Talk:The Lost Room

DVD Release

April 3rd, you can pre-order now at the normal places Krawhitham 07:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Object List

Is the list of objects going on this page or List of objects from The Lost Room? Rokeon 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. ~ PHDrillSergeant...and his couch...§ 03:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• It would be far better to put any such list in the main article. WP doesn't need more crufty pages. Shoehorn 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting that list on the main page would make the main page "crufty". Besides if "The Lost Room" does become a series it might gain a lot of popularity and then the wiki sites devoted to it would become as complex as the Lost wiki pages and will benefit from already being neatly sub-divided. cprockhill

Is having the list on this page necessary, or desirable? It feels really redundant with the other list page. Mikepwnz 19:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

what i want to know is why someone posted a list of objects on the main page AFTER the other page had long been up? Even if it wasnt redundant, stupid, undesirabe, it still contains at least one error (the nail file Temporarily makes people unconscious not the letter opener...id fix it if i could but i cant....anyways i say scrap the whole table)72.145.5.160 08:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis

The entire synopsis section had been taken from http://www.scifi.com/lostroom/about/show/, hopefully we can write one that is not plagarised.

its not plagarised if it was given credit...but w/e

Casting

I'm surprised nothing in the cast section talks about Kevin Pollak, he's a pretty big time actor.

Pollak has his own article, which the cast section links to. Pat Berry 08:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lost Room (place)

Should a seperate article or section be created to discribe the Lost Room itself? JQF • Talk • Contribs 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Characters Section

No reason to have two character sections. The second one really looks sloppy right now as well.--Hatch68 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I combined the Casting section with the Characters section. I consider most of the Casting information irrelevant now that the show has been produced and so I removed it. -- Thesis4Eva 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the name of the actor who played Eddie McCloyster? I can't remember his name to save my life. Rokeon 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Under "Dr. Martin Ruber", the character is listed as having the vision as a "possibly a hallucination caused by dehydration" while staring at the Polaroid Object. This is not correct. The vision is foreshadowed In The Box (Title 6, Chapter 8), @ 0:30:46.00, Ruber states that he needs to get into the room again as he knows there is something in there that he was meant to see. This precludes the vision as a hallucination, but it may be that the near-death experience 'clarified' or gave Ruber the 'power' to see the vision clearly. Cerberus128 (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article discussed "The Event" but barely brushes on Arlene Conroy or her husband- a fairly important character, who lived long after the event and provided much-needed back story on how this mess started. He is at least as important as Sood's bodyguard, yet there's no mention of him whatsoever. Why is this??

143.250.2.10 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

-Also: Joe runs a police background check on Arlene's husband, who by this time is in his 60s. However when they pull up his rap sheet and mug shot from petty run-ins he had when he was younger, his photo shows him as 60ish; his mug shot should have shown him much younger.

143.250.2.10 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nits

There is door at my office that does opens by a key on both sides and the closet doors in our apartment open inwards, so both scenarios are possible. Good work so far though!

At work, office doors have locks on both sides for security purposes, and my house closets open inwards, therefore I think the nit needs to be taken out.Fllmtlchcb 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, Joe's a cop. If he was going to question someone in his office, it'd make sense to have something to stop 'em from bolting out the door(or at least slow them down a bit if they tried).Sehvekah 06:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I found a continuity error. Whenever an object is left in the room and the door is locked by the key, the room resets and everything inside vanishes (other than Objects). But in the second episode, Joe Miller uses the key to open the hotel room in front of the dry cleaning lady and gets $1,000 from inside. But if he had left money in there, it should have vanished. And there wasn't enough time for him to use the room to go somewhere else and get the money.

Not really, the Legion and the cleaning lady knows each other, Joe Miller may have had the lady that teamed up with him waiting near another door with a sum of money for him to obtain, or he could've had the money on him and merely asked for a quick approval on the amount. 172.131.67.65 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We also don't know how long he was gone. The camera follows his exit, and then cuts to her face. Judging by lighting, and assuming that she is smoking the same cigarette, it may have been mere moments--but there is no certainty. Or, the Legion could have given him $5000, and he stepped through the door so that the locator wouldn't seee how much money she could've gotten. Or he could've used the key to travel directly to his kitchen, where he keeps emergency money in his Hello Kitty cookie jar. Or any of a thousand other explanations. It's a mystery, to be sure, but not truly a continuity error.Dvisic 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

When Joe goes to get the money for Suzie the first time he meets her, he uses the key and then the door opens outward, toward him! The light is shining from inside the room and the sound effects let us know he opened the Room with the Key, but then didn't the door swing the wrong way this time?

Perhaps it all depends on the way the real-world door is supposed to open. If the hinges are on the outside, the key couldn't alter the outwards appearance of the door, so maybe the door is forced to open towards the opener. Fllmtlchcb 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is I think a serious inconsistency. Harold the comb guy demonstrates to Joe that things are immovably frozen while time is stopped by holding his wallet and Joe can't budge it. Yet Harold took money out of the register when we first saw him, and both Joe and Harold both pick up things to hit people. We can justify that the freezing is what's being touched by a living being, but unconnected things froze too like the bullets. In general, the targetability is ridiculously convenient for objects to pick out who/what to affect and what not to. (carl) 65.223.239.66 00:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

When the comb is used, everything except the user and what they consider a "part" of them (clothes, hair, what they're holding, etc.) is frozen. If something has nothing holding it other than air, or it is only loosely being held (such as the money in the register), it can be moved by the comb's user. To be immobile, it has to be "pinched" by something else- whether that be someone or something actually holding it, something large being on top of it, or if it is a part of something larger (like the little arms in the register's drawer). Also, I don't believe you can bend frozen things until you've picked it up, move people or two objects at the same time, or, obviously, pick something up if it's too large for you to move in the first place. I believe a more interesting question is how one breathes or keeps from freezing to death while they've stopped time.... -- Sarranduin ^(Talk) 22:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As to the money in the cash register at the convenience store — freeze-framing the scene actually shows that there are no arms in the register drawer. Also, when the Order attacks the camper, Joe actually picks up the wooden beam and the shovel between time-freezes, not when time is actually frozen. -- Tonyfuchs1019 13:38, 9 May 2007

The Film

Was the film the Karl was watching when Joe came to return the clock the same film that Joe and Jennifer watch at the old man's house? That'd be interesting if it was, and perhaps it'd be of greater significance if it was widely circulated in the show. Fllmtlchcb 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that also. If anyone has a screen shot to compare that would provide some nice information correlating the different groups of Object collectors (old vs new)

Karl is watching the same film, indeed. It is the ending when everyone is lying on the ground. Fllmtlchcb 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The old man claimed that he had a copy, and the original was stolen years ago. It's pretty clear Karl stole it, I think.

That's what I thought, and what seemed to be the intention StuartDouglas 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was Legion that stolen the film, Karl just taken it from Legion ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.21.168.6 (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

172.74.24.25 (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The Rooms?

Shouldn't there be some discussion of the significance of the room(s) themselves? It seems strange that no mention of the lost room is made in the article. 71.63.10.215 06:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Added a section on The Room. Jerry Kindall 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This article mentions that there was a 10th room, but as I understood from watching the second ep, there never was room number 10. They just found a key numbered 10 one day. Am I missing something?

It's my understanding that just as the Occupant was erased from history so that his wife no longer remembered him, Room 10 was erased from history. So even the people who own/run the hotel don't remember a Room 10 ever existing. Garbled Reverie 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad Writing

I think the show's writers have had a little too much seasonal series juice. In the four out of six hours of run show, I've learned very little of anything of interest, I mean everything I know now could have been told to me in about 2 minutes...tops. Blah, blah, blah order, blah, blah, blah collectors. Like it's obvious not what happened in the room but eveything else. From the moment they saw that objects return to their orginal spots after the door is colsed, it becomes extremely clear that they need to find all the objects and return them to the room. That is something a long running probably sitcom style series works, and I very much doubt that in these last two hours they're going to be able to wrap everything up with no loose ends or spin-offs. What does everyone else think? SHould their be an article of documented critizism?--65.83.195.52 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you feel you must, you can include a section of criticisms as long as you also include praise from critics. As long as both are balanced, then it conforms to the NPOV code.Fllmtlchcb 23:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nay...a criticisms section only works if an exterior valid site has made criticisms...otherwise, it becomes Original Research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PHDrillSergeant (talk • contribs) 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Notice though that the original poster said documented criticisms. If that is what is intended then it would not be unverifiable original research. 74.38.35.171 05:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear the miniseries is setup to be a TV series or stand alone with an open ending for whatever franchising options they want. As for bad writing or not, that's a matter of personal opinion. 172.131.67.65 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, as the notice at the top of the page says, this talk page is not the place for your own critiques. Nor is the article, for that matter. Jerry Kindall 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a point though: should the wikipedia article mention that the script was likely written as a series rather than a miniseries? Can anyone get a source for that? It seems likely because there were too many loose ends/lack of closure and the whole thing seemed rushed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.24.17.198 (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

That's because it was written as a backdoor pilot.~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 17:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

List the Plots and Plot-Holes

I believe a list of the major plots and the plot-holes left at the end would help the passionate discussions occuring in the IMDb and Sci-Fi boards about the Lost Room. 71.57.85.38 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not really what Wikipedia is for. Pat Berry 08:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about being a site where people can turn to when looking for information about something? 172.201.66.35 00:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedea-style referance, not the end-all be-all sum of all knowledge. It is not meant to replace (or even summerize) discussion forums. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.190.211 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I have made this point myself, but now I am not so sure. What is an Encyclopedia if not an attempt at an "end-all be-all sum of all knowledge"? Check out Wikipedia's definition of Encyclopedia:

An encyclopedia... is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

And, later in the article:

Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain. Works vary in the breadth of material and the depth of discussion, depending on the target audience.

-Armaced 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no substance

All this article does is robotically go through the motions of describing the movie, not the underlying themes. It is lacking in substance. I introduced the idea of Nietzsche's "god is dead" philosophy and "we killed him" through Joe Miller's killing of John Doe. That contribution was erased even though Joe Miller said "God forgive me" right before shooting John Doe. If the aim is robotic description then fine. I just thought the movie had a much deeper message.Timeloss 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That falls under the category of original research which is against Wikipedia guidelines. Tnomad 23:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR is a policy, not a guideline, it carries much more weight. 74.38.35.171 05:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is strange that depth and underlying themes are secondary to rote descriptions.74.227.183.143 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can find an external article exploring those themes, it might be worth a mention. Jerry Kindall 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a shame that original research is banned but I wrote just one such external article and I'd love to read more, such a deep movie deserves it, hope you enjoy the analysis from MysticalMovieGuide.com, I'm noncommercial and it's not spam I assure you 65.223.239.66 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

However unless the publisher you use is trusted then I don't think anyone could mention it here. 74.38.35.171 05:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Occupant/Eddie McCloyster

Does anyone know the name of the actor who portrayed this character?--Eupator 00:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

His name's Tim Guinee, but the only reference I can find so far to him even being in the series is his bio on the web site for the film Sweet Land, so I'm adding his name with a {{citeneeded}}. I guess he was kept off Sci Fi's publicity materials originally because crediting him would have been a spoiler? It's a pretty major part, so I'm assuming there will eventually be a more official source somewhere. -- Vary | Talk 17:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha, That's who he is! I recognized him from SG-1. I'm sure more info will be available soon. Even IMDB doesn't list him for the Lost Room.--Eupator 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Occupant's name

I have stated it as Eddie McCloyster, though online, I have seen multiple spellings, such as McCloister, and on this very article page McCleister. Any of them verified? Fllmtlchcb 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Error

Something caught my attention in the scene where they overlayed the paths of all known objects to show the "hole" where the Occupant was -the "hole" was created from straight-line paths from location to location. This is ridiculous for several reasons, least of all being that the Occupant probably wasn't trying to keep the lines between object locations from intersecting his location. Better than a bunch of lines would be a simple, very dense point plot with a hole rather than the lines. I'm not good at describing things like this, however, so if somebody else sees fit they can add it to the page. - Yare

Considering the entire show is based on the idea that a couple of everyday objects can do wacky things such as turning metal to gas, I personally don't find much problem accepting that the Occupant can keep other Objects from crossing straight over his location. In fact, it can't really be called an error, since the scene was obviously designed to have that effect- I daresay the coolness/obvious meter wouldn't be as high if they had mapped the locations of the objects and they had gotten something with just a bunch of dots on it... they'd never discover that there was an area the other Objects never got near (or even intersected)! It might be odd, but it's not an error. -- Sarranduin ^(Talk) 15:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're incorrect. My point was that it makes no sense for the occupant to prevent straight lines from object positions from crossing his location, since people don't travel in straight lines. If I start 500 miles west of the Occupant, and make a large arc up and around the Occupant until I'm 500 miles to the East of him, then I have avoided the occupant by 500 miles at all times but the straight line from my start point to end point travels directly across him. To put it another way, if an object has ever loosely circled occupant at any distance over any period of time, then there are an infinite number of straight lines crossing the occupant's position, depending on when you choose your "start" and "end" positions to be. If it's still unclear, I can draw a diagram. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.21.126 (talk • contribs) 19:32, December 18, 2006 (UTC).

The Occupant did not want the objects near him, so it can be followed that part of his supernatural powers would be to make even a computer program refuse to make it appear so. If you traveled like you say, then you would be sighted in the eastern place, a place in the north, and finally the western town, rather than a line across (like so, in this rather crude illustration I just created). It is bizarre, but if you will remember, Joe mentions that he's never been to one of the towns the computer program said he had.... -- Sarranduin ^(Talk) 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The "computer" said he had been to that town because somebody reported seeing him there, which was apparently a mistake. Given that many people were searching for him at that time and knowing that he had the ability to teleport anywhere he wished, it is understandable that this was simply a case of false data entry. As for the illustration you created, you're still missing the point. If the computer only knows the last two positions of the object I carry when I make the arc (I was not sighted anywhere in between), then it has no idea that an arc was made (and thus could not interpret it as an upside down V as you suggest), and the apparent path between the two points would be a line directly through the occupant's position. I assure you that this is not an artifact of the Occupant or the Object etc... it is an oversight on the part of the prop team. They were doomed the moment they decided to use straight lines between object sightings. -Yare

I was under the impression that the Snoods tracking program was fairly simplistic, tracking only points where objects have been seen and then drawing lines between them. It doesn't matter how a person travels, be it zig-zags, lines or twisting moutian roads, the only things of importance are the time and locations where objects have been sighted and their relative position to one another.Sehvekah 08:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. The program only tracks object positions as reported by people who claim to have seen them. Here's the point: 1) the program displays straight line paths between reported object positions. 2) the occupant prevents these straight-line paths from getting near him. Now assume for a moment that you have the comb, and you're sighted 1000 miles west of the occupant. You then travel in an arc with a radius of 1000 miles up around the occupant until you're 1000 miles east of him, where you are sighted with the comb again. You never came within 1000 miles of the occupant, but still the occupant would "prevent" your travel arc because the line between your last two known positions crosses directly through the occupant. This was obviously not the intention, but lines forming a "hole" look better on TV than a point plot forming a "hole", which is the method you would have to use if you were actually looking for something that repelled other things given a finite sampling rate. -Yare

One claim is that the objects attract one another and find some way to cross paths. Why can't tha occupant deliberately repel all other objects into such a big hole? -lysdexia 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Because by the map on the computer screen the occupant was not keeping objects away from him, but keeping lines drawn between object sightings away from him, which makes no sense (it allows several logic errors I've explained above). I'm a computer graphics and mathematics guy by trade. Take my word on this. -Yare

They do drift in straiht long lines with few plots. The occupant merely keeps the objects that far out. And it's unlikely that anyone would go in your swerve without many spottings in between. -lysdexia 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, No, No. The mapping on the computer system is all wrong, it is said in the story that it maps sightings of objects and links a line between them. So if you appear 100miles east of the Occupant and then 100miles west, although you have never been within 100miles of the dude, a line would still run right across the area point to point. But to go on about silly plot mistakes in a story were people can tap a ticket against skin and be catapulted through space and time is stupid of me - now that I think about it the whole story is stupid, and do the people at the Sci-Fi Channel know that Sci-Fi stands for 'Science Fiction', the bad writing hardly denotes it as Fiction, never mind the Science bit - This story is not Sci-Fi but Fantasy - maybe they should set up a new Channel called the Fantasy Channel, sick of tuning in to watch a good piece of Sci-Fi only to get lame Fantasy - ProductBE, 2008

I would suggest that this conversation is out of place here. This is not a forum for discussing the show. This is the Talk section of a Wikipedia article, for discussing ways of improving the article--not complaining about the Sci-Fi channel.Chillowack (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A minor error: when Joe first meets The Occupent, he shows him the photo of The Occupent and his wife. the photo has been damaged in his pocket, originally it was pristine but now we see it has slightly ragged edges and creaes where its been folded, this shouldnt be possible given the object invulnerability. Obviously the prop just got a little damaged. Mloren 15:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you watch that section frame-by-frame, you can see that the lines aren't two-point lines, but multiple-point lines, with some lines having a great distance from one point to the next. No lines pass through the radius around the sanitarium (The Occupant's fixed location) because in the event that a person carrying an Object wishes to go from one town to another that if traveled in a straight line would take them through the Occupant's 'zone', The Occupant simply exerts his influence over the Object and by proxy the person carrying it, convincing that person to make at least one intermediate stop that prevents them from passing directly through the zone of The Occupant.

Again, the lines aren't connecting A to B, but A to B to C to D, etc. - thus allowing for the hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incandenzian (talk • contribs) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Door Usage

I took out the part about only doors opening inwards to Room 10 as being the only usable doors. There are two shown instances of the opposite. The first is when the kid escapes from Joe's office. Joe's door opens into his (Joe's) room, not into the hallway, yet the kid was able to use it. The second time is the door for the Texas bar where Wally was. That door also opened into the bar yet Joe came through it to get Wally. Both doors also had the doorknob on the opposite side of Room 10's door but I'm not here to figure out the logistics of that.Veridicum 01:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the writers intended for only inward-opening doors to work; else why the weird closet in Joe's house with he inward-opening door? But that's a good catch. Jerry Kindall 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Intent cannot be assumed here. If it was just the door in the bar (which could have been missed by the production team) then yes intent may be summized. But when a major set piece (Joe's office) has the door work against the initial belief then intent of such a restriction doesn't exist.Veridicum 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed another door restriction: doors must not contain transparent or translucent panes, such as glass business doors. Technically, no reason for that not to work, but would have complicated the special effects a bit. Scott McNay (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Screen captures

Would anyone like me to add screen captures for parts 1, 2 and 3 to the LOE at the bottom of the page? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Did it anyway. Anyway got a source for the "back-door pilot" thing as well? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/rant.aspx?id=20061211 Krawhitham 08:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability

I've added a notability notice to this article as it doesn't seem assert any notability. There are only two references to non-existent articles. Said article titles indicate that they'd be a derivative of this article. To quote Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

"Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

I do not feel that this article meets that criteria. However, instead of proposing this for deletion I thought I would bring the issue up here to see if users with a interest in the article can respond and/or adjust the article. --Mperry 07:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

However, this article has, in addition to the plot summary, several sections regarding major plot points and their relation to other works. It also has a list of airing times, episodes, and notes, and list of the cast--not to mention a plethora of references and external links. That's not a 'plot summary', that's called an ARTICLE.

Please keep in mind that this is a miniseries, and not much information is available as of yet. But since it aired on cable television, and is a SciFi original miniseries, it meets Notability Guidelines.

Please try to keep an open mind and actually examine and/or research the article before just tagging it. Instead, take the time to research a bit. And do it yourself.~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 17:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? There are tens of thousands of wikipedia entries that do nothing but describe the plot of fictional works or are detailed biographies for fictional characters. I fail to see why an article about something as substantial as a television series is subject to this rule whereas say... every one of the 500 varieties of pokemon has its own individual biography page currently... It's rather ridiculous.

It may seem ridiculous, but it is also policy. If you think it's stupid, make a mention over at the Village Pump. The point is, because this is a cable TV miniseries under SciFi, this is generally enough to assert notability. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 15:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is slightly absurd, national television series are inheritably notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Room Reset

"The holder of the Key can bring other people into the Room, but they must leave together, because the Room "resets" when the door is shut without the key inside"

This is not quite correct, its the assumption made by the characters in the show but at the end of the third episode when we see a reset occur from within the room, we see that the reset occurs the next time the door is opened from the outside with the key, not when it is closed. I'll make the correction. Mloren 15:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. —gorgan_almighty 11:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Inspiration for "The lost room"

The lost room is inspired from the novel Roadside Picnic, written by the Strugatsky brothers. Beside users comments, does anybody know if there is an official acknowledgment for that fact? Fuzzy 13:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The creator of the show said " Ah, no that’s not true. Never heard of Roadside Picnic until after The Lost Room aired. But I finally read the book about two years ago & liked it." https://twitter.com/ChristophrLeone/status/1041310079365079041 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E8CB:F00:61F7:44B9:DFBB:4D20 (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Has Stephen King's The Dark Tower series been cited as an inspiration for The Lost Room? Both works contain impossible doorways to alternate worlds as an important plot device (and Karl's free-standing door is incredibly similar to doors described in King's The Drawing of the Three). In fact, some of the doors in King's stories can only be opened with very specific, magical keys. Also, both works center around a physical structure that is rumored to be the body of God (and both are featured in their respective titles - The Lost Room and The Dark Tower). Probably mere coincidences, but I wonder if The Lost Room's creators were Dark Tower fans. Breaker19 02:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Lost Room" is obviously a Hollywood replica of the Roadside Picnic. Show some credit, please! What about the 2008 "Roadside Picnic" release, starring John Travolta? 82.78.115.106 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Cabals

The first sentence in the Cabals section: "Many Object-seekers---all of whom, for some reason, live in Pittsburgh---have organized themselves into groups, known as "cabals"" seems awkward and inaccurate since it suggests that all cabal members (or all Object-seekers) reside in Pittsburgh. I tried a rephrasing, but I wasn't able to do much better, does anyone else agree that the sentence is misleading? Damian 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be somebody making a sarcastic comment about how the show revolves around one city and all the characters are in that one city, while the objects are allegedly spread across the US (or even the world). I've removed the comment as unsuitable. --Maelwys 15:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nine or ten rooms?

In response to the comment posted to the article (since removed) regarding the number of rooms:

(Confirmation needed, the husband of the owner of the Hotel says his wife found Room 10 key but there were only 9 rooms).

I believe the answer is that after The Event, the room ceased to exist, including all memory of it. Hence, anyone would remember there being only nine rooms. At least that was my understanding. Ronnotel 18:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Tag

I have re-added the spoiler tag since the following headers do not make it clear that they contain spoilers: Characters, The Room, The Event, The Objects, The Cabals, Episodes

I don't think it is viable to move all spoiler material to a separate section. Does anyone have suggestions on changing the heading titles instead of including the spoiler tag?

I disagree with the removal of the spoiler tag tag on June 8 2007 by User:David Gerard. See the example on the Wikipedia:Spoiler#Are_spoilers_implied_by_the_section_title.3F:Spoiler page that starts with "If a plot detail that arises in an unexpected place — a "Cast of characters" or "Setting" section ..."
64.93.163.34 05:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tried renaming sections that were ambiguously named. A spoiler tag is no substitute for clearly labeled sections. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Location of the Sunshine Motel

In one episode (I'm not sure which one, one of the first three), Joe referres to the motel as being "out on route nine", while the introdution to the article claims that it's on Route 66. While this is an understandable assumption as the motel is the sort of Route 66 roadside motel that appears so often in American cinema, is there actually any evidence to support this claim? -- Levi Aho 69.87.200.4 (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

DVD Episode formatting

So the DVD is laid out in an interesting way. While the episodes are only one half of each of the miniseries episodes they're programmed to play continually even if you just start to watch one. (e.g. at the end of episode one, episode two will start to play, and even at the end of episode two episode three will start to play.) So I think this qualifies as original research, since I found this out. Should this be integrated into the article somehow? I think it is relevant since we break out the different episode structure in the article.. —Cliffb (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its worth mentioning in the article. Since you'll be referring to the DVD itself as a primary source I don't think it quite qualifies as original resource... so I wouldn't worry about that. Geeman (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Episode articles redirected

I have redirected the articles The Eye and the Prime Object, The Key and the Clock and The Comb and the Box here without merging. They violated WP:NOT#PLOT badly (they had 15-20 paragraphs when 3-4 paragraphs are the norm), didn't establish anykind of real-world WP:NOTABILITY (production and reception), and I've yet to see a TV miniseries where the plot can't as well be covered in the main article in the first place (i.e. here). No merger because it is easier to come up with three new sentences for each episode in the episode list anyway than to trim 20 paragraphs. I'll take the articles to WP:AFD if their redirected state is undone. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem is you didn't add any synopsis of the episodes to the article. I assume the purpose of giving each episode its own page was to keep a long synopsis off this page and maybe avoid spoilers while the series was current. This isn't a sitcom, it has a beginning, middle and conclusion (inconclusive as it may be) so there needs to be some sort of synopsis or plot description. 69.3.159.116 (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, this is as bad as the original, but in the opposite direction. So someone fix it. I would, but i do not know the series. DGG (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Its very sad that the hard work of making the episodes description is lost. Many movies and tv series have descriptions and these are very useful. This is yet another example of lack of respect of other peoples work. Anyway, here are the summaries, until some admin who likes to "show off his powerz" deletes them forever:

• The Key and the Clock
• The Comb and the Box
• The Eye and the Prime Object

--Tilman (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Holders" Series

Is it possible that this series is inspiration for the popular "Holders series" floating around the internet? The Objects in both series are seemingly ordinary items (in most cases) with supernatural power, and cause something otherworldly to happen when gathered in one place. Granted, the Holders series is a collection of horror stories as opposed to a science-fiction story, but the similarities are too close to be coincidental. 216.236.164.131 (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the original Holders posts were made on 4chan in 2000 or so -- years before this story. If there's any link between the two stories, it would be the Holders inspiring The Lost Room.

Not that this nearly-eleven-months-late reply will be of even the slightest bit of use to you. 68.49.184.29 (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC) (DavidJCobb)

Naming Episode 3

Does anyone have an official source for the naming of episode three during airing? "The Eye and The Prime Object" or "The Eye and The Occupant", the last one I think is because of the renaming of the episodes on the DVD._Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 09:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

According to IMDB (Main) and (sic) this poster on Amazon,(posted on 14-Jan-2007 - day after the final showing day), the original name was 'The Eye and The Prime Object'. I feel this solidifies the Original name as 'The Eye and The Prime Object' Cerberus128 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have changed the name back in the episode list. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 13:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Plot

What is written below the heading "plot" does no really tell the plot. It does explain some important details about the story, but the story itself is not described at all. This needs some rewriting or addition. -- Lieven (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Lost Room. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718100457/http://www.red5comics.com/?p=780 to http://www.red5comics.com/?p=780
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308001546/http://www.red5comics.com/?p=890 to http://www.red5comics.com/?p=890
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618010319/http://www.red5comics.com/?p=982 to http://www.red5comics.com/?p=982

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) 19:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)