http://propaholics.wolfchasers.com/maian_uploader/uploads/gimmebackmyson.jpg

They were both asked to sign away thier child in the same damn room.

My friend said "That's probably nothing man" and I said "You don't think it means anything?" and he said "No, it's a big show but they probably don't have a big budget for lawyer office sets man."

And then I thought. "Can't be the reason this was done!"

I know the episode with Michael was supposedly a last minute change, but I cannot imagine they just have this set laying around from last year.

I happen to think it's important. Any chance of getting a VIP to chime in on this one??

I think there must be something to it also. They could have made that set look much different, but they didn't. In fact, I think they used the same room for Michael's meeting with his attorney. In that scene they did make it look very different. If you look at a screencap of that room and scroll up to the very top, you will see the same light fixture. The fact that a very similar thing was happening in Claire's conference room and Michael's tells me that it was probably intentional.

They may have just been trying to save money....
--Katie--

Yeah, I'm not sure about this one. Because the rooms are obviously similar, but not exactly alike. So if they intentionally wanted the viewers to know that they signed away their kids in the same room, wouldn't you think that they would make the rooms entirely similar? That's just my opinion, though.

Well, I think a lot of people have been making big issues of continuity and plot holes of late that are not continuity issues or plot holes of any kind. I think this room is one of them. The main example is Sawyer's comment to Michael about the others coming for the kid. They say that Sawyer wasn't there to hear that comment. While technically true, I think the whole point of Adrift was to hint at the precog skills of the raftaways. I don't think it's just going to end up that Michael has these skills. I think Sawyer will too. There was something odd about the way Sawyer told Michael that Walt couldn't hear him. He said he had a sense...and then it was kind of cut off. The next thing Michael is asking him if something makes sense to him. I just don't think that's the kind of sense Sawyer was talking about at the time. In other words, Danielle might not have said the others were coming for the boy, but that's what Sawyer heard precognitively. I just don't believe that this is a budget issue.

Also, I don't know if the suggestion is that it is exactly the same room (one is in New York, the other in Australia) but rather they might have been trying to suggest that it was the same law firm.

Also, I don't know if the suggestion is that it is exactly the same room (one is in New York, the other in Australia) but rather they might have been trying to suggest that it was the same law firm.

Exactly, Todell! Logic would suggest that it's Susan's lawfirm, wouldn't it? If her lawfirm is involved in the adoptions of two very special children, does that mean they are aware of the specialness of the children involved? Perhaps we have found the explanation for Susan's meteoric rise from Junior Associate to Senior Partner in a little more than a year.

Oh, okay. Thanks Todell and shootfire, I didn't know that that was the point that you were trying to make. I agree with you both. :smile:

Susan's lawfirm represents Dharma, and they also specialize in adoptions for "special children" When will the madness end!!!!

Maybe Baby Aaron and Walt aren't the only "special" ones. How's about Locke's sister never died on the monkey bars, but was found through the adoption agency. It was discovered she was special and she was relocated with a cover story? It's kind of weird now that I think about it, but when Lockes sister died, a dog similar to Vincent showed up for a few years.

1. omg, I thought that room was the virtually the same!

2. Note: Just because Sawyer wasn't there to hear about the others "coming for the boy", I'm sure word got around PDQ!!! This was a HUGELY newsworthy item that day on Lostaway Island, and I'm sure they all knew about it within one flip of a boar's tail!

2. Note: Just because Sawyer wasn't there to hear about the others "coming for the boy", I'm sure word got around PDQ!!! This was a HUGELY newsworthy item that day on Lostaway Island, and I'm sure they all knew about it within one flip of a boar's tail!

The problem is that Sawyer was gone on the raft when Aaron was taken. There was no way that he could have heard through the grapevine that the others were after "the boy." The only way he could have known that was clairvoyantly. Also, I can't figure why Michael wouldn't call him on it unless he knew it clairvoyantly too.

Whoa, hang on a tick (lol), weren't the raftees still on the island when Danielle emerged from the Jungle to warn them all? I know they were, because Walt was the first one to see her. And didn't she say at that point that she heard them whispering that they were coming for the boy? Or did she just say, at that point, that she had seen a plume of black smoke and last time she saw that was just before they came and took Alex? Did she not mention the exact phrase of "coming for the boy" until Charlie and Sayid caught up to her later (after the raft departed) and she tearfully explained why she took Aaron, thinking she could trade him for her Alex?

Hmmmm...I can't remember. The brain, she is not what she used to be. Too much stress-induced cortisol released over too many years, and the result is not pretty.

Did she not mention the exact phrase of "coming for the boy" until Charlie and Sayid caught up to her later (after the raft departed) and she tearfully explained why she took Aaron, thinking she could trade him for her Alex?

She did not. She only told the entire group that the others were coming for all of them. Now TPTB were asked if this was a continuity error, and they have denied it. Which means to me that this was done intentionally.

P.S. Okay, just looked at the transcript (I love the net *lol*) and you are correct, all she said when she showed up at Camp Lostaway was the following:

"Our ship went aground on this island 16 years ago. There were 6 of us - my team, 6. At that time I was already 7 months pregnant. I delivered the infant myself. The baby and I were together for only 1 week when I saw black smoke - a pillar of black smoke 5 kilometers inland. That night they came - they came and took her - Alex. They took my baby. And now, they're coming again. They're coming for all of you."

She didn't say the bit about hearing them saying they were "coming for the boy" until Charlie and Sayid found her, AFTER the raft departed.

Boy howdy, what do ya know about that? Man, you guys (my fellow LOST-obsessed fans) notice EVERYTHING *lol*!!! Talk about pressure on the powers that be to get everything perfecto, timeline-wise and every-other-wise (no pun intended with "other"). Anyway, good catch.

She did not. She only told the entire group that the others were coming for all of them. Now TPTB were asked if this was a continuity error, and they have denied it. Which means to me that this was done intentionally.
Oh, we posted about about the same time, so I am just seeing this post after my post that appears after it (did that make ANY sense?). Anyway, that is interesting that TPTB have denied a continuity error on this one. Wow.

Edited to add: But couldn't we maybe assume that Danielle gave more detail to the Lostaways beyond what we saw in the actual scene? I mean, we presumably don't see everything that happens, just the main plot points, ya know what I mean? Could it be as simple as that? Because, frankly, much as I LOVE Sawyer, he doesn't strike me as particularly clairvoyant!

Oh, we posted about about the same time, so I am just seeing this post after my post that appears after it (did that make ANY sense?). Anyway, that is interesting that TPTB have denied a continuity error on this one. Wow.

I get it. It wasn't my catch BTW. Some others caught it, but chalked it up to continuity error. Even though TPTB deny the continuity error, some say that they're just covering their mistake. I'm not buying it though. DL made a big deal about Danielle's comment and it's timing in Exodus. He announced that she was going to say something important beforehand, and gave a clue to it's timing. Some say that they only put that line into Adrift because so many people didn't get it's significance in Exodus. It was to underscore that the people on the boat were the "others." OK, I can accept that on one level, but on another I think they had to have considered the fact that Sawyer and Michael were on the raft when the statement was made, and opted to take the chance of revealing something to make it clear. I'm sure they knew that there would be skeptics who would help muddle things, so they wouldn't really be showing thier entire hand.