Talk:The Lost Room

message: April 3rd, you can pre-order now at the normal places Krawhitham 07:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Release 

message: Is the list of objects going on this page or List of objects from The Lost Room? Rokeon 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object List 

message: I'm surprised nothing in the cast section talks about Kevin Pollak, he's a pretty big time actor.
:Pollak has his own article, which the cast section links to. Pat Berry 08:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting 

message: Should a seperate article or section be created to discribe the Lost Room itself? JQF • Talk • Contribs 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lost Room (place) 

message: No reason to have two character sections.  The second one really looks sloppy right now as well.--Hatch68 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters Section

message: Was the film the Karl was watching when Joe came to return the clock the same film that Joe and Jennifer watch at the old man's house?  That'd be interesting if it was, and perhaps it'd be of greater significance if it was widely circulated in the show.  Fllmtlchcb 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 172.74.24.25 (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Film 

message: Shouldn't there be some discussion of the significance of the room(s) themselves? It seems strange that no mention of the lost room is made in the article. 71.63.10.215 06:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a section on The Room. Jerry Kindall 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's my understanding that just as the Occupant was erased from history so that his wife no longer remembered him, Room 10 was erased from history. So even the people who own/run the hotel don't remember a Room 10 ever existing. Garbled Reverie 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rooms? 

message: I think the show's writers have had a little too much seasonal series juice. In the four out of six hours of run show, I've learned very little of anything of interest, I mean everything I know now could have been told to me in about 2 minutes...tops. Blah, blah, blah order, blah, blah, blah collectors. Like it's obvious not what happened in the room but eveything else. From the moment they saw that objects return to their orginal spots after the door is colsed, it becomes extremely clear that they need to find all the objects and return them to the room. That is something a long running probably sitcom style series works, and I very much doubt that in these last two hours they're going to be able to wrap everything up with no loose ends or spin-offs. What does everyone else think? SHould their be an article of documented critizism?--65.83.195.52 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel you must, you can include a section of criticisms as long as you also include praise from critics.  As long as both are balanced, then it conforms to the NPOV code.Fllmtlchcb 23:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nay...a criticisms section only works if an exterior valid site has made criticisms...otherwise, it becomes Original Research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PHDrillSergeant (talk • contribs) 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice though that the original poster said documented criticisms. If that is what is intended then it would not be unverifiable original research. 74.38.35.171 05:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's pretty clear the miniseries is setup to be a TV series or stand alone with an open ending for whatever franchising options they want.  As for bad writing or not, that's a matter of personal opinion. 172.131.67.65 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, as the notice at the top of the page says, this talk page is not the place for your own critiques. Nor is the article, for that matter. Jerry Kindall 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a point though: should the wikipedia article mention that the script was likely written as a series rather than a miniseries? Can anyone get a source for that? It seems likely because there were too many loose ends/lack of closure and the whole thing seemed rushed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.24.17.198 (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it was written as a backdoor pilot.~  PHDrillSergeant...§ 17:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Writing 

message: All this article does is robotically go through the motions of describing the movie, not the underlying themes.  It is lacking in substance.  I introduced the idea of Nietzsche's "god is dead" philosophy and "we killed him" through Joe Miller's killing of John Doe.  That contribution was erased even though Joe Miller said "God forgive me" right before shooting John Doe.  If the aim is robotic description then fine.  I just thought the movie had a much deeper message.Timeloss 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That falls under the category of original research which is against Wikipedia guidelines. Tnomad 23:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR is a policy, not a guideline, it carries much more weight. 74.38.35.171 05:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is strange that depth and underlying themes are secondary to rote descriptions.74.227.183.143 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find an external article exploring those themes, it might be worth a mention. Jerry Kindall 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a shame that original research is banned but I wrote just one such external article and I'd love to read more, such a deep movie deserves it, hope you enjoy the analysis from MysticalMovieGuide.com, I'm noncommercial and it's not spam I assure you 65.223.239.66 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However unless the publisher you use is trusted then I don't think anyone could mention it here. 74.38.35.171 05:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no substance

message: Does anyone know the name of the actor who portrayed this character?--Eupator 00:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His name's Tim Guinee, but the only reference I can find so far to him even being in the series is his bio on the web site for the film  Sweet Land, so I'm adding his name with a .  I guess he was kept off Sci Fi's publicity materials originally because crediting him would have been a spoiler?  It's a pretty major part, so I'm assuming there will eventually be a more official source somewhere. -- Vary | Talk 17:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, That's who he is! I recognized him from SG-1. I'm sure more info will be available soon. Even IMDB doesn't list him for the Lost Room.--Eupator 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupant/Eddie McCloyster 

message: I have stated it as Eddie McCloyster, though online, I have seen multiple spellings, such as McCloister, and on this very article page McCleister.  Any of them verified? Fllmtlchcb 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupant's name 

message: I took out the part about only doors opening inwards to Room 10 as being the only usable doors.  There are two shown instances of the opposite.  The first is when the kid escapes from Joe's office.  Joe's door opens into his (Joe's) room, not into the hallway, yet the kid was able to use it.  The second time is the door for the Texas bar where Wally was.  That door also opened into the bar yet Joe came through it to get Wally.  Both doors also had the doorknob on the opposite side of Room 10's door but I'm not here to figure out the logistics of that.Veridicum 01:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the writers intended for only inward-opening doors to work; else why the weird closet in Joe's house with he inward-opening door? But that's a good catch. Jerry Kindall 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intent cannot be assumed here.  If it was just the door in the bar (which could have been missed by the production team) then yes intent may be summized.  But when a major set piece (Joe's office) has the door work against the initial belief then intent of such a restriction doesn't exist.Veridicum 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Door Usage

message: Would anyone like me to add screen captures for parts 1, 2 and 3 to the LOE at the bottom of the page? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it anyway. Anyway got a source for the "back-door pilot" thing as well? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.thefutoncritic.com/rant.aspx?id=20061211 Krawhitham 08:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screen captures 

message: "The holder of the Key can bring other people into the Room, but they must leave together, because the Room "resets" when the door is shut without the key inside"
This is not quite correct, its the assumption made by the characters in the show but at the end of the third episode when we see a reset occur from within the room, we see that the reset occurs the next time the door is opened from the outside with the key, not when it is closed.
I'll make the correction.
Mloren 15:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. —gorgan_almighty 11:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Room Reset 

message: The lost room is inspired from the novel Roadside Picnic, written by the Strugatsky brothers. Beside users comments, does anybody know if there is an official acknowledgment for that fact? Fuzzy 13:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration for "The lost room" 

message: The first sentence in the Cabals section: "Many Object-seekers---all of whom, for some reason, live in Pittsburgh---have organized themselves into groups, known as "cabals"" seems awkward and inaccurate since it suggests that all cabal members (or all Object-seekers) reside in Pittsburgh.  I tried a rephrasing, but I wasn't able to do much better, does anyone else agree that the sentence is misleading? Damian 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be somebody making a sarcastic comment about how the show revolves around one city and all the characters are in that one city, while the objects are allegedly spread across the US (or even the world). I've removed the comment as unsuitable. --Maelwys 15:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cabals 

message: In response to the comment posted to the article (since removed) regarding the number of rooms:
:(Confirmation needed, the husband of the owner of the Hotel says his wife found Room 10 key but there were only 9 rooms).
I believe the answer is that after The Event, the room ceased to exist, including all memory of it. Hence, anyone would remember there being only nine rooms. At least that was my understanding. Ronnotel 18:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nine or ten rooms? 

message: I have re-added the spoiler tag since the following headers do not make it clear that they contain spoilers: Characters, The Room, The Event, The Objects, The Cabals, Episodes
I don't think it is viable to move all spoiler material to a separate section. Does anyone have suggestions on changing the heading titles instead of including the spoiler tag?
I disagree with the removal of the spoiler tag tag on June 8 2007 by User:David Gerard. See the example on the Wikipedia:Spoiler#Are_spoilers_implied_by_the_section_title.3F:Spoiler page that starts with "If a plot detail that arises in an unexpected place — a "Cast of characters" or "Setting" section ..."
64.93.163.34 05:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried renaming sections that were ambiguously named.  A spoiler tag is no substitute for clearly labeled sections. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Tag 

message: In one episode (I'm not sure which one, one of the first three), Joe referres to the motel as being "out on route nine", while the introdution to the article claims that it's on Route 66. While this is an understandable assumption as the motel is the sort of Route 66 roadside motel that appears so often in American cinema, is there actually any evidence to support this claim?
-- Levi Aho 69.87.200.4 (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of the Sunshine Motel 

message: So the DVD is laid out in an interesting way.  While the episodes are only one half of each of the miniseries episodes they're programmed to play continually even if you just start to watch one.  (e.g. at the end of episode one, episode two will start to play, and even at the end of episode two episode three will start to play.)  So I think this qualifies as original research, since I found this out.  Should this be integrated into the article somehow? I think it is relevant since we break out the different episode structure in the article.. —Cliffb (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its worth mentioning in the article. Since you'll be referring to the DVD itself as a primary source I don't think it quite qualifies as original resource... so I wouldn't worry about that. Geeman (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Episode formatting 

message: I have redirected the articles The Eye and the Prime Object, The Key and the Clock and The Comb and the Box here without merging. They violated WP:NOT#PLOT badly (they had 15-20 paragraphs when 3-4 paragraphs are the norm), didn't establish anykind of real-world WP:NOTABILITY (production and reception), and I've yet to see a TV miniseries where the plot can't as well be covered in the main article in the first place (i.e. here). No merger because it is easier to come up with three new sentences for each episode in the episode list anyway than to trim 20 paragraphs. I'll take the articles to WP:AFD if their redirected state is undone. – sgeureka t•c 12:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, this is as bad as the original, but in the opposite direction. So someone fix it. I would, but i do not know the series. DGG (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode articles redirected 

message: Does anyone have an official source for the naming of episode three during airing? "The Eye and The Prime Object" or "The Eye and The Occupant", the last one I think is because of the renaming of the episodes on the DVD.Xeworlebi (t•c) 09:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have changed the name back in the episode list. Xeworlebi (t•c) 13:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Episode 3 

message: What is written below the heading "plot" does no really tell the plot. It does explain some important details about the story, but the story itself is not described at all. This needs some rewriting or addition. -- Lieven (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Lost Room. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718100457/http://www.red5comics.com/?p=780 to http://www.red5comics.com/?p=780
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308001546/http://www.red5comics.com/?p=890 to http://www.red5comics.com/?p=890
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618010319/http://www.red5comics.com/?p=982 to http://www.red5comics.com/?p=982
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified