincidentally." An example or two of the ones that make sense would even be fine, but a list of uncited fan-speculated nonsense is hardly encyclopedic. Nothing is cited by credible people involved in the show for these instances having any sort of significance. K1Bond007 19:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Created by: Anthony Spinner or Lloyd Braun?

"The series was developed exclusively by ABC: former studio executive Lloyd Braun pitched an idea about a plane crashing on a remote island to series creator J.J. Abrams in January 2004" should perhaps be removed for the time being.

A man by the name of Anthony Spinner filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that he was hired to write, produce and develop the script some 30 years ago. He is suing US network ABC and Touchstone Television seeking unspecified damages for breach of contract and fraud, according to trade publication The Hollywood Reporter.

Spinner claims he was hired by Sid and Mary Krofft Productions in 1977 to develop an idea for an ABC series called Lost, about stranded plane crash survivors who encounter strange creatures and dangerous characters. Jachin 12:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone else thought of the very original idea of a plane crashing onto a mysterious land where strange things happen to the survivors? I mean, that's nothing at all like Jules Verne's 1874 book Mysterious Island or 1912's Arthur Conan Doyle story The Lost World or 1954's Lord of the Flies or 1999's Peter Benchley's Amazon, or even other televised "survivor" series like Krofft's own 1974 kid's show Land of the Lost or 1964's Gilligan's Island -- which itself was a comedy rip-off of the 1962 Japanese horror classic Matango (aka Attack of the Mushroom People). In other words, the setting isn't original (or even the name), so it would be impossible for Spinner to claim he developed it. LeFlyman 19:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I wrote that quite some time ago, based on what I'd read from various sources on the origin of the show. The phrase "developed exclusively" means that the show was originated by and produced solely by people working at ABC. Lloyd Braun's idea wasn't original... in fact, I believe even JJ Abrams initially wouldn't touch it because of the "Gilligan's Island" aspect and the "been there, done that" feel. The IDEA of Lost is by no means original, but its' quality of execution IS. If Mr. Spinner really felt that Lost was a 27-year old ripoff, then he would probably have emerged from the woodwork last October. When I think of the two scenarios: Mr. Braun sought to develop a show based on a very common thought (being stranded on a desert island) OR Mr. Braun only thought of Lost after stealing someone else's 27-year old treatment of the same idea... I'd have to go with the Occam's Razor answer. The onus is on Mr. Spinner to prove that this is not the case, and until he does, there's little I see wrong about going with the official version of the story. Unless, of course, Wikipedia actually has a policy for how to handle such things during pending litigation. Baryonyx 21:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oceanic Air: Hidden Items

As the hidden images and information on the Oceanic Airlines website have a lot to do with further informed reading and understanding of this series, I would like to put i to all of you that we submit found images under this discussion link.

Just paste them all in line up top here, comment below, just to keep things neat.

Images

The Monster

Text

On the front page of the site are the following entries: -

If anyone should find this message, please get word I'm alive and stranded on an island somewhere in the South Pacific. Please send help soon. Things are bad. And they're getting worse...
Sally
I survived a horrific plane crash and am stranded on an island somewhere Northeast of Australia and Southwest of Hawaii. In the event that I am never found, please forward word of my fate to my parents.
Unsigned

-- Jachin

  • I have excised the material/speculation from the promotional Web site referenced in the main body of the article:
For a teaser of season two visit http://www.oceanic-air.com/seatingchart.htm and view the Oceanic Flight 815 seating chart. There click on the "numbers" 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 and 42 to preview a promo for season two. If you select seating plan, and enter OTHER MAN, you get a glimpse of the man who took Walt. The site also contains a hidden message and piece of the "Exodus Part 2" script which seems to reveal the identity of the island’s monster. It can be read by going to http://www.oceanic-air.com/images/oa_front-letter1a.jpg
There are two messages semi-hidden in the front page (of the Oceanic Air homepage) text apology of Michael Orteig (President of Oceanic Airlines). The first reads: "If anyone should find this message, please get word I'm alive and stranded on an island somewhere in the South Pacific. Please send help soon. Things are bad. And they're getting worse... Sally". It is located in the upper left corner, sticking out from "under" the text apology. And below the text (revealed by mousing over the area of the apology), is this: "I survived a horrific plane crash and am stranded on an island somewhere Northeast of Australia and Southwest of Hawaii. In the event that I am never found, please forward word of my fate to my parents." They appear to be the "bottle" letters given to Michael, Jin, Sawyer and Walt before their departure.
While the it may be a product of ABC's promotions department, and have material scripted by writers' assistants, the Oceanic Air Web site is not created by the writers of the series-- as has been pointed out many time before. Thus, inclusion of it in discussion of the series is outside the realm of canon and should be kept out of the article's main body. There is already notice of the site in External Links sections, and a description of the character easter eggs in the Characters of Lost article. --LeFlyman 15:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
This is just rubbish. This section should go back up. The article is NOT A DISUSSION OF THE SERIES! It’s meant to be an ENCYCLOPAEDIC resource about the series; and information on this site is apart of that.
I'd have to agree with Leflyman.Taking issue calling it a "discussion of the series" achieves nothing. Semantic differences aside, the reasoning used here i\is the same as why the diary writer's "additions" to the story have been left out: the diary is, in David Fury's own words, in no way canonical to the show. As such, it does not need to be explicitly duplicated here; a link to the Oceanic Air wesbite would suffice. This achieves the goal of being encyclopedic (by having a record of what is a rather important website for this topic) without being excessive. Baryonyx 21:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

UK air date

Why is the airdate listed for the UK? There is no reason for this to be included for every episode, the series did not air in the UK first and it's already been shown in many other countries and now for some reason the airdate is given for both channel 4 and e4. Does anyone else think this should be removed? --Adam 12:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you. Only the original airdate is necessary. Subsequent re-airings and international syndication dates are beyond the needs of the article. While the show may be popular in the UK, it is a US television production, and the UK broadcasts are significantly later than the showings were initially scheduled. Plus, once one starts adding in British and Irish airdates, where does one stop? Why not every market's broadcast date? I think as with every article, a balance needs to be reached between the appropriate and excessive amount of detail. LeFlyman 18:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Despite being from the UK, I also agree with this. Especially given that there is a seperate column for E4 with no explanation as to what this means. For those not living in the UK this could be confusing and is unnesacary. A seperate list article could be created with airdates for all the networks worldwide, otherwise the table should only show the original airdates. Jackqu7 17:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • While I agree that the listing of airdates for each episode should be restricted to the original airing of the episodes, I also believe that this information, in general, should be best left to the season episode pages. Realizing I'd be in the minority on that point, I still think, in keeping an eye to the size of the page and whatnot, perhaps we should look at an alternative way of arranging seasonal episode information. Thoughts? Baryonyx 21:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really a great Wikipedia contributer anymore.. but I took User:Jackqu7's idea and made it into an article - Airdates of Lost. There it can have all the airdate and showing times that people want, and not mess up the main article with picky information. If anyone thinks the new article will be worthless, say here and I'll put it up for speedy delete. At least this way though, the UK column can be deleted and the US column changed to "original airdate". — CuaHL 02:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I've made some more changes to the new article, discussion of that should continue on Talk:Airdates of Lost There is no reason for this not to be edited out of the old article unless anybody has any objections. Jackqu7 19:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I dont think the UK airdate should appear on the original article, especially the E4 column. The US airdate would be the only one of intrest on the main page. The show was aired in other countires before i came to the UK, like Switzerland and Ireland, but you dont see those airdates?! Ablaze 13:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the airdates have now been removed from the main article and a link has been added to Airdates of Lost. The new article is coming along well but we still need more info, please contribute if you can. (In my last message, I said "There is no reason for this to be edited out of the old article", I mean "not to be edited out". Sorry if this caused any confusion.) Jackqu7 16:20, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea, IMHO. There are so many countries where this is airing and now it's almost like we're picking and choosing which countries are appropriate. It should have been left at the main page (or on the Episode page) with the original air date only. That's all that matters. Every other date past the original is merely syndication. K1Bond007 16:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
You have a point. Like 24 have it. Ablaze 17:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Which is another thing that bugs me about this article. It's obviously, at some point anyway, going to gain the attention that 24 has and therefore we should probably remove all the channels from the network field in the infobox to it's own section like 24. I honestly believe that the Network field is misused and should be for the orginal network only. Same goes for categories. This is not a CTV network show, it's aired on CTV, but it's not a CTV network show. It's syndicated there like it is on a hundred different others. Only the ABC channel category should exist, IMHO. K1Bond007 19:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Broadcasters

Should a list of broadcasters be created or is there already one on a "subpage" ? -- Get_It 14:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There is only one broadcaster and that is ABC as of every other TV show wiki entry it only shows the network that 1st carried the show. The rest are syndicated. I am going to delete all except ABC if noone objects? Ablaze 21:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm refering to the international broadcasters. For example, the Broadcasters section in the CSI: Miami article.
Humm, I just noticed the Syndication section, but I'm now confused, is this the same thing? -- Get_It 22:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
It would be the same alright... If someone came up with a generic template for all TV shows we would never have this problem!! Ablaze 09:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up Time?

Seems like K1Bond007, Leflyman and myself are having some similar feelings about the state of the article. IMHO, there is far too much trivia, and far too much extraneous information on the page now. Most of the things we have here would probably be more appropriate on either a fansite (examples of the numbers, miscellaneous "references" of all kinds) or entertainment sites like IMDB (trivia about creating characters for actors, etc.). I haven't done anything yet because of this debate over the move (I'm assuming we have an impending move SOMEWHERE, even if the location isn't determined yet), but what are people's thoughts on trimming this down a bit? Baryonyx 05:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I think we should get rid of: all references and influences, including Biblical ones (exception might be the 40 days). We should get rid of anything that isn't totally crucial to the show (the numbers, at this point, are), and discussion of any theories, whether or not they've been discussed by producers or anything. KramarDanIkabu 05:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Definitely. Some of the "trivia" in this article is just silly and we need to reduce this and remove some of the "references" - having a boss come around and yell at Locke for not having a TPS report done doesn't mean it was a reference to Office Space. I think we need to dissolve the "Notes and trivia" section and start grouping the notable information together for better sections in prose - not lists. We have enough information to do it, but it appears we've never taken the time to merge it all together. We also need to cut down on the speculation and useless nonsense in the article (mostly dealing with the numbers). This article needs to be reorganized. Rough outline (not necessarily the titles of sections, not necessarily in this order):
  • Intro
  • Overview of the show - what it is about etc.
  • Plot summary - Keep this small and just what is needed. I'm thinking a paragraph or so per season with links to the episode pages.
  • Themes
  • Cast
  • Episode list
  • Trivia - keep it small
  • External links
Feel free to discuss this and offer changes to this format. It's not perfect, obviously, but it's a start. The article as is, IMHO, is pretty dismal. K1Bond007 06:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Since what you're suggesting sounds like a fairly major rewrite, let's see if we can't make a rough draft somewhere else before we change the article. I really want to help on this one, but I'm afraid that I won't be able to get on much until after school. I think we can still have some information on the numbers, as they are a fairly important element of the show. A lot of these references sound like original research anyway. KramarDanIkabu 06:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
My apologies on the TPS report. I just looked it up, and was quite shocked to find out this is an actual industry term. I was under the impression it was something that was made up especially for Office Space, and thus took it as a reference. I will remove it. --Mattlach 06:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll go through the page as is with my thoughts:
Intro and infobox — I think the intro can do without the information on when, where, and on what it is broadcast. Information after the first paragraph can be placed in a new section called Overview. The infobox section seems to have stabilized, so it can be left intact, though I would like to get a better concept shot than the cast shot, such as the season 1 DVD cover perhaps? That's details though...
Cast & Characters — this section seems to conform to standards on other pages I'm looking at, like 24 and Desperate Housewives, and should probably be left alone.
Episodes — This could probably be renamed to Plot Summary or Season Synopses. Drop the tables listing the individual episodes. It makes the page vertically long, and is information best left to the detailed episode listing pages like Episodes of Lost (Season 1). A two to four paragraph synopsis of each season's main events on the island would probably suffice for a general info page like this.
Trivia — Time for this section to go, almost entirely. Individual bits of trivia would be acceptable, but the sections I delineated months ago are just becoming an excuse to abuse the page. Taking each section:
The pilot - all of this info would be best suited (and is probably already on) the IMDB trivia page. The intro paragraph that cites this section for info on the most expensive pilot in history can be changed to point elsewhere.
Themes - This section has really gotten away from its initial intent, which I saw as a section that would briefly go over major, recurring themes. Black & white, the numbers, "daddy issues", fate, second chances... those are the things I think belong there, because they're crucial to the show's mythology. The theories and debunking of theories about what the island or the creature are, etc. aren't really themes... they're trivia. Same for the books Sawyer's reading and the mysterious nature of the island... one is trivia and the other is primarily a plot device, and is mentioned in the overview. The section should remain, because the themes section, if done correctly, should be one of the reasons people would visit this page about the show. Themes could in fact be a section in place of Trivia.
The island - this section is basically trivia in its entirety, and should probably go.
The numbers - this section is ripe for continuous theorizing, at least until the producers explain what they really mean (which should be soon, I think... Hurley is what, episode 4?) to the show. It should be condensed into the themes section, and all the examples removed.... there are fansites already up or soon to be up that handle the responsibility of compiling lists of all incidents of the numbers. We really cannot choose which references have more value than any other (with the sole exception probably being the obvious reference in the flight number).
The survivors - again, this section is largely fairly obvious trivia, nothing really deep here to think about. It can go, especially since the information it contains has already been duplicated on the Character pages or Episode pages, or both.
References of any kind - toss 'em all. A show with this much attention to detail has more references than we can possibly all gather here. Favorites shouldn't be shown. Any details, such as Lindelof's fandom of Steven King could remain as a theme (what theme would that be), but I feel this is info that is again best left to fansites or IMDB.
Miscellaneous - mostly trivia, though the first one, about the philosophical origins of Locke and Rousseau's name could be the foundation for a theme to explore. I'd say with the exception of that, it's all removable.
Syndication — This is a fine place to put information about who, what, when, and where of Lost broadcasts, with links to the Airdates page (which I still believe is of dubious value, but that's another discussion).
See also — Perhaps repetitive, but common on many TV pages I think. It's short enough for now that the duplication is OK. I'd leave it for now.
External Links — I'd personally crop it down to Official, IMDB, and Network sites. This is a pretty long section, and can probably do with some trimming.
Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. I welcome all comments, and let's really improve this page. Baryonyx 07:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on Kramar's suggestion, I've already got a rough draft done based on my proposed changes... where can I put it for now guys? Sandbox doesn't seem like the right place. Perhaps Lost (TV series) (which I'm assuming is where the page will end up anyway)? Baryonyx 07:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
User sub-page or talk sub-page, that's what I'd do. KramarDanIkabu 13:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
use Lost (2004 television series)/draft so we can edit it 15:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Done. My version is posted at /draft. Baryonyx 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The important things to keep from the trivia section, IMO, are black and white, redemption, Boone's message, the numbers, and the philosopher names. All else is expendable. 16:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

  • OK... how's the draft? If it's satisfactory, when and how should we go about replacing the old page? I assume we'd just copy the draft and an admin would delete that, or is there another procedure? IMHO, the sooner we act, the better. Then comes the hard part, since we'll probably need to police the page fairly diligently. Baryonyx 02:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it's a lot better. I'll look into what to do next. I think the "draft" page may need to stay as a log, but I'll look into this. Also I removed a line in my last edit on the draft page that (now) I'm not so sure was correct, but at this point I have no intention of reverting because I don't feel the example (removed) was a good one, more of a minor trivial note. If anyone feels it should be noted, then by all means, revert. K1Bond007 03:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The appropriate way appears to be merging page histories, which I'm not exactly sure how to do, but can only be done by an admin (I've never done one so I don't plan to do this right away). Alternatively we can put it up at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles and explain the situation. This would perhaps give some editors the opportunity to disagree with the merger (merging is irreversible); however, this action takes perhaps a week to accomplish. Another alternative, considering it was only edited by myself, Baryonyx and KramarDanIkabu, in addition to a couple of anons to just copy and paste the damn thing and in the edit summary stated "merging from Lost (2004 television series)/draft (subsequently turn draft into a redirect). I wouldn't object to this so long as the draft is linked in the edit summary. K1Bond007 06:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, this could be a useful opportunity to get a whole bunch of things done. It seems that the move to Lost has been defeated, but there seemed to have been stronger support among frequent contributors for a move to Lost (TV series), with the reality one getting moved to Lost (Reality TV series) (I assume). We have that on the table and we have this merger. I tend to agree with the sentiment that we should follow policy as much as possible. There's no reason not to, and I think we risk more by not following policy (as in someone coming back in and reverting it), than not. If the draft merging is officially sanctioned, I think it will save us some (not all) revert problems. I also agree that copy/paste/redirect would be fastest and probably easiest. I don't see why anyone would disagree with the merger in this instance... the draft page is far cleaner and more encyclopedic than the current article, but one never knows. My thinking is that we can post this on Duplicate Articles, cross-link it with the move proposal (do we need a new one for Lost (TV series)?), and perhaps get a completed move and a merged page at the same time? My answer really depends on if we can kill two birds with one stone (move and merge) or not. If we can, go with the Duplicate Articles path. If we can't, we should do copy/paste/redirect. Though with the season just a few hours away, it may be better if we have a single page so there's not TWO pages causing confusion and getting worked over. Baryonyx 09:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
          • A consensus here on the page move might not work with everyone else as shown with the idea to move to "Lost". I don't think this should be dependent on the article name. It's only bound to take longer going that route. Considering people are going to want to majorly edit this article when the season starts again (tonight), it would probably be a good idea to take the short and easy and copy and paste as I said. I don't think it's that big of a deal. People are going to be able to revert to the current version regardless if they disagree for whichever route we go. K1Bond007 16:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
            • OK... let's go with the quick and dirty then. Season's just 8 hours away, and we won't get a move done in time, as you note. I'll go take care of that now. Baryonyx 17:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, and as to the removal of the black/white reference with Sawyer's glasses: I went to Lost-Media to check screen captures from "Deus Ex Machina", and found a great shot of Sawyer with his new glasses. While the upper part of the left eye frame is white, the lower frames look brown. While most of the show takes advantage of symbology, and the glasses were probably meant to trigger the "oh, black and white again" reaction, I do agree that it's relatively minor, and until we have a better idea of what direction this is going in, it's of lesser significance than either the stones or the dream or the backgammon. It can be safely left out for now, I think... but that may change. Baryonyx 09:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Genetic Mirror Theory?

Has anyone heard about or can confirm if this so called 'Genetic Mirror Theory' book/theory by Marsille Roussaurealy exists? See here for details http://www.ericd.net/2005_09_18_blogger_archive.inc#112735774691079919 (The page I found it on.)

If so, this could really be the theory the writers of lost are using to underpin the whole story of Lost. It seems to it quite nicely if its real.

Can someone please confirm this theory isn't made up and if not, any thoughts on how much it relates to Lost? I did a few Google searches but couldn't find much. I guess if the Desmond on the island from this weeks episode doesn't remember Jack then it's a big possibility.

Hope I've put this query in the appropriate spot,

Thx -- 59.167.67.45 09:02, 22 September 2005

Reads like a fake to me, and smacks of hoax. I find no reference to any "Marsille Roussau" or "Genetic Mirror Theory." In any event, Wikipedia is not the place to propose Original Research like this --LeFlyman 17:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Even if it's not fake, as Leflyman notes, Wikipedia isn't the place for Original Research. Moreover, if the idea of this theory stems from hatcher Desmond not recognizing Jack, it can be immediately dismissed. Desmond clearly knew who Jack was. He didn't say "brother" at the end like a casual tic... it was very obviously dripping with menace. Desmond knew that Jack would recognize him by that one word, and made it count. Thank you for not merely dropping it on the main page, however.Baryonyx 17:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Case closed: http://www.livejournal.com/users/mattalcala/15575.html#cutid1 LeFlyman 23:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)