We’re only a couple shorts weeks away! Another exciting season of “LOST” is nearly upon us. The beauty of JJ Abrams’ creation is not so much in the story, characters, plot or dialogue (though all those things are great!), but it’s talking about the show with friends and co-workers for the next seven days. Here at RowThree is no different. If you want to talk “LOST,” this is a good place to start.
There are a FEW RULES to this particular discussion though:
RULES:
show
1) To newcomers of “LOST:” This discussion is current and up to date and anything discussed in the comment section below may and will include any plot summary, character development, etc. etc. as of the latest publicly aired episode on network television. In other words, once an episode has aired in its entirety on ABC (in any time zone), it is fair game to discuss anything that has happened up to and including that point.
2) Recent comments here at RowThree.com show up on the right side of the page with the first sentence or two of each comment for the world to see. It’s hard to miss. So if you plan on posting in this thread, you have two options:
– - A) If you’ve been around here before and know what you’re doing, make sure there is NOTHING REMOTELY SPOILERIFIC in the first couple lines of your text. The RETURN KEY DOES NOT WORK FOR COVERING SPOILERS in the recent comments!!! You must have a certain number of text characters to buffer your spoilers.
– - B) If you’re not sure if what you have to say is spoilerific or not sure how the process works exactly, play it on the safe side and copy and paste the following emboldened text AT THE BEGINNING of your comment. If you follow this rule (the smart thing), there shouldn’t be any problem:
THIS COMMENT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
3) Discussing any past shows, up to and including the most recently aired show is fair game. If you have some inside information on future episodes or know something about a future episode and wreck it for the rest of us, your comment may be deleted – that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hypothesize of what you think is going on or what may happen in the future. By all means, feel free to share your thoughts or predictions. But if you write: “I got a stolen script from my friend who’s an extra and it says that ’so and so’ is going to die in episode 14,” your comment will be deleted – and it will piss me off.
4) Co-writer, Kurt, needs to be watching this show pronto.
5) I’m not a fascist and I hate to be a hard-ass. That’s not my intention; but if these simple rules are ignored or broken, I do have the power and right to either edit or delete your comment. If it becomes a continuous problem, I can ban you from commenting in the future or even removing this entire thread/post altogether. That would suck.
6) If you come across something you find objectionable or have any questions at all, feel free to email me immediately and I’ll answer your question or make a quick and decisive judgment on the matter at hand.
7) I think that’s it. If you can think of something I missed, by all means, let me know. Otherwise, have fun and I’ll see you on the island.
Secondly just wanna’ express my unbearable excitement about it only being a couple of weeks (almost!) until season 5 of Lost! Season 4 left us with yet aNOTHER jaw-dropping finale twist. How, why, what….WHEN? So many questions left to explore and I can’t wait.
Btw, just to kind of put my stamp on it (and forgive me if this has been said ANYWHERE else, I promise I came up with it all on my own) – my theory is that Locke found out that if someone’s body, once they’re dead, is brough onto the island they will regenerate. That’s why Jack’s father was alive on the island…remember he was dead in the coffin and Jack discovered the coffin broken open and then we saw him in season 4 in the cabin? The price for bringing him back to life is he’s to “serve” the island. And I think Locke trusts in the island so much he left, went round all the Oceanic 6 to convince them to come back and killed himself putting trust in the fact that he’ll come back to life when brought back onto the island by the 6. And I think in either season 5 (in the season finale?) or in season 6 he will come back to life.
Le’ts wait and see if that theory pans out as I expect it will (give or take minor details).
Roll on January 21st!
Comment by Ross Miller — January 5, 2009
Every finale ends with a cliff hanger giving us a glimpse to the major theme of the next season.
Season 1 ended with them peering into the mysterious hatch
Seaason 2 ended with them being brought into the world of the others
Season 3 ended with a glimpse into the future
Every premiere begins with a follow up to the cliffhanger. Season 4 ends with Locke in the coffin so the opening teaser will focus on that.
Comment by Rusty James — January 5, 2009
Comment by mike rot — January 19, 2009
http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/index?pn=nickname
I would be “Scruffy”
lol
Comment by Andrew James — January 20, 2009
I suggest we start giving it a try. Give love to the ones that need it.
God will appreciate it.
Comment by membocacesk — January 21, 2009
Comment by Ashley — January 21, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Ok I think that was the most disappointing two hours of Lost I have seen, there was overload and bad acting, and merely going through the actions. That said, there was a lot of reveals although I doubt I can figure out alone what they all meant.
I was so hoping that Faraday with the record analogy was going to say that there are individual cycles of grooves on a record and each cycle is like a parallel universe, and what was happening was that they were jumping from one groove to the next, which I guess he sort of said but the idea of a record skipping over and over is that its between two points, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense seeing as they are jumping all over the place. I was also thinking he was going to prove my theory right by saying something like there is a cycle on the record but in their situation it was like the needle lifts every so often, its a closed time loop but they are like the needle and the record is like the island, still moving along its path but they are separate from it.
Comment by mike rot — January 22, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I thought it was awesome. I don’t see the acting as any better or worse than anything before.
I dont really have anything for theories though other than about John being ‘dead’ – holding himself in time stasis or something?
Comment by Goon — January 22, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I frickin’ LOVED this premiere, on par with any of the four others (and even better in places). Like all of the premieres it was a bit information heavy compared to regular episodes but that’s understandable – it’ll become clearer as the season goes on.
Right from the outset it gets right into the thick of things, eventually giving us more insight into the Dharma initiative videos and Dr Marvin Candle that we’ve seen oh so much over the series. And how awesome is it that the frozen wheel was already there, presumably allusive/unknown to even the Dharma Initiative? Just awesome.
I think the biggest thing we’ve gotten introduced to is the whole jumping back and forth in time thing. We’ve already seen it in sorts with Desmond but instead of just in one person’s mind we are now into the “physical”. On that note I wanted to a run a theory by you guys – ok, so the Island has “moved” in what we now know is in time but where to? My theory is that it has moved to round about the time where the Oceanic 6, Ben and Locke are i.e. three years forward from when we saw it move. And so when the Oceanic 6 (and Ben and Locke) get back to the Island it will be like they’ve only been gone a couple of hours/days/weeks (to the people who were left anyway it will seem that way). And I think my other theory will play out – that Locke, after being brought back onto the Island while dead, will be brought back to life (just as Jack’s dad was when he was on the plane, dead in the coffin – remember the coffin was broken open?). I think Locke has so much faith in the Island that he trusts Richard when he told him he needed “to die” in order to “save it”. I really love the way they’re going with the time travel thing – as a concept time travel is absurd but the way they’re handling it makes it believable within itself.
That’s all I can think of just now (:P), if anyone else has any other points that came up in the premiere let it be known and I’m sure some worthy dicussion will occur:-)
Comment by Ross Miller — January 22, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — January 22, 2009
Comment by Rusty "Dr. Giggles" James — January 23, 2009
Rusty “Dr. Giggles” James
Comment by Rusty James — January 23, 2009
This premier was pretty damn good I thought. I love the time travel thing and it will be fun to see where JJ takes it. I fully expect to see more than one of somebody/everybody at some point.
I also love how the characters who sort of know what’s going on converse with other characters (Richard – I won’t know you the next time we see each other, so just give me this [compass]) – (Faraday – listen to me Desmond, you don’t know me, but everyone’s life depends on you. You need to go to Oxford, etc, etc). – Love it.
PS
Locke: “What does [the compass] do?”
Richard: (Incredulous and snarky) “It points north, John.”
Comment by Andrew James — January 26, 2009
AM I RIGHT???
Comment by murph — January 26, 2009
So much to absorb. I loved seeing the hostiles pre-Dharma, things are starting to click, seeing how Widmore fits in, why Albert was looking into Locke as a child.
does anybody else think that chick with the gun is the same that Faraday fried? Isn’t that what is supposed to be made of him saying you look familiar, and didn’t she say “you again” when they first encountered each other? But then afterwards she acted as if she didn’t know him? I don’t know, I am confused by that.
Interesting about the U.S. army being involved… where did they disappear to?
Comment by rot — January 29, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
I’m totally over it now. I’m much more interesting in trying to crack the elaborate timeline they’re laying down.
the first time flash brings them to the day of Yemi’s plane crash. So probably no more that 3-5 years ago (lostipedia puts it at 2002 – 2004 but I don’t think it could be as late as 2004)
The second is after the swan station blew. Locke’s meeting with Alpert had me thinking it was in Locke’s future but now I’m not so sure. Last time we saw Alpert he was in primitive garb but in this scene he was in civilized clothes. I think it might be during season 3)
The third brings them to Desmond, so no more than three years ago. And the fact that it’s desmond who comes to the door leads me to believe that this is post oceanic crash, during season 1! That means that back at the beach Rose and Frogurt would be running into themselves. Arg.
Also, does anyone else think it’s weird that they named their kid Charles Widmore. Oh well. Hopefully Penny won’t end up being her own grandma.
Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
er, that should be JJ Abrams does not write for or work on Lost…
Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
guess from that episode:
the woman holding the gun on Faraday is his mom, and she’s also the old woman who fucks around with Desmond and met Ben last ep.
Everything has been awesome so far. Things are coming together, and even if its retconned, its damn good retconning.
There hasn’t been more evidence that there is an end in sight and that they know what they’re doing than right now.
Comment by Goon — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Ms Hawkings, yeah that makes more sense.
Comment by rot — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Goon,
Good call on who that woman pointing the gun at Faraday was! His mum! I didn’t click onto that one – sounds very plausible.
As a whole another amazing episode of Lost. I agree with you, rot, about the Desmond centric episodes – for some reason his always seem to be a bit more in “answer mode”, but it also seems they’re going to be in that promised mode for the rest of the episodes of Lost that are left.
I think the biggest bomb that they dropped (nothing to do with the hydrogen bomb shown in the episode:P) was that the young guy was Widmore! Just one of the steps they’ve taken to show that, yes, they have a clear end in sight (although we already knew that, this just seems to start to confirm it). So now we have the questions – Why did Widmore leave the island if in the future it seems he wants to find it so badly? And why is it that Ben, brought into the camp obviously much later than Widmore was originally there, took an element of control over it while Widmore for some reason went off of it? And on that note do you think the reason Widmore once spoke down to Ben using the term “boy” is because he was there on the island when Ben was brought there as a boy (remember when Ben crossed the magnetic fence and met Richard (with old clothes and long hair) in the woods?)?
Another question – How does Ben have contact with, and presumably take orders from, Ms Hawkings, aka most likely Daniel’s mother, and wouldn’t Ben know that Daniel was her son? Wait…..I can’t remember, did Ben EVER talk to Daniel at ANY point?
Comment by Ross Miller — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I don’t think Ben and Daniel ever talked, and the other person that it seems odd Ben doesn’t know or interact with is Desmond. According to Daniel, Desmond is special in this whole time-travelling thing, and clearly Ben had to of known of Desmond in the hatch for all of that time pushing the button, but why is there is no concern about him in Ben’s scheming? I am pretty sure Desmond is one of Widmore’s chess pieces, even in this last episode, I think he was playing him.
Comment by mike rot — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yeah that bring up a more general point – why is it that Ben and the rest of the Others left Desmond well alone in the hatch? I thought they weren’t supposed to be the ones who do experiments (remember Ben – “silly experiments”); you’d think they would want the Hatch for themselves instead of letting people continue on the button pushing thing for years.
Also I think you’re right with Widmore “playing” Desmond. Perhaps he knew that’s the position Desmond would end up being in and thus he willingly gave up Ms Hawkings’ address.
Btw I just noticed yet another way the story is all linking up (god I love this “answers mode” the show seems to be in now, almost as much as the mystery^_^) – the fact that we know Widmore was on the Island when he was younger obviously shows he knows (or eventually learns) about what it can do, particularly the time-travel thing. So that explains the part where Widmore said to Ben, in the episode where he was in bed at the end, if he had come to kill him and Ben replied, “We both know I can’t do that.” Turns out whoever said that was right; it wasn’t meant to be “I wouldn’t do that” but more along the lines of he literally CAN’T do that because of the not being able to change the past – “if it DIDN’T happen it CAN’T happen,” as Daniel kept saying -, which is frickin’ awesome how that links up.
Comment by Ross Miller — January 29, 2009
Don’t think of it as questions and answers. Think of it as a jigsaw puzzle and every episode is a few more pieces.
Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Ben and Dan never speak or met face to face. But remember, Ben knew all about the freighter folk because…. I HAVE A MAN ON THEIR BOAT.
So if there’s anything about Dan worth knowing then Ben knows it.
If Widmore was playing Desmond it’s likely an effort to smoke Hawking and Ben out into the open. Possibly his ulterior motive in funding Faraday all along.
I bet Widmore will stage a coup while Richard is off island stalking baby Locke.
Comment by Rusty James — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ “Possibly his ulterior motive in funding Faraday all along.”
Hmmmmm…wouldn’t that mean Daniel was in on it i.e. working with Widmore? I don’t buy that for a second.
Comment by Ross Miller — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
On the list of WTF unanswered questions in Lost, the role the button pushing plays in the show, both what it does and why, and how it relates to the Ben and Widmore, that is up there. Desmond’s seemingly spontaneous decision to resist pushing the button caused the plane crash in the first place, that is pretty big deal. How could that be pre-ordained, he wasn’t prompted, he seemed to do it of his own volition. As a Widmore pawn, Desmond was necessary to get the plane to crash, and I believe it has already been determined that the plane crash was a Widmore move. So how do you get everything to fall into place right up to the moment Desmond breaks down? Or is it possible that it is not the button pushing that effects the explosion, that its all a put-on… I don’t know… if I had one question to be answered its that, I don’t get it.
Regarding your idea Ross, I am not sure how changing the future can change the past? Or maybe you mean Widmore and Ben have both been to the future and they KNOW that neither of them can be killed… but somehow Ben’s daughter was killed, Widmore was able to break the rules.
They need to do something dramatic this season, and kill one of the big names… like Jack. I mean he was originally not supposed to be an important character so I can totally see them doing it.
Comment by rot — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Has it really been established that Widmore actually CAUSED the crash? I mean doesn’t he want the island for himself? Why then would he want a bunch of plane crash survivors running around on it? And I do think that what Desmond did made the plane crash i.e. the sky turning purple while the plane happened to be in the proximity of the blast of energy made it crash. But what you said about Desmond willingly didn’t push the button…that wasn’t the case. If you remember he didn’t mean not to push it, he went after/followed Kelvin and spent too much time talking to him (also killing him, remember) and by the time he got back it was too late, he didn’t push the button in time.
Well perhaps Ben and Widmore are “special” like Desmond i.e. the rules don’t apply to them physically but they both have vowed sometime in the past not to break them (in respect to what the Island can do, perhaps?) thus Ben seeking revenge because Widmore “broke the rules” by changing what was “supposed to happen” by killing Alex.
They will NOT kill Jack, you can count on that. Or Kate, or Sayid, or Sawyer, or Hurley. Particularly Jack and Kate but ALL of those I mentioned won’t be killed off. And with regards to the fact that Jack wasn’t supposed to be an important character originally – that was then, this is now. He’s become THE character, or at least ONE of THE characters, who is FAR FAR FAR too important to the show overall for them to kill him off.
Comment by Ross Miller — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
“They will NOT kill Jack, you can count on that. Or Kate, or Sayid, or Sawyer, or Hurley. Particularly Jack and Kate but ALL of those I mentioned won’t be killed off.”
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. You’re probably right, but I wouldn’t say for 100% certain they won’t kill someone off. And of course, even if they do, this whole time travel thing would keep them on the show anyway. Shit, even Anna Lucia showed up last week for a quick cameo (Michelle Rodriguez is looking good by the way).
Comment by Andrew James — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Alright, so when Desmond called his son “Charlie,” I was a bit taken aback. Did we know that was the kid’s name before this episode? Here’s a wild theory… is this THE Charlie? Is it possible that somehow Penny, Desmond and Charlie will all get caught up in the time warp thing and somehow Charlie ends up in Australia and becomes the Charlie we all know?
Comment by Andrew James — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Also yeah, finding out that the younger abrasive guy on the island is Charles Whitmore was pretty earth-shattering. I thought maybe the young lady pointing a gun at Faraday was Russo, but she would be too old. So the old lady that Ben meets up with in the church from last week makes much more sense. “She’s in L.A.” – actually, now that I think about that, it makes perfect sense. The old lady lighting the candles telling Ben he only has 70 hours is Faraday’s mother AND the young lady pointing the gun at him 50 years earlier on the island. Is that right?
Comment by Andrew James — January 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Did we know that was the kid’s name before this episode?
the kid was never seen or mentioned before this episode.
I still can’t get over the fact that the kids name is probably Charles Widmore. And they’re headed off toward time travel island.
They can’t possibly be going down the I-am-my-own-grandfather route… can they?
I’ve always expected that Widmore was one of the Others and probably their leader at one point (everything you have you took from me, boy). But I think they kind of cheated with the Jones name tag.
Comment by Rusty James — January 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Andrew,
Well yeah I forgot to differentiate between the two – they COULD kill him off but you can bet your ass if they do they will still have him in the show because of the whole time travel thing. What I meant was they won’t not have him in the show anymore. But I still don’t think they’ll kill him off– he’s too damned important!^_^
@ “Here’s a wild theory… is this THE Charlie? Is it possible that somehow Penny, Desmond and Charlie will all get caught up in the time warp thing and somehow Charlie ends up in Australia and becomes the Charlie we all know?”
That IS a wild theory indeed. But I don’t buy it. I think it’s simply that Desmond became such good friends with Charlie and was attached to him more than pretty much any other of the survivors (because of him having to save his life and plus he watched him die, remember). So he called his child Charlie – I really don’t think he thought about the name being almost the same as Widmore. And his name wouldn’t be Widmore….it’d be Hume. Remember that’s only Penny’s name but since the boy is Desmond’s as well (and I’m pretty sure he and Penny have gotten or will get married) his name would be Charlie Hume, not Charlie Widmore.
I’ve been thinking about what the whole 70 hours time limit is about; if you remember when Ms Hawkings was drawing on the chalk board (equations etc) and then when she went over to the computer (which was similar in style to the one in the Hatch) if you noticed it said “EVENT WINDOW DETERMINED”. And plus there was a pendulum thing with a piece of chalk drawing lines and making a target point on what seemed like some sort of map. So I’m thinking that they’re trying to find the Island (which the Others move, like Ben did, so that people like Widmore can’t find it) and they only have this “EVENT WINDOW” of time (which runs out in the 70 hours mentioned) where they can get back to the Island.
^^Which then brings up the question why is it so damned important that the Oceanic 6 (and Locke) go back to the Island? – “God help us all…” – Is it because “they were not supposed to leave” and by doing so it puts fate or time or whatever in jeopordy because they were supposed to stay there? So something “bad” (whatever that may be) will happen if all of them don’t go back.
@ “I still can’t get over the fact that the kids name is probably Charles Widmore. And they’re headed off toward time travel island.
They can’t possibly be going down the I-am-my-own-grandfather route… can they?”
I don’t think that will happen – that’s going down a fucked up road that just wouldn’t work. I think these kinds of theories are expecting too much on the crazy side of things from the show. Sure, they’ve been ballsy with moving the Island etc but I don’t think they’re going to make it completely out of the realm of possibility. In saying that….the whole time travel thing is outside the realm of possibility but the way they’re handling it makes it somewhat believable and something you can go along with and accept within the show.
To be honest I never saw that one coming – I never clicked that Widmore must have been on the Island as one of the Others just because of the fact he was trying to find the Island so badly; if he was an Other why is he not still on the Island?
Comment by Ross Miller — January 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yeah, Desmond’s kid isn’t Charles Whidmore. Can’t be, it wouldn’t have that last name – it would be Desmond’s last name. Also, even if that were the case, presumably Whidmore KNOWS his father (Desmond), so why would he give him such a hard time later in life with his daughter etc?
SO I don’t think that’s plausible. I still think that baby Charlie could possibly be THE Charlie. We’ll see though.
Comment by Andrew James — January 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
on a podcast I was listening to someone brought this up, and I gotta say, I would bet money he is right. The last shot of the last episode of the last season will be a close-up of Jack waking up on the island. Its like how Aronofsky said the end of the Wrestler was always going to be that way, there was no other way. A story like this, I feel like it has to go there, make it cyclical.
Comment by rot — January 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
But wouldn’t that then mean Jack would have knowledge of everything that happened on the Island before? Wouldn’t he have had that knowledge at the start of season 1? Or do you mean it’s destined to go round and round in a circle? I can’t see them going that route – it leaves it too open, does it not? Also it hinges the point of Lost on Jack alone…what about everyone else? Are they not important all of a sudden?
One thing I just realised that I found strange – the whole Richard being really old but doesn’t seem to age thing (if that makes sense). I thought the reason he was there when John was born etc was because he used the Island to travel back in time. But Juliette confirmed he is, in fact, “really old”. So why is it that he seems to be the only one? If Widmore was an Other, along with Richard, wouldn’t he not grow old too? Or was Richard there even before ANYONE else and is therefore the only one who has that ability?
@ Rusty James – “But I think they kind of cheated with the Jones name tag.”
I read on Lostpedia.org that the uniforms seem to be US military so my guess would be that they took them off the military guys that were sent after they killed them, to use them as a disguise should they come across any more that gets sent (or anyone in general, i.e. Daniel, Sawyer, Locke etc, for that matter). It makes sense.
Comment by Ross Miller — January 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ if he was an Other why is he not still on the Island?
My guess is that Widmore seizes control through illigitimate means and then is oustered by Ben. Then they banish him to the mainland.
By the way, I don’t actually think Charlie Widmore is his own grandfather (although his doesn’t have to be Hume, it could go either way). I was just remarking on the turn of events. And the kid’s not Charlie Pace either.
@ my so my guess would be that they took them off the military guys
My guess is you’re right. In the recent lost recap show Lindeloff refered to the others as hermit crabs who take in residence in the husks of their defeated enemies.
But his friend had a “Cunningham” name tag and he was called Cunningham so explain that one.
Comment by Rusty James — January 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ “My guess is that Widmore seizes control through illigitimate means and then is oustered by Ben. Then they banish him to the mainland.”
That sounds pretty plausible to me. But would that then mean they would’ve had to PHYSICALLY force him off the Island and then made sure he couldn’t find his way back (by moving the Island, perhaps?)?
@ “But his friend had a “Cunningham” name tag and he was called Cunningham so explain that one.”
Coincidence, maybe? Or perhaps his name WAS Cunningham (was that established?) and he just happened to come across one of the US soldiers with the same name i.e. stroke of luck.
Comment by Ross Miller — January 31, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Jack won’t die. When this is all over, Jack and Kate will probably end up stuck on the island way in the past. We already saw their skeletons in the cave in Season 1.
Comment by Christian A. Dumais — January 31, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ We already saw their skeletons in the cave in Season 1.
that’s so obvious though. I hope it’s something different.
Comment by Rusty James — January 31, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ We already saw their skeletons in the cave in Season 1.
Wait… what?
Comment by Andrew James — February 1, 2009
THIS COMMENT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Do you not remember the skeletons they came across with the black and white stones in their pocket? Well that theory above is suggesting it’ll end up being Jack and Kate but I think that’s total rubbish. Again, like the “Jack ending up back where he was at the start of season 1″, is putting too much importance on one or two characters, hinging it too much on a couple – what about everyone else?
Btw I was just thinking of something else (aka here goes another theory:P>>) – It’s been established that Widmore was funding Daniel’s research for 10 years, right? And Daniel said to Sawyer, when he demanded answers, that everything he knows about the Dharma initiative is in that book of his, right? Well, do you think that Widmore was using Daniel, taking advantage of him in a way, because Daniel’s curiosity etc so that he could find the Island for him? I mean if Widmore was an Other to begin with that would have meant the Dharma Initiative was trying to do experiments on what was his (native) home – so they are his enemies. And he knows that if they are conducting experiments and have people on the Island that they know where it is and how to get there. Maybe Daniel accepted in helping him (although probably not knowing that Widmore wanted to kill all the survivors and take over the Island) because Widmore helped him out with paying for his research and for the young woman he hurt. I think it’s plausible given what we’ve learned from episodes 1-3 of Season 5.
Comment by Ross Miller — February 1, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Allow me to walk you through my cognitive experience of the final minutes of last night’s episode
French people
(*blink blink*)
A French team shipwrecked on the island
(*blink blink*)
A French team shipwrecked on the island with an inordinate amount of time focused on the woman
(*blink blink*)
She is pregnant
(*blink blink*)
“My name is Rousseau”
(*blink … ah!)
I have never felt so dumb in my life.
Pretty lousy episode overall, felt like a time killer, and I was getting upset when I saw the french team, not MORE characters, but I guess this is okay because they fit within the pre-existing set. Still the number of characters on Lost is ridiculous, now essentially each character gets like one or two lines of dialogue an episode if they are lucky… so that anytime they do speak it has to take up the herculean task of moving character forward… nobody ever just shoots the shit anymore, the characters have no breathing room
Comment by rot — February 5, 2009
“Still the number of characters on Lost is ridiculous, now essentially each character gets like one or two lines of dialogue an episode if they are lucky”
Do a head count and you’ll see there’s currently no more main characters than there ever was. This ‘one line per person’ feeling is simply because there’s more people in the ‘flash forwards’ at a time than before. As I’ve said before, if Lost is a 100+ hour movie, we are at an ‘action scene’ part of that overall movie.
Comment by Goon — February 5, 2009
I KNEW eventually they were going to start running into themselves. Sawyer seeing Claire and Kate was the beginning. If somehow they had tied that together from season one, I would be sitting here with a giant OMG comment. i.e. if in season 1 or 2 a character comes out of the jungle talking nonsense about this or that or the other thing, and now it comes back in season 5 as an “aha!” moment, that would be cool.
It would be like if you watched Back to the Future 1 and could see a second Marty McFly in the background (from part 2). I doubt they thought this far ahead back in season 1 of LOST though.
Comment by Andrew James — February 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I disagree – I thought episode four was great. I mean it dealt with things that they’ve brought up more recently that warranted time spent on them – such as the “who hired the lawyers” angle – and it had the great reveal that Jin wasn’t dead. I mean I know it was kind of inevitable but I had a massive grin and felt relief to have it actually confirmed.
It’s been on people’s mind since the start of this season if they were going to run into people from the past throughout this time travel thing and it was great to see them finally introduce it on-screen. I don’t think, Andrew, they had the time travel angle in mind from season 1 which is obviously why they didn’t have that little “omg” moment now in season 5 but I think that’s okay.
I was shocked when it turned out it was Ben who hired the lawyers – I thought I was so smart when I called it being Claire’s mum the other week there and had a smile from ear to ear when they brought it up in the episode at first:P But they really pulled the rug out from under us when they revealed it was Ben. So that, of course, brings up the question why did Ben hire them? What does he want Aaron for if he was going to get him anyway when he got Kate to go back to the Island? This is kind of reminding us of the often shifty ways Ben will go about things. I’m sure he’ll have a good reason for doing it but from where we were left hanging with that at the end of this episode it seems he’s up to his old tricks again.
I agree that it was a bit of a “duh!” moment when the young woman revealed herself to be Rousseau but at the same time I was shocked that they were transported to that time period. I had no idea until you first heard them speaking French that that’s who the white rafts belonged to (and that they were the ones shooting at Sawyer etc). It’s cool that we’re (hopefully) going to get to see Rousseu’s story – it’s been alluded to and talked about right from the start of the show almost (at least it was in the first couple of seasons). I think we’ll get an episode which mainly shows what happened to Rousseu’s team – aka “It killed them. It killed them all.” – and I think that’s warranted.
Do you guys think that the baby we saw at the start of the season 5 premiere was Miles? I mean Daniel was alluding to the fact that the nosebleeds etc only seem to happen to people who have “prolonged exposure” – perhaps Miles was born on the Island and was there for a few years before he got taken off, for whatever reason, which is why he said he had only spent two weeks there (either that or he’s lying). Also remember when Charlotte said last season to Daniel, “Would it make sense if I said I was still looking for where I was born?” That always stuck in my mind and now it’s looking more and more likely – that she was born there and perhaps – and this may be stretching – that when Widmore left the Island (banished, maybe?) he took Miles and Charlotte as babies. Plausible, do you think? I mean if Charlotte and Miles were both from the Island originally isn’t it a bit of a coincidence that Widmore would just happen to hire two people who just happen to have a link with the Island? Most surely he knew about it. It’s looking like everyone but Naomi who was sent on the boat had some pre-existing link with the Island (except from Frank who was clearly just hired because he was a pilot).
All in all another great episode, I think. LOST never lets me down:)
Comment by Ross Miller — February 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I have heard it theorized that Widmore and Hawkings were an item, and that they had two kids, Daniel and Penny, but something in the past divided them and now Hawkings works with Albert and Ben.
That first baby is almost certainly Miles.
someone also on a podcast suggested maybe Locke is Jacob, that Jacob was just an alias, and he didn’t want to be known for whatever reason and he has been working through this alias as a kind of time police force.
lots of speculation.
I am betting Charolette is Ben’s daughter though.
Comment by rot — February 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Do you think that’s why Miles has that freaky supernatural thing where he can sense that/when people have died – because he was on the Island and had been exposed for a prolonged period of time, as is said?
I had an incling towards the fact that Charlotte is perhaps Ben’s daughter last season when the four from the helicopter were introduced. Do you think the little girl who gave Ben the wooden dolls – “You look just like her…” – is Charlotte’s mother, then?
Comment by Ross Miller — February 5, 2009
nope.
Comment by Rusty James — February 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I agree with the lot of you about that final scene. And I think it exemplifies my major problem with this season, everything’s too on the nose.
If there’s an Asian baby then that means it’s Miles. If there’s a blond British woman then it must be Ms. Hawking. And if we fail to connect the dots ourselves don’t worry because a character will spell it out for us in dialogue. All while the plot works over time to artlessly move all the relevant characters from point A to point B while the island plays its greatest hits (see what I did there; “skipping record”, “greatest hits”).
Lost never used to be obvious, now I see it coming a mile away.
Of course all the tortured exposition is necessary because people are still having trouble following the story. Every person I talk to seems to have drastically misunderstood some aspect of the story (”Ethan couldn’t shoot Locke because he’s alive in the future”. Nope). So I understand the need, I just think it’s suffocating the story.
I know there’s going to be controversy here but I think it was a mistake to do away with the flashback structure. Certaintly the flashbacks were responsible for some lame episodes but they were also a great engine of innovation; Locke’s paralasys, Jack’s flash forward, the origin of Ben Linus, The Other 48 days. Complain all you want but in retrospect Expose is a brilliant episode. They enabled the writers to tell character driven stories as well as genre fare that never would’ve fit otherwise.
Without the flashbacks there’s just no room for the characters.
Plus, the flashbacks would’ve been a great device to tell the time travel story.
Comment by Rusty James — February 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Do you think the little girl who gave Ben the wooden dolls – “You look just like her…” – is Charlotte’s mother, then?
It was actually Juliet who was said to have looked just like “her”.
Also, while it’s certainty possible “her” refered to Annie it was not resolved. Juliet also bears a resemblance to Ben’s mother. And since the person speaking was a psychiatrist I favor that interpretation.
But I agree. Ben is a likely suspect for Charlotte’s father. I also have my eye on Horace Goodspeed.
Comment by Rusty James — February 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Rusty you nailed it, ever since Locke happened to be standing in the open as Echo’s brother’s plane came barrelling past there has been too many coincidental jumps… unless there is an inherent logic to the jumping (just as there is an inherent logic to the flashback encounters) and this would seem to be the case because of when it chooses to jump, always at a moment pertaining to the characters not to some random cosmic event. This is really bugging me this season, Lost works best when there is SOME suspension of disbelief but to make me have to swallow the fact that the island could be jumping through anytime in history and in the six or seven times so far they have been greatest hits pertaining to the characters, that is beyond coincidental, that is a joke… unless there is a logic to it, unless the jumping is not random. Or, as I defend Aronofsky’s The Fountain, if it is explained that what is being seen is an eternity perspective and so all situations exist but for the sake of the narrative these ‘greatest hits’ are being shown. I doubt they will do that.
I will just say two things that I have heard:
1) The Oceanic Six storyline will be over soon, they are not stretching it the entire season.
2) things happening in this season are suppose to make you think one way, feel confident you got it figured it out and by the finale leading to the six season it will blow your mind and challenge your preconceived notions. I think Lindelof said that at ComicCon.
3) Aaron is important (but why not Walt and Sun’s baby?)
Comment by rot — February 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yeah I know it was referring to Juliette but what I meant was do you think “her” was Annie? I mean that could explain why he was so obsessed with Juliette because he had a strong relationship with Annie as he grew up and she either died or went off the Island (or something(?)) and seeing someone even resembling her would make him form an unnatural attachement/obssesion. And adding to that you’ve also got his “mummy issues”.
With regards to the “on the nose” approach this season I think it’s understandable because of how deep we are into the mythology now. They may be revealing/presenting things that we knew they would have to at some point but for anyone not obsessively coming up with theories it would just be like they’re presenting it naturally i.e. fans of the show like us who dissect everything may be able to foresee cetain things but a lot of people won’t.
I do agree that it’s a bit of a coincidence that they go back to points in time that effect them in some way (i.e. why wouldn’t it be thousands of years, for example?) but I guess you could look at it as a “fate” sort of thing. Or maybe it’s one of these cases (which I LOVE whenever they are used as a device in anything) – yeah it’s improbable but you can’t say it WOULDN’T happen. It’s possible! (to quote 12 Angry Men:)).
Although I agree that the flashbacks were a great device and those good old Lost days are missed I still don’t think it was a bad decision to get rid of them (at least for now – something tells me they’ll come back in some form at some point). I think the flashforwards were an ingenius idea and they work fantastically because instead of us finding out why this person is a certain way etc – i.e. oh THAT’S why that happened – we now we have the fun of guessing how we will get to a certain point. It adds an extra element of mystery without being overly contrived or confusing.
I disagree that they are laying it out too simply as far as things like “a British woman with blonde hair HAS to be Ms Hawkings” or “a Chinese baby HAS to be Miles”. Remember the writers revealed that they had a two-day solid sit down working out exactly where the show was going and how it was ending. So when you saw all those things that were later revealed to be what they were you have to remember they were most likely planned. So Ms Hawkings wasn’t just a creepy future telling woman in the Desmond episode to fit in with the feel of that particular episode – she was there for a reason and she fits into it overall.
I think you’re right, rot, that a lot of the stuff we have seen/will see in this season we will think we’ve worked it out but we will get the rug pulled from under us in the season 5 finale, making us second guess everything we’ve “worked out”.
Comment by Ross Miller — February 6, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yeah, the biggest thing bothering me right now are the fact that the time jumps happen completely randomly and seem to always happen at the most inopportune (or most opportune) moments. It seem a little lazy to me.
Comment by Andrew James — February 6, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Andrew,
But can you blame them? I mean isn’t it a hell of a lot more interesting to see how the future “losties” interact with things (and possibly people – like Sawyer did with Kate and Claire) that they come across in the past when the island moves through time? As opposed to running into things they had NOTHING to do with, either physically themselves or through connections? Where would the fun be in that? That also would open up a lot of new questions, as opposed to answering lingering ones (which is what they’re doing with the coincidental time periods they keep moving to mentality).
Comment by Ross Miller — February 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
New theory: the whispers in season 1/2 are actually themselves in time travel mode. In other words, when Kate or Charlie hear whispering in the jungle, it’s actually future Locke or Sawyer or whoever whispering in the shadows.
Comment by Andrew James — February 11, 2009
Great episode. Lots of plot development. Lots of island stuff, not so much soap opera bullshit.
A couple people I was with complained about the time flashes getting out of hand, but it doesn’t bother me.
Comment by Andrew James — February 11, 2009
Now that’s a fucking episode. Honestly, they actually spent like fifteen minutes of an episode entirely on Jin, there is a bit more breathing room, and I think this was the most solid episode of the season. I love Ben putting on the brakes, I was thinking the same thing (damn these people like to bitch a lot).
So Ben did not know that Faraday is Hawking’s son… now trying to remember what exactly he did know about him… he had intel on him from the freighter, but I guess Widmore hid his past well.
Can we agree now that Charolette is/was Ben’s daughter? I didn’t like the exposition before death, but Daniel did say the obvious (”why are you telling me this?”) so I will give them some credit.
Comment by rot — February 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ they actually spent like fifteen minutes of an episode entirely on Jin
I liked that as well. And Locke getting ready for his big trip was probably my favorite moment of the season so far.
I was disappointed that we didn’t spend more time with the Rouseau’s. The off island stuff is still rubbish (with the exception of Desmond’s episode) and I can’t believe they still haven’t gotten the 06 back to the island.
Ben is increasingly likely as Charlotte’s father. But, don’t forget about the episode last season where he tried to kill her by shooting her repeatedly. Maybe he just didn’t know… but that seems out of character for him. That’s the type of thing he’d know.
But overall a suspenseful and well written episode.
Comment by Rusty James — February 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@don’t forget about the episode last season where he tried to kill her by shooting her repeatedly.
I just went back and watched that scene. It’s the part where Ben pleads for his life by saying he has information on the freighter folk. Ben identifies Charlotte’s parents as “David and Jenette”. For whatever that’s worth.
Comment by Rusty James — February 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Oh one more gripe. When have Ben and Desmond ever met?
Comment by Rusty James — February 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Ben would know of Desmond from the hatch that has surveillance over the hatch he was in for all that time. and That is my number one question, what pushing the button was all about, and what Ben’s relationship with Desmond is,, why he let me him stay there pushing the button.
Next episode will be about getting them back… its title is some number that pertains to a flight number (so a podcast says).
Comment by rot — February 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Also I take back my early idea that Desmond is a pawn in Widmore’s game, because if we remember Hawkings came into a Desmond episode several seasons ago and told him to do something, so clearly he is being used by Ben and Eloise.
Comment by rot — February 12, 2009
You can always take it as a given that Ben knows everything. But Desmond has never seen Ben before.
Comment by Rusty James — February 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
This is the first time I can remember seeing Sawyer get really excited and/or happy about something (seeing Jin alive). I liked that scene.
Comment by Andrew James — February 13, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I like the Sawyer/Jack bonding moments, there needs to be more of them. At some point they need to be pitted together against some common enemy.
Comment by rot — February 13, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
In general I don’t think much of Josh Holloway’s acting skills but he’s really good at playing off others. His scenes with Evangeline Lilly, Jorge and Matt Fox are great. He’s got a scene in season 1 with Malcolm David Kelly that’s pure hillarity.
Comment by Rusty James — February 13, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
This may have been the best episode so far this season, although my love for the show blurs the lines so it may change by tomorrow:)
Was it just me or did this episode feel unlike pretty much any other so far? It didn’t particularly concentrate on anyone, giving us a welcome chunk of Jin’s story at the beginning (which was a particular highlight of the episode), and it felt like a journey from the point when Jin met with the others in the jungle. They handled the pace extremely well in this episode, the fastest time passing in ages for me^_^
I think it’s leaning towards the fact that Charlotte is (or now – WAS) Ben’s daughter but the only wrench that’s been thrown in is the fact that ,as you guys mentioned, in the episode where he shot and presumably intended to kill her. The only way that would explain both is if Ben didn’t know he was his daughter but, yeah as you say, that seems like something he would know.
@ Rusty James,
Oh, hell yeah!! That scene where Locke was preparing to get into the well and holding onto the rope, after Jin forcing him to promise he wouldn’t bring Sun back, and lower himself down. And then when the time shift happened the rope just led into the ground and the well was covered up – just brilliant. What was strange about this episode was the lack of bringing up new questions; there was still some, obviously, but way less than usual. As you say, Andrew, a lot of plot development, but also keeping us guessing (but not with lots of new questions, as I said) and keeping the pace cosistent, making the time absolutely fly by (no pun intended!).
Probably the biggest question lurking from that episode is what is going on with Christian/Jack’s dad? I actually have a theory about it that links to the one I have mentioned numerous times before about Locke coming back from the dead when they bring his body back onto the Island. Here goes – The reason Jack was in Australia was to bring his father’s body back; so Christian is on the plane in a coffin when it crashes and when he does the Island brings hm back to life. Remember when the broken coffin was found (was is Jack who found it?)? Well what were “The Others” at the time would have known that when they saw a coffin had been amongst the wreckage that the person would have came back to life so they broke it open and from then on Christian has to “serve the Island” (whatever that means). What do you make of that, guys?:P
The episode was already at the highest level of awesome when it got to the last couple of minutes, outside the church with a few of the Oceanic 6 (plus Ben). And just when you thought it wasn’t possible to get any better, Desmond appears……”What are you doing here? Are you looking for Faraday’s mother, too?”
Arrrhh!! Just AMAZING stuff.
Comment by Ross Miller — February 13, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — February 18, 2009
I think there is probably more to this episode than at first meets the eye. Why was Benjamin all bloodied up? What convinced Hugo to come? Where the fuck is Aaron? Why was Sayid on the plane apparently in hand cuffs?
Still, I hated the fact that we knew right away that they would end up on the island, because everything in the episode then was unsuspenseful and felt like bullshit. The whole thing with getting the shoes for Locke from Jack’s dad was stupid as hell. Maybe something will come of it later, but c’mon. They just introduce Jack’s grandpa for no other reason than they needed a way for him to get shoes? Puh-lease.
Comment by Andrew James — February 18, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — February 18, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
are you kidding me? That was an awesome episode, it got back into the groove and the characters had a bit more space to breathe. I love the intrigue about why Kate is going, and there is something pale about her and possibly Hurley and Sayid, everybody kind of looks like zombies, Jack has finally accepted the faith, thank god, I cannot take anymore disbelief in the face of what has already happened. and Ben has never been better, he kind of seems like a broken man now, not James Bond.
and I love the fact he is beaten up again and no one even mentions it, its a given.
No this is probably my second favorite of the season right after last week’s episode, this is the heart of the show.
Comment by rot — February 19, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
someone on a podcast I listened to made the observation of the holy trinity reflected in Christian Shepard (take a guess who he represents), Jacob as God, and Smokey as the Holy Spirit. The religious speech by Ben kind of made me think this is a strong possibility for where they are going.
Comment by rot — February 19, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
^thats amusing, i couldnt avoid reading that. I’m actually only partway into this episode and closed my eyes as I scrolled down to say that thus far I am EXTREMELY PLEASED with this episode, as much as I like the time shifting this show really needed a breather/character based episode.
I loved the Jackface on “This is ridiculous!” – I mean especially when you have John making the absurd guesses about the well vs. Jack not listening and being apprehensive – he’s fine with all the pseudoscientific gizmos everywhere but the second you get into his family shit he goes nuts. Ha!
Science vs. faith is a constant thing on this show, but its never really been in any real sense. Its a matter of characters accepting or denying the situations and fucked up shit they have seen and experienced as “real”.
Comment by Goon — February 19, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
a few little things:
http://www.ajiraairways.com/ – Ajira is Hindu for “island”
Hurley reading a copy of Y the Last Man. lol, he’s the last guy they showed/needed. That comic is by one of Lost’s newer writers and is very good.
Comment by Goon — February 19, 2009
I think you guys are crazy this was solid.
Comment by rot — February 19, 2009
everything else is relative.
Comment by Goon — February 19, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Artless.
In another context Rot I could almost agree with you. If this were the first episode of the season I could at least appreciate that the show hits the ground running. Ms. Hawking, Jack’s grampa, the plane ride; all artless but at least it’d be showing initiative in kicking the story off.
But as it is, we’ve been following the antics of these Oceanic 6 for 5 episodes now. Their motivations are still opaque. What was the point of those episodes?
These first six episodes strongly remind me of the infamous first six episodes of Season 3. The “Sawyer and Kate talk about their relationship in a cage” episodes. They’re ruderless. The writers know they have to get the 06 back to the Island but they just can’t find a way to do. So we get episode after episode about how they’re not getting there.
I think going into the season the writers significantly underestimated how difficult it would be to get them back. The characters just don’t have any motivation for going back and the writers keep smacking into that wall.
Also, this episode is notable for writing into the shows mythology that the island is pro-choice.
Comment by Rusty James — February 19, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
ah Rusty well there’s the rub, I love the cage scenes of season 3, we have different frames of reference for what is good clearly. The cage scenes were like Hans Solo getting frozen, it had that right degree of emotion to actually make you feel something for the characters.
as far as motivation of Oceanic Six, I think the point is that there is still a big mystery why Sayid, Hurley and Kate returned and that is going to probably factor into the big plot points of island mythology. Jack is obvious, I mean what does he have to live for? Sun’s motivation is to see Jin, thats clear. Apparently this episode was supposed to be after the episode that is coming next week, ‘the life and death of Jeremy Bentham’, but I guess they thought the punch of Jeremy Bentham was more important to end on before a week hiatus. Perhaps there are clues to why the Oceanic Six were there.
Big question, who is the dark-skinned guy sitting in the first class with everybody? Was he on the show before, I thought I recognized him from 24 or something. Whta is he doing there?
Comment by rot — February 19, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
One other thing, I am rewatching season 3 right now and in the episode ‘I Do’ Pickett says something in passing that made no sense at the time because the character had never been introduced, he said of Jack “he wasn’t even on Jacob’s list”.
This is in keeping with the knowledge we have that Jack was not supposed to be a main character originally. It would seem to me that Christian Shepard and Ben are allies, because Ben needed a surgeon on that plane, except why wouldn’t Christian do it himself? Maybe Jack was on the plane to deliver his father’s coffin, and he has no main part of Jacob’s plan because of that, he was a means to an end. Certainly Ben’s list contained Jack because he needed him to do surgery on his back.
oh and the episode ‘I Do’, fucking hell, season 3 is so much better because it is like Empire Strikes Back to the latests eps Return of the Jedi.
Comment by rot — February 20, 2009
How so?
Anyways, I overall season 3 is my favorite. It runs the deepest into the shows mythology, expands the world of LOST in interesting new ways and has the best finale. The Man Behind The Curtain is a likely contender for best episode ever. And Locke opposing Ben and vying for leadership of the others is a great story line.
But it’s all inspite of those first 6 episodes. After two season of teasing us with intruiging clues about the others these episodes go out of their way to make the others as lame and uninteresting as possible. Danny Pickett is an easy contender for worst Lost character EVAAA!
And that line about Jacob that you reference made me want to throw something at the TV at the time. We were supposed to be learning about the others and why they abduct people. And instead they tread water for 6 episodes and then pass the buck to some guy named “jacob” who I’ve never heard of and don’t care about. Fuck you, LOST!
Also, those six episodes include the only bad Lock flashback.
I will agree that those episodes are really well shot, and the acting and writing are as good as ever.
Comment by Rusty James — February 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
the whole Leia finally showing her emotion for Hans as he is about to be frozen is very much like Kate saying she loves Sawyer as he is about to be executed. I mean I doubt it is a secret how similar the Kate/Sawyer/Jack situation is with Star Wars.
The first episodes of season three are very well directed, even the musical cues are better, and I’m sorry but one of the best WTF moments on Lost is that first scene of the first episode where you pull back from Otherville, having assumed it was elsewhere. Pickett is what he is, a hillbilly and I thought he was a good match for Sawyer.
The acting particularly of Kate/Sawyer/Jack are way better in these episodes than what is going on right now, and it has to do with what they have to work with by way of lines… the scene where Kate is talking to Jack through the glass wall, its absolutely pitch perfect, and it is so because a lot of it is just acting through expression, not dialoguing it all. There is less reliance lately on saying more with less. Perhaps it is the directors they choose.
Comment by rot — February 20, 2009
It’s their place within the story that I criticize them for.
I also agree that the quality has taken a nose dive in these recent episodes. They’re not as visually impressive. The staging is shoddy. The pacing is frequently clumsy, the musical cues are often obstructive. In every scene I imagine the director yelling through a bullhorn “every relevant character go that way… for some reason”.
Remember when the show had characters? Now it feels like every character gets their token line per scene as per contract and that’s it.
What I don’t understand about your star wars analogy is how the current season is Return of the Jedi.
Comment by Rusty James — February 20, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — February 20, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — February 20, 2009
huh.
Jedi, just because right now it is action scene upon action scene, and Jedi had a bit of overload of the whole world of Star Wars, and the jumping around is kind of doing that right now.
Comment by rot — February 20, 2009
Comment by rot — February 20, 2009
Comment by rot — February 20, 2009
He directed The Lie and it was one of the worst episodes this season.
Comment by Rusty James — February 20, 2009
but look at this resume:
Tabula Rasa
Walkabout
The Moth
Whatever the Case May Be
Outlaws
…In Translation
Exodus – Part 1
Exodus – Part 2
Man of Science, Man of Faith
Orientation
Fire + Water
Maternity Leave
Dave
Live Together, Die Alone
A Tale of Two Cities
The Cost of Living
Flashes Before Your Eyes
The Man from Tallahassee
One of Us
Through the Looking Glass
The Beginning of the End
The Economist
The Constant
The Shape of Things to Come
for The Constant and the Shape of Things to Come, A Tale of Two Cities, Tabula Rasa, and Walkabout Alone he should be congratulated.
The direction had a lot to do with the success of these episodes.
Comment by rot — February 20, 2009
But instead, what I’m saying is I don’t think the directors they’ve hired are the problem this season.
The Moth is a good pick for worst episode. I’d point to Dave, Every Man for Himself and I Do. Actually Further instruction is a contender as well. And an oddball pick Collision, the first Ana Lucia episode.
The two groups of survivors finally come together at last… and every scene lands with a thud. The meeting between Eko and Locke is terribly written.
And I’d include several episodes from this season already.
Best episodes: Lost In Translation, Deus Ex Machina, Man of Scienc…, Orientation, Man Behind The Curtain, The Brig, Greatest Hits, Through the Looking Glass, Constant, Kevin Johnson, Shape of Things.
Deus ex Machina is probably my favorite episode.
I actually think Fire + Water is underrated. And Expose is a great episode!
Comment by Rusty James — February 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Rot,
No, I’m not unconcious, I’m here, dammnit! And the reason I apparently “haven’t seen a bad episode in my life” is because there ISN’T one:):P I admit I follow the show a bit more blindly than most but I honestly haven’t NOT liked any episode of the show so far. THAT’S how much I love it – I look for the good/quality in everything out of it.
The main thing I loved about this episode was it reflected the nature of the flash-forward techniques – showing us events and then revealing how they got to that point. When the episode opened I honestly thought they were going back to the very start of the show and would show you something we never saw in season 1 episode 1 that would link it with what’s going on with the characters in season 5. I LOVED seeing how they got back to the Island (well…the events before they got on the plane to Guam i.e. we didn’t actually get to see EXACTLY how they got from the plane to the island).
This episode also got back into the groove (as rot said) of character centric stuff – I think this season is doing an amazing job of balancing the two things the show stands for – mystery and characters – and to me it’s rivalling any of the other seasons so far. It’s different, sure, but just as good in my books.
I think my theory that I’ve been harping on about for ages now is looking more and more likely – Locke will come back to life when his body is taken back onto the Island. They hinted at it in the season 5 premiere when Jack said to Ben that Locke is dead and then Ben didn’t give him and answer and paused for a couple of seconds. And then the story about the painting in the church about the man depicted needing to touch the wounds of Jesus to be convinced. I think this man represents Jack – he’ll only be convinced of something like Locke being borught back to life (or resurrected if you want to say) if he can see it for himself up close and personal. It looks like Jack is finally beginning to look past his stubborness of the “man of science” thing. He revealed it on the plane in this episode when he asked if them all being back on the same plane actually means something. I think Frank being the pilot has almost convinced him…and I think Locke coming back to life (you mark my words….) will convince him fully.
As you mentioned, Andrew, the questions and subsequent intrigue rasied in the episode was amazing – what happened to Ben? Why was Sayid handcuffed? Who told Hurley about the flight? Why was Jin wearing a Dharma outfit?
I know I say it every time but it’s ture once again – yet ANOTHER great episode of the wonder that is Lost:)
Comment by Ross Miller — February 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
the podcasts I listen to, it seems the divisiveness of episode 316 goes beyond this thread, there is a lot of hate and love for it… weird.
a couple of observations made on the podcasts:
I never even clued in that the oceanic six are behaving as proxies to other characters, i.e. Sayid is in handcuffs like Kate was, Hurley has Charlie’s guitar, there is a theory that Kate is pregnant like Claire…
regarding the bloodied Ben… I mean this seems so obvious in retrospect but none of us noted it… right before he left he said he had to keep a promise to an old friend, next thing we see is Ben bloodied by a pier… what was the event that Ben did not anticipate prior to entering the lamp post? I think Penny is dead.
Comment by rot — February 25, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
The first actually great episode of this season, although Jughead came close. It was like a reasuring becon of light reminding us, just as we’ve lost faith, that there is hope.
Matthew Abaddon deserved better. He didn’t cash in on his favor. I doubt Locke’s mom was in on the joke. Kate’s scene with Locke was really good. People give Evengeline Lilly shit, but she came through here. The fate of Ellen. Charles Widmore meeting at the landing. Ben reminding us that he’s a villain just when he was in danger of becoming safe.
The first scene between Alan Dale and Terry Quin! Malcom David Kelly! A new plane crash!
The pieces came together without any clumsy on the nose dialogue.
No more Oceanic 6. No more distracting time jumps. This season has a chance to be great!
Comment by Rusty James — February 25, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
And for the record I figured Ben was going off to deal with Penny. I didn’t bother to speak up because I just figured it was Andrew being clueless.
Which podcasts do you listen too?
Comment by Rusty James — February 25, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I listen to Lostcast and Ryan and Jen Transmission (who are considered the definitive podcast by Lost geeks).
I thought the episode was very good but it was just hitting all the notes you expected it to hit, for the most part, and some of the encounters were just sort of nothing happening. Encountering Walt could have been something special, instead three questions and Walt wants to get back to hanging out… that made no sense!
And Evangeline Lilly, I say again watch her in the first half of Season 3 where she is given something to do and she holds her own.
Is there any doubt John is the christ figure in all of this?
and Ben, Judas?
Comment by rot — February 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I loved how in this episode it looked like at the start of it that they were going to keep the fact that Locke wearing a suit was his burial clothes and “shock” you with it at the end before “LOST” comes up on-screen. But no, straight away (almost) they confront that by Locke saying that’s what he think the suit is all about. I love how the episode was in “answers mode” once again but not feeling forced, contrived or like they were just having it to appeal to people wanting answers.
One of the things I’m loving about this season is the flip-flopping back and forth about telling the people left on the Island’s story and the off-Island people’s story. And the obviously once they go back it’ll become less back and forth in nature.
This episode felt very much remiscent of “The Other 48 Days”, even thpugh it didn’t have the “67 days ago” etc. They dealt with the reveal of just what happened to Locke off the Island EXTREMELY well – “okay we’ve got this mystery of what happened to Locke that can’t be dragged on too long and we’ll just give it it’s own episode to clear it up.” But also they didn’t make it obvious, as I said. I admit the encounters with each of the Oceanic 6 where Locked tried to convince them were less eventful and dramatic than I thought they were going to be but none the less the way they staged them i.e. the different locations = a different character I thought worked really well.
@Rusty James,
What do you mean Ben’s was off to deal with Penny? You mean kill her? Why would he do that? So that Desmond would have no attachements off-Island and he could come back? I don’t think that makes sense – after all if he’d killed Penny Desmond never would have went back and also he was surprised to see Desmon turn up at the church – he wasn’t expecting him to be there, and wouldn’t he if his plan was to kill Penny and leave him free to come along? Why would Desmond leave Penny and be so accepting of going ahead with searching for Faraday’s mother?
Something I’m wondering about – okay it was revealed that the Oceanic 6 dissapeared (along with Locke) while the plane was crashing so does that mean it’s because they were part of the Island or “were supposed to come back”? And also did Ben get transported with them? I mean that Caesar guy showed Locke to the room where the people who had been injured were so that tells us Ben crashed along with those other new survivors.
And we FINALLY got told just what the deal was with Widmore and Ben, about their past. “Everything you have you took from me.” So Widmore was exiled some how and the Island was moved so obviously Widmore couldn’t find his way back. And that’s why they keep moving it because they know Widmore will be forever searching for it and drawing closer but then they move it to keep him from finding it. One thing that kind of bothered me was the fact Abanon got just killed off – he was an intriguing character and I think they could have done more with him. Although thinking about it now we learned all we really needed to know about him – he’s just a guy who helps Widmore, nothing more (which past appearances of him suggested).
But holy crap when Ben suddenly started choking Locke! I could not BELIEVE IT! Did ANYONE see that one coming? Not moments before but I mean ages ago did ANYONE figure out that Locke hadn’t actually killed himself? And obviously the question quickly arises why did Ben kill Locke? I mean it seemed to be the mention of the Eloise Hawking that provoked him to kill him. I mean at first I thought that Ben realised that’s the way events were going to go i.e. Locke was going to die so the others (but particularly Jack) could be more convinced to come back but then just before he left the apartement he said “I’ll miss you, John. I really will.” Which suggests he didn’t know John would come back to life. If you think about it that’s one of the most shocking events to take place in Lost in quite a while, probably since the Island dissapeared on us. I mean Locke has been talked on and on about (including Ben) about just how important he is and yet at the mere mention of Ms. Hawkings Ben goes back on that and kills him? I wonder just what was going on there – was Ms. Hawkings working with Widmore (I think it’s probably going to end up that she and Widmore are Daniel’s parents, no?) and therefore Locke wanting to seek her out meant too great a risk? But then that doesn’t make sense either as Ben was ALSO going to see Ms Hawkings. Hmmm….
Again, I know I keep saying this (and I’ll continue to say it as long as it’s true – and it always has been so far) but yet ANOTHER amazing episode of Lost.
Now let’s see why Jin was wearing a Dharma outfit….
Comment by Ross Miller — February 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
great episode.
i like this bit from the AV Club writeup. good paragraph:
“Locke was supposed to turn the wheel; Ben did it. Locke was supposed to sacrifice himself; Ben caught him unaware and killed him. What does this say about Locke? What does it mean to our ongoing debate over Ben Linus’ motives? I’m not sure… but it sure perked me up.”
Comment by Goon — February 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ What do you mean Ben’s was off to deal with Penny? You mean kill her?
Ben promised Widmore he’d kill Penny. When Ben was leaving he told Jack he was off to fulfill a promise to an old friend.
And Ben killed Locke for the same reason he tried to kill Locke last time and the same reason he took his place at the wheel. And the same reason he had Widmore banished (http://www.rowthree.com/2008/03/13/lost-discussion-thread-20/#comment-9413). Locke is his rival and a threat to his position of power.
He waited until he found out how Locke was returning to the island and then offed him.
Comment by Rusty James — February 26, 2009
*****
Oh YEAH – BUFFER EDIT****
**LOST****
@ Is there any doubt John is the christ figure in all of this?
and Ben, Judas?
Yeah… but I’ll always prefer to think of Locke as Job, whose faith is constantly being tested by hardship. That would make Ben Lucifer, God’s right hand angel who accuses the faithful.
I mean, we’ve already got a guy named Christian Shepard who came back from the dead and Jack opens his coffin to find it empty. How many christ figures do we need?
And rot makes a good point about Walt’s pointless scene.
My theory with Walt’s appearence is that the writers just like to remind us of his existence every once in awhile. Probably a sign that they’ve got something in store for him by the end.
How does seeing Locke lead to his meeting with Hurly? What do the two have to do with each other? There’s no connective tissue.
Comment by Rusty James — February 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Oh yeah I totally forgot about Ben telling Widmore he’d kill his daughter. That makes sense he’d follow through with his promise. However 1) How would Ben be able to get to Penny, wouldn’t Widmore be watching her? 2) Why was Ben all beaten up and bloodied? Surely Penny didn’t do that… 3) Why would Desmond continue on with his searching for Ms Hawkings? Wouldn’t he want nothing to do with it since Ben would have killed Penny? Why wasn’t he upset?
Why would Ben be saying how important Locke was (not just when he was convincing him not to kill himself but for ages now) if he wanted power for himself? Why was the mention of Ms Hawkings’ name immediately the thing which triggered him to kill him? And why would he be guarding Locke’s body, making sure it makes it back to the Island if he didn’t want Locke to go back? His pause when Jack asked about why Locke’s body was so important if he was dead suggest Ben knows that he will be brought back to life once on the Island.
Comment by Ross Miller — February 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I’m not convinced Ben is a villain. He’s still the best character on the show with the most depth and the most mystery. I think he knows best and is doing what he must for the survival of the people that are important to him. Maybe not, but we shall see.
Apparently I’m “clueless” for not remembering that Ben had promised to kill Penny (I still don’t remember that)?
Comment by Andrew James — February 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Regarding my point about Locke as Christ, I am assuming I was not the only person to notice the overt cross symbolism in his suicide attempt? The beams of the ceiling were making a cross and his hang rope was near the nexus point of the cross. and then you have Ben bowing before him, I mean if Locke is not supposed to embody Christ in some way I would be deeply surprised. The doubting Thomas speech by Ben the episode before associate Jack as a disciple of John’s… also did you notice that all or virtually all of the locations that Locke went to in this episode, they were Saint references? Santa Domingo, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, I can’t remember the rest but it always something about saints. I don’t think they will go into literal dogma, its that sort of thing that they are touching upon on the faiths.
One theory I have heard that makes sense although its not really clear entirely is the idea of proxies, and Ben says something about proxies a couple episodes ago… people standing in for other people, much like the Aljira airline event… and throughout the show you see characters who seem like proxies for other characters… most notably Ben and Locke… Ben was in a wheelchair, Locke in a wheelchair, Ben the leader, Locke the leader. Juliet being a proxy of Ben’s love interest, and apparently Jack’s ex-wife.
no idea what that may mean
Comment by rot — February 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Apologies Rusty James, I totally forgot that the meeting at the church was BEFORE Ben was seen all bloodied and bruised on the phone to Jack. So I think that theory that Ben went to kill Penny and it was Desmond who beat the crap out of him is very plausible. After all it doesn’t appear Desmond has come along back to the Island.
@Andrew James,
Don’t worry man you’re not alone – I ALSO didn’t remember Ben telling Widmore he’d kill his daughter. Although it seems you still can’t recall him saying that(?) – remember Ben visited Widmore in his hotel room (the scene was really dark/shadowed) and they had that conversation about Ben “taking everything from him” and “you’ll never find it”. Remember now?
Something that just occured to me – what room was that that Caesar went into at the start of the episode? How did he know to look in drawers for maps etc? Was it a Dharma station? Seems kind of quick for those new survivors to find something so significant, doesn’t it?
Comment by Ross Miller — February 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I’m rewatching season three and one of the scenes that most puzzled me from that season is when Jack is in the cage and he wakes up and there are all these people staring at him, including the stewardess from the plane they crashed on, and he asks her what they are doing there, and she says really ominously, ‘we’re here to watch’. and you never see them again? what was that?
that and the Man from Talahasse, where suddenly Ben has Locke’s dad in a box tied up… these seem like important clues to something going on with the others that has yet to be explained. Locke’s dad would have had to been on the Island before the end of season two when the beacons for the submarine were destroyed and they couldn’t go back and forth bringing people… so why was he there?
Comment by rot — February 27, 2009
There’s a hydra logo that’s visible. Which leads me to believe they’re on the smaller island. It would make sense that they’d stumble on the hydra quickly. The island is smaller and station was clearly out in the open. It would be cool if they found Room 23!
Comment by Rusty James — February 27, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — February 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
That has been bugging me ever since it happened at the start of season 3 – just what was the stewardess and all the other people “watching” exactly? Wow, thanks for reminding me of that – now it’ll bug me for ages again!:P
Now that you say it it could be the smaller Island those new survivors crashed on. I mean that Dharma station wasn’t familiar to us, was it? I don’t think we’d actually seen it before, had we? It just seemed strange to me that they found it so quickly.
I don’t question that Ben is a villain in some ways but he’s shown plenty of good in him too – turning the wheel and leaving Locke to lead his people (which leads me to question that the reason he killed Locke was so he couldn’t have power anymore), the whole effort he’s put into keeping the people left on the Island “safe”. That’s why I love Ben as a character, he’s easily one of the most complex and interesting ones of the entire show.
Comment by Ross Miller — February 27, 2009
We definitely saw the hydra logo. Hydra = station on small island.
Also, I just skimmed the episode and it’s even clearer. You can see the bigger island in two shots. I think they might even walk through the “landing field”. They’re on the small island.
Comment by Rusty James — February 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Sorry what I meant to say was have we seen that specific room before? And oh yeah I remember now – we saw Locke and that new survivor woman looking out to sea and we could clearly see the bigger Island. Yeah, they’re on the “cage” Island:)
Comment by Ross Miller — February 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Rusty, yeah I think they’re on the runway they built on the smaller island
“Why was the mention of Ms Hawkings’ name immediately the thing which triggered him to kill him?”
I’m assuming its a case of “If John knows about Hawkings, they don’t need Ben’s help to go back”. Or Ben knew Locke was going to fail with Sun and decided to take the reins, desperate to prove he’s still the chosen person. A number of possible things.
Comment by Goon — February 28, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
So by Ben killing Locke, and saying before he left the room “I’m going to miss you, John. I really am,” mean that Ben doesn’t know Locke was going to be brought back to life once he was transported back to the Island? Why would he kill him but then make so much effort to keep his body safe and make sure he gets back to the Island? Do you, then, think that Ben will be wholy shocked to see Locke when he wakes up on the Island?
Comment by Ross Miller — February 28, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Lets not forget this isn’t the first time that Ben may have thought he had killed Locke, he also left him for dead on the Dharma grave.
Comment by rot — February 28, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yeah, I remember that very much. But it still doesn’t explain why he would kill him and yet go to so much effort to keep his body safe. To me it would make sense that Ben would HAVE to know he would come back to life.
Comment by Ross Miller — March 1, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I don’t know Ross, I could see it either way. He clearly believes that Locke’s body is necessary for returning to the island. That gives Ben all the motivation he needs to cart Locke’s body around.
Comment by Rusty James — March 1, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
LOST was on. Thought it was good.
Comment by Rusty James — March 4, 2009
Comment by Goon — March 5, 2009
Comment by rot — March 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
It’s funny how a lot of the discussion on here is about if we liked the episode or not, and not all about what actually happened etc:P
I really liked the feel of this episode – it continues the show being in “answers mode”. I was kind of surprised to find out that Sawyer, Miles etc lived out 3 years in real time with the Oceanic 6. I honestly thought it would be a matter of days for those still on the Island but, obviously, 3 years for the Oceanic 6. However thinking about it now, and taking in the way they went about it, it actually makes for better drama – the fact that they both have moved on in their own ways with, for example, Kate and Sawyer maybe not being in the same place as they were three years ago (emotionally, that is (not literally:P)).
One thing I was kind of dissapointed with was the fact that they showed the full statue (remember the four toed foot?) but only for a few seconds (and in the distance) before jumping to a time where we are now permanently. I assume, since the time jumping has stopped, we won’t see what that was all about (at least for the time being, no pun intended:P)? And on that note – does that mean that the three years it was for the Oceanic 6 off the island is NOT the time that they went to when they were transported onto the Island? What I mean is not only did they dissapear and move location but also travalled back to where Sawyer etc was? How did it just HAPPEN to be the same time? Also does that mean that they were moved through time when they originally crashed? Or was that just a natural, ordinary crash?
Do you guys think that Ben and Locke (’s body) dissapeared when the Guam plane crashed? Are they in the same time as the rest of them? If so do you think Ben could visit himself when he comes to the Island as a young boy? It certainly would be interesting to see if the writers decide to include any instances of that – will they go with the “meeting yourself causes a time rip” angle that a lot of shows and movies that deal with time travel do?
I LOVE how they’re tackling the thing to do with Daniel and Charlotte (as a little girl). We saw Daniel in the premier in a Dharma outfit going to the Orchid when the discovered the frozen wheel. And I bet Daniel will end up warning Charlotte, bringing true what she remembered where a “crazy man” told her if she came back to the Island she would die. As Daniel repeated in this episode – “Whatever happened….happened.” So it’s kind of treating things as inevitable – Daniel obviously doesn’t want Charlotte to die so how could he resist the opportunity of warning her in the only way he can?
I’ve just thought of something – do you think Jack’s dad, Christian, has a history with the Island we don’t know about yet? I mean it WOULD go some ways to explaining why he seems to be doing stuff as if it’s his job. Maybe he was exhiled the same as Widmore and his drinking problem is somewhat as a result of him not being able to go back/find the Island. What do you guys think?
Comment by Ross Miller — March 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@It was good but not great. It was sort of getting from point A to point B minimalism.
Rot, it definitely was not point a to point b minimalism. This was the first time in a while that Sawyer has felt like a real character with an arc.
And the first time this season they had time for Juliet. The stinger at the end wasn’t just some “skater” fan girl pandering. It was a heart wrenching character moment.
I called last weeks episode “the first actually great episode this season” and I’ve sort of back peddled since then. So I’m gonna be a little more conservative praising this one. But of these episodes were a return to the qualities that I felt were missing this season. It’s nice to have LOST back.
Comment by Rusty James — March 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Do you guys think that Ben and Locke (’s body) dissapeared when the Guam plane crashed? Are they in the same time as the rest of them?
Nope
@ do you think Jack’s dad, Christian, has a history with the Island we don’t know about yet?
Yes
@ I LOVE how they’re tackling the thing to do with Daniel and Charlotte (as a little girl).
Is it just me or does this episode place Charlotte as older than expected. The actress is 29 wich means she was 28 when they cast her. Ben actually states her birthday as 1979 (the same as Rebecca Mader’s) which would make her 25 on the show. Now they’re saying she’s 5yo (more or less) in 1974!?
Comment by Rusty James — March 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I think two mysteries have been explained from LaFleur
1) Ben had an adolescent infatuation with Juliet and that is the ‘you remind him of her’ that is told of Juliet in the future. Juliet reminds Ben of Juliet (I forget what alias she uses).
2) I guess one would have to go back to the original episode, but can we assume that Charlotte was Ben’s childhood friend? How many redhead girls could they be of the same age in the dharma initiative? at some point there will be an explanation for why she has not aged as much as Ben.
Comment by rot — March 6, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
regarding the statue, according to people on the podcast, in the Jeremy Bentham episode there was a cutaway to Locke’s foot in the wheelchair and there were only four toes… I haven’t seen the shot again so I cannot verify, or even understand what that means.
Comment by rot — March 6, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ 1) Ben had an adolescent infatuation with Juliet and that is the ‘you remind him of her’ that is told of Juliet in the future. Juliet reminds Ben of Juliet (I forget what alias she uses).
A shrink said that. I’m telling you, it’s his mom. Baring that it’s Annie
@ 2) I guess one would have to go back to the original episode, but can we assume that Charlotte was Ben’s childhood friend? How many redhead girls could they be of the same age in the dharma initiative? at some point there will be an explanation for why she has not aged as much as Ben.
Ehh. I hope not. It’s just like how every asian baby must be Miles. In any case she didn’t have a british accent so I’m gonna hold out hope.
@ in the Jeremy Bentham episode there was a cutaway to Locke’s foot in the wheelchair and there were only four toes
c’mon. I’m sure the cast just covered one of his toes.
Comment by Rusty James — March 6, 2009
Comment by mike — March 6, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I always forget. Sorry ’bout that.
Comment by Rusty James — March 6, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
“It was sort of getting from point A to point B minimalism.”
nuh uh
Everything has so many implications now that even if retconned work so well into the story that has built up. As far as sci fi goes, the time stuff is getting all 12 Monkeys as far as time travel goes… and the Alpert stuff is key. I mean, when you look at the fact they’re all in the 70s, and Alpert has now met Sawyer, past Locke, and will probably somehow know about the rest of the O6 and Juliet… when you think back to who’s being recruited, who’s on the lists, it starts all coming together more, it makes me think about how the Others tried to keep them captive for the sake of preventing what has been happening to the island… it all just adds another level of complexity, and so overall this is one of my favorite episodes this season, and more and more I’m feeling like even though I liked season 4 a lot, right now for me season 5 is the payoff to what they’ve built there, and theres still more to come.
Comment by Goon — March 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
“I guess one would have to go back to the original episode, but can we assume that Charlotte was Ben’s childhood friend?”
I’m pretty sure Ben’s friend was named Annie.
Comment by Goon — March 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yeah Ben’s friend was Annie. I really don’t think they would pull a “she changed her name once she left the Island”.
Comment by Ross Miller — March 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Yeah Ben’s friend was Annie. I really don’t think they would pull a “she changed her name once she left the Island”.
It would actually make a lot of sense to change her name as they may’ve been in hiding or something. It’s likely she has a forged birth certificate saying she was born in Essex England.
But I hope they don’t go in that direction.
Comment by Rusty James — March 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I suppose it DOES make sense but it’s Lost we’re talking about – so far they’ve been pretty unpredictable (on the broader scale, for sure SOME people will dissect it enough to figure some stuff out, *cough cough*:P). Who knows maybe it will turn out that way but I agree I hope they don’t. For one her accent is TOO purely British (which it wasn’t AT ALL when she was talking to Ben on the swing, when she gave him the dolls) and secondly wouldn’t that make Ben the same age as her? Ben is AT LEAST ten years older I’d say.
Comment by Ross Miller — March 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
ok, I just rewatched Man Behind the Curtain, which is an awesome episode. Annie is definitely not a redhead so she is not Charlotte, however there is a shot in the classroom of a redhead student alongside Ben, not sure if that means anything.
Without a doubt now, the line -you remind him of her- pertains to Ben’s mother, because she looks exactly like Juliet and he certainly has a strong attachment with her.
other things I have noticed, in Greatest Hits, Jin and Russo encounter each other and there is no recognition, so that is pretty bad if they dont explain this.
In Man Behind the Curtain, when Locke goes to see Jacob, from the way the Others react, and even Ben is shaking at the prospect, and Ben says something just outside the cabin that like YOU, Jacob doesn’t like technology… and that he can’t see Jacob when he is in there… my bet is Jacob is Locke.
Comment by rot — March 10, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I’ve always suspected Jacob was Locke.
Comment by Christian A. Dumais — March 10, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Without a doubt now, the line -you remind him of her- pertains to Ben’s mother, because she looks exactly like Juliet and he certainly has a strong attachment with her.
AND… because Harper is a psychiatrist. For some reason I’m really hung up on that detail.
I haven’t watched Greatest Hits lately (although it’s one of my favorite episodes) but do they really need to explain Danielle/Jin?
Think about all the weird stuff Danielle’s been through. This is just one more thing. At least I’m willing to play along with that.
One cool easter egg regarding that episode. Waaay back in season 2 during the episode Fire + Water (which is alledgedly a terrible episode but I like it). The episode begins with charlie’s dream where his brother tells him “you can’t save your family if you don’t play” Then he dives into the ocean after Aaron.
It’s all there. Drowning, Charlie sacrificing himself to save his Claire and Aaron his new family. Unlocking the musical code on the Looking Glass. All telegraphed more than a year in advance.
Comment by Rusty James — March 10, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@rot,
Okay here’s my theory about the whole time travel mythos they’ve set up within the show (which is pretty unique to the way any other show/movie has handled the concept): There’s been this repeated line (at least twice by Daniel now) that “whatever happened, happened.” So in that way you can’t change what happened, because if it didn’t “happen, it CAN’T happen.” So the thing with Sawyer bagning on the hatch door for Desmond, and no one answered – it’s not that he didn’t hear Sawyer banging, because when Daniel pretended he forgot his bag as an excuse to knock on the door for Desmond, when Desmond opened it he said that Daniel had been knocking on his door for the last 20 minutes. So he DID hear Sawyer knocking it’s just because he hadn’t met Sawyer at that point, something compelled him to not open the door. But because Daniel had met Desmond years before (in Oxford – Desmond went back in his mind, not body, remember?) so therefore Daniel was able to talk to Desmond (and tell him to find his mother).
Anyway my point is that the reason Jin and Rousseau didn’t have any recognition of each other in that past episode was because Jin hadn’t went back in time yet. So since he hadn’t yet, that means it wouldn’t have been cemented in the past. But if Jin came across Rousseau like he did when she was pregnant, then dissapeared again (like he did at the temple) and then reappeared AFTER the point where he first time travelled back and met her (when she was pregnant), let’s say a year later, then Rousseau would have the knowledge of meeting him when she first came on the Island. Does that make sense to anyone else? So it hasn’t happened, and therefore not cemented in someone’s memory, until AFTER the point in which they time travel back to meet them in the past.
Couple of things I wanted to throw out there:
Remember that video that was shown at Comic-Con with Pierre Chang aka Dr Marvin Candle sending a message from 30 years in the past? Well the guy who we can here off camera telling him “this is pointless, they’re never gonna’ see this,” I think is Daniel. We already saw him in the Dharma jumpsuit, when he bumped in the doc, when the Orchid station was being constructed. I think he may sort of muscle his way in with the doc because the two of them obviously share a passion for science and starts to help him with his research (my bet is you’ll see Daniel working as a scientist for Dharma, helping with, for instance, those bunny experiments).
Also the numbers transmission that Rousseau and her team were on the Island because of – I think the guy saying the numbers (before Rousseau changed the transmission to hers) was, also, Daniel.
And is there any doubt that the numbers are some sort of coordinates for either the Island or a location on the Island?
Also about the timeline of when things have happened – I saw a screencapture of Ben’s passport (can’t remember which episode it was taken from) and it said his birth year was 1963. So if we take it that when Ben first came onto the Island he was 9 or 10, well that would put the year he came on as ‘62 or ‘63. Just a year or two BEFORE Sawyer and the rest of them got stuck in time. So by that rationale Ben has already changed over to the Hostiles and at some point we know he comes back and is a sort of insider for them within Dharma. (Does that mean Sawyer etc will see a younger Ben at some point while working for Dharma?) But we also know the purge happens to all the Dharma people, but obviously they’re not going to have Sawyer, Juliet, Jin etc still working there and be purged so by that rationale they are not going to be stuck in the ’70s for the rest of the two seasons, are they? I think either Ben, Locke or Richard, maybe, will show them a way that they can move throw time to the present i.e. 2008 or so.
Comment by Ross Miller — March 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ So he DID hear Sawyer knocking it’s just because he hadn’t met Sawyer at that point, something compelled him to not open the door.
I think you’re off about this. I don’t think some force compelled Desmond not to answer. I think Desmond took 20 min to answer the door (he had to get that gear on) therefore he didn’t meet Sawyer until years later. Since Dan knows thats what happened, then he knows what will happen. At least I prefer that way because it’s a more logical chain of cause and effect.
By that same logic, I don’t think you’re right about Jin/Danielle. Your theory is contradicted by Richard meeting baby Locke in 1956. Richard didn’t have to wait until adult Locke left on his time travel trip relative to him (50 years later). That would be a breach of cause and effect.
By that same logic on Sept 22 2004 Jin arrived on the island. He didnt’ know Danielle because their meeting happened in the future (relative to him). But Danielle would’ve remembered Jin because it happened in the past (relative to her).
Past, Present and Future are relative because the characters are moving in time independently of one another.
It’s true that Desmond violated this rule by not remembering Dan banging on the Swan door until 2007 (4 to 6 years in the future relative to Desmond. And about 2 years in the future relative to the moment the time trip began in early 2005). But as Daniel explained, Desmond is the exception not the rule. He’s “special” which is the writers way of saying he’s their Deus Ex Machina. Think of him as “unstuck in time” so the rules of cause and effect can be violated at the will of the writers (expect this to be a big payoff later).
It seems so simple, and then you try to say it outloud, amirite.
Comment by Rusty James — March 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Ah but was it Locke telling Richard to come visit him when he’s born the thing which made him do it? Richard didn’t confirm or deny this, but maybe he was already going to see him and it was just by chance that Locke told him to do that. Or maybe Locke is an exception to the rules like Daniel is.
Well whether the reason Desmond didn’t come to the door and meet Sawyer was because of him being compelled to not do it or whether it was a simple case of taking ages to put the suit on etc, it doesn’t matter. Point is that somehow he DIDN’T answer the door, either by compulsion or outside factor he still didn’t meet Sawyer because they know for a fact that it didn’t happen (yet).
But when they get stuck in the ’70s and came across those two hostiles that killed Paul and put a bag over Amy’s head – Daniel says “it doesn’t matter what we do,” and repeats the line, “whatever happened, happened.” So when Daniel told Sawyer that he couldn’t meet Desmond because he hadn’t yet, the only reason he could say that is because they know for a FACT that they don’t meet until years later. But now that they don’t know what was supposed to happen (when they’re stuck in the ’70s), whatever they do DID actually happen (they just don’t know it and therefore can’t change it). Does that make any sense?
Ah but you don’t get my point. Okay let’s say Rousseau hadn’t died (when those freighter army dudes shot her) and she was still alive in present time (i.e. before the Island was moved by Ben). Okay Jin gets transported back in time with Sawyer, Juliet etc and is found by Rousseau’s team (when she was younger, in 1988). So that means they’ve met. BUT the reason I’m saying Rousseau wouldn’t remember Jin in past episodes before she died is Jin hadn’t travelled back in time yet to meet her. It doesn’t get cemented in history and in someone’s memory until the time the time travelling has taken place. So what I mean is if Rousseau was still alive in present time, as soon as Jin had travelled back in time she would instantly (like a click of the fingers) have the knowledge. But she didn’t have it before the time (relative to Jin, that is) he travelled back in met her 16 years ago.
Comment by Ross Miller — March 12, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — March 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Haha, just about the funniest thing I’ve heard all week. I literally burst into laughter involunterally.
Yeah I know what you mean, it used to be so simple. They needed fire wood, so they got fire wood. Okay, move on. Now they’ve got us debating with essay-length replies on comment boards and forums about why they wouldn’t be able to remember other characters because they haven’t past the point they travelled back in time. Who’d have thought back at the start of season 1 we’d be where we are now in season 5?
It’s AMAZING
Comment by Ross Miller — March 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I was actually setting out to respond to something you said but I became horrified by the potential length of what I was about to write.
I got shit to do.
But I agree with you. It’s a good thing how much LOST has developed as a show over its five seasons.
Comment by Rusty James — March 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
What could be more important than Lost?! Screw those term papers! Never mind your job! I wanna’ know what you think about my theories and stuff! Haha.
Make sure you don’t forget what it was you wanted to say and write it up when you get the chance, I’d love to read it:-)
Comment by Ross Miller — March 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ What could be more important than Lost?! Screw those term papers! Never mind your job! I wanna’ know what you think about my theories and stuff!
Ross, when you’re right you’re right. I totally identify with your love of LOST.
Comment by Rusty James — March 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Wow, what an AMAZING episode. Arguably the fastest paced of the season so fast – the jumping back and forth was A LOT of fun in this one, you trying to keep up with it but at the same time not feeling miffed as to when we are supposed to be.
The first thing I must say it how good of a direction they’ve chosen to go in with how the Oceanic 6 (or 5, is it?) are going to integrate (at least for now) with what’s going in 1977. I was kind of puzzled as to how they were going to go forth – after all, all we’ve heard about for ages now is how they “have to go back.” And I was wondering what happens when they do go back? Well the whole thing where they are pretending to be new recruits is quite brilliant, and yet so simple.
One thing which jumps immediately to mind is why is Sun the only one of the O 6 to not get transported back in time? I can understand why Ben and Frank wouldn’t get put back, simply because they weren’t part of Jack, Kate etc for the whole time. But Sun, by how the story is functioning at the moment, should by all rights go along with the rest of ‘em. I thought maybe it would turn out that everyone (the Guam plane survivors) had been transported back, but Christian “what the hell is up with him?!” Shepherd showing her the new recruit picture kind of cements the fact that they are in different times, does it not?
Now we got introduced to a character we have heard about for 3 seasons now – Radzinsky. If you remember correctly he was the guy that Kelvin (the guy in the hatch that Desmond killed) was partners with while pushing the button. But by the time period Radzinsky is supposed to be in i.e. ‘77, then wouldn’t that make him almost in his ’70s when he committed suicide? He looked about 45 when we saw him in the episode (’77), and it would be AT LEAST 20 years later that he and Kelvin were partners in the hatch. It’s not impossible but it just struck me as kind of odd…the age difference, that is.
Did anyone else call that Ben would appear as a young boy in the time that Sawyer etc were there? I called it before we even saw him bringing a sandwich to Sayid at the end. Because remember the first flashback episode we had of Ben, he was being “recruited” along with his Dad. Clearly since Sayid had just been put into the jail cell, Ben hasn’t crossed over and went with the Hostiles yet. So does that mean that when he DOES go over the sonic fence, meets Richard and becomes part of those people, that he will help Sayid (because by that rationale he would be one of Ben’s people, then), and perhaps Sawyer, Jack, Kate etc? Also I wonder if the reason that Ben always seems to know so much is if he remembers everyone from the past. However that kind of goes against my theory that people don’t have memories of the past until the point those people he remembers have travelled back. Perhaps he is constantly getting new memories of the Losties, which would, again, explain why he always seems to know so much.
Oh! When Amy was lying on the hammock and Juliette asked what she and Horrace were goiong to call their son – did anyone else think she was going to say Jacob? Haha, I totally thought she was:P Turns out it’s Ethan:) Nice…the way they’re linking stuff together. However wouldn’t that make him about 26 or 27 when he attacked the survivors in season 1? That actor is about 40 or something:P I suppose, if they can make Michael Emmerson (he who plays Ben) play a character who’s about 40 when in real life he’s 54, then they can do anything:P
I think it’s pretty clear that the Losties won’t stay in 1977, or else they would get purged along with the rest of Dharma, wouldn’t they? I think somehow Ben, Sun, Frank and, of course, Locke will get to the same point as the rest of them, and they will figure out how to get back to the present time.
That’s my initial thoughts, anyway.
How ’bout you guys?:-)
Comment by Ross Miller — March 19, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Maybe my favorite episode of the season so far.
POINTS:
- Benjamin Linus has taken over as my new favorite character over Locke. He’s just fucking awesome.
- Loved the look on Juliette’s face when she found out she was holding Ethan. She subtley cringed and damn near threw the baby back to the mom (who is very pretty by the way).
- Any episode where Sawyer shows emotion, I seem to like that.
- I like the Jack/Sawyer role reversal. Sawyer giving the orders, Jack taking them.
- Also not sure why Sun didn’t time travel. Talking about that at work today. Something about being on the other island maybe? Why didn’t she disappear with everyone else though? Maybe something wasn’t re-created just right in her instance (like Hurly with his guitar, Locke with the shoes, Sayid with the handcuffs, etc.).
Comment by Andrew James — March 19, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I give up, what you guys praise I criticize and vice versa… I thought this episode was really flat. It just connected the dots, there was no sense of weight to the characters, characters coming to terms with time travel, Jack just seems to be cool with anything happening. I love anytime Sawyer or Juliet was onscreen but otherwise, I thought this was one of the weakest, poorly directed, just clumsy, getting into Back to the Future navel gazing of their own cleverness.
I did like Sun hitting Ben, after getting the information she needed… karma clearly.
So Christian must have came from Ben’s lair, which has some connection with the temple and Smokey… no idea what it means. There was the sense the Smokey was in the bushes, so that triggered Christian being in Othersville.
Comment by rot — March 19, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ However that kind of goes against my theory that people don’t have memories of the past until the point those people he remembers have travelled back.
This is what I was going to comment on earlier (the comment where I chickened out and talked about Jack getting water instead.)
I don’t see how this idea that things arent’ “cemented” is at all reconcilable with “whatever happened, happened”. It seems like they’re polar opposites. I also think it’s been directly contradicted. Richard met Locke at the hospital, just like they talked about. And he remembered all of it when Sawyer talked to him 20 years later.
Comment by Rusty James — March 19, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ It just connected the dots, there was no sense of weight to the characters, characters coming to terms with time travel, Jack just seems to be cool with anything happening
I sort of agree about the episode overall. But this comment is waaaay off. Jack wasn’t cool with any of it. He’s pissed off he’s a janitor. And Sawyer has clearly moved on and has situated himself in his new life. That scene in his living room is great for what isn’t said.
I’m not as enthusiastic as Andrew and Ross though. There seems to be a lot of needless and arduous exposition this season. Do we really need to watch hoowky reaction shots while Sawyer tedious explains to the O6 what we already know? The answer is “no”.
Honestly, I’m just glad we’re not dicking around with the O6 anymore. I went back and rewatched “316″. I’ve decided it’s THE WORST EPISODE EVER!
And Andrew, I had a different read of the scene where Juliet is holding Ethan. To me her reaction reads more like regret and saddness. She knows eventually he’ll be taken away from his parents. And there’s nothing she can do to stop it.
Comment by Rusty James — March 19, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I don’t see how this episode was “flat”. Sure, it may not have been as in your face with shocking you and such, but I thought it was a great episode for progressing the story forward – it’s probably the least question-raising episode in quite some time (certainly of season 5 so far).
I agree with Rusty that Jack isn’t just “accepting of everything”. Clearly he’s changed a bit from his “man of science” thing to “man of faith”, but I think he was just letting it all be taken in before he deciding what do and how to react. I loved the reaction on his face when he was told he was a janitor. It was reminiscent of Ben’s dad when he found out that – just one of the examples how characters are replicating what we’ve already seen in the show so far i.e. Sayid now being prisoner and a suspected bad guy like Ben was in season 2, Sawyer now being in the controlling leadership role like Jack was throughout most of the seasons etc etc. I think they’re doing a GREAT job moving things forward.
I disagree, Rusty, that “316″ was the worst episode ever. Not just saying that, but I LOVED how that episode was reminiscent of the whole flash-forward mentality: we see them back on the Island and then we get to see how we get to that point, coming full circle at the end. And leaving us with a little gut at the same time shocking teaser at the very end of it with Jin in the Dharma suit. It’s not as if they could have missed out telling us what happened before they got back to the Island, now could they?
And, Rusty, I get where you’re coming from with your doubt about my theory. There’s been a couple of things, including what I said about if Ben would remember Sayid from the past in the futre, and the whole thing I said about the reason the Others had all the Losties info was because they gave it to them in the past, but it still leaves a big question that sort of validates my theory: why wouldn’t all of the Others etc, remember the Losties and what they did when they went back in time? Why didn’t Rousseau remember Jin in season 1 (or 2, can’t remember…)?
A couple of points I thought of:
- I think the reason Ben and Sun didn’t go back to the same time as Jack etc is because time/space won’t allow two versions of the same person to be in the one time. So I think that since Ben was there in ‘77 s a young boy, then he wasn’t able to travel back in his current version because there was already a version of him there. Which then begs the question, why did Sun not go back? I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the baby we saw in the premiere, when Pierre Chang got up from bed, is Sun NOT Miles. Mainly because with my theory of two version not being allowed to be in the same time, then how would Miles be able to be in ‘77 if that young baby was him?
- Did any of you guys notice that the numbers could be heard when the plane was crashing at the start of “Namaste”? I never noticed it at first until someone pointed it out to me today, but I went back and checked it and you DO hear them. And it wasn’t Rousseau’s message. The Losties stopped that when they went to the radio tower at the end of season 3/start of season 4. So taking it that Frank, Sun, Ben etc are in the current time (2007, 2008, or something like that), then a new transmission must have been recorded (some are saying it’s Hurley’s voice).
Phew! The day or two after a new Lost airs, I seem to talk about nothing else!:P
And happy to do it:)
Comment by Ross Miller — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I like your theory Ross about Sun being the baby shown in the season opener.
Isn’t there an event in Sayid’s life that has to be shown, that Ben referred to in the episode when he was recruiting Sayid as his assassin? Maybe it has something to do with this time period? I don’t know.
Comment by rot — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yes…I like it too:)
Yes there is something we haen’t seen involving Ben and Sayid. He mentioned to Hurley not to trust anything he says because he “wasted two years of his life working for him [Ben]“. I think Sayid found out that Ben had something to do with Nadia’s death (not that he killed her, per se, but just that he lied to him i.e. it wasn’t that guy that he killed in the Middle East who killed her), and obviously stopped working for him.
I also think that the reason Ben was all beat up when he called Jack from the marina was because he went to fulfill his promise he made to Widmore and tried to kill Penny, but Sayid (and Desmond?) forcefully stopped that from happening. Then Ben, with the kind of power and pull he clearly has (managing to get Hurley off with suspected triple murder! and the like), managed to get Sayid arrested (for beating him up, obviously) and transported on that Guam plane along with everyone else (why else would Sayid be arrested and then transferred to effing Guam of all places?:P).
Comment by Ross Miller — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ why wouldn’t all of the Others etc, remember the Losties and what they did when they went back in time?
There’s actually no reason to doubt that the Hostiles do remember them. They knew all about the 815′ers before formally meeting them. Including information that wasn’t publicly available; like Sawyer shooting the shrimp truck guy.
And remember their reaction when the plane crashed above them. It’s not at all a stretch to think they’d been anticipating this event.
Russeau can’t be explained away as easily, but answer this challenge. What if instead of just meeting DR, Jin shot and killed her? Would she not “remember” until 2005 and keel over dead (obviously she’s already dead, but you get what I mean)?
It’s enough for me that Jin and DR never interacted that much. And DR’s seen a lot of weird stuff in the years so maybe she just went with it. So, it’s a retconn either way but not a significant one.
@ I think the reason Ben and Sun didn’t go back to the same time as Jack etc is because time/space won’t allow two versions of the same person to be in the one time.
This is a popular theory I’ve heard, and the fact that Charlotte didn’t jump with them does support it. But in The Little Prince they specifically jump back to the day Claire gave birth. So Sawyer Jin and Locke were all on the island as well. Locke and Sawyer specifically discuss the possibility of going to meet themselves.
And besides most of the characters are more than 30 years old so there’s and a 77 version of them somewhere.
I don’t completely rule out your theory though. A lot of those objections can be explained away.
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Oh yeah. Is everyone else in agreement that they were building the airstrip for Frank to crash land on? All of a sudden using Kate / Sawyer as forced labour makes sense. It’s their ass that’s being saved the least they can do is move a few rocks. Good job writers. And more evidence that the others do remember meeting them.
And put me down for “no” on Sayid beating up Ben and “yes” on thinking they’re setting up some huge revelation during an upcoming Sayid episode. They’ve been so deceptive and shady with his character this season.
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@”There’s actually no reason to doubt that the Hostiles do remember them. They knew all about the 815′ers before formally meeting them.”
I think it all hinges on Ben with that one. He and Ethan are the only two that were there both from the 70’s AND when the Losties first crashed on the Island (not including Richard and the rest of the hostiles). Ethan wasn’t seen as much to be able to say with him, but again it all hinges on Ben. He always looks like he’s hiding something, that he knows more than he’s letting on (recently he’s been lying a lot directly, saying he doesn’t know anything when he clearly does). But I dunno, that scene at the start of season 3 when Ben rushed out of the house in Othersville, looked up and saw the plane break in half and then immediately gave orders to everybody… – he seemed pretty shocked. I mean it was a bit strange that he reacted so quickly…although, now that I think back to it, perhaps his shock was just that it happened not exactly when he thought it would (i.e. he had been told about it in the past but never actually believed it would happen). I’m still sticking with my theory, but I don’t totally disagree with yours. Something tells me the show will go a totally different direction than either of us:P
@”But in The Little Prince they specifically jump back to the day Claire gave birth. So Sawyer Jin and Locke were all on the island as well. Locke and Sawyer specifically discuss the possibility of going to meet themselves.”
Well perhaps it doesn’t apply to them since they were constantly being shifted and not totally stuck there (like they are in the 70’s).
@”Is everyone else in agreement that they were building the airstrip for Frank to crash land on? All of a sudden using Kate / Sawyer as forced labour makes sense. It’s their ass that’s being saved the least they can do is move a few rocks.”
Oh wow, that’s a good one. I don’t think it’s going to be true but it’s good thinking. I honestly don’t think it’ll be that complicated – I just think they were building a runway for “a plane” not “a specific plane” to land. Perhaps they were just thinking “it’s about time we had another way to come to the Island other than the sub.” (Aha! If the sub is, in fact, the actual truth as to how people come and go from the Island (or used to)! – there’s speculation that that’s just for appearances sake and they actually are transported somehow, not through time but just physically – hence why people need to be knocked out with sedatives first.
Comment by Ross Miller — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ that scene at the start of season 3 when Ben rushed out of the house in Othersville, looked up and saw the plane break in half and then immediately gave orders to everybody… – he seemed pretty shocked.
He seemed agitated but I don’t think I could specifically say shocked or surprised. He was also ready to go with a plan. And why infiltrate them? Why does it require a response from them at all? I can definitely read a “this is it” vibe from the whole affair.
And I even think Ethan’s behavior in season 1 is consistent with meeting Locke years prior. It’s specifically stated that he took a special interest in Locke and was always boar hunting with him. It might not have been intended at the time but it’s still there.
And I think my landing stip theory will pan out because it’s as interesting an explaination for that bit of contrivancy as they’re likely to stumble upon.
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I think the reason Ben would have a plan, and why he would want to infiltrate them at all, is simply because he’d obviously want control over anyone who landed on “their island”. Ben’s a crafty guy by nature, and he also wants control over anything that affects him. Hence why, for example, he went in person to find Locke at the Hatch (when he got caught in the net by Rousseau and pretended he was Henry Gale) – it was too important of a mission to just send anyone.
And about your runway theory – I’ll meet you halfway. I don’t think the Others (as we knew them when they had Jack, Kate and Sawyer prisoner) were building the runway in preparation for the Ajira plane – I think Christian/the Hostiles/Jacob knew and remember Ben takes/took his orders from Jacob. So I think Ben was told he needed to build a runway, not knowing what for. So tehnically they were building it in preparation for the second plane crash but not knowingly.
Comment by Ross Miller — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
And I think Charles Widmore remembered them too. That explains Matt Abaddon at the hospital. It explains stuff like the psychic telling Claire to get on the plain. Libby at the mental hospital spying on Hurley. The gold boniville that runs over both Locke and Michael. The web of coincidence that connects them pre-island makes much more sense if Widmore (or someone else) remembers them from their time travel.
We know Widmore had people following the O6. But what if he learned about the plane crash in 1977? After he’s banished from the island (probably in the 80’s or 90’s). He KNOWS there’s a plane that’s going to crash on the island. Maybe not exactly when, but he knows approximately when, and most importantly he knows WHO is going to be on it. And he’s been watching them ever since.
It also explains why he sent the freighter there. He claims he wanted to extract Ben so Locke can lead. But how’d he know who Locke was? How’d he even know Locke was on the island? How’d he know Desmond was there for that matter?
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Ouch! Nice one, Rusty! That really validates your side of the argument that they remember them from the past. That DOES explain a lot of the stuff you mentioned (although I don’t get the bit about Libby? What do you mean by that?). But when did Widmore say he wanted to extract Ben so Locke could lead? Wasn’t it Ben who said that while trying to convince Locke not to hang himself? Also DID he know Desmond was on the Island? Did he say that? Did we see evidence of that? Is it just me who can’t remember?
Comment by Ross Miller — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ So tehnically they were building it in preparation for the second plane crash but not knowingly.
Who ever gives the order it amounts to the same thing. They know about the coming plane because of time travel. I agree that not all of the hostiles know the full story. Juliet certaintly didn’t. I don’t think Mikhial did either. Ben knows more. Richard knows a lot. They seem to believe Jacob’s omnipotent.
And personally, I guessed a long time ago that Ben went to go infiltrate them himself because no one else would do it after the two spies got themselves killed. Ben was desperate so he went himself, with his “henry gale” story prepared as cover.
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ although I don’t get the bit about Libby? What do you mean by that?
a couple points:
libby was in the hospital with Hurly but she lied about it later. So it wasn’t just a co-incidence.
libby was instrumental in getting Desmond on the island by giving him a boat.
Libby is the same as Abaddon, she gets people to where they need to be.
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ But when did Widmore say he wanted to extract Ben so Locke could lead?
Rewatch their scene together in TLADOJB.
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Also DID he know Desmond was on the Island? Did he say that? Did we see evidence of that?
Sorry, obviously I’m reading your post piecemeal. Naiomi had the picture of Desmond/Penny with her when she parachuted and the cover story that she was sent by Penny ready to go. The freighter knew about Desmond = Widmore knew about Desmond.
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I agree it amounts to the same thing but what I mean is Jacob gave the order to Ben, just saying “Build a runway”. NOT telling him it was for a plane that was going to crash three years in the future. Much like what Christian (who I think is Jacob just using Christian as a physical presence to present his orders) told Locke in the cabin – “we have to move the Island.” He didn’t tell him it was to move through time or that it was in preparation for anything specific – he just told him to do it (which we now know Locke got wrong by letting Ben do it – I told you YOU had to…”
I disagree that the reason Ben went himself was because he was “desperate” – I think it was because it was so damned important, that he needed to make sure it got done right and more importantly that he was in control. Although obviously he didn’t account for Rousseau and her plethora of Island traps:)
Comment by Ross Miller — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ I disagree that the reason Ben went himself was because he was “desperate” – I think it was because it was so damned important
Then why send Ethan in the first place?
Obviously
a) it’s important to have a spy among the survivors
b) Ben would rather send someone else.
Don’t you think he’d have to be pretty desperate to pull the same trick twice? Especially when the predecessor died? Would you volunteer for that mission?
my explaination is pretty boring but it works. it’s virtue is simplicity.
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ but what I mean is Jacob gave the order to Ben, just saying “Build a runway”. NOT telling him it was for a plane that was going to crash three years in the future.
We’ll find out how much Ben knows but I wouldn’t under-estimate him. Ben met someone on that ajiru plane, Sayid.
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
THIS COMMENT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I don’t think Libby is the same as Abaddon. I really don’t. When she gave Desmond that boat I don’t think it was to make sure he got to the Island. I genuinely believed her story about it being her dead husband’s boat. Obviously there’s something more to her story since we saw her in the mental hospital, but I don’t think she played a significant and/or knowing part in stuff that’s happened on the Island.
Ah, you’re right, I had forgotten about Naomi (since she was killed pretty quickly:P), and the fact she had the picture of Desmond and Penny. Maybe Widmore thought that sine Desmond hadn’t come back from his “race around the world” then he might be, by chance, on the Island that he (Widmore) had been looking for all these years (since it dissapeared on him:P).
Comment by Ross Miller — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
But the first mission wasn’t AS important than going for Locke and explaining to him that “he’s special”. Ethan, as we’ve seen, looked pretty friendly when he wanted to be, and also he’s a lot more capable of handling himself physically against any guys who may be huge (aka Sawyer). (And before you say, I know he seemed pretty handy with that batton thing he knocked out the Tunisian guys with, but you get what I’m saying) For something as important as the Locke thing, he NEEDED to do it himself.
@”Ben met someone on that ajiru plane, Sayid.”
…Wait…what?
Comment by Ross Miller — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ (Dude, you need to remember to put the spoiler warning:P)
I know. I’m terrible about it.
I admit I might be jumping the gun with Libby. I hasn’t been confirmed. But we KNOW she’s lying about something. And we KNOW Widmore sends his minions to tail people. And we saw him do the exact same trick with Abaddon / Locke. I find it awfully tempting to connect those dots. But we’ll see.
@ Maybe Widmore thought that sine Desmond hadn’t come back from his “race around the world” then he might be, by chance, on the Island
That however is a stretch! From a story telling standpoint Ross, does it make more sense to have Widmore bank on a one in a million shot, or does it make more sense for him to exploit the fact the fact he has met time travelers.
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@”Ben met someone on that ajiru plane, Sayid.”
It was the last scene of the last episode.
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Haha, I admit that Widmore thing is a HUGE stretch. I guess I’m just trying desperately to back up my theory(ies):P It does make more sense with the mentality of the show, your way, but I just feel really strongly about my version of the time travel because we haen’t seen any evidence in past episodes of characters remembering the Losties from the past (not including speculation and 20/20 hindsight, that is). If Rousseau had looked like she remembered Jin, or if Ben had let on about knowing Sayid (he didn’t say anything either way), if Richard had let on to Locke when he was telling him that Sawyer would be the ideal candidate to kill his dad for him…… But because there’s none of that (obviously since they didn’t have specifics of this time travelling stuff worked out back in those earlier episodes), I’m not fully convinced. Maybe some people (like Widmore, like Ben) can remember because they were with the Hostiles (i.e. they have special priviliges, abilities etc to do with time travel, that allows them to do all these things (e.g. be some of the few who can remember past thing before the people have gotten to the point of travelling back aka my theory:)).
Oh and sorry, I picked what you said up wrong. I thought you meant Ben met Sayid for the first time while on that Ajira plane…I was like “whhaaatttt?!” haha.
So you think present Ben remembers Sayid from when he was a young boy? Then why didn’t he EVER let on about it? Wouldn’t it have come out at some point? Wouldn’t he have told him SOMETHING while he was being tortured, just to get him to stop? Or is he that adament about lying and keeping the secrets of the Island and his people? Or perhaps he CAN’T tell the future people about what they end up doing in the past – one of “the rules”, maybe?
Comment by Ross Miller — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Ethan is troubling, he was born naturally on the island when all other babies were miscarried. His conception would not have occured without Sawyer saving his mother’s life and having her build a romance with Horace after her husband’s death.
I really thought it would be Desmond not Ethan because Faraday made such an emphasis on Desmond being ’special’, an anomaly… and it would seem that Ethan is an anomaly. Ethan would not exist without the Jacob plan set in motion, everything is supposed to course correct, but Ethan is something new to the equation.
My theory, one borrowed from something I heard ona podcast, is that everyone is a proxy for someone else, and that its not just what happened on Ajira with characters being proxies for missing characters, but the larger scheme is about people being proxies for other people, like a domino effect, one interruption in the time space continuum and now to keep things relatively under control there needs to be patterns, cyclical behavior, the key of which is establishing proxies, with maybe jacob being the one doing the work on that end… there are way too many coincidental overlaps… the love rectangle has two doctors (Juliet and Jack) and two outlaws (Sawyer, Kate), perhaps Ceasar will be one for Sayid, Ben and Locke clearly with the wheelchair incidents, and everybody with daddy issues… its too complex to see the full picture now but something about needing proxies for people to enact similar events to keep time balanced I think will play a part.
Comment by mike — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
The Others taking on the fake beard disguises of the Hostiles is another example of this cyclical proxy relationship
I can’t remember if I brought this up before, but you do realize that Richard Alpert is some kind of Egyptian?
R.A. is Ra, the sun God. loads of hieroglyphs on temples and egypitian like statues. and Richard has eyeliner, hello.
Horace sounds like Horus, the other significant Egyptian God.
again, not me who came up with this, just passing along the idea.
Comment by mike — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Ethan is troubling, he was born naturally on the island when all other babies were miscarried. His conception would not have occured without Sawyer saving his mother’s life and having her build a romance with Horace after her husband’s death.
I think there’s a misunderstanding of what is meant by “whatever happens, happened”. Every thing do, that’s what they did. If they step on a bug, that is when that bug died. They can act proactively as fuck (look at the pile of dead bodies they’ve accumulated) but they won’t change anything cause always how it happened. Ethan’s origin hasn’t changed. He’s no more of an anomally than any of the people they killed.
All these alternate explainations of memories not being concrete and “proxies” (waaaay too complicated by the way) are exercises in over-thinking that deny the simple mantra that the producers laid out for us in the beginning of the season “Whatever happens, that’s what happened” (I know that’s not the exact quote). It’s elegant in it’s simplicity while confounding in it’s denial of free will.
Would they really be hitting us in the face over and over again with this mantra if they were just going to contradict it in the end? I hope not, because that would be lazy cheat story telling.
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@I can’t remember if I brought this up before
So you are Mike Rot. Why are you going incognito today?
Comment by Rusty James — March 20, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Mike,
I think the proxy things comes into it at some point (like the O6 on the Guam plane) but I agree with Rusty that it’s not going be as complicated as all that you stated. I don’t think they expect (or CAN expect, for that matter) every viewer of the show to be able to think like we do, picking apart every little thing. What about those who watch it more like an average TV watcher? Are they going to go as complciated as you say and just forget about them?
I knew it wouldn’t be Desmond who was Amy and Horice’s baby. Ms Hawking is his mother – hasn’t that been established? (Btw I think when Sawyer said in “Namaste” that Daniel wasn’t with them anymore – I think he went off Island in the sub to do research with his younger mother).
I dunno how they’re going to go with that one, about Richard being an Egyptian god. I have heard that R.A = RA the Egyptian god thing a couple of times on some podcasts – it certainly would fit in with the whole mythology of the show, and the statue we saw certainly is “ancient”. It’ll be interesting to see where they go with that one. (Btw Richard doesn’t have eyeliner on – that’s the actor Nestor Carbonell, who swears up and down he doesn’t wear eyeliner, he says it’s just his dark “eye area”:P)
@Rusty,
I totally get what they mean by “whatever happened, happened”. It basically means whatever they do, it’s not changed anything, that that’s what actually happened. That strongly backs up your theory (and I think it’s the reason you’re so sure that you’re right and I’m wrong…btw I must admit I’m beginning to lean towards your thinking, btw, congrats:)). By stopping those Hostiles from killing Amy, that wasn’t changing anything because that’s what actually happened. By killing Ethan when he was older wasn’t changing anything, that’s what happened. However the ONLY thing stopping me from jumping aboard your ship completely, again is, and I don’t want to sound like a skipping record (hey-o!), but why wouldn’t they remember the Losties from the past? It’s bugging the hell out of me!:P
Comment by Ross Miller — March 21, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Mike,
Shit, sorry. I thought you said Daniel was going to be Amy and Horice’s baby, not Desmond:P That would have been a twist if it WAS Desmond, eh? It being Ethan throws another wrench into the machine, he didn’t seem like he was anyone special.
Comment by Ross Miller — March 21, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
http://lost.cubit.net/archives/2009/03/5×09-the-woman-with-christian.php#more
Claire, Charlotte, or mistake? seems too apparent to be a mistake…
Comment by Goon — March 21, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yeah, Goon, I saw that when I rewatched “Namaste” yesterday (after hearing people talking about it on some podcasts). I agree that it seems far too blatant to be a mistake i.e. just a crew member. It doesn’t look like Claire from what we can see, the hair colour is exactly like Charlotte’s was. However at the same time as it being too blatant (if it WAS a mistake how the HELL did they not catch that in the editing room?), they didn’t put ANY emphasis on it for it to mean anything significant, at least not for the moment. Maybe they’ll we’ll go back to that exact point in a future episode (next week, perhaps?), and it will just continue on from Christian saying, “You have a long journey ahead of you…”
Comment by Ross Miller — March 21, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
What or who do you think the title “He’s Our You” referes too? It’s a combersome title but it speaks to me of great things to come.
Comment by Rusty James — March 24, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
again, proxies.
Comment by rot — March 25, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ again, proxies.
but who’s whose who?
Maybe the others have their own time travelers. Like maybe they’ve got a guy who is their Sawyer.
Or maybe Faraday is the losties Radzinsky.
Comment by Rusty James — March 25, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
so Radzinsky is the guy who wrote the map on the lockdown wall of the Swan? They need to get back to that and explain it.
Comment by rot — March 25, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I was thinking about that Radzinsky/Swan station thing. It seems that that station wasn’t originally planned by Dharma to be built, but Radzinsky, since he’s obviously very savvy about a lot of the stuff Dharma does (him being in charge of the Flame, for one thing), designed it as some sort of safety bunker, as well as being used for the number pushing. I just wonder why he killed himself?….Or did he? Maybe someone (Kelvin, Daniel, Ben?) killed him because he was getting too close to the truth (in that case, Ben, seems like the most logical).
Comment by Ross Miller — March 25, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I bet the dharmas have a dog. And they’re saying He’s Our Vincent.
Comment by Rusty James — March 25, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
despite how inevitable that ending seemed, I must have blocked it out of my mind as a possibility because I was still shocked… let the paradox explanation begin….
they better not pull a Locke and have young Ben wake up with a bullet wound and be fine.
Comment by rot — March 25, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
They better pull a Locke and have young Ben wake up with a bullet wound and be fine!
There can’t be paradoxes. That’s the whole point. Whatever happened, happened.
Thematically it makes much more sense for Ben’s rise as Jacob’s prophet to mirror Locke’s rise as prophet rather than violate their own rule.
Great episode and not at all predictable.
Comment by Rusty James — March 25, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
OK, let me be clear:
you can’t bluff THAT, that would be jumping the shark, that would be nuking the fridge, the killing of Ben is different from the killing of Locke because the stakes were different. There was no added layer to Locke being shot atop the Dharma grave to say this challenges the logic of the show, we have known since season 1 that main characters can die, or can seem to die and return, but this particular transgression is different, its the creators confronting the paradox everybody has been talking about since time travel was evoked on the show. You don’t, with any sense of dignity, bluff that, because it will be perceived as a weakness in the storytelling, it says we are not brave enough to actually confront the issue but still brought it to our attention under false pretenses.
If they balk on this event that would be the lamest thing this show has done so far and the fans will eat them alive, myself included. Young Ben has to be dead. The question is what does that mean for the rest of the timelines? I am hoping they come up with something as equally inventive as the Constant time traveling scenario, whatever it is, its going to be big, maybe even ‘the incident’ that Chang kept talking about in his broadcasts.
Let’s recall that Ben said Widmore had ‘changed the rules’ and there is this suggestion that not everything works the way you would expect them to. This big shocker is the writer’s way of introducing us into one of the big bold moves of the show’s trajectory.
Comment by rot — March 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
In the first 15 minutes of this episode I was a bit underwhelmed, but after watching it in its entirety, I actually loved it. It’s not one of the best of the series so far, but I loved them getting back to the flashback style storytelling. Although not strictly in the flashback sense that we used to get before the flashforwards, it still used past events to explain current things.
I have to say, I didn’t see that coming – Sayid killing young Ben. I WOULD have if it weren’t for the thing of “how can he be killed if he’s there in the future?” Since they’re going down the “whatever happened, happened” route then it’s an interesting, bold thing to introduce that someone can kill someone in the past but the future/current version is still there. If Ben is still alive in the future does him being killed by Sayid in the past affect him at all? Or will he simply not be dead and just get back up? Something I noticed might back up the latter – do you think Ben survived Sayid shooting him and he obviously remembers that he did that, so that’s why he told Sayid in the future that he was a killer, because he said that right before he shot him? I could see it going either way, and I’d be fine either way, too.
So…. Sayid being in handcuffs had nothing to do with Ben attempting to kill Penny. I thought Sayid and Desmond would be together at some point, and then Ben turned up to try and kill Penny, and BOTH Desmond and Sayid beat him up (hence the state he was in when he called Jack from the marina), and then Ben had Sayid arrested on put onto that plane (he obviously has a lot of power – he managed to get Hurley off with a triple murder charge!) But the fact that he just happened to be on the same plane, going to Guam, kind of emotes the whole “fate” thing. It’s another one of those occasions where it’s improbable but not imPOSSIBLE.
I kind of was irritated (in a good way…maybe!) when Sayid was given that thing to make him tell the truth, and then when he said “ask Sawyer,” Radzinsky interrupted him. Imagine if they’d followed through and checked who Sawyer was – would Sawyer have killed of those guys? Run away? That Radzinsky guy is kind of annoying – all he keeps saying is “he’s seen the Swan”:P
I agree, Rusty, it was a really unpredictable episode. Great stuff.
Comment by Ross Miller — March 26, 2009
It was a bold move to have Sayid pick up the gun and pull the trigger thereby challenging the rule. But he can’t violate the rule. Ben has to live. They have to write their way out of it.
Comment by Rusty James — March 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
not that you said anything spoilery, but again, headers Rusty.
we have a ‘rule’ told by a few characters, that doesn’t make it a rule, thats an opinion, and by the way Faraday behaves throughout the show I doubt as if it is definitive. I am hoping they are taking us through stages of understanding the rules of this universe, kind of like how Ben tells you only what you need to know for the time being, and that this seeming paradox is a way to invite us into another way of understanding what is going on.
Hawkings even admits she doesn’t know what happens when you deviate from the proxies on Aljira, I truly think that Young Ben is dead and it is a way of exposing us to this other big dimension of the story, that not even Hawkings or Faraday properly understand.
I think this event may be part of what Carleton Cuse was saying would be the event at the end of season five that will blow your mind, and overturn everything you thought you knew.
Comment by rot — March 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
lets not forget Alex was killed and from the perspective of Ben that went against ‘the rules’… I think what some people perceive as ‘rules’ are tinged by subjectivity, it is yet again another way of pushing the boundaries further back.
If Young Ben recovers I will be hugely disappointed.
Comment by rot — March 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Just remember at one point we thought Ben knew everything about the island… I think the way the show goes it keeps pulling back to show how one concept gets overtaken by the next, that is the genius of the show, how they capitalize on our expectations at every point of the journey.
Comment by rot — March 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
By coincidence I was listening to ComicCon panel discussion with Cuse and he said some interesting things… let me try and paraphrase
1) in future episodes (i.e. 5th and 6th season) it will be clear we are not afraid of paradoxes
2) our treatment of time travel is unique in that we do not need to worry about the usual paradoxes, and we do not need to resort to alternate realities (i.e. what you see onscreen is happening in one reality).
Now I don’t know what to glean from this in lieu of the possible death of Young Ben, I am thinking he is sticking to the claim that time travel will not allow for transgressions to its course correcting, so Young Ben must live. I refuse to believe in giant scheme of things they are going to tell their story within a reality where there is no free choice, because in the end that is kind of unsatisfying. I think this is the long con…
the episode where someone ‘changed the rules’ was called after all, ‘the shape of things to come’
Comment by rot — March 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Rot, I agree with you on one point and one point only. And that is that the writers have to confound out expectations.
@we have a ‘rule’ told by a few characters, that doesn’t make it a rule, thats an opinion
Nope.
@ lets not forget Alex was killed and from the perspective of Ben that went against ‘the rules’
That’s a stretch. They were probably just playing by mafia rules.
@ “our treatment of time travel is unique in that we do not need to worry about the usual paradoxes”… I don’t know what to glean from this
That is because you are over thinking things. What the writers are trying to tell you there is that “what happened, happened” is not just someone’s opinion it’s a story telling device that the writers are imposing for a reason.
It’s interesting because it’s an affront to our free will and that’s what this storyline is about. When freewill confronts destiny.
The first thing we learned about time travel this season is that you can’t go back and kill Hitler. But what if you want to, what’s stopping you? That’s what Sayid’s about to find out.
I’m sure this paradox vs. destiny question will get addressed next episode and then we’ll know the answer. Guess what it’s titled.
@ I refuse to believe in giant scheme of things they are going to tell their story within a reality where there is no free choice
BSG just did.
Comment by Rusty James — March 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
yeah and the episode after that is called ‘Dead is Dead’ and its a Ben-centric episode.
you are thinking of this too binary, Rusty, you think its either course correction or kill Hitler, and I think there is going to be some unique middle ground they cover, that the whole framework for what we have been seeing will change dramatically.
I’m not so sure next week’s episode will explain everything, it focuses on Kate.
Comment by rot — March 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ yeah and the episode after that is called ‘Dead is Dead’ and its a Ben-centric episode.
Dude, not cool. No spoilers. I don’t like to know who the episodes are about before hand.
since the cat’s out of the bag though,
@ I’m not so sure next week’s episode will explain everything, it focuses on Kate.
WTF. Again? I was sure from the title it would be a Dan Faraday episode. I want Faraday, Ben, and Miles not more dicking around with Kate.
@ you are thinking of this too binary, Rusty, you think its either course correction or kill Hitler
I don’t know why you’re assuming that. You said Ben would die and there would be a time paradox. I said there wouldn’t. Anything else is your own conjecture.
Comment by Rusty James — March 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
thats a spoiler?! well if it makes you feel any better I got it from wikipedia so who knows who the episode is about, but I figured if you were already looking at title of episodes, you are halfway there.
I said Young Ben should die and thats it, the paradox thing I leave up to the imagination of the writers.
and spoilers? I haven’t seen BSG yet, so I think we are even.
Comment by rot — March 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I also don’t buy this course correction theory as some kind of universal rule because time and again we have been shown examples where time travel has altered future events… as Faraday says Desmond is special… he remembers changes in the past he changes his course in the future (in the Constant and this season) and the result may be deadly with Penny, something we have yet to see. Faraday is told something in the past in the Constant and it changes how he does his experiments and changes what is written in his journal, and if they go the route of saying yeah but everything course corrects, I find that really lazy, it totally discounts the butterfly effect, that what anything goes except someone dying? Desmond and Penny can alter their route across the globe but things will course correct?
I think the ‘whatever happened, happened’ is a transitional way of explaining phenomena, and with a season and a half to go, I doubt that will stay a fixed point.
Comment by rot — March 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I am on the side of the fence that has a sign saying “whatever happened, happened” (:)). I think it makes the most sense and “fits” more with the whole mythology of the show (at least what’s been set up in the later seasons – unlike the more character centric episodes earlier on, where we had little to no idea of what lay ahead for the story).
Pikcing up on the Faraday thing – that’s again where the “whatever happened, happened” thing comes in. Desmond going back and trying to change things didn’t work, not that something terrible happened as a result, just that it simply didn’t work. It may have for A TIME, but as Ms. Hawkings told him after he tried to buy the ring, “Fate has a way of course correcting.” (How is that lazy, rot? It totally works) By him talking to her, and then leaving Penny after they got their picture took (that Desmond has later in the hatch) wasn’t changing ANYTHING, because THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED. And him going and telling Faraday at Oxford University didn’t change anything either, because THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED. The “Desmond Hume will be my constant” note in his book didn’t just suddenly appear, it was already there.
And that’s why I think Young Ben HAS to live, and that’s why he’s been so “negative” (if you want to lump a description onto it) towards Sayid – to put it basically he is kind of getting him back for shooting him when he was younger (a bit simple, but it illustrates the point).
Comment by Ross Miller — March 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
The note in the journal was already there ONLY because Desmond traveled back in time! Now you can step WAY BACK and say irrespective of timelines and time traveling everything that happens is what is supposed to happen but that is a really meaningless and lazy statement. I think people keep saying this stuff in the show because from their limited perspectives in the show that is how they interpret what is going on (Hawkings remember didn’t KNOW what happens with anomalies in the Aljira proxy). We have seen this time and time again in the show, the people who seem the arbiters of truth as to what is going on in the show are later shown to be limited in their knowledge…
now bear with me, I heard this as a theory on a thread somewhere else and it sounds crazy, but I think it would be pretty cool… what if Ben knew that when on Aljira he couldn’t go back to the Dharma time because he already existed there and that there is a rule that you cannot meet yourself (even if he existed just as whispers which is perhaps what would have happened in the scenario, for example, where Locke sees the light from hatch in Season 1).
How would Ben overcome this if he felt it vital to exist in that time period. Well make a way for Sayid to be on the plane so that when he goes back and encounters young Ben he will do what is in his nature, Kill him. Thats right, Ben puts a hit on himself.
I still maintain the reason Ben and Sun did not go back to that time period is because they already exist there. Sun as Chang’s baby in the season opener. So whatever their journey is, Ben was one step ahead knowing he needed to make room for him to exist in that time period.
now how would killing young ben not kill old ben, because ‘whatever happened, happened’ meaning its not rigidly linear, it is already knotted. we assume of time as normal with this abnormality affecting it, but what if it was always this way, that our perception of what is normal is built on a falsehood, and the island exposes this.
Comment by rot — March 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
and spare me the ‘too complex’ rebuttal, when things get unpacked, things make more sense… just look at Hurley’s confession to his mother, how ridiculous the entirety of the show seems if you try and make it an anecdote… the strategy of the writers to make it so you cannot predict the show is to have it wind and go places you wouldn’t expect, but with the hope that by the end it makes perfect sense.
Comment by rot — March 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I agree that characters are not “in the know” as they say, but the whole “whatever happened, happened” thing isn’t just because Daniel said it – it runs through the show, even before he said it. The fact that the Others had all that info about the Losties (I am calling it right now that’s what’ll happen – to preserve the future – “whatever happened, happened”
), the fact that Richard went to see Locke as a baby after Locke told him to (”whatever happened, happened”), the fact that Desmond ended up on the Island even though he wanted to marry Penny (he was compelled – “whatever happened, happened”), on and on…
Although I would still like to say “that’s too complicated” as a response to you, since you told me not to I won’t (wait…didn’t I just?….). I concur that when Hurley layed all the stuff that’s happened out to his mother it sounded RI-FREAKING-DICULOUS (loved how the writers were completely savvy of that, and worked it in there:P), but remember they only have a season and a half (even less now..) to finish the show, wrapping stuff up and what you’re saying opens up stuff that would take seasons and seasons to explore properly.
I think the whole “you can’t meet yourself” thing is a good way to go, though. The same with trying to change the past (as Daniel said) – not that it would have some sort of horrible effect like a time rip or make the universe implode or something, but you just can’t, you would simply FAIL.
However overall, what you’re saying I can’t buy into because not only does it not make sense (the Ben being dead in the past thing) in general, but it doesn’t make sense within the show. Again, how can Ben be there in the future if he was killed when he was a young boy? Maybe you’re thinking of the future that Ben, Sun and Frank etc are in is some sort of alternate reality, but again, I don’t think it’ll be complicated as that. I think, and I hate to harp on about it, but whatever happened, happened. EXCEPT, and this may seem like a contradiction, but there are CERTAIN things that can be changed, hence why one of the upcoming epidoes is called The Variable. But even then the change they make will have to work within some sort of framework or “set of laws”, if you will – hence “you broke the rules.”
Comment by Ross Miller — March 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
When I said it was “too complicated” it was a polite way of saying “it sounds like nerd fan fiction”.
Comment by Rusty James — March 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I find this interesting, maybe I am not explaining correctly or maybe you are too linear, but my interpretation of ‘whatever happened, happened’ makes sense, philosophically, its just counter-intuitive. The creators have maintained that their time travel is unique, so why not have as part of this unique interpretation non-linear reality?
Philosophically, causality is a dodgy subject, its very hard to pin down how cause and effect works, and it just becomes easier to accept it without knowing why. what if there was no past present future, only NOW, but as consciousness we process information as if there was linear time, but that is a trick of our mind, not reality. We seem to think that there are paradoxes in time travel, because you would change the course of the future by affecting the past, but if you picture reality as a fixed state and only our perceptions of causality changing, then there are no paradoxes, there is only the immediate now. Like I said before where does the presumption of linear time come from but via consciousness (John Locke the philosopher was all into this shit), this is a staple of cognitive philosophy. This PRESUMPTION is just that, and it is just as likely that REALITY underlying our perceptions is linear, non-linear, or like I said, knotted, in a way that some kind of fixed reality is set (whatever happened, happened) BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT WAS LINEAR, THAT MEANS WHATEVER FORM REALITY TOOK, WHETHER IT HAD SAYID ALWAYS GOING BACK AND KILLING YOUNG BEN (EACH MOMENT IS NOW) IT HAS NO CAUSAL PARADOX. Another way to say it: the unfolding of the story of the universe is preset with worm holes and time travel disruptions that come before any talk of paradoxes, it is what always happened, moment by moment, determined by the fixed reality not by any governing laws (the laws are created from consciousness that overlays reality with linear causality – again an established Locke philosophy, and Hume for that matter).
I can understand the argument that audiences aren’t going to like counter-intuitive explanations in a serial show, no matter how prevalent these ideas are in science and philosophy. I think if they find an intriguing metaphor, an intriguing way of expressing this UNIQUE approach to time travel that foregoes paradoxes, it could be done.
I am not going to say how they package it, but I am firmly in the camp that Young Ben is dead and there is no paradox.
We shall see shortly who is right.
Comment by rot — March 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
and furthermore I believe THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME is that the characters become aware of the fallacy of the rules, and start to realize something bigger than causality and paradoxes governs how things play out (and they can sheath it God’s plan if they want for a narrative) but scientifically it can be thought of as non-linear reality, Nirvana, Satori, The Road to Awe, whatever you want to call it, or Freud’s term the Oceanic feeling which is a precognitive interconnectedness, oneness.
Now that I think of it, there is no better way to end the show.
Comment by rot — March 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ and furthermore I believe THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME is that the characters become aware of the fallacy of the rules, and start to realize something bigger than causality and paradoxes governs how things play out (and they can sheath it God’s plan if they want for a narrative) but scientifically it can be thought of as non-linear reality, Nirvana, Satori, The Road to Awe, whatever you want to call it, or Freud’s term the Oceanic feeling which is a precognitive interconnectedness, oneness.
Rot, do you realize that is ONE sentence? I’m still trying to figure out the parenthetical, I think the parentheses are placed randomly.
I tried to read your posts but they’re impenetrable. I think you have that disease that Kevin Spacey had in Seven that caused him to fill up all those notebooks.
I think if you break up your points into smaller increments and tie them to spefics points in the show your posts might gain more clarity.
Comment by Rusty James — March 27, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
here I fixed it for you:
Much better.
Comment by Rusty James — March 27, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — March 27, 2009
I prefer Dostoevsky’s rigmarole, Kerouac’s spontaneous prose, than middle school middle of the road enslavement to grammar so the slowest person in the room can follow.
should I take this as evidence you don’t understand what I am saying, not any one sentence, and you prefer to look at syntax as an excuse? I will grant you it is counter-intuitive, but any familiarity with the readings of the multiverse, Hume, Locke, cognitive philosophy, Kant, phenomenalism, and Buddhism, and you would already know that non-linear reality as a possibility has been well received.
here is another analogy:
the events in time are frozen in amber (as a preset plan, divine or otherwise). PERIOD.
Our consciousness may reconstruct events in that amber causally, by passing our EYE across it, but that does not change their fixed nature, only our perception changes. PERIOD.
The events in time frozen in amber have no obligation to being linear and paradox free JUST BECAUSE our consciousness prefers to grasp things causally. PERIOD.
Therefore there is no paradox in young Ben dying and old Ben living on, each event is fixed and distinct, the only problem is in our sense of logic which denies such a thing from occurring. PERIOD.
Here you have the conflict of Miracles and Logic, the man of science and the man of faith. PERIOD.
Comment by rot — March 28, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Ross
” I think, and I hate to harp on about it, but whatever happened, happened. EXCEPT, and this may seem like a contradiction, but there are CERTAIN things that can be changed, hence why one of the upcoming epidoes is called The Variable. But even then the change they make will have to work within some sort of framework or “set of laws”, if you will – hence “you broke the rules.”
I am saying this exact thing, except I think you have limits on what you think the variables COULD be.
whatever happened, happened… its fixed like in amber, but that does not mean Sayid going back in time and killing young Ben is a transgression of this belief, it means that too always happened. You make the assumption that linear time is a given in “God’s plan” and that is a stubborn conviction of reason, of the man of science.
There is a huge piece missing that creatively the island mythology could explain, and lay out just how non-linear reality could be palatable in this show, I don’t think it will take a lot of episodes to explain, I think actually the remaining episodes are going to lay this out and that will be the big WTF of the end of the season.
lets not forget we have had Michael incapable of killing himself (that is a miracle, that goes against regular laws of causation) we also had characters jumping in time, back and forth, transmitting information that changes things in the future, I think it is more ridiculous to say all that is fine, but you can’t kill someone (in a show that has seen two resurrections already!). There seems to be a fixed plan (the island is not done with you yet) and how things are fitting is not due to causal laws, logical laws, but something grander.
Comment by rot — March 28, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Amazingly, I understand and agree with you rot. Ben putting out a hit on his young self makes a lot of sense actually. He understands that changing things in the past don’t matter to the future. The “here and now” is the here and now. Period. If you go back in time, it’s only back in time as YOU perceive it. But in reality, you’re still aging at a constant rate and for you personally this is a future event – even if you are transported to 1975.
In other words, you can look at the past not as a time, but more like a location with a whole new set of people and objects. So if you go back and kill Ben as a child. It doesn’t matter to your future, because there is no cause and effect. There is no grandfather paradox. You go back to your own time at the exact moment you left and there is Ben; looking you in the eye saying, “did you do it? Were you able to kill me?”
Comment by Andrew James — March 28, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
When I said that CERTAIN things can change I did mean, as you say, that there is limits. But as far as Ben being killed goes, the reason I don’t think he’ll be dead is because of how important he is. That’s why Locke was brought back to life, as well as Christian Shepherd. But although you, (and you, Andrew:P), make a good point, I still don’t agree. I really think it’s tying stuff up in knots, making them more complicated than they need to be and demanding more time to explain it than they literally have i.e. a season and a quarter roughly. I will be content if they can find a way to pull it off, but from where I’m sitting it’s going down the road of things that happened weren’t changed but THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED – whatever happened, happened (is that getting annoying yet?:P…).
Let’s take the thing about Locke telling Richard in 1954 that he was born in a couple of years and he’d to come visit him: Now whether the reason Locke did that was just an idea he came up with or whether he remembers him visiting him is up for debate (personally I think it’s the former), but with what you’re saying, how do you explain Richard going to visit him? I’ll tell you why, because Locke told him to – since Locke walked into his camp, and knew all this stuff it seemed impossible for someone to know, that’s why he and the other Hostiles (if that’s what we’ve to call them just now…) kept an eye on him, with Richard visiting him again when he was a boy; when he asked him to choose an item – compass, knife, comic etc – and because he choose the wrong thing, he said he wasn’t ready yet; he was trying to see if he would be able to bring him there when he was younger, but he couldn’t because we already know that what happened was he didn’t go there until he crashed on the Island – whatever happened, happened.
@Andrew,
That DOES sound like a “Ben thing” to say – but I pose the rather obvious question of why would Ben put a hit out on himself? What purpose, going along with your theory that that’s actually possible, does that serve?
Comment by Ross Miller — March 28, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Rot, your hilarious defensiveness reminds me of the time Camila Paglia compared Sarah Palin’s incoherent babbling to “a be-bop saxophonist” and then preceded to lecture her critics on their ivory tower elitism.
It’s like a parody of a pretentious person. Are you wearing a monacle and an ascott while you’re typing?
Anyway, it’s an interesting line of discussion but do any of you really think the show is going to discard causality? Isn’t causatality a founding pillar of storytelling?
If there’s no causation why can’t Little Ben Linus just get up and walk away with a bullet hole in his chest? Why is ignoring causation 30 years after the fact profound but 30 seconds after the fact moronic?
I don’t pretend to have a background in philosophy on par with Rot’s but while philosophers might debate the mechanism of causation I don’t think any seriously propose simply discarding the idea.
I also hope the shooting of Little Ben serves as a jumping off point for a bold new direction. But this is a little artsy fartsy avante guard compared to the five years that preceded it.
Comment by Rusty James — March 28, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I was just listening to the latest Lost podcast on ABC’s website, and exec producers/writer Carlton Cuse and Damon Linderlof were talking about the whole thing of whether or not Young Ben will actually be dead/if it will have any effect of Future Ben. They mentioned something that makes me stick even MORE with my thoughts that “whatever happened, happened” and that Young Ben will not be dead. They said that Sayid is really the first one to challenge the “rules” that you can’t change the past simply by shooting Young Ben when he knows he’s there in the future (which is not a spoiler, they’re simply pointing out something we all know). And they made a point of saying if YOU had the chance to go back and, say, kill a 12 year old Hitler, knowing FOR SURE that he would end up doing what he did starting WWII, would you not take that chance?. But they brought up the question what if you trying to kill young Hitler actually was part of the reason he turned out as he did – as I keep saying over and over, “whatever happened, happened”. So the reason Ben is the way he is with Sayid (getting him to “do his dirty work”, as they say, etc) is because of the fact he shot him when he was younger, i.e. kind of “getting him back”, if you want to say. In essence, Sayid is part of the reason Ben ends up the way he is. Sayid didn’t change anything, because THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED.
Comment by Ross Miller — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
right, I’m the pretentious one, Rusty, yet you are playing grammar police. “You can’t have a run on sentence, that’s against the rules!”
As for how nonlinear time could be introduced into the show, like I said before, you need a very strong analogy to make it work, like they used for when they were unstuck in time, and it was like a record skipping. There is a way for it to work, but as with most things in Lost, its so far along that little steps will make it more palatable.
and no, you don’t discard causality, causality is still how people PERCEIVE things, it just doesn’t dictate how events happen… and we have already seen this, Michael not being able to kill himself is a blatant example of how the rules of causality no longer apply… you pull a trigger to your head, you should be able to kill yourself, but something intervenes. there is a plan, or the island, that intervenes…
I love how its ok to accept an island intervening (the island wants such and such) but that there is a fixed reality that is nonlinear, something actually more intellectually sound, and its IMPOSSIBLE!
Comment by rot — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ right, I’m the pretentious one, Rusty, yet you are playing grammar police. “You can’t have a run on sentence, that’s against the rules!”
I criticized your run on sentences for being confusing not for being grammatically incorrect. I’m not a cop trying to arrest you for your crimes against grammar; I’m a life guard trying to save you from drowning in your own verbosity.
I’m not at all clear on how Michael’s failed suicide attempt violates causality. Did Locke successfully committing suicide because Richard told him too violate causality? IE I’m killing myself because in the future I’m dead.
I’m also not clear on if your theory does or does not call for Ben to just get up after being shot. Because it seems like you started at not and talked yourself to the other end.
Comment by Rusty James — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ right, I’m the pretentious one
Dude, you compared your blog comments to beat poetry and then criticized me for “thinking too linear”. You’re as pretentious as latin crossword puzzle convention.
Comment by Rusty James — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@rot,
But just think about it – you brought up the whole thing of the Island intervening so that Michael couldn’t kill himself, no matter many times and how many different ways he tried. Yes, the Island intervened, but the reason it did was because Michael dying at that point is not what happened (what was SUPPOSED to happen) thus it COULDN’T happen. Michael wasn’t supposed to die until he did that thing with freezing the C4 – and when he was done, cue Christian – “You can go now, Michael.” It’s the same thing as Desmond trying to save Charlie – no matter how many times he tried to do it, he would fail because Charlie HAD TO DIE because THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS (HAPPENED). It’s fate course correcting, as Ms. Hawkings said. Remember she said to Desmond that he was supposed to go to the Island, there was no avoiding it, even when he had the chance of going back into his memories and trying to change it (and before you say, the reason he could because he is “uniquely, and miraculously special”), whatever he did still led him to crashing on the Island.
You said the words exactly “there is a plan”, a set of things, however endless they may be, that HAVE TO HAPPEN… that DO HAPPEN. As I said there will be SOME things that can change, i.e. the upcoming episode title “The Variable”, but not things which are impossible in the overall picture; Young Ben can’t be killed because he’s there in the future. I really don’t get this “alternative reality” or “alterantive future” or whatever, it doesn’t make sense, at least not at the moment. As I said before, I will be content whichever way they go because they always seem to make their wacky ideas work very well (remember how ludicrous the Island moving idea when we first were introduced to it at the end of last season? Now we don’t even question it…). But with how the shows been set up, the journey of the show for 5 years now, points entirely to the ever repeated (by me:P) idea that “whatever happened, happened.”
Comment by Ross Miller — March 29, 2009
“why would Ben put a hit out on himself? What purpose, going along with your theory that that’s actually possible, does that serve?”
Because if our theory holds true that two bodies of the same person cannot exist in the same time, then if young Ben is killed off, now old Ben can be allowed to travel back to 1975. I don’t know why we would want to be there/then, but we’re talking about Ben here. Who knows why he’d want to be there. Point is, if young Ben is dead, old Ben can be there.
Comment by Andrew James — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Good point – he would maybe want to go back and fix some things that he wished he could’ve changed. But, as you say, that’s if your guys’ theory holds true. HOWEVER, staying on the “two bodies of the same person cannot exist in the same time thing”, how do you explain any of Sawyer, Jack, Kate, Juliette, whoever, going back in time? They would be in the same time as the kid versions of themselves, would they not?. Granted, not in the same PLACE, but still in the same time, undoubtedly – taking Sawyer, for example, he is rouughly supposed to be 35 or so, that would make him in 1977 at the same as his younger 3 year old self would be back in Alabama.
Comment by Ross Miller — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ how do you explain any of Sawyer, Jack, Kate, Juliette, whoever, going back in time? They would be in the same time as the kid versions of themselves
Plus the fact that they’ve already traveled back in time to a period where they were all on the island. Locke specifically contemplates going over to talk to himself.
That’s the biggest problem I have with this particular theory. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if the writers used it. That baby being sun is the best explaination I’ve heard for why she didn’t travel back with the rest of the O6.
Comment by Rusty James — March 29, 2009
Clearly, Rusty, you don’t even understand what Beat writing is, otherwise you wouldn’t be calling me out for my credentials. Beat aspires to do away with the conservative notions of what writing should be and it reduces to the writing of the average person… actually they would have loved the blog development, this democratisation of language, foregoing spelling, grammar, punctuation, to get at the pulse of the thought. I write the way I think, and if it doesn’t slow down for you, so be it.
I will get back to these comments later, but I will stress I am not anywhere near certain the show will go the nonlinear route, in fact I have heard whispers that Ben could live, I just think they SHOULD go that way.
as to why would Ben want to be where the action is, well duh. He’s Ben! That and also he loves Juliet and Juliet is in the seventies.
Comment by rot — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Haha, Rot, covering your ass there, eh?^_^
Comment by Ross Miller — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
they have referenced Philip K Dick many times on the show, including Locke handing Ben ‘VALIS’ to read, and let me tell you VALIS is a bazillion times more complicated than anything I have roughed out as a possibility, in that story there are two time periods existing in tandem with each other, so events happening now are also happening in the past. wrap your head around that.
The one hesitation I have to the theory of nonlinear reality coming into play is that the creators have said that the mythology is not the main part of the show, its the crust to the pie filling which is character arcs, and so maybe they wouldn’t go all in sci-fi if that is the case… but since they jumped into time travel maybe they are willing to go the whole nine yards.
Comment by rot — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Ross
maybe the Variable is the island, which is why there is this kind of ‘breathing room’ for characters to be course corrected, but everything else is fixed in ‘God’s Plan’ and that plan is nonlinear.
so we are both right
Comment by rot — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Beat aspires to do away with the conservative notions of what writing should be and it reduces to the writing of the average person
I swear to god, that exact same sentence appeared in Paglia’s article about Sarah Palin.
Hey Alan Ginsberg, when yer done challenging the fascism of grammar and bourgeoisie causality do you think you could find time (inbetween harrumphs and lectures on what commoners like to read in their spare time of course.) to address my two questions above.
re:
Seriously, does Locke violate causality by killing himself? Is that what your talking about? If so I think I get your point and have a lot more to say about it. If not I’m afraid I’m lost, and all I’ve got is lots more sarcastic jokes about beat literature.
Comment by Rusty James — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ How would Ben overcome this if he felt it vital to exist in that time period. Well make a way for Sayid to be on the plane so that when he goes back and encounters young Ben he will do what is in his nature, Kill him. Thats right, Ben puts a hit on himself.
How would Ben know Sayid was going to the 1970’s?
Comment by Rusty James — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
When did Locke commit suicide? he was murdered.
causality, cause and effect, if I drive a car full blast without a seat belt, the expected effect is death, but Michael lives. The whole Michael story was that no matter what he tried within the normal laws of causality he couldn’t die because some PLAN overrode these laws, so there is something greater than causality at work in this story.
young ben, old ben, causality, cause and effect. One assumes that young Ben cannot die because the effect would be in linear reality that Old Ben would cease to exist. My point: this slavish faith in causality has already proven to be a fallacy (and I insist that is the meaning underlying Ben’s ‘he changed the rules’ statement in THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME). It is not a sound argument to say there must be a paradox with young and old Ben, because clearly in the mythology of the Island rules are being broken, miraculous interventions are taking place to change how events occur. The Lost reality is not mechanistic, it doesn’t work like a clock according to scientific foreseeable physical laws… something else is happening.
come to think of it, Alex’s death, the realization for Ben that transgressions to causality can happen, may have been the lynchpin in his decision to off his younger self, because he realized that there was no paradox there. I think Ben had a limited understanding of the rules of the game and with her death he now is trying something radical to get back to the island in the time period that important events are taking place.
as for how did he know it would be the seventies, that can be explained, how has Ben known most anything in this story, maybe Hawkings knew more than she claimed, and let Ben know this. When Ben turned the donkey wheel he told Locke he could never come back, and sometime in the interim he may have figured out a risky way to get back. Ben would know Sayid would be going to the seventies because for Sayid there would be no conflict, no duplicate of himself in the same time period (remember Chang warning of the danger of having the rabbits in the same place near the end of season 4).
They haven’t yet explained how time travel effects the memories of those revised by the intrusion… Rousseau seems no different from encountering Jin, oh wait Richard does remember encountering Locke… and Desmond does have a dream of Faraday by his encounter in the past (but he is apparently special), so perhaps normal people are not changed retroactively. Besides Desmond and Richard who are ’special’ is there a case where a revision of the past has shown to directly alter the events of the future or even trigger new memories in the future?
This has been withheld from us, and I think there is a good reason for it, but I have no idea what it is.
as for what happens to Ben, my belief is young Ben is dead, there is no him getting back up, thats it for that actor. But it has no causal effect on Old Ben, and this will be explained this season as a big reveal.
I don’t quite understand how Locke dying has anything to do with causation, he died in the present and was resurrected in whenever (no matter what time period), it is a miracle, an overriding of all physical laws. Causally should that happen? no. So I say again, why is that ok in your Whatever happened, happened theory of course correction, but not a similar transgression of physical laws in Young Ben dying and Old Ben living?
Comment by rot — March 29, 2009
@ I don’t quite understand how Locke dying has anything to do with causation, he died in the present
Michael’s incident happened in “present time” as well. Does non causation only effect time travelers? Isn’t the implication of what you’re saying that there is no “present” only different points in time? Aren’t we “time travelers” traveling forward in time?
Also you seem to be suggesting that Michaels incident a non-causal explaination. It may be compatible but it doesn’t demand it. Even in the event of something outlandish like “magic stopped the gun” that is still traditional causality. A force (magic) acts upon the gun causing his suicide attempt to fail. The cause -> effect relationship remains intact.
My best guess as to what you mean is that Mike lives because he’s alive in the future. The cause of the gun malfunction was him being alive in the future. The inverse of traditional causality. Effect -> cause.
By the same token the cause of Locke’s death (suicide or not) is he’s dead in the future.
If that’s not what you mean than I’m afraid I don’t get it. If you’re saying non-causality affects only time travelers I doubly dont get it.
And this part is tripply frustrating:
@ as for what happens to Ben, my belief is young Ben is dead, there is no him getting back up, thats it for that actor. But it has no causal effect on Old Ben
From a causalty / non causalty standpoint whats the difference between Little Ben getting shot and Big Ben remaining alive (30 years in LB’s future) vs LB getting shot and LB remaining alive (30 seconds in LB’s future)? They’re both the same.
@ So I say again, why is that ok in your Whatever happened, happened theory of course correction but not a similar transgression of physical laws in Young Ben dying and Old Ben living?
First of all the questions I’m asking you are not necessarily in favor of my own pet theories. I’m asking you questions to better understand how your idea works.
Secondly, Whatever Happened, Happened does not equal course correction. “Course correction” was a rule governing Desmond’s time trips, as exposited by Ms. Hawking. His time travel was of a different sort than Sawyer and Co’s.
I think what they’re suggesting is that while Team Sawyer hops around the time sphere non sequentially they still exist physically at one point at a time. They are in 2007 or 1977.
Desmond however is not traveling physically, his conciousness travels, his body stays home, and thus is able to exist at multiple points in time all at once, he’s in 1997 “remembering” what happened in 2004. The same rules don’t apply.
Team Sawyer however is ruled by WH,H; as exposited by Faraday; not course correction. Nothing they do is course corrected. They are acting in lock step with the course of events. Everything they do is making the present come true, whether they like it or not.
Comment by Rusty James — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Besides Desmond and Richard who are ’special’ is there a case where a revision of the past has shown to directly alter the events of the future or even trigger new memories in the future?
This has been withheld from us, and I think there is a good reason for it, but I have no idea what it is.
Ross and I addressed this up thread and it seems like I convinced him. I think everything we’ve seen is perfectly compatible with people in 2004 remembering their encounters with the time travelers. Richard, Ben, Widmore, The air field, the exception is Rousseau / Jin and their interaction is so minimal that I can just turn a blind eye, it’s an innocent ret conn.
Comment by Rusty James — March 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Quickly as I am on my way to work:
semantics, when I say ‘causality’ I mean it scientifically, cause and effect within knowable physical laws. A bullet shouldn’t bounce of someone’s skull when the trigger is pulled, that goes against basic causation. You, Rusty are using the notion of causality as some empty connector between two ideas, with no necessary bearing on physical laws…
magic + pulling trigger = sound causation (huh?)
purple elephant + pulling trigger = sound causation to I guess.
keep the meaning of causation to knowable physical laws and then maybe you will see what I am saying. I am saying the show has already jumped the shark, or transgressed physical laws with Michael failed suicides, doesn’t matter what time he is in, our grasp of physical laws says he SHOULD HAVE died, and I am equating that SHOULD HAVE with Old Ben as well, when young Ben dies Old Ben SHOULD HAVE died, because part for our understanding of physical laws says time in linear, that throughout time causation occurs (pulling trigger of a loaded gun to a head is a supposed linear causation, in the past the trigger is pulled, in the future the head explodes, but on this show that doesn’t happen).
linearity is a prerequisite for causation, if things are linear and fixed that way than you cannot have a causal law.
In a knotted linear reality, there would be causal law until the knots occur and then as if miracles, these knots would break with our understanding of physical laws. I’m willing to equate what Michael did with something about course correcting with the Island, but it shows that the creators are willing to break with strict causation, and so the Ben paradox could be just another break, a big break, a reveal of nonlinearity.
Comment by rot — March 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
CORRECTION: I meant to say “linearity is a prerequisite for causation, only if things are linear and fixed can you have causal law.”
Rusty: “Michael’s incident happened in “present time” as well. Does non causation only effect time travelers? Isn’t the implication of what you’re saying that there is no “present” only different points in time? Aren’t we “time travelers” traveling forward in time?”
I can’t even begin to unpack what you are saying here (and I am the one unclear?). What I said is there are two realities that co-exist 1) reality fixed in amber as ‘God’s Plan’ which has no obligation of being linear (would you say a rock is linear? no it just exists). So think of God’s reality as an object without time 2) man than perceives the object, or ‘Gods Plan’, or Reality, through which consciousness processes information AS IF it was linear. Linear reality is the filtered glasses we as sentient beings perceive the world. With linear reality comes the mandates of causal law.
The Lost universe poses a Variant in our everyday experience of reality, the causal laws are being disrupted because ‘The island has plans’. Its fairly clear characters are being moved around in a way of course correction (highly coincidental events) so that some higher plan is played out.
The island could be thought of as the knot in reality, not to say it is an anomaly, like God didn’t expect it, but WE didn’t expect it.
“Team Sawyer however is ruled by WH,H; as exposited by Faraday; not course correction. Nothing they do is course corrected. They are acting in lock step with the course of events. Everything they do is making the present come true, whether they like it or not.”
WH,H is not incongruous with course correction, it can mean whatever happened will happen in the broadstrokes, or it could mean every detail is fixed (which I see as knotted reality).
My point before about has there been any changes retroactively, you said something before about the runway being evidence I think… and I need to clarify what I meant:
the time travellers can remember and change according to what they have learned on their time excursions, but I am asking has there been any evidence of a native of the time period being influenced by the time traveller so that in a future time period we see they have changed knowingly? my examples were only Desmond and Richard but they are clearly special cases.
What I am saying is, if they do not change, if for example Young Ben meeting the time travellers is not something Old Ben recalls, then it furthers my belief that there is no paradox in young ben’s death. WH,H could mean nothing is retained, that you are always in the present, even when the scenery is of the past… Sawyer as LaFleur is still Sawyer of 2005 and the world they inhabit has no causal obligation to the events of 2005 (although that is unlikely considering they rule out alternate realities).
I don’t know.
I just say there is room for nonlinear reality in the show, but it needs an incredible narrative trick to do it.
Comment by rot — March 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ keep the meaning of causation to knowable physical laws
The whole conversation is about time travel Rot. Physics uses the term “causation” to describe a strictly linear cause then effect relationship. Both of us are using the term in it’s logic sense and as such Michael’s failed suicide attempt is a fine example of causation, magical or not.
And why are you so convinced that Mike’s suicide incident is in violation of normal laws / causation? Guns jam all the time (is it because you’re canadian?). I agree that the show possibly has some grander meaning behind it. But you are so confident that this incident is proof positive that the normal rules of logic / physics / whatever have been torn asunder. A gun malfunction doesn’t seem all that outragous to me.
@ I can’t even begin to unpack what you are saying here (and I am the one unclear?)
What are you “unpacking”? The block of text you quoted contains a single statement. The rest of it is questions.
@ Linear reality is the filtered glasses we as sentient beings perceive the world… only if things are linear and fixed can you have causal law.”
But what I’m unclear on is what you think the implications of this are. Are you really suggesting that a person’s past has no consequences upon his future? Or are you merely suggesting that there is some sort of variable in play that exempts only our time traveling protagonists from being affected by their past? Or are you suggesting something else altogether.
@ WH,H is not incongruous with course correction
I never said they were incongruous. But you seem to use them interchangably and I was pointing out the show doesn’t use them interchangably. And for the record, I believe every detail is fixed, and the characters are out there acting out each detail exactly as it happened all along. Including Sayid shooting Ben.
Comment by Rusty James — March 31, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I suggest that in LOST there is a nonlinear causality. That if x causes y, it is just as true that y causes x.
If Locke is dead in 2007 it is because he hung himself in 2006. And also it’s just as true to say Locke hangs himself in 2006 because he is dead in 2007 (I know he doesn’t hang himself. I’m just sayin’.). I don’t think this principal has much consequence upon the story. But it’s how I percieve of time working on the show. And you’ll notice it’s not a linear relationship.
Comment by Rusty James — March 31, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I agree, Rusty, that x causes y and y causes x. As you say if Locke HAD have killed himself (as opposed to Ben killing him) then it’s because he’s dead in 2007, and vice versa. It’s the whole whatever happened, happened thing again – there is no changing it:
Michael died on the boat, so HE DID. Despite best efforts to make it otherwise (by him trying to kill himself).
Charlie had to die at some point, so HE DID. Despite best efforts to make it otherwise.
Eko died by the smoke monster, so HE DID.
The Other have info on the Losties, because they gave it to them, SO THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED.
Even if they try to change it, they can’t. Not that something horrible would happen but it’s just impossible to change whatever happened – them going back in time wasn’t changing anything, because in the overall picture THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED.
And yes, that means Ben (and anyone else involved) DOES remember them from the 70’s when he was a young lad… and yes, remember getting shot by a man named Sayid. You watch, Ben will reveal his knowledge of them from the past. Mark my words.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 1, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Oh come on Rusty, you are seriously not saying it was merely a gun jam in Michael’s case, that causation as pertaining to physical laws is not interrupted there?
The gun jamed four times, reloaded with Keemy trying to kill him, he also drove full on to a wall without a seat belt and lived, and just narratively, we know the whole point of Michael not being able to die is because the island isn’t done with him… well causation doesn’t work that way, either the world is mechanistic like a clock, which each physical action causing a reaction and you can predicte phenomena, or you have divine intervention changing physical law so that events that shouldn’t happen by strict causation, happen.
as for whether I believe the past does not dictate the future… I don’t know, eastern philosophy would say there is no time, time is an illusion, you are only now… so maybe they will go that way.
your interpretation of nonlinear reality is intriguing, backwards and forwards, we shall see if that plays out.
Comment by mike rot — April 1, 2009
Comment by mike rot — April 1, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Ross,
so I say again, then why do you object to nonlinear reality… why can’t nonlinear reality be a part of whatever happened, happened?
I say there is a knot in the space time continuum that has always been there, always will be there, and our characters are just playing out that inevitability, but there are no paradoxes in this case.
I say all this but I have very good evidence that something contrary is going to happen in this week’s episode.
Comment by rot — April 1, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
rot, no spoilers (even hints)!
Because doesn’t that nonlinear reality thing negate the “whatever happened happened” theory? Ben can’t be killed in the past (something that “happened”) because he has to be there to be alive in the future (also, something that “happened”).
Comment by Ross Miller — April 1, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Oh come on Rusty, you are seriously not saying it was merely a gun jam in Michael’s case, that causation as pertaining to physical laws is not interrupted there?
No, I agree it’s some island Wu. But it’s so open ended that I don’t see how it can offer evidence or proof of any particular theory (unless your theory is “the island is weird”).
I don’t see how it proves that the island disrupts cause and effect. Whether or not it keeps him alive via magic or advanced science; cause-and-effect (which, again, in the sense we’re speaking of them is a logical relationship not necessarily a physical one) remain intact.
And by the way, I’m legitimately curious. Do you personally believe that cause-and-effect is an illusion?
Comment by Rusty James — April 1, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Well, tonight’s episode pretty much made the case that everything happens as we see it. There is no cause and effect. Time is a constant. What happens on the show occurs in the same order as we at home are watching it. So no matter when in time I go, no matter what I do, it is fate; it can’t change anything. Time is a long, linear string of events that you can stand back and look at. Time is only perceived differently. For ME, no matter when I go, it is still my present (no matter if it is 2006, 1937 or 2015). I can go back in time and kill all my ancestors; but because from my perspective I was already born, I won’t suddenly disappear (as Hugo thought was going to happen to him).
HOWEVER…
Apparently some things can be changed (as you guys have hypothesized) based on Hugo’s question to Miles that completely stumped him. So we’re left with basically the same question…. wtf?
Comment by Andrew James — April 1, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
do I believe cause and effect is an illusion, thats a tricky question. at this point no, only because I have not delved too deeply into meditation, but from what I have read about it I do believe tentatively that our temporal minds are habitually locked in this cause and effect existence, and that one could, in theory, break free of it. Let’s say I am very much not a materialist. I think we are in the habit of rationalizing EVERYTHING because of the Western culture we grew up in. whatever phenomena we experience, however it bubbles up from our subconscious, the second we need to name it or articulate how it works, it becomes a self-perpetuating analysis. all human experience becomes clinical symptoms, and it is just all too convenient that this leaves little to no room for anything remotely spiritual.
as for last night’s episode, I have only seen the last half, so I still am not clear what happened, but how is Andrew coming up with the notion that this episode proves there is no cause and effect? so it said it is nonlinear reality?
from what I saw I thought it was pulling back, saving young Ben’s life (which I really find lame) and so there is no paradox.
Comment by rot — April 2, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Well, despite the lazy way it was done, Miles basically spells it out. I didn’t come up with it. So since you only saw the second half, did you miss Hugo and Miles’ conversation? It’s like Miles read this thread and just straight up answered it as best he could to a “dingbat” like Hugo. That pretty much explains everything that is going on… mostly.
You need to watch the first half. It’s pretty important.
Comment by Andrew James — April 2, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I plan to watch it tonight. Yeah I missed that conversation. and I didn’t get why the episode was titled ‘whatever happened, happened’, I’m guessing that came up in the first half too?
Comment by rot — April 2, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
ok I have seen the full episode now.
Hurley is pretty funny in it, and what Miles said, Ben pushing the wheel, makes their past and future come before the present is a bit hard to get my head around, I think I know what he means but it is sort of clumsy to say it that way. The immediate future would also be in the past, and therefore come before the ‘present’ but Miles had already said the ‘present’ is right now, so I’m not sure why it said it that way.
so if we take Miles at his word:
everything is fixed, but from our vantage point we can never know the plan, and so we can never know what will happen and the perception of free will remains intact. I’m thinking something about going to the temple and being an Other (losing your innocence) is that you lose also SOME of this free will illusion because you do know what will happen, and that is why Ben was surprised by Alex’s death, that the rules he understood changed.
the conversation didn’t resolve whether Ben could die or not, I think Miles said Young Ben cannot die because he has to become Old Ben but then they made a point of whether or not Ben recognized Sayid when he was posing as Henry Gale… has his memories been altered by this 70’s visitation, or is it a safe deviation that is course corrected (ben was always going to be an Other whether Sayid was there or not)?
more questions than anything I guess.
Comment by rot — April 2, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ What happens on the show occurs in the same order as we at home are watching it.
Wait… I’m not sure I understand. You dont mean that Locke came to the island, and then was in wheel chair for four years and then was pushed out a window by his father (which was the order we watched it in)?
@ I can go back in time and kill all my ancestors; but because from my perspective I was already born, I won’t suddenly disappear
I’m pretty sure that’s wrong.
Comment by Rusty James — April 2, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ saving young Ben’s life (which I really find lame) and so there is no paradox.
So, young Ben gets shot. Old Ben is still alive 30 years later. Then what? What makes your idea less lame then what they’re doing? What are the philosophical or narrative implications of your idea?
And this is what I really would like to hear you address: Whether Ben is miraculously alive 30 years later or miraculously alive later that same day, they both are contrived deus ex machina resurections. What’s the difference?
What I prefer about the way they’re doing it on the show is that they’re putting their theory to the test. They set up a rule (WH,H) and tell us it’s true, and all the characters seem to believe it. So far it seems to be true, they interfere with their surroundings every chance they get; they’ve killed like four people; and they haven’t disappeared Marty McFly style. They saved someone’s life and that person had a baby named Ethan Rom. So I guess it follows that this is the way it’s always happened…
And then Sayid shows up and says “fuck that, what’re you gonna do now time line?” He’s the first person to actually put the rule to the test. And if you think about it, what’s really going on is that free will is playing a game of chicken with predestination. And there can be only one; either Sayid was successful in altering the course of events or Sayid’s gun shot turned Ben into the evil mastermind leader of the Others that we know today.
Rot, I think you have a classic case of they-didn’t-use-my-idea-itis. Which is your own fault because the writers told us what they were going to do and you stubbornly refused to listen in favor of your pet rigmorole.
Comment by Rusty James — April 2, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
wait a second, nothing has been proven either way yet… they have just prolonged the prognosis of what happens to Ben, and left it open with the remark “well why didn’t Ben recognize Sayid when they first encountered one another”… and Miles had no response.
and for the record my issue is with ending an episode shooting Ben in the chest and confronting the paradox directly only to balk on it, and potentially use it as a gimmick, just another one of those serial cliffhangers (show the car veering off the cliff, and then next episode its safe). There should be a code among writers and their audience, that there are certain tricks they will not pull and I think balking on the paradox is lame, it should have been the nexus point for a whole new way of looking at the show, and instead its potentially nothing, a means of getting Ben to be an Other, which we already knew he would be.
my idea doesn’t have a deus ex machina, Ben isn’t resurrected, you use the point of the shooting to demonstrate that the past can be rewritten without disrupting the present (in certain circumstances). that is fascinating, that would blow people’s minds and be daring, and unique…
to say whatever happened, happened, and succumb to basic linear causation, that doesn’t compare… Lost has a trend of pushing the envelope, so yeah, I was hoping they would push it further.
Comment by rot — April 2, 2009
@ confronting the paradox directly only to balk on it, and potentially use it as a gimmick, just another one of those serial cliffhangers
I think I make a pretty good case above that it’s more than just a cliffhanger for the sake of a cliffhanger.
@ my idea doesn’t have a deus ex machina, Ben isn’t resurrected,
You’re saying he’s dead, then he’s alive. Right?
I just don’t see what they’re doing as “balking” they’ve commited to a “rule” and now they’re challenging that rule head on.
@ wait a second, nothing has been proven either way yet… they have just prolonged the prognosis of what happens to Ben
If this comment is to me, I didn’t say it “was proved” I said it “will be proved, one way or another”. If by “it” you mean free will vs. destiny. Otherwise I missed your point.
@ you use the point of the shooting to demonstrate that the past can be rewritten without disrupting the present
I said that?
@ Lost has a trend of pushing the envelope, so yeah, I was hoping they would push it further.
I think pitting free will against destiny pushes the envelope pretty far. In so far as it’s a classic dilema that the show is approaching in an innovative manner.
Comment by Rusty James — April 2, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
By the way Andrew. I don’t think there was anything lazy about the dialogue between Hurley and Miles. It wasn’t exposition, it shows that the characters have the same questions about what’s going.
At this point I’d even take Faraday’s opinions with a grain of salt. He has a theory about what’s going on but no ones actually put this to the test until Sayid shot Linus.
And while Faraday might intellectually side with WH,H. Emotionally he’s routing for Free will. Remember him, convincing himself not to warn young Charlotte? Thereby, potentially saving her life (LeFleur).
And that reminds me; as far as characters remembering meeting time travelers. Add Charlotte to the list. I don’t even consider it an open question anymore.
Comment by Rusty James — April 2, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
First off, let me just get something off my chest…..I KNEW YOUNG BEN WOULDN’T DIE!
Okay…. let’s move on.
I LOVED how they slipped in there the conversation that basically we’ve been having in this thread for the last good few weeks. It was kind of like Miles is representing those of us who pick stuff apart and Hurley was the more average viewer by asking the most obvious questions – such as “Why wouldn’t we remember what happened if it already happened?” -, I loved that they put that in there (they did that throughout the seasons to debunk overall fan theories like “they’re all dead” by confronting them in the show and then shooting them down – nice).
I don’t get what you mean, Andrew, when you say that it’s been proven that any of them can kill their ancestors and yet stil be alive be because from THEIR perspective they were still born. If it was that way it wouldn’t matter how we perceived it, we’d still cease to exist. It pretty much proved (or at least strongly hinted at) the opposite of what you’re saying, and generally lining up with what me and Rusty have been saying: What Miles meant when he said “any of us can die” is he was talking about any of those who went back i.e. Jack, Sawyer, Kate, Hurley, Juliette, Daniel (where is he, btw?!) and Jin. And the reason they could die is because it is THEIR PRESENT. It’s right what you’re saying, Andrew, that it’s always the present but only for those who are travelling back. It wasn’t their past they were in (at least not in the same palce i.e. they’d have younger versions of themselves off Island in the US etc, but that can be debated about how they are able to exist in the same time as their younger selves when Ben didn’t seem to be able to…), it was Ben’s. And Rusty is right, is doesn’t matter what they do because whatever they do THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED, it wasn’t and isn’t changing ANYTHING. The thing where Hurley said that they already had that covnersation – that’s absolutely true and backs up the WH,H theory. But Hurley comes in with the obvious and needed question (btw how was that lazy, Andrew? Wouldn’t they have some of the same questions the same as us fans do?) of if the conversation between Miles and him already happened then why wouldn’t he remember it…BECAUSE FOR THEM IT HADN’T HAPPENED YET. I know that’s mega-hard to get your head around but that’s how it works. EVERYTHING they do, but to prove the point we’ll take it that just refers to when they’re travelled back in time, isn’t changing anything, because it’s exactly what happened – they just don’t know that’s how it happen and thus can’t change anything no matter what they say (i.e. Hugo saying how can we be asking these questions etc).
And I think Rusty is right when he says that Ben when became an Other that he was able to see certain things that happen (i.e. the rules) and thus was surprised when Alex was killed (”he changed the rules”). This is where the some things can change thing comes into play. I’m not sure why or which things but some things can change – hence the upcoming episode title The Variable – but not when it rastically effects the future i.e. Young Ben simply COULDN’T be killed because HE’S ALIVE IN THE FUTURE. It’s the only way it makes sense, I keep saying it. I don’t get how you could think he’d be dead and have that not affect the future, have it be possible PERIOD, rot.
As far as the question Hurley brought up about why wouldn’t Ben remember Sayid when he was torturing him (which stumped Miles^_^) – they strongly hinted at the answer. Did you guys not hear Richard saying that if he takes Young Ben he would lose his innocence “and won’t remember any of this.” Doesn’t that allow them (the writers) to have things both ways? So it’s both that WH,H and things can’t be changed, but also eliminating the question of why can’t Ben remember the Losties by having it that whatever Richard does to Ben in the temple wipes his memory already. Maybe he’ll be changed and come back to the Dharma Initiative camp (as we know he does weasle his way back in with those guys, remember the Purge(?)), and the question of him remember the Losties will come back into play – ah, but that’s if they’re still there by the time Richard gets through with him. Obviously they aren’t going to be stuck in the ’70s for that long, since they’re obviously not going to have all the main characters killed in the purge.
Anyway, great episode. Love how they had a character drive, emotion driven episode that we haven’t had in a long time. Look forward to replying to the replies (:P).
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
Actually Ross, it was Rot who said “that is why Ben was surprised by Alex’s death, that the rules he understood changed.”
Personally I’m not convinced he wasn’t talking about mafia style rules (no families) rather than time travel rules. Although, I believe that episode, The Shape of Things to Come, was the first instance of physical time travel on the show. So I won’t rule it out.
I wouldn’t at all be surprised if The Variable were Desmond. As I mentioned before I think what’s special about Desmond is that unlike the rest who are traveling through time Physically, Desmond travels in consiousness only. And therefore, consiousness being non-localized, he can exist at several points in time at once. And thus is outside the cycle of cause and effect. He can change things, even if course correction nudges them back, he can alter events.
And I think this gift was bestowed upon him by some “force” that wanted him to alter the timeline by holding off Charlie’s death long enough… so that he could take down the Looking Glass… so that the freighter could make contact… so that the O6 would be rescued… so that they wouldn’t be on island in 1977 in the DI where they were supposed to be.
And I think another competing “force” lured them back so that they would be where they were supposed to be. That’s why their return was so important.
The conflict between these two forces is the war Charles Widmore has been talking about. Two conflicting destinies. Like dualistic theism only with fates instead of god’s. One represented by Ben, the other represented by Charles.
Furthermore, I think the finale of this season is going to be Desmond on the island, during the Incident using his gift to pick which one of two outcomes will happen. After which he’ll die. No more Desmond next season.
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
one important detail I left out
“so that the O6 would be rescued… so that they wouldn’t be on island in 1977 in the DI where they were supposed to be” should be “on the island in 77 in the DI during the Incident where they were supposed to be.
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
My understanding regarding the last episode wasn’t whether Ben would die or not (we obviously knew he wouldn’t), it was more about would the choices they make push Ben to become the person we know in the future.
If Sayid hadn’t shot Ben or if Jack had helped or if Kate hadn’t taken Ben to the Others, then Ben would have remained innocent and things might have been different. I thought that was more interesting than whether Ben was going to die. Their presence created the Ben we know.
Comment by Christian A. Dumais — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Rusty James,
I never meant for it to come across that you were the one who said about Ben being surprised by Alex’s death:P It just looked that way in my writing because it was mixed in with all my other points:P
I am not sure if The Variable necessarily refers to just one thing (or person), but more of just referring to a single thing when it gets brought up i.e. The Variable in this case blah blah… But I like you’re thinking nonetheless, that Desmond is at least *a” Variable, that he can change things to help fate course correct. That may sound a bit contradictory but it makes sense if you think about it: As you said with the whole delaying Charlie’s death thing – clearly Charlie needed to go to the Looking Glass and because Desmond was involved (”you’re uniquely and miraculously special”) he has to be the one who delayed his death enough times until Charlie got down to the Looking Glass. And that’s a solid theory there – that the finale, or at least PART of the finale, will be that Desmond can choose which way things go from now on, which path (but within that path things that have to happen DO HAPPEN). Since Desmond is special, travelling in time through conciousness rather than physically, for one thing, the rules don’t apply to him (as Daniel says). It’ll be interesting to see how they display that physically on-screen to the audience (split-screen, for the first time, perhaps?)
So do you think the Losties will be in the past for much longer? Obviously they’re not going to be there for the Purge, so I wonder if they will be shown or will figure out how to move through time again, getting back to the present (man, that is NOT a good term to use with regards to Lost… “the present”:P…). And what do you think “the incident” is exactly? Whatever it is I think it causes women to not be able to give birth on the island, perhaps Ethan was even the last one. The incident clearly isn’t the Purge (because the Dharma video where Pierre Chang mentions it for the first time was made 15-20 years previous), so do you think it was a past occurence to do with the wheel they found in the early ’70s, and the effect is had on the Island? Do you think it has anything to do with Widmore being exhiled?
@Christian,
But it’s the same principle. It still goes along with what we’ve been saying of “whatever happened, happened.” Ben got shot but didn’t die..,because that’s what happened – he got shot by a man named Sayid, taken to the Others to get healed, lost his innocence, as Richard says, and grew into the lying, manipulative Ben we’ve known for seasons now. But when you say “things might have been different,” yes they WOULD have been if Ben had died… but the point is he DIDN’T die because HE’S ALIVE IN THE FUTURE.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I forgot about Charlotte, thats a good point. and I forgot that Richard said Ben would lose his memory, that explains that as well. But then doesn’t it seem strange Ben would have built up hostility for his dad and kill him the way he was supposed to, with this time change in effect? Unless I guess he came back immediately as a young kid and was still abused by his dad.
and Rusty, we will agree to disagree on whether balking on the paradox was a good or bad thing.
say what you will, they have been concealing information leading up to next week’s episode (dead is dead) and I think the issue of whether linear causation is the final answer of how things work is yet to be seen. and I know I can’t even make you conceive of how nonlinearity works Ross, you keep just repeating as if impervious the notion that he can’t die if he is in the future. There is a wealth of writing on the subject and it does make sense as a plausible explanation for reality, and Hume the philosopher was all about how suspect causation is. and I still hold that Alex’s death was a miraculous break with how mechanistic causation is supposed to work, hence the only time truly Ben has been freaked out.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Christian
see thats my point, if the assumption is that Ben would never die, and you are going to stick with that as impervious then the Thud ending of that episode was lame (the equivalent of shooting Jack Bauer midseason of 24) and making it seem like there was really going to be a possibility of a different outcome. I would be pissed with 24 if they did that too, it is just lazy writing. you don’t do that unless you are willing to play ball. The writers lose face because now next time I know with the next Thud ending, they can balk most anything, maybe the thud ending was just a dream, whew. Even with Locke getting shot, that was pushing it, but they used their get out of jail free card by having Walt come and call upon Locke (a reveal that up to that point had not been used post-thud). but to do that again, with Ben, point blank range shot in the chest (with the added context of confronting a paradox) and then just take the air out of that climax by having none of it substantial. no paradox, no death, just a plot point, moving plot forward. gotcha.
you can only play gotcha so long.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ if the assumption is that Ben would never die, and you are going to stick with that as impervious then the Thud ending of that episode was lame
It’s not Ben’s life that’s on the line, it’s free will itself! That’s what’s cool about it! That’s what we keep trying to explain to you while you spin on and on and on about causality and proxies and David Hume! A. Christian Dumass gets it (just kidding, dude. no offense.) why can’t you!!
The show is not gonna discard cause and effect! Stop talking about it! It’s not “balking”, they told us in advance that he wouldn’t die! Why won’t you listen to them!?!
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@mike,
I think maybe when Richard says that Ben “won’t remember any of this”, he means just the last few hours or so, not his entire life. Which is why he still has memory of his father being bad to him etc, and ends up gassing him.
Of course it’s impervious! I really don’t get how they’re can be nonlinear reality, it makes NO SENSE. Whatsoever. Period. How can the past split from the future (and the present) and one not be affected by the other. As Rusty says – !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So it’s lame that they didn’t introduce this overly complex, incomprehensible, shocking departure from EVERYTHING that’s gone on so far, just for the sake of “going a new shocking direction”? I don’t see how you couldn’t expect and think it’s completely and entirely logical for Young Ben just to have been shot but not killed. Your comparison to 24 is doesn’t work in the same way because Jack Beaur is the one main guy, Ben is not. And we don’t have time travel in 24 where we can see that Jack Beaur lives in the future and therefore he can’t die in the past (which is exactly how it would happen if there WAS time travel, btw). We KNOW that Ben is alive in the future, and therefore he COULDN’T HAVE DIED. Why do you so badly want it to be this far too complex idea of nonlinear reality and paradoxies, stuff which, as I have said before, would take SEASONS UPON SEASONS to explore. If they did go your way, which I am comfortable in saying they WON’T, then the lack of episodes (i.e. time) to explain it would leave us with an unsatisfying ending.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
For crying out loud, the name of the fucking episode is “What happened, Happened” and your sitting there going “I was expecting Ben to die. And could someone explain the title to me?”
The writers are trying to throw you a life preserver and yer yelling “Stop throwing things at me and save me from drowning!”
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
And just to expand on what I said about Young Ben being shot – just from a dramatic, cliffhanger point of view for the show, I think it was a perfectly good thing to do. They challenged the idea that someone who’s there in the future died in the past, and left it as a dramatic cliffhanger to leave viewers guessing which way they would go. But for anyone pondering it a little bit more than just “casually viewing” (if there IS such a thing with Lost), would see it’s IM-POSSIBLE for Young Ben to die when he’s alive in the future.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
ugh, Rusty, free will is connected to causation, if you are going to prove one way or the other anything about free will with the shooting of Ben you are also going to be proving one way or the other something about causal law… its two sides of the same coin.
so the show told you ahead of time (cause and effect is normal, whatever happens happens) and you are telling me that shooting Ben to show that obvious fact is in anyway cool or mind-blowing?
let me describe this to you
character 1: everything is predetermined
character 2: yes it is
shoot character 3 which will prove or disprove theory
thud
character 3 is alive and well and no disruption of theory, yup everything is predetermined, yehaw.
do you see the problem with this? there is no contrary view? it was never a dispute (apparently in everyone’s head that it wouldn’t be that way), the thud was pointless because we have already been shown by Hawkings the how WH,H theory (he showed Desmond a person getting hit by a bus), this is not a reveal of anything, it establishes status quo… its an empty event on the issue of free will…
how about the third time it is shown that everything is predetermined, will you find it just as awesome?
they framed the event as important and at least in the immediate future, it appears it wasn’t important. all it does is set up Ben going to the Others, which was already going to happen. I like how you say, Rusty it is about free will, about whether it exists, and yet you ridicule me because I leave open the option that it could exist… you are not seeing how empty this event is considering its outcome. you feign a double choice to feign excitement but you keep telling me there could never be a”discard of cause and effect!”.
talk about doublethink.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
for the record, I never once brought up nonlinear reality as a possibility until the show balked the possibility… in the shooting of Ben it opened up discussion of the paradox, FOR THERE TO BE ANY COOL EFFECT OF THE THUD THERE HAD TO HAVE BEEN THE POSSIBILITY OF NONLINEAR REALITY.
can you not see that? free will is based on the issue of causation, for free will in this paradoxical situation to be valid reality would have to be nonlinear. but you are saying thats ridiculous, so than the THUD was lame because it never had any threat in it. no threat to free will, no threat to the life of Ben, zip, nothing.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Just to chime in, yes there is no disruption of the theory. The reason the thing about Sayid shooting Young Ben was in there is to challenge the fact that it happened, to challenge “fate” if you will. Yes they framed it as important because it was an important moment where this idea was challenged. The reason Ben became an Other in the way he did was BECAUSE SAYID SHOT HIM. There is no alternate to that, Ben wouldn’t have become an Other (at least not in the same way i.e. Richard taking him to the temple like that) if Sayid hadn’t have went back in time and shot him as a kid. Let’s just go along with the idea that no one travelled back in time – then in that case Ben would have never been shot by Sayid, and he wouldn’t have become an Other in the way he did. But the point is, how it works, is that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. That’s how it happened.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Ross
shooting Ben was a challenge to fate? HOW could it be given the limited dogmatic beliefs you and Rusty hold could there have been any alternative? you create this straw man, saying yeah maybe fate can be changed but when I go off on theories on how that alternate possibility could exist you rail against me like its impossible for the show to divert from Whatever Happened Happened as a linear fixed interpretation. so what is it? was there a choice in the thud, or was it lame straw man excuse to get people talking?
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
as for it being a plot device to get Ben to become an Other, I accept that, but that is so ‘who cares’ considering WE KNEW it was going to happen, no matter if Sawyer carries him to Richard or Richard takes him in the middle of the night. and seeing as Ben is not going to remember the events, I don’t see how even that the Losties changed things really plays out in Ben’s psyche.
Just admit the show balked, and lets get on with our lives
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I didn’t say fate could be changed, I’ve been saying IT CAN’T BE CHANGED. At least not when it comes to things as important as someone being alive in the future and therefore can’t be killed in the past (I think some things can be changed, as we have yet to see explained, but NOT THIS). It is that “straw man” thing that you say, and how is it lame? Of course it’s to get people talking, so is practically EVERYTHING on Lost. Again, the reason the Young Ben being shot was in there was to SHOW US that it can’t be changed. And that just happened to line up with it being a dramatic cliffhanger. It’s not lame, it’s JUST.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@”so ‘who cares’ considering WE KNEW it was going to happen, no matter if Sawyer carries him to Richard or Richard takes him in the middle of the night.”
But that’s just IT! Argh! THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO SAWYER AND KATE TAKING YOUNG BEN TO RICHARD – THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED. There is no “Sawyer could have taken him in the middle of the night”, because that didn’t happen. Everything happened because it happened. Just for the sake of discussion let’s say that there is no time travel involved – how would we know what was supposed to happen? We wouldn’t, and therefore couldn’t do anything about it. Miles, Hurley, Jack, Kate etc can’t change anything because to them it is the present. No matter what we did it wouldn’t change anything. Ben was taken in by the others because Sayid shot him and Sawyer and Kate took him to Richard.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
and I anticipate another Rusty confusion of what I mean by causation, so let me preempt you:
genuine Free Will exists only if the world is not mechanistically bound by causal physical law, or linear God plan.
If Ben being shot was to REALLY be significant at showing whether Free Will exists, than that would mean SAYID could act outside of mechanistic causation (or linear God Plan)
Therefore, for Free Will to be an option in the suspense of the Thud ending, there would have to be the scenario that mechanistic causation is broken, and reality is not FUNDAMENTALLY linear. Otherwise there is a paradox because Young Ben is dead and Old Ben lives.
Hence the nonlinear reality scenario. without it, the thud is a straw man, and therefore lame.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Ross
“But that’s just IT! Argh! THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO SAWYER AND KATE TAKING YOUNG BEN TO RICHARD – THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED.”
I’m not disputing that, you are making an argument where there is none. I am saying narratively, they could have written it one way or the other and either one could have been the WH,H always written way, and that from our perspective it isn’t a surprise that Ben became an Other, so if the impact of the thud was supposed to be that, its not terribly exciting.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ so the show told you ahead of time (cause and effect is normal, whatever happens happens) and you are telling me that shooting Ben to show that obvious fact is in anyway cool or mind-blowing?
well that’s a good argument… from my perspective. But you didn’t expect it to happen.
…
…
…
…
surprise!
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I didn’t expect it because I expected more from the writers than resorting to straw man cliffhangers.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Okay, I’m saying then…Free Will doesn’t exist. They can’t change what is supposed to happen…what DOES happen. To them it appears like Free Will because they don’t know the bigger picture.
But how is it being ANY OTHER WAY, possible? It wasn’t that way, so it can’t be. You’re saying they could have written it “this way” instead of “that way”. But the point is we already know which way it is, so it can’t be changed. You’re contradicting what you said you’re not disputing – it can’t be any other way than what it already is/was.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Ross, you are not good with reading hypotheticals…
Prior to the reveal of what happens to Ben, we already knew Ben would be an Other, I am saying, without knowing the details of how, that is not a big reveal, to say he became an other this way rather than another way the writers COULD have chose to write it (or are the writers also bound by WH,H?). Will you at least accept the free will of the writers in choosing what are the rules of their story?
my whole nonlinear theory is not something I am pushing now, there is no contradiction with me talking about events in this latest episode because I accept the WH,H as posing no paradox. IF that is the way the show goes, so be it. I fault them on a narrative choice, and a lost opportunity for something a bit more ambitious, but who knows, the show isn’t over yet.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
that’d be a lame episode.
“Oh no! He’s falling off a cliff!”
“Oh good, it was just a straw man!”
Yer ideas are just getting worse and worse Rot.
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
wow brilliant Rusty, brilliant.
I can see there is no real discussing the point with you further, because rather than confront anything I said directly you just want to go Henrik on the issue.
I guess in your universe there was a viable choice in the Ben thud (free will or determined) but at the same time it is RIDICULOUS to even suggest the possibility that Free will is an option because WH,H, and rather than actually see how free will could exist (nonlinear being the only non-paradoxical explanation) you call out that whole argument as bullshit.
again wonderful doublethink you got there Rusty.
if free will was a viable explanation for the shooting of Ben, I would love to hear your interpretation of how it could happen, because clearly it isn’t a straw man position.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Oh sorry, I thought you were still pushing for what you have been saying. Oh so you were just speaking hypothetically, fair enough, bud. And yes, I do submit that the writers have free will to write their story the way they want to, but that’s thinking of it in a business sort of way, always looking at it as just something that’s made up (which it is, I know that – I’m not deluded!:P). But to enjoy the show you have to think of it within itself, and within itself the only way it makes sense is for the WH,H thing to be the case, with it being impossible for Young Ben to die because he’s alive in the future.
However I disagree that what the writers have done isn’t ambitious. For example, making the Island dissapear isn’t ambitious? Yes, what you were saying is MORE ambitious, but it also made no sense within the show:D
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ genuine Free Will exists only if the world is not mechanistically bound by causal physical law
That’s just something theists say, while plotting against naturalism at their ID meetings because they can’t stand how awesome atheists are.
Seriously, there are different classes of “free will” certain kinds are more friendly to naturalism. And even if certain ideas are more popular among the academics there’s no consensus. I don’t agree that free will demands supernatural hookum.
But the debate’s not that technical anyways. All I mean by “Free will” in the context of LOST is that characters can act under their own volition as opposed to their actions already having been predetermined. Honestly, this thread is like a text book example of over thinking. If only I were such a text book, then it would be my lucky day.
There’s no reason to go down this rabit hole. It’s so simple and but you want it to be so complicated.
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
and if you think about it, it is exactly like balking at killing Jack Bauer mid-season… just think about it…
you know they wouldn’t kill Jack Bauer so it was an empty threat.
you know they wouldn’t kill Ben so it was an empty threat.
I love how defensive you guys are of the show, its impossible for them to have made a narrative misstep, to go for the cheap bait and switch that, yes, original CLIFFHANGERS are made fun of for doing (car over the cliff, next episode saved in the nick of time). Ben shot in chest drawing attention to the paradox making one think they are really going to challenge what has already been established, but nope, same old. gotcha.
I still love the show, but if you think about it, that narrative decision is so beneath them.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ I can see there is no real discussing the point with you further,
I’m really just in it for the lulz dude. I don’t even watch LOST.
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
“All I mean by “Free will” in the context of LOST is that characters can act under their own volition as opposed to their actions already having been predetermined.”
alright, I got to just come to the conclusion you really are not remotely philosophical, Rusty, and accept that because how you can say this statement and somehow say there are ’shades’ of this not competing with predetermination… wow.
objectively, that is a dichotomy, who has control, me or something else?
subjectively, yes, one can think they have free will, but in reality it is predetermined beyond their perception (which Miles said in the episode).
I don’t think there was ever a dispute on the whole of Lost by any character whether subjectively people believe they have free will, of course they do. the question has ALWAYS been underlying that, is it TRULY the individual making the changes or is there a physical law preventing them?
if shooting Ben was supposed to answer that question, it said, status quo, just like they showed us the three or four times before, there is predetermination. a lot of build up for nothing.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@mike,
Ah, but it ISN’T the same with regards to Bauer and Ben: The reason we know they won’t kill Bauer mid-season is because they’re not going to kill the character the show is about, i.e. what about the rest of the season? But the difference with Ben in Lost is a) Ben isn’t the main and only character and b)We know for A FACT that he is alive in the future. We aren’t able to see that Beaur is alive in the future, and so within the show itself, there’s a possibility he could die.
But the very fact that they had it is challenging it. You’re forgetting that not every viewer picks apart everything like we do. Have they just to forget about those more average viewers? If they’re going to have something like that in the show, they’ve just to skip it because some of us might be able to guess ahead?
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
how many times have I been ragged on for even proposing the possibility that Young Ben could die, I mean seriously, do you all have amnesia or something? !!!
now, when it suits you, well of course he COULD have died…
Christian, Rusty, and Ross have all told me I am an idiot for thinking he could have died, that it is SOOOOO obvious he wasn’t going to die, and SOOOO obvious they would keep with WH,H
then holy fuck people fess up to the fact then that there was no suspense!!! either that, or you are all full of shit right now trying to cover up fanboy style and refuse any criticisms of the show.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I’m sorry, mike, I’m just trying to make a/my point. I keep bringing that up because it’s the centre of the debate.
I never said there was no suspense. When did I say that? Yes, I said *we* knew that Young Ben couldn’t have died but it didn’t stop it being dramatic when it was playing out on-screen. Aren’t you forgetting that Lost is not just about all of this stuff we’ve been talking about (the reason we have been is because it’s worth discussing) – it started as a show both with mystery AND drama. I know you’re going to come back with the fact you didn’t feel dramatically engaged to what was going on since you knew he wouldn’t die (going along with that theory), but I, and I’m sure a lot of others, DID find it dramatically engaging. It seems you’re always thinking of the show outwith itself rather than enjoying it WITHin itself. Or am I mistaken?
I’m not just saying stuff for the sake of it, in an attempt to rile you up and carry on discussion “just because”. I’m just trying to prove my point, my opinions, my theories.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
It’s a debate between free will and destiny, but it’s a one sided debate heavily in favor of destiny. That does undermine the suspense of the cliff hanger and I can see how that could be a problem.
All I can really say in it’s defense is that I’ve embraced the idea of WH,H and found it to be a rich and satisfying concept that’s different from most other time travel stories I’m familiar with. The more I think about, and the more the show forces me to think about it, the more I like it.
Even if it doesn’t challenge it’s own concept in a very meaningful way it stirs in me an inner dialogue about time, causation, free will, consequence etc etc. Deep meaningful shit that I poems about and show to girls.
And even if it wasn’t the greatest most suspenseful cliff hanger. I still like the direction it’s driving the story. We’re in the temple and we’re learning about Ben becoming the leader of the Others. And while I haven’t loved the season so far I see a lot of exciting possibilities in where they’re going.
And if next week Ben gets patched up. And there’s no consequences or far reaching implications on the story other than: See, What happened, happened. Told ya. Then maybe I’ll come around to your way of thinking. But I think next week could be great and I’m excited to see what happens.
It’s cool like the Original Matrix is cool. It takes classic (old) ideas about reality and philosophy and build them into a adventure / sci-fi context. It might not have a lot of new insight about these things, but it inspires us to think about them.
The ideas you’ve discussed sound more like the Matrix sequels. They’re didactic and convuluted and they don’t make for a good story. I give you credit for attempting to explain… but I’ll be damned if I’m still not lost.
Explaining time as events frozen along a 4 dimensional axis, rather than lined up sequentially, helps us visualize time. But it doesn’t explain how you think it works. It’s not a different idea than linear, it’s just another way of thinking about it.
Are you really suggesting that they throw cause / effect to the wind and kill young ben but still have old ben alive? Just because. What does that even mean? What is the past if not the thing that precedes the future?
If that episode occured (probably titled “Whatever Happens, Can Go Fuck Off”) what happens in the follow up episode? If I can kill Ben 30 years ago and have him be alive now. Then why can’t I kill Locke and have him be alive 30 years from now? Or 30 minutes from now? With out cause and effect you dont’ have consequences. Without which you don’t have conflict. You certaintly don’t have character development, you don’t have development. It sounds like those shitty student plays I always had to sit through, where they just did whatever they thought was fun.
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
well it would work the same the show is working now, because subjectively, we all assume free will and perceive linear time. and my idea was that time is not strictly linear, but that you could have a knot in it, which the island causes or represents. time is linear until you use the variable of the island, than things are different. its still whatever happened, happened, but what happened was not STRICTLY linear. if you want to be religious about this, its saying God is not limited by linear causation, he create time, so if there is a knot in time where a Young Ben can die and an Old Ben can live its not a paradox, it is what always had to happen as part of God’s plan (or the Island’s plan for you atheists).
I think it is fairly easy to see, and far more radical a decision to make that goes into this whole man of science, man of faith… predetermination, with fixed laws of causation and paradoxes being averted, that suggests man of science logic. I can’t see them not succumbing to the man of faith position eventually, in which case miracles exist, miracles as lapses in logic, lapses in mechanistic causation… and the killing of Ben could have been the big introduction to it.
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I guess to be less confusing I should say instead of nonlinear reality, NOT STRICTLY linear reality.
a reality with wormholes and time travel pre-woven into the fabric, so there are no paradoxes.
Buddha and Christ are examples of individuals who are thought to have transcended time (the story of Doubting Thomas Ben mentions is exactly that example).
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
so if Buddha and Christ can operate outside of time, is it so crazy in a show that cannot shut up about these figures that it too breaks with science?
Comment by mike — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Mike:
Please don’t lump me with everyone else. I never said you were an idiot. In fact, I’ve never considered using the word in this discussion – of which, I’ve barely participated in.
Comment by Christian A. Dumais — April 3, 2009
@ alright, I got to just come to the conclusion you really are not remotely philosophical, Rusty, and accept that because how you can say this statement and somehow say there are ’shades’ of this not competing with predetermination… wow.
oh my god, fuck you! You’re belittling me for not using a suitably sophisticated definiton of “free will” in reference to Lost?!?! Excuse me for not renewing my subscription to the Journal of Pretentious Bullshit Quarterly! Maybe my use of the term is rooted in the tradition of beat poetry! Ever think of that? did you?
And I can’t find where I even used the term “shades”? Seriously, point it out to me. And I said free will could be compatible with naturalism, not predetermination. Completely different. You’re telling me I’m wrong, you didn’t read what I wrote.
What did Christian ever do to you?! The poor guy left one post and it didn’t even mention you! Not even indirectly! Now he probably thinks we’re a bunch of dicks and he’s never gonna come back.
You need to get help!
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
seriously dude, that’s what I’m sayin’. I got yer back.
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Christian said: “My understanding regarding the last episode wasn’t whether Ben would die or not (we obviously knew he wouldn’t), it was more about would the choices they make push Ben to become the person we know in the future.”
I didn’t mean to say Christian slandered me an idiot, I mean indirectly he was saying my argument was wrong “Christian, Rusty, and Ross have all told me I am an idiot FOR thinking he could have died” the word FOR in that sentence is the condition by which I am wrong-headed, misguided, or idiot. Christian says it is OBVIOUS… connect the dots… and the point is not personal insult in my post (I know there was no personal insult in his remark) the point is that I was so OBVIOUSLY wrong…
as for Rusty and ’shades’ : “Seriously, there are different classes of “free will” certain kinds are more friendly to naturalism. And even if certain ideas are more popular among the academics there’s no consensus. I don’t agree that free will demands supernatural hookum.”
are you going to challenge me on whether ’shades’ and ‘classes’ are synonyms?
follow me here Rusty, you said that sentence, saying there are different classes of free will and so no consensus, and then went on to say what’s my big issue with creating a false dichotomy upon the shooting of Ben, free will (you brought it up the term originally) and predetermination because
and I quote:
“But the debate’s not that technical anyways. All I mean by “Free will” in the context of LOST is that characters can act under their own volition as opposed to their actions already having been predetermined.”
key word in that is ‘OPPOSED’
classes of free will, but you are saying here, they are OPPOSED, and that is exactly what I said, so your ARGUMENT philosophically or otherwise makes no sense. I think what you would like it to say is yeah things are being made TOO complicated, and academics think too much, and there is no consensus on free will (the term you brought up originally I state again) so why, you ask, this emphasis on a dichotomy, EITHER Free Will OR PREDERMINATION?…
except, you idiot, you just agreed with me while disagreeing with me.
your paragraph about classes of free will strained to be philosophical but it went nowhere because you contradicted, or at the very least ignored it altogether to agree with me (while posing as if disagreeing with me).
and now you say ” I said free will could be compatible with naturalism, not predetermination.”
naturalism presupposes causal laws, physical causal laws, natural physical causal laws, the only difference between that and predetermination is that predetermination also leaves open the possibility of divine intervention, otherwise that is the same idea.
Now whether the Lost universe is naturalistic, or predetermined, you want to explain to me how it could be compatible with free will (objective not subjective) in the Ben scenario?
Comment by rot — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@mike,
I’m the same as Rusty, I can see how someone (you) might deem the “Young Ben getting shot” cliffhanger as to be build up for nothing, but I just don’t share the view. Within the drama of Lost, as that’s what it is supposed to be, remember?, it was exciting to see them play around with challenging the theory, even if some of us are aware of the fact it can’t be changed.
As far as what you said about the Island having a plan which includes the fact that Young Ben dies and Old Ben lives, so therefore even though he dies it’s still WH,H. And it’s a good comeback, but I think that it still doesn’t work entirely. Just as a general thought – How could the Island have an older Ben if the younger didn’t exist in the first place? I’m not denying the fact that this mysterious Island may have a plan of some sorts, but that theory within itself negates the fact that Young Ben could die – there somply wouldn’t BE an older Ben for the two to be separate in the first place, know what I mean?
If you can rewatch those two scenes where Miles and Hurley are discussing it. Miles is pretty much saying exactly what I am theorising.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I look forward to being called out as an academic and thinking this out too much, and so on… as a subterfuge from answering the question directly.
Comment by rot — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ what’s my big issue with creating a false dichotomy upon the shooting of Ben, free will [...] and predetermination
I said it’s a false diachotomy between predetermination and free will?
When?
If I wrote that it was probably a mistake. Point to the post and I’ll re-explain it.
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
In the same comment post everything else was taken from, Rusty said:
“@ genuine Free Will exists only if the world is not mechanistically bound by causal physical law
That’s just something theists say, while plotting against naturalism at their ID meetings because they can’t stand how awesome atheists are.”
Comment by rot — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I am saying objectively, free will is incompatible with predetermination (divine or natural law).
its a true dichotomy.
Ben being shot sets up this dichotomy because of the paradox.
predetermination won out (at least so far)
Comment by rot — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Just so you know, rot, *I* like your academically expressed opinions, man:-)
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
and lastly,
predetermination winning out illustrates that Ben being shot was a gotcha bait and switch, because it would only be significant to end as a thud moment if Ben really was dead. It added nothing new that hasn’t already been shown and explained in WH,H throughout the show, and just narratively, and I disagree with you Ross, it merely connected the dots from knowledge we already knew about Ben’s change to being an Other (thats the sort of stuff you do in the middle of an episode, not drawing attention to it as a thud moment)
and you had mentioned before how I focus on the writing of the show, Ross, and that is totally true… like I have said before my fascination with the show is the writing, I am not as involved in the characters as most of you seem to be. For me its the magic trick of telling this story, the mystery unfolding.
Comment by rot — April 3, 2009
It might be objective that free will is incompatible with predetermination. But it’s not objective that predetermination = naturalism.
That’s fine that you don’t agree with me about naturalism. I understand that I’m in the minority. I don’t even claim to have an especially firm grasp on the subject. But I’m not beholden to the conclussions that you’ve reached. Even if every scholar on earth agrees with you and I’m alone. Even if I’m illiterate and ignorant. Even if you’re right and I’m wrong. It’s still a debatable subject and I’m entitled to my opinion. And so are the creators of LOST.
And I sincerely doubt that every single philosopher agrees with your conclussion that naturalism demands pretermination. I’m sure I’ve heard / read stuff from D. Dennet and co. and interviews on Infidel Guy with people who disagree with you.
Sorry, predetermination and naturalism arent’ synonyms. Your personal viewpoint is not a fact.
I can’t even get you to use periods! And you’re demanding a satisfactorly academic definition of Free Will? Fuck if I know!
I wasn’t even attempting to use the terms in the sense of a philosopher but rather in an everyday / conversational sense. Free Will meaning you can make up your own mind; Predetermination meaning that the decision has already been made.
I’m not against thinking about philosophy. I don’t think it’s a waste of time to read and write about this, and gain a deeper appreciation for it. But I don’t think a TV show is this technical.
And I also don’t think, and wasn’t suggesting, that the television show LOST necessarily shares my own materialistic rationalism. When I said that stuff about superstitious theist and ID meetings I was editorializing. Not describing LOST. As far as LOST goes I dont’ believe in naturalism I guess.
If you really think that not agreeing that naturalism precludes free will and inescapably results in predetermination is the height of idiocy. Then I guess you shouldn’t continue this conversation. After all, you know what they say about arguing with an idiot in public…
This is why I call you the Martin Luther of rowthree. You also remind me of John Lithgow from Footloose.
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
Comment by rot — April 3, 2009
So did Martin Luther. And John Lithgow (directors cut).
Comment by Rusty James — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
OK I accept there was some confusion then between your personal beliefs of naturalism and what we are talking about as canon on Lost.
and I am cool with your definitions:”Free Will meaning you can make up your own mind; Predetermination meaning that the decision has already been made.”
thats just the sort of clear cut dichotomy I was getting at, except it needs to be absolutely clear that for both you are saying OBJECTIVELY, or in common language, GENUINE ? Its not just that it SEEMS like you are making up your own mind, but that in some real sense you are making the decisions.
The dead Ben scenario necessitates that one or the other is true, not both.
and it would seem to be predetermination (baring Ben remains alive and there is no paradox)
If things were predetermined AND Ben dies, then two scenarios are plausible in the Lost universe:
1) time is NOT STRICTLY linear and Old Ben lives on
2) time is linear and Old Ben dies
But since Ben doesn’t seem to die, there is no sense that free will is involved and things are predetermined, and time is linear, and everything is neat and tidy.
Comment by rot — April 3, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@”there is no sense that free will is involved and things are predetermined, and time is linear, and everything is neat and tidy.”
…and why shouldn’t it be? So they have to make it chaotic, confusing, and all that jazz, just for the sake making it seem edgy and “untidy”?
If it happens to end up “neat and tidy,” then they shouldn’t need to change that just so it isn’t.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 3, 2009
Comment by Goon — April 4, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Silly?! This is debate at its best, my friend:-)
I agree – the Kate episodes are usually the weakest I’ll admit (although I DO NOT get the hate for her), but this last one was probably the best Kate one of the entire show so far. And this season in general is MIND BLOWINGLY GOOD, I don’t care what anyone sais. Season 4 is probably still my favourite, but that may change once we see this one in its entirety.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 4, 2009
THIS COMMENT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
1) In regards to this statement I made (which was BEFORE this latest episode aired): “What happens on the show occurs in the same order as we at home are watching it.” – what I meant by that did NOT include the flashback scenes. What I meant was, season 1 (crashing, building a camp, finding the hatch, etc etc) all happened BEFORE they went to 1977. They cannot bury a treasure chest of gold with a big flag sticking out of the ground marked “get rich here” in 1977 and then have Charlie find it right after the plane crash. Why? Because in season 1, they hadn’t been to 1977 yet. Which means old Ben can still be alive, because Sayid has not yet gone back and killed him yet; even if it happens in 1977. Ben had a long life living on the island eating coconuts and learning orienteering and what not all throughout the 1980’s and 90’s because Sayid had not yet gone back in time to kill him. Again, don’t look at 1977 as a time, but as a place which does not effect other places. This theory of course is gone now, because young Ben is alive. I think it would have been a lot more interesting had young Ben died.
2) I forgot.
Comment by Andrew James — April 4, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Ross
How could the Island have an older Ben if the younger didn’t exist in the first place? I’m not denying the fact that this mysterious Island may have a plan of some sorts, but that theory within itself negates the fact that Young Ben could die – there somply wouldn’t BE an older Ben for the two to be separate in the first place, know what I mean?
My theory is dead now (because Ben lived), but the answer to this question could have been easy. Because Sayid hasn’t gone back and killed him yet. Remember, everything we’re watching is happening in a linear way. Going back to 1977 didn’t actually happen in 1977. It’s happening NOW. It’s hard to explain and I know it’s a different idea than any other time travel show/movie has ever done, but if I was a film maker, I would take this idea and run with it. The grandfather paradox, in this theory is simple. I CAN go back and kill all my ancestors and nothing will happen to me… because I haven’t done it yet. If I build a time machine when I’m 50 years old (20 years from now) and travel back to 1976 and eat ten pounds of pasta, I’m not going to be any fatter today as I type this because that version of 1976 is still my future, it’s not my past; it hasn’t happened yet and won’t happen until I’m 50. Which is why I won’t win the lottery tomorrow, because I haven’t gone back in time yet to give myself the winning numbers. Changing the true past (I mean assuming time travel is possible at all) is impossible because if it were, I would be a rich and powerful man now. But I’m not, because anything I do in the future to try and change my current reality hasn’t happened yet.
/ non-sensical brainstorming.
Comment by Andrew James — April 4, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — April 4, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Andrew’s time traveling theory:
Ross’s head just exploded
Comment by rot — April 4, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I like this one thing you said Andrew, think of time as place… I mean the fourth dimension is space-time, maybe there is something that could be worked on that.
If Ben is dead next week (I won’t say the title of the episode because apparently that is even considered a spoiler by some) than we can get back on this is there linear time on the island theory.
Comment by rot — April 4, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ I won’t say the title of the episode because apparently that is even considered a spoiler by some
I complained about your episode description not the title. It may sound anal but if it’s about an unaired episode it counts as a spoiler.
I don’t watch “next time on lost” anymore. The writers have no control over it’s content and have frequently complained about them ruining episodes. The show plays much better without them.
Comment by Rusty James — April 4, 2009
Comment by rot — April 4, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I used to not care. But I’ve gradually realized that discovery adds a lot to an experience whether it’s a tv show / movie / book / whatever. The point of all that marketing stuff is to prime you for what to expect. It really interferes with the viewing experience.
Here’s a really subtle example. I kept reading about the naked sauna fight scene in Eastern Promises. Most critics saw the film in the festival circuit months before it got a commercial release and I guess it became a point of pride to be the first critic to proclaim to the world that the scene was genius. No need for a spoiler tag because it’s not “important to the plot” (what does that even mean?) everyone listen to me talk about how great it is! I’m not even talking about reviews, which I don’t read until after I see a film, they blathered it every chance they got. They’d mention it in reviews of other films.
But look at how the film sets it up. It primes us to expect a violent act to befall Naomi Watts and instead has the violent encounter happen to Viggo, at the end of the movie. The whole movie was sabotaged by the critics.
It’s annoying that we’re not allowed to be surprised in the movie theater anymore.
Comment by Rusty James — April 4, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
About Kate. She was an interesting character in season 1 but it’s been down hill ever since. At this point the writers seem bored with her to the point that I wonder why she’s still around. Lilly can be a good actress when given a chance but she gets short changed by the writers / directors / and editors.
The way Kate’s written doesn’t help. I don’t need every character to be likable but the way she aloofly yo-yo’s between Jack and Sawyer makes her pretty unsympathetic.
This was definitely her best episode since season 1. But I feel like the whole season is still being hurt by the first 6 episodes. All of this O6 stuff should’ve been out of the way by now. All that time we spent with kate and her custody battle for Aaron should’ve been cut out. The same goes for Sun’s half assed plot for revenge, Hurley on the run from the law, and Sayid fighting random ninja assassins. Basically everything with the O6 in those episodes. If it didn’t lead directly to explaining why they got on the plane (like the recent kate / Sayid episodes) then we shouldn’t of seen it.
This is why I feel like “316″ is their worst episode. An episode about them getting on plane, that tells us nothing about why they got on the plane. It’s not a good idea to obscure your characters’ motivation from the audience like that. Other reasons; Faranola Flanagan’s terrible performance and “Grandad Ray” the eye rolling , groan inducing tangent of the… forever.
There’s no reason for any of that stuff to exist other than the writers not knowing what to do with half their cast for the first six episodes and therefore writing some bullshit filler to keep them onscreen.
I wish they could be more flexible with their cast. Why couldn’t they say ‘the stars of this season are Sawyer, Locke, Julliet, Faraday, Ben or whoever. We’ll see more Desmond in the first half of the season and the second half will give more time to Jack, Kate, etc. 24 does something really similar to that. They have a rotating main cast based on the story line. Some fan favorites get smaller parts sporadically through out the season. It works great.
Comment by Rusty James — April 4, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Andrew,
Okay here’s where we split in opinion about how the time travel with LOST works. I know you said your theory is dead, but for the sake of discussion (which is always fun) let me try and explain why I disagree with how you said it could have been explained:
The whole point of the “whatever happened, happened” thing is exactly that – whatever happened…happened. In essence yes they COULD plant a flag somewhere on the Island in 1977 and one of the Oceanic survivors WOULD be able to find it in 2004. Because whatever happened, happened. But the very fact that we KNOW (or at least didn’t see) them finding a flag after the Oceanic crash, we know for A FACT that one of the time travelling Losties didn’t plant a flag. You can’t change anything, whatever they do in 1977 – that has ALREADY happened, it doesn’t matter that they haven’t travelled back yet because in the overall picture it technically already has happened. So if Ben wasn’t going to have his memory erased to some capacity (as Richard said to Sawyer and Kate before he carried him into the temple) then he WOULD remember the Losties from the childhood, and getting shot by a man named Sayid.
Which means you CAN’T kill your ancestors, because you’re there in the future. And using the example of you being fatter in the future if you travelled back to the past and eat all that because YOU’RE THE ONE TRAVELLING BACK. As Miles said to Hurley, any of those who travelled back can die! That’s part of the point! Because they’re the one’s travelling back anything can happen to them, because it’s in the present. But at the same time since it’s not their past but Ben’s and the Dharma Initiative’s, things can’t be changed. That’s what always happened, no matter what they do. If we look at that in our own lives – no matter what we do, this debate on this thread for example, ALWAYS HAPPENED, no matter what. That may sound like what’s the point of doing anything if it’s all predetermined but the thing is WE DON’T HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE, and therefore to us everything is just happening as if it’s random and can be changed, BUT IT CAN’T.
But as you say, Young Ben lived…
Comment by Ross Miller — April 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Right. I get it. It’s just sort of unfortunate that they went this route. I mean there are tons of movies (Frequency, Back to the Future, etc etc) that take this approach: go back in time and give yourself a winning lottery ticket numbers or bury a Delorean to find in the future, etc. It would have been more fun if Abrams had tried something a little different – and gone with my theory. But ah well.
Comment by Andrew James — April 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ I mean there are tons of movies (Frequency, Back to the Future, etc etc) that take this approach: go back in time and give yourself a winning lottery ticket numbers
That’s not what they’re doing.
And Abrams is not involved with the show creatively anymore.
Comment by Rusty James — April 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I wouldn’t get too cocky, Rusty, about what ultimately they are doing with time travel on the show, there is a lot of gray area left unexplained.
I am digging a new theory though, once again taken from a podcast. what if there is a causal effect with changing events in the past but they only manifest as changed consciousness for the people in present time. This has already happened on the show…
Faraday confronts Desmond in the past and tells him to remember to see his mother… now there was no chain reaction cause and effect of that event changing the future, all that happened was in the parallel present, Desmond instantly remembered that event change.
When Young Ben is shot, where is Old Ben? unconscious. He awakes when he has been saved from the wound. By this theory Ben would only at that moment of waking Know all of the information that the time travellers changed in his life, like his history has been reprogrammed.
If Past present and future are parallel, not linear, in some concrete way (if only while on the Island) than cause and effect could work that way.
It fits with what Miles said to, that everything has already happened, and there is the present, and the most that could be changed in the 70’s is present-day consciousness, memories.
If Faraday had told Desmond the winning lottery numbers in 2007, that too could have been absorbed and used. information clearly can be transported through time and change the present. the future is not written for anyone by the perspective that no one can see the future (unless maybe the Others have that ability)…
so in this context Whatever happened, happened would mean there is no causal disruption with time travel, for the events leading up to the present. The most change that could happen is a reprogramming of your memories, or of added memories just like what happened with Desmond.
Comment by rot — April 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
maybe more clearly is to say causal law no longer works in a linear way when you delve into time travel, or delve into time travel on the island because parallel timelines exist, and keeping with this conundrum, cause and effect operate in parallel.
this would keep with the more interesting notions of time travel brought up in the Constant, that the changes are not bodily, but mentally.
If we look closely at the Constant I think it could pose a lot of problems for your very literal interpretation of W H, H. For example, for Penny to have been ready for the phone call on Christmas eve she had to have made a series of decisions since the time travel information was passed to her, like not moving, not changing her phone number, all of these little butterfly effects that add up. Now if it was always the case that Desmond was going to communicate this information via time travel, well that there is a break in linear causal law… Desmond changed the past, he changed the trajectory of Penny’s life. Cause and effect are parallel, not linear, 2007 and 1990 (?) were causally linked.
Comment by rot — April 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I will tone down the cock. All I said is that the show is using time travel differently than Back to the Future. There’s no giving yourself a wining lotery ticket. They said right in the first scene of the first episode “No Kiling Hitler”. It might not be your idea for how things should work but they are in fact doing something different.
I’m only talking about what they’ve been doing so far, not where they’re ultimately going with the idea. Maybe later they’ll change it and then Andrew will be right. But right now he’s wrong.
Comment by Rusty James — April 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
In fact the Constant is an example of the knotted reality I was talking about before.
its all fixed, but what is fixed is nonlinear, the transfer of information is nonlinear. Penny would never be waiting at that phone under those circumstances had time and the effects of time only been allowed to be linear.
Now it either is a double back and change of the past causing a different present and future, or it is a built-in double back and change, all predetermined, but that doesn’t change it being a knotted reality.
There is built into reality the effect of nonlinear information transmitting.
In otherwords, the knowledge of the present changes according to the interferences with the past. following this theory, if it is possible to kill young Ben (or maybe something like that in a future “incident”) then what may that mean for present day Ben, the second the parallel event happens? maybe Smokey exists to clean up those kinds of problems?
Comment by rot — April 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ I am digging a new theory though, once again taken from a podcast. what if there is a causal effect with changing events in the past but they only manifest as changed consciousness for the people in present time.
I like your new ideas better than your old ones. I do think that by Desmond being “special” at least part of what they mean is that he time travels in conciousness only, not physically. And therefore I think he maybe cause-effect exempt, as we saw in “Because You Left”.
Clearly WH,H doesn’t apply to Desmond. I’m quite sure he did alter events by prolonging Charlie’s life.
@ When Young Ben is shot, where is Old Ben? unconscious. He awakes when he has been saved from the wound. By this theory Ben would only at that moment of waking Know all of the information that the time travellers changed in his life
I’m less enthusiastic about this part of your theory. If 1977 and 2007 are running parallel when or where is their common point of origin? I guess it would be Ben turning the magic time travel wheel.
So if Old Ben is thirsty and Young Ben takes a drink is he no longer thirsty? Is this true of everyone in 2007 or just people on the island? If Old Ben got shot would 30-years-in-the-future Ben pass out? It’s just kind of unweildy.
Comment by Rusty James — April 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
btw, I am just throwing this stuff out there, seeing what sticks.
Now why did Charolette only remember Daniel when she was young at that moment? The memory seems not to exist for her until that moment, and than it popped into her mind. I don’t have an answer, but they were time traveling at that moment, the parallel timelines theory is in play (parallel timeslines co-existing means causation can also work parallel)
Faraday seemed surprised to see ‘Desmond is my Constant’ written in his journal in the Constant… again it seems like in the present the memory pops in, and then he frantically checked his journal to corroborate.
I don’t know, lots of tangets here,
Comment by rot — April 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Burying the Delorean would work in LOST. And that was badass, so there you go. LOST wins!
Comment by Rusty James — April 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Now why did Charolette only remember Daniel when she was young at that moment?
I have an idea about that. Towards the end there she seemed to think she was somewhere else, probably unstuck in time Desmond style. Visiting old memories. She probably visited that incident when she was young.
Oddly, some of the “memories” she was visiting seemed to be from her future. She talks about marrying an American. I suppose that could’ve been her past but at the time I had assumed the American was Faraday.
Comment by Rusty James — April 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Well Charlotte WAS only very young, she looked about four. So wouldn’t it just be a simple case of her just remembering in her recent time? We have all had that happen to us – all of a sudden we remember bits and pieces of stuff once did when we were extremely young once we have gotten older and our brains (and memory) have matured. I don’t think it was the new memories being implanted, I think that’s only for “special” people like Desmond. (I know you’re going to say – isn’t Ben special?:P)
And as for Faraday’s note about Desmond… that was always there. I’m calling it right now. He is a physicist, with a lot of things going on in his mind, I’m betting a lot has happened involving his research and studies in the time between meeting Desmond and coming to the Island. To put it simply, the note was always there, Daniel plainly and simply forgot about this random guy Desmond (although he made a note of it at the time), and only remembered once he met Desmond once again on the Island, and simply realised to look for the note he wrote years ago.
However, I agree with Rusty that I like your new theories, Rot, more than your old ones. I am able to come on-board things being changed in conciousness rather than physically – TECHNICALLY it wouldn’t be changing stuff that happened, unless that new knowledge caused stuff to drastically change and therefore it can’t happen:-)
Btw I have been looking up theories of time travel (LOST has seriously got me interested in theorising about if it was possible in real life – not that I’m going to pursue trying to see if it WERE possible, just have kind of been hooked on the theories that are out there), and there is one which kind of meets in a happy medium between the WH,H thing and what you’ve been saying, Rot, that things can be changed.
It’s long winded the stuff I read but I will boil it down:
The theory I had about NOTHING can be changed because everything already happened (happens) no matter what, is called the ‘Novikov self-consistency principle’ – “The principle states that the timeline is totally fixed, and any actions taken by a time traveler were part of history all along, so it is impossible for the time traveler to “change” history in any way.” THAT’S what I believe (and have been saying relentlessly over the past few weeks on this board) it’s all about. But here’s a slightly more flexible add-on, if you will, to that theory: The Novikov self-consistency princple still aplies, “but if and only if it is verified to apply. Attempts to travel into the past to change events are possible, but provided that 1) They do not interfere with the occurrence of such an attempt in the present (as would be the case in the Grandfather Paradox), and 2) The change is never ultimately verified to occur by the traveler (e.g. there is no possibility of returning to the present to witness the change).”
So basically things can be changed but only if they don’t drastically interfere with events that DO HAPPEN. So for example Sayid can’t kill Young Ben because we know he’s there in the future (although we know he shoots him, because that’s what (always) caused him to become an Other).
And about that thing that Ben was unconcious when he was shot as a young kid and the past and the future are running parallel – I think it’s wrong. As Rusty questions, would that mean that if Old Ben was thirsty and Young Ben took a drink back in the ’70s, he would be quenched of his thirst?:P I know it sounds silly but it is valid to question that sort of thing. So which part of the past links up with which part of the future? How does it run parallel? Which moment is linked to which moment? Young Ben getting shot links directly to Sun hitting him on the head and knocking him unconcious? I think it’s just a case of Sun knocking him out was just something that happens…..so it did:-)
Comment by Ross Miller — April 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ If we look closely at the Constant I think it could pose a lot of problems for your very literal interpretation of W H, H.
Hey Rot, I was reading some of your comments and I think; concerning Desmond and the Constant; that you’re not taking into account the fact that Desmond’s time traveling is of a very different kind than the rest of them. I wouldn’t necessarily apply any of their rules to him. I don’t even believe WH,H applies to Desmond. And that’s what Faraday was telling us when he described Desmond as “special”.
I addressed this issue up thread in a comment I’ll quote for you:
About the note in his journal that says “Desmond Hume is your constant”. My hope for the this season is that that become import, tells us something new about the nature of time travel, and is tied to Daniel’s established memory issues and this inexplicable crying in “Confirmed Dead”. It probably has something to do with exposing himself to “time travel radiation” at Oxford.
Comment by Rusty James — April 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I see it like there are two co-existing timelines, 2007 and 1975 (let’s say), and that information can cross over between them causally due to this co-existence. Its like there are two presents, relative to one another, and the cause and effect between their interaction operates as if they were the same (except its not just that face-to-face benign causal reactions occur, like young Ben moves Sayid somewhere thus affecting his life, but that the timelines en masse readjust if only by changes to consciousness).
so to get over this if Ben is thirsty argument… do memories of drinking water quench thirst? no, and that is what I am talking about, one’s cache of information is readjusted. but Ben being shot in real-time and the potential of him dying, leaves Old Ben hanging on the same edge of non-existence, of consciousness ending. He wouldn’t disappear, he would just die, and there would be a logical justification for his death from being wounded (if you want to suppose a God plan, already course correcting).
I am aware Desmond is said to be special from Faraday’s perspective and that Charolette’s experience can be explained away… as always my perspective is always on how do you tell the story to be suspenseful, and I can see these being red herrings, ways to get you off the track of what is happening, so that it remains a surprise. We still don’t know what the Others are, and can do, and I don’t think Faraday knows either… and if Faraday is born of an Other, than maybe he is the one who is special, that can communicate through time.
anyways, will get to the other ideas later.
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
sorry, not to imply that Desmond isn’t special, but that his uniqueness doesn’t negate the rules of time travel for anybody else. its a nice storytelling subterfuge to make a point of someone being special to get you off the scent that despite being special there may be aspects to their time travel experiences that are universal or more pervasive at least. His specialness appears to being unstuck in time, and I could see him being the variable for that reason, but for those people doing time travel bodily, the cause and effect may still be consciousness-based.
I hope they stick with consciousness time traveling, that to me is their unique take and I am hoping its not just a sideshow with Desmond. course-correcting is only required for him maybe and the O6 are a result of him, so maybe all of the course-correcting is a response to him as the Variable. no that doesn’t work because of Michael.
hmmm.
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Ross
“2) The change is never ultimately verified to occur by the traveler (e.g. there is no possibility of returning to the present to witness the change).”
consciousness-based information changes vs. physical changes to reality would seem to make it so 2) is not a paradox.
knowledge changes, not things, and only changes the present, the future always exist as the accumulation of everything that has happened (but that doesn’t mean what happened need only be linear by way of the transfer of information).
If in tonight’s episode, Ben shows any indication of knowing events that happened by the O6 changes to the 70’s, then that would prove the case.
but its not just consciousness that is changed, there are physical changes… there is a photograph of Jin as part of the dharma initiative. so someone has witnessed the change.
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
the Jin photograph is proof of the butterfly effect in the Lost universe. The physical reality of the present has changed because of the time traveling.
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@The physical reality of the present has changed because of the time traveling.
No it’s not. It’s no different than them killing people in the past. Obviously they’ve “changed” things meaning they affected their surroundings. But they didn’t “change” things in the sense that they’re going to turn out differently than they were before. They’re all making the future come true the same way it’s always been.
And Ethan Rom proves what I’m saying.
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ I see it like there are two co-existing timelines, 2007 and 1975
Why only two? Why aren’t all points in time parrallel to one another?
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ I hope they stick with consciousness time traveling, that to me is their unique take
Sorry, but this is bugging me. Their take is unique either way. Unique doesn’t mean “an idea you like”. Name another story where time travel makes the future come true instead of changing it.
When you and Andrew insist that LOST time travel is the same as BTTF, Terminator etc it is just factually incorrect and it discredits your other opinions that you keep clinging to this notion.
I agree with you that Desmond’s consciousness time travel is more interesting. And I hope (as detailed above) that it pays off in a big way. However it’s not really unique, it’s Billy Pilgrim style time travel as the show acknowledges when Faraday refers to him being “unstuck in time”.
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
ugh. OK can we admit that the future is fixed, I was not disputing that with the Jin photograph, what I was saying is that is the first physical evidence from the time traveling that physical reality has been changed (again not disputing that it was supposed to be that way!). I was the one originally saying there could be a knotted reality where wormholes and time travel are preset parts of a fixed plan so I am not sure why you are taking me to task on that.
But the Jin photograph disproves my latest theory about that only consciousness is changed when timelines run parallel.
you ask why only two timelines co-existing, because that is the scenario we have, unless you know of others? Name me a character whose present is not either 2007 or 1975?
The runway the Others built I guess proves they can predict the future, that is their gift. That is why I think Ben saying ‘he changed the rules’ is he somehow changed the future (and maybe it has something to do with Desmond as a Widmore plant in the scheme, as the Variable).
“Name another story where time travel makes the future come true instead of changing it.”
every science fiction film ever made. the difference is from our perspective we can never know what the future is, I can say right now about the future “whatever happened, happened” in any scenario so long as the future is, as Miles said, out of bounds, we just have the present. all events, linear or nonlinear determine the future if perspectivally you go by our vantage point.
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ what I was saying is that is the first physical evidence from the time traveling that physical reality has been changed
Nope, Ethan Rom, Matthew Abaddon visiting Locke. Richard visiting Locke.
@ Name me a character whose present is not either 2007 or 1975?
But that’s what I find arbitrary about the idea. Why are only these points parallel?
@ every science fiction film ever made.
Seriously! Are you fucking kidding me?! The plot of almost all sci-fi time travel stories is that the characters are actively attempting to alter their present by changing the past. Back To The Future, Butterfly Effect, the Bradburry story story Butterfly Effect is based on, etc etc etc. Terminator’s sort of a gray area, but I think it’s clear that somethings are being changed even if they keep failing to avert the war.
@ ugh. OK can we admit that the future is fixed, I was not disputing that with the Jin photograph[...] I was the one originally saying there could be a knotted reality where wormholes and time travel are preset parts of a fixed plan so I am not sure why you are taking me to task on that.
I’m finding it really difficult to get a firm grasp on what it is you’re saying.
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ If in tonight’s episode, Ben shows any indication of knowing events that happened by the O6 changes to the 70’s, then that would prove the case.
… except… it seemed, last episode, like they were setting up some arduous work around for that. I’m a bit perturbed by this possibility and it’s one of the fears I have about tonights episode.
If they’re really using resurrection as a mechanism for convienient tv show amnesia that is some brutal blunt storytelling.
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
“@ what I was saying is that is the first physical evidence from the time traveling that physical reality has been changed
Nope, Ethan Rom, Matthew Abaddon visiting Locke. Richard visiting Locke.”
I don’t know what you mean by Ethan Rom, so explain… but as for the other examples, Ok I can see how this is confusing, but that is not what I mean by physical change, because what can change in those examples are reprogrammed memories. But actually with Richard, its still his present even when he is visiting Young Locke, there is no need for a readjustment of knowledge. What I was talking about was a case where two timelines converge and something causally transfers over, like if Sawyer told young Ben you must make a runway in the future, all that would transfer is to 2007 Ben the memory that Sawyer told him that and NOT SOMETIME BEFORE 2007 WHERE HE USES THAT KNOWLEDGE TO INDEED MAKE A RUNWAY. Do you see what I mean? you can’t change the ensuing time between these timelines, only at the two spots where they meet does information transfer
so if you think of all points of time running parallel with each other, but in the time travel situation you have two converge momentarily, and so information can transfer, but it doesn’t change all the parallel existence prior, only in that mutual present do things change.
That is what I was saying, so I thought in that case everything is preserved, whatever happened, happened, but what can change is the present awareness of the past. But I was thinking the only changes would be in consciousness, until I remembered the Jin photograph because that is a physical change, a physical photograph past through history, people interacted with that photograph in 1990, 2001, etc… that changes my theory that its causal only in the mutual present.
as for all sci-fi, what I am saying is, ok it is not explicitly said in the stories themselves but it is the same consequence, just taken from a different perspective. but all it is saying is everything is fixed and that is a standard time travel theory of reality. the only twist is that even the time travel is preset.
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
another way to say it:
overarching the 1975/2007 convergence is a ‘mutual present’…
take this 1:41pm April 8th 2009… that is not just a moment in my life, but, theoretically, a moment happening simultaneously to everyone alive at that moment. Its not broken up by person, but as an overarching ‘present’.
now what happens if that present moment were to coexist with another present moment due to time travel? If they coexist like two objects than there is the potential for cause and effect to transfer between them, but not just for the individuals who are the time travellers, but for the ramifications of their actions on anyone alive 1:41pm April 8th 2009. The world between those two points doesn’t change and revise accordingly as if linear revision was needed, its just the mutual present revises. the exchange of information between the two intersecting points changes the present (the future is veiled from us).
Just as Sayid shooting Ben is a clear change in effect for Ben, the same event would change 2007 Ben in that the knowledge of that event would reprogram in his mind. There is no ensuing linear time to worry about, because much like Buddhism expounds, there is only the now. things that happened in the past are only memories that can be changed according to time travel revisions.
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ I don’t know what you mean by Ethan Rom, so explain…
Ethan Rom is an effect of them time traveling. They save his mother’s life. She marries Horace they have Ethan. I guess we *could* argue that their baby Ethan was an unrelated Ethan. But c’mon.
@ But actually with Richard, its still his present even when he is visiting Young Locke
This distinction doesn’t make sense to me. Any time a character is doing something it is his present. I don’t think the term “present” has much meaning within the context of this story.
I think if nothing else, the ideas I’m laying down win the Occam’s Razor Award. They’re simple and intuitive. Yours need an instruction manual.
@ but in the time travel situation you have two converge momentarily
And if I understand, this “covergence” happened when Ben moved the island? Am I right?
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ as for all sci-fi, what I am saying is, ok it is not explicitly said in the stories themselves but it is the same consequence, just taken from a different perspective.
Just stop this nonsense. Time travel in BTTF has the same consequence upon the story? Marty McFly leaves 1985, does a bunch of antics in 1955 including inventing Rock & Roll, comes back to 1985 and now he owns a new jeep and their house is nicer. How is that the same?
And it’s a rhetorical question Rot. So please spare us all the tortuous lecture where you hammer the square peg into that round hole. It’s just not that difficult to acknowledge that LOST is doing something different. Maybe it’s not revolutionary, or profound, maybe you don’t like it. But it’s different than the usual.
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
But Ethan is dead in 2007, so there is no problem revising his life. all that matters is the two points where time converges, how to revise according to information in each of those times.
what if time flowing like a river is false, that God doesn’t operate by time and neither does ultimate reality. Its just the game we humans play out. it is how revelation is revealed to us.
now your argument Rusty is that time is fixed, all things happen for a reason and that reason is predetermined… so you gotta see then in that situation too time is not a river, the flow is an illusion, only us perceiving it that way.
if beginning, middle and end are already known and fixed, there is no fundamental time.
so explain that Occam Razor Award winner?
I am saying the same thing, there is no fundamental flow to time, all times exists parallel to each other, like multiverse theories, and a time travel breech is when the two parallels transfer information between one another AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT OF CONVERGENCE.
The Island would be one of these breeches, not just when Ben turns the wheel, the whole existence of the Island seems like a breech in time (remember Faraday’s science experiment).
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
so to make it simple for you
the island is an anomaly to what we understand of time and space
in reality there is no flow to time, we only perceive it that way
time travel on the island than is nothing more than two points in time converging and affecting one another.
its like a gateway between multiverse dimensions. and before you yell at me that the creators said they wouldn’t do alternate realities, they said they wouldn’t do it as a scapegoat, as a means of deception, like the O6 were in a parallel universe. this is not a scape goat, in fact they need never mention alternate realities or multiverse at all, its just for me to make you see that this is not an uncommon theory of the universe.
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
all that said,
the Jin photograph is still a problem for this theory, unless physical objects are allowed to manifest spontaneously too… maybe its a correspondence understand only between the two converging points.
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
That’s where you’re wrong. There’s still time. The procession of eventa in sequence might be an illusion. But the moments that make up “time” still exist, and they’re in some relation to one another.
Our perception of time as a sequence isn’t “wrong” so much as it is “arbitrary” but it’s “right” in the sense that it helps us comprehend time effectively and navigate through time.
The files you see laid out on your desktop aren’t a true representation of your file system. But our desktop is an effective interface for us to understand and interact with the file system.
In other words, I don’t see the same distinction between God’s declared real time (whether it’s static or whatever) and time as we percieve it (a sequence of cause and effect).
And whether or not the river is *really* flowing isn’t important. What’s important is that “the river is flowing” is a helpful description of the river from the perspective of someone on it.
So I agree with you about time and cause and effect but only up to a point. Saying “there is no time” or “there is no cause and effect” doesn’t aid our understanding of God’s Plan. It doesn’t get us anywhere.
Time is not real, fine. Invalid, no.
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
In this context, and I stress again, from the perspective of the characters (not the fixed plan omniscient viewpoint) you can’t change the past, you can only change the present. This is exactly what Miles was saying.
so even if there is a time travel intersection of two time moments (1975 and 2007) there are no paradoxes and whatever happened, happened, because the information exchange is localized only where those moments converge. they cross-pollinate one another, and then separate and that is that. all that is needed is a readjustment to the future time by way of knowledge of the past.
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ the Jin photograph is still a problem for this theory, unless physical objects are allowed to manifest spontaneously
Ha ha. It did manifest spontaneously! When they took it.
Say again for me why the picture’s a problem but not Ethan Rom. It seems like you said Ethan’s not a problem because he’s dead in 2007. And all that stuf inbetween (1978-2006) is just an illusion.
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
But clearly they can “exchange information” from second to second. And THE FUTURE is just a string of seconds.
It seems like your idea calls for that to not be true.
Everything time travelers do, everything they set in motion will terminate abruptly before 2007. Is that really it?
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
what I’m saying is only information can travel through time, information as processed via consciousness. the converging of a ‘mutual present’ allows for people existing in both time periods to remember events differently than before due to the interruption to the usual flow.
when there is only one present, like any other time BUT the convergence of 2007 and 1975 there is no break in the usual perceived flow of events, life is the same.
when you push two present time periods into one mutual present you cross-pollinate at that moment, the memories of the people in both times are altered, but the only one of significance is for the people of 2007, because it is a radical readjustment. what happens to the reality between 1976-2006? If anything needs to happen to it, it breaks off and becomes an alternate reality, but seeing as we are always in the present with the show its not something that needs to be focused on. It could just as well cease to exist as it used to be and be overwritten like a Matrix program. the course correction is one of consciousness, not physical actions… but that is different from the Desmond Constant thing because there we are shown course correction as physical events changing…
I don’t know.
I think the Jin photograph screws it up anyways, because that is a historical record being changed, not just consciousness.
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
If Sawyer stayed in the “past” for 30 years would he disappear in 2007?
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@“I think the Jin photograph screws it up anyways, because that is a historical record being changed, not just consciousness.”
Not necessarily. That picture would’ve been taken anyway. So the picture maybe changed in 2007 the instant it was altered in 1977 to include Hugo, Sawyer et. al.
Though this would lead credence to the Delorean scenario. Jin and Old Ben are in one present, while Jack, Kate et.al. are in an alternate present. They can’t directly communicate or have a conversation, but Jack could plant ideas in young Ben’s head that Old Ben would instantly recall in 2007. It wouldn’t change anything that has happened to the Losties since season one, because that was three years ago and as Rot pointed out, only 2007 and 1977 are intersecting.
You can think of time as an infinite number of “presents”, represented by wires, all running parallel to one another. The island is a small bump that causes two “presents” to accidentally intersect. This intersection does not directly affect any of the other wires. Just these two that have somehow come together.
Comment by Andrew James — April 8, 2009
http://morepop.rowthree.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/time.jpg
Comment by Andrew James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
“If Sawyer stayed in the “past” for 30 years would he disappear in 2007?”
This might be why it was critical for the Oceanic 6 to come back, otherwise what was the reason? As Juliet told Jack in the last episode, they were doing fine until they showed up.
remember it wasn’t the O6 returning that stopped them jumping in time, it was Locke leaving. Something about those characters staying in that time period is a problem.
in this theory I still think there are course corrections so paradoxes such as what you are describing do not occur.
or it may just mean the time intersection is only significant for people on the island, the 2007 and 1975 as schism on the island.
have we any examples of changes to 1975 Island changing the world outside of the island? I am assuming not. I think all the time problems would be localized to the island, and you couldn’t have two versions of Sawyer in the real world… that he could therefore never escape the island now locked into 1975.
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
exactly Andrew., did you make that?
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Chang on the video at the end of season 4 says they are going to push the rabbit into 4 dimensional space and that it is very important the rabbits do not meet, at least I think I remember him saying that.
That would imply they COULD meet. And I guess that would make sense when they were record skipping through times and some of the times theoretically the time travelers could have run into themselves.
what does it even mean to meet yourself?
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
You have to get back to the island! Or Sawyer will dissappear!
In 30 years!
When he’s 75 years old!
Hurry!
I like my idea for why they had to return better
@ some “force” that wanted him to alter the timeline by holding off Charlie’s death long enough… so that he could take down the Looking Glass… so that the freighter could make contact… so that the O6 would be rescued… so that they wouldn’t be on island in 1977 in the DI during the Incident where they were supposed to be.
And I think another competing “force” lured them back so that they would be where they were supposed to be. That’s why their return was so important.
In other words, I don’t think it’s Sawyer and Co being there that’s the problem but rather Jack and Co not being there.
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yeah, I appreciate you taking the time to make that chart to better illustrate your point Andrew. Is there any particular reason you put the years in such a crazy order?
Comment by Rusty James — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@rusty
regarding your explanation for why the Oceanic 6 need to return… sure and I would say that is two Others’ camps, Ben vs. Widmore, and they have the ability to see the future and are finding ways to alter it. Or rather Widmore alters it with Desmond and Ben course corrects.
In which case Ben wants to get back for the incident to fulfill the course correction.
but all this talk of getting the future right is not in conflict with the ‘mutual present’ theory of how cause and effect works between 2007 and 1975 because it pertains to the immediate present and has no claims on the future outcome.
very looking forward to tonight’s episode
Comment by rot — April 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
obviously a great episode, I could watch snarky Ben and Locke go at it for hours.
So is Ben going to play follow the leader? I would be disappointed if he did.
so its pretty clear we are dealing with Egypt now.
Ben acts surprised the Losties are in the 70’s, but I am still thinking it is an act.
I love the shooting of Ceasar.
So Ethan must be kidnapped by the Others at some point.
The what lies in the shadow of the statue chick is clearly an Other, and probably working for Ben.
dead is dead. which means Ben really doesn’t know that much about how the island works, because Christian Shepherd has already been brought back to life.
more questions that answers
Comment by rot — April 9, 2009
yes.
Comment by Andrew James — April 9, 2009
I guess just to show how two completely random years might sort of intersect. Also, keep in mind instead of years, they should actually be seconds and there would be an infinite number of them. And notice how ONLY 2007 and 1977 are affected. Everything in 1983 is moving along swimmingly.
Comment by Andrew James — April 9, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Wow. Just wow.
What an AMAZING episode, probably the best so far next to Jughead and The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham. I loved how we FINALLY got back to carrying on from the moment where Locke was looking over Ben as he was resting, and continuing on with that story of him killing him and Locke coming back to life. And how they explained (at least for now – time will tell if Ben was actualy being truthful) why he killed him, it’s simple yet to perfect explanation. Actually in hindsight it makes absolute sense – the clincher for Jack was Locke dying; somehow he felt that was what meant he had to go back (him being told about his father still being alive almost convinced him, but I think Locke dying was the final clincher).
Did anyone else call it straight away that the guy on the horse at the start was Widmore? Just because it was obviously in ‘77, and the fact that they picked someone who looked like Alan Dale (who plays Widmore as we’ve known him for most of the show):P So are we clear exactly why Widmore was banished? Was it because he “broke the rules” by repeatedly going to and from the Island, and having a child (Penny – I guess she IS really his daughter) with “an outsider”? This episode was so magnificently well (i.e. fast) paced that I think I need to watch this one more than I have the others so far this season. So much food for thought.
Holy crap when Ben went down to where the Smoke Monster was! I couldn’t BELIEVE we actually got to see that sequence…that was pretty bold, don’t you think? So it expands on what we saw with Mr. Eko, that the Monster shows you the mistakes or things that have went wrong in your life, and it gives you the chance to remedy what you’ve done as best you can with what you’ve got. Going with that, can anyone remember what Eko did or didn’t do that made the Monster kill him (i.e., as the Monster appearing as Alex said to Ben – “I will hunt you down and destroy you…”)? Remember Eko’s brother Yemi appeared before him in the jungle, as I recall it wasn’t a dream (as, for example, Boone was for Locke), so then it was the Monster showing Eko a part of his past (as it did when it surrounded him in the jungle, if you watch that frame by frame you can see Eko’s mother’s grave, and other flashes of his past). What happened with the Monster in this episode still doesn’t explain just what the hell it is:P
The vision of Alex said to Ben that she knew he was planning on killing Locke again, is that because Ben can’t stand that he’s got the knowledge, and thus the powerm and Ben is blindly having to follow? I’ll be very interesting to see how Ben deals with having to follow Locke, it’s sure to provide some more amazing Locke and Ben playing off of one another.
@rot,
So, yes, I agree there is clearly something to do with Egypt (because of the temple design, i.e. the hyroglyphics) but why was there that sort of thing on an Island NOT in Egypt? Do you think the statue is of an Egyptian god? And do you think Richard not ageing has anything to do with being some sort of (Egyptian) god or is it simply something to do with certain people (original inhabitants, perhaps) not ageing while on the Island?
I dunno if anyone else guessed it, but I knew when we saw Ben all beaten up on the dock that it was Desmond who did it. However they got me with how it actually played out – I honestly thought Ben had killed Penny, and that Desmond came back just as he was doing it and obviously beat the living crap out of him. Btw how did Desmond not get shot? Was it whatever was in the bag he was holding that kind of took the force of the gunshot? Was it a damn iron block or something?:P
Yes, I think the Hostiles definitely stole Ethan when he was baby (I wonder what happened to Amy(?)). It makes sense, since Ben did that with Alex. On that note, it was kind of cool to see what Ben said about “stealing her from an insane woman” actually be somewhat true. I actually was thinking that maybe Ben had some sort of reletionship with Rousseau, and he convinced her to give up the baby.
Yeah! What the hell was up with that woman who had Sayid in handcuffs?! If she is an Other I did NOT see that one coming. So was that guy she was with, was he an Other as well? Or was he simply following her since she had the guns etc.
Haha, I also was shocked when Ben just went ahead and shot that Caesar guy. I thought he was going to become a permanent supporting character, although I didn’t really care that he died like I would have if it was a mainstay character… he was kind of just “there”.
So does that now make at least 4 episodes since we’ve seen Daniel? Although I’m sure we’re going to get the story of where he is and just what he’s up to (is he with the Hostiles and his younger mother in ‘77 or is he off-Island developing that swinging pendulum thing as a way for people to find the Island – “A very smart man built it”, remember?:P), but since he’s my favourite character next to Ben, I am slightly annoyed he’s not been in the show for what seems like AGES.
So when Sun said to Ben why doesn’t he remember this (the photo of Jack, Kate etc in the Dharma Initiative), and he sais “of course not”: That kind of confirms that he doesn’t remember them from the past (unless he’s lying, but in this rare case I don’t think so), and that’s because of what Richard did at the temple (which I thought we were going to see in this episode). So that means that the Losties who went back in time HAVE to move back through time (to 2008?) before Ben muscled his way back in with the Dharma people, when he ends up killing his father and taking part in the Purge. Or else Older Ben would remember them, which he clearly doesn’t.
I was hooked to the screen for that 42 minutes. Lost is literally the definition of AWESOME.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 9, 2009
It’s an interesting counter balance to his episode last year “The Shape of Things to Come”. While that episode made Ben out to be an big shot globe trotting super spy this episode as powerless. He can’t summon the monster, he doesn’t know why John Locke has ressurected. Charles Widmore’s prediction came true, he made all the same mistakes and now he’s been exiled from the kingdom.
Ben on the beach cracked me up. “Need a hand? Ok have a great day! What if… he was already here?” I was in stitches, some of Emmerson’s finest moments.
The boat named Our Mutual Friend is a call back to Desmond’s first flashback, the book he’s not going to read until just before he dies “A good plan, so long as you know when you’re going to die.” A sign that even then they knew where they were taking the character and I believe a foreshadow of Desmond’s death at the end of this season.
Ben’s second denial of knowing that the others were back in 1977, after Sun showed him the picture, has me convinced. Maybe I’m just a gulible fool like poor Ceasar.
It doesn’t bother me that Rouseau’s encounter with Ben contradicts her story. LOST likes to put in little contradictions in continuity like that, too keep us on our toes. It doesn’t jive with her original story but it does explain why Ben named the baby Alex and possibly why Rouseau was so certain that Ben was “one of them”.
I would’ve liked it if they had addressed the fact that Alex was kidnapped while Ben was still living with the DI before the purge. I wonder if that was an unplanned continuity issue. I don’t think so though, it’s would’ve been easy to avoid. Just push the purge back by four years or so.
My first guess with “What Lies In The Shadow of The Statue” was that those people had been “infected” just like Rouseau’s team. But now I’m not so sure. Instead of killing Frank they just knocked him. I’m not sure the “infected” would need a code word to identify each other.
They’re probably connected to those unexplained ninja assassins Sayid kept fighting. Whether that means they’re Ben’s guys or Widmore’s or something else entirely.
Watching this episode it was clear to me that one of the qualities that makes Locke “special” for the island’s purposes is that he has no outside connection. Nothing back on the mainland to lure him away and corrupt him. No life to go back to. Kind of a dubious honor.
During his trip off island Locke attempted to reconnect with the one person in his life who mattered but she was dead… of cancer. Did the island kill her; maybe even going so far as to conspire to show John her gravestone; to better suit him for it’s purposes?
Obviously Ben’s judgement recalls Eko’s death. Eko played Jacob to his brother’s Esau, in that he stole his brother’s destiny (Or perhaps Eko was Esau, Esau was the older brother) If you recall his story he took his brother’s place as a drug lord, while his brother became a priest (Father Yemi, fathers representing destiny on LOST).
Later, his brother similarly took Eko’s place on the island bound drug plane and Eko took his brother’s role as a priest.
Was Eko denying his true destiny and the island steering him back on course (course correcting) ? The monster; in the form of Yemi, the true path not taken; wanted repentance from Eko for choosing the wrong path but Eko refused. Thus he was judged unworthy.
So to relate this back to Ben; when the monster confronted him it took the form of Alex suggesting a parralel between her and Yemi. Alex is a similar fork in destiny where the wrong path was taken. One side wants her dead, the other wants her alive, and both sides claim to be the true prophet for the island.
The monster spared Ben, does that mean he chose the right path?
The writer’s have said that their codename for this years super awesome season finale mind blowing twist is “the fork in the outlet”. The name was concocted by a fan but the Darltons (not JJ Abrams. Andrew take note.) said it was a perfect description for what they have in store for us. I think Desmond, who is special and does demonstrably has the ability to change the past, will be confronted with a fork in destiny and the path he picks will force him to sacrifice himself.
Finally, where do you think Jacob is right now? We learned that his cabin originally belonged to Horace. Since he’s still alive he’s pressumably still using it. I had assumed that we were going to meet Jacob in the temple.
Perhaps Widmore’s final act of betrayal was to trap Jacob in the cabin after the purge. I hope at some point we see the first meeting between Ben and Jacob.
Comment by Rusty James — April 9, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
yeah but what is Desmond’s motivation for returning to the island now?
I highly doubt that Ben will be delegated to follower the remainder of the show, I don’t know what he could do, considering the threat of the monster but I still think he is withholding information and that he knew they would be in the 70’s.
Comment by rot — April 9, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yeah, I don’t know how they’ll get Desmond to return. Part of me suspect they intended to have Ben kill Penny but chickened out.
But they’ll come up with something. I don’t think any of us doubt that Desmond will be back on the island before long.
Comment by Rusty James — April 9, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ more questions than answers
A summery of the “questions” (I prefer to think of them as puzzle pieces. But whatevs) answered in this episode:
The first meeting between Ben and Widmore
Ben kidnapped Alex himself
Widmore wanted Danielle & Alex killed but Ben wouldn’t do it
Ethan was “recruited” as young as 10 years old
The Widmore / Ben’s rivalry was started over Alex
Their last conversation on the island
Ben moved them into the DI baraks shortly after usurping Widmore
Widmore was exiled after the purge
The others could come and go from the island before they controlled the sub.
Penny is still alive
Penny’s mother was an “outsider”
Ben’s monster summoning room
Ben doesn’t control the monster
The monster lives in the temple
The monster is a judge as well as a security system
Ben did not know Locke would resurrect
The identity of the shooters in the outriggers
Comment by Rusty James — April 9, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Hey Rusty, where did we learn that Jacob’s cabin used to belong to Horace?
One point I’m hung up on – assuming that preceding events can’t be changed, how is it that the class of ‘77 picture was hanging on the wall unnoticed while the Oceanic 815 were there in 2004, or whatever year it was when they crashed? Maybe the picture did get noticed and that’s why certain people in the picture were given special attention? Which would mean that Ben really isn’t surprised when Sun shows him the picture in 2008… sorry if this was discussed earlier – this thread is very long.
Comment by stump — April 9, 2009
uuuuh… they didn’t go in that room a lot. I don’t think it would’ve had a big impact on the plot though. I do think that the time travelers were remembered by Richard Alpert, Charles Widmore and possibly Ben. Although I’m a lot less confident about Ben these days.
The whole matter of who knew what when has become pretty controversial.
@ where did we learn that Jacob’s cabin used to belong to Horace?
It was in Locke’s episode last season. He had a dream of Horace building the cabin. Horace told him to find the cabin which he did by exhume his body from the Dharma grave and finding a map on Horaces corpse. The map lead him to Jacob’s cabin.
Comment by Rusty James — April 10, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
The reason for the photograph issue is I don’t think that when the Others took over the DI barracks, that they used the processing centre. I think the houses we saw Ben, Juliette, Ethan etc living were NOT the same houses as the ones Sun and Frank met with Christian. Remember we saw the “Processing Centre” sign hanging down – why would that still be there?
I think the reason Rousseau’s story differs from what she told the Losties in the earliers seasons was either because she was “insane,” as Ben has been saying, or she simply mis-remembered what happened (it WAS a long time ago, 16 years…. Or maybe there WAS black smoke before (or after) Ben arrived and we just didn’t get to see it.
@Rusty – When did we find out that Ben kidnapped Alex before the purge, during the time where he was still with the DI?
There are two things I think Jacob is going to end up being – 1) He is Locke from the future, hence why we or any of the Losties etc (we’re not even sure if Ben or even Richard has actually seen him), and he’s preserving or changing (depending on which you want to look it) past/future events. Or 2) He isn’t a man at all but only represented as such, but he is really just a “higher power” of some sort i.e. the Island tells them what to (the Monster?) and makes them think it came from a guy named Jacob. I was thinking that it was all a lie for the Losties but in the flashback with Widmore on the horse, where they was no Losties around to lie to, they still referred to Jacob as this authoritative power.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I’m not sure how Jacob as Locke would work in regards to the scene where Locke goes to Jacob’s cabin. It’s an interesting idea though. And it ties into this loop of causality that I think will eventually be revealed by the end of the series.
Comment by stump — April 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Rusty – When did we find out that Ben kidnapped Alex before the purge, during the time where he was still with the DI?
It’s the same scene from the same Locke episode in season 4. Horace says he’s been dead for 12 years, Alex is 16.
It actually jives with what Danielle said back in season 1. She mentioned that someone else controlled the radio tower when she put her message up but now the Others control it.
Comment by Rusty James — April 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@stump – I think it would make sense if Jacob was able to freely move through time. And for some reason he can’t/doesn’t want to reveal his true identity as Locke – just how the hell would anyone, in this case Locke, be able to comprehend something like that let alone go along with it. He’d probably think he’s insane if something like that was just immediately sprung on him. Perhaps this whole “Locke is special” thing is the future Locke (as Jacob) preserving what he knows already (dunno why he would need to if it already happens anyway, but it’s an interesting notion), gradually working up to him becoming the future Locke/Jacob.
@Rusty – But who’s to say that the time when we saw Ben bringing Alex back to the Others camp isn’t the same time where Ben was on with the DI? Maybe he went back and forth between the two, sneaking away from the DI and doing what he needed to do with/for the Others/his people. Which would mean that Alex was 4 when the purge took place. Which makes sense since presumably that scene where he was pushing what looked roughly like a 4 year old Alex on the swing was not long after the Purge.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Ross, you phrase your response as a disagreement but I don’t see where we disagree. Yes, that scene where Ben and Ethan abduct Alex must’ve taken place while Ben (and maybe Ethan too) was still living with the DI. And yes, that scene at the swing set is probably shortly after the purge.
I don’t see how he was taking care of Alex as his infant daughter while playing DI janitor. But that’s clearly the time line they’ve set up.
Last year, Ben (still in that same Locke episode) denied ordering the Purge. He tells Hurly it was ordered before he was leader. I guess Widmore ordered the purge but was then oustered immeadiatly after.
– or Ben was lying.
Comment by Rusty James — April 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
And I’m gonna bet against Locke being Jacob. Though he certaintly could be. We did see Jacob briefly, I believe he was played by a prop guy.
Comment by Rusty James — April 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Rusty,
I don’t see why Ben couldn’t be raising Alex while still working for the DI(?) He probably was pretty sure his people would be taking care of her when he was in with the DI (except, of course, Widmore who, as we know now, wanted to kill her when she was a baby – but I’m sure Richard would have stopped him), and as I said he would be secretly sneaking off to his people whenever he could.
Maybe, as you say, Widmore ordered the Purge, but was then banished, and Ben “taking over” from his plans for the Purge was to show Richard etc that he was willing to do something like that for them/for the island.
And I’m not saying Locke is Jacob, I was just throwing it out there and expanding on it as it’s certainly an interesting way to go.
Btw are any of you sharing the opinions about the episode Dead Is Dead like a lot of people I’ve read online? They are not liking the change back to the mystical Island stuff – a lot of people seem to favour when it’s more scientific. I love it either way – but although the scientific angle is very interesting to discuss, the mystical island stuff often is more fascinating, and mostly provides the best episodes, to watch IMO.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 11, 2009
How often do you think he could get out to see her? Daily? How long at a time? Not exactly complimentary to his gig as a deep cover operative.
Again, I think it did happen. But it’s convoluted.
@ like a lot of people I’ve read online? They are not liking the change back to the mystical Island stuff
[groan] Lost fans have a tendency to come off like a lot of whining petulent back seat drivers.
“It’s too mystical”
“There’s too many characters”
“I don’t like Kate. Now I don’t like Juliet, what happened to Kate”
“Jack’s boring. And he needs more screen time”
“Does it have to take place on an island?”
“They’re not giving us any answers!”
crist. It’s like listening to a yammering focus group where they have a button they press everytime they see something they don’t like.
ugh.
Comment by Rusty James — April 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Rusty,
But isn’t that all the more reason why he would want to Purge the DI? Maybe that was part of his motivation – not seeing his daughter enough, and, of course, the incentive that once the DI people were out of the way he would have a semi-civilized society i.e. the barracks etc, to bring her up in. Him having his people looking after his daughter, and him not being able to spend enough time with her, was probably just another cog in his troubled past.
I know what you mean about some of the Lost fans out there – first it’s too many questions, then when the show gets into “answers mode”, the fans complain that the show isn’t mysterious enough anymore, that everything is being explained. And yet when the show gets back to more mystery, the fans complain, again, because there’s “too many questions and not enough answers”. Some LOST fans complain and yet what do they do? They watch it every week, like clockwork:-)
Btw since the whole “what is the Smoke Monster” question has been stitred up again in ‘Dead Is Dead’, I just wanted to get your opinion on when it has manifested itself? For example, was the black horse that Kate saw back in season 2(?), an apparition by the Monster showing her something troubling from her past? Can you remember if anyone else was around when she saw that horse in the jungle and if so did they acknowledge it was there? Or did it run away before someone else came and talked to her (I think I remember it was Sawyer).
Also I think whoever said that thing about Shannon being killed by the Island to save Locke (if you remember she wanted to kill him because she blamed him for Boone’s death) was a good theory – I think it’s clear now that the vision of Walt, soaking wet and speaking in the backwards, whispering “Others language” was the Monster/the Island and not actually Walt himself. So the Island lured Shannon, knowing that Anna-Lucia was nearby travelling with ‘The Other 48 Days’ folk, and that she would get a fright (from the Others’ whispers etc) and shoot out of impulse and reaction. That theory kind of makes sense now that we know the Monster clearly is a judge of some sort, as well as a security system for the Island/the temple.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ The Monster
Kate and Sawyer saw the horse together, and went over and pet it or something. Not that the horse being corporeal rules out anything one way or another. I just don’t know enough about The Monster to be making guesses very informed guesses.
For instance The Monster and Jacob are related in some way. Are they the same thing? Suppose the writers came out and said Jacob is The Monster. Would that really tell us anything? I don’t know what Jacob is and I suspect he’s something different than what we’ve been led to expect. I don’t think Jacob is a powerful old Wizard in a cabin.
All we really know about The Monster is that it seems to have something with the dead.
Most of the theories about The Monster are pretty boring in my opinion. Most people think it’s either
1. Technology from the future
2. Magic from the past.
Neither of those are very exciting in my opinion. I hope the Monster is something else. The main thing I’ve learned about the Island is that it has something to do with Destiny. People go there to find their destiny. It seems those that are drawn there are people resisting their true path in some way or another. So I hope The Monster is tied into that in some way.
@ Also I think whoever said that thing about Shannon being killed by the Island to save Locke (if you remember she wanted to kill him because she blamed him for Boone’s death) was a good theory
Not bad. The scene certaintly leaves itself open to that interpretation
Comment by Rusty James — April 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
so in this season we’re getting to know the Island pretty well. That’s kind of the focus of the season, I think. Rather than focusing on any one character, or group of characters, we’re learning history of the island and getting a sense for what it is, and how it apparently has some sort of personality, mostly manifested by the Monster/Cerberus.
Richard Alpert – another constant on the island. He operates separately from any of the groups that have come to the Island. So, as is being surmised on all the blogs and wikis out there, Alpert is some other entity which is a manifestation of the Island. But now he is the more mysterious one, as we have gleaned more about the behavior of the Monster. Are there any other of these? Characters that are in this mysterious, otherworldly camp that Alpert and the Monster come from?
Something tangentially related that has been on my mind about this show – the submarine. I haven’t seen it discussed on these forums. What do we think about it? I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with travel between the Island and the rest of the world. I think it’s been confirmed in past episodes (namely the one this season with Farraday’s mom and her big maps and pendulum) that getting to the Island requires not just a physical location, but a temporal one. The sub would thus be useless. It’s just some kind of trick to make it easier for new inhabitants to understand how they have gotten to the Island. Is there any indication in past episodes that the sub serves any purpose other than this?
Comment by stump — April 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I don’t know stump, Widmore seems to be leaving on the sub when he is banished, for whom would they need to be keeping up appearances if what you have left are only the Others. Although I guess there could be two sects, the Original Others, and Others that are recruited like Juliet.
As for the horse, but I would think it is native to the island because Widmore was riding a horse in last week’s episode. Its like the cow last season.
My guess with the monster is it is something similar to the Langoliers of the Stephen King novella, its like the cleaner. There is a certain leeway for things to happen but when things get too off course it comes in to clean the mess.
Comment by rot — April 13, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
They’re walking Widmore to the sub. But then Ben is admonishing him for leaving the island too much over the years, when presumably they didn’t have access to the sub.
I do think that the sub is capable of getting them too and from the island. How else are the Dharma’s getting there. And the freighter proves at least that you can get to the island from the outside world by conventional means.
Comment by Rusty James — April 13, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I think the sub is definitely ONE WAY to get to and from the Island as, as Rusty says, how else would the Dharma people be able to? It may have been questioned back when we thought they might have something to do with the original inhabitants etc (I’m talking ages ago, for us that is) but now that we know Horace etc are just the DI, they obviously used the sub. But I think there’s definitely another way that the Others go to and from the Island, as has been said, Widmore told Ben that he repeatedly left the Island, this was before they Purged the DI. Maybe the way that the Others have is dangerous if it’s used too much (part of why Widmore was banished – putting the Island/his people in danger for his own personal gain), and them having the sub is just the easier and less dangerous option. It may have something to do with keeping up appearances – maybe for Juliette, for example, the sub was just a front (we never saw how she went from in the office after drinking the orange juice to waking up in the sub, remember).
I’m thinking maybe Richard’s main purose is a sort of “knowledge gatherer” – maybe the Island afforded him the ability to not age so that he can survive through the ages and have all this wealth of knowledge. It would explain why he doesn’t seem to be the leader, even though it seems logical that he would be. Why does/did he take orders from Ben, for instance? If he’s been there obviously A LOT longer? Maybe Richard is just always in a “following orders” role, either because it’s what the Island wants or he does it voluntarily. Maybe he’s just a source of information for whoever comes in to lead at any given time i.e. Ben and now Locke.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 13, 2009
The freighter got to the island, but it also had Farrady on it to figure things out, and there were many casualties. It seems they weren’t doing something right.
Since Alpert’s character started getting more development I just figured it was obvious that he is continually jumping around in time. He has a base time that he goes back to and lives in, and then at key points he transports to when he needs to be. This seems obvious to me. I can’t be the only one who thinks this. He is also working for someone. His behavior is pretty clearly that of an agent, someone who is getting paid to do what they do. He has some mission. Maybe he is working for Locke?
Comment by stump — April 13, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Since Alpert’s character started getting more development I just figured it was obvious that he is continually jumping around in time.
I don’t know, I thought so once. But they’ve gone out of their way to show him percieving time sequentially. He didn’t know who John Locke was in 1954, he met Sawyer in 1974.
Comment by Rusty James — April 14, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@”The freighter got to the island”
That was something I was just discussing with someone today – why is it that Widmore didn’t just come along on the Freighter, in the chance that they could find the Island? Obviously he knows roughly where it is since he was able to get the Freighter near it, so there must be a reason why he doesn’t think he is able to go back. He did say to Ben on the phone “The Island won’t let you come back, I’ve been looking for it for 20 years…”, so maybe he respects the Island so much (respects the rules) that he knows even if he tried to come back, on the Freighter or otherwise, in the conditions that the Island is in, i.e. a bunch of survivors and, of course, Ben running around on it, he wouldn’t be able to. I think that’s why he sent the Freighter with the army dudes on it – to get Ben off of it, and kill everyone on the Island that’s an inconvenience, so that he could return without a hitch. Another point which shows he knows where the Island is; he knew where Eloise Hawking was, he gave the address to Desmond, so since she knew how to get the 06 back, if Widmore was able to go back wouldn’t he have just went to Ms. Hawking for the info?
@Stump,
I dunno about that, man. Do you REALLY think if Richard had the ability to go through time that he would be working for someone for money? To put things simply, wouldn’t he just travel to a certain time, steal a shit load of money, and travel through time again to evade?:P I think he’s certainly working for the Island/Jacob, and as I said in my previous comment, as some sort of source of knowledge for anyone who is leading i.e. Ben and then Locke. I agree with Rusty – they have set it up that Richard simply doesn’t age (or at least at the normal rate) and perceives event sequentially i.e. Locke walked into him camp in ‘54, Sawyer talked to him on the bench in ‘74, and he gave Locke Sawyer’s file in 2004.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 14, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
LOVED tonight’s episode. Some Like It Hoth, great title. I officially don’t think the Shadow of the Statue guys are with Ben. When Miles asked that guy who he was he said “We’re the team that’s gonna win” Ben’s guys would’ve said “We’re the good guys”.
I think they might be time travelers. Surviving Dharma? Descendents from the Black Rock? hm.
Comment by Rusty James — April 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I don’t know, this week’s episode was ok at best. We have another father issue story this late in the game? It just makes me think they put too many characters into this show, and are now rushing just to quickly resolve everybody.
the big event of this episode for me is that apparently you can co-exist with yourself on the island, so out goes my Ben putting a hit on himself theory.
Comment by rot — April 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Looks like we’re more on the same page than we once thought, Rusty:P I also LOVED tonight’s episode (and not just because of my consistent defence of the show no matter what^_^). How the hell do they manage to make you care about a relatively minor character like Miles with apparent ease? He was just the less intimidating but still very sarcastic version of Sawyer up until this point, who was a little intriguing because of his talking to the dead thing. but in one feel swoop with this episode, he’s become a character we can care about on the same level as Jack, Locke, Kate etc.
Do you really think they didn’t have that father issue thing in mind way before now? I mean just look at the $3.2 million thing – LOVE how they tied that up btw – they obviously had plans for Miles way ahead of time. Not forgetting the opening of the premiere – btw there goes my theory about it being Sun and that’s why she didn’t travel back in the time with the rest of ‘em – they set up his father issues, or at least the groundwork of it for them to expand upon, episodes and episodes ago. They worked it in there brilliantly. Also are you forgetting that’s been one of the core themes throughout the show, not so much in the last two season but particularly the first and second? Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke, Ben, Claire, Hurley… they’ve ALL got daddy issues, why shouldn’t Miles? It’s just them getting back to half the point of the show – the CHARACTERS. It just happened to be sandwiched in there with more faster paced, mythology and science types episodes but it was fantastically reminiscent of the character centric stuff of season 1 and 2.
How do they have too many characters in the show? What, so they should just have a small group just for the sake of it? Having more characters is both more interesting AND it makes sense – why WOULDN’T there be more people, is what I’m saying? Some of the newer characters are the most interesting – Daniel, Miles and Richard, to name just a few.
Yeah, we now know you can co-exist in the same time as your younger (or older!) self. And I love how they’re not going with the whole “the universe will implode” thing that most, if not ALL, shows/movies that deal with time travel do. Nothing will happen, they CAN interact with themselves. However they WOULD remember speaking to themselves if they were old enough to retain the memory ie. since Miles is there in older form with his baby version, he was obviously too young to remember an older version of himself being there (that’s providing Miles DOES at some point interact with his younger self, which I think he will).
I was SHOCKED when we saw that guy from the Ajira plane who was with Alana, pick up Miles in the van. Obviously we know she and he are not working for Widmore, but I think you’re right that they’re not with Ben, either. If they were, not only would they have said, yeah, “We’re the good guys,” but also Ben wouldn’t have looked so shocked to see Sayid on the plane. Are they some sort of independant group looking to exploit the Island themselves? They can’t just be some random group looking to make money though, or else they wouldn’t have known about the statue or that guy wouldn’t have said to Miles that he wasn’t ready to go to the Island. Do you think they were exhiled like Widmore was? Although if they were it would have to have been not long before the Oceanic plane crashed, because if they were exhiled at the same time as Widmore, they would be a lot younger (unless they were exhiled as kids, hmmm…)
So do you think Pierre put the body through time to get rid of it? That certainly would be a good place to hide it:P
And where was it that they said the scientists were coming from on the sub? (Yes, FINALLY we get to see Daniel again – about time!) Was it Annarbour or something like that? I’ve been saying it for a while and I’m sticking to it – Daniel built, or at least helped build, that swinging pendulum thing that finds the Island; remember, “A very smart man built it”?:-)
Great episode.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I am saying they have too many characters because they need to squish the Miles story into one episode, and I am sorry, but that is rudimentary characterization there, we go weeks and weeks without any development of Desmond, and why, because they keep cramming in new characters that in the whole of scheme things are not all that worthwhile. I think the daddy issue point has been hammered home in the show, what after the tenth time, I think I get it. Maybe Miles will be more important later on, hell he could be the ‘incident’ for all I know, he is perfectly established to cause a paradox.
Scientists from Ann Arbor, I am assuming the American University.
Comment by rot — April 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I don’t think they NEEDED anymore time to tell Miles’ story, and I don’t think they COULD take much more time since they don’t have that much left to complete the show. I disagree that there are too many characters, it’s a lot more interesting that way, having loads to pick your favourites from, and seeing how their stories intertwine and how they, themselves, interact with one another. I think you’re caught up in the time travel and mythology stuff that you don’t like it when they stop for character-centric stuff (I didn’t mean that to sound rude, btw…).
And I don’t think the daddy issue point is something which is just placed in there for the sake of it – as I said it’s an integral part of the story that’s played a part since season 1 episode 1. I also don’t think there is anything to “get” – this is what happened to these characters, their issues are one of the things which tie them together on a level, even if they don’t know it (yet).
And I think Miles has now become more important to the show than we once thought – perhaps you’re right, maybe the incident has something to do with him and his father (remember it WAS Pierre who first told us that there was “an incident,” maybe because it involved him and his future son (Miles) he knows the danger and result of it better than most).
Comment by Ross Miller — April 16, 2009
But fathers are one of the main issues of the show. They represent destiny. Maybe it’s just because I really like the actor Ken Leung, but I really liked the father story this week.
Honestly Rot, it’s beyond me how you can like 316 and not this.
I guess I can sort of agree that they have too many characters, in the sense that they haven’t managed their cast very effectively this season. But I love big casts in general. It’s cool how in LOST it’s a different type of show depending on who they’re focusing on. If it’s Sayid it’s a spy story, if it’s Kate it’s a harlequin romance, Desmond’s Billy Pilgrim etc. etc.
I might be the only person in the world but I really like what they’ve done with Jack this season. His character is at an interesting place and for he’s just chillin on the back burner. They should do that with more characters. The problem is they haven’t utilized their front burner characters so well. Miles and Juliet have both had a good amount of screen time this season without much to show for it.
@ – Daniel built, or at least helped build, that swinging pendulum thing that finds the Island
I don’t know Ross. Wouldn’t they have needed the swinging pendulum room to have found the island in the first place? I think they must’ve had it before arrival.
Comment by Rusty James — April 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ But fathers are one of the main issues of the show.
I should’ve said “theme”. They are the central theme of the show. Father’s are we turn into. We follow in their footsteps, walk in their shadows, and inherit their sins. It’s not about “getting it” through repetition. It’s about each characters relationship their their father figures being a metaphor for their relationship with destiny.
Locke – Never new his father, consequently he doesn’t know who his is. Others tell him he has to be a follower but he wants to be a leader. He keeps changing jobs, searching for a purpose. He thinks he’s found it when he meets Anthony Cooper, just as he thinks he’s found it when he lands on the island.
Jack – Becomes a surgeon, just like his father. Drinks compulsively, just like his father. Follows his father’s corpse to the island. There he finds his father alive somehow, with a message, but he’s not ready to listen.
Sawyer – Adopts the identity of the man who he blames for his fathers death.
Miles – Obviously his wish to now his father is driven by his hope that he will be able to explain his abilities. It’s after he stops looking that his powers lead him too his father, uniting them beyond the grave, but in a totally different way.
Fathers are the rossetta stone for decrypting LOST.
Comment by Rusty James — April 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I am, again, with you on Jack this season, Rusty (who’d have thought we would be in agreement as much as we’ve been lately:). He has been the hero character for the first four seasons, and the man of science. But since all of this stuff has happened that he can’t explain, he is just “on the back burner”, as you say, and going with the flow until he finds his purpose, which he revealed in the epsiode “Whatever Happened, Happened” he didn’t know yet.
I agree that they haven’t done a lot with their main characters this season i.e. the ones that have been there since the start of the show, but is that necessarily a bad thing? I think the up in the amount of characters, as I have been saying, adds more interest to the show, adding even more depth to the story than there already was. Do you really think they could possibly have went on with the original characters and no more, especially without the ones they killed off? I think the writers have done an amazing job at integrating the Freighter folk as major players in what’s happened, it’s hard to imagine the show without the likes of Daniel and Miles, do you not think?
To be honest I had totally forgot, or it slipped my mind:P, that the Dharma would probably have needed the pendulum thing to find the Island. I dunno, it just seemed logical since his mother was the one who was working with it in the basement of the church. Ah, guess my theory is wrong – wish it WAS true, though, don’t you think it would’ve been a cool looped twist?:P
Comment by Ross Miller — April 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
PRedIctiON time! I predict that Julliet will die and Sawyer will be so upset that he’ll grow up into Gay Tom Friendly (Tom… Sawyer. getit?) and it’ll turn out he shot himself in season 3.
Comment by Rusty James — April 21, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
you got to be kidding.
Comment by rot — April 22, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
scoffing time is later. Now it’s prediction time. Lets hear some predictions bitch!
Comment by Rusty James — April 22, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Here is a few one sentence predictions I’m just gonna’ throw out there purely for discussion’s sake:
- Daniel is the one in the Comic Con video filming Chang sending the video through time.
- Desmond will come back to the Island and play a major role in how things play out (the final “secret scene” will involve him)
- The Ajira plane survivors will see older versions of some of those who travelled back (as they would have stayed in the ’70s and grew old – possibly Daniel).
- Desmond or Daniel will die by the end of this season.
Comment by Ross Miller — April 22, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
4 0 0 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you think everyone else is scarred of this thread?
Comment by Rusty James — April 22, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Juliet will probably die. SHE WAS WEARING A RED SHIRT IN TEH LAST EPISODE!
Jacob is Jack’s son and great-grandfather.
Comment by stump — April 23, 2009
Comment by LypeTyncanymn — April 23, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Hey, ^^^, the true meaning of the Others’ whipsers has been revealed!
Comment by Ross Miller — April 25, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Why have they hired this horrible woman Faranola Flanagan to ruin every scene she’s in with her terribleness. I put her on the short list of worst LOST characters right between Karl and Danny Pickett.
Comment by Rusty James — April 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I assume you mean Eloise Hawkings?
My picture went out during this episode, all I had was sound, but it didn’t seem all that impressive an episode. Although they do explain a lot I think.
so Whatever Happened, Happened, except for the variable of human consciousness? That seriously needs to be expanded.
I like that they are trying to confront a paradox head on, but Faraday being shot better not be some kind of proof that this cannot be done… I don’t know how many more time I can stomach them balking at confronting a paradox.
also, as per my Lost Reverse-Engineered post, if this is another case of shooting a character for a thud moment only to have him revived next episode with a bullet wound in his leg, than I am calling bullshit. I can’t stand this narrative ploy.
anyways will truly watch the episode tonight.
Comment by rot — April 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I keep thinking Daniel’s shooting was for the benefit of a thud moment. My guess is that Eloise convinced Jack to go to the island because she was hoping Jack would be able to save her son from the shooting.
Comment by Christian A. Dumais — April 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
so Faraday crying watching the footage might have to do with him knowing subconsciously he is going to die?
Comment by mike — April 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ if this is another case of shooting a character for a thud moment only to have him revived next episode with a bullet wound in his leg, than I am calling bullshit.
I don’t think so… I think when you rewatch that episode you’ll find that you massively misread it.
@ so Faraday crying watching the footage might have to do with him knowing subconsciously he is going to die?
arg. That question is my problem with the episode in a nut shell. I think we can infer that when Daniel was experimenting on himself he saw the future. But why not fill that in for us. Especially if this episode is supposed to be the sister to The Constant. Why not tell it from the perspective of time hopping Faraday? Why not show him seeing his own death? That might be a little bit more of a compelling scene than his lunch date with the horrible horrible Fionolla Flanagan and stupid mugging face.
I think it’s important that Jack is with the Others now. He came to find his destiny, they’re gonna help him.
Comment by Rusty James — April 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I am toying between this and Dead is Dead with the best episode of season 5 so far (although The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham is my personal fave…). Again I was glued to that screen for that entire 42 minutes, I swear my whole life is going to regularly consist of rewatching the entire show of Lost once season 6 is finished:P It’s absolutely THE most compelling thing that’s every been on television, no other show makes you literally shout out “no!” when the episode finishes like Lost does!:P
Anyway, my general love on Lost for the time being is over, onto specifics of this episode…
I LOVED how we got a history episode for Faraday – he has become my second favourite character on the show next to Ben, he’s one of the most interesting AND he has all the answers to these questions we’ve been having about time travel and so forth (which is why I was miffed and irritated with the 4 episode absence he had). I think they, again, like they did with Miles, managed to fantastically tell Faraday’s story largely within this one episode, and it tied stuff up pretty much perfectly: His reason for going to the Island, his connection with Widmore, what happened to his girlfriend Theresa, why Widmore was funding his research, how his mother seemed to know so much (you’re right that actress is horrible in that role, so “dun dun dun!” that it comes off as cringe-inducing…). Who’d have thought that wen we were first introduced to Faraday, Miles etc from the freighter that we’d get to the point where they were not only significant to the story immediately in front but an integral part of what has come before and will come to pass(?). Amazing.
I guess we know now that the note in his notebook that “Desmond Hume will be my constant” that it was always there, that Desmond going back and visiting him at Oxford didn’t change anything, that’s what always happened. And the reason Daniel scrambled for his notebook and noticed the note but seemed surprised is because of his memory problem we now know he had. That may have seemed like a cop-out if it weren’t for all the stuff that’s been shown beforehand that makes it make sense (that it links…).
@Rusty James,
The reason they didn’t show the time hopping is because he’s not like Desmond. It’s clear that he’s “special” but not in the same way as Desmond is, remember Desmond is, “uniquely and miraculously special.” I think his mind definitely jumped forward like Desmond’s but not in the same way that he can see exactly what’s going to happen i.e. like Desmond did with seeing Charlie die repeatedly, and that’s the reason he was crying at the Oceanic 815 flight happening – in his mind somewhere he somehow knew that was a significant event that was going to cause all of this heartache and dramatic events, for him and the Losties.
Did anyone foresee that Widmore was Daniel’s father? I was thinking that earlier in the season in the episode when Theresa was shown in bed and that woman mentioned that Widmore had funded his research, but for some reason it slipped my mind. Has it been confirmed that Daniel is only Penny’s half sister then, since Ben did mention to Widmore when he was being banished that he “had a baby with an outsider.” So I guess the two share Widmore as a father but have a different mother i.e. Eloise isn’t Penny’s mother.
Now to get into the thick of things: I was surprised that they introduced the whole “the future can be changed thing.” I like that they’re confronting it head-on, but was surprised to see it nonetheless. Daniel mentioned that he has been so focused on the constants that he’d forgotten about the variables, which as he states is us, human beings. So despite the fact that “whatever happened, happened” there is still free will and choice involved? I don’t see how that can happen – I’m sure Daniel is wrong and that whatever they do THAT’S what will cause the Oceanic 815 plane to eventually crash 25+ years in the future. Is it absolutely, unequivically confirmed that Desmond failing to push the button is what caused the plane to crash? Maybe it was, but that doesn’t mean that whatever Daniel was planning to do could prevent that.
Daniel mentioned something about them having to cement the energy in, and Jack remembered that from when he and Sayid were wondering what it was (and what that humming was) back in Season 2. So that proves that that did happen, that the energy was cemented in etc. But what Daniel is saying is that EVERYTHING can be changed, if he detonates that hydrogen bomb that would somehow stop that energy from being released (i.e. The Incident), which means the hatch won’t be built, which means Desmond won’t forget to push the button which means the Oceanic 815 will just land in LA as planned. BUT what would that mean for the people, Jack, Kate, Daniel etc, in this present time that we’re seeing? Will they just not have existed? Will they exist on the Island separately from the past version who landed safely in LA? My question, then, is how can there be no future selves who travelled into the past in the first place, if all of that never happened? It doesn’t make ANY sense, which is why I think, still and I know I keep repeating it, that WH,H and no matter what they do THAT’S what will have caused what we have seen happening e.g. Desmond not pushing the button and the plane crashing.
Btw I would be EXTREMELY pissed if the ending to the whole show was them changing what happened, and the ending that we see is the plane landing in LA, with all the characters we’ve come to know such as Hurley, Claire who’d still be pregnant, Kate who’d be in handcuffs etc etc getting off the plane. That would pretty much invalidate everything that’s happened. Please let it not be that, Damon and Carlton!…
Now on the question of whether or not Daniel will be dead… ah, it’s a tough one to call. If I had to put moeny on it I’d say he’s dead, but personally I really HOPE he isn’t. I agree that it seems a little suspect if he isn’t dead that they did that so soon after doing that with Ben. However Ben being alive meant something, that he would be taken to the Others and subsequently become one, but we haven’t seen the fate of THIS Daniel yet i.e. if he gets healed and becomes an Other (although we didn’t see him as an Other in 2004 etc). There’s an example of an argument for each side, dead and alive. One is that is there any reason that he needs to be alive as far as the story goes? Obviously for love of the character and plainly just wanting to see more of him, Jack and Kate have been told by him what it is they need to do, wouldn’t they be able to at least TRY and do what Daniel was planning on doing? Maybe that’s what happens: Daniel is dead and because Jack and Kate etc don’t know the complicated stuff Daniel did, they fail at changing sutff (which I think is impossible anyway…) and they, ironically, actually cause “The Incident” in their attempt to stop it.
The argument that he’s alive is there are a lot of people (including myself) who believe the person in the comic-con video where Dr Chang is telling about the future and George Bush and the Internet etc, is Daniel, you know when we hear a voice off-camera saying “This is never going to work…”? Also for Chang to believe in the fact that Daniel, Miles etc are from the future, wouldn’t Daniel need to be alive to try and convince him? When we last saw Chang going away in the van from Daniel after ignoring his plea that he is from the future, he wasn’t convinced AT ALL. So I think someone, most likely Daniel who’d really be the only one willing to divulge the information that they are from the future, would have to prove to him.
Maybe it’s just me but I don’t see the problem with characters not dying when they appeared to at the end of the episode. Do you WANT Daniel to die?:P I think it’s a great cliffhanger (if it’s done well, as it has been with Ben and now Daniel), and it’s okay to have them come back, if that was the intention (which it clearly will be because they already have it written and filmed). Let’s not forget they’ve done the “character getting shot and actually being dead at the end of the episode” a few times before with Shannon, Anna-Lucia and Libby, why not have it the other way sometimes?
Sorry for the very long reply but there was just so much to talk about with that episode.I look forward to your replies, guys:)
Comment by Ross Miller — May 1, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — May 3, 2009
this whole thing is customizable, and right now just in test phase, so you can calm down Rusty.
remember all the times we were arguing in this thread and half the argument would be what was said before, well, if working right, you could reply directly to what I said, and we could focus a thread at that point of the conversation, and yet you will still know when latest comments have occured on this post by the sidebar. You just click 'jump to' beside any comment and it will take you to exactly where it is in the thread. also at the top of this thread you will see you can sort by date or last activity, and this also would show you everything in chronological order.
It also works better if you have a profile account, because then you can keep track of all your comments, on this or any other site that uses this, and search through them as well, to find some choice line you said a year ago. you can embed video and images now. as for the ratings thing, if used well, and certain comments are highly rated they become sorted when someone chooses to wade through a 400 comment thread by 'rating' and wants to see 'the good stuff'.
anyways you are jumping the gun, on us Rusty… this is us testing right now.
Comment by mikerot — May 3, 2009
feedback is appreciated, but I would also recommend playing with what is here before jumping to a conclusion.
there is another plugin that we are possibly considering as well.
Comment by mikerot — May 3, 2009
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/mikerot
with this feature you will also be able to get email updates to threads, to particular people you are following, and able to promote every social network link you want. You also have a record of your comment history if you want keep it for some reason.
Comment by mikerot — May 3, 2009
as near as I can tell it's primary function is to allow them to bury dissenters. To be fair to Immense Debate they might have their settings askew over there because their pagination is flat busted.
I'll give it a try. But for the record I did like scrolling through 400 comments. Pagination makes things harder to read. It's "purpose" is usually to allow sites to up their clicks. There are simpler multithreaded comment pluggins for wordpress.
Comment by Rusty James — May 3, 2009
I see this multithreading as being a potential win/win… in that those of us immense debaters who go on a hundred comment tirade don't necessarily need to drown out other people who may want to stay on topic… they can co-exist… also the feature of having a cache of your comment history that is searchable, its easier to find past conversations to show hypocrisy.
Comment by mikerot — May 3, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — May 4, 2009
And re: the burying, that depends more on the commenters than the commenting system.
Comment by Jandy — May 4, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — May 4, 2009
Pagination makes load time shorter in theory. But are you finding that to be the case here? The whole site loads like shit now, especially the comments. This whole pluggin is an unmitigated disaster. It looks ugly as sin and I swear it must've been designed by someone who's never used the internet before.
Comment by Rusty James — May 4, 2009
http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/comment-t...
Comment by Rusty James — May 4, 2009
Comment by mike — May 4, 2009
Comment by mike — May 4, 2009
Comment by mike — May 4, 2009
Comment by Ross Miller — May 4, 2009
Comment by mike — May 4, 2009
If threading wasn’t working it must’ve been because your theme removed something important.
Discuss looks a lot better.
Really looking forward to this weeks LOST. Some idiot, who doesn’t respect others, blurted out who the episode focuses, thus robbing me of a small bit of discovery. Should be a good episode.
Comment by Rusty James — May 4, 2009
Any thoughts on some of the stuff I mentioned about The Variable?
Comment by Ross Miller — May 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I thought I made it pretty clear I wasn’t about to give it away. What with me being pissed about it. It’s such a small thing but I love discovering the focus of the episode each week.
Why don’t you give us a bullet point run down of your main talking points for The Variable. I heard the producers said it was one of their best episodes. I don’t see that at all.
I don’t think they’ve had a truly great episode this season. The closest is Jughead and LeFleur. Given the potential for DF and the fact that (I guess) that was his send off it should’ve been much better.
Comment by Rusty James — May 5, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
whoa! Cool cliffhanger. Can't wait for the final!
Comment by Rusty_James — May 6, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
How'd they get the bomb in there?
Monster. Easy.
If John's not on Jacob's side than who's side is her on?
For some possible insight into that see this Rusty James classic? http://morepop.rowthree.com/2009/01/lost-season...
Where's little Ben?
I hope we see more of him next week. I want to learn more about his ascendence. Is it really possible he's never seen Jacob.
Surely he's got to have some mojo left.
If Jacob isn't real then what's the Others game? What are they working for?
Something diabolically awesome no doubt.
At this point I hope Jacob is true man-behind-the-curtain con job.
The Shadow of the Statue people working for Ben
Definitely not. Maybe they're on Locke's anti-Jacob side.
Rose and Bernard?
They gotta be Adam and Eve.
More Walt?
He's been in every Finale so far.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 6, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — May 7, 2009
Comment by Rusty_James — May 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Brilliance.
Every time I say an episode is the best of the season so far, another one comes along that I think outdoes it. I may have to wait till the season is over before I proclaim which I think is the best episode, but Follow The Leader was as good as Lost has ever been.
Rusty, no “great” episodes this season? Maybe we're watching two different versions of the show, because season 5 of Lost has been fricking AMAZING. I love the mix of science and faith, Island mythos with physics and mathematical equations etc. I think they're doing a great job of letting us see from both perspectives, and not discounting either of them – both have a place, and both are interesting in their own ways.
Anyway, onto this week's episode…
So I guess Daniel really is dead. I bet the haters of the “being shot but not really dead” cliffhanger can breathe easy. I really lament the fact he's dead, although when you think back to what has happened it makes sense i.e. Ms Hawking knew she was sending him to die, but he is (or “was”, whuah!!) my favourite character after Ben, yes that's even more than those we've been with since the start. His death kind of eliminates the audience's chance to know a lot of the stuff we've had questions about; we got hints of it when Jack made him explain in the jungle before he went and got shot (why the hell did he go in with all guns blazing?), but now we'll never know what he did (apart from his diary, but I doubt anyone will be able to decipher the notes of someone like Daniel). My theory is that in their attempts to change all of the stuff that's happened – the hatch, the button, 815 crashing… – will be the very thing that causes it – WH,H.
Who said it?! Who predicted it?! Me, that's who! I said a few weeks back that Richard's role is some sort of advisor – he has been given the ability to not age, or at least not as fast, so that he can survive through the ages and give information to anyone who's leading (information on those people who are time travelling or whatever…). He's in that secondary role permanently – it explains why he isn't the one who's the leader.
Did anyone see that coming that Miles would admit to being Chang's son? I mean I suspected he would become convinced that they were time travellers but I didn't see Miles admitting to something like that – I mean whenever they talk to one another now, THAT'S gotta' be awkward, no?:P
So if not Daniel then who is that in the Dharma video that was shown at Comic-Con with Chang talking to those in the future about George Bush and the Internet etc? It not only sounded like Daniel but it made sense for him to start experiments with him, helping him understand the concept and ability of travelling through time. Man, I really miss Daniel:P
Glad to see Sayid back, I just realized when I was sitting down to watch the episode that we didn't see what happened to him after he shot little Ben. Did you see the look on his face when they revealed to him that he didn't die and they took him to the Hostiles? Do you think he then realized that he was the one who made him become an Other, and they twisted way he is today, by shooting him? That's on his conscious now.
It seems now that Jack has gotten into the same mindframe as Locke, as Kate alludes to, and Kate is now the one who believes you can't change anything. I think Jack is so desparate to find his purpose that he's not only willing to put up with all of this crazy stuff, but he's embracing it if it means he can do what it is he believes he's went back to the Island for. Kate seems fed up with the way Jack is acting, I really thought they'd “be together” once they got back, like Sawyer and Juliet are.
What a segway!
Obviously Sawyer isn't going to go off-Island, at a push I would accept Juliette but Sawyer's too important. When they say “any of us can die” I think 5 characters are safe (even until the end of the show, season 6) – Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Sayid and Hurley. I just don't see the point or the need for killing them off at this late stage in the game.
The whole thing they're alluding to about changing what happens(ed), again I like the fact that they're challenging it and seeing if they can actually change everything. But as I said, I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope the end of the show is everything that's happened is changed and 815 just lands in LA as planned, with all those original characters just getting off unharmed. Man I would be pissed…
And is there any other way they could have gotten the Hydrogen bomb down there other than the Monster?
I said that ages ago: calling it again now, Rose and Bernard are Adam & Eve.
Holy shit! How cool was that part about Locke being the one who told Richard to go over to himself after having been shot in the leg and telling him he has to die to get all of them to come back. I REALLY didn't see that one coming. But when you think back to that scene, which you saw from a slightly different angle, Richard didn't seem a bit… off. And when you saw it in this episode you could tell, knowing that Locke told him, that he had just found out the information he was supposed to tell past Locke. See, it all links:)
And what a cliffhanger! Now why would Locke want to kill Jacob? I'll tell you why, or at least partly:P I've said it before and I'm going to officially stick my neck out – Jacob is Locke. Future Locke. The reason he hasn't revealed himself as such is because he's preserving the past; because we haven't seen it happen then it can't happen – “the rules.” So present Locke will kill Jacob aka Future Locke (knowing it is himself in the future) and then he'll become Future Locke, eventually, which would then be Present Locke (make sense?). And then THAT Future/Present Locke would kill the next Present/Past Locke will kill this Future/Present Locke, on and on… That's life.
Comment by Ross Miller — May 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
“The whole thing they're alluding to about changing what happens(ed), again I like the fact that they're challenging it and seeing if they can actually change everything. But as I said, I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope the end of the show is everything that's happened is changed and 815 just lands in LA as planned, with all those original characters just getting off unharmed. Man I would be pissed…”
Crap! When I said the above I meant “I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope the end of the show ISN'T everything that's happened is changed…..”
Just to clarify – ISN'T
…
Comment by Ross Miller — May 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Just a couple things:
It seems like Eloise is already pregnant with Daniel when she kills him. When Widmore pulls her aside to attempt to dissuade her from going to the bomb, you can hear him say something about her “condition.” And I'm trying to figure out Eloise's age. She says when she was 17 yrs old Daniel came to her and told her to bury the bomb. That is in like 1954 right? So now she's 41? and having a kid? I guess it's possible, but she doesn't look 41. If anyone can straighten me out on this please do.
We haven't seen the smoke monster yet in the 1970s period. Does it even exist? It seems like the only way to get the bomb down there. Maybe they have better control over it before this ever-looming shit goes down, which seems to be building towards this last episode of the season.
What does Jack think is going to happen to his present self if the last three years are erased? Is he expecting to die? I don't understand what his logic could be.
Comment by stump — May 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
One more thing – regarding the ComicCon video – Cuse and Lindelof have stated that's not canon. It's definitely Jeremy Davies's voice, but I think it's useless to speculate on how and when Faraday was able to make that video.
Comment by stump — May 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I didn't notice Widmore saying about Eloise's “condition”, nice catch. If Daniel's age (I think he's about 30) is right then that would make his year of birth 1974. Which would then mean 3 years later in 1977 he would already be born and with the Hostiles, would he not? Unless he's already been sent off-Island, and that's why Eloise goes off, to be with him. Or it could simply be Daniel's age is different to what we thought.
I reckon the smoke monster DOES exist in 1977, and WAY longer before that. Something like that wouldn't be just newly created, I don't think it's because of the “the incident” that it gets created, it seems more connected to the history to the Island. Like ANCIENT history.
That's exactly my point of why they can't change things – if they change everything, and 815 never crashes on the Island, then how was there anyone to go back to 1977 and changed what happened in the first place? It doesn't make ANY sense. And you would think Jack would have thought of that, realized it, he is a doctor after all:P If they were to change things, for discussion's sake, then it would logically leave that version of them on Island, with a past version landing safely in LA.
And about the Comic-Con video, I had no idea the writers had said not to accept it as canon. Still, it would have been cool to see that video turn up in the actual show, either we see it getting filmed or one of the other characters, perhaps the Ajira survivors folk, may find it on a computer or something. But Daniel's dead (at least we assume so), so if it WAS him in the video at Comic-Con then I guess we've just to treat it as exactly that… a treat, not actually part of the show.
Comment by Ross Miller — May 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Rusty, no “great” episodes this season? Maybe we're watching two different versions of the show
Look back on past seasons and their best episodes. Deus Ex Machina from S1, Man of Science, Man of faith or Orientation from S2, Man Behind the Curtain from S3, and probably The Constant from S4. What episodes from this season were as good at those?
I'd probably rank this season as: Follow the Leader,Jughead, Dead is Dead, LeFleur, Some Like It Hoth, Life and Times…, and then there's maybe a few other decent episodes, some filler and then 316, The Lie and Little Prince in a three way death match for the crown for Worst Episode of Lost.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I had assumed Daniel had already been born. But they've been so sloppy with age and dates this season. Ethan's 27, Charlotte's 35?! Whatever.
It is weird that we haven't seen Monster in 1977, it does seem like they're trying to imply that it doesn't exist yet. Put me down as skeptical though. Maybe it's bottled up and then gets out. Maybe they have to release it because of the Incident. It's been implied that the sonic fence exists primarily to keep the monster out.
Maybe the others have it penned up because of their truce. They've disabled their security system temporarily.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I am cool with the story, I am not cool with the execution, this has been some of the sloppiest bullet-pointing of narrative the last couple episodes, I kind of miss when they didn't have an end date known and were just riffing a bit. Is Kate even a character anymore, or she is just a thing to bounce dialogue off of? They keep saying the show is foremost about character but man I hardly recognize these people anymore.
I do like the John seeing himself part, and I am trying to wrap my head around that, how could John tell himself what to do, that means the future had to exist first, but clearly it doesn't? The only way this makes sense is to say that John is dead, and this thing using his body is not John but some kind of eternal spirit. but still the body wouldn't be there to use even, no it doesn't make any sense if we are accepting linear time. that is just the sort of knotted reality I was talking about before… which then makes me think that there are no linear time paradoxes, and I was right, and they are just saving that epiphany until the finale. Otherwise explain the linear logic of that interaction? Present John is changing the course of Past John to befit the present… it makes sense only in the present, not if there is a linear passage of time, past, present, future. It couldn't always be meant to happen that way, there couldn't have been an alternate past scenario where John did not encounter John thus negating the existence of Present John in the bushes, for this to occur it had to always happen, knotted time, not linear.
Comment by mike rot — May 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
rot, I think you're still getting hung up on what Farraday talked about in last week's episode – every moment is each character's present. Locke's future is affecting his past, so it seems to create this fuckup in terms of causality, but if you think about it in terms of Locke's singular present there are no problems. Locke isn't actually changing anything, he's just doing something, which happens to help himself out, in that himself is some being from three years ago, or however much time has passed (for him) since he was shot. Which leads me to…
When Ben asks Locke how he was able to get the timing of that down so perfectly, Locke replies that the Island is communicating with him. Throwing out a theory here – if WH,H (which I believe is the most accurate theory in terms of how things are working in the show), it wouldn't matter how Locke thought he got there at the perfect moment – he just would. He could have decided to march Ben and Richard into the woods at that time for any number of reasons, and then just happened to stumble upon himself in need of some help. I'm pretty sure that's not actually the case – I'm just throwing that out there as a way of exemplifying that regardless of individual characters' motivations or claims, there is a consistent predetermination that cannot be altered.
One more thing – I'm really hoping s6 brings us back to a little less BIG EXPOSITION VIA DIALOG over more interesting character arc stuff. So far this season has been cramming on the side of certain explanations, mythology stuff, Dharma stuff that turns out to be a whole bunch of idiocy, and has left me feeling a little vacant on the side of character – which happened to be the most charming aspect of the first two seasons, regardless of whether or not it was through flashback device.
Comment by stump — May 7, 2009
Kate, Juliet and Sawyer on the sub. I agree your criticism is generally true of this season compared to others. But you said that about Some Like It Hoth and LeFleur and those were two of the most character driven episodes. It makes me wonder if you're just watching the show wrong.
@ I am trying to wrap my head around that, how could John tell himself what to do, that means the future had to exist first, but clearly it doesn't? The only way this makes sense is to say that John is dead, and this thing using his body is not John but some kind of eternal spirit.
I would expect you of all people to have embraced this. Causality and all that. Time travel naturally defies the before and after
Comment by Rusty James — May 7, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Random thought. Jack, kate and Hurley smuggled themselves into the DI. They masqueraded as innocuous stragglers but eventually turned out to all be in cahoots, working toward a mysterious purpose and eventually get some guns and start a shoot out.
Kind of reminds me of the Shadow of the Statue guys. Maybe they're a different group of ex-islanders trying to recreate the conditions of their flight.
Maybe they're even time traveler who are on the plane because they it was headed toward the island. Maybe they're the children of the Oceanic crew.
Comment by Rusty James — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Rusty,
Which episodes were as great as those you mentioned? – Dead is Dead, Follow the Leader, LaFleur and Jughead. There. And those you mentioned are the worst episodes of the show, no they're NOT:P Look at Expose for an example of that (but even the worst episode of Lost is better than just about anyting else on TV:). I really don't see you're problem with this season, to me it's just as compelling as the show has ever been. Sure the main characters from past seasons are a bit sidelines iin this one but that's because they have to make time to explain what's going on, to delve into the Dhrama stuff, the Island mythology. The show doesn't have infinite time to play with, you know.
That's a good theory that the Monster is being held back or it “bottled up” and the incident is the thing that lets it loose. Maybe that explains how the Hostiles/Others don't seem to know everything about it and exactly how it works, because they've only known about it for 25-30 years. I think when Locke had a gun pointed at Ben when he revealed he has “a man on their boat” when he then said that he didn't know what the monster was – I think he was telling the truth. He was hiding the truth within a more general truth, if that makes sense. He doesn't know WHAT IT IS, but that doesn't mean to say he doesn't know SOME things about that. You see, Locke wasn't specific:P
@Rot,
So now you want the show to be “riffing”, to have no end date and no clear goal or “end game” in mind? Wasn't the opposite the complaint/wish when it WAS just “riffing”? Wasn't the yearn for answers, and explanations, and more of the Island mystery what was being sought after back then? And yet when we're totally and brilliantly immersed in that world, you want to go back to not focusing on that and just “riffing”? If the writers read that they must be thinking “MIXED MESSAGES”. I agree the character development etc was better in the earlier seasons, but the show has become so much more than that. And not just for the sake of it – everything that's happened has, or is in the process of being, linked up.
Okay, Rot, I'm going to try and explain the Future John controlling the things that happen to Past John thing. How does it not link up with linear time? It completely does. John isn't changing anything by doing that, because that's what always happened. The very fact he does it with Richard and Ben i.e. sending Richard over to help Leg Injured Locke (:P) is because we've already seen that happen when the Leg Injured Locke was our present as we were watching the show at the start of the season. Locke couldn't have changed that – we saw it happen at the start of the season, simply because at some point in the future Locke will tell Richard to go and help his past injured self. It goes round and round. Of course it does.
@stump,
How is all the Dharma stuff just “idiocy”? It's VERY important, we are simply seeing what happened. And now we know the O6 were part of what happened all along, that whatever they do, whatever Jack and Kate and Richard and Eloise, do with the bomb, THAT'S what will cause all the chain of events leading up to 815 crashing and beyond (my theory). Things can't be changed, but that doesn't make it any less interesting for us to get to see how those unchangeable things happened.
So any theories on why Locke would want to kill Jacob? As I said in my first barrage of thoughts on Follow The Leader, I think Jacob is Locke. And Locke will kill him, but then in the future will ultimately BECOME Jacob (the reason we haven't seen him yet is that's one of “the rules” – to preserve the fact that Past Locke always does become Jacob) and kill Past Locke. One thing that's niggling at me, though, that negates that theory is that the writers let slip at one point when they were talking about when we saw the shadow of Jacob in the cabin, that that was just a prop guy's figure and not actually meant to be Jacob (his “help me!” voice was actually writer Cartlon Cuse's voice). But they DID let slip that the actual actor “has not been cast yet.” So either they've stupidly let that slip, which negates the “Jacob is Locke” theory, or they're throwing a wrench in the machine just for the sake of it, so that we're more surprised when it actually does turn out to be that Locke is Jacob.
Comment by Ross Miller — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
When I say Dharma idiocy, I just mean the way the DI people have turned out to be portrayed – like a bunch of bumbling idiots who have no idea what they're doing on the island. It's just kind of upsetting.
Comment by stump — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Well, do you think they expected to deal with Time Travelling trouble makers/magnets and hostile inhabitants?:P I don't they had a plan for electromagnetic “incidents” doing somethig catastrophic to the Island, or being infiltrated by anyone. I don't think they went onto the Island knowing it has these special properties that, for example, allowed time travel. They probably just thought they had an “blank slate” Island to do their experiments on.
Comment by Ross Miller — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Ok I am going to have to explain this in more detail because I don't think any of you are understanding what I am saying.
Time is either linear or not, can we agree on that? it is either bound by causal law or it is 'corrupted' by something that transcend the normal laws so that 'paradoxes' can exist without problem. This is an either/or, you can't just slap a platitude on top of that and everything is okay.
Now Ross and I think Rusty have been maintaining that WH,H is not just that things are fixed to happen the way they are supposed to happen, but that there are no transgressions to linear causality. Let's recall the shitstorm that ensued when I suggested that young Ben could die, it seemed clear to me that your position was that that could not occur because we know the future outcome (i.e. linear causality cannot be broken).
SO I am taking that as your position.
The Locke/Locke encounter is proof that linear causality is no longer enforced in the show.
Now this is tricky to explain because the Past Locke is time traveling but keep in mind his present is always moving forward irrespective of the scenery around him, it is a trajectory to the Locke that is in the bushes. Miles hammered it home, whatever year it is, it remains the character's present who are time traveling. So keep that in mind.
Ok linear causality, past present future, one way flow. Let's imagine the first incarnation of this, a time when wounded Locke gets to to the plane, this past event had to pre-exist before the bushes event. There had to have been a time when there was no future intrusion for Locke, but then that can't be because Locke in the bushes wouldn't be where he is. The only way that can make sense is if time is knotted, in that moment linear causality ceases to exist. Than Locke always intervened on his former self, not stuck in linear time but outside of it (always is eternal remember).
Do you see now? Young Ben could have died because linear causality has already been broken.
I am not saying there isn't any instances of linear causality or that things aren't working towards some divine plan, but we can get rid of this mode of argument based on linear logic, because it is has been proven inaccurate by the Locke situation. I stay with my original idea that there is a plan and it is fixed, and that plan has as part of it knotted points along a linear trajectory. Otherwise, they seriously fucked up linear logic, or that is not really Locke.
Comment by mike rot — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Case in point, Ross wrote: “I'm going to try and explain the Future John controlling the things that happen to Past John thing. How does it not link up with linear time? It completely does. John isn't changing anything by doing that, because that's what ALWAYS happened” key word is 'always'. If young Ben is always killed and old Ben is always alive then how is that any different? Always means eternal, means not beholden to linear causality to explain why it exists. I think the problem is you are seeing the situation from the perspective of Locke in the bushes, as his present, but you are not appreciating that at some point prior to that present there had to have been a point in the past where no future incarnation of Locke existed (past then present then future). If it is an eternal loop it is the equivalent of saying there is no causal law involved, because it has no beginning and no end, no first domino impacting a second domino.
Comment by mike rot — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
to take the domino analogy further, the Locke/Locke situation is the equivalent of two dominoes hitting one another back and forth going nowhere.
regular linear causality is dominoes being pushed and go forward, and you can mark points along the whole trail (past present future) and they will happen in sequence, but this case makes a loop back which never stops, thus stopping linear time as an influence.
Comment by mike rot — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Argh! I think this is going to be impossible to argue and explain our opinions through a message board, if we could meet in person I could explain better (you would probably say the same thing). I don't get how you can say WH,H and yet say that time isn't linear. How has it already been proven non-linear? Maybe it's that point about there being a time where there was no future incarnation that's causing our differences – my point is there always WAS a future incarnation! Or there is always GOING TO BE! It doesn't matter what anyone does, no matter what they do, things always turn out the way they did. Present Locke didn't change anything by going to the exact time Past Leg Injured Lock, we already know that's what had to eventually happen because we saw it happen at the beginning of the season, where Richard helped Locke out by telling him he had to die to save everyone. The reason he told him that was because he (already) did so in the future. The reason it's confusing is because there's a time travelling Locke, the same person who's intsructing him (even if it's Richard who's doing it for him – it'll be interesting to see if two version can interact, btw…). If it were, say, Jack who visited Leg Injured Locke then it would make more sense, because we wouldn't have the confusion of there being a Future/Present Locke helping out a past Locke.
And to get back to the Young Ben dying thing – again I stick to what I said before, that he couldn't die because he was there in the future. It's simple, it's logical and above all it makes sense within the show, of how things are going. It's a bit pointless discussing it now we know Young Ben didn't die and was with the Others and eventually became one of them (btw where was he when Eloise shot Daniel?) but it's fun for discussion:)
Past, Present and Future are all linked, they're not separate. Linear time.
And bringing up what Miles says, you've kind of shot yourself in the foot. Remember that little entertaining convo between him and Hurley? He explained it perfectly, he's the character who's mentality matches up with mine – whatever they do, no matter what it is, ALWAYS happened in terms of them affecting other people, surroundings etc. And the only reason any of them can die is because, as you say, it's THEIR present and therefore THEIR future which is unknown to them (or us, for that matter).
Rot, how do you feel about using google or msn's instant messenger to further our debate, at least on this little disagreement? It would make it easier because we could instantly hit back with our thoughts on each others'
Lemme know if you wanna' do that.
Comment by Ross Miller — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Ahhhh! I think we may have found the source of a little of the confusion, and it's on my part. I have misinterpreted the definition of the phrase “linear time”. I thought it referred to the past, present and future being linked and fixed, when it fact it means past = already happened, the present = now and the future = untouched, unknown and thus changeable (the exact OPPOSITE of what I think). And it would stay the same even if people travelled through time – WH,H. BUT I just found out that what I'm talking about is NON-linear time (except without temporal paradoxes), which is maybe why you are disagreeing with some of what I'm saying, or me with you (SOME, not all). So when I say Linear I mean Non-linear:P
Continue…
Comment by Ross Miller — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I thought the domino analogy would make this clearer but I guess not.
Ross said: “Maybe it's that point about there being a time where there was no future incarnation that's causing our differences – my point is there always WAS a future incarnation! Or there is always GOING TO BE! It doesn't matter what anyone does, no matter what they do, things always turn out the way they did.”
Let's go with your notion that there was always going to be Bushes Locke. Do we agree that there was always going to be Bushes Locke because he intervened with Plane Locke? Or is it that he was always going to be there irrespective of anything came before, whether he turned into a purple elephant in season 1? I am going to assume you mean he was always going to be there because he intervened with Plane Locke, that these events are fixed.
You are overemphasizing the point that things are fixed, they will happen, but at the same time you keep creeping in this argument that things have to make linear logic sense, so I conflate the two ideas and think you mean everything is fixed and logical with linear causality. But you do realize these do not necessarily have to co-exist as concepts, and in fact constantly saying things are fixed is not proof of the necessity of linear logic? This is the confusion, events could be fixed both in a linear sense purely or a linear with momentary corrupted eternal loops, in both cases one could say they ALWAYS HAPPENED.
so the 'everything is fixed' argument doesn't get us anywhere.
What you need to do is look at the events and ask does this jive with linear causality, and the Locke/Locke event does not. It is a nonlinear event (and this has nothing to do with either of them being time travellers, but where they exist on a linear plane, past, present, future). Bushes Locke ALWAYS has to be there to intervene with Plane Locke, ALWAYS (not in a the whole story is fixed sense along a linear track) we are talking about an event that cannot have a beginning middle and end in a linear way, because it bears a paradox out (a future incarnation determining itself is like the sign of infinity, the snake eating its own tail). that event has no linear logic, it may be embedded with a reality that has linear elements but this is the equivalent of a miracle breaking with scientific truths.
Follow the thread of what you are saying Ross, if you want Plane Locke and Bushes Locke to add up to a linear causality that is paradox free you are deluding yourself, it doesn't matter if everything is fixed and always happened that way, it doesn't make it logical in a linear way. Bushes Locke is self-determining where he exists in time, he sets in motion his own conditions, linear causality is looped eternally, thus nullifying the notion of linear causality as law governing over this event. How can something govern over an eternal event?
Comment by mike rot — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
It gets confusing to talk about 'the present' because the present is subjective. That is why I am just refering to Bushes Locke and Plane Locke, and have a clear understanding that one incarnation occurs before the other (according to linear logic). The whole where are they in time outside of this relational context is unimportant, so long as one is early, the other later and it is supposed that there is causal law affecting their relationship.
One has to think the whole reason that Locke needs to go through with the charade of making Richard go to Plane Locke is because the loop needs to be enclosed. I mean even narratively, that seems to be the reasoning. But it is a loop closing, a fixed anomaly to what we understand as regular linear causality. Yes it always happened, but it didn't happen as a consequence of some overriding causal law, past creating present creating future, like one domino hitting the next hitting the next. It happens outside of time, and for the sake of narration it is shown to us like a tracking shot of the snake as it moves around to eat its own tail. Eternity is timeless, something always happening in loop is essentially timeless.
Comment by mike rot — May 8, 2009
Any interest in that instant messaging thing?
Comment by Ross Miller — May 8, 2009
Expose is a great fucking episode, among the best episodes of the show. For one thing it's funny. It's poking fun at their own conventions and plot devices. We meet NIkki and she's a stripper, nope she's spy undercover as a stripper, oh no she's an actress playing a spy. But she's a jewel thief! That's funny. The Wolfgang Puck of Brazil. Hurley and Sawyer teaming up to solve a mystery. There's even a few good dramatic moments, Charlie's confession to Sun and of course the classic Edgar Allen Poe-esque ending. I also think it's funny how they shoe horn them into important moments in LOST history, for instance they're the first people to discover the Pearl. It all makes for a great episode and a nice change up.
Now please tell me how 316 is a better episode with it's awful awful Fionola Flanagan exposition that just goes on and on. Jack's pointless visit to grampa.
Or The Lie. How is the Lie a better episode than Expose? Were you rivited by Hurley on the lam from the cops? That was almost a threat from the writers. What if they catch him? Imagine the episode you'll have to sit through then. Hurley on trial for murder! I shudder at the thought. And then it happens, he turns. himself. in. WTF!!!!! And it has nothing to do with the show! All that shit and we STILL don't know why Hurley got on that plane. Complete failure.
They spent 7 episodes on the Oceanic 6. Every single moment of it was terrible and somehow they managed to not tell us why they got on the plane! The fuck?
People thoughtlessly dismiss it and lump it in with the bad ones just because it's different and it has Niki and Paulo in it. But I say, if N&P were only in this episode and no others they would be decent characters. Expose is a classic episode.
Comment by Rusty James — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Well, do you think they expected to deal with Time Travelling trouble makers
Yes. They're building a time machine.
Reply doesn't work. Maybe it's cause i'm not logged in.
Comment by Rusty James — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Rusty, exactly. The way the DI has been written this season seems insulting. It's made them so ignorant that there's no real tension. Even though Radzinsky sort of seems like a threat, he's mostly a joke. Somehow Sawyer is so much more powerful. Horace is the same – he reeks of pathetic. They're all just incompetent. The only interesting one is Chang, who sees all this incompetence around him, resulting in his constant frustration. I guess this is why the DI seems to ultimately fail. It just kind of sucks the way this conflict between the O6 and the DI has been written this season. There's a lot of other stuff I've liked about this season – Faraday, Locke's change, Ben has been great (even though I'm not sure how I feel about passive Ben) – but the focus of this season feels weak.
Comment by stump — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Rusty,
I can't believe you just called Expose one of the best in the show's history. All of that stuff of N&P being suddenly, miraculously, SUPPOSEDLY part of important events in Lost history was dumb and contrived as hell. They clearly wanted to more “good looking” actors to become main ones, but they forgot that the fans wouldn't have that – they wouldn't accept two new characters who are supposed to have been there all along and yet we've mysteriously never seen them up until that point. The way they tried to work them in by saying they wanted to tag along (at least Nikki) did was lame. I thought they did an admirable job wrapping up the story, tieing up the mistake they'd made by ever introducing them, in one fell swoop. I still ENJOYED the episode because, hey, it's Lost, but I really don't see how you can treat that as one of the best. It's quite the opposite.
Now 316 – again, we disagree. I LOVE things (both in this shown and in other shows and movies) where they show you what happened i.e. in this case it was some of 06 making it back to the Island, and then going back to show you how things got to that point. It was like the season 4 finale – we KNEW all of those characters ended up being transported by Oceanic etc and yet on the Island before that they were all at completely different locations on it, also on the Freighter etc, and it was fascinating to see how they got to that point.
How was Jack's grandpa pointless? Just because we hadn't seen him before? I agree it was strange to introduce this character we'd never heard of, but the reason he went to see him and the payoff, i.e. getting the shoes, was a great way to lead onto Jack changing Locke's shoes in the coffin, how Locke ended up with a smart suit, shoes and all, when he came back alive on the Island. It also drew parallels to Jack's ordeal of taking his own father's body back from Sydney – with him just having cheap shoes, just like Locke would have had he not got his father's off his granpa.
I do agree with the awful exposition by Ms Hawking (they go WAY overboard with the dramatics with her) but if it were someoine else saying those things, it's compelling. Even with her saying them they're still interesting. Interesting to find out all of this stuff we've been longing for.
And I loved all that stuff with Hurley running from the cops. The whole thing with dragging Sayid's unconscious body back to his fathers was classic. When his mum walks in and says that “he's not breathing.” As always with Hurley's episodes, it mixed in a good, welcome dose of comedy with the usual more serious stuff. And it has that great scene with Hurley and his mother where he explains all the major crazy stuff that happened on the Island in the space of a minute or so – when you say it back to back and in black and white it sure does sound crazy:P And how is him turning himself in “WTF!”? He does it because he believes Sayid when he told him to do the opposite of what Ben tells him to do – isn't the opposite of coming with Ben (and trusting him) to get himself captured to make sure Ben can't get to him? He knew the police were outside, what else could he have done? Gone with Ben? Isn't he the one to have caused a lot of Hurley's, and the rest's, misery?
So the first 7 episodes were terrible, every bit of it, it was total crap? I think you're exaggerating a bit there, Rusty. This season has been great, fantastic even, and one of the most purely enjoyable because it has been the best for post-episode thought and discussion. I've thought more about these past 15 episodes than I have with anything else in TV or Film for YEARS.
How did we not find out why they were on the Ajira plane? Apart from Hurley (which, yeah, I just realized they haven't revealed/clarified HIS reason yet) we know why everyone went back – duh, to save those who were left behind, amongst other things; Jack to find his purpose, Kate to find Claire, Sayid because he was forced i.e. arrested, Sun to find/reunite with Jin, her husband who she thought was dead. The only one who didn't come back was Aaron, and it's yet to be revealed what the implications of that are yet. Did you fall asleep during some of those season 5 earlier episodes? Is that why you dislike them, lack of memory of what actually happened?^_^
@stump,
I don't see you, and Rusty's, problem with the DI guys situation. They're not COMPLETELY incompetent, but perhaps just not equiped to deal with infiltration, time travellers, hostiles Hostiles etc etc. Remember they are just scientists, they're not mercenaries or what have you. To me they're doing what someone in their position would logically do, and perhaps they're inadequacy to deal with the situation is as a result of us, the viewer, knowing the bigger picture. I agree Chang is by far the most interesting member, now even more so because he will have replaced Daniel as the next best in line to answer questions about time travel. But I like the dynamic of the DI folk doing what they have to do, wondering why the guy (Sawyer aka LaFeur) and Juliette are suddenly not really “with them” anymore.
Season 5 RULES, so there! [crosses arms]….
Comment by Ross Miller — May 8, 2009
I agree that they're introduction was handled poorly. But that's not Expose.
@ The way they tried to work them in by saying they wanted to tag along (at least Nikki) did was lame.
Not Expose.
@ I thought they did an admirable job wrapping up the story
To say that you liked their resolution is to say you liked the episode Expose. It actually would've worked better if they'd never introduced N&P earlier and began the episode with these two people we never heard of before. It's funny.
@ And I loved all that stuff with Hurley running from the cops.
Seriously, your ability to tell shit from awesome is broken.
@ And how is him turning himself in “WTF!
Because it has nothing to do with getting his fat ass back to the island. I seriously dreaded the prospect of that plot line was going to be dragged out.
@ So the first 7 episodes were terrible, every bit of it, it was total crap?
I actually said the O6 stuff in those episodes was pure shit. And more in the first six episodes, Ill give a pass to L&DoJB, that episode is a mix of good and bad. As you can see above, I listed Jughead as among the best episodes.
@ How did we not find out why they were on the Ajira plane?
I said we didn't find out during those six episodes that devoted so much time to them. We watched ridiculous custody battles, ninja fights, cop chases and for all of that we didn't learn why they got on the plane. They had to give us 2 Kate episodes for crying out loud. And for all that time we still don't know why Hurley came back. That's border line incompetence. It would've been better if the season just opened with them on the island.
@ we know why everyone went back – duh, to save those who were left behind
That's just not true. It's not at all supported by we've seen in the show. With the exception of Sun every character's motivation was given outside those 6/7 episodes. Jack was explained in S4 (where it was handled really well, part of what make S4 so special), Sayid in He's Our You, Kate in WH, H an Hurley still hasn't been explained.
@ perhaps just not equiped to deal with infiltration, time travellers
I don't think you got my point above. How could they not be expecting time travelers? They're building a time machine. If I were building a time machine I would consider the absence of visiting time travelers to be a serious problem, it's evidence that the machine isn't going to work. In fact if there are visiting time travelers the site where time travel was invented is one of the most logical places to start looking. How could Dr. Chang not be expecting to meet time travelers?
I also think they should've developed the DI better given the time they've spent on it. Razinsky in particular has been a waste. He was a character I've been looking forward to meeting since S2 and turns out he's just a one note jerk off.
@ it has been the best for post-episode thought
That's fair. It's been good for that. I wouldn't say best.
Comment by Rusty James — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Rusty, you are frustrated by the lack of explanation for events that have occurred in this season, as am I. I will add two more developments to the list. I'm sure these have been mentioned here before, but the importance of them is pretty significant.
Sawyer turning into an honest man. We're just supposed to understand that over these last three years Sawyer has transformed from a heart-broken cynic into a loving caring honest individual. And how is this displayed – because we see Sawyer smiling cheezily at Juliet. Do the writers expect us to just buy this and go along with it? Sawyer has never let down his guard before. What has happened that is supposedly allowing him to do it now.
Jack – what has been going on with him this whole season while he's been mopping floors? Why haven't we been able to get into his mind? The earlier seasons did an amazing job of using the flashback device to show how the characters are feeling and dealing with the events currently occurring on the Island. Flashbacks at this point would probably be inappropriate and overused, but the production staff has failed to employ some other device to evoke as deep a sympathy with the main characters, the O6.
This leads into a new topical area. Perhaps the emotional drive of our main characters will be fully developed and resolved in S6, and S5 is pure exposition. I would at least hope so – I really want this show to be complete, and not just turn into advancing a mythological mystery (which seems to have been the focus of this season – also an easy way to continue producing revenue generating spin-off products). I'm sorry, but while it's definitely lots of fun to speculate on where the statue and Richard Alpert come from (I've been spending way too many hours reading LOST blogs because of this), this season lacks all the depth that earlier seasons had.
Comment by stump — May 8, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Rusty, you are frustrated by the lack of explanation for events that have occurred in this season, as am I
It's not the lack of of explainations so much as the pointless scenes in place of where explainations could've been. Why string us along with Kate's reason for coming back? It was hardly extra-ordinary. No part of the story hinged on it. Do they have some amazing revelation in store for us with Hurley? I don't know what's in his guitar case but at this point it better be the cure for cancer and unicorn.
The points you've singled out are actually some of the things I think they've done well. Lefleur was one of my favorite episodes this season. We have to understand the potent symbolism of killing father figures. Both Locke and Ben had to kill their fathers to find their destiny. Sawyer may not have been related to Anthony Cooper but he was a surogate father to him in that Sawyer took his name and followed in his foot steps. By killing Anthony Cooper Sawyer began the journey to become his true self. It was shortly after that he proposed to Kate that the two live out their days on the island, “playing house” in Dharma Village. His three years with Juillet are that wish fulfilled.
Secondly we should understand the essential human need to feel a sense of belonging. Think about where Sawyer came from, the women he's slept with (marks and prostitutes) the occupation he practiced (lowlife criminal) and realize the powerful effect that the love of a woman like Juiliet (the type of girl who would usually go for, oh I don't know… Jack. Sawyer's manifested super ego) and a position of trust and respect in the community would have on him.
The explaination as it's told maybe skeletal but my imagination has no problem connecting those dots.
As for Jack. Believe it or not I actually like where his character is right now. He's definitely been low key this season but I think it's consistent with his character. And I have been able to get into his mind. Season 4 was his conversion, he's turned into a new man, freed from following the footsteps of his father. Giving up doctoring to become a janitor, surrender his role of leader. All consistent with that conversion. It's fine for the writers to put him on the back burner while they develop other characters. And it only kind of hurts my point that they have not developed other characters.
I suspect Jack's step into the spot light is coming soon. It's significant that he's found his way to the Others and soon his journey to his true destiny will begin. I predict a majorly dramatic appearance from Christian Shepard next week.
Speaking of which. We should begin putting together a wish list / prediction list for the finale.
Prediction: We will see the return of at least one of the following; Rose and Bernard, Walt or Claire.
I'm still calling Desmond's death.
I'm sure I'll have more soon.
Comment by Rusty James — May 9, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Wow…. My new asshole will take some time getting used to……
@Rusty,
Sorry I seem to have mixed up what actually happened in Expose, I thought it included all of that stuff where they were heading to that other underground hatch (under Eko's crashed plane…. the Pearl?), and N&P wanted to tag along etc. Was that part where Paulo being inthe bathroom hiding the diamonds, then Ben and Juliet appear, in Expose? Maybe I'm combining all of the things I hated about N&P even being in the show at all and lumping it into the episodes that concentrated on them, Expose. I know for definite it was the one with the paralyzing spiders and them killing the old guy for the diamonds in their past, which I still argue was some of the worst stuff Lost's done. But I wholeheartedly apologize – I was too harsh on Expose:P:)
(Psst, As I said even the weakest of Lost is better than 99% of other stuff on TV:)
My ability to tell shit from awesome is broken? So just because I loved part of the show and you didn't, therefore I don't know what's good or bad? Okay…
What was the rush to get the 06 back to the Island, in terms of watching the show? So they should have just had a 316-esque episode (in terms of showing them getting back) at the start of the season? My argument would be that of COURSE there had to be a ton of stuff off-Island, it's kind of a reminder that there is still a world out there out with the Island, that there's dramatic stuff going on (whether that be breaking people out of mental institution and running from the cops, or a troubled man visitng his grandpa…) that's not about smoke monsters and time skipping wheels. I think the first half of season 5 is a great contrast to the second half – who cares if they spent some time off-Island with all this other stuff, was it maybe the lack of Island that we've had for most of the show that you didn't like?
The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham is my personal favourite episode of Season 5, seriously. I LOVED how the meetings with the 06 by Locke were not as dramatic and powerful as you'd expect them to be, his inability to gt any of them to come back by just talking to them was part of his journey before he was ready to become a leader (as he has now since he came back alive on the Island). Probably my favourite and most shocking moment of the season so far happened in that episode, when Ben killed Locke. I have heard a lot of people say they knew that that was coming (since they read EVERYTHING they can instead of just bloody enjoying the show without wasting it for themselves…. spoiler-junkies….), but I was completely shocked.
Was the Dharma folk's first thing when they went to the Island (heck, even in 1974 when Sawyer, Juliette, Miles etc first joined them) to build a time machine? I don't think it was. They went there because they knew it was a unique place, but it was only in 1977 (when we now know the “it's going to allow us to manipulate time” bit with Chang was actually taking place, when Daniel bumped into him after having gotten Miles to take him there in the van with Hurley etc….) that there's evidence of them knowing about time travel. I really don't think with all the confusion and business of trying to do what they're doing (building the various hatches, dealing with new recruits coming in etc) that they had time to sit down and think “Okay, we've just discovered this pocket of energy that could allow us to manipulate time, we better watch out for time travellers. Oh wait, what about that LaFleur guy and that Juliette woman? There arrival here was a bit suspect. Wait! I know! They're from the future, of course!” To me they are, as I said, acting as would be expected. I agree that Radzinsky is a bit dissapointing, he's just an annoying hothead who's nothing like the guy who's supposed to have drawn that blacklight diagram in the hatch 20 years in the future. Maybe whatever happens from '77 to the late '90s or so makes him more interesting (although I doubt we'll see much of his progression.)
I would argue it HAS been the best for post-thought – seriously, just look at this discussion thread. And that's only a fraction of my (and I'm sure yours, and the others guys who discuss on here) ponderings of what's happened in this season.
@stump,
I disagree about Sawyer. The reason I think it seems a bit jarring is because in LaFleur when we saw him s a “good guy” with “his guard down” it was being directly contrasted (because of the flashforwards) with the old Sawyer who was the one we've known for most of the show. And I also think for some people a few years can really change them, remember Sawyer has been living a relatively peaceful life with a woman he has grown to love, and as he says he “existed just fine” until Jack showed up, with no” flaming vans” as he sarcastically said a few episodes ago. He wouldn't have been accepted within the DI if he was his old way, that kind of behaviour shows the troubles he's been through so I think the combination of consciously toning himself down a bit, if you wanna say, and the affect of a peaceful life, changed him. I don't see how you don't think that a dramatic change after that amount of time is logical and believable.
@Rusty,
This is again the thing where you want one thing and then when they give it you want the other (when I say you I'm mostly referring to the general, fan “you”). When they spend some time with emotional, character driven stuff i.e. Kate's stuff with Aaron, her custody battle, someone wanting to take her son away, people want explanations. And yet when they give us explanations these episode past few episodes, give us exposition to explain a lot of the mysteries (or at least showcase them), people want/miss the character driven stuff. This isn't an aim at you, Rusty, just airing some grievances about some fans who can't make up their mind what they want. I don't know if Hurley's reason is going to be anything special, hence why they've not gone out of their way to explain it. I think Kate's reason is going to play a relatively big part in what's to come – imagine the confrontation with Claire if they ever come face to face again.
And the thing you're saying about fathers is the EXACT reason I loved how they worked in Miles' story, with his father apparently abandoning him etc. “Daddy issues” are one of THE themes of the whole show of Lost, and one of the consistently, always there things that remind us about the importance of the characters (I just KNOW you're going to throw back at me that the writers don't seem to remember the importance of the characters, aren't you? Aren't you?!:P).
I also agree I like where Jack's character is right now. He's on the back-burner as a contrast to how he's been for the previous 4 seasons; he's no longer the leader, he's no longer the authority or who those in need go to for help. I definitely think season 6 will see a return to that sort of thing for him, but for now he's just going with the show flow. I think you guys are misinterpreting what this season is supposed to be mostly about; it's clearly been set-up as an expositional season to showcase and explain a lot of the stuff that's been a mystery up until this point. I don't think they have time to have the sort of character development from the first season, at a time when they had no end date set and had all the time in the world to devote entire episodes to the personal problems and emotions of a couple of characters.
Okay you want predictions? Here's mine:
- They'll find out that they can't change everything that's happened, and whatever they do with that bomb IS the Incident and that sets in the motion the events that leads to 815 crashing etc.
- A major character will die, either Juliette or Desmond (is he going to come back to the Island within the space of the final two episodes?) (If Juliette dies, it may be a reason for Sawyer to stay on the Island i.e. not leave on the Sub).
- I told you, Rose and Bernard are Adam & Eve… We'll see them again/find out where they've been all this time in the finale, though.
- Whatever they do with the bomb (which will happen in this episode), it will cause the Smoke Monster to be unleashed/released and rome about as we've seen it.
- Those who travelled back in time will be transported back to the present i.e. with Sun, Ben etc.
- Those Ajira folk with the metal case we'll find out actually work for Ben. Whatever's in the metal case he may have told them to bring as some sort of aid for him, to help him try and take leadership again.
- I'm predicting an appearance from Jacob.
Comment by Ross Miller — May 9, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Wish list:
I want to learn how the Dharma / Hostiles truce was negotiated. Why did the Others agree to allow them there.
I hope Jacob is finally exposed as… whatever Jacob is. Pull that curtain back.
I want to see Walt. I think they keep bringing him back because he's important to the end of the series. He's been in every finale so far.
More little Ben. His story is unresolved. I have a lot of questions about his accension.
What's this big secret in Hurley's guitar case.
Jack comes face to face with Christian. He moves forward to his destiny, it's not what he thinks.
Comment by Rusty James — May 10, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Since Locke/Locke meet-up is a linear time paradox, I think the finale will end with a paradox likewise being exposed as plausible…
Someone from the past will die while his/her present day counterpart still exists. Or maybe it will be revealed something about Young Ben that he did in fact die and the incarnation that exists post-temple is somehow different from anything we have seen in Old Ben.
Comment by mike rot — May 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Someone from the past will die while his/her present day counterpart still exists.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
can't narratively you mean, or can't by the logic of the universe? I can accept the possibility of the first, but not the notion that somehow such a thing is outside the canon of the show. Locke/Locke proves nonlinearity is legitimized. They confronted a paradox and overwrote it.
To think they couldn't do that the other way around, rather than have a character self-determine his future in an eternal loop, but exist as two severed parts, is shortsightedness.
its just as likely.
They have now established that their is no overriding linear logic to say that things happen in one direction causally, that you age birth teenager adult elderly death, and that each moment of that can exist as a real present. All has been determined, and any point on that spectrum can interrupt any other part out of sequence, as Bushes Locke did to Plane Locke (who if strictly linear could not have existed in his present before). Bushes Locke is an older incarnation of Plane Locke (months or years I can't remember), he cannot exist in Plane Locke's present, and certainly cannot self-determine the direction of Plane Locke towards Bushes Locke's present, I mean I hope that is staggeringly clear that is a paradox by linear causality standards.
Do you think the future can alter the present to fulfill its existence, but the past is slavishly dependent on the present, in the case of say Ben? Its the same act just as different parts of the spectrum, both (Sayid killing young Ben and Bushes Locke intervening on the course of Plane Locke) are backwards adjustments to time, both could be legitimately said to exist as part of the original plan.
Comment by mike rot — May 11, 2009
Comment by mike rot — May 11, 2009
Comment by mike rot — May 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Locke/Locke proves nonlinearity is legitimized.
If you go back up thread (I don't know why you would, but if you did) you'll see that what I actually advocated way back then was “nonlinear causality”. That is causality is intact but does not behave in a linear manner. That is the cause/effect logical pairing remains intact but it's arbitrary to declare which is cause and which is effect because before and after do not exist the same way in time travel logic. X -> Y can be rewritten as X <- Y regardless of which came “first” because “first” is now a relative concept. However what remains true is that Y is made both possible and necessary by the existence of X and X, Y.
For instance: JFK dies BECAUSE LHO shoots him. However, in time travel logic it is just as valid to say LHO shot kennedy BECAUSE JFK dies at that moment. See?
Now here's why the scene with two Locke's supports what I'm saying and contradicts what you're saying. Lets call Locke with the bullet wound Locke A and Locke who sent Richard Locke B. From the perspective of Lockes, A precedes B, A is “first”. But B exists because A was told what to do by B who already did it. So clearly neither can be “first”. Linear-ity has been disproved.
However causality has been proved because B still had to gather up Richard and go out into the jungle to meet A and tell him all that. Without causality he could go do whatever the fuck he wants, in fact he could die and A would still meet B because of our new rule WH,W (Whatever Happens, Whatever).
See, because B still had to go meet A it proves that the chain of events is still necessary. Every point in the chain makes every other point possible. There can't be any gaps.
As I recall you had a similar problem when the same dilema was presented in Time Crimes.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
While I've got you here, could you explain your comments from the cinecast 121 / star trek thread?
RE:
@ the same stuff in Lost you can overlook?
I don’t know why you’ve chosen to thread jack this discussion. But which specific scene in LOST that I said I liked and is exactly like ST are you refering to exactly?
Comment by Rusty_James — May 11, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I don't see how that proves me wrong, we are saying the same thing. I have been saying since Young Ben that there is a knotted timeline Plan, so that generally linear causality works until you hit these anomalies and then time is knotted, it works outside of the usual rules. Otherwise it is a paradox. So we can disband from linear causality having any overarching power over what happens in the show, if an anomaly can happen once it can happen again. I said then there was no reason that Young Ben had to live, that event in time could have been yet another anomaly. If there is no official “first” Ben to contend with just like there is no official “first” Locke to contend with, it is equally valid that Ben could have died and yet lived on in the future. You don't seem to understand the full ramifications of what you are saying the second you say causality need not be linear. This is why I think the big thud of this week's episode will have to do with showing just how fucked this time travel can get.
We tend to think of time travel as interruptions to the natural flow of things, but as I said long ago what if they were ALWAYS factors of the the timeline, like miraculous breaks in scientific laws. The con is that we think causality must be linear, and it plays out mostly like that, but it doesn't always have to.
I think the difference you see is that the Lockes serve a purpose, and maybe killing Ben does not. But there still could be an event in the past where someone is killed while living in the present and it serves a purpose too. It is just as logical by the precedent of Locke intervening on Locke.
regarding the other thread you were bitching about young Kirk being too on the nose in its depiction of youthful rebellion, and I would say the same sort of stuff happens in Lost too, a show you defend (this was before I knew you liked Star trek). One example is Jack growing a beard getting all twitchy wearing a jean jacket and listening to Nirvana, I mean that is on par with Kirk. its shorthand character storytelling. Lost does it a lot too.
Comment by mike rot — May 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
“See, because B still had to go meet A it proves that the chain of events is still necessary. Every point in the chain makes every other point possible. There can't be any gaps.”
I still think this is the long con. We are shown all the events that line up to make us comfortable with a certain limited view of the universe. I think Ben's daughter being killed and him saying he changed the rules, I think we are going to find out that the chain of events as we understand them can and will be broken, and just like Locke proves nonlinearity, a paradoxical death is the next step to exposing the limited scope of W H, H. Desmond is a variable, so even him existing proves that theory wrong. Hawkings says for the first time she doesn't know what is going to happen. Its just as likely that Desmond goes back and kills Young Ben, and this time it works.
Comment by mike rot — May 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ I still think this is the long con.
Maybe they're tricking us, fine. But I think I've proved that Locke meeting Locke does mean that a character can die in the past and be alive in future. It's in no way consistent with that.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 12, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Everyone get in all your predictions. Whose gonna die? What will happen when Locke confronts Jacob? The Incident? Which of our long lost friends willl return? Will there be an awesome payoff for Grampa Ray? What will the final sting be?
Comment by Rusty James — May 13, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Who do you think the FB will focus on? Maybe it'll be Jacob! Craaaaaaaaaazzyy!!!!!
Comment by Rusty James — May 13, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Desmond kills young Ben.
Young Walt is in Hurley's guitar case
Comment by mike rot — May 13, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
So no Walt. And another supporting actor from Mulholland Drive. What's going on here?
So is the living Locke actually the smoke monster? I thought that sounded idiotic before, but now I don't know. My asshole roommate barged in and started talking to me over the beginning so I couldn't here what Jacob and that other guy were saying to each other. Apparently that guy is Jacob's adversary, and he found some way to manifest himself as dead people brought to the island??? Can anyone explain this?
Comment by stump — May 13, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Did anyone else notice child-Juliet's setting? It was definitely in the 90s or 00s, not the 70s or 80s. I'm fairly certain that there's something going on there.
How could the bomb not go off? That's such bullshit.
Phil dying was awesome.
Jack and Sawyer showdown was excellent. As was Sawyer losing his love. That was gutwrencing. And I didn't realize until this episode what a great actress Elizabeth Mitchell is. Most of the actors on the show play for big emotions, really hard one way or the other. She is gifted in using restraint to convey deep emotional conflict. I'm fairly certain that she is the one true acting talent on the show right now. Aside from Jeremy Davies, who is gone.
And direction-wise, this was so much better. I love the visual flair – the camera move down into the drilling hole. Excellent.
Comment by stump — May 13, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ She is gifted in using restraint to convey deep emotional conflict
She can do a lot with just a look. That aft glance back at the disappearing submarine.
I don't know about her being the “one true” acting talent of the show (The Neo of the cast). I still love O'Quin and Emmerson.
Can there be any doubt that Rose & Bernard are Adam & Eve? I'm not quite ready to file that case as closed just yet because they were initially dated as older. If they died tomorrow that would mean their corpses were discovered 27 years later. Didn't Locke say they were about 4 or 5 decades old?
I think I just talked myself out of it.
Loved Ben's confront with Jacob. But while he was recalling all those years of doing his bidding. Being told to have patience. Posing as a prophet etc. I feel like there's a lot of story there. That's the stuff I kept wanting to see in Ben's flashbacks. The stuff I was hoping time travel would let us examine.
Still the story of this war between these two entities was pretty rewarding. MiB impersonating Jacob in the cabin. Taking the guise of departed loved ones. Telling Locke to go kill himself so he could take his place. It's all pretty devious. It's kind of like going back to watch old episodes and finding an evil little man you never noticed before peering out at you from under the bed.
And I was pretty close to with some of my predictions.
@ The conflict between two forces is the war Charles Widmore has been talking about. Two conflicting destinies. Like dualistic theism only with fates instead of god's. One represented by Ben, the other represented by Charles.
@ Furthermore, I think the finale of this season is going to be Desmond on the island, during the Incident using his gift to pick which one of two outcomes will happen. After which he'll die. No more Desmond next season.
Desmond didn't die. But that scenario did happen. But with Jack instead of Desmond.
So we have Jacob being this guy who shepards others to the island. Probably wandering the world picking lost souls, selecting them, often leaving them with some possession as a departing gift.
And apparently he was never interested in Locke at all. It was Locke who told Richard he was special. He never spoke to Locke in the cabin, it was MiB. And probably just done to sow jealousy in Ben. Do you think it was MiB who cured his paralysis?
It's consistent with what we've learned. Locke was “blessed” by the smoke monster early on. There's no reason to think he was on Jacob's list. The Others were so impressed by Locke's cured paralysis because it's something that Jacob can't do.
When Ben told Juiliet that Jacob promised to cure her sisters cancer was he lying? How was she cured?
I should've predicted the episode would end with the nuke igniting. it popped into my head but I forgot to write it down.
So I guess now I'm wondering what is Jacob bringing people to the island for? Why doesn't the other guy want them there? Where do these guys come from? Has Jacob just been hanging out under the foot this whole time? Was it the other guy who summoned the freighter to take the Oceanic 6 away? Was it his plan to stop the Incident? When Ben saw his mom was that MiB? Did the DI have some a side in this feud? Is Desmond still on the show? What was Richards' answer to the shadow of the statue riddle? Is Richard from the Black Rock? How does Illana know Jacob? And how do they all survive an atomic bomb?
It would be cool if their plan worked and they land in LAX. And then Jacob has to get them onto another plane and bring them back.
I missed Walt.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 14, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
From Lostpedia – Richard Alpert responded to the question of “What lies in the shadow of the statue?” with “Ille qui nos omnes servabit” – “He who will protect/save us all.”
Comment by stump — May 14, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Oh. my. God. I think I just died and went to have for 84 minutes:)
What a PHE-NO-MI-NAL episode of Lost that was. As with all of their finales, it was one of the best the show's ever had. The pace of it was insane, and yet it seemed to let us “sit” with what was going on. Lingered just enough on character interaction for it to feel important and keep the pace up, and yet still let us “be” with them. And since it's the season finale the amount of questions it left us with is entirely welcome (something people *cough* not me *cough* would complain about big time if it were any other non-finale episode). We have 8 months to wait, they gave us stuff to fill the message boards with:)
Now onto what happened….
That was a fantastic move on the writer's part, showing us Jacob right off the bat in that episode. They could have waited until that meeting at the end in the foot of the statue to reveal him, but he was the first person we saw. I don't think there's much doubt that that ship he and that other guy (let's call him The Man) saw approaching the Island was the Black Rock. I think you're bang on there, Rusty. I think Richard will be one of the ship members, and Jacob will use him (and perhaps others that we haven't seen yet) has “a kind of informer” (as Ben told Sun). He gives him the gift of a LONG life so that whoever's the leader at any given time, then he can “advise” them.
@”another supporting actor from Mulholland Drive. What's going on here?”
Haha, I actually forgot he was in that (”So that's Jack's famous black book…..”), but I associate him with The Big Lebowski (”Where's the money, Lebowski?!”) and Dexter:)
@”Apparently that guy is Jacob's adversary, and he found some way to manifest himself as dead people brought to the island??? Can anyone explain this?”
It's amazing how they introduced this angle as if it were anew and yet tied it in perfectly with what's been happening, with the whole “Locke telling himself what to do” thing. I guess Rusty's theory that Locke being able to do that proves that someone can also be killed in the past and still be alive in the future, is dead. Me and him had a pretty heated and lengthy discussion of Google Messenger the other day about how that could be possible. And apparently now it's solved – that wasn't actually Locke, so telling the actual Locke to do that isn't breaking ANY rules. As for the abilities of Jacob and The Man, I'm not really sure. I mean, obviously, they are some sort of ancient race of people, or “beings”, that have special abilities but I just wonder if they've got time (one season) to properly explain that in a satisfying way. It's really something they need to pay attention to and don't leave lout when they answer the important mysteries that are left. It's a fascinating angle they've introduced though, one very much playing to the “mythology” side of the fence rather than the “science” side.
@”Did anyone else notice child-Juliet's setting? It was definitely in the 90s or 00s, not the 70s or 80s. I'm fairly certain that there's something going on there.”
I don't think it was, they probably just didn't make stuff look old enough on the technical side of things. What, so Juliette is actually not as old as she looks? She's been lying to they guys? I think it's maybe reading too much into it and it was simply just a production fault.
@”How could the bomb not go off? That's such bullshit.”
What are you talking about? It did go off, right at the end…
I agree that the scene where Juliette was about to fall and Sawyer was grabbing onto her was gutwrenching, a real emotional payoff for the connection they made over the three unseen years living in Dharmaville. In LaFleur that relationship was just introduced freshly, and it felt a bit jarring (maybe because we were flipping back and forth between the time travelling Sawyer and Juliette and the Dharma ones three years later). And you guys are right, the actress who plays Juliette is one of the best purely talented actors on the show, alongside the actors who plays Ben, Locke, Daniel (*cry*) and Kate.
@”Can there be any doubt that Rose & Bernard are Adam & Eve? I'm not quite ready to file that case as closed just yet because they were initially dated as older. If they died tomorrow that would mean their corpses were discovered 27 years later. Didn't Locke say they were about 4 or 5 decades old?
I think I just talked myself out of it.”
No I don't think there's any doubt, and I wouldn't get too hung up on the age of the clothes that was mentioned back in Season 1. Remember that was just a guess on Jack/Locke's (I can't remember which one it was) part. I would be VERY surprised if it WASN'T Rose and Bernard who are Adam & Eve. They did say that they didn't care if they died, as long as they were together. Which would explain the strange isolation of the two of them in the caves. I predict that whatever happens as a result of The Incident, will causes the ultimate death of those two. Not quite sure what it is, but that's one of the things I think it'll lead to.
@”Loved Ben's confront with Jacob. But while he was recalling all those years of doing his bidding. Being told to have patience. Posing as a prophet etc. I feel like there's a lot of story there. That's the stuff I kept wanting to see in Ben's flashbacks. The stuff I was hoping time travel would let us examine.”
I loved the confrontation too, not what I expected. I loved how they restrained themselves from anything overly spectacular – I swear I thought Jacob was going to suddenly disintegrate into the Smoke Monster and there would be this ridiculous battle in the foot of the statue. And I agree there's a lot of story there to tell, I mean we still haven't seen Ben's ascension to being Leader from when Sayid shot him and he was healed, to the Purge. There's still a good 15 years of unknown events that happened to Ben, maybe we'll get some of the flashbacks of his next season showing some of that (I don't think you need time travel to show that, just regular old flashback will do:).
@”Still the story of this war between these two entities was pretty rewarding. MiB impersonating Jacob in the cabin. Taking the guise of departed loved ones. Telling Locke to go kill himself so he could take his place. It's all pretty devious. It's kind of like going back to watch old episodes and finding an evil little man you never noticed before peering out at you from under the bed.”
I thought it was two. I loved how they kind of dropped us into the past like that with these two characters we don't know (this was before Jacob's name got mentioned). It was like, “Who are they? What's THEIR deal?” Ya know? What they did with Jacob being there at major points in their lives did have the potential to feel like a cop-out, but they found a way to make it work and made it make sense. Do you think Jacob caused those events, such as stopping Sayid at the traffic lights and let Nadia get run over? Did Jacob have anything to do with the guy who ran her over, the guy Ben followed and Sayid shot in Iraq? Or did Ben just choose him to get Sayid to do her dirty work because he “is a killer”?
@”Desmond didn't die. But that scenario did happen. But with Jack instead of Desmond.”
Don't count of Jack being dead (I apologize in advance if that's not what you were referring to). Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Hurley WILL make it to the end of the whole thing (I would include Sayid in that, but now I'm not so sure).
@” So we have Jacob being this guy who shepards others to the island. Probably wandering the world picking lost souls, selecting them, often leaving them with some possession as a departing gift.”
I think that's right. Why he wanted them, why they were “on his list” I don't know but it's an interesting angle to go that it was this one guy who's essentially the reason all of these people are on the Island.
@”And apparently he [Jacob] was never interested in Locke at all. It was Locke who told Richard he was special. He never spoke to Locke in the cabin, it was MiB. And probably just done to sow jealousy in Ben. Do you think it was MiB who cured his paralysis?”
Well it seems now that Locke wasn't special, as you say Locke was the one who originally told Richard that (when he went back in time to 1954). Richard's only mysterious power is not aging, and he's just relaying info he's been told – for years all he's heard is that Locke is special, and as an advisor it isn't his place to question that kind of thing. I mean, Locke knew all this stuff he shouldn't have been able to, but he did because he was travelling through time. So does this mean that Richard doesn't know about the time travel thing, as well as not not having seen someone come back to life before (which we now know no one did).
@”The Others were so impressed by Locke's cured paralysis because it's something that Jacob can't do.”
How can he not do that? Didn't we watch him heal Locke after having been pushed out of the window by his father? Did he heal him when he touched him, or am I missing something/misinterpreting something?
@”When Ben told Juiliet that Jacob promised to cure her sisters cancer was he lying? How was she cured?”
I don't think that was supposed to be The Man, or Jacob. I just think it was a coincidence that Juliette's sister miraculously was cured of her cancer, remember Ben said that he “finds what people are emotionally invested in and exploits it…” Basically, Ben was gambling on Juliette's sister recovering.
@”I should've predicted the episode would end with the nuke igniting. it popped into my head but I forgot to write it down.”
I didn't see it coming, I thought that the end was going to be us seeing those who travelled back in time being transported back to the point where they travelled back i.e. the Ajira plane crash site (not sure about Sawyer and Miles etc – perhaps back to when the Island “moved”, to right after that?). And then when Ben and Locke went into the foot of the statue, that some, if not ALL, of the time travellers would be in there with Jacob.
@”So I guess now I'm wondering what is Jacob bringing people to the island for? Why doesn't the other guy want them there? Where do these guys come from?”
Maybe he brings them there because he is interested in other people, since he's some sort of powerful being, maybe he's curious about “normal” people and choose those most interesting to him to end up being on the Island. And maybe the other guy, The Man, wants the exact opposite of that, he doesn't want anyone to come to “HIS” Island. Do you think there were loads more of people like them, people with the ability to possess the bodies of dead people or not age etc. And btw on that note, did The Man use that time travel thing (the bright light etc) that happened on the Ajira flight to “become” Locke. But the question, then, is how is there to bodies of Locke? If Locke is in dead all along, in the crate (which I did NOT see coming – those shrewd writers!) then how was there a separate body of Locke for The Man to walk around as?
@”as Jacob just been hanging out under the foot this whole time?”
Maybe not the WHOLE time but I think he's smart enough, with the stuff we now know about him (and have been told about him up until this episode), not not let himself be seen. It always struck me as odd that Sayid, who saw the statue, never was curious to actually go to it to see what the deal was:P
@”Was it the other guy who summoned the freighter to take the Oceanic 6 away? Was it his plan to stop the Incident?”
Nah, I don't think so. I think it was just plainly Widmore who did that. And how did The Man want to stop the Incident? How did he swing it that Jack changed his mind to thinking things could be changed?
@”When Ben saw his mom was that MiB? Did the DI have some a side in this feud?”
I think it's entirely possible that his vision of his mum was The Man, I mean she died when he was born so how would he know what she looked like (photos, I know, but I think there's more to it). And I don't think the DI knew anything more about them than the fact that were some troublesome Hostiles/Natives.
@”Is Desmond still on the show?”
He will be, but I was surprised to not even see a glimpse of him (like Jacob visiting him as a child or at some other point in his life – Desmond seems important…). But I think the resolution of the whole show with involve Desmond in a BIG way. Hard to say what that may be in any way considering we don't know anything about the coming season but I've just got a feeling.
@”What was Richards' answer to the shadow of the statue riddle?”
I read this on Lostpedia, they say what he said was in Latin – “”He who will protect/save us all.”
@”How does Illana know Jacob?”
I am not sure, maybe they are some of his or The Man's people?
@”And how do they all survive an atomic bomb?”
I predict it's going to have something to do with the electomagnetism, it will absorb a lot of the blast and won't cause as much damage. However it obviously does SOMETHING since the DI took drastic measure to stop another Incident occurring, or another TYPE of Incident. I don't think of the of the main Losties will be dead (apart from Juliette), as I said I think they'll have been transported back to a future time.
@”It would be cool if their plan worked and they land in LAX. And then Jacob has to get them onto another plane and bring them back.”
No it wouldn't, that would be bullshit. The show better not culminate that way. I swear. If it does = 6 years for NOTHING.
This episode was real astounding, one I'm sure will need some rewatched to take it in properly, beyond just the enjoyment which I always do the first time I see an episode. I am planning on watching the whole thing from the start now during the hiatus, the wait is going to kill me (I dread to think what I'll do after the season 6 finale).
Dammit, they got us. One of the advertisement lines for season 5 was “When know Locke is dead, right?” Well, actually….. right.
Comment by Ross Miller — May 14, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — May 14, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — May 14, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
1. on a podcast I listened to it was brought up by a listener that the show would probably end with a fade to white from the explosion and it was unanimously decried on the podcast that that would be the worst thing you could do, and even though they did essentially that same kind of feigning an ending with the opening of the hatch in season 1, they got so much shit for doing that that they have since stayed clear from that tactic. Until now. I was watching this online and I seriously thought the file cut out too early. Surely they didn't end on a fade…
you guys can drink the kool-aid but that was bullshit. That is not having a clever ending in mind, not having the alleged 'game-changer' and relying on something any of us could have written as an ending, I mean really, after five seasons of thuds, you end on THAT?!
2. Locke in Follow the Leader said he was going to kill Jacob. Remind me why exactly I should be trembling in shock and awe when lo and behold the scheme comes off without a single hitch. I mean, there is this thing that people normally do in suspense, they hold back certain key information, and they put obstacles, they get you to a point of complacency AND THEN JAB THE KNIFE IN. That death was telegraphed from two episodes ago, that is the most telegraphed event since we knew Michael was Ben's man on the boat. That is TELL then SHOW. What information did Jacob give when he was dying, was it something we can chew on, something that is this alleged 'game-changer' that Cuse can't shut up about? He says “They're coming”. That is the equivalent of ending Season 3 on Ben's foreboding about answering the Freighter's call, rather than ending on the future jump of Jack saying they were wrong.
3. Cuse said we would know what is in the guitar case by the end of the season. Did I miss that scene?
All that said, some positive:
I do like that time was given to character development in these two hours, an inordinate amount of time to character. It is a very strange finale that way because its like they got things in reverse, we have had so many episodes trying to connect the dots to get us to an end, and near the finish line is when they choose to hang back and relax a bit. I like the premise of Jacob and baddy even though that too is something not earth shattering, I mean how many people have been babbling on about good vs evil on this show and that fundamentally there was going to be these two forces pitted against each other. Either there was no Jacob and it was Ben vs. Widmore, or there was Jacob and he was in competition with something else. That said, I still like it, and the actors they choose are perfect. Baddy is from Gone Baby Gone, great actor.
The flashbacks were nice, and I enjoyed getting the old Jack back, and for the most part things ran well in the episodes. The evil DI are godawful bad, so one dimensional and when the van came rolling in I got huge deja vu A-Team out of it, and if it was supposed to be schlocky at that point I feel that is was poor choice of timing.
regarding the Locke event of Follow the Leader no longer being a paradox, that is not a surprise either. I was trying to squint away the prospect that it wasn't Locke, but I was fooling myself, because how many times did they callback to the point that Locke behaved differently, (3 times!!!!). I was hoping that was a misdirect, because if it wasn't, that is just bad staging of the reveal. How much better would it be if they never drew attention to how different Locke seems, if it was portrayed as Locke finding religion and that is the source of his confidence… think about it… if what was in the box was supposed to be a shock, why do you callback to the possibility that LOCKE IS ACTING UNLIKE LOCKE three times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now that it is over, I can say without doubt this has been the worst season of Lost. They have fumbled repeatedly throughout the season and this is some weak shit in storytelling that unfolded here. I am fine with the story, but like I keep repeating, their execution of it is getting ridiculously bad.
as Ross mentions in his comment, there are two ways this bomb scenario can work out and neither prospect is particularly interesting or desirable and if I am left with that to fuel my imagination over the interim then that again is a failure in storytelling.
if the bomb works and everything is back to normal, and it is a residue of memories the characters have about the events and they are gathered again to go back to the island for some reason, that is Oceanic 6 times a thousand bad.
If the bomb doesn't work and their timelines remain where they are then the point since Jughead of planting the seed of a bomb and the prospect of detonating it is absolutely worthless, it is a gimmick to close a show on.
If there is a third option, a cool 'game-changer' option, it was their job as storytellers to plant that seed in our minds and they didn't.
Comment by mike rot — May 14, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Rot, I'm with you on the sentiment that this is the worst season, yet I still don't think it's bad. I've really enjoyed watching it, but yes, I think the writers may be struggling with this convoluted plotline, putting too much energy into straightforward exposition, not working with as much interesting character stuff. I kind of tried to verbalize this in an earlier post but I'm struggling with it – I should probably just rewatch the whole season.
Something that just came to mind. So is Locke not special at all? How much of him being brought to the island was by the efforts of the MiB and how much was by Jacob? Non-Locke is the one who planted the idea with Richard that he was special. Yet Jacob visited Locke prior to the plane crash and apparently saved his life. I'm just wondering about the possibility of MiB engineering the life of a loser, from birth – setting up a person's life so they have this strong drive, only to have them fail at every pivotal moment, and to engineer their redemption and then exploit this figure by inserting himself into a position of power within Jacob's camp. That sentence was poorly structured but I hope you guys get my point. Did the real Locke have any connection with the Island or was he just a loser at the end of his rope?
Oh, and regarding my comments on the actress playing Juliet compared to the rest of the actors on the show – internet, hyperbole, etc.
Another thing – at the end of this episode I feel like I trust Alpert more. Was he lying when he said he saw all of the 70s Oceanic 6 die?
Jacob and MiB – where are they from? I don't believe they're supernatural in any way. There's going to be some scientific explanation for them.
Comment by stump — May 14, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Ok so the thing in the first scene – MiB says it ALWAYS ends the same. Jacob says it only ends once. Is MiB referring to different timelines? Possibly related to the anomaly, or the efforts of the O6 to change things.
Comment by stump — May 14, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Remind me why exactly I should be trembling in shock and awe when lo and behold the scheme comes off without a single hitch.
there's a basic rule of screen writing that says the what is less important than the why. You really seem to be missing the boat with this season left and right. I really think if you happen to rewatch this season you'll find you massively misjudged it.
Overall… I think I'd still pick season 2 as the worst over-all. The Incident goes a long way to save it. It's one of the two best finales (Through The Looking Glass is probably the best)
Comment by Rusty_James — May 14, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Well I must be on a totally different class of drug than you guys (:P), Rot and Stump, I mean, because I don't see how you can say season 5 was the worst. I do not. It was a season for explanation, for exposition, for exploration of the things we've been wondering about. It merged science with mythology, fate versus choice etc. But it also kept it exciting and attention grabbing even when it spent time just surrounded by explanations (if you know what I mean). And even when it was just showing us before the 06 got back to the Island it was interesting stuff – Hurley being chased by the cops, Ben manipulating Sayid, Kate's trouble with Aaron, Jack's desparation to put things right, Sun's pain of losing her husand and wanting revenge, on and on. All GREAT stuff, there. And that's before they even got back to the Island! I just realized just how much stuff they actually managed to effectively get into those 17 episodes. Well done Damon and Carlton. Well done.
@Rot,
So are you REALLY saying that you guessed, that you KNEW all along, that the Locke we've been watching since his “resurrection” wasn't actually Locke? What about your vehement disagreement with me and absolute positivity that the “Locke telling Past Locke what to do” proved an inconsistency with Linear Causality? That shocked the hell out of me, it actually being Jacob's Rivalry – so just because they mentioned a few times that Locke was different that instantly made you know that wasn't actually Locke? How about the fact that he was brought back to life AND, as he said, “I have a purpose now.” There was no real, strong, positive indicator that that wasn't the real Locke. The writers did an amazing doule bluff on us – as I said they used the advertisement line “We know Locke is dead, right?” And we were all thinking we were smart for working out episodes in advance that he would come back to life when all along he hadn't! Btw wouldn't it be logical that this guy pretending to be Locke would not act ABSOLUTELY the same, mannerism for mannerism? What I'm wondering is a) How does he remember all of the stuff that's happened to Locke and b) How is there physically two Locke's? Wouldn't that guy just be possessing he dead Locke's body from the cargo? How is there two?
Getting back to the season – weren't you guys hooked throughout the whole thing? I mean I literally did not move my eyes from the screen whenever I was watching an episode for the first time. Maybe it's my devoted love for the show that makes me enjoy ANYTHING they give to us within it, but to me those 17 episodes were just about the most compelling pieces of TV in ages. I may have to rewatch the season again but it may just be my favourite one.
Oh, btw, as good as this and the season 3 finale was, my favourite is still season 4 finale – that bit with the Island disappearing BLEW. MY. MIND.
I just rewatched the season 5 finale last night and here's a few things I was wondering this time around:
- What happened to the statue? At what point did it go from full size to just a foot? Do you think it has anything to do with the hydrogen bomb detonating? When Jacob and that other guy were on the beach at the beginning of the episode watching the ship coming to the Island, I think it's supposed to be sometime in the 1800s. Is there any evidence either way that the statue was or wasn't there in 1974-1977?
- I don't know if Jacob is actually dead. I mean how is it that he let himself die so easily, he could have easily defended himself against Ben(?). It seemed like he wanted him to stab him, he edged him on by saying, “What ABOUT you?” Either that or he is dead and his death means that good (represented by Jacob) will prevail over evil (represented by that other guy, the Fake Locke). I really don't know if they would introduce and kill off who is essentially one of THE most important characters to the whole mythology of the show.
- The conversation between Jacob and his adversary at the beginning where he says “It always ends the same.” and Jacob says “It only ends once. Anything before that is just progress.” I don't think they are referring to multiple realities and parallel universes or any of that “far too complicated with only one season left to explain” stuff, but simply that Jacob has tried what he's done with the 815 Losties before with other people i.e. the Black Rock people. I read a good theory that Jacob wants to build “the perfect civilization” on the Island, which leads me to think that Richard was on the Black Rock and Jacob gave him the non-aging power. Which then leads me to ask; will some of our Losties get some sort of gift, or power or whatever, like non-aging at some point before the show is over?
- On the “They're coming” point, I think he's referring to those in 1977 who are going to be blown to the present time. I think Jacob knew that that was what's going to happen, and I think they will help in this war that's coming, that Widmore mentioned to Locke. I just thought of something – do you think the rest of the statue will suddenly land in the present time water when 77ers get pushed forward? Because of that statue fell, as opposed to shattered, then you would be able to see some of it sticking out of the water. So what if it topples over, leaving a foot in the past, and gets pushed forward and lands suddenly in 207 time, in the water(?)
@Stump,
I don't think you are meant to take what Richard said about watching them die as literally meaning Jack, Kate, Sawyer etc. I think he's saying that is in watched the DI die i.e. in the Purge. Remember when Ben had just gassed his father? And he met Richard with the gasmask on in the Barracks? I think Richard is referring to watching all of the DI die, not our Losties. I also trust Richard more now, I see no reason for him to lie beyond protecting his own people (and their most vital secrets).
@Rot,
- Wasn't it just a guitar in the guitar case?…:P
- The reason it was shocking was because they actually went ahead and did it. Like Jacob has been this mysterious and important character, who's gone unseen for seasons now, and when we finally get an episode introducing us to him, they get Ben to stab/kill him (whether he's actually dead is up in the air). THAT was ballsy.
- The explosion and fade to white at the end was pure brilliance, Rot. What better way to leave us hanging for 8 months (urgh!!!!) than to leave us wondering which direction it will go? Will any of the main character Be dead? Will get sent forward in time? Will they change anything? Was the explosion actually the bomb? Like the Ben and Jacob confrontation, it was ballsy. And when they said that they weren't going to end the show on a fade to white from the explosion, weren't they referring to the WHOLE show, and not just the penultimate season?
Comment by Ross Miller — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Outside of the suspense missteps, I enjoyed the episodes, although many of the flashbacks went absolutely nowhere. Explain to me why we have a Juliet flashback about her parent's divorce?
I think you are right Ross about the statue being destroyed by the bomb, but then, if that was so, it would have always blown up, because we see that foot at the end of season 2.
Why would Jacob give Hurley a guitar to take to the island? Hurley is the only one he intervenes with to tell him to do something, the rest of the flashbacks he is just observing them. Jacob coaxes Ben to kill him, and I am wondering if he has a back-up plan and it has something to do with the guitar case. Why is Ben special in that he can kill Jacob and be the loophole?
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
wait a second, smokey tells Ben to follow Locke and do whatever he says. Smokey is on MiB's side, if not him directly (let's not forget Locke disappeared when smokey came).
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
wait a second, if the bomb works, then Locke isn't dead… but the writers said Dead is Dead on the show, so then clearly it can't work.
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@”Explain to me why we have a Juliet flashback about her parent's divorce?”
I was wondering that too the first time I watched the episode, but when I watched it for the second time do you not think it was simply to show that Jacob DIDN'T visit Juliette? That maybe she isn't important to him like the rest of them?
@”the statue being destroyed by the bomb, but then, if that was so, it would have always blown up, because we see that foot at the end of season 2.”
I know it was always blown up, it proves my point that what they did was what always happened. They didn't change anything.
@”Why would Jacob give Hurley a guitar to take to the island? Hurley is the only one he intervenes with to tell him to do something, the rest of the flashbacks he is just observing them.”
Unless I'm misremembering someone, but isn't Hurley the only one who didn't have a specific or compelling reason to go back to the Island (compelling in the sense for him, not “is it compelling for us watching the show?”:P)? Maybe Jacob gave him the guitar so that he represented Charlie as he was when he was on 815.
@”wait a second, smokey tells Ben to follow Locke and do whatever he says. Smokey is on MiB's side, if not him directly (let's not forget Locke disappeared when smokey came).”
Wow…. what a theory! That makes sense, come to think of it when Ben went down to see Smokey he said he was going off to find something to help him up. I don't think the Smoke Monster is directly him but maybe he's controlling it somehow. Wow, well done, rot:)
@”Locke is truly dead. They said they were going to reveal a death of a main character. I don't think Juliet is that character, it has to be Locke.”
Why can't it be both? I'm pretty sure Juliette is dead too, she probably, logically, broke her back when she fell that height. Unless when they get pushed forward in time she will be healed.
@”why did Ms Hawkings want the Oceanic 6 to come back, did she know that it would result in the killing of Jacob, is she one of the baddies?”
Maybe she is one of the baddies, maybe she has some grievance against Jacob like MiB, maybe she was “recruited” by him, if you want to say. We don't know the events from 1977 to the first time we saw Ms Hawking. Anything could have happened.
Comment by Ross Miller — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
come to think of it, the MiB/Jacob scene should have been the penultimate scene of the finale, rather than the first scene. Think about it, you have the mystery of who is this character intervening in the flashbacks and even if you assume he is Jacob, that isn't the mystery so much as what MiB aims to do. MiB says I am going to kill you, find a loophole and then cut to Locke and Ben entering Jacob's domain. Then the emphasis on what is Locke is taken away for two thirds of the episodes.
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
“you're not dealing with morons here”
Comment by Goon — May 15, 2009
You missed my point about as severely as possible.
@ to defend these episodes on basis of their suspense to me is absurd.
Who's defended it on the basis of suspense? I don't think anyone's said that.
@ Explain to me why we have a Juliet flashback about her parent's divorce?
That scene does stick out like a sore thumb. All the other FB's are about Jacob's encounters with the oceanic passengers. And then they throw in this unrelated Juliet one. The scene is about Juliet's motivation. Rose and Bernard's marital bliss vs her parents broken marriage. This ultimately causes her to doubt Sawyers fidelity and alters her motivation.
@ why did Ms Hawkings want the Oceanic 6 to come back, did she know that it would result in the killing of Jacob
This is my theory about the events of season 5. Back in season 3 Black Hat Jacob successfully altered the course of events. Via Desmond he successfully brought the Widmore's frieghter to the island which resulted in th O6 leaving the island. Therefore Jack, Kate Sayid and Hurley were not be on the island when it reverted back to 1977 where Ms Hawking knew they were supposed to be because she met them.
Ms. Hawking sent them back so they would be where they were they were supposed to be and to do what they were supposed to do. That's what it's all been about. The Incident. Jacob's trying to cause it, Evil Jacob is trying to prevent it. The Incident brings 815 to the island. Which as we see is what Jacob has been engineering for years. Evil Jacob doesn't like people coming to the Island. But in the larger sense its about these two different time lines. One time line were everything's pre-destined and WH, H and another where people have freewill. This is the show's war that we hear about. It's at the core of every mystery and character.
Take Locke for instance. He's changed, he's different. Is it because he's finally freed himself from the past and found his true self? Or has he been taken over , controlled, by some outside force. There are bread crumbs we can follow in both directions, evidence to support either conclussion. Only in retrospect, with 20/20 hindsight does the answer seem telegraphed. But in fact, you had not correctly guessed the out come. Honestly, your so busy complaining that the shows not philosophizing correctly that you're missing all its philosophizing.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
The statue is definitely not blown up by the bomb. Sawyer and crew are looking at it at some point presumed to be far in the past (it predates a well) and then they flash forward to 1974 and they don't see it any more.
It's probably destroyed by whatever brings the Black Rock inland.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Rusty
“there's a basic rule of screen writing that says the what is less important than the why”
which is why the sentence you quoted of mine is asking “why”. At every turn in these episodes the writers drained the story of its suspense. This is really unprecedented, the reason I was initially going with Locke being Locke and not some possessed spirit was because I gave the writers more credit than they deserved.
Just look at how the Incident begins… MiB tells Jacob he plans to kill him and he will find a loophole. Now you don't have to go back too far in the show, exactly five minutes in fact in storytelling time, to hear a character explicitly say he is going to kill Jacob, and that is Locke. At least three times there is a scene where someone is looking directly into Locke's eyes and saying quizzically “you've changed” or “where did this new Locke come from”. Hell, you have a scene where Ben tells Sun “being raised from the dead has NEVER happened” even Richard says this. We already know that in the show characters can appear but be guises for something else, i.e. smoke monster. The second that MiB said he will find a plan to kill Jacob I thought “well clearly he is Locke”. Thats the first five minutes of the show!!!!
“Ben I want you to kill Jacob”… cut to end, Ben kills Jacob.
The most telegraphed suspense ever in the history of the show. Even Michael on the boat isn't this bad.
Also like I said before with good suspense if someone states a plan, it is essential that that plan does not go off without a hitch. There has to be the potential for failure. Show me where that occurs? At least with Jack there was some resistance however minimal it was.
Ok I am done arguing how lousy the execution is… to defend these episodes on basis of their suspense to me is absurd.
now the ideas they provide…
Locke is truly dead. They said they were going to reveal a death of a main character. I don't think Juliet is that character, it has to be Locke. Thats pretty impressive and kinda disappointing. Locke was groomed by MiB to be inhabited for some reason, but lets not forget, it was Ben that was needed to kill Jacob. This reminds me of the Ben/Widmore rules that they seemingly cannot kill one another (again proxies). MiB cannot directly kill Jacob, even as the embodiment of Locke, he needed Ben, and to get Ben to do it he needed to make him jealous.
question: why did Ms Hawkings want the Oceanic 6 to come back, did she know that it would result in the killing of Jacob, is she one of the baddies?
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ smokey tells Ben to follow Locke and do whatever he says. Smokey is on MiB's side, if not him directly
Locke's early encounter with the monster. Smokey's impersonation of the dead -> Christian manipulating Locke. It all fits. Monster is on the MiB side of the equation.
Things that don't fit. Ben calling on him from underneath his house. Monster being their judge.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
well Ross was saying it was good suspense, and you Rusty clearly seem to be saying that (why else are you saying the Locke is not Locke reveal was successful?)
If you go back to the original debate about the Locke paradox I prefaced that “IF this is really Locke”… and the only reason I went through with it as a strong possibility was because of how blatantly they were making the case that this isn't Locke. From a storytelling standpoint I chose the viewpoint it was Locke because until that point I never thought the writers would be so bad at hiding the reveal. I was blinded by my faith in the writers, not by their talent as storytellers.
I suppose a five minute gap in the storytelling between Locke saying he is going to kill Jacob and MiB saying he is going to find a way to kill Jacob also is not a giveaway?
whatever, you can keep your high esteem for the writers and their execution I know that is some sloppy shit right there.
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
I guess it just never occurred to you that I would be advocating for it on merrits other than suspense.
@ From a storytelling standpoint I chose the viewpoint it was Locke because until that point I never thought the writers would be so bad at hiding the reveal.
I remember you throwing some fit about them “balking” at Ben's death, and how they better never do it again.
As for all the “give aways” about Locke. What about Locke strolling into Alpert's camp with a dead boar on his shoulders? Mirroring his entrance in Walkabout, after his monster encounter, and The Brig after killing his father. In all three instances signifying the characters reaffirmed faith in himself and his destiny. There are clues for both out comes. It's easy to say in hind sight that it was obvious.
In any case, I don't understand the sudden hang up on give aways. I'm less interested in developments be predictable and more concerned with them being interesting thematically and compelling story wise. The 'why' rather than the 'what', as I tried to explain but it fell on deaf ears.
I don't know why someone who feels otherwise would watch LOST in the first place. If I were you I'd have given up a long time ago. Why are watching them build the swan? We already know how it blows up. Why are we watching Locking getting pushed out a window? We already knew he was paralyzed. I don't understand why you've chosen now to be bothered by this stuff.
What is compelling about the storyline is Locke's sad fate, the Jacob mythology with his adversary played out over centuries, and dejected Ben's lost faith.
To me, Locke banging futilely on the metal hatch is infinitely more compelling than learning what the button does, or turning the frozen donkey wheel. I love watching these characters struggle with their need for purpose and faith. But I guess you've always said that you've found the characters superficial so I can see why it wouldn't work for you on that level.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Rusty “The 'why' rather than the 'what', as I tried to explain but it fell on deaf ears.”
Maybe if you said it correctly I would understand you. You mean the what is important not the how. And I said several times now I am fine with the story of Lost (the what) but they have entirely dropped the ball on how to convey the story in a cliffhanger serial … which you can say all you want Rusty, but that is what this is. To say the suspense is not important to the story is absurd, its integral, its why we are here writing 500 comments on a television show. we are not here writing about how deep the character of Kate is.
But yeah the how is important to me, because my chief enjoyment of the show is it as a performance of storytelling. The mythology is more important to me than the characters, the ideas, the imagination, the execution, that is what I enjoy. So I am coming at this from an opposite perspective from you guys, its no wonder we can't agree on what are the good and bad episodes.
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
the what is less important than the why
and then
The 'why' rather than the 'what'
and you tell me that I what I meant to say is “the what is important not the how”
?/??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????///!!!!
Between this, that Star Trek thread, and the debate about free will above; I think it's been established as a matter of record that you don't read my posts very closely. I don't how I'm even supposed to continue with this conversation at this point.
“to say the suspense is not important to the story is absurd, its integral, its why we are here writing 500 comments”
I don't know about you, but I'm writing about themes, ideas and characters.
I'm certainly not in denial about the fact that LOST
A) is a serial adventure
B) makes copious use of cliffhanger devices
But you seem to mean that the show can only work on one level and isn't allowed to have compelling characters. It's like you divide the world up into stories about plot and stories about character. It's maddeningly binary.
@ So I am coming at this from an opposite perspective from you guys, its no wonder we can't agree on what are the good and bad episodes.
I'm curious. Which are your favorite episodes of the series?
I'd list
Deus Ex Machina
Man of Science, Man of Faith
Orientation
Man Behind The Curtain
Greatest Hits
Through The Looking Glass
Constant
Meet Kevin Johnson
Shape of Things to Come
and I might even be persuaded to add The Incident.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
And if suspense is so integral to the show why do the writers make a habit of showing us the outcome / pay off first and then the set up later?
Why do they show us the chacters boarding 815 at the end of season 1?
Desmond's years in the hatch at the end of season 2?
The Other 48 Days after we already know the outcome?
The plane crash way after we already know?
Jack back in civilition and then the freighter rescueing them?
And why did you forgive all that? Why is it only now that you complain about the abscence of suspense?
It seems like you approach the show from a presumption of superiority. You label it as this or that and then lecture if it tries to be anything different.
You're like the teacher who has lost touch with the students and turned into a disciplinarian who gets angry when anyone goes against the system or breaks the mold.
I'm like the cool teacher with the earing and guitar. The one that really listens and gets it.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
yes, thats exactly what I am saying, you would have been clearer if you said what and how, because if you were reading everything I wrote about The Incident you would notice I am looking at HOW the story is told… I wasn't saying why is MiB in Locke's body, questioning the logic of events within the story, I was questioning how it was organized.
but whatever.
you are writing about “themes, ideas and characters” in prediction of things to come… that is what I am saying. This is not a Sopranos thread where we can talk about the psychologies of characters in-depth, any reference to a theme, a character or idea is usually in conjunction with how it will fit into the puzzle of the story. Look back over this entire thread, what are we talking about? we are solving puzzles, we are shifting ideas, themes characters within a spectrum of slow reveals. You can pretend you are all about character to your heart's content Rusty, what we here are doing is speculation not analysis.
“And if suspense is so integral to the show why do the writers make a habit of showing us the outcome / pay off first and then the set up later?”
If you look at my Reverse-Engineered post you would see I hate this sort of storytelling, particularly when used within one episode, show us future event and then everything builds towards it. But when you span a season posing the question of a future event, that is better because there is enough suspense to be drawn on how you get to that point. The narrower the time frame, the less interesting I find that technique.
But the Incident isn't working that way anyways… it doesn't start with Ben killing Jacob then flashing back to that point, it is telling us first then showing us. If you don't want to look at the show critically with regards to its storytelling I am fine not talking about this. I think it is pretty self-evident that a storyline that tells you what they are going to do, reach no opposition and do that thing they said they would do, that is inexcusable.
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
you mean anything different from actual suspense, then yeah sign me up for Mr. Superiority Complex. Each episode has what, five breaks, each break is a thud, the last is the big thud, and within an entire season is thuds within thuds all operating towards the same end. The effort by the writers is to make the characters, themes, ideas all fit within that structure, but it doesn't exist outside that structure. Name me a single episode that does not adhere to this structure? There isn't one. To say the suspense in anyway doesn't matter or can be separated away from the value of the show is insincere, it is the catalyst for the story at all. It is why Locke is MiB now and not three seasons ago. So this notion that I am hung up on how the story is told to me seems strange… they are working within conventions, there are right ways and wrong ways to tell a story with suspense, and for the most part this show more than any other gets it right. I haven't been able to predict much of anything on this show… except the Incident.
If there is no suspense, the thuds ring false, the structure creaks, the flaws are visible. The Incident was the inevitable unfolding of everything said would happen in Follow the Leader. and my complaint with this entire season has been that it has been connecting the dots between events told to us ahead of time, and the connecting tissue is not strong enough either on a character level or originality or suspense level, its just unfolding the story of getting to the end. Not all of the episodes have been bad, obviously, but enough of them have been underwhelming.
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
it would be clearer… but not making the point I'm trying to get across. It would clarify a different idea that is not my opinion.
@ wasn't saying why is MiB in Locke's body, questioning the logic of events within the story, I was questioning how it was organized.
And I'm saying you should ask “why”.
@ you are writing about “themes, ideas and characters” in prediction of things to come…
Not true. I'm mostly trying to explain what has happened. There is some degree of prediction as well. Go through my posts. I am most definitely looking into characters psyche.
http://morepop.rowthree.com/2009/01/lost-season...
I've discussed Desmond's complex relationship with Destiny.
The role fathers play, both symbolically and psychologically.
Just a few comments above I explained to you how Julliet's flashback explains the key decission she makes in this episode.
Jack conversion from skeptic to believer
Locke shedding his false destiny for his true destiny.
The shows central theme of destiny vs free will reflected in Locke's arc this season.
Biblical parallels from Locke as job to Eko as Jacob / Easau
@ If you look at my Reverse-Engineered post you would see I hate this sort of storytelling,
I totally get that. But if that's the case why have you been watching the show for five years? Devin Faraci did the same thing. He said he didn't like this season because it's a prequel, it's too concerned with the past.
yeah, I hate they way spent so much time explaining the past.. this season… and also the other four. It's a valid complaint (one I don't relate too. I'm a sucker for mythology and back story) except that LOST has been doing this since it's conception. So it's a little arbitrary to declare that is where season 5 went wrong (I have a lot of problems with season 5 myself. Although right now I'm enthusiastic enough about the finale that they seem small).
@ If you don't want to look at the show critically with regards to its storytelling I am fine not talking about this.
What! You're being ridiculous. I'm being at least as critical(analytical) as you are. More so in fact. I'm asking questions. I'm looking at themes and characters. You're saying there are none and it's only a cliff hanger serial.
Comment by Rusty James — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Could you please address these following questions:
@I'm curious. Which are your favorite episodes of the series?
Do you not agree the show has been Punchline then Set Up from the begining?
Look at this impressive list of examples:
@@@@@
Why do they show us the chacters boarding 815 at the end of season 1?
Desmond's years in the hatch at the end of season 2?
The Other 48 Days after we already know the outcome?
The plane crash way after we already know?
Jack back in civilition and then the freighter rescueing them?
@ why did you forgive all that? Why is it only now that you complain about the abscence of suspense?
Comment by Rusty James — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Also please read this comment:
http://www.rowthree.com/2008/03/13/lost-discuss...
I am worried they are going to re-animate Locke and that, to me, is jumping the shark.
Comment by Rusty James — May 15, 2009
http://jezebel.com/5256090/lost-finale-recap-ja...
I never even noticed the red herring gag. Also very cool that Jacob touched each of them.
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
The Constant
Shapes of Things to Come
The first four or five episodes of Season 3 are the only ones that come to mind.
“Do you not agree the show has been Punchline then Set Up from the begining?
Look at this impressive list of examples:”
I don't understand this point but I think I explained it in that I am fine with being told something happens in the distant future and there is space within a season for events leading up to it. I.e. there is a difference between getting a clip of Jack in the future saying “we got to go back to the island” out of context and having an entire season build to that event, and flesh it out, rather than have a punchline told at the beginning of an episode and have the set-up established WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION by the end of the episode. Whats intriguing about the “distant punchline” is the lack of context, but if you are trying to equate that with Locke saying in Follow the Leader “I'm going to Kill Jacob” and then doing it an hour and a half later, and even how he is going to do it, i.e. with Ben, is not a surprise it is told thirty minutes before, every moment is telegraphed. That I do have a problem with. usually when you have a punchline told, the story leading up to it puts into a different context so that suddenly it has new resonance. There is no new resonance to Locke killing Jacob, because him being MiB, and Ben being the instrument to do it, are both telegraphed to you ahead of time as well.
“@ why did you forgive all that? Why is it only now that you complain about the abscence of suspense?”
you must be kidding me? Either I am the griping nitpicking person you claim I am, or I am this guy who has been mum about all the problems he sees, what is it? This season I have been very vocal about my problems with suspense in the show, in fact most if not all of what I have written has been about HOW the story is told. The balking of the shooting of Ben was about a misuse of suspense… the word BALKING has meaning only in the context of SUSPENSE. as for punchline then set-up, I say again that is not what the Incident did, you are confusing the notion, it is the opposite, it is very obvious: set-up and then unremarkable punchline, like a bad pun joke you see a mile away coming. Set-Up – Locke saying he is going to kill Jacob, Locke asking Ben to be the killer, MiB reveal which mirrors identically what Locke said five minutes previous, ZERO obstruction to mission. The same essentially happens with Jack detonating the bomb, there is mild obstruction, then the inevitable gun battle, and the only difference is Juliet engages it. Set-up and then punchline, not punchline and then set-up. So that is why I didn't answer your question, I clarified this point that it is not what happens in the Incident.
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
with regards to quoting of a past comment made I don't see your point… that is me saying they jumped the shark if they reanimate Locke, but they didn't. Is this some kind of proof that I should love what they did? Do I need to explain once again that I am fine with the story points, what I do not like is how the story points were revealed ?
My problem is not that Jacob was killed, that Ben did it, that Locke is MiB, you will not find a single incriminating line by me that I said I hated those things as reveals, what I hate is HOW THEY WERE REVEALED. That is why i emphasize HOW, HOW HOW HOW. You can talk about WHY all you want as what you meant, but you might as well be talking to yourself because I am talking about how, all of my points are about how things are revealed. I thought I made this pretty clear, you keep trying to ensnare me into some contradiction about that I must be making an exception for my hate on for the Incident yet excuse the same thing throughout the show, and I stand firm that the show with the exception of Michael being the man on the boat, has rarely if ever revealed their story points this shabbily. Its not Punchline/Set-up as in physically these elements are reversed, its Set-Up/Punchline but done so that the punchline has no punch because your set-up virtually ives it away.
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
@ “This season I have been very vocal about my problems with suspense in the show”
This season sure. But my examples go back to the first episode. The first episode of the first season.
I'm asking if this problem about suspense is something you see as having predominiently run through the series. Do you think seasons 1 & 2 suffered from the same diffused suspense.
I would say by your definition they do. In particularly I would say season 4 is sick with it. The whole season is about their rescue and if it will be successful. But we already know it will. We also know exactly who gets off. As suspense it's a failure.
But I think season 4 is great. To me it's not about IF Jack gets off. It's about the change of heart he has from “I'm going to get us off this island!” to “We have to go back!”. It's about the conversion of Man of Science to Man of Faith. It's not the details of how they got off that saves it for me. It's the meaning, and the change in Jack.
And that, in a nutshell is why I find the S5 finale successful. And it's also why I find the “reveal” about Locke's paralysis successful. The re-occuring story of fathers, the mysterious button that tests Locke's faith. And Ben's rise to leader of the others from a humble janitor.
In short, if I used your approach I would think all of that were failures.
I don't think I've ever called you a nitpicker. I've mostly said that you come at the show from the wrong angle, you're a misunderstander. This is the latest example.
Comment by Rusty James — May 15, 2009
Like this W H, H mantra. If that is it, just a constant proving of this thesis again and again, then I will be disappointed. That is them telling us what happens, and we just sit back and watch it follow through, that is Punchline/Set-up. Its okay if its once this is challenged, like Faraday dying, but if every attempt is averted to end in naught, that is futile storytelling. thats the equivalent of telling the same joke over and over again, and its gets less funny and less enjoyable the more it goes on. If W H, H is all there is, then I would say they revealed that way too early.
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
By the way. I'm not blind to your complaint. You're right there's not much to Locke's side of the story for that episode.
Last episode: I'm gonna kill him.
this episode: they walk, and walk, walk some more. They're there. They kill him. The end.
However it took you pointing it out to me to see it. And that's because.
1) There's actually a lot else going on in the episode. The whole group in 77 is at odds, then they come together, there are two shoot outs, Rose and Bernard are back, they smuggle out a Nuke. Jacob's flashbacks. Characters die and then a cliffhanger in which the fate of the show lies in the balance and the answer will decide fate vs. free will.
2) Maybe Locke's storyline isn't too eventful. But last episode ends with Ben whispering and winking mischieviously with Richard. Probably plotting his another one of his coups. In this episode however it's Locke who plays Ben. He gets him to ask some very troubling questions and at the end his faith is in shambles. Ben is a different character by the end.
And don't forget that when Locke promises to kill Jacob we have no idea what he's talking about. This episode not only fills in that blank but gives us info that radically changes what we thought we knew and changes whole scenes (at least for me).
Even if the episode does shoot it's wad prematurely in the first 5 minutes. This is a plot that's been in the making for several months. Really years. It goes back to Locke's encounter with the smoke monster in season one. Where he saw not a cloud of smoke but a beautiful light.
Ever wonder where season 1 Locke got his bout of self confidence and his wilderness competence? The origin of which is mysteriously absent from his flashbacks?
Comment by Rusty James — May 15, 2009
Said the guy who fell for it every time. Wink Wink J/K.
@ Is this some kind of proof that I should love what they did?
Nah, I get it now.
Comment by Rusty James — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yes but the character changes happen within the chronology of reveals and are directly affected by them, you seem to suggest I am talking about a fringe element, when what I am talking about directly affects how we get to know the characters. With a story this complicated, its not enough to say character stories are being told freely, they are told through the mechanisms of plot reveals. Theres the big arc and then the individual arcs and they are all working to get a story told, and the hope is to balance the revealing of plot with mandates of character, but there are rarely instances where mandates of character can be said to override or exist outside of the mandates of plot, certainly not in the last couple seasons.
Part of my criticisms of the show have to do with how well the balance character development within the juggling of story, and why I dislike this season is because that balance is no longer functioning, characters are just personages moved around to get plot points to happen. It took Kate a complete episode after hearing Faraday say he wants to change it so none of this exists for us, and all she does is roll her eyes… and they go all the way to the Others camp, and only in Follow the Leader does she actually broach the subject that huh, I would go to jail and never know Jack if we do this. That is character development? This is what I mean, there is a constant reducing of character to hit plot points well, and its even worse when they reduce them and don't even hit plot points well. If anything, in The Incident, this was reversed, the plot reveals were sacrificed in order to let the characters breathe. A successful show would be able to do both, to balance both perfectly. Lost this season can only go in one or the other mode it seems.
Look at He's Our You, I'm sorry but the flashbacks they had for Sayid were terrible, they added nothing, all they did was string along the punchline.
Sun this entire season has been a non-existent character, a character to pose questions to other characters to reveal plot, again a personage not a person. Jack has been non-existent until the Incident, I don't get the finding religion character development at all except the story tells me it is so. Actually the only time where I feel any change in him is the episode you dislike, 815, because he is there confronting the Man of Faith issue.
Comment by rot — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I'm really only defending the last two episodes. I share a lot of your same frustration with the season over. Most of all the cast was just poorly utilized. Why did they take Dan out of the game for 4 episodes? He comes back and I wanted to hear about where he'd been. Glossed right over and he's all “I know how we can stop the plane crash!”
…
When did that become his goal?
And don't even get me started on the O6. I hated every minute for terrible minute.
Comment by Rusty James — May 15, 2009
http://jezebel.com/5256090/lost-finale-recap-ja...
Comment by mike rot — May 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Maybe MiB is just another dead person being used by Jacob's adversary??
Comment by stump — May 15, 2009
When Sawyer and Michael are on the raft and the sharks are circling, one of the sharks clearly has a Dharma “tattoo” on its tail.
Has this been mentioned before? I never saw it before. Maybe I missed it. When was this explained?
Comment by Andrew James — May 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@, one of the sharks clearly has a Dharma “tattoo” on its tail.
yup, old news. Although I've never actually been able to see it myself.
@ Maybe MiB is just another dead person being used by Jacob's adversary??
yeah, I dont' think we know about anything to be able to say whether anything we've seen is a literal manifestation of Jacob or the Adversary. Who knows what either of them “really” are. We can just say which side someone's one. The Smoke Monster, Locke, Black Shirt and Christian Shepard are all on that side.
Comment by Rusty James — May 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I made a Jacob / Adversary list. A run down of who is on which side. Some of them I think are pretty solid. Others are just guesses. What do you think?
acob
Flight 815 – Jacob brings others to the island. We see him personally recruit the oceanic passangers
Richard Alpert – Made ageless by Jacob. Recruits his army. Finds the good people.
Black Rock – Anti-Jacob states that Jacob brought them.
Danielle / Alex – Ben, Jacob's proxy, saved Alex's life. Danielle's crew, infected by the Smoke Monster, tried to kill her.
Dharma – It's Jacob who brings outsiders to the island. Richard negotiated a truce with them. They are responsible of the incident which brings 815 to the island.
Eko – Killed by the Smoke Monster.
Walt – Told Locke not to push the button. Was he trying to warn Locke about his fate? On Jacob's list?
Aaron – Claire him left behind when she went away with Christian.
Ms. Hawking – Works to preserve the Jacob time line.
The Numbers – Responsible for bringing the French team and Hurley to the island.
Hurley – Jacob tells him to think of himself of himself as blessed, not cursed.
Anti Jacob
Smoke Monster – Chose Locke. Told Ben to follow Locke.
Christian Shepard – Pretended to be a representative of Jacob. Manipulated Locke.
Locke – Chosen by the Smoke Monster. Manipulated for the plan to kill Jacob.
Widmore – rejected by Jacob. Brought the freighter to the island to extract Ben, making way for Locke to lead. It's under Widmore's leadershipt that the DI are purged.
Desmond – Brought to the island by Widmore. Used his time travel powers to contact the freighter thus taking Jack & Co. off the island.
Jack – Son of Christain. Tried to prevent incident.
Michael – Recruited by Ben to sabotage Freighter. But also was working to take O6 off the island. Was told “your work is done” by Christian Shepard.
Vincent – Sent to wake Jack by Christian Shepard.
Claire – Christian's daughter. Hanging out with him in the cabin.
Dan Faraday – Son of Widmore who funded his research. He was instrumental in trying to stop the Incident thus disrputing Jacob's timeline.
Rose & Bernard – Black / White. Tail section / Main Section. Two halves coming together in harmony. Probably Adam & Eve. Because they are in harmony they can live on the island in peace
Comment by Rusty James — May 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@”A couple of years after the project was started, there was an….
incident.
This seems to indicate that WH did not happen. The incident, as seen on the last episode, seems to happen before the project is started. Unless the planning and drilling counts as the beginning of the project, in which case, WH very well could have happened.
@ Rusty's list. It makes sense for the most part, except for Locke. I would put Locke on Jacob's side. He was manipulated, but his intent isn't framed negatively, or defensively, as are Jack's or Michael's.
Comment by stump — May 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Gah. I forgot how many of these early episodes end with a slow motion montage of everyone's happy and lovey-dovey.
Comment by Andrew_James — May 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
From the Dharma Initiative orientation film…
“A couple of years after the project was started, there was an….
incident.
From then on there is a build up of energy and a code must be entered…” and blah blah.
Comment by Andrew_James — May 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
These ARGs can get a little annoying, as they are very tangential, and could possible never resolve (see last season's getting the budget pulled out from under it), but apparently a new one seems to have begun: http://blog.lostpedia.com/
The focus seems to be on followers of Jacob, possibly the group to which Bram and Ilana belong.
Comment by stump — May 16, 2009
Jacob seemed to save Locke from dying. But the fact that he was still paralyzed plus the Others surprise at his cured paralysis suggests that that sort of thing is beyond Jacob's power. Therefore I suggest The Adversary cured his paralysis.
Comment by Rusty James — May 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
More on season two…
When Sayid and Jack are crawling around underneath THE SWAN (looking for a way through the concrete barrrier), Jack asks Sayid what he thinks. Sayid says…
“The last time I saw this much concrete poured over something… was Chernobyl.”
Comment by Andrew_James — May 16, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
To both tide me over until season 6, to look for stuff I inevitably missed the first time around, and, of course, just to enjoy the show for itself, I am rewatching the whole series 1-5 again. I just finished watching Walkabout (a LOST highlight episode, btw) and I just wanted to get your guys opinion on something: Do you think Jacob's Adversary is Vincent? I'm just shooting it out there, but maybe Vincent died in the crash and his body has been used so that the Adversary can go about as he pleases, observing and learning about the passengers.
Thoughts?
Comment by Ross Miller — May 17, 2009
Comment by Andrew_James — May 17, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Do you think Jacob's Adversary is Vincent?
If you look above I put him on the Adversary list. They were definitely making him look sinister in those early episodes.
Here's a question. Do you think Jacob is visiting the people who arrived on 815 or do you think he's recruiting people to come to the island? Is he visiting Kate because she shows up on the island later or does she show up on the island later because Jacob picked her?
Comment by Rusty_James — May 17, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Just gonna throw this out there – Jacob and his adversary may be working together towards something mysterious. Maybe there's no sides in this? Just an idea.
Comment by stump — May 17, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@Andrew,
I realise the Vincent thing's a stretch, but it's noticeable how he always turns up out of nowhere and he logically WOULD be able to be there all the time, observing, without anyone being suspicous (why the hell WOULD they be?).
Watching the seasons again really makes you look at them in a different light when you know what happens way ahead in time (….oh….hey ooohhhhh!!!:).
@Rusty James,
I think it's because Jacob visited them that they came to the Island. In interviews before the season 5 finale, Lindelof said it would be “very touching,” which not having seen it yet would lead you to think it would be sad etc. But now we know he literally meant touching, as we saw Jacob touch each of them in some way when he visited them. I think when he touched them it meant that at some point they would be drawn to the Island, in whatever way that might be.
Comment by Ross Miller — May 18, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ Lindelof said it would be “very touching,”
That is a classic Lindelof pun. But it doesn't really answer the question.
I prefer to think that he's picking them. But there's a few things inconsistent.
First, he was waiting for Locke to fall which he could not have known unless he came from the future (or could predict the future Desmond style). His encounter with Sayid is the same he knew something was going to happen.
Secondly, the meetings with Sayid and Hurley both happened after flight 815. So he couldn't have been picking them for come to the island. Not in those scenes at least.
It's amazing how much this finale changes the show. It really is probably the biggest puzzle piece we've gotten yet. The seemingly finale statement on Locke's destiny.
I watched Live Together, Die Alone last night. The whole episode plays better now. While letting the timer run down Locke tells Desmond he's more sure of himself than he's ever been…
Was the whole button test a battle between the two forces? Locke told Echo he was a slave to the button. Did pressing the button represent predestination (Adversary ) vs free will (Jacob).
Ultimately the whole ordeal ends up cementing Locke's faith in his destiny as servant of the island. Finding Eko as his replacement allowed Locke's a chance to walk away from the button. Was this his last chance to pick Jacob's side. Is that why Walt warned him “don't push the button”?
Or Locke in season one, acting as a mentor to Walt. Did the Adversary prop him up as a guru and mystic to guide Walt, the true special one, over to his side?
I don't really believe that the writers are going to let this be Locke's ultimate fate. I think there's going to be more to his story. But if they did leave it like this; it's a satisfyingly tragic ending.
Comment by Rusty James — May 18, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@”First, he was waiting for Locke to fall which he could not have known unless he came from the future (or could predict the future Desmond style).”
I think since we don't know the abilities of Jacob and his Adversary yet (will we ever, with just one season to go?) it's hard to say, but I would be happy to lean towards the fact that he can predict or see the future like Desmond does. I think if Jacob wasn't there Locke wouldn't have survived the fall… in fact, he didn't surive it, but was brought back to life by Jacob. I think Jacob put in motion the events which led the Losties to coming to the Island – him physically touching them meant that they would be somehow drawn to the Island, be brought together (taking THAT flight) and come to the Island (hence the crash).
@”the meetings with Sayid and Hurley both happened after flight 815. So he couldn't have been picking them for come to the island. Not in those scenes at least.”
It could be a) That wasn't the only time he “met” them and b) Sayid and Hurley were possibly the only ones who had absolutely no reason to go back to the Island, and Jacob was just making sure (Kate had Claire as her reason, Jack for his destiny, Sun for Jin). But also, with Hurley explicitly, he is representing free will and choice, hence why he says to Hurley that it's HIS choice. He can get on the Ajira plane or not.
@”I don't really believe that the writers are going to let this be Locke's ultimate fate. I think there's going to be more to his story. But if they did leave it like this; it's a satisfyingly tragic ending.”
On the one hand I'm kind of frustrated and sad that the end of John Locke's tale was in the hotel room, being choked to death by Ben. But at the same time it's incredibly ballsy of the writers to do that, and, yes, a satisfyingly tragic ending. Well said, my friend.
Comment by Ross Miller — May 21, 2009
I'd like to see Razinsky in the hatch and learn why he was drawing the map, comitted suicide and left those affects in The Arrow.
Comment by Rusty_James — May 21, 2009
http://www.timelooptheory.com/
Comment by rot — May 22, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@”apparently so convincing that it probably qualifies as a spoiler.”
Then I don't want to read it.
@Rusty James,
Well I know we would all like to see Libby's story delved into, but both because of the fact they they only have a season left, as well as the writers saying in an interview that her story is done as far as their concerned (kind of annoying since that wasn't their tune a few seasons ago when they introduced the whole “Libby in the mental hospital” thing). If they literally had cut that Libby scene where she's in the hospital, it would have been so much better. If they're not going to explain it in any way, then what was the point of it being in there? If they took it out it wouldn't make ANY difference to the story whatsoever. It's not as if it's a really small, minor mystery that can be let go – it's a pretty major one that now just seems thrown in there for the sake of it.
I agree I would like to see the whole Radzinsky thing. I read a good theory that Sawyer giving him the basic map when the was tied up with Juliette was the basis of Radzinsky's more complicated blast door map, which I think's great thinking. It makes sense.
I was really hoping that my theory about the reason the Other had all the info about the Losties was because they gave it to them in the past, actually turned out to be true. But since they're no longer in the Dharma Initiative I doubt that will turn out to be the case. Damn, it was a good one as well, no?
A few things I'd like to see them at least go back to, if not explain entirely:
- How exactly Mikhail got to the Island, and how he seemed not to die until the grenade:P
- What the deal was with Ben and that Henry Gale guy he was impersonating. Did Ben kill him and take his identity or did he find him already dead and just make up a story according to the stuff he found on him i.e. the note of money that was written on.
- Who was the musician who was in the Looking Glas station that programmed Good Vibrations?
- How did Kelvin get from being stationed in Iraq to pushing the button on the Island?
- What happened to Amy in the DI? We know she was still there around the time of The Incident since that guy came in saying he got the manifest from Amy, right before Phil identified Hurley as “the fat guy.” But where was she and Ethan? Did Ethan convert to the Hostiles when he was the age we saw him with Ben when he stole Alex? Or did Ben take him when he was a baby and the Hostiles raised him?
Comment by Ross Miller — May 22, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
My sources say the actress who played Libby did not like what they did with her character, I believe she was involved in the drunk driving incident that along with Rodriquez found them prematurely taken off the show. There will be no Libby-centric episode, but they may indirectly tie up loose ends.
and Ross, yeah I am not reading that guy's whole theory, it is massive and detailed. I will say I like his ideas about the Black Rock, and it makes the whole Jacob/MiB exchange that much more interesting.
what was with Sun picking up Charlie's ring on the beach in the last episode? The podcasts I have been listening to are thinking there is something behind that. I mean really, in a two hour finale that has so much to pull off, why are you having this aside? There seems to be something about touching things and people being conveyed in the episode. Why does Hurley have Charlie's guitar?
Comment by mike rot — May 22, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I never heard it expressed this way before but I really like the description Matt Price used in the latest Mamo regarding Abram's approach to time travel
that it is the pebble in the stream rather than the fork in the road. A pebble can interfere with the flow of time, but it will never overcome the main trajectory, the water just goes around it, versus the notion that each breach of time causes the fork between alternate realities.
anyways, just fond of that metaphor.
Comment by mike rot — May 22, 2009
It's an unsubstantiated rumor that Michelle Rodriquez was fired for drunk driving. She was signed on till the end of season 2 and was never intended to come back for season 3.
Comment by Rusty James — May 23, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
ok but this confirms that there is no more Libby in the show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQlM9tIuXsA
it does seem very strange to set up all these Libby's character mysteries and not answer them.
Comment by mike rot — May 23, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yeah, rot, that's the interview I got the confirmation of Libby's story being from (I live in the UK, Sky 1 is where we get Lost… although I get it first from… elsewhere, we shall say…). Another thing came up about Libby's character for me when I was watching the season 2 finale (even better than I remember it being, btw. Such a crazy pace, as have all the finales): They didn't need the person who gave Desmond his boat to be Libby, just like they didn't need that scene with her in the mental hospital with Hurley. Rewatching the earlier episodes with Libby really make the unecessary elements to her character and the story stand out.
If she was just the woman who was on the plane, crashed on the other side of the Island, walked across, met Hurley and the place he recognised her from was him stepping on her toe on the plane… it would have been much better. It's strange, as I usually let this stuff slide – but for some reason the Libby annoyances stick with me.
Comment by Ross Miller — May 26, 2009
Pingback by More Pop at Row Three LOST Season 5 Discussion Thread Music | Cast Iron Cookware — May 26, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I'm a few episodes into rewatching season 3 and just wanted to get your guys' opinion on the episode The Cost of Living, the one where Mr. Eko gets killed by the Smoke Monster: Was his vision of Yemi the Smoke Monster (in the same way as Ben's vision of Alex was the monster), or was it Jacob's Adversary inhabiting Yemi's body? It could be either way – it makes sense now that we know the Monster is some sort of judge as well as a security system, as we saw with Alex appearing post-death to Ben. And it was judging Yemi for not repenting his sins. But it also could be that Adversary inhabiting Yemi's body as when Eko looked in the plane, his body was missing.
Comment by Ross Miller — May 28, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
What's the difference between the adversary and the monster?
Also Ross, you'll notice that High Cost of Living is the epiosde with most of the Niki Paulo stuff you were blaming on Expose.
Comment by Rusty James — May 29, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Yeah I noticed that. And btw, I just watched Expose yesterday and I must retract a lot of my criticism about the episode. I still maintain it's one of the weaker ones when compared to the rest, but it was a lot of fun upon a rewatch. I like the fact that Sawyer and Hurley have to kind of work together to solve the mystery of what happened to them (and there's the scene where Charlie admits to having attacked Sun), and the writers did a quite adequate job of telling Nikki and Paulo's story within a single episode (as they did with Daniel and Miles), and then killing them off because they realise they're not needed and not going to be accepted by the fans as “having been there the entire time but we just didn't see them).
I still really don't like those two characters, and maintain they shouldn't have ever been in it.
And what is he difference between the adversary and the monster? Well there are different theories, one saying they are one and the same, another being that he controls the monster (someone on this board, can't remember if it was you, Rusty, said that Fake Locke was nowhere to be seen when the Monster appeared to Ben in the Temple – did he go off to control it? Or appear as it?).
Comment by Ross Miller — May 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I'm glad to hear you reconsidered Ross. I'm not necessarily a fan of the characters but Expose gets an unfair bad rap. It's ironic because when people call it terrible they usually point to scenes that are actually in HCoL, an episode they say they love! Expose is LOST's whipping boy.
If you take out those six episodes N&P are just minor background characters who exist solely for the payoff in Expose.
As for the Adversary vs the Monster. With so little information I don't think it makes sense to talk about their relationship is specific terms. We can say they're on the same side, but since we don't really know what either of them “are” it doesn't make sense to speculate much furether.
All we really know Titus Welliver's character is that he was working in concert with Smoke Monster. Somehow he inhabited Locke's body, but could only do so after he was dead. The Smoke Monster has been associated with Cerebus and Anubis both spirits of the afterlife.
I think that the Monster as judge makes sense in the context of it's connection to the afterlife. Who better to judge someone for his crimes than the victim of the crimes.
This could also be a clue to their adversarial relationship. The MIB tells Jacob that he keeps bringing people and they kill and fight and destroy. If the monster were the representative of the dead then perhaps he's angry with Jacob on their behalf. Maybe the nameless MiB is actually a victim of the destruction that Jacob brings to the island.
It could also be important that Locke died off the island. Many of the monsters favorite avatars have died off island. Christian, I think Yemi and Richard appeared very interested when Ben saw his mother.
I'm wondering if Richard knew Ben never saw Jacob. He made it sound like Richard never took him to see Jacob just handed him pieces of paper. But Ben knew where to find the cabin. He had some reason for thinking it was associated with Jacob.
Why wouldn't Richard tell Locke that Ben didn't know where to find Jacob if he knew? Why would he follow Ben's orders if he were just looking for a stooge? He clearly placed some value on Charles and Ellie's leadership. Were they different.
I would really like to see this developed next season. Questions like this are really all I'm interested in. I know the writers feel the need to move the story forward but I've still got so many why's and how's about the history of it all.
Comment by Rusty James — May 30, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@”N&P are just minor background characters who exist solely for the payoff in Expose.”
I don't agree with that entirely – I don't think the intention all along was to kill those characters off, at least not within one episode and so quickly. The writers themselves said that AFTER they had introduced the characters they realised the fans weren't going to have any of it, and were, for lack of a better word, FORCED to kill them off. But I agree we got a great payoff in Expose, kind of showed that the writers were willing to be ballsy with their show.
I guess you're right that we can't really talk about what their deal is since we don't even know what they “are” at this point. But as they always do with season endings, they've left us with that as just one question amongst a sea of them to chew on for almost 3/4 of a year.
I think you're onto something there when you say about the people who appear died off-Island. Maybe he can't inhabit bodies of people who died on Island as they were too close to the Island, or something along those lines. But how did he appear as Walt, to Shannon (soaking wet and speaking backwards) and telling Locke to get out of the pit because he “has work to do” in Through The Looking Glass?
Something I was just wondering about having just finished rewatching season 3 (I flew threw them FAST), specifically in reference to The Man Behind the Curtain (in the top ten episodes ever, easy): Do you think right back to all that's happened to Ben is part of the Adversary's plan to find the loop hole? I am thinking specifically about the visions he had of his mother when he first came to the DI: Do you think the Adversary was getting him angry at Jacob so that he could get him to eventually kill Jacob, since it appears that the Adversary can't physically be the one to kill him?
Comment by Ross Miller — May 31, 2009
Pingback by More Pop at Row Three LOST Season 5 Discussion Thread Music | Hammock Stand — May 31, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
@ I don't think the intention all along was to kill those characters off
I wasn't necessarily commenting on the writers original intention. I was making a point that if you ignore those first six episodes those characters are too minor to be much of a problem.
Comment by Rusty James — June 1, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I just finished my re-watch of Season 1-5 (managed it in about 5 1/2 weeks
) and I thought I would give my theories on some of the main mysteries and questions that still remain. Let's see what you guys make of what I think will turn out to be the case (I'm sure just about all of these will have been said by SOMEONE at some point):
- The Smoke Monster/The Adversary
A judge and a protector of the temple/the Island. I think it's Jacob's Adversary either IS the Smoke monster or he can control it. I noticed in the episode Dead is Dead that when Ben falls through the floor of the temple, Locke (or what we now know is the Adversary pretending to be Locke) says he's going to find something to help him up, and goes off somewhere. He is gone the ENTIRE time the Smoke Monster is surrounding Ben and when dead Alex appears. I think the Adversary went off to either appear as the Smoke Monster, or at the very least control it.
The Four-Toed Statue
It is obviously some sort of Egyptian God (representation of it), and it goes without saying it's VERY old. I think the way it got from full statue to just a foot was when Juliette/Jack/Kate/Sawyer blew up the hydrogen bomb (which IS the Incident, btw), the blast cracked the statue and knocked it over. The reason you don't see it lying in the water in 2004 (as it would be lying all those years from '77 onwards) is because when the Losties get transported into the future (which is what the electromagnetism blast will do to them) of where Ben/Sun/Frank etc are, the rest of the statue (ie. sans the foot) will get transported with them and land in the sea.
Adam & Eve
I read a theory that it is Penny & Desmond, but I'm still sticking with Rose & Bernard. That scene where they said to Sawyer/Juliette/Jack that they don't care if they die, that they just care about being together, pretty much confirms it's them.
Jacob & his Adversary
They represent two opposing sides: good and evil, free will and fate. When Jacob says to Ben (and Hurley for that matter, outside of the jail) he has choice of whether to kill him, he is testing him. He godes him on by saying “What ABOUT you?” to see if he will succumb to killing him. I think the reason the Adversary had to find a loophole is there are certain rules that make it that they can't kill one another (the same way as Ben couldn't just kill Widmore), and so the Adversary has to go through a process of getting someone else to do it for a reason, in Ben's case it's anger at Jacob. The Adversary can appear as people who are dead and important to people (not sure if Jacob can do all of the things he can), hence why we saw Ben's mother, Yemi, Jack's father (who's the Adversary).
Jacob touching the Losties
I think that to get the Losties to eventually come to the Island, he has to physically touch them. This means that they would eventually be drawn to the Island, through whatever means. Sayid and Hurley seem to be different, since Jacob visited them after the initial 815 crash. I think the reason for this is those two would be the least motivated to go back.
The Whispers
We know that Ben knows about the whispers and the fact that they occur when the Others/Hostiles are near (he said it to Rousseau when he took Alex as a baby). I had a theory early in season 5 that the whispers were the noises of those travelling through time, but from what Ben said, it appears they are linked to the Hostiles. So I think they do those whispers voluntarily to scare whoever is getting near them, to stop them from going any further. Basically it's to preserve their secrecy/anyone from seeing them/knowing their true nature.
Richard/The Black Rock
I had the theory that he was “a kind of..advisor” even before it was revealed. I think he was on the Black Rock (perhaps even as the captain) which was the ship Jacob and his Adversary were watching at the beginning of the Season 5 finale. I think Jacob brought them there the same way he brought the Losties (visiting them, and touching them), and made Richard immortal (or at least made him so that he ages VERY slowly) so that he could live through the ages and advise whoever is the leader on the Island at any given time.
The Incident
Jack didn't change anything by taking the Hyrdrogen bomb to the Swan and detonating it (well, it was actually Juliette…), that's what always happened and we were just witnessing it. One thing I noticed was Chang got his hand stabbed, hence why in some of the Dharma videos he has a fake arm. I think the basic map that Sawyer drew for Radzinsky was the map that he would eventually base his balst door map off of. I think season 6 will start with the Losties being back in the future, in the time of Sun/Frank/Ben etc.
There's obviously loads that I've missed, but those are some of the main ones I can think of.
Just generally, it was amazing rewatching the entire seasons 1-5 one episode after another, without having to wait a week in between for new episodes. It really allows you to pick up on things you undoubtedly missed the first time around. And the show stands up tremendously upon rewatching, which is essential for it to live on past season 6. I don't expect the writers to tie up every single loose end and answer every little question, just the main stuff (most of which I've mentioned above).
Thoughts?
Comment by Ross Miller — June 12, 2009
Sawyer and co and are standing in the jungle looking up at the statue in an undisclosed time. The final flash happens and transports them to 1974 where, standing in the same place, they can no longer see the statue. Whatever happened to the statue happened before 1974.
I guess it's destroyed during whatever brings the Black Rock inland.
Comment by Rusty James — June 15, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Do you actually see that the statue is no longer there when they get stuck in 1974? I think they may have been a bit preoccupied with figuring out if the flashes had stopped to check if the statue was still there.
Comment by Ross Miller — June 17, 2009
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
And they just never bothered to mention again the 300ft tall statue which could be seen from all over the island.
I hope not.
Comment by Rusty James — June 17, 2009
Comment by rossmiller — July 26, 2009
Essentially they said nothing for an hour, the things they did say were really vague I thought.
Comment by mike rot — July 29, 2009
Of COURSE they were vague, that’s why they call it TEASING:) But they DID give a few pieces of information that I’d like to get our usual little group on this thread’s thoughts on. I’ll put the usual SPOILER message to give you fair warning (but, as you say, what they said was vague and can only be speculated at):
THIS COMMENT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
- They said that Faraday and Elizabeth Mitchell (they didn’t say Juliet but I assume they mean her) would be back. Faraday definitely died, so how’s he back?
- Time travel is over, flashforwards are over; they said they’ve found a new way to work this season.
- Jorge Garcia aka Hurly funnily stood up at the mic and asked if Jack’s bomb worked and erased the past five season, saying that it would be a really big cheat. The writers just responded, “Trust us.” (To which Hurley hilariously replied, “Yeah, but the last time you told me to trust you, you said Nikki and Paulo were gonna’ be awesome.”:)
- We will finally get Richard’s back story this season. I’m gonna guess he was on the Black Rock, if not the Captain of it.
- Dmonic Monaghan aka Charlie showed up in person and when he was waving to the crowd he had the words “Am I Alive?” written on his hand. See for yourself – http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RrObyQ3XzcY/Sm2Wi_K5L1I/AAAAAAAAvhQ/CCrmOwSBYBQ/s1600-h/dom_alive.jpg
- The banner above the panel table showed all of the characters, including those from the earlier seasons (including those who died). Does this mean those in ‘77 will get a chance to redo what has happened in the past seasons? I was thinking that maybe they might do something that’s akin to what happened to Desmond after turning the fail safe key at the end of season 2. Then in early season 3 he got transported back in time in his mind. Maybe Jack, Kate, Sawyer etc will be transported back in their minds to the point of the crash where they’ll get the opportunity to make sure Boone doesn’t topple Eko’s plane, Ana-Lucia doesn’t shoot Shannon etc. Here’s the link to the banner so you can see for yourself – http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RrObyQ3XzcY/Sm7-fHVjUrI/AAAAAAAAvho/3Yp1WlAnFSo/s1600-h/s6promo.jpg
That’s pretty much all that was revealed, which isn’t much, beyond the basics. I’ve love to hear your guys’ thoughts on the info that was given.
Comment by Ross Miller — July 30, 2009
looking forward to it all. I bought Lost season 1 on blu-ray to rewatch, I haven’t seen them since they originally aired.
Comment by mike — August 2, 2009
THIS COMMENT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
“LA X”
The space is intended. Here’s my post about it:
http://screenrant.com/lost-season-6-premiere-title-ross-21001/
What do you guys think it means?
Comment by Ross Miller — August 10, 2009
Comment by Ross Miller — August 18, 2009
So…. what are we expecting from the final season?
Comment by Ross Miller — December 26, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — December 28, 2009
A new thread would be a good idea
Comment by Ross Miller — December 28, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — December 28, 2009
Comment by Ross Miller — December 29, 2009
LOST is new!
Tonight!
For two hours!
I’ve been thinking it was tomorrow. HOLY SHIT! I don’t think I’m going to be able to sit still for the next 5 hours.
Comment by Rusty James — February 2, 2010
Comment by Rusty James — February 2, 2010
Comment by stump — February 2, 2010
THIS COMMENT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
I really thought Locke was telling Boone the truth about the Walkabout. I was really expeting him to stand up and walk out. Even when they brought the wheel chair over I was expecting a psyche out up til the very end.
A devestating moment!
Over in the chud thread someone commented that Boone was gullible as ever when it comes to Locke. I guess that goes for me too.
The episode was filled with a lot of things I loved. The barefoot others, The monsters conversation with Ben, his obitiuary for Locke. I KNEW that the thing the Island liked about him all along was that he had no life to go back to. Even before we learned Locke’s fate I knew that was true.
Comment by Rusty James — February 2, 2010
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
also, when we left off this thread we were abuzz with a debate over whether they were going to cause the incident and jump forward to 2007 or if the bomb was going to reset the timeline. It looks like both sides were right.
But let the record show: the bomb going off was not the Incident.
Comment by Rusty James — February 2, 2010
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Also, “Locke” tells Ben he wants to go home. I think “Locke” is from the future. Maybe Jacob but I like to think they have different origins.
Comment by Rusty James — February 2, 2010
theres a lot of speculation that Jacob is now Sayid
Comment by Goon — February 2, 2010
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Rusty – we were already talking, not sure if I made this clear, but I also thought we would see Locke walk. Fuck me.
Was that Kierkegard that Hurley picked up in the underground area of the wall?
I was confused by the pov/staging in that last scene. Who was looking at what? Was Hurley shocked b/c he saw Said wake up? Or was there someone else not in frame?
I totally didn’t make the Black Rock connection when MiB said that thing to Alpert about not being in chains. I thought he was speaking metaphorically about Richard working for Jacob. And Richard’s reaction indicates that he knows MiB pretty well.
What else?
Comment by stump — February 2, 2010
**************
LOST DISCUSSION
**************
RECENT COMMENTS BUFFER
**************
Amazing first two episodes! As you say Rusty it looks like both sides were right. I agree I don’t think the bomb was the Incident (I was as sure about that as Jack was about the bomb working
. Also, it never crossed my mind when watching it that Sayid was now Jacob but after someone saying that and thinking back it could very well be the case.
We need a new thread! Andrew promised one a couple of weeks ago. All together now – What do you we want? A new thread! When do we want it? NOW!
Comment by Ross Miller — February 3, 2010
http://morepop.rowthree.com/2010/02/lost-season-6-discussion-thread/
or
http://goo.gl/vHpb
Comment by Andrew James — February 3, 2010
It’s a video of people who’ve never seen Lost watching different clips and trying to explain what’s going on. It’s very funny for fans of the show.
Comment by Ross Miller — February 6, 2010