Talk:Not in Portland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another Star Wars reference[edit]

When Sawyer, Kate and Alex fool Andro Sawyer says something like "I can't beliebe you fell for the old Wookie trick." Sawyer made a SW reference while the raft was being built. Cardboard boxA 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant?[edit]

Excuse me, but nobody has considered her research. Since obviously whatever she is doing to her sister is a big deal, I am guessing that whatever she had done is not envitro. I was just wondering if anybody has considered if the medicine might force her to become pregnant with herself, ie basically cloning her. Any other ideas on why being pregnant might have "ethical" issues?

well, you are right, that's is what I understood too. Has anyone got any more precise info?--192.33.238.6 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title confirmation in podcast[edit]

"Not in Portland" is now official! (I wasn't sure where to post that)

ABC released promotional photos of "Not in Portland", with a confirmation to the episode's title. [1] (click on "View Full Caption"). Obi-DanKenobi 07:02, 12 January 2007 (PST)

In the return episode, "Not in Portland," Jack is in command as the fate of Ben's life literally rests in his hands. Meanwhile, Kate and Sawyer find an ally in one of "The Others," and Juliet makes a shocking decision that could endanger her standing with her people.

Not in Portland has been confirmed for a couple days now...are we waiting for the guest list or something? Anyway, glad that's all been settled about the title! ShadowUltra 08:45, 14 January 2007 (PST)

Proof! Listen to the December 6th Official Lost Podcast, Carlton says it is called 'Not in Portland'. --SilvaStorm

I know!! I made an article a 2 weeks ago (it was nice and it had all the stars in it an stuff) but it was delete,, some people can bs so stubborn!--mo-- (Talk | #info | ) 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And two weeks ago the title was unconfirmed, it was still just a rumor - deleting it then was absolutely justified. It's not "being stubborn", it's following wikipedia policies. Read WP:V:"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what you say Minderbinder, he does have a point. These "rumoured" titles basically always turn out to be true. --SilvaStorm
Even if every rumor turned out to be true, they still aren't allowed on wikipedia. The only point he makes is that he doesn't understand how wikipedia works. Go read WP:V. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. --SilvaStorm
"No thanks" what? WP policy is wp policy, and you're not going to get much editing done if you choose to ignore or intentionally contradict it. Even now that the episode title is official, the podcast didn't say that Not in Portland is the seventh episode, so now there's debate about that. This article might even get edited or even deleted again because of that. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Were you listening to the same podcast I listened to? Carlton Cuse asked Damon Lindelof if he would care to comment on the title "Not In Portland" and Damon replied that he wouldn't like to. This doesn't confirm anything accept they know of the title. It does not confirm that this episode will be the 7th episode. --Jabrwocky7 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though he did ask if he wanted to "prehash" Not in Portland, and any regular Lost podcast listener know that means talking about another episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc1033 (talk • contribs)
I know what pre-hash means and I am a regular podcast listener. They could pre-hash any upcoming episode, not necessarily the next episode. The fact also remains that the producers have re-arranged episode order before. --Jabrwocky7 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you do not know what pre-hash means. --theDemonHog 00:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he knows what it means, don't be condesending. He just doesn't agree that it necessarily has to be about the next episode, it could be one further in the future. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how they use pre-hash in the podcasts. --theDemonHog 00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They use it to talk about upcoming episodes. Even if every time they have prehashed has been about the next episode, it's OR to assume that they would never "prehash" about episodes further down the road. If they have ever actually said that prehashing can only be about the next episode, please point us to that podcast. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Speculation" revert[edit]

I don't understand what is speculation about the promotional picture or other edits in that revert. Maybe there's a fair use argument, but the picture is directly from ABC and tagged by them as being from this episode. I also don't understand why the revert included things like adding a website for a minor actor and such. If you're going to revert, please explain why on the talk page. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are not given, the image is not fair use, and edit is riddled with speculation and other extraneous junk, simple as that as has been said basically in edit summaries. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page cites an ABC press release about the episode and I don't see anything in the article not in that press release. What specifically is speculation or "extraneous junk"? And why do you keep adding a link to an actor website? Are promotional photos not allowed under fair use? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Layout of this article[edit]

Is it me or does the layout for this article seem weird, and very messy, especially with the table towards the bottom? It may be my resolution, but every other article seems to be fine.

If it helps, it's the Lostnav part that seems to be playing up. Calvin 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to fix the formatting to make it look like other episodes, that's fine with me. But you may not want to bother since the article will change drastically anyway once it airs. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figured the problem might just be because there isn't much information in it. Thus, making the layout go together, if you know what I mean. It might be better to wait until the episode has been written up first. Calvin 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Copy and pasted?[edit]

This seems like it was copy and pasted from some online sypnosis on a spoiler website. The writing is ridiculous.

Source?[edit]

The episode is done airing on the east coast. The synopsis is empirical knowledge for at least a million viewers... at what point does the soon-to-be-obvious become Wikipedia-friendly? --Ted 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to start posting information, after all, other people (including myself) have already added information to the other articles, I don't see any problem with it, but maybe it's just me. Runner233 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 11?[edit]

According to the main LOST wiki page, the sixth episode takes place on 12/4/04, which is not 3 years, 2 months, 28 days after 9/11/01 (it's actually 3 years, 2 months and 22 days after) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weeba (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, he she came to the island on September 5th. I changed it. --The monkeyhate 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, that is assuming time works the same way on the Island.... If time there is "faster" than she may have been there since much later than Sept. 5th 2001. Just a thought. Butnotthehippo 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until we get futher information, we must assume time moves as fast on the island as it does IRL. --The monkeyhate 13:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone has done the math to 9/4/01 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weeba (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What Ben Said in the Mirror[edit]

Was anyone able to make out what Ben was saying to Juliet when they were talking alone in the OR? They flashed to an upside-down mirrored shot of Ben talking (from Jack's POV), and it looked like if you flipped the image you should be able to read his lips. Gabefarkas 15:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main image[edit]

Since this episode was pretty much Juliet's, could anyone find an image from this ep with her in it? --DrBat 21:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted Codu (t)⁄(c) •  12:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mittelos BioScience[edit]

mittellos with (two "l") in german is fundless in english. And the bus scene is quite similar to the one in Final Destination, maybe somekind of in-joke --helohe (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reminded me of when they offed the babysitter on Nip/Tuck this season. --Lakerdonald 02:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mittelos also sounds a lot like the name of evil Hanso Foundation guy Thomas Mittlewerk. Just a thought. Tphi 01:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Adlo was reading A Brief History of Time. I'm reading the book right now, recognized one of the graphs from the book, and when I freezed the frame of the book it was pretty clearly Brief History, down to the golden-brown color.

About the bus scene: I think it's pretty damn relevant that Juliet referred to getting Edmund hit by a bus when she was talking to the Mittelos guy. Could be a coincidence/red herring, of course, but should have a place in the article, right? Phyte 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Room[edit]

Could the room that Alex's boyfriend Karl, was found in be the same room mentioned in Three Minutes? pel99 3:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay well, this summary sucks in general but..[edit]

” In the Swan hatch, Juliet checks the security cameras and finds Kate, Sawyer, and Alex outside the Dharma facility where Karl is being held captive."

This is 100% not the swan hatch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHARMA_Initiative_stations —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.167.237.102 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]


I agree. I thought it was the Hydra. Isn't that where Jack is being held and where the surgery was taking place? Gabefarkas 15:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screencap[edit]

We have a vehemently crap screen capture at present which is also at full resolution (- not web res. -) and blury, could someone upload a new one? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwashing video[edit]

I was watching the scene where they brainwash Karl, and noticed a couple of things that might be worth mentioning - The room he is in is room 23, which is a significant number in the occult. A pair of compasses were also shown, which is a Masonic symbol. Also, the quote about planting a good seed is from the Dhammapada, which I suppose is a reference to the Dharma Initiative. I'm pretty sure this all counts as speculation, so didn't want to add it to the article, but thought I'd point it out here in case any more references are given to things like this. Richard Jackson 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary[edit]

The plot summary here is obscenely long and can easily be condensed to a paragraph or two. —ptk✰fgs 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Image[edit]

I think the main Image should be of Juliet. It is her episode after all. I will change it sometime later tonight, unless somebody has a reason that the image of Kate and Sawyer should stay. Furthermore, I actually think the current image is bad because it is a bit of a spolier. Someone would have learned that they got a boat. Juliet with a gun doesn't really teach the reader anything. Codu (t)⁄(c) •  18:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too long[edit]

While I am not an experienced wikipedia writer/editor, it seems to me that 1,850 words over the top for a one episode plot summary, and the written style of this article is amateurish.

It could be reduced to 500 words or less, with a lot of insignificant details removed. For example...

Juliet sits on a beach, staring out into the ocean, flipping a small pouch in her hands. She gets up and heads into the hallway of a dilapidated building. As she walks down the hall, she passes Ethan. She enters a room where a girl lies in bed, hooked up to oxygen canisters and with a cloth wrapped around her head. It seems she is ill, and this becomes more apparent when Juliet injects her stomach with something. This is revealed to be Juliet’s sister. It is also revealed that this scene takes place in Miami when Juliet opens the curtains and an Oceanic Airlines flight is landing at the Miami airport.

Could be changed to

"The episode begins with a flashback featuring Juliet in Miami, caring for her pregnant sister."

Furthermore, do the accounts of the two stories (i.e. What happened to Juliet in Miami, and What happens to everyone on the island) have to appear in the same chronological order in the article as they do in the episode?

Would it not be easier to devote the first part of the article to the Miami story, and the second to the "present day" story? While this might lack the same dramatic timing and sense of revelation that the episode has, it would be easier to read in a factual kind of way.

Just my 2c. Leeroy946 16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have condensed the plot summary. It was, indeed, far too long. —ptk✰fgs 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


condense is fine but I think that details like "It seems she is ill" or "Juliet opens the curtains and an Oceanic Airlines flight is landing at the Miami airport" are/could be important. --192.33.238.6 20:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

I'm all for trivia. It spicies up and puts a spin on an episode, but the amount of trivia right now is much too long. Codu (t)⁄(c) •  01:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever commented on how the title of this episode seems to be a counterpoint to the statement "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," especially given how Mac guest stars in this episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.159.103.13 (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the trivia was original research, and the bulk of what remained was so trivial as to be uninteresting and patently unencyclopedic. I have removed all but the first two items. —ptk✰fgs 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:3X07 JulietIsland.jpg[edit]

Image:3X07 JulietIsland.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Not in Portland. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Not_in_Portland&oldid=1204342453"