Jump to content

Talk:A Tale of Two Cities (Lost)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleA Tale of Two Cities (Lost) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 1, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Kate Flashback

[edit]

I was wondering if there was any hard evidence this was a Kate flashback. I have seen many things rumoured about Kate being the flashback character however I have not seen anything conclusive - is there anything conclusive?

There is no hard evidence but this seemingly looks unofficially correct. Mtowers 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you two talking about? KatzztaK 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Cuse?

[edit]

Why is Carlton Cuse listed as being a writer? I thought only Damon and J.J. were doing this. --203.97.111.234

Guest stars

[edit]

Have Rose, Bernard, Michael and Walt been confirmed as appearing? And whilst Christian, Sarah and Tom have been seen in promos, don't we have to wait for the press release? Squidward2602 20:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC) The Press Release has come out and Rose and Bernard are not listed. I'll add the info in a second. ShadowUltra 20:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Stars Added

[edit]

I've added the guest stars for this episode as they appear on the ABC press release. For some reason the press release still lists M.C. Gainey's character as Mr. Friendly, so I added this as M.C. Gainey (Tom/Mr. Friendly). ShadowUltra 20:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The summary does not make clear that "Ben" and "Henry Gale" are the same person. Aw, hell, i'll fix it myself.

Formatting

[edit]

Previous episodes have seperated the 'current' and 'flashback' storylines into two halves, to make the description flow better. Any reason why this was changed for this episode? The Others' bit can be included in the 'current' events (since, although a flashback, it was a prelude to the rest of the 'current' storyline), but Jack's should be moved into its own section as per the previous 40-odd episodes. Cheers--Werthead 12:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen (and I read all the episode pages in preparation for the Season 3 premier yesterday) only 1 page has the plot split out between current and flashback. I think it reads better this way, as it unfolds the same way the episode actually does Pnkrockr 13:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I started entering plot points I remembered from the original airing so some of my entries were a bit out of order. This episode really had 5 different plot arcs (with the flashback) and a lot more quick cuts then other episodes. Many of the scenes are less then 1min in length. It just started to become confusing to read. Although if you prefer the other format it'll only take a bit of cut and paste work. -- N1ck0 05:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saywer's Pellets?

[edit]

The pellets that came out after the DHARMA Fish Biscuit apppeared to maybe be soybeans? --Frenkmelk 15:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think they were soybeans. They looked like standard dog food pellets or, more appropriately, monkey chow. -- MacAddct1984  22:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sawyer's Scene

[edit]

While Sawyer works on figuring out the proper technique, Karl picks the lock on his own cage, frees Sawyer, and advises him to run. Sawyer attempts to escape, but is re-caught by Juliet, re-caged, and a bloodied Karl is later brought back and forced to apologize to Sawyer.

Why it jumped to this? there's a whole scene in the middle with Jack, the chain, Juliet and his flashback...

Would anyone be kind enough to revise it? -- Omernos 21:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it eventually if someone doesn't beat me to it. -- N1ck0 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet's CD of "Downtown"

[edit]

Did anyone else note the jewel case and liner notes of the CD that Juliet played at the beginning of the episode? The song was clearly the original "Downtown" by Petula Clark (charted 1964-65). However, the liner notes' colors and pattern looked very familiar to me as the album, "Speaking In Tongues" by The Talking Heads, released in June, 1983. I downloaded the episode and single-stepped through the frames and can confirm that the spine of the CD case clearly reads "Talking Heads Speaking In Tongues".

The disc itself has no artwork on it, but on a paused frame, I can read the CD's ID# as "JN 94743 A" (A means side A). A Google search reveals the ID# to correspond the the CD "Okemah And The Melody Of Riot" by Son Volt, issued in July, 2005. Interestingly, this CD is a dual-sided disc, which accounts for the lack of artwork on the A-side shown (which is really the B-side, since the "down" side is what is played).

What is the significance of all of this? Who knows? Probably, this is just sloppiness of the part of the director due to convenience; presumably, nobody had an actual Petula Clark CD with "Downtown" on it. The use of a double-sided CD/DVD makes it difficult to identify the disc in real time, but with downloadable shows, everything is subject to scrutiny.

Although I sincerely doubt it, but I can't fully exclude the possibility that there is some deeper meaning to the CD case and its contents. Perhaps some hint to the dating of items available to "The Others"?

I didn't have to pause the show to see that that jewel case is from "Speaking in Tongues", and I was really confused when the song played on the CD player was not from that album. Point is sort of moot, though. We'll get into an "Original Research" revert war (as one editor has already termed this as OR). Or, we'll get into a "insignificant detail" revert war, as set of guidelines were debated that restrict trivia if it is deemed insignificant. There was an extensive debate along these same lines over if the computer in the hatch was an Apple II (coincidentally, the first episode of last season). Personally, I don't understand why one can identify a song (and an artist) in the body of the article, and that's significant, but one can't identify the CD case visually and identify it. But I won't go through this again and argue the significance. In fact, it is simply significant enough that there is a CD player to begin with. The Others have a CD player? We must realize long before Juliet demonstrates knowledge about Jack that the Others clearly have more recent contact with the world outside the island than we've seen previously in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bldxyz (talk • contribs) 13:28, October 6, 2006 (UTC) (Ooops. Forgot to sign, didn't I? Bldxyz 22:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps after the scene was filmed the producers couldn't get approval for use of a Talking Heads song or couldn't pay the license fee. That seems most likely to me. 69.231.194.152 05:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's not worth adding to the Wikipedia article. As mentioned above, the CD case was probably a convenient prop. The important part was simply that they *have* CDs. Something worth considering though, was what year that Petula Clark's song came out on CD, what year that the Carrie book was published (was that congruent with CD technology?), and what year that the plot in the Carrie novel was representing, since that may tie in to the polar bear / comic book possibility (meaning, does someone read something, and then things that they read about happen). Or in other words, did one of the Others (Juliet was obviously in a highly emotional state) cause the plane crash with Carrie-esque powers? ;) As for Juliet's knowledge of the outside world, I'm not so sure about that one. Though the implication was that some of the documents may have been modern, in reality, all of the information that she had about Jack, could have been obtained from documents that were already aboard the plane (especially the autopsy report, which probably would have been required documentation to transport a corpse). --Elonka 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point about the docs: I am highly suspcious that the file Juliet had was just part of a larger bit of manipulation designed to break Jack, and that's a plausible explanation, but clearly speculation and hence appropriate only for this talk page... fun! Bldxyz 22:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have always thought that the general consensu is that Desmond accidentally caused the plane crash when he didn't punch in the numbers in time. -92.227.79.1 (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King Novel

[edit]
The much debated and unidentified Stephen King novel

I am 99.9% sure that the book they're reading is Carrie, mainly due to the fact that all of the dark tower books and the stand are far too thick! Carrie is aroudn 250 pages I believe, maybe less, while the Dark Towers are all over 400 or so, and the Stand is 1140 pages long if I remember correctly. With these long lengths, I should think it's obvious that the book she was holding was far too thin, unless I'm missing something huge. Tigger89 04:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that totally violates WP:NOR (even though I suspect you're right). I've removed the book "speculation". Alphachimp 04:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I showed this wiki page to a friend and she showed me a page on the fuselage, here, that shows a different shot of the book being compared to a cover of carrie, and they match. Would this count as original research, or confirm that the book is indeed carrie? Tigger89 14:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The book is definitely Carrie. IMHO, that image is verification. You can clearly read the title in the upper still. Can't we just cite that image? Alienmercy 17:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back in with a citation reference at the bottom, but I'm not sure I did it correctly. Maybe somebody with more experience with citation of odd sources could check that for me and make sure it's up to wiki standards. Thanks! Tigger89 17:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Patient

[edit]

In the flashback when Jack is treating a patient, about 30 minutes in, is that Anthony Cooper, Locke's father? It looks a lot like him and the nurse comments as to whether or not he is ready to self-administer his pain meds, i.e. check out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.79.93 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 October 2006.

Not to be a wet blanket, but these discussion pages are here to discuss the article, not for speculation about the episode. This kind of speculation is best served by one of the fine Lost fansites, such as Lost-media. -- PKtm 22:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fish

[edit]

Err.. the scene were sawyer gets the fish is extremely similar to Arthur Dent retrieveing the Babel Fish in the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy. That he ends up getting a fish is surely ackowledgement of this? no? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Flight 815.jpg

[edit]

Image:Flight 815.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lost-FishBiscuit.jpg

[edit]

Image:Lost-FishBiscuit.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Others village.jpg

[edit]

Image:Others village.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:A Tale of Two Cities (Lost)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. I'll give it a couple of read through now and add notes below as I go. If I see anything straight forward, I'll do it myself but if I inadvertently change something important than by all means reverse as normal. Miyagawa (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Casting: Final line of the paragraph - would it be fair to add to the end of the sentence something like "after each of their characters were written out at the end of the previous season."?
  • References: Can you check the date formats on the citations - I think it's just #26 which uses a different format and needs to be corrected.

An extremely well written article, only had to make a few minor adjustments with just the one case of overlinking. The Production section in particular is very interesting. Happy to grade to GA once those minor points above are addressed.

Good job! Miyagawa (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both. Thanks for the review! Much appreciated, Ruby2010 comment! 21:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the updates, I believe this now meets the GA criteria and I'm happy to regrade it as such. Miyagawa (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Tale of Two Cities (Lost). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on A Tale of Two Cities (Lost). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on A Tale of Two Cities (Lost). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Tale_of_Two_Cities_(Lost)&oldid=1197191222"