Talk:Richard Alpert (Lost)

Creation

Ok, not knocking anyone's efforts, but is this page really necessary? And also the way it's been laid out doesn't match the other character pages....fixing or moving, perhaps?--Animé Dan 08:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

it's temporary; i created the page and i plan on fixing it but i didn't have the time last night. after season 3, richard was one of few others remaining and there's clearly a lot to be told with his character (ie his aging in "the man behind the curtain") so just give me a day.. thanks Jwebby91 11:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, according to E! he is going to be season regular next year, so keep the page.

Can you provide a source for this? Also, please sign your posts. This needs to be discussed before Richard's info is moved from Characters of Lost. Tphi 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on consensus at Talk:Others (Lost)#Poll: Richard and Mikhail's pages, I wrote this article. --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ack, you beat me to it.  ;) –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too! I'll add the info I've got. Sanders11 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Richard Alpert hardly deserves his own page yet, due to him still being a minor character. If he has one, then someone like Danny Pickett should get there own one as well, which would be a bad idea. I suggest it be merged to the Characters of Lost page (where all Others members have been put recently), as he still not a main character and has only appeared in 7 episodes so far. As far as we know, he could very well be killed off at the start of season 4. -- SilvaStorm

• He has been asked to become a season regular next year, so it's doubtful that he'll be killed off early next season. Plus he is a very important Other, not like Pickett who is just a worthless thug and did almost nothing for the story. He seems to be second (or third) in command next to Ben, and he seems to be responsible for Juliet, Ethan, and Ben joining the Others.

See above. This has already been discussed. If he is killed off at the start of season 4, then it can be assumed that everyone will agree with you that he should be merged into Characters of Lost. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because he has been asked to be a regular doesn't mean he will be. Obviously he should accept, but we should wait and see. Until then, I think this information would be fine on the Characters of Lost page. -- SilvaStorm

Okay, I merged the article into Characters of Lost because he is a regualar on a new show, CBS's president said he can't be on Lost and Lindelof and Cuse are unsure if they can find a way for him to come back. The point is that we will not see him for a while. When word comes that he will return (and will not be killed off in the same episode), we will restore this article. --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Locke and science

"Locke learned that Alpert was trying to recruit him for a special summer camp, but declined the offer because he disliked science." I seem to recall it was because he disliked appearing to be a nerd, I think that the current wording is incorrect, or at least original research Jamhaw (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)jamhaw

Locke specifically says he does not enjoy science and instead enjoys the outdoors:

"JOHN: I'm not a scientist! I like boxing and fishing and cars. I like sports!"[1]

ShadowUltra (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Episode references would be nice. When doesal this stuff happen? In what episode? At what point?

Mittelos Bioscience

Should a reference be included that "Mittelos" is another anagram like "Ethan Rom": for Lost Time? --Erikacornia (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow the Leader = Richard-centric

Please do not remove this just because Richard does not technically have any flashbacks. Jin and Sun, for instance, have no flashbacks in This Place Is Death, and yet it's considered a centric episode for them. This is a Richard-centric episode for the following reasons:

• A. He is the only character in both timelines
• B. Both stories are told primarily through his point of view
• C. There is a large amount of character development the likes of which we haven't before seen for this character
• D. The title refers to him, as he is the "advisor" for the leader and therefore has always "followed the leader"

And, if you want to get technical, why couldn't the 1977 scenes count as flashbacks for him? Pkmntrainerred (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that supports calling "Follow the Leader" a Richard-centric episode, then we'll talk. All of the other "ambiguous" episodes have been confirmed by the producers to be centric to those characters. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 20:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So Richard is in both timelines? He's old, it's expected. Both stories aren't told from his point of view. Everything at Dharma, the scenes in Eloise's tent, etc., Richard is a character in the events, not the focus. There's character development for several others, so that doesn't work. The title is never said to refer to him, that's your own interpretation. This is not a Richard-centric episode, just a regular one. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, once and for all: Lostpedia were the ones who invented the "centric" designation in the first place, and they've just decided that Follow the Leader is Richard-centric. Let's please be consistent on this issue, as it's not like we'll ever come to a consensus on here. Pkmntrainerred (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the "centricities" were created by Damon Lindelof, et al. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the producers do not call it a Richard-centric episode, so neither should we. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 23:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, plus Wikipedia Lost episode pages listed Flashback characters before Lostpedia even existed. Moreover, why must we be "consistent" with a fansite? Wikipedia is more reliable- consensus here does not have to depend on what Lostpedia does. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed as well. The podcast concerning the episode from Lindelof & Cuse did not call it a Richard-centric. Tphi (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, you guys: The 1977 scenes, I can say with almost absolute certainty, were Richard's flashbacks. These are different from the time switching we have seen in the rest of the season because of the transitions between them: In almost every instance, there is a closeup on Richard's face, the "whoosh" sound, and another closeup on Richard's face in another time. That "whoosh" sound is the biggest indicator: that noise is used for flashbacks. Therefore, these are Richard's flashbacks, indicating that the episode is Richard-centric. Gefred7112 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's the source that the noise is used for flashbacks or flashforwards? I may have missed that one. And you saying with almost absolute certainty is not really good enough, the producers did not state it was about him. Close-up of his face and such isn't good enough reason to say "oh there's a close-up, it must be him". --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that the noise is only used for flashbacks (with the exception of transitions in This Place Is Death between Sun and Jin, which is part of the reason that one is considered their episode) is good enough proof. I don't understand why you're asking for a source when it's, you know, obvious. 66.142.171.238 (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do remember I believe it was in the season 4 clip show that led up to the finale, that the "WOOSH" sound signified flash backs and stated inequivicably that is why in the season 4 episode THE CONSTANT that what Desmond was doing was NOT a flashback, that he was traveling in time. I think it was Damon Lindlehoff or Carlton Cuse that said that. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say NO, it is not a Richard-centric episode. Its not that Richard was in a flashback, it is that the episode did not "revolve" around Richard more or less. Sorry dude, I feel where you are coming from, I know what it is like to see/want something done in a certain way and not have others see it that way as well though. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That logic is pretty flawed. I think that what may or may not "revolve" around a certain character is too open to debate for us to go by that. There needs to be a more concrete way to tell. For instance, one could argue that "Jughead" doesn't "revolve" around Desmond, yet there is little debate of its centricity. Gefred7112 (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that Jughead is not 'revolve' around Desmond, but apparently the show creators do consider it a Desmond centric episode. I don't know what else to say. There are episodes IMHO that are not centric to anyone, that are simply the show going on, advancing major plot and stories at the expense of individual characters and that is what I consider this episode you are referign about to be. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

They confirmed at Comic-Con's LOST panel today that Richard is getting his Centric episode in season 6. That was from Carlton Cuse I believe that said that, so that more or less slam dunks that FOLLOW THE LEADEr was NOT a Richard centric episode. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard telling Hurley not to listen to Jacob

Is it clear that the reason Richard said not to listen to Jacob is because he thought it was MIB? Richard might well know Hurley can talk to dead people. I suspected maybe he thought that, but it could also have been because he thought Jacob was wrong and had nothing to say, given that he died. What Richard goes on to say and do makes this all the more likely. This is at least a debatable claim and shouldn't be in the article unless it's counterbalanced with the alternative explanation. Parableman (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Richard seems to have resentment towards Jacob, feeling that his entire time on the island was just a lie, and is trying to protect Hurley from the same fate (which is why he goes on to try to kill himself a few minutes later). At no point is MIB referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.74.19.43 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ricardo Alpert

I've reverted two different users stating his name is "Ricardo Alpert." We know he was originally Ricardo and later became Richard Alpert, but we have no proof (as far as I am aware) that he was ever known as "Ricardo Alpert." Since the character is originally Spanish (from the Canary Islands), he would likely have a Spanish surname, but this isn't the place to discuss, just note that his *original* surname has not been revealed (and there's no proof it was Alpert -- only associated with his later adopted name).

I just want to make sure there's no writer's comment, deleted scene, spoiler or something which establishes him as "Ricardo Alpert" (because Ab Aeterno sure doesn't).--Tim Thomason 05:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Thomason this really isn't the place to diss the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.138.93 (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Could it be his name is refered to Nicolas Appert, "father of canning"? Food inside cans do last for years, having some vague similarity to what happens to his young condition. Nosoccomtothom (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for any disrespect, but according to the only source I know, "Ricardo" was his original name and we later learn of the name "Richard Alpert." "Ricardo "Richard" Alpert" was never his name on the show and should be removed, replaced with "Ricardo, later Richard Alpert" or "Richard Alpert, born Ricardo" or whatever as long as it doesn't contradict with what we know, like this does. (I can't remove it now, per 3 revert rule).--Tim Thomason 08:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My Apologies...

I did not know until very recently, and upon seeing again one of my child-hood favorite Sci-Fi movies, the 1965 film "She" staring Ursala Andres that Haggards novel was so revolutionary in helping to create the "lost worlds", and "sword and sorscery" sub-genres (along with Jules Verne") what influence he had in literature. I never read Haggard's work. Had I done so, needless to say, I would have had a much deeper undertanding of the theoronics of science-fiction\fantasy; not only the allegory to the questioning of the permeance of then-mordern (imperial?) civilization, but also with the TV series "Lost" there are even recognizable elements of "She" in the series. Of course I mean the character of Richard Alpert fits perfectly the profile of Aeysha: A haunted soul who voluntarily allowed himself to become immortal, partly over his guilt of losing his loving wife (an eternal love, lost); and the conditions that he later, with the same resolutelness reliquishes this dubious "grace" of immortality with forgiveness. I do swear, these British fiction classics were more rooted in geo-politics and pyscholgy and than anything else! Veryverser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.101.6 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)