When they showed Rousseau, Alex, and Karl, my first thought was "Oh crap, they're going to kill Karl and Rousseau. Won't someone just F***ing kill Ben already?"
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anitablake: Novel: Slaughterhouse 5 protagonist:Billy Pilgrim
Thank you! How did you hear it? I tried and tried. I did not read this novel. Is there any significance?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Slaughterhouse-Five spans the life of a man who has "come unstuck in time." It is the story of Billy Pilgrim experiencing different time periods of his life, most notably his experience in World War II and his relationship with his family. The book is a series of seemingly random happenings that, in combination, present the thematic elements of the novel in an unraveling order.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think Charles Widmore must have had an experience early in his life involving the island. Ever since then he has spent his life ammassing a fortune big enough to search for it. Desmond, being an aquaintance of his daughter, ending up there may be a very happy accident.
Kate could end up with Aaron by saying that he had not yet been born after the crash, but his mother was very injured, too much so to tell her name or anything. Aaron's survival would almost be a miracle, but believable. On a plane with more than 300 people, the chances of Claire being the only pregnant woman on board are very low. The chance of her being the only one close to full-term is high, but it is possible that she wasn't the only one.
Wow, That's a grim hypothesis.
In any case, I suspect that the issue of DNA testing will come up in the future.
Sayid's exposure of Michael may get Michael killed. When Sayid realizes that Michael was telling the truth about Widmore, he'll have to take up Michael's mission of protecting the people on the island. I have more respect for Michael now. At least he recognizes his treachery and is trying to do something about it.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: When they showed Rousseau, Alex, and Karl, my first thought was "Oh crap, they're going to kill Karl and Rousseau. Won't someone just F***ing kill Ben already?"
No! Ben is my favorite character, or second favorite- Ben and Sayid are my favorites. And I'm convinced that Ben is a good guy.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well. I think his intentions are for the best of the island- his methodologies just are terrible. I think the new people (specifically Abaddon) are the real bad guys.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not going to get Michael killed. Sayid has not damned him. I think the island has big plans for Michael; why bring him back just to die? He's also too much of a fan favorite character to die.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Re: Odysseus, Penelope
It's the cyclops' island. We've already met him. I wonder who the sheep are?
-Bok
The more I think of it, though, the more I think it could be all of the islands and perils. Bok, have you seen any other Odyssey references? Who is Poseidon?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by EmpSquared: It's not going to get Michael killed. Sayid has not damned him. I think the island has big plans for Michael; why bring him back just to die? He's also too much of a fan favorite character to die.
He is? He's not one of my favorites, that's for sure.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a lot of people are puzzled over Sayid's "betrayal", but I thought it was very much in keeping with the kind of person Sayid is.
Sayid is suspicious of the freighter people, but he knows for sure that he distrusts Ben.
If the freighter people really are the "good guys", then turning over Michael is a smart move.
If Ben turned out to be the "good guy", then Sayid's actions might interfere with Ben's plans, but since Michael has already given Ben all the info he has about the crew, and has done his sabotage, Sayid might conclude that it's not irepararable damage.
And at the same time, by declaring Michael a "traitor", he has essentially declared himself to be on the freighter peoples' side, and positions himself to get that much closer to finding out what's really going on.
To me it seems like that sort of intelligence/chess move thinking is just the sort of reasoning Sayid would come up with.
On the other hand, it could just be Sayid thinking with his heart instead of his head. Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's not going to get Michael killed. Sayid has not damned him. I think the island has big plans for Michael; why bring him back just to die? He's also too much of a fan favorite character to die.
Among every Lost fan I know- he is everyone's least favorite character. (Other than Nikki and Paulo of course)
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When he came on stage at Comic Con before this season, he got huge applause -- and I actually really like him as a character. I think his appeal is connected to the fact that if he appears, something big is going to happen on the show, because him returning means that.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeorge: I know a lot of people are puzzled over Sayid's "betrayal", but I thought it was very much in keeping with the kind of person Sayid is.
Sayid is suspicious of the freighter people, but he knows for sure that he distrusts Ben.
If the freighter people really are the "good guys", then turning over Michael is a smart move.
If Ben turned out to be the "good guy", then Sayid's actions might interfere with Ben's plans, but since Michael has already given Ben all the info he has about the crew, and has done his sabotage, Sayid might conclude that it's not irepararable damage.
And at the same time, by declaring Michael a "traitor", he has essentially declared himself to be on the freighter peoples' side, and positions himself to get that much closer to finding out what's really going on.
To me it seems like that sort of intelligence/chess move thinking is just the sort of reasoning Sayid would come up with.
On the other hand, it could just be Sayid thinking with his heart instead of his head.
That does fit with Sayid's mode of operation, but we know that he works for Ben after being rescued. That's why I think his act is a betrayal. He has to work for Ben in order to redeem himself, but at the time, Sayid doesn't know that Michael is trying to save them. So, yeah, you're right about Sayid, but he isn't right about what he's done, but he doesn't know that yet.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm very certain that the person in the casket at the funeral was supposed to be Michael, now whether that means he did finally succeed in suicide after the Oceanic six got off the island, or if his death was faked is still to be determined.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: From Wikipedia(sorry, Von. fans):
Slaughterhouse-Five spans the life of a man who has "come unstuck in time." It is the story of Billy Pilgrim experiencing different time periods of his life, most notably his experience in World War II and his relationship with his family. The book is a series of seemingly random happenings that, in combination, present the thematic elements of the novel in an unraveling order.
Slaughterhouse Five is a total rip-off of The Time-Traveler's Wife.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every time I look at the casket scene I think: "that casket is too short for a 'normal' height adult", which makes me think Ben is a possibility because he's short.
On the subject of Sayid and the "betrayal", I may be remembering this wrong (it's so confusing to try to remember who knows what), but
1. Ben announced that he had a spy in Charlotte's presence.
2. Charlotte is no longer with Locke's company, which means she's been free to contact the freighter and let them know.
3. Sayid knows both 1 & 2? And therefore could reasonably assume that the freighter is more or less in lock-down mode because they already KNOW (and if they don't, they likely soon will know) there's a spy on board, and therefore Michael's usefulness was already shot.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Slaughterhouse Five is a total rip-off of The Time-Traveler's Wife.
Vonnegut himself was unstuck in time, traveled forward to the fall of 2004, read The Time-Traveler's Wife and then returned to the 1960s to write Slaughterhouse five thus enabling him to "rip-off" Audrey Niffenegger in 1969, 35 years before she even published her book.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
It makes sense, though, that I thought of TTTW when Desmond first started being "unstuck." They have never made reference to that novel, but made reference to it last week.
Another idea is this. The writers of Lost are Hatrack lurkers. When someone comes up with a great theory of what is happening on Lost, the writers write that idea into the script. COme to think of, that makes the most sense.
Stop using us, Lost-writing lurkers!
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, when someone comes up with a great theory of what's happening on Lost here, history tells us that if it was right, the Lost-writers change it.
And yes, Rabbit pretty much nailed it. Given the subjects of the books, who's to say who copied from whom? Maybe they each ripped it off from each other, ouroborously.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeorge: Every time I look at the casket scene I think: "that casket is too short for a 'normal' height adult", which makes me think Ben is a possibility because he's short.
On the subject of Sayid and the "betrayal", I may be remembering this wrong (it's so confusing to try to remember who knows what), but
1. Ben announced that he had a spy in Charlotte's presence.
2. Charlotte is no longer with Locke's company, which means she's been free to contact the freighter and let them know.
3. Sayid knows both 1 & 2? And therefore could reasonably assume that the freighter is more or less in lock-down mode because they already KNOW (and if they don't, they likely soon will know) there's a spy on board, and therefore Michael's usefulness was already shot.
Yes? No?
Ben announced he had a spy twice: the first time was only to Locke, but no name was mentioned on camera. The second time it was to Sawyer, Hurley, Miles, Alex, Danielle, and Karl. This was after Charlotte was released to Jack and co. As far as I know, Charlotte wasn't present for the first one, but that doesn't mean that nobody told her. However; she was a prisoner, and Locke doesn't allow access to his prisoners.
Edit to add: As for the casket, I think that the short length may be a production error. It could be holding a child, I.E. Walt, But I think the storyline supports Michael.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you missed the first time. After Ben recited Charlotte's life history to everyone, they asked how he knew all that, and he said he had a spy on Ben's boat. Wasn't Charlotte present then?
I understand why Ben did it - Locke had a gun to his head, and giving up a secret was the only way he could convince Locke not to shoot him. But when he did that, he had to know that he was seriously compromising his spy.
Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I forgot about that part. Charlotte had ample time to contact the freighter after Locke released her. Man, this show is getting to be like a soap opera. Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With all the shifting allegiances and all the secrets, my biggest fear for the show is that they will back themselves into a plot corner that they can't get out of because of some little detail they've forgotten.
So far I think they've done quite well at managing all the characters and their stories.
Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeorge: With all the shifting allegiances and all the secrets, my biggest fear for the show is that they will back themselves into a plot corner that they can't get out of because of some little detail they've forgotten.
So far I think they've done quite well at managing all the characters and their stories.
You remind me of Mark Twain's short story A Medieval Tale. Let's hope the Lost producers and writers do not choose a similar tack.
Lost (and similar TV series) could be considered the heir to the great literary tradition of serial novels. Some of the greatest authors of the 19th century (including Dickens and Dostoevsky) published their works in serial. We are the 21st century equivalent of those who lined up at the docks in New York waiting for the latest installment on a Dickens novel. One of the great risks of publishing the first chapters of the novel before the final chapters are finished is the very real threat of inconsistencies and in fact one can find those inconsistencies in works by Dickens and Dostoevsky.
One would however hope that even though the final chapters weren't written before the first chapters were published, the author had at least roughed out the major plot line so as to avoid Twain's conundrum.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha ha! I'd forgotten all about that story! It was funny when Twain did it, but I won't be impressed if LOST takes that route.
Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeorge: It was funny when Twain did it, but I won't be impressed if LOST takes that route.
The thing about TV is that they won't even have to admit they did it, they can just announce that the show has been cancelled. I can think of a number of shows whose season ended with a big cliff hanger which never got resolved because the show got cancelled.
It does make me wonder if the same thing happened to serial novels of lesser known authors. A magazine purchased the first chapter or chapters but then never printed the conclusion of the story either because it didn't generate enough interest for them to keep paying the author or because the author failed to finish the work. Could such a thing have served as inspiration for Mark Twain's story.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right, I'm going to throw an idea out that might be completely off the deep end.
Whidmore said that the island was his before Ben took it, and he wants it back. So it sounds like Whidmore was involved in the DHARMA initiative (I don't recall if that has been confirmed before).
My thought is, what if in some way, Whidmore has a connection to and control of the island? What if "Jacob" is really some projection of Whidmore that Ben has trapped and forced to do his will? The part that made me think of this was just after Alex died, when Ben said, "He changed the rules." At that point, I thought he was talking about Jacob, since Jacob seems to somehow have a lot of power on the island. However, at the end of the episode, Ben says those words to Whidmore. So how does Whidmore have the power to change the rules on the island?
posted
well, he changed the rules in the sense that his people killed Ben's daughter, which was "against the rules" apparently. i don't think the reference to the rules has to do with control over the island(at least not that one), but goes back to the idea that there is some sort of game going on, with agreed upon rules, that Whidmore is apparently no longer following.
The even larger question for me is why Ben can't kill Whidmore?
"did you come here to kill me?"
"you know i can't do that."
Why not???
Hurley's line at the beginning of the episode was great foreshadowing. "Australia is the key to the game" Everyone in the room with me all went, "Double Meaning!" at the same time, and were already discussing the implications of calling it a game.
Ben is so ridiculously badass.
So why does he have to ask the hotel receptionist the year? Is it only because time is moving differently on and off the island, or is there more of a time travel element going on? And if there is, what does that mean for all the character connections and forces that brought them to the island?
And what's up with the doctor? The boat time is behind the island time right? When they shot that drone or whatever, it took longer to reach the island. So the fact that the doc is dead and washed up on shore BEFORE it's actually happened on the boat goes against the time difference we've been shown. Or am I looking at this wrong?
Also, where Ben first landed in the Sahara...that's where the polar bear remains were found right?
And OMG, I couldn't believe they killed Alex. I did not see that coming. And neither did Ben...it was the first time we've seen him not in control. That look on his face was just fantastic.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why does he have to ask the hotel receptionist the year?
My guess is that inside the closet Ben is able to access some sort of portal that allows him to transport off the island but there is a time distortion he can't control.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To establish the current date with the audience.
but JUST to establish the current date with the audience? Would Lost do something so obvious, and unnecessary for the character, just for our sake? Or is there a legitimate reason for Ben to ask the date?
Rabbit, that was sort of what I was thinking.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Ben in the Sahara is how he gets off the Island. I think he was pretending to be someone else. His coat was a Dharma coat with someone else name on it and he looked stunned to be there. I think that that series of flash forwards happens after the Oceanic 6 get off the island.
All of this, of course,happens before Saiyd.
Ben was not talking about Jacob. He was talking about Widmore when he mentions that someone changed the rules. The rules must be something like "you don't go after each other directly, like the kings in chess, and you don't threaten/kill family members."
posted
I think Ben was way too surprised by Alex's death for the rules to simply be agreements between the sides. He was sure that they wouldn't kill her. There's already precedent for island rules working even off of the island (like Michael not being able to kill himself). Perhaps it's a similar rule that doesn't allow Ben to kill Whidmore. Whether there's a connection between Whidmore and Jacob or not, I do not believe that the "rules" are merely agreements the two sides have made.
posted
I wonder why Ben was dressed for arctic weather when he woke up in the Saharan desert. I think there is some sort of connection here with the dharma polar bear that was found in the desert.
quote:but JUST to establish the current date with the audience? Would Lost do something so obvious, and unnecessary for the character, just for our sake?
Exactly, if they JUST wanted to establish the current date with the audience, they could have shown a calender on the desk or the date on a Newspaper or something. But by having Ben ask the question they were more or less establishing that Ben wasn't sure what year it was.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think Ben was telling the truth when he told Sayid that Whidmore had killed Nadia? I mean, what motive would Whidmore have for killing Nadia? Ben on the other hand had lots of motive.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's obvious Ben manipulated Sayid to end up working for him, and that was his plan all along with going out to Iraq. But I don't think he had Nadia killed. Though I couldn't tell you what Whidmore's motive was either. Maybe Whidmore is pissed that the 6 got off the island as well as wanting them to give him information about its location and is killing their loved ones as revenge or something. I mean, in getting off the island they must've killed a bunch of Whidmore's men right?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: I think Ben was way too surprised by Alex's death for the rules to simply be agreements between the sides. He was sure that they wouldn't kill her. There's already precedent for island rules working even off of the island (like Michael not being able to kill himself). Perhaps it's a similar rule that doesn't allow Ben to kill Whidmore. Whether there's a connection between Whidmore and Jacob or not, I do not believe that the "rules" are merely agreements the two sides have made.
--Mel
I think Ben really thought of her as his daughter despite the fact that, like he said, he stole her from an insane woman.
Whatever rules he thought would protect her didn't because she wasn't his biological daughter.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
