Jump to content

Talk:The Constant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Constant 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.
Good topic starThe Constant is part of the Lost (season 4) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 1, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
May 15, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
December 21, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 4, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that writers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse were careful not to create a paradox in the plot of "The Constant", a fourth season episode of Lost that features time travel?
Current status: Good article

Hanso, Widmore and the Black Rock

[edit]

While it's not strictly relevant to the episode's main plot, shouldn't some mention be made of the fact that Mr. Widmore was bidding for the ledger of the captain of the Black Rock, which apparently set sail and was lost in 1854? And also the fact that the previous owner of the book was the man behind the Hanso Foundation, which in turn was behind the Dharma Initiative...this is the first hint we've had that there's a connection between the Black Rock, the Hanso Foundation and the Widmores...does that not warrant inclusion in the episode summary? Jjmbarton (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While not directly relevant to the episode's plot, it does have overall series relevance. It would be appropriate in a section titled 'Story Connections' or some such. Radagast (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What day is it again?

[edit]

Any thoughts on how to sort out on what day the 2004 sequences in this episode take place? The "Eggtown" article says that episode is set on December 25, and from the dialogue "The Constant" would pick up on the morning of the 26th, at least from the perspective of those still on the island. Sayyid observes that it seems to be earlier in the day when they arrive on the freighter than it was when they left the island in "The Economist" (late afternoon December 24th), and it's still Christmas Eve on the ship, so they apparently arrived sometime before they left, then spoke to the people on the island where it was 30-or-40-some-odd hours in the future. (I wonder when Regina's conversation with Charlotte in "Eggtown" took place from Regina's perspective?) I'm at a loss as to how to simplify this enough to include it in the article. Augustus Chip (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either Gregg Nations messed up, nobody has been marking off days since Minkowski got sick, or there is a time flux. This will probably be addressed in next week's podcast. In the meantime, I say we follow Lostpedia's timeline, which goes with the time flux. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure whatever it is it was on purpose. I'd been working under the assumption that it actually is December 24th on the boat and they were making telephone calls through a time warp; it never occured to me that it might be the 26th both on the ship and on the island and Sayid just assumes that it is still Christmas Eve because it was when he left and Minkowski got sick and didn't mark the calendar since then. That's a really interesting possibility. After "Through the Looking Glass" I certainly wouldn't put it past the writers to trick us like that! Penny would most likely still have her decorations up on the 26th, so that works; hmmm... In any event, I guess there's probably no need to get specific about dates in the article until we have more information. Augustus Chip (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is Dec 24th, both on the island and on the boat. The article on Eggtown and the Lostpedia timeline are both wrong. The "enhanced" episode of Eggtown has a pop-up that says that it is taking place on Day 93, Dec 23rd.68.39.157.13 (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. How about that. I wonder how and where the Lostpedia gang went astray. Augustus Chip (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, over the seasons, a fair amount of speculation accumulates as to how many days are passing in each episode. To be off by 2 days in 95 doesn't seem too bad. 68.39.157.13 (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Popular Mechanics has an article, Are Lost's New Time-Travel Physics Junk Science?, about the time travel in this episode. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wrote a few sentences and quotes into the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congragulations

[edit]

I hereby pass this article as a "good article," for its well-written format, its production and reception sections, and excellent plot summary Kudos to thedemonhog for nominating. Happy editing, Wikipdians! THE KC (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Time paradox?

[edit]

The header of this article states that the writers were careful not to include a time paradox. Am I crazy, or didn't Back to the Future, Terminator, and 12 Monkeys teach us that there is no time travel without some form of paradox? There is always a causality loop... why? Actual time travel is impossible. In this case the loop is any of the impacts on the future which happened in the past, which wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the future. i.e. Penny knowing Desmond would call, Farraday having the note to himself in his journal about Desmond as a constant. These are causality loops. Unless a physicist can explain otherwise, I suggest we take this remark down, or put a reference to some place where the writers *claim* to have avoided a time paradox. Chicopac (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seeing that Popular Mechanics article, physicists have said something about it. But as everything in modern physics, it's completely theoretical, and many still don't believe it possible at all. It still defies causal logic. I'm going to change the sentence in the opener to something more hypothetical, cool?
"traversable wormholes could make a condition such as Desmond’s feasible if the portals that skip time and space without an event horizon were ever discovered"

Just to support my statement, the above snippet is from that article. Still entirely theoretical. Chicopac (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, new topics go at the bottom of the page. I think that the writers think that they avoided paradox because Penny knowing that Desmond would call and Faraday having a note were inevitable. They did not happen in 1996 originally, but the universe course-corrected it and if it did not course-correct it then, it would have at some other time. I have altered the article for this. If you are going to change the sentence that closes the introduction, you will need to cite your source. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My source is the same as the source which claims that they succeeded, because it shows that they did not in fact succeed, but tried their best, and may or may not have succeeded. Your claim above mine here does not make any sense:
"I think that the writers think that they avoided paradox because Penny knowing that Desmond would call and Faraday having a note were inevitable. They did not happen in 1996 originally, but the universe course-corrected it and if it did not course-correct it then, it would have at some other time."
This does not say anything which avoids a causal loop. Course-correct? This is rhetoric, another way of saying "causal change," the which change had to occur by inspiration from the future which, unless the physicists in that article which said it might be possible are correct, is impossible. You're asking for me to cite a source for negative proof? The burden of proof is on the person who made the claim that the writers were able to avoid a time paradox. Their source falls short.
If I claim that John Locke dies in this episode and cite a source which does not support this, why should the person who corrects me provide a source to the contrary? The source itself would have been misused by me. This is faulty source handling and contributes to people's conceptions that Wikipedia falls short of professionalism.

24.177.120.179 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is from the same source. –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV.com ranking

[edit]

TV.com currently ranks this episode as the best of all Lost episodes (http://www.tv.com/lost/show/24313/top.html?tag=subtabs;top). I tried to add this, but people kept removing it. Instead of having the debate in the history page, it would be better to have it here. So I ask you, why not include that information? Are you saying that only the "critics" should have a saying on what is good and what isn't? --The monkeyhate (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a critic says that fan reaction was good, then we can add it. It is believed that TV.com could be vote-stacked. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Constant. 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}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Constant. 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) 23:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on The Constant. 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) 21:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Constant&oldid=1205627864"