Talk:The Beginning of the End (Lost)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beginning of the End (Lost) article.
Article policies
Featured article star The Beginning of the End (Lost) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 18, 2007.
March 3, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles relating to the 2004–2010 ABC television series Lost. Information on future episodes needs to follow the policy regarding sources.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within Lost.


Contents

[edit] Jacob

I was watching my Season III DVD (Best Christmas gift ever!). In the episode with Jacob - the volcanic ash (or whatever it is) surrounding his shack could be to keep Jacob in. I don't know why I was assuming it was to keep people out but in re-watching it he is asking for help. What if Jacob represents "Good" and Ben represents "Evil". Does Jacob need help because Ben has him trapped in the circle? Ben was so agitated that Locke could hear Jacob he shot him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.198.197 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Do note that, when Hurley stumbled upon the cabin, he too could see the figure (Jacob) in the rocking chair. --Vi Veri Vici (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Look again. That was Christian Shepherd. Maybe in the form of some manifestation of Jacob, but the figure was definitely Christian, and definitely different from the image of Jacob seen previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.42.134 (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This really is not the place for this discussion. For thing this isn't even the page for the episode you are referring to which can be found at The Man Behind the Curtain. Furthermore, these talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the articles; they are not a forum for discussing possible answers to the plots of TV shows. —bse3 (talk • contribs • count • logs) 20:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please remove the "Christian Shepherd in a rocking chair" reference in the text. It is just someones opinion. All you can really see is a shadow. 79.103.144.171 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not an opinion. If you freezeframe and brighten it, you will see.[1] Additionally, John Terry is listed in the credits, but appears nowhere else in the episode. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abbadon

The supposed attorney's name is Abbadon. Do any of you think it is worthwhile mentioning that the hebrew word in fact means 'destruction' and in some contexts 'hell'? Or am I just looking for things that are not there? Chelman (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

It seems to me that the reception section of this article is biased towards stating only the positive reviews. As per Wikipedia's policy, some of the negative reviews should also be listed for a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da rulz07 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two reasons why this section may appear to not be neutral. First of all, I have not finished writing it (expect it to be done by Thursday). Secondly, the episode has been universally acclaimed. I am not picking through what critics said; I have recorded all reviews that I have found thus far. If you can fins a negative review from someone who gets paid to write (i.e. not fan blog), please tell me about it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments

Just looked over the article - after seeing the episode last week (a week after the US) and my computer having been down the last two weeks - with a few comments, considering that in the future this may be nommed for good or featured status by thedemonhog (or maybe someone else!). Anyway.

  • In Reception, it's mentioned that "The San Francisco Chronicle "loved" the episode" and later "E! also loved "The Beginning of the End"". How subjective is the word love, and does it need to be quoted?
  • Does "the original 62-minute television broadcast" refer to the one-hour timeslot it took up? If so, the fact it was 2 minutes over the hour seems a little trivial and not worth mentioning.
  • I see above the neutrality of the article seems to have been contested. I don't believe the article is unneutral but I think it is leaning a little on the biased side - if that makes sense. True, I haven't personally come across a bad review either but to me the Reception section just appears to be listing off positive reviews after extracting the good comments out of them. The response has been entirely positive, sure, but if it's already mentioned is it really necessary to have two paragraphs wholly consisting of reviewers' comments? I just counted 15 different publications quoted, which seems far too much to support just one side of the argument. If one paragraph entailed positive reviews and another negative, that would be fine (IMO), but if it's already mentioned that nothing bad has been said, it just isn't necessary to list off so many good reviews.
    • I already [neutralised?] the statements "most - if not all - media attention was positive", which to me seemed like vague/uncited bias, and the statement that the episode was "only the 15th most watched show of the night" in Australia (as if we were expecting more viewers! - Lost is a bit dead over here).

So that's my two cents (I saved a few Australian 2-cent coins from back in the day - sorry, terrible humour) if it's worth anything. Overall it is a well-written article, a pat on the back to everyone who's given up their Friday nights for a good cause. ;) •97198 talk 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and what is reference #1 actually supporting? It's a photo of Claire but it's stuck after the opening sentence. •97198 talk 07:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Glad to have you back. I was wondering where you were. Both mentions of love, the Claire photo link and the 62-minute mention. The reception section is split into two paragraphs. The first features reviews from newspaper critics and the second has reviews from online publications. How did I decide which reviews to put in the first paragraph? I went to the list of 100 most read American newspapers in 2007. I started at #1 (USA Today) and went to #15 (The Star-Ledger). A few nespapers did not comment on the episode so they are not mentioned. I also happened to have Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Associated Press reviews handy so I added them to the article, as well. I was actually going to keep going down the list and add reviews, but instead, I will go down the list (starting at #16) and search for a negative comment. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Good to be back! And yeah, I get the Reception bit now. A good idea to sift through to most-read papers first! And don't kill yourself looking for some bad words - I suppose if everyone liked it then everyone liked it! •97198 talk 03:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writing on Charlie's hand

I just noticed that in the scene where Hurley sits in the interrogation room and Charlie appears in the water, he's got "they need you" written on his hand. It's not really mentioned in the text until the next scenes so I thought someone could include it. A reference to this is included in Wikipedia articles on Charlie and Hugo, so I thought this would be a good place to put it as well. Karafior (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You could have added this yourself because anyone can edit the encyclopedia, but I have added it to the production section. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)