Talk:Objects from The Lost Room

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Objects from The Lost Room article.
Article policies
This is not a forum for general discussion of The Lost Room.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] "Memories of the dead"

The section about the quarter said "memories of the dead act comatose." Last I checked, comatose people generally can't walk around or speak, so I'm pretty sure this is false (Kreutzfeld's son talks and can walk)

Indeed, in the third episode Kreutzfeld calls forth a memory of a bodyguard to restrain miller. 82.32.57.16 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orginal Occupant...He is Not a John Doe

Did anyone catch the orginal occupants name? (His initals were E.M. i think his first name was eddie.) 65.3.161.172 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Eddie McCloyster Fllmtlchcb 05:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank You..it was really bothering me 72.145.2.128 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verified Objects

What's the source that says the Glass Eye can repair or destroy flesh? Rokeon 11:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Karl said this in the first half of episode 2. Fllmtlchcb 03:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

and weasle said it destroys flesh

One wonders if it won't turn out that it transfers injury from one person to another, hence "repairing" one person's flesh, and "destroying" the other's. In which case, that one guy might have to get leukemia in order to cure his son.

[edit] SciFi.com Listed Objects

The Deck of Cards hasn't showed up on the show, but it is one of the Objects you can collect on scifi.com/lostroom/ Rokeon 04:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC) I think the deck of cards should be listed. Its powers were listed on the website. What do you guys think? Edit: Nevermind, someone beat me too it. --StevenFurtado 05:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Also are the objects on the 'Win $$ by picking 7 objects' SciFi.com page valid objects? Because I see Cigs, Bible, and Deck of Cards there. --Azsedcf 05:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pack of Cigarettes and the Bible are on the list already. Rokeon 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like I did not make my self clear. Here is the list from the money give-away: Ashtray, Bible, Deck of Cards, Cigarettes, Coat Hanger, Family Photo, Flashlight, Letter Opener, Matchbook, Postcard, Rabbit's Foot, Ruler, Shoe Horn, Shot Glass, Suitcase, Tie, Toothbrush, Tweezers, Wallet, Watch Box. Yes there are objects there that have been seen elseware, but OTHER THAN the Bible(in glass case,1st ep), Cards(in other parts of website), Cigs(same as bible), Coat Hanger(in closet of room,1st ep), Nail File(used in 1st ep), and the Toothbrush(same as Bible and Cigs) are any of those VALID? -- Azsedcf 07:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone offical comes out and says "These are Object from the Lost Room, as they appear (or will appear) in the show", then I'd say no. JQF • Talk • Contribs 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The shot glass is part of The Order's collection along with Telephone, a suitcase, etc. 24.14.120.92 04:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The shoe horn and(I think) the post card are also in the Order's collection, as can be seen in part two. There's also one more Object in their collection that I can't figure out.Sehvekah 06:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Objects

[edit] Prime Object

The Prime Object is now on the list, but so far in the show this has been speculation -- and even when we find out what it is, it will presumably be one of the other Objects. Mikepwnz 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't this be taken off the list because it doesn't exist??? 65.3.161.172 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Might be useful to add two thin columns to the table, one for "Is/was suspected of being the Prime Object" and "Conroy Experiment Object". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.215.206.67 (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Cufflink

wasn't the cufflinks just a joke??? 65.3.174.138 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The effect of the cufflink could have been a joke but the cufflinks themselves are Objects which is why Karl left the one behind. Also the one shown is the only one currently with a location. Its match has to be assumed (since they come in sets) yet has no known location.Veridicum 05:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I truly thought he removed BOTH cufflinks gotsashoe
I'm pretty sure I only saw one on the table after Karl removes it.Mononosh

[edit] Fingerprint

Someone put Fingerprint as an Object. Thoughts? Mikepwnz 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It might not be an object per se. It got restored when the room reset. Joe had wiped it off, then gone outside to restore it so he could look at it again. Some issues: Did he take the "wipings" outside with him? I can't recall if he used his hand, a piece of clothing, or a rag he left in the room. If he took the wipings, then that suggests it is not an object (that it can be wiped, i.e. destroyed, also suggests it is not an object. Do objects lose their indestructability inside the room, like they do their effects?) What would an indestructible fingerprint be like, anyway? A very thin picture-like object that is chipped off the mirror? It seemed to behave like a fingerprint -- he could lift it with tape.
This brings up the further notion that some things like the bedding, the bed, other furniture or large objects, the walls, carpet, etc. may or may not be "objects" in that sense, either. Could one cut up the bed sheets and "reset" them to perfection?
Technically, yes. In the room, the objects do not have their indestructible nature, but would still reset to what they were supposed to be at the time of the incident. Fllmtlchcb 06:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objects in the Film Reel

Anyone catch the Objects in the film that our hero and heroine viewed about the Collectors? For example, the Objects stapled to the door? If I had DVR, I'd freeze-frame it, but I'm pretty sure we haven't seen those before. Mikepwnz 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Looking closely a second time, I didn't catch all of them, but it looks like a butter knife is on there, the ashtray, and what look like wire clippers. Mikepwnz 07:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
We might want to create a "higher order combinations" chart that gives a list of items and their combined effect. What would this effect be best described as? Super-painful headache and scary visions?  :) Actually, it occurs to me that that effect was just the same ghostly effect as when one walked into Room 9. The "combined effect" of these items was to induce Room 9's door to open in a strange manner.
It would also be interesting for someone (ideally HDTV if available) to screen cap all the known maps and try to assemble a master map. See if the known combos all fit in there somehow, and are the "links" based on known combination effects or some other principle?

[edit] Cigarettes

What about the Cigarettes in the glass case at the end of the first episode? -- Azsedcf 05:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC) -- Quick Spelling Edit -- Azsedcf 05:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Those looked like playing cards to me. Fllmtlchcb 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
But didn't the Weasel say the items in the glass case were not 'active' in that no one knew what powers they had. -- Azsedcf 07:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
He said they were dormant because no one knew what they could do, but they're still objects.

[edit] Shoe

I added the shoe. There was a clear picture of it on Howard the Weasel's blackboard. 68.1.115.183 05:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was this taken out...? Fllmtlchcb
That would be me. I moved it to "Left Shoe" and "Right Shoe" because the League have it listed that way. I also tried to add "Left Sock" and "Right Sock" because I also noticed this on the list. But everytime I tried I got an edit conflict so I gave up.
I notice people are trying to edit the page live as the show progresses. :)

[edit] Diesel Locomotive Keychain

"Diesel Locomotive Keychain...Gives user telekinetic abilities...unknown...unknown" Where is that from? Verifiability? ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Has that Object even been revealed? 68.1.115.183 04:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. So I removed it. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 04:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat

See I told you there was a coat that can stop bullets, but no one believed me. I know what all the objects are, but I have no way to source the info, so I'm not going to list them. P.S. There is a photograph and a rabbits foot, but I'm not sure if the rabbits foot made it into the final cut.

The coat's power isn't that it stops bullets. It's from the room, meaning it is indestructible. Fllmtlchcb 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice catch on the coat. I'm curious why no one removed the television from the room.Hatch68 02:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hah, I wonder what its power would be. Able to see through other people's eyes? That'd be cool. XD Fllmtlchcb 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It can see the next episode a week early --vstarre 12:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
how do you know all the objects? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.7.254.33 (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Now that I saw the whole episode I see that your right about the coat being indestructable and not that it can stop bullets.75.21.112.185 03:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed this Object's listing from "Coat" to "Overcoat" to match the way it's listed in the Legion database. (Other viewers will probably try to look it up under that name.) Pat Berry 10:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knife

The article states it makes people fall asleep. Can this be verified? Fllmtlchcb 04:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a mistake. The person was referring to another object. It is also listed as a nail file in this list (personally, I think it looks like a letter openener) Qvamp 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely a nail file. Sci Fi magazine identified it as a nail file, as well. Fllmtlchcb 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wally in episode one speaks of the knife and wristwatch combination, and at the start of episode two, Joe says, "I have two objects for you. The pen and your nail file." They are two distinct objects. Fllmtlchcb 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellows Camera

This item was in the room of objects collected by "the order." While the item in possesion of the order may be a replica, it's presence implies a camera was among the possesions in the original room ten. - Mononosh 13 December 2006

It's probably the Polaroid camera used to take the picture with the "Gallup" label attached to it. Since that picture is now an Object, it must have been in Room 10 when the Event occurred. Pat Berry 10:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rotary Telephone (night stand phone)

This item was in the room of objects collected by "the order." While the item in possesion of the order may be a replica, it's presence implies a camera was among the possesions in the original room ten. - Mononosh 13 December 2006

The problem with this is "the order" didn't have the real phone since that was still in the real Room 10. Also is you were paying attention there are actually two phones in "the orders" "room." One is a nightstand rotary and the other is a larger wall rotary which is set next to the smaller one on the floor.Veridicum 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is I did pay attention, and yes there is one phone remaining in room ten (the wall phone). Notice the possible item is listed as a "rotary phone," not a wall phone which is discussed below. However, if the order is attempting to make an exact replica of room ten then it would imply that there were originally two phones in room ten. If this is the case, then there is a rotary phone that is an object that has been removed from room ten. This does not mean that it is the same rotary phone the order has in their posession. Think out side the box a little before you tell people to "pay attention." Obviously, the wall mounted phone hasn't been removed (like the tv). Anyone willing to take the time to comment on wikipedia has probably paid a little attention to the show. -Mononosh 11:29 15 December 2006

[edit] Motel Door (room number unknown - 10??)

This item was in the room of objects collected by "the order." While the item in possesion of the order may be a replica, it's presence implies a camera was among the possesions in the original room ten. -Mononosh 13 December 2006

[edit] bedside lamps (two)

This item was in the room of objects collected by "the order." While the item in possesion of the order may be a replica, it's presence implies a camera was among the possesions in the original room ten. - Mononosh 13 December 2006

Regarding the four objects listed above, it is believed that the room the Order made is a replica, and the only real objects are on the lit table. At least, that's what people I've talked to believe. Fllmtlchcb 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahh but... Even if the other objects in the room of "The Order" were replicas, the "real" items are no longer in room ten. This implies the "objects" were removed - and one would assume such items share the same unique characteristics of other objects removed from room ten. Who are these people you talk to? Are they producers, writers or do they contribute to the show in anyway? If not, why would their opinion be more valid than the opinion of anyone else? Mononosh 12:59, 14 December 2006
It is now understood from the discussion of verified objects on this talk page that the four "potential objects" listed above (bellows camera, rotary telephone, motel door, bedside lamps) can not be verified as objects. It is possible that the items may represent authentic objects, but we don't know enough about the items to draw any conclusions- any assessment is speculative. But wouldn't it be great to see a compiled list of all of the items present in the Order's Shrine? There is a posting with a partial list below, please contribute!! --Mononosh 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Miller?

According to the Law of Conservation of Objects Joe Miller should be an object now... should it be mentioned somewhere 209.247.22.25 04:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind I just saw it under Occupant 209.247.22.25 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Joe Miller is not an object and thus not the Occupant. The previous Occupant, McCloyster, did not specifically say that Miller would be the new Occupant, just that one would be created and he was unsure of the consequences or details. The implication is that Miller is the Occupant, but there is enough evidence to implicant Dr. Ruber. Aside from Miller's daughter, Anna, and Jennifer Bloom still remembering Miller, Ruber had a vision form the Polariod that he himself would become the Occupant. Travis Garris 14:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If Joe wasn't the Occupant, he wouldn't be able to take his daughter out of Room 8. I believe that he is actually the Occupant. leetdood
True, and as the article points out, Miller wasn't present during the event, which may be why he wasn't erased. When this is converted into an ongoing series, he will be the object that Ruber seeks to destroy as part of his faith, and he will be able to sense objects and direct them as McCloyster did. -Travis Garris 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is probably just an inconsistency in the show, but killing the Occupant isn't the same as destroying him. He might be dead, but his body should return to its original position when the room is reset. Jerry Kindall 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that any object can be destroyed when it is in the room, and that is probably related to the fact that objects lose their abilities when in the room. -Travis Garris 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If Joe did not become the new Occupant, then he would have been reset with the room and been trapped just like his daughter, but he was able to survive the reset and even pull his daughter out, meaning he has to have some sort of control. I fully believe that he is the new Occupant. Fllmtlchcb 01:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Joe is the new Occupant but there is a problem with it. Technically he should have been naked after the reset or the clothes that he is wearing have become objects on their own. Based on the Polaroid, the original Occupant was wearing a suit thus making each individual piece of clothing an object. Since Joe does not have all the pieces of the suit (and he only focused on getting his daughter back) logically his clothes should have been reset to another room.Veridicum 06:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I assumed Joe became an object, but I hope he isn't cause then he would be indestructable and that would get kinda old in a series, there would be no drama since he couldn't be hurt or killed. IG-2000 08:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't matter because he still has his daughter and now Jennifer. If it were to continue as a series though it makes sense that he's the Occupant now because it gives Ruber a reason to go after him since (through his vision) it seems his goal is to become the Occupant. The only way for Ruber to become the Occupant would be to kill Joe in Room 10.Veridicum 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Conservation of Objects doesn't seem to insist that an object be replaced with a like object (e.g. Joe Miller becoming the new Occupant). It is just as likely the "new Occupant" is the Anna's toy that was in Joe's pocket, Joe's left shoe, or some other object present in the room at the time. Kail Ceannai 07:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, when the Room reset, the toy or shoe or whatnot would have been left and Joe would have disappeared. But because he was able to retrieve her consciously, he has obviously become the new occupant. He can thus take things out of the room that have been reset.~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 03:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Eh? The room resets objects in it, and he has the key. -lysdexia 02:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen this so I'm going purely by the rules I see listed on these pages, but couldn't Joe's daughter be the new Occupant? She might unwittingly retreive her father when the room resets (what eight year old trapped in a strange room doesn't desperately want their parent?). Speed8ump 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Legion's list of known Objects

In the final episode Jennifer Bloom is studying the film of the Conroy experiment and looks at a list of known objects and their location according to the Legion's most recent research. A few times the screen shows a close up of this list and parts of it are visible. I used my VCR to record and pause the list but if someone with Tivo could get a screen grab that would be better to verify these objects.

The first shot of the list includes

  • Jacket
  • Key (presumably the Hotel Key)
  • Kleenex
  • Left Shoe - "REMOVED"
  • Left Sock - Unknown
  • Liquor bottle - Unknown
  • Matchbook - Unknown
  • Nail Clipper - Karl Kreutzfeld
  • Newspaper - James Stanek
  • Overcoat
  • Pack of Cigarettes

Jeniffer Bloom circles the Nail Clipper in red ink then looks at the film of the objects nailed to the door. Then she looks at another sheet of the list.

  • Bust Ticket - Wally Jabrowski - location unknown
  • Chewing Gum - Unknown - Miami?
  • Cigarettes - Karl Kreutzfeld
  • Clock - Karl Kreutzfeld
  • Coat Hanger - Unknown
  • Comb - Acquired
  • Deodorant


Ok last one. Sorry but this list does not belong in "potential objects" the list compiled by the legion should be included on or with the confirmed objects. That's why this type of formatting is completely useless on this type of page. Thanks again one more time Someguy!!! --Mononosh 20:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The (Wedding) Photograph

When Joe visits the librarian she gives him a photograph with her signature on the back. Wally observes that the photograph hasn't aged and speculates that it is an Object. When Joe shows the Photograph to the Occupant, he tells Joe that he felt "The Photograph" getting closer and only allowed it to come because he thought it might be his wife. I think this verifies that The Photograph is officially an Object.

It is referred to as the Family Photo however in the show, and yes it is an object —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.29.241.43 (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Deck of Cards

The quick view of the vision the cards cause in the show, show the hotel in one of the flashes. I think the deck of cards recorded 'the event' and plays it back for anyone who sees it. -- 198.30.74.172 14:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pencil

It should say that it creates a '1961 penny' not just a penny. -- 198.30.74.172 14:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is never stated in the miniseries. Pat Berry 10:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
But it is stated on the website and is verified in a promotional advertisement about the pencil which can be watched at this website, that was used during the lost room quest so, it is from the makers of the show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keE4lbJMmyk.gotsashoe 15:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel's Car

A bit of a stretch, but the car is a 1961 Lincoln Continental (according to someone on IMDB's forum). Also when Joe ask for the car key, the Weasel say something like "that's all I have". Like the owners of the scissors and comb have also said. The car (and McCloyster inside) does not appear to suffer from the "ripples" that come out of the open door after the experiment in the end. But there are also strong arguments againts it... Bus ticket. And McCloyster not caring about the car (as he probably would with other objects). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.175.137 (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

The car couldn't possibly be an object becaue only things inside of the motel room are objects. Fllmtlchcb 21:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Inside the room or not, the car nor the car keys are an object. Yes people park their cars outside of motel rooms but since the room is exactly like it was on the date of the Event, it should be remembered that there was no car visible when Joe looked out the window of Room 10.Veridicum 19:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
So how the key would be an object then? Since it was obviouslly outside the room. And if the car was parked outside of the room (like they are in motels), it would probably be "removed" with the rest of the room.
Would you leave your motel key outside your room when occupying it? Of course not. Every object, or at the very least a few of them, was initially removed by the Occupant. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Remember, Eddie was in the room when the event occured because the Polaroid showed him in the room, meaning that he had the key with him. He then used the key to exit the motel room (because that's the door that had to be on his mind, thinking he would come out the other end). He then probably tried to check out not knowing yet about the event. He carried almost all of the objects on him at that point, except for the items with the motel's name on it (unless he took them, as so many of us do (: ) That is the most logical explanation for how the initial objects came to exist, as well as how the key left the room to begin with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fllmtlchcb (talk • contribs) 08:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

They never said that the occupant had a car, and since he had a bus ticket I don't think he did. IG-2000 10:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

Just a theory, but you think the reason the clock and pen didn't work was becuase they've been reset...? Fllmtlchcb 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The Pen worked after it had been through a reset. It was used to fry a security system near the end of ep 1. JQF • Talk • Contribs 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup, theory dashed. Sigh. Thought I might have figured something out early on. Fllmtlchcb 23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the pen fried the security system before it was reset. I wonder if this show will become a regular series?

Not true. It was reset when Joe took Weasels clothes and put it and the pen in a pile in the room. This happened before the break in. -- 68.76.42.142 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Are the objects owned by the Order only those that are on the lighted table, or does it include everything found in the room? It seems strange that they have items like an old camera, phone and suitcase in that room. Along those lines, are the lamps and end tables just supposed to make it seem like Room 10, or could they be additional objects? (since the bed and bedding is still in the room, I assume those aren't objects) Qvamp 04:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just speculating here with everyone else, but it looks like they had it set up as a shrine to the room, and tried to recreate the room as best they could, with the real objects on the table at the front. Hatch68 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Also note that the table at the front is a mimic of the one the television sits on in the real room. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 23:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe everyone keeps missing the point with the order's "replicas." Why would the order set up a "shrine" - full of replicas to recreate what they believe room ten looked like? Why would the order include items that weren't part of the original room? If all of the items the order has are replicas (besides objects on the small table), would this not imply that there were items similar to these "replicas" present in room ten?? If this is not the case, then why would the order replicate the items? Isn't the goal of the order to recreate the room?? Obviously replicas have no power, but it implies that the items these replicas represent actually do exists and really are objects. - Mononosh 12:01 15 December 2006
Why do people build statues of Jesus if they're not really Jesus? They worship the room as a part of God, meaning that they built the room as a tribute. The Order was never in possession of the Polaroid, meaning they do not know exactly what the room looks like, and probably based their version of the room off of rooms 1-9 of the motel before it was shut down. Fllmtlchcb 08:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effects and Combined Effects

Should the Effects and Combined Effects columns be merged? Most combined powers are unknown, and wasn't it said that only some objects have combined powers? JQF • Talk • Contribs 02:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I say no. Powers and combined powers are different. Fllmtlchcb 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
no, until the series is complete such information may still be discovered. Also, an item lacking a combination is as significant as it having one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kail Ceannai (talk • contribs) 03:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Strong yes. There's so much duplication on that page I thought I was reading Slashdot. ZING! --vstarre 12:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Does using the Key, Clock, and Scissors to get into the vault really count as combining them? They were used separately to produce their original effects; no new ability was granted by bringing them together. Rokeon 04:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ehh, I say keep it because it was still a combination, not necessarily yeilding a new power, but more objects. Fllmtlchcb 06:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
However, their "combination" was something set up by the Order, and is not an inherent combined function, like the pairwise ones we've seen or the 5 objects opening the way to the ghost space of room 9. I have to say the way they used the objects to get into the vault was rather poorly done -- two of the three things they got past have to be restored using a lot of work. Also, their theory that it's an interior area only accessible via the key is obviously wrong too given the entry appeared to be one way (once the room door had closed) yet obviously K got out no problem. "You can't get there from here" is obviously overrated on the Vault room. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.215.206.67 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
One more thing: The "minimap" with the three items had three large circles connected at the middle with a line, and what I think were three small circles also connected. What do they represent?

[edit] Pic of Object Chart

Does somebody have a pic of the Object Chart they can put up? It seems important, and a pic would probably be good for the page. JQF • Talk • Contribs 13:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There are at least two object charts -- one was on the floor of (Room 9 ?). I agree, this might be a good project, detailing the known ones, and attempting to combine them with other known combos -- do we know if the "links" represent known combined effects, or some other pattern? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.206.67 (talk • contribs) 14:41, December 13, 2006

[edit] Fingerprint? MacGuffins?

Any comments as to whether the fingerprint actually constitutes an object? Also, after reading the MacGuffin page, I don't think that's an appropriate classification. From MacGuffin: "From the audience's perspective, the MacGuffin is not the point of the story". I would argue that the opposite is true - I think the most intriguing part of the show is learning about new objects and what powers they have. Any thoughts? - Mattingly23 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For me, too, the real interest in the show is about the scientific experimentation and discovery of what the objects can do, alone or in combinations, and how they can be used. I don't care about a "plot" of "people chasing other people." But regrettably, no one makes shows about scientific experimentation, so I consider myself lucky that it was even partially present in this show. For people like me, the objects are not MacGuffins. But if the "plot" is about the chase and the daughter, then they are. --TouchGnome 13:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I classified the Objects as macguffins because the story really is about the protagonist finding his daughter, and possibly even the nature of the God and the Universe. If an episode required that he get a "Tea cosy", that could turn soup to salad, he would do so. However if you replace the word "Tea cosy" with "coffee mug" the plot does not change one bit.
If any writers of the show are reading this, I would like to introduce a movement to include a "Tea cosy" that converts soup to salad just for the h-e-double-toothpicks of it. Maybe it was in the closet of the room or something. Or a toilet paper cosy knitted cap thingy, if having a tea cosy in a hotel room is stretching credulity too much.
Or in a more subtle fashion, changing the sought after item may change the superficial plot points, but not the characters and their decisions. For example a father may have a sick daughter and he seeks the "vial of antibodies" meanwhile antagonists try to keep him from the "vial" or want to posses the "vial" for themselves. A story such as this can be re-written so the father seeks the "magic talisman," meanwhile antagonists try to keep him from the "magic talisman" or want to posses the "magic talisman" for themselves. The genre changes from medical thriller to fantasy, the item changes completely making it less/more intriguing, but the motivations of the characters and the overall premise has not changed. This makes "the thing that everyone is after" the Macguffin.
If the crux of the story is fundamentally about "what combination of Objects will solve the puzzle of the missing Fanning girl" the story is weak, but if the story is about a fathers relationship with his daughter, or the nature of God, then we have something to work with, even if The Room is Full of Macguffins. -Dr Haggis - Talk 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I had understood a Macguffin to be more along the lines of the "rabbit's foot" in Mission Impossible III or "the process" in The Spanish Prisoner, where what the object is or does is completely unimportant. In The Lost Room, what each object does (and what it is, because this can affect how it is used) is very important and significantly affects the storyline, whereas in these two examples you don't learn what the object does because knowing would not improve the storyline. I guess the definition is broader than I had thought. Any opinion as to whether the fingerprint constitutes an object? - Mattingly23 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The fingerprint is an Object in the sense that it an item in the room that "resets" to the "correct" location along with other objects so is invulnerable to change. A more strict definition would be "Objects with powers" which seem to be the possessions of the Occupant. Which (in my mind) is why the phone, bible, tv, bed sheets, bed, and pillows, and hanger are not powered; they belonged to the hotel. This would make the fingerprint a "key feature of The Room" but not an object. -Dr Haggis - Talk 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The objects are MacGuffinese, be not completly MacGuffins. The phone, bible, etc do have powers, they just havn't been shown yet because: A - People don't know to activate them, so they remain "dormant" or B - They havn't been taken out of the room, so they remain inactive. And yeah, fingure print is a feature, it would be the mirror that would be an object. JQF • Talk • Contribs 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letter opener

The letter opener can also be seen in the opening sequence on the show and not just on in the online game.75.21.112.185 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The letter opener is not in the opening sequence, the nail file is. The letter opener is not a confirmed object from the show. Fllmtlchcb 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The letter opener is in the opening sequence, it is show next to the nail file. It flashes on the screen for just a few seconds and I had to pause my Tivo to see it. IG-2000 10:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have that shot paused on my TiVo right now, and it's an extreme closeup that makes identification difficult. There's definitely an Object next to the nail file, but it could be the knife that Wally mentions at one point. Or it could be a letter opener. Hard to tell. Pat Berry 11:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up the List

I say that we don't include objects that haven't left the room, for instance, the bedding and the clotheshanger. Mainly becuase they aren't (or haven't yet been) a part of the show and are just cluttering up the list without meaning. If anyone objects to this, feel free to say why. I'm going to edit out the following "objects": bedding, clotheshanger, telephone, and television. Fllmtlchcb 00:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, isn't that like saying "I'm going to remove the Objects the Order has because they aren't (or haven't yet been) a part of the show"? This is a list of all known Objects, and that should include the ones that haven't (as far as we know) left the room. JQF • Talk • Contribs 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Is the list we're trying to compile "a list of all Objects associated with room number 10" or "a list of all Objects as mentions or used in the series"? Kail Ceannai 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
In that case, why don't you list the ceiling light, the bed frame, the end table, the mirror, sink, toilet, and all that jazz? It's just kinda redundant. Fllmtlchcb 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless the bedsheets, pillows, etc., are specifically noted as objects, they should be left out.~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 02:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Like the blanket on the 1961 bed that isn't there in the 'new' Room. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The blanket was on the list that Jennifer had, so it's a known object. Fllmtlchcb 03:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a list of all objects that might be artifact Objects. I would not include things in the Order's room that were not on the lighted special table because there was a bed in that room, and obviously since there's one in room 10, it cannot be that one (nor were there 2 based on the size of the room, so that's out too.) I also would not include items like the bed or carpet in Room 10, either, as they're very large or clumsy. I like the theory that only items belonging to the Occupant being Objects, and not motel room things that the motel supplies as standard room equipment. Note that the bellows camera is probably an object since it is probably the Occupant's and not the motel's. Note that this means there is a bellows camera out there somewhere, and not that the one in the Order's room, not on the table, is one -- it could probably be a tribute/shrine prop like the bed.
If only items belonging to the Occupant were objects, and not motel supplies, then the pen would not be an object (it bears the motel logo), nor probably the ash tray, and certainly not the motel key. And the radio? A large, bulky radio is not likely to be part of a bus traveler's luggage. Yet all these things are known objects. --TouchGnome 13:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Took some time to clean up and organize the discussion page. I tried to group discussion topics in a logical, steamlined manner. I hope the discussion page is easier to navigate. Question - can we delete items from the "Potential Objects" list on the discussion page once the item has been added to the main verified Objects list??? It seems redundant and unnecessary. -Mononosh 16:40, 15 December 2006

Such refactoring makes finding where the conversation began difficult. Please don't do it again. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Guess I have a lot to learn in editing wikipedia pages. It is still very difficult to navigate this discussion page, but I gather that is normal?! --Mononosh 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You get used to it. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The coat hanger is listed in the Legion's database; you can see it in the printed list that Jennifer reviews during the third segment of the miniseries. So it apparently counts as an Object. Perhaps it was removed from the Room at some time in the past, and later put back in the closet. Pat Berry 11:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polaroids

Are the none-labelled polaroids proven objects? I believe those were taken by the collectors thus they're not objects, while the one that acts as a window is an obejct. Fllmtlchcb 02:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - unless something extremely unexpected happens in the remaining 20 minutes of the show, they are not objects. --Tim4christ17 talk 02:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
They are too objects. Anything that came from that room that cannot be destroyed by definition is an object. 72.145.2.128 05:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Only the one polaroid came from the room. The polaroids leading to the vault were taken by the Collectors to reveal its location, they aren't objects. Fllmtlchcb 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
^when did they say that --- he tried to burn them all --- they are all objects -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.29.241.47 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Looked to me like he only tried to burn the one. Anyway, why would polaroids leading to the Collectors' vault be in the Room when the Event happened? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.38.223.226 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Yes it doesn't make sense, although I don't see how Joe Miller could have possibly distinguished the one from all the others when he got them. None had any sensible content that would allow him to set one aside as special (aside from the note) until much later. Of course, perhaps he tried the (correct) one, and decided they were all, at that point, objects. But then it wouldn't have been obvious these were pictures to get "to the vault" rather than something from the room itself. Ok, I'll just leave this up to a hiccup in the storytelling...
When did they say it WAS an object? The objects were created during one event. The Collectors established the vault after the event. How could their pictures, taken after the event, have been objects created during the event? It was never established that they were all objects, and it makes no sense anyway. Joe could have suspected that the one that was an object was an object simply because it was "different". --Fastolfe00 00:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Prior to testing the polaroids, Joe and Herald have a brief discussion about one polaroid that is taped and marked "Gallup." Joe uses this polaroid to conduct an object test with the lighter. The other polaroids probably aren't objects - Joe only tested the motel polaroid, but we can only speculate. - Mononosh 12:30 15 December 2006
Further proof is when he looks at the 'Gallup' polaroid and says that it still looks new. The others don't look new because they can age and deteriorate, meaning they aren't objects. Fllmtlchcb 01:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone notice how beat up the polaroid of the room (marked "gallup") looked once Dr. Marten Ruber took possession? It looked incredibly beat up, bent, etc not what you would expect for an indestructible object. Very stange, I assume an accident and oversite that was overlooked in filming/production?? Mononosh 17:53, 15 December 2006
The Polaroid is a factual plot-hole because of how the picture looked. Polaroid did exist in 1961 but the pictures were still the type that had the copy sheet layer you had to remove. As such the white area surrounding the film was larger on the short side (left usually) and not on the bottom (which didn't come about until the 80's). The camera in the Order's shrine could have been either the original camera that would have taken the picture or a replica since that was the style of Polaroids instant cameras that year.Veridicum 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a plot hole, but an inaccuracy. It could have happened a multitude of ways, but most likely because the style of polaroids in the 60's wasn't researched, and because it wouldn't have an overall bearing on the show. Also, the characters might just be holding the picture the wrong way. Fllmtlchcb 20:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Needn't be an inaccuracy. Objects can be destroyed in the room, and replaced (conservation of objects). While the Polaroid is anachronistic compared to the Room 10 event, it could have become an Object later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.3.0.12 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] New Table/Old Table

I think the old table looks aesthetically better because it was less cluttered. Think we should revert back to the old table? At least 10 items have combined effects now, so I believe that warrants a seperate column. Just look at the motel key. It's quite cumbersome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fllmtlchcb (talk • contribs) 04:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

I merged it because 10 out of some 50-odd items in a series that will never expand makes no sense. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Eh, I suppose I agree with you for now due to the recent influx of objects. Should this show become a regular (fingers cross) then it may warrant a combined effect chart.Fllmtlchcb 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New objects

I paused my TIVO and went frame by frame during the vault scene and when in the book store they were looking at computer images of the objects and I added those objects to the list. Some objects in the vault I couldn't make, but I'm sure this will become a regular series and those objects will turn up then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.112.185 (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

During the scene where Joe Miller and Eddie McCloyster are talking in the Motel Room, it looks like there is a pile of Objects at one end of the chest of drawers (below the TV). Could someone check to see if those Objects were not present in the room prior to this scene and if they weren't, if they are the ones the Karl brought in with him (the Conroy experiment Objects, Glass Eye and Quarter). This seems likely as Joe later has the Motel Key, which was last seen in the possesion of Karl. Finally, should the ownership of those Objects then be changed to "Located in Room"?

[edit] Brass/ Manganese

I reverted the clock ability to magnanese because it is a common component of brass and is listed specifically on Sci-Fi.com as the objects power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nagrom7 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

I can't find this info on the SciFi site. Besides, why should a website be considered canon over the show itself? I'll revert the edit back to brass unless other evidence is presented. 68.190.48.20 07:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The website is doccumentable evidence, versus a characters interpretation which has, several times in the show been incorrect. It is surmisable that Karl's only experince with the clock involved an item of brass. The manganeese component of the brass was transmuted, disolving the compound. Please do not assume that because you cannot find a fact that the fact is incorrect. Nagrom7 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody have a URL for Objects listed on the SciFi website? I've clicked everywhere (I think) and I can't find anything that relates to the Clock's ability to sublimate manganese. I'm not saying it does not exist but without the reference I think we need to hold the mini-series as canon. Nothing comes up on Google either. 128.192.31.212 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On the Wiki page for the show "Heroes" there has been some conflict between the show and info on the official website. It was settled that the show is canon, because the website is generally created in advance of the showing of the show and is maintained by someone outside of the group of people involved with the production of the show. Thus some of the info given to the webmaster may have either been inaccurate, or the show was edited and that info was removed from the show but not the website. IG-2000 07:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The show is always the source for such details. Websites are a secondary source. Brass is simply a much simpler power, which the producers no doubt realized. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There's really no reason that it can't be both. Have the description say that it sublimates brass, but that sci-fi.com labels it as manganese. Simply stating either manganese or brass is incomplete. This should be an adequate compromise, as it most succinctly and completely gives anyone who reads the article the information they need without misleading them. Mikepwnz 09:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I did that originally. It was deleted because it had no ref linked. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.scifi.com/lostroom/ -- "Karl at his Office". Mikepwnz 04:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Many Owners listed

The OWNERS section of the list is incredibly cluttered and needs to be better organized some how. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nagrom7 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree it needed organization, but I don't think it warrant being completely deleted. How do you revert it back to the way it was? Fllmtlchcb 06:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone delteted the owners list...can't say as i miss it.Nagrom7 06:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

well someone added it again...I'm going to change it to Current Owner that way it wont be as cluttered 72.145.2.128 06:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now it reads "Owner by series' end", which I think is both cumbersome and perhaps not the most useful classification, since many Objects aren't necessarily in the possession of a person per se but rather known to be in a certain place, such as the Vault, the Order's Shrine, the Lost Room, etc. In the interests of a more concise, useful, and descriptive column, I'm going to change it to read "Last Known Owner/Location", so that we can use whichever description is more useful. Mikepwnz 05:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all in FLASH, so you can't doccument the exact page. But its on the lost room website on I believe Karl's page Nagrom7 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Coupons?

I like the blurb, but does it really belong at the top of the page as the FIRST introduction to these glorious and fascinating objects?

"Have you seen The Lost Room?"

"Yeah i love the idea of the Motel Key!"

"Eh, it's just a plot coupon."

It's a descriptive term, so yes it belongs. We're not supposed to make the objects "look cool." – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes but if you had paid attention you'd see that i asked if the begining of the article is where an "interpretation" and circumspect statement belongs.Nagrom7 06:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I question the neutrality of the term 'plot coupon'. I believe that it downplays the objects as nothing more than mere plot devices, and doing such in a television show is a great disservice. Granted this page isn't made to glorify the objects, until a more suitably neutral word is used, I believe the current intro is apt. - FLLMTLCHCB
Remember, the Objects are fictional, therefore they are plot elements by definition. The series was not about the Objects, they were the tools by which the characters entered into conflict and resolved their conflict. They are indeed plot devices, just really compelling and creative ones. -Dr Haggis - Talk 19:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Not all the Objects are plot coupons, just the ones that Joe needs in order to reach his goal. Jerry Kindall 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure they are. The Objects, as a group, are more interesting when we believe that there are many of them, some undiscovered, and some with undiscovered properties. They also remain potential future plot coupons in the event future stories are written in this universe. --Fastolfe00 00:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but in THIS STORY, which is the only one there is right now, there are a dozen or so objects directly involved in the plot, fewer than that directly related to Joe's quest, and the rest are just part of the story's background. Setting != plot coupon. Jerry Kindall 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have never heard of "plot coupon" before seeing it in this article and only a handful of articles link to plot coupon. Does this term have widespread acceptance? - Mattingly23 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Acceptance is not an issue, nor is the number of links. What matters is the most applicable term for a onbect or group of objects. This is a quite apt term. I had never even heard of it before its use here. The best thing about the Wiki is use can educate while improving, thus wikilinks. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok the objects function as plot coupons, that's the true disgrace of the miniseries. When the objects were introduced there was so much potenetial. The plot could have centered around the objects instead of the somewhat predicable hero plot. Don't get me wrong, there were some great twists, but did you ever doubt Joe would find Anna in the end? The most exciting moments were in the introduction of new objects. - Mononosh 20:11, 15 December 2006

[edit] Article Speculation

I took the following paragraph out of the article because I believe that it attempts to state one analysis of the show as a truth, and so far that isn't enough evidence to support it.

"Before shooting John Doe, Joe Miller said: "God forgive me" as if he was talking directly to John Doe. The idea—proposed by object collecters—of the objects being pieces of God's corpse is perhaps hinted at in this scene. Nietzche's idea that God is dead and was killed by humans is seemingly acted out in this pivotal scene. The human object expressed a peacefulness that he felt within the room—unlike the outside world that he wished to escape; and Joe Miller was willing to do anything to bring his daughter back into the outside world. He killed God in order to continue living in the outside world with his daughter. When the motel room was closed without all of the objects placed within it (Miller only returned the key) and in their proper places, essentially, God's body remained scattered all over the world and a new room presented another opportunity to end the "noise" and pain in the world that John Doe died to be rid of. Until all of the objects are collected and placed in their proper postions within the room, the outside noise and violence in relation to the objects will continue."

The part about Nietzche believing that God is dead can be included in the part of the article that theorizes about what the objects are for, but saying that "He killed God in order to continue living" has not and can not be supported as of yet. And the idea of the noise is only speculated by Eddie McCloyster as of yet, Joe, which is supposedly the new Occupant, has not shown signs of hearing said noise at the end.

If anyone feels that this paragraph is vital and should be included, please explain. - FLLMTLCHCB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.49.209.108 (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Object Identification Rubric

After reading all of this discussion I believe that a rubric to determine whether an object makes it on “the complete list of objects” list should be devised and agreed upon. There was and is still great derision (as evident on the discussion page) as to whether or not objects mentioned on the website (or other sources) should be included in their entirety.

Also, if this becomes a regular series it is not idle speculation to believe that there is a real possibility of more tie ins; games, magazines, websites etc. etc. any of which might reveal new objects.

Finally, in the mini-series we are told that there are a hundred or more objects. I believe that if this show persists as more miniseries or a new series there will be well over a hundred objects. It has yet to be determined whether the bed is an object or the pillows…which would be easy to test-take them out of the room…but maybe not everything in the room implicitly is an object just by being in the room. That being said if it is the case that anything from the room is an object then our object list will have to be a lot larger. It would have to include all the standard items found in the motel room. And, perhaps in the not to distant future (in a new series) we might learn that the original occupant brought with him more than one suitcase (perhaps two or three or four etc. etc. ad nausea) of stuff. That would be catalyst for an explosion in the number and type of objects with no need to justify how they would related to a standard hotel room.
______________________
My proposed rubric:

1.Item needs to be an object. This is an obvious rule. Remember an object is indestructible, or remains in the room when it is reset. Whether an item has a power has not been established as criteria for determining whether said item is an object.

2.Item has to have left the room. Otherwise the list explodes in size and becomes meaningless and far less useful. Ex: until someone rips up the toilet and takes it out of the room it is NOT an object. Whether the item has left the room is based on series information with rule four still in play.

3.Item can be from any “The Lost Room” source. The chart needs have a column that states where the item is from…website, TV, magazine etc. Ideally, if this part of Wiki is really developed each object will have its own page with references of where and when the object is discovered (first mentioned), used (and by whom), have a screen shots, and a information about the object and its power. The additional column would be a good compromise and reduce clutter as objects are discovered under different circumstances i.e. a writer or producer of the show in an interview talks about a new object that has not bee in any other media before (but since they are the writers or producers that would make their verbal indication of an object existing a fact as related to the story’s universe).

This will clear up conflict between whether all items from the website game should be on the complete list. The Order has some of the items from the website which is strong evidence for the inclusion of every item mentioned on the website. The additional column is a good compromise; with items being mentioned on both the website and the series being labeled in that manner.

4.In cases of conflict between media sources the information as presented in broadcast versions of the show will be considered cannon.
______________________
I will leave this open for discussion, revision and consensus. Remember this is a rubric to determine whether or not the objects belong on the list; not whether or not an item is an object. cprockhill

There is a point at which things become cruft (having a page about a microwave-emitting pen in a three-episode show would qualify), but i agree with most of this. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree -- "Ideally, if this part of Wiki is really developed each object will have its own page" - I hope not. I like looking at all of them in a table. I don't want to have to click on it to get information like it's main power or current owner. Perhaps individual pages might be useful for descriptions of its history and actual use (useful given many powers are deduced, both by viewers and by characters in the show), former owners, tables of which episode which owner(s) transferred ownership (and willingly or not!) But the main table with simple power descriptions should remain.

cprockhill:::The additional pages for each item only make sense if the show is developed into a larger series; and as you pointed out and I agree that the table should be remain simple; I also like looking at all of the items on the table. The further pages for each item should be carefully considered, should be used for history and actual use, again another fine point and you will have no arguement from me. Some items merely are seen for a moment. Others are very central to the story line even if they are a macguf or whatever that plot device name is (that being an object that moves the plot along but which shape could be anything...the key could have been a glove).

In summation:
-I advocate the further pages only if the series becomes larger and only for history and acutal use; not speculative information.
-I believe the two seperate charts for miniseries objects and website objects should be merged (in otherwords the main table gets one other column) with an indication for each object where the object has been mentioned.
Nice work. This is a good start. I question how or who verifies "2. Item has to have left the room." Considering that all items belonging in the room automatically return to their "proper" location once the room is reset, how do you determine if the pillows, the table (or dresser??) have ever left the room? We've learned from the list the legion compiled that the blanket is an object. So at the very least a comprehensive listing of items remaining in room ten should be included in the "items in room ten" section. Let's be fair to all potential objects. - Mononosh 01:59, 15 December 2006
How about if the item has been known to leave the room based on events during the series, or events talked about during the series. For instance, the coat hanger has never been mentioned, therefore it wouldn't be on the list of known objects. However, the key, being as though it has left the room and returned by the show's ending, will be included because it is known.
As long as the item can be backed by an example of it leaving the room, then I say it should be included.
Also, I have relabeled the middle column of the table as 'description' rather than 'effect', since some of the listed information isn't an effect, like the clock and watch's hands being stuck at 1:20. Fllmtlchcb 01:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

cprockhill:::That was a great question and good discussion. I have updated rule number #2 to reflect the presented question and proposed solution. What does everyone think of " one" additional column so that we can have a master list that bridges all area's of the current and potential "The Lost Room" universe? (see above for discussion on what the column is supposed to be).

[edit] The Comb and Watchbox

Part of the watchbox's description reads "When used in combination with the Comb, it allows the user to communicate with an individual trapped within an alternate dimension." Is this technically a combination (like the limited telepathy) or is it just a pseudo-combination (like the use of the 3 objects to get into the Vault)?

What technically happened was that Joe realized the "ghost" would decay away after thrashing about for a few seconds. Open the watchbox, she doesn't decay, and thus sticks around. However, she remains thrashing on the floor. He uses the comb, and now she's calm. Ok, perhaps that is a new power. The comb would have stopped her cold like it did Juliana. I don't think her thrashing was that sped up that (if the comb merely greatly slowed time) that she would be in "normal time" during its use. So "calming down nondisintegrated ghosts" seems to be the new combined power (though note the comb was still stopping time.)

I don't think she was a ghost, I think she was just trapped in an alternate dimension, or out of phase with time and or reality. She was in the same place that Joe's daughter was in because she told Joe she saw her. IG-2000 09:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Scholls

The foot powder is Dr. Scholls brand. The scene where Joe and the weasel are in the book store looking for some object that can ID the occupant, the bookstore owner shows them images on the computer of known objects. One of the objects shown on the computer is Dr. Scholl's foot powder. If you have TIVO advance it frame-by-frame and you can clearly see the label. IG-2000 06:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horrible Introduction

The intorduction to this page is absolutly abismal. It has no real good introductory info about the object and their purpose. At the risk of an edit war I'm not even going to bother with it anymore, but it needs to be fixed. We need more concrete introductory info, and Ill agree that PLOT COUPON belongs, but it DOES NOT belong as the first introduction to the object. Its nature as a plot device is not an inherent quality of the Objects. it is merely a speculation about the storys plot and format.Nagrom7 22:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Do something like 20-30 random article searches, then come back here and note how many were any longer than two sentences. Also, "plot coupon" is not speculation. It descibes the purpose of the Objects to the series at large, not their fictional context. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless this is turned into a regular series and explains how and why the objects exist, I can't think of any way of improving the intro. 75.21.133.241 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Always remember that The Objects don't exist. Wikipedia articles should describe fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself. See the Manual of style for details. -Dr Haggis - Talk 06:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed Objects in the Room

I didn't catch the whole show, but are the larger objects of the room like the TV, the wall phone, and the bed considered "Objects" as well? I'm guessing since they were fixed objects (at least the TV and phone being mounted to the walls) they we're never removed, but it looks like the desk lamps and the blanket from the bed was considered an object (but not the pillows?). Cyberia23 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless an object has been removed from the room at least once, it shouldn't be considered an object. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The assumption that everything in the room, when taken out, becomes an Object is speculation. Yes, those are the rules as we know them, but the series makes a point about how no one is really sure what's going on here, so it's still just a theory and, consequently, speculation unfit for the article. For all we know there were other items in the room that had no special properties when removed, or disappeared. --Fastolfe00 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
But any item remaining in the room after a reset MUST be tied to the room in the same way that active objects are. If these items did not have special properties then each item should disappear when the room is reset. Objects that are owned or supplied by the motel apparently have a fixed location. Example: When Anna pulls the sheets and pillows off the bed and resets the room the bed is freshly made. Mononosh 10:05 14 December 2006

The way I see it only the person with the key can access the room, so it could be possible that a previous owner of the key would keep his objects in the room where the others would not be able to get to them. This would explain why the TV, sheets, pillow, coat and coat hanger where in the room, they belonged to a previous owner of the key. Of course this is all just speculation. IG-2000 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that would shatter everything we have been told about the objects. If each holder of the key could "hide" their own possessions in the room, well everything we know about the objects would change. That simply doesn't work. From what we the audience were told, only objects (from the original room) remain in the room, and each object has a specific location in the room. While some items remain in the room (the bed, the tv, etc) this does not mean that these items are not objects. All it means is that no one has removed them from the room. Any other ideas about the power or use of these items is pure speculation until we are told more by the writers of the show. It is a motel room, so we can assume certain items were supplied by the motel. - Mononosh 12:14 15 December 2006

I'm not talking about one's own possesions, I was talking about objects. For instance, the coat was hanging in the closet, so either somehow it got over looked by seekers for the last 45 years, or someone with the key was keeping it there so no one else could get to it. There was a bar of Sunshine Motel soap that was a known object, so at least one item supplied by the motel became an object. I agree that there is a lot more for the show to reveal. By the way does anyone know if and when the show will become a series? IG-2000 08:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No. It's just a miniseries. It's not meant to go any further. Logically, they couldn't restart the series even if they wanted to. No key equals no room equals no point. It was probably just designed to illustrate the God is dead belief. What the show has told us is all we can write on. Drawing conclusions based on interpretations of it is original research. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess someone missed the last moments of the miniseries. The door to room ten reopened with the key on the floor in the same place Joe tossed it. So logically, they could restart the series if they wanted to. Anything beyond what was given is speculation, including tacking a "God is Dead" belief to the series. That's speculation. Mononosh 20:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Its has to be more than just a miniseries. The last scene shows the motel door open and the key is lying on the floor. They left almost every question unanswered such as; what's up with Dr. Ruber, what exactly happened to Karl, is Joe the new object, there is still all those objects out there. In fact the only thing they answered is that Joe got his daughter back. IG-2000 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The key ending is just a dramatic close and all the answered questions are just there to leave you guessing. The series will likely not be going any further. You have to work under the assumption that it's over. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

On G4 they had an interview with lost creator Christopher Leone, and he said that more episodes of The Lost Room are in the works, but he didn't specify if it was another miniseries or a regular series. I've been looking around the internet for more info on this and I can't seem to find any. 75.21.133.241 06:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's good to hear, if it's true ir even occurs, but for now one most work under the assumption that the series is over. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exit Theory

Now I could be totaly off on this but the most logical theory for how the ojects left the room in the first place is the following; whatever the event was, the occupant was not initially aware of it. He packed up his belongings into his suitcase and left the motel to return home. When he got home and met with his wife is when he realized that something was wrong but it wasn't until a short time after that that he started "feeling" the objects he had removed from the room. The key would have already been left at the motel (which is how Conroy figured it out) and the other objects the occupant discarded somehow to get them away from him. Conroy was able to gather the other loose items from the room with the key and track down most of the others but didn't realize anything about the occupant. The occupant sensed what was going to happen when Conroy brought the objects together for her experiment and appeared during the tear in space (which is why the camera didn't capture him until he was already inside) and essentially saved/doomed Conroy by keeping her body trapped in room 9 instead of it being sent to another dimmension like Anna was. The Objects were then probably seperated but other cabals found out about them and hunted them down. The only thing that can't exactly be explained by this is how the coat made it back to the room at any point or who it was that returned it. Any thoughts on this and by thoughts I mean thoughts as they pertain to the whole.Veridicum 06:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

cprockhilljust one little comment...I like he definately doomed Conroy; she really didn't look like she was having fun in room 9.
Decent theory, though it'll never leave this page. For the coat: that is likely just one result of leaving somenoe in the room. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The main part I hold to is that the objects left the room when the occupant took them out with him. The rest of it is granduer speculation, but it is either that or the Dragonball method by which when the certain event occurs (the dragon granting the wish in Dragonball) then the individual pieces scatter until they are all gathered together again.Veridicum 07:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The coat (and hanger) could have easily been returned by any number of Object Seekers or cabals in the last thirty years. That doesn't bother me. If I were the key-holder, I would store any other object I found in the room since I'm the only one that could get to it. -Travis Garris 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Presumably, the keyholder is sick of people getting all his objects whenever they steal his key. It's like using one password for everything. Those objects which remain (TV, hangar, sheets, pillows) are probably just left because nobody ever figured out what they did. It's clear from the series (explicitely stated) that not all objects were removed from the room at once, that people with the key just took them in order to find out what they did. The occupant was however in the room during the tear in reality, so he probably returned and threw away the key at some point (not wanting to hear the other objects anymore). --vstarre 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I read an interview somewhere that said that the coat increases in temperature while it's outside the room, meaning that while it's useful as armor in short periods, it becomes very dangerous if it's out of the room for too long. Think white-hot, steel melting overcoat. Can anyone find that? In any case it provides one (amusing) reason why the coat would still be in the room. And, heh, maybe the TV has a power like that, too. Mikepwnz 08:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telephone

I submit for approval that the telephone be included in the main list of objects. Though it falls under the rule of an object that has not left the room there is enough evidence that it is an object. The Order has two different phones in their Room 10 mock up because they know a phone exists but are not sure as to what phone is a true object.Veridicum 07:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I think the wall telephone should at least be added to the "items in room ten" section. It certainly belongs there. Unfortunately, we don't know enough about the wall phone to include it in the verified objects yet. But it should be listed with the other items remaining in the room. - Mononosh 14:05, 15 December 2006

[edit] Motel Key Description

The motel key description has been seriously dumbed down and important and pertinant information has been removed. The original description should be fixed.

[edit] Pictures of Objects

Perhaps there needs to be a column for pictures of the objects. just a thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.29.241.43 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Items in Room 10

While I think this section is a good idea, I don't think it needs to list every possible item in the room that could be a potential Object. If Joe had taken the mirrored door of the medicine cabinet off it's hinges, would it be an Object? Would the hinges? How about the bulb in the light fixture? Or if he tore up the carpet, would each fiber become an Object? You can't list everything inside the room.

Again, I like that this section exists. It separates things we've seen in the room from official Objects and opens up the possibility that more Objects may still be inside Room 10. But I think trying to list them is unnecessary, and it confuses what is officially considered a known Object.

I think this is an important section. I disagree that trying to list these items is unnecessary. True such a list can spin out of control quickly, but that's what wiki is for. Did anyone seriously believe foot powder would be an object?? But there it was in the collector's vault. It is for this reason that a list of potential objects "Items in room ten" is important. It is speculation to say that the mirrored door is or isn't an object, just like every other item remaining in the room. Let's be honest, the motel room has been stripped. There are some very interesting items missing from the room that are normally present in a motel room. Sure these aren't verified objects, but considering the obscurity of a few of the verified objects it is a possibility. I believe the wall telephone should be added to this list. -Mononosh 13:46, 15 December 2006

Removed the assertion that they 'appear to be objects' - too OR-ey. The coat probably is, although it hasn't shown any special properties other than being indestructible, but it's already listed farther up in the article. The rest of it could just be part of the room's 'set dressing', as it were. If there's a series, maybe they'll be shown to be objects, or maybe it'll turn out that they can't be taken out of the room, which would explain why they haven't been when there are so many people after these objects. Also changed the table to a bulleted list; a table with one column looks ugly, and if we ever learn anything more important about the objects in the room, they'll have been shown to be actual objects and will have to be moved out of the 'maybe' list and into the 'definitely' table. -- Vary | Talk 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brand Names

the Brand is normally never used to refer to an object. it is the "Brand-name" Pack of cigarettes. It is refered to as the Pack of Cigarettes. I think that objects such as the Life Magazine, The Parade Dress shoepolish, and the Dr Scholls Foot powder (which I thought was lighter fluid from what i could see) be referred to in their non-proper format. Part of the idea is that the mundane objects have no specificity. These should be referred to as The Magazine, Shoe-Polish, and Foot Powder. i feel that these are much more accurate descriptions that play into the series premise. These brand names should be placed in a separate column like "description" this is also where pertinent information about other objects should be placed as well (to take it out of the power list)

I thought it was lighter fluid too, until I paused my Tivo and got a good look at it. IG-2000 08:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyhow, I realize I do not have Tivo and can't stop and see what each item is- that was not the point of this entry. The point is that if we found out that the scissors were made by Shears, a copy-righted scissor maker, we, and I doubt the characters, would refer to them as the Shears Scissors. Also the Newspaper is referred to as just that, not the New York Times or whatever newspaper it happened to be. I feel that these must be changed. gotsashoe

I don't remember anything about a newspaper. IG-2000 09:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

the newspaper was on one of the lists of known objects, I think the legions. gotsashoe
Correct; it's in the Legion database. That's also where the name of the last known owner came from: James Stanek, a person not otherwise mentioned or shown in the miniseries. Pat Berry 11:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dual Ownership

I believe labeling the objects with two or more owners is incorrect. If an individual currently possess an object, then that individual is the sole owner at that given moment. Shared associations with the Order or the Legion should not be included. Why? With both Dr. Ruber and Jennifer Bloom it is fairly clear from the plot that each are acting independantly of the group agenda. Perhaps if the series continues we will see the objects returned to the groups, but for now the ownership of these items lies clearly with the individuals. I have changed the Objects list to reflect this. I didn't change the radio, because there is no way to verify who has it. - Mononosh 18:41, 15 December 2006


[edit] Glass Eye Description

I cleaned up the description of the eye, taking out the redundancy of saying it can destroy/heal flesh two times, as well as examples, since examples aren't included in any other object's description, either. Tell me what you think of it. Fllmtlchcb 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. One question, are we sure the glass eye can not repair damage that the eye has caused. Karl did not use the eye to repair Isaac or the body guards, but wasn't this because he was searching for Isaac after opening the "tear in the reality"? Just curious. - Mononosh 17:33, 15 December 2006
Well, one of two possibilities there. If the eye indeed turns flesh to ash, ash isn't flesh, therefore if the eye is supposed to only work on flesh, the eye is useless. Another explanation is that after Karl missed hitting Joe with the eye, his son called to him (Isaac, I believe). This could have distracted him from healing Anthony. There is no clear explanation, therefore putting a restriction on the eye's power isn't justifiable just yet.

Someone keeps reverting the description back to its cumbersome form. It doesn't follow the same format as the others do, so either change it yourself or stop reverting it. Fllmtlchcb 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, they just keep adding that Karl removed his own eye and replaced it with the glass one. I don't believe that's necessary information, and I put "possibly has to be in an eye socket to work". That should suffice. Fllmtlchcb 01:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It would suck to cut your eye out and then find out later that you don't have to do that to get the glass eye to work. I don't know how Karl knew to cut out his eye and put the glass one in, after all the glass eye was sealed up in that vault for decades and little was known about the objects in the vault.IG-2000 09:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Would not suck, would actually be a bonus, because when you take the glass eye out of your socket when you're done with it, you could then use it to heal yourself. --TouchGnome 14:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It has been stated multiple times in the show that the Objects typically have to be used in their normal fashion to work. The only exceptions shown to this were the nail file and watch. It is a relatively safe assumption that Karl had seen whatever information the Collectors had on the eye and decided that actually put the eye in a socket would be required. -- Anthraxus 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Items in The Order's Shrine

These items were in the room of objects collected by the Order. The authenticity of these items is unknown and some are believed to be replicas. - Mononosh 14:35, 15 December 2006

  • Bellows Camera - Mononosh14:35, 15 December 2006
  • Rotary Telephone (night stand telephone)- Mononosh
The problem with this is "the order" didn't have the real phone since that was still in the real Room 10. Also is you were paying attention there are actually two phones in "the orders" "room." One is a nightstand rotary and the other is a larger wall rotary which is set next to the smaller one on the floor.Veridicum 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is I did pay attention, and yes there is one phone remaining in room ten (the wall phone). Notice the possible item is listed as a "rotary phone," not a wall phone which is discussed below. However, if the order is attempting to make an exact replica of room ten then it would imply that there were originally two phones in room ten. If this is the case, then there is a rotary phone that is an object that has been removed from room ten. This does not mean that it is the same rotary phone the order has in their posession. Think out side the box a little before you tell people to "pay attention." Obviously, the wall mounted phone hasn't been removed (like the tv). Anyone willing to take the time to comment on wikipedia has probably paid a little attention to the show. -Mononosh 14:35, 15 December 2006
The wall mounted phone in Room 10 is a rotary phone. The Order has a replica of that one as well as a night stand one. I had made my comment before you specified the night stand one above. Please don't get snippy with me.Veridicum 06:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Motel Door (room number unknown - 10??)- Mononosh14:35, 15 December 2006
  • Bedside lamps (two)- Mononosh14:35, 15 December 2006
Regarding the four objects listed above, it is believed that the room the Order made is a replica, and the only real objects are on the lit table. At least, that's what people I've talked to believe. Fllmtlchcb 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahh but... Even if the other objects in the room of "The Order" were replicas, the "real" items are no longer in room ten. This implies the "objects" were removed - and one would assume such items share the same unique characteristics of other objects removed from room ten. Who are these people you talk to? Are they producers, writers or do they contribute to the show in anyway? If not, why would their opinion be more valid than the opinion of anyone else? Mononosh 12:59, 14 December 2006
Are the objects owned by the Order only those that are on the lighted table, or does it include everything found in the room? It seems strange that they have items like an old camera, phone and suitcase in that room. Along those lines, are the lamps and end tables just supposed to make it seem like Room 10, or could they be additional objects? (since the bed and bedding is still in the room, I assume those aren't objects) Qvamp 04:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm just speculating here with everyone else, but it looks like they had it set up as a shrine to the room, and tried to recreate the room as best they could, with the real objects on the table at the front. Hatch68 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Also note that the table at the front is a mimic of the one the television sits on in the real room. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 23:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe everyone keeps missing the point with the order's "replicas." If the order tried to set up a "shrine" - full of replicas to recreate what they believe room ten looked like, why would the order include items that weren't part of the original room? If all of the items the order has are replicas (besides objects on the small table), would this not imply that there were items similar to these "replicas" present in room ten?? If this is not the case, then why would the order replicate the items? There is no other reason for the replicas, unless the order is trying to recreate what room ten looked like. Obviously replicas have no power, but it implies that the items these replicas represent actually do exists and really are objects. Granted it is completely unverified, but it is obvious that the audience was supposed to see these items (or replicas). - Mononosh 12:01 15 December 2006

What I don't get is how the hell does the order know what room 10 looks like. They must have posessed the key at some point I guess, since room 10 doesn't exist in reality they couldn't have gone there. IG-2000 08:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the founding members of the Order were some of the Collectors, who had presumably been inside the room before the Conroy experiment. Mikepwnz 20:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Suitcase --Mononosh 22:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conroy Experiment

So there are SEVEN (including the key and watchbox) that were used in the conroy experiment The Clock, the Ashtray, the Toothbrush, the Nail Clippers, and the Pack of Cigarettes, were nailed to the door and the Key and the Watchbox were held by the experimenter. gotsashoe

Nice catch! Mikepwnz 20:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
so I changed six to seven in those seven Objects, someone had missed the clock as one of these objects, bringing the number to six. simple mistake. gotsashoe
Wait, did Karl have both the Watchbox and the Clock? I'm sure he only had one of them, though I may be wrong. Fllmtlchcb 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes Karl did not have the watchbox. But the conroy experiment did. So there are seven in the conroy experiment. If they would have used the watchbox they would all had died. gotsashoe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.29.241.47 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
how? -lysdexia 04:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does the Legion still exist as a functioning group?

My impression at the end of the series was that the entire Legion was called in to help end Kreutzfeld's version of the Conroy experiment, and that all but Jennifer were vaporized by the Eye. A very least, a very large number of Legion members were vaporized, including Jennifer's immediate superior. Did we see any other surviving members of the Legion after the vaporization? Because, if not, I think we should stop listing things as being owned by the Legion, if it's just one person. Mikepwnz 20:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't know how large the Legion is because we were never told. Surely they wouldn't have sent in their entire organization. They may function in sects like The Order does. Until we are told otherwise, I say it's safe to assume that the Legion is still in control of some objects. I mean, when they were vaporized, we didn't see any objects get left behind, so they must be keeping them somewhere. Fllmtlchcb 21:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Jennifer's superior was not destroyed. He was still back at their HQ. He was actually a traitor to their cause since he called Karl before they entered to tell him they were coming in.Veridicum 19:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Fingerprint

I don't believe this should even be listed as an object. A fingerprint is made of oils left by a finger, which is a liquid. Joe has drank the water from the room, which means that the water is digestable, and therefore destructible (imagine swalling an indestructible liquid). This means that it is also not an object. Since the fingerprint and the water are both the same, then it should be exluded from the list. Fllmtlchcb 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Objects are not indestructable within the room --vstarre 12:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe left the room with the water in him, so did it become an object? What kind of powers would drinking "object water" give? Perhaps you can piss napalm. I think making a fingerprint an object is going a little overboard, and unless there are more shows that say otherwise, I think we should assume not everything in the room is an "object". IG-2000 09:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deck of Cards update

I have changed the description of the deck of card to read that it is a sealed deck of pre-opened cards with the Joker set on the outside. There are two points of evidence to this: first, both times the deck is clearly visible (in the Order's shrine and in Room 10) there are pointed edges on the corners consistant with them being shrink-wrapped and second, in the title montage you can see the box for the cards (with the top seal broken) and the Joker is affixed in some way to the out side of the box. (This is a style that has been done in Vegas and other casino towns for years when they sell the used decks. Since the Joker is rarely used for card games in Vegas the casino will usually put it on the outside of the box to show the buyer what the card style is.) With this there is no evidence as to whether or not any other card would have any effect and logically there would be no way to prove if they do since, due to the indestructability of the Objects, the deck can not be opened.Veridicum 03:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems interesting but is original researcg. JoshuaZ 14:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Since I described what is visible in the show it's not. I only gave the backstory to why a deck would be that way in the discussion page.Veridicum 19:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The king of hearts gives you a +6 bonus to diplomacy checks and a small keep --vstarre 12:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
ha ha. -- Mikepwnz 07:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Timetable": Train Schedule?

This is new. Anyone know where that one came from/is it verifiable? Mikepwnz 07:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's one of the pictures of Objects that appear very briefly on the Sood's computer screen when Joe and the Weasel visit him together. You have to use freeze-frame to get a clear view of it, but it's there. Pat Berry 11:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Occupant

His description goes into a lot of depth into Eddie McCleyster, and how he was removed from existence, shunned by his wife, etc. While that's all true, it's true about Eddie McCleyster, not about the Object that is the Occupant. I propose we move the information about Eddie to the Lost Room page under characters and shorten the Occupant description to describe the abilities of the Occupant (indestructible, immortal, can repel other Objects, can bring people back, can stop tears in reality, etc.) -- Mikepwnz 07:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, ditto for the Bus Ticket; all of that stuff belongs under Wally in characters, not under Bus Ticket. -- Mikepwnz 07:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sci-Fi.com/New Yorker Games

At the bottom of the page is a listing of a game of finding the objects on Sci-Fi.com, there is also a game in The New Yorker where you find 6 of the objects in the small ads in the back.Mickdansforth 13:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Mine! Original promo for the Lost Room

I don't know if we'll decide that these items are permissible, although most of them are in the show as well. It's the original trailer for the Lost Room. They describe many of the objects (key, bus ticket, comb), and they show a lot, even ones I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere -- like a razor, a genuine triple-bladed, you-could-get-one-at-Wal-mart razor. The look/feel of the show is totally different, but I get the feeling that Sci Fi made it with stock footage they had lying around. Check it out for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvss1ItLKfQ

It's even got internal inconsistencies; although it's obviously Room 10 in many shots, at one point the tag on the key clearly has the number 14 on it. Anyways, thought maybe we could take a look at it and maybe clue us in on a few Objects we're missing.

[edit] Missing objects, question about use

It looks like the Fingerprint and the Left and Right Socks are missing. Also, the entry for the Quarter states that it must be swallowed to work; I'm not sure that's true. I got the impression that he swallowed it to keep it from being taken from him, similar to the guy mentioned in episode one who had swallowed the key. What do you all think? --Masamage 21:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the quarter has to be swallowed. Isaac didn't appear until after it was swallowed, leaving evidence enough. Fllmtlchcb 23:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Except that he was wandering around the house throughout the rest of the series, and we don't know whether or not the quarter was swallowed at that point. (It could have been, of course, but we certainly don't know for sure.) --Masamage 17:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I added the Left Sock because it's listed in the Legion database (it's visible in the printed list that Jennifer reviews). I also added the Right Sock for consistency; a Right Shoe is listed, even though it's never seen or mentioned (that I am aware of). The Left Shoe is, of course, visible in the Vault. Pat Berry 11:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
All clothing items on the occupant would be considered Objects which would make the known list two shoes, two socks, pants, shirt, tie, suit jacket and two cufflinks. Each of these are visible (or in the case of the cufflinks mentioned in the series) in the Polaroid image.Veridicum 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume there is underwear and a belt too, but that still doesn't qualify them as objects. 134.29.241.47 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC) gotsashoe
Hard to say. Maybe there's a wedding ring, dog tags, and belly piercing; we shouldn't mention stuff unless it's directly visible. --Masamage 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Although it's 'safe to say', it's still original research since the show hasn't mentioned it. Fllmtlchcb 19:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine

A search of Life's covers archive shows that the magazine shown on the Sood's computer is from July 7, 1961. Since this is well after the date of the Event, this is either a continuity error or the magazine was not an original object but created through a conservation-law effect. — Xaonon (Talk) 09:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a prop-department error. When Ruber has his vision/hallucination with the Polaroid and sees the interior of Room 10 prior to the Event, there is an opened magazine (not the Newspaper; it's bifolded and stapled) laid out on one of the tables with the Magnifying Glass sitting on top of it. Of course, the source of the information — Ruber's vision — is questionable, so it might just depend on what the writers do if the show gets picked up as a series. — Tonyfuchs1019 06:56, 8 May 2007.
And speaking of prop-department errors: in "The Eye and the Prime Object," Wally says (while reading the newspaper article) that Mabel Smith was 24 in 1961. But when the article is actually shown (it was written by "Robert Corlew"), the text of the article states that Mabel was 30 in 1961. — Tonyfuchs1019 21:06, 11 May 2007.

[edit] Object locations

I changed the location of the Conroy objects that were nailed to the door. You can see them in the room, on the table when Joe talks to Eddie. Miluda 00:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Overcoat

I think the Overcoat has a visible power in the show, despite the "Unknown" listing on this page: the pockets contain an infinite number of metal balls. When the main character is locked in a closet, he keeps shaking the coat and seeing metal balls come out. If someone can confirm this, the entry should be updated. 2008-03-04

Those metal balls are shotgun pellets from when Anthony fired at Joe as he was escaping in episode two; the jacket is indestructible outside of the room, so they've been lying in the folds of the jacket since he was shot at, hence Joe's remark, "Indestructible." 86.1.192.89 (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soap bar

There is a soap bar and a bar of soap listed. Can someone correct it? --Pohli 80.144.113.215 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Soap Bar" for you. Cyberia23 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the link to 'The Collectors'

Adding this link yourself is a conflict of interests, because it is your own site. As such, (and according to external link guidelines for sites you own you should post the link here (on the talk page) and allow a neutral editor to add it to the front page, if they feel that it makes a worthwhile addition. In this case, as a neutral editor, I don't believe that it would make a worthwhile addition to the article, because it's just a fansite that offers no further information than what is already on this page, only fan speculation. As it would appear to have nothing to contribute to the article, and is only there for the purposes of advertising it's existence, I don't believe that it should be left on the page. --Maelwys (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about the link to the collectors

ok..I understand why it should not be in the article but at least leave it on the bottom of the page so fans can find us. there is a link to Sci-Fi's "Lost Room" page which has no more info than found here so on that formula our's should be allowed also.

we are not about shameless self-promotion. we want fans to find us and join us. The Creators of "The Lost Room" are members also and I feel we have alot to offer fans of the show.We always have the latest and greatest info about the show and some stuff behind the scene's. We are also the only "Lost Room" resource on the net so leave our link at the bottom of the page please.

Above all we (The Collectors) do not want The Lost Room to fade to obscurity.

Chucklbunny (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"we want fans to find us and join us" - That's the definition of self-promotion. Which is inappropriate in the external links section of an encyclopedia. --Maelwys (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
What part of my above reasoning don't you understand? I'll be happy to explain them to you again... --Maelwys (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)