Talk:Lost season 2/Archive 2

message: This archive page covers approximately the dates between 27 November 2005 and 19 December 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.  — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 21:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: There is no evidence that Shannon was shot by Ana-Lucia, or even shot at all.  The creators have left it so that it looks that way for now.  However, much speculation is that Shannon was stabbed and Ana-Lucia shot the attacker.  Until later episodes, when the truth comes out, I am editing the article so that it says something less definite. The speculation is possible, but Ana-Lucia, along with Michael, had a very shocked, suprised look on their faces at seeing Sayid and Shannon.
:There's speculation about virtually every event on the show, but is there actually credible evidence that Shannon wasn't shot by Ana-Lucia? If you look around message boards, you'll find all sorts of wild theories like the plane didn't really crash, but we don't state that the plane "allegedly crashed" or such. Carbonite | Talk 17:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that she just shot a woman that leapt out of the jungle, who is not exhibiting superhuman strength like she expected, followed by a man who proceeds to cry over the dying woman, I don't think it's mysterious that Ana-Lucia has a "very shocked, surprised look" on her face. Same with Michael, except he recognizes them both. I don't think a supposed third party stabbing Shannon with Occam's razor is a valid reason for making our description completely noncommital. Phoenix-forgotten 21:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't think Occam's Razor is applicable to a work of fiction; especially one as convulated as Lost. I wouldn't be surprised either way; if Ana-Lucia did shoot her or if something entirely different happened. --86.135.179.53 16:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually I rewatched that part of the episode after seeing that edit. And I have to admit that although it's 80% probably that Ana shot Shannon, it's not 100%. We are effectively being presented with Sayid's POV. Maybe Walt did it? :P Megapixie 23:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Based on what we actually see in the episode, it's equally plausible that Shannon runs after Walt, is stabbed by an "Other" (perhaps Cindy with one of the tail section weapons), Ana-Lucia sees the attack and fires a shot at the attacker. We then have Shannon turning back to Sayid with blood running down her front and Ana-Lucia holding a smoking gun. Until the next episode, we won't know for sure. Rillian 00:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ana-Lucia Shooting Shannon

message: Where did the information under the Collision episode come from?  Did it come from ABC?  Because I know not all of that could be inferred from the episode preview, especially the bit about Sayid kidnapping Ana Lucia. Tigger89 03:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the info until after the episode airs. I have no idea what the source of the description was, especially the part about Ana Lucia's connection to Dharma. Carbonite | Talk 03:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, judging from the previews shown after the previous episode, it would appear that SAYID is taken hostage, not Ana-Lucia.  The only thing we know for sure about next week's episode is that the tail section survivors meet the front-section survivors, and Ana-Lucia is paranoid about Sayid coming after her to avenge Shannon. JurgenHadley 03:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Collision Info?

message: There was no "flashback" in this episode.  The only argument that there was a flashback would be because the other episodes had reached a certain point in time, and this covered a time period already covered in previous episodes.  However, if you were to use that argument, you would have to count Locke and Kate's entire plotline in "Adrift" as a "Flashback" because it ends at the same point as "Man of Science, Man of Faith".  --DDG 18:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, people keep modifying the article without discussing stuff on the talk page, when there is clearly a lot to discuss. First of all, someone re-added the tail-enders as the "flashback" for the other 48 hours, without responding to my concern here.  Secondly, the same user added future speculative information with the tag "*Indicates speculative information, and/or unconfirmed or unofficial source".  Let me make something clear to the newer users of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia specifically should NOT include "speculative" or "unconfirmed" information.  Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Verifiability.  --DDG 22:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, the storytelling certainly is different.  Among other things, there are no flashbacks. --DDG 19:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Other 48 Days 

message: It says that Jin only has new scenes. But, Michael has a new line "What the hell was that?" after Shannon gets shot.- JustPhil 02:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an old scene with new footage.  Maybe this should be clarified? Jtrost 18:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New scenes

message: It is implicit from ther excerpt below that the episode is on Kate.
--
Q: On Nov. 30 we'll finally learn what Kate's precrash crime was that landed her in so much hot water. Any other big flashback revelations this season?
Damon: In the next string of episodes, one of the really compelling backstory elements is what happened to Jack's marriage. We think Julie Bowen is amazing and she and Matthew Fox are so great in scenes together, and I think the audience is really curious as to what went wrong there. 
Carlton: And you should pay attention to Mr. Eko's stick.
--
http://www.tvguide.com/news/askausiello/
--
I've been lurking here a little while and am struck by the way people fail to grasp what "speculation" means. If an interviewer from TV Guide states "implicitly" that an episode will contain flashbacks about Kate, then it's still speculation. It should only be considered "confirmed" after the episode is shown -- or if one of the producers (or an official press release) says "The Nov. 30 episode contains a flashback about Kate and the crime she committed." Mind you, if some sucker were willing to bet me that the flashback would not be about Kate, I'd take the bet and almost certainly win. But that doesn't mean it isn't speculation. --Clampton 20:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Kate Did 

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

message: There is an item in the trivia section for "Collision" as follows: "Ana-Lucia's mother mentions that Jason McCormick was arrested at Echo Park, linking it to the hatch."  What does Echo Park have to do with the hatch?  Could someone flesh this out a bit? Ahkond 02:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. I was just about the ask the same question. --220.238.84.131 05:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

message: The summary for "Orientation" refers to Helen as a member of Locke's support group.  I thought that she was its leader, and a therapist or counselor of some kind (which would make her relationship with Locke ethically dubious).  Can someone with a copy of the episode check to be sure?  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: —LeFlyman 17:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.  (I had thought that the "get over it, freaks" line was Helen dropping her professional persona, but I'm sure you're right.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helen in "Orientation" 

message: In the summary for 'Man of Science, Man of Faith', it seems to be missing the dialog between desmond and locke.  At first, Desmond thought Locke was someone he was expecting (a replacement?), but then latter asked him a riddle (I think it was "What does the snowman say to the other snowman?").  I could be wrong, but I think this is important to the plot and will be elaborated in future episodes if Desmond comes back or if the person Desmond was expecting actually shows up.
*And at that time, the specific riddle can be noted. Until then you are speculating that this conversation will have an impact, and having specific lines like that before they're proven important is not only crufty, but violates rules on speculation. And by the way, that was in the episode "Adrift", not "Man of Science, Man of Faith,"  and that section has a generalized statement about their meeting which is more than sufficient.Baryonyx 17:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man of Science, Man of Faith 

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

message: Someone edited the man of science man of faith section yesterday and changed all of the instances of hatch to Hatch(well, they missed one, but they tried to change them all).  When I checked, the rest of the article seems to use both hatch and Hatch.  So, is it capital Hatch or just hatch? Tigger89 13:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that it's hatch because it isn't a proper noun.  Sure, it's a place that we often see, but so are the beach and caves, but we dont capitalize those words. Jtrost 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It should be hatch, as Jtrost has noted. Moreover, it shouldn't even be called a hatch in later episodes, since the object that can be very specifically called a hatch was blown off. Other episodes should be referring to this location as a bunker, again in lowercase. Baryonyx 17:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: * In an instance of fan coinage seeping into the dialogue, I seem to recall some of the characters referring to the "Station Three" bunker as "The Hatch" -- in which case, it could be capitalised (as a specific "place.") however, I'm still of the opinion that usage of "the hatch" is a misnomer, since the hatch itself was the portal doorway on the surface (and not the only entrance, at that!) It makes as much sense to call the station "the door." On a non-sequitur, I don't recall that we've had a good look at the other entrance to the facility. Is it left open all the time now? Is there a doorbell or a special secret knock so that the occupants let you in? Does it also say "Quarantine" on the inside as a reminder? And how did they get all that big stuff in there, underground, through those small openings? Ok, I'm being silly, but the point is, referring to "the hatch" (as Baryonyx points out above) doesn't make sense anymore. —LeFlyman 18:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *ABC's episode summaries call it the Hatch.  I think if we're looking for an official usage of the location, that would be it. Jtrost 19:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd say that the "the Hatch" usage is a typo, since in the two other instances of the word on that very summary, it is typed with the lowercase. So, that instance by no means makes it official. In fact, if you look at (for example), the summary for Exodus Part 2, the word hatch is used 11 times lowercase and only once capitalized. In this instance, grammatically correct usage should take priority, especially if it is treated variably by ABC itself.  Baryonyx 20:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatch or hatch?