quote:To be fair Strider, there is far more reason to believe that the woman who presented herself as Locke's mother was lying about it than any of the things you presented.
i know, i was having some fun, and I think Leonide took my comments in a playful manner.
You're right that there is more reason to back up the idea of both Emily's being the same women than any of my suggestions. But I still think its stretching things. Is Locke THAT much older than Ben that Emily would look so different they need to get a different actress to play her? They can't be more than 6 or 7 years apart. It seems like the show would have to be deliberately misleading us to a very large degree at that point to make us think they're two different people.
Also, why would an imposter playing Locke's mother as part of a scam, show up at Locke's bed in the hospital and admit to being part of Cooper's scam in exchange for money? If she's not his real mother, what's the point of coming clean?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
the following is something a friend and I were talking about that made me think of some important things from the Desmond consciousness jumping episode, The Constant. He said:
quote:I also need to watch 'The Constant' again. It was just Desmond's mind going back in time and taking over his past body, right?
My response started out specifically addressing that, but ended up being a pretty detailed exploration of that episode:
No actually...and I think this is really important. My first time through I interpreted the episode the same way, but upon reflection realized that was a misunderstanding of what happened. I think because as viewers we had become so used to the idea of a "flashback". What actually happened was Desmond's 1996 consciousness projected forward to Desmond's 2004 body, and then oscillated between the two times.
Remember, in the 1996 scenes Desmond is not aware of his future, only of these "dreams" he's having about being on an island. The only information he has about his future self is the particular conscious experiences he has for the brief amounts of time his 1996 consciousness exists in 2004.
In 2004 Desmond doesn't recognize anybody or know anything about where he is, and when asked what year he thinks it is, he says it's 1996. It's only after 2004 Desmond talks to Penny and establishes his constant that he what...remembers everything? merges his 2004 body with his 2004 consciousness?
Some important things about this, and some problems:
There is where Faraday first says that events in time can't be changed, things happen once and only once. So if this is the way things always happened, or originally happened, or however you want to view it, the following question arise.
Q1) Shouldn't future Faraday remember this 1996 meeting with Desmond?
Q2) shouldn't future Desmond remember this experience that happened to him in 1996 between the years of 1996 and when he ends up on the Island?
A1) desmond tells 1996 faraday that 2004 faraday doesn't remember this meeting. faraday put on an anti-radiation vest and tells desmond he doesn't need it because faraday does this many times a day, and desmond is there only once. desmond asks why faraday doesn't do anything to protect his head. I always assumed this was telling us that faraday scrambled his brain from all the radiation exposure and that's why he has so many memory problems(hence maybe the need for the notebook). we know he has memory problems from many of his first on Island episodes. this answers Q1.
A2) I have no freakin idea. I'm CERTAIN that it's his 1996 consciousness that has jumped forward, not the other way around, and lostpedia confirms this. Regardless of if you agree with me and Faraday about the nature of time travel, there is at least one version of Desmond that should remember these events after 1996. and if so, then he always should have known he was going to the Island right? this question bothers me.
Random bits:
1. farday writes that desmond is his constant. Penny waits by the phone at a certain day and time for desmond's call. but because we as the audience were shown these things in a particular order, we can't know with 100% certainty that what Faraday surmises is the truth. For instance, if we had seen the page of Faraday's book that said "desmond will be my constant" BEFORE Desmond's consciousness jumping, then we'd know for certain that you can't change the past or the future and that events happen only one way in time. But we weren't, so we're only left with Faraday's speculations(which are the most intellectually satisfying, but that doesn't mean anything on a tv show). We can't KNOW for certain that events weren't changed as a result of this, though future episodes like Locke showing up in the 1950s and telling richard to come see his birth DO confirm this theory, as we'd seen Richard show up at Locke's birth in an earlier episode.
this brings up questions about Desmond's supposedly being special or different. What exactly happens in his other flashback where he's with Penny in the 1990s before he joins the army, where he remembers his future, Flashes Before Your Eyes. It's the first flashback where a character was conscious of his future self. It made me question the whole nature of flashbacks. Are the flashbacks just a mechanism the show uses to give us insights into these character's pasts, or is something more interesting going on? Is the Island accessing these memories? Are these pasts being "created" by the Island? And has desmond's experience with the hatch altered the nature of his "flashbacks" allowing him to consciously know he is his future self flashing back to his past? Basically, was this a flashback? Or was it a time travel? or was it neither? was it some sort of weird interaction between Desmond and the Island due to the hatch explosion? The most interesting part of all this was his conversation with Mrs. Hawking where he tries to buy the ring. Was Mrs. Hawking always the person who sold him the ring? Or does she only exist in this "flashback"? Does Mrs. Hawking remember their encounter? Desmond tries to "change" his future by making different decisions in his past, but Mrs. Hawking doesn't let him, saying the universe course corrects itself, and that he HAS to go to Island.
Desmond's relationship to the Island and to this story is one of the most interesting to me.
2. 2004 Faraday tells Desmond to tell his 1996 self a certain number and frequency to prove his story. This is the exact numbers Faraday needs to get his machine to work right. Since Faraday doesn't remember this 1996 meeting, from his point of view Desmond may only be telling his 1996 self something he thinks he already knows at that time. But we as viewers see that this is key information Faraday needed to complete his time travel work. This is an exact example of the ontological paradox. These numbers have a paradox of origin. If Faraday used them because Desmond told him to, and Desmond only told him to use them because a future version of Faraday gave him those numbers, then those numbers never came from anywhere, they have no origin. there is no one who ever figured out those numbers. Would Lost trap themselves in a hole like this? Would they resort to a Deus ex Machina?
3. Desmond goes to see Widmore in 1996 to get Penny's number. Even though Widmore seems to hate Desmond and doesn't want to see him with his daughter, he pretty freely gives Desmond Penny's contact information. He then for some seemingly arbitrary reason leaves the water running in the faucet. As Desmond goes to turn this off his consciousness jumps. These events always struck me as odd and led me to believe Widmore knows a lot more about what's going on than he lets on.
I think that's all.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
But something one of my friends said the other day was a really interesting idea. He thinks that Kate is pregnant with Jack's baby. Why? It seems as if all the Losties returning to the island have in some pretty distinct ways similarities to the other people on the plane the first time).
Sayid is wearing handcuffs and under guard (like Kate was).
Hurley has Charlie's guitar.
Sun is waiting for her husband (like Rose was).
John Locke is dead, in a coffin, and wearing Christian Shepherd's shoes.
I think Jack is just Jack possibly. We know that Kate and Jack had sex the previous night so it's very possible that Kate is pregnant with Jack's baby and will take Claire's role as the pregnant girl.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Is the Island accessing these memories? Are these pasts being "created" by the Island? And has desmond's experience with the hatch altered the nature of his "flashbacks" allowing him to consciously know he is his future self flashing back to his past? Basically, was this a flashback? Or was it a time travel? or was it neither? was it some sort of weird interaction between Desmond and the Island due to the hatch explosion? The most interesting part of all this was his conversation with Mrs. Hawking where he tries to buy the ring. Was Mrs. Hawking always the person who sold him the ring? Or does she only exist in this "flashback"? Does Mrs. Hawking remember their encounter? Desmond tries to "change" his future by making different decisions in his past, but Mrs. Hawking doesn't let him, saying the universe course corrects itself, and that he HAS to go to Island
(italics mine)
I had to quote the whole thing because i LOVE this theory. I rememeber regretting when the flashbacks stopped being such a prominent story-telling device on the show -- you know, stopped being the primary medium through which the show was narrated. I'm really fascinated by the idea that they could be THE POINT of the show.
This also ties in with all the connections I've been desperately trying to make by tying in the famous novels: Absalom, Absalom!, by William Faulkner, takes place in Yoknapatawpha County, the county listed on Sun's print-out from the private investigator, and the entire story deals with re-telling and re-interpreting the past in the "present." It raises a lot of questions about the nature of storytelling and the nature of history, as well as specifically dealing with the subjectivity of specific, biased, uninformed narrators.
I'm actually supposed to be in the middle of editing a paper about this topic Right Now but am instead posting about it in a Lost thread. Ah, me.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are the flashbacks just a mechanism the show uses to give us insights into these character's pasts, or is something more interesting going on? Is the Island accessing these memories? Are these pasts being "created" by the Island?
AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Honestly, though, despite some post-lunch overload of my brain (I'm the sort that could really use a siesta time about now), this sounds WAY cool.
Leonide, please do keep up with the literary connections! They are also, like Strider's possible theory, fascinating.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only have one fear. There are tons of references and parallels between Stephen King's works in general, and the Dark Tower Series in particular(which itself references and incorporates many other of Stephen King's own works, as well as much literary reference and popular culture). For those that know how Stephen King eventually "explained" the deep mysteries of the absolutely amazing world he created, there is a small part of me that is terrified Lost will go down that same route. Not to the extent Stephen King did, but enough that many fans will consider their explanations a cop out. So far they haven't let me down. But the infusion of the mythological, literary, and pop culture references, while awesome, could possibly end up being disappointed if these connections to the Dark Tower are more substantial than other references.
edit - i'm trying to avoid dark tower spoilers because I DO think the first five books of that series are absolutely wonderful, and Stephen King had me so hooked that while I was continuously cursing him out throughout the last two books, I couldn't put them down because i cared that much about the characters, and I'd hate to spoil the series for anyone interested in reading it. I never really enjoyed Stephen King before reading this series.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be so-very-postmodern of the creators to reference the classics via the popular. Not having a lot of respect for King's overall body of work myself, I'll add my voice to hoping that's not the case as well.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I got to say right now is: How in the world did Ethan end up looking the way he did, complete with height, with those two for parents?!
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. Sawyer telling Jack off for being too impulsive and not enough of a thinker. Interesting. But I liked it!
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
King lost me in Wizard and Glass. I kept reading, just to see things through. But I stopped enjoying.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I only have one fear. There are tons of references and parallels between Stephen King's works in general, and the Dark Tower Series in particular(which itself references and incorporates many other of Stephen King's own works, as well as much literary reference and popular culture). For those that know how Stephen King eventually "explained" the deep mysteries of the absolutely amazing world he created, there is a small part of me that is terrified Lost will go down that same route. Not to the extent Stephen King did, but enough that many fans will consider their explanations a cop out. So far they haven't let me down. But the infusion of the mythological, literary, and pop culture references, while awesome, could possibly end up being disappointed if these connections to the Dark Tower are more substantial than other references.
edit - i'm trying to avoid dark tower spoilers because I DO think the first five books of that series are absolutely wonderful, and Stephen King had me so hooked that while I was continuously cursing him out throughout the last two books, I couldn't put them down because i cared that much about the characters, and I'd hate to spoil the series for anyone interested in reading it. I never really enjoyed Stephen King before reading this series.
If the do a Dark Tower like ending it could suck horrible. but if they have there own that is set up and made well, it could be great. Let's hope for a non-cop-out ending.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: Hmm. Sawyer telling Jack off for being too impulsive and not enough of a thinker. Interesting. But I liked it!
*snerf*
I made the same comment to the person I was watching the episode with!
I'm gonna assume it's the 3-years with Dharma that allows Sawyer to feel he has the monopoly on rational, well-considered decisions. It certainly isn't the bulk of the first 30-odd years of his life!
I guess they felt they needed to re-establish the Jack/Sawyer tension -- it wouldn't be interesting if they just got along!
Also, TOTALLY CALLED DANIEL. Just sayin'.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: King lost me in Wizard and Glass. I kept reading, just to see things through. But I stopped enjoying.
I thought Wolves of Calla was awesome. I'm surprised you didn't enjoy that one. My least favorite(of the first 5) was The Drawing of the Three actually. Like Lost, i like the mysteries of the Island the most. Drawing of the Three was like the off Island episodes these past two seasons of Lost. It was lots of setup and character building, and all I wanted was to get back to Mid-World. Though I will say, I appreciated the rich character development later.
quote:Originally posted by Xann.: If the do a Dark Tower like ending it could suck horrible. but if they have there own that is set up and made well, it could be great. Let's hope for a non-cop-out ending.
I actually LIKED the ending that King warns you about. I had predicted and expected it from the very beginning and was pleased to see it. It was the two books leading up to it that disappointed me.
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: Also, TOTALLY CALLED DANIEL. Just sayin'.
I don't remember you calling anything in particular, just wondering where he was. I think Tres's theory is probably the most accurate. That he's been off working with Cheng, possibly in the Hatch, or at least on the main Island. Here are some thoughts I wrote to someone recently about Faraday after some of the stuff Tres wrote. We had been discussing the possibility that Faraday was the "smart young man"(Mrs. Hawking's words) who figured out how to find the Island by looking for "when" it would be instead of "where". As well as the origin of certain information in his notebook that seems to pertain to Dharma Iniative specific things.
quote:here are some brief thoughts. the man who figures out how to find the island must be off the island right? working with the original dharma initiative before they ever come to the island. this would be late 60s right? The original faraday is probably not even born at this point. and for faraday's notebook to be from the island, it would have gotten off the island somehow too, right? so here's my super quick speculation. faraday is on the island from 1974 to 1977. we have seen him at an undisclosed time near the wheel. we didn't see him this last episode in the 1977 scenes, only the 1974 scenes. i think faraday is trying to find a way back to their own time. i think he's working in the hatch. i think faraday is the one who causes the "incident" to occur and it has something to do with his plan to get the losties back to their present time. I think he turns the wheel and sacrifices himself, leaving the island and transporting himself to the mainland in order to jump the losties back to their own time. he ends up in the 1960s and helps dharma find the island to ensure that all the things happen the way they're supposed to happen. maybe that's how the military pictures end up at the lamp post station, because he takes them from the island and brings them with him. and at some point leaves the notebook for his younger future self. question is, what comes of this older version of faraday? where does he end up?
This was a quick not very well thought out ramble, but I think it might be circling around the truth. Depending on how the show handles certain things about the notebook i could be happy with this. There is a problem of origin with the notebook in this case, it has to do with the ontological paradox, which is related to the predestination paradox i talked about a few pages back. From wikipedia:
quote: An ontological paradox is a paradox of time travel that questions the existence and creation of information and objects that travel in time. It is very closely related to the predestination paradox and usually occurs at the same time.
a scenario can occur where items or information are passed from the future to the past, which then become the same items or information that are subsequently passed back. This not only creates a loop, but a situation where these items have no discernible origin. Physical items are even more problematic than pieces of information, since they should ordinarily age and increase in entropy according to the Second law of thermodynamics. But if they age by any nonzero amount at each cycle, they cannot be the same item to be sent back in time, creating a contradiction unless it is a reproduced item such as a seed, spore, etc.
Examples:
* On his 30th birthday, a man who wishes to build a time machine is visited by a future version of himself. This future self explains to him that he should not worry about designing the time machine, as he has done it in the future. The man receives the schematics from his future self and starts building the time machine. Time passes until he finally completes the time machine. He then uses it to travel back in time to his 30th birthday, where he gives the schematics to his past self, closing the loop. The problem is, the schematics could have never been written by anyone in the first place.
* A young physicist receives an old, tattered, disintegrating notebook containing various information about future events from his future self who has sent it back to him via a time machine; he copies it over into a new notebook before it deteriorates so badly as to be unusable. Over the years the predictions of the notebook come true, allowing him to become wealthy enough to fund his own research; which results in the development of a time machine, which he uses to send the now old, tattered, disintegrating notebook back to his former self. The notebook is not a paradox (it has an end and a beginning; the beginning where he bought it, the end where he threw it out after he copied the information), but the information is.
A relevant example would be the Compass. Richard gives Locke the compass in the future, which he then gives to Richard in the Past(which Richard gives to Locke in the future, etc…). So where did the compass come from in the first place? There is no origin for it, it exists only this “causal loop”. This is a very real problem and I have no answer for it. I'm not very happy with the wikipedia article on this because it implies a "loop" is occurring, which it is, but most people take loop to mean a repeating loop, which is what we were discussing the other week. The important thing in my mind to distinguish is the difference between cause and effect being self contained within a paradoxical set of events, and the idea that these events repeat in time. And looping adds the unnecessarily problem of breaking the second law of thermodynamics. when you get rid of the idea that these events loop in time, then you get rid of that paradox. the object doesn't need to age with each iteration, because there are no iterations.
Neither the characters nor these artifacts are stuck in an infinite loop. It’s misleading to think of the compass in the following way: Richard gives Locke the compass, who travels back in time and gives it to Richard, who gives it to Locke in the future, who travels back in time to give it to Richard, etc…because it implies the compass is going through these events over and over again.
The compass comes into existence when Locke shows up in the past carrying it, and goes out of existence after Richard gives it to him in the future and Locke disappears with it. Again, this is a very real paradox, but in no way implies a loop. Worth mentioning is that even if this WAS an infinite loop it still wouldn’t solve the problem of where the compass came from. Unless you assume there was an original time through where the compass was created and there was no time travel, and that by time traveling a parallel universe was created that doesn’t include that original history. I don't buy the "first time through" theory.
My guess is more along these lines: Richard doesn't have the compass when Locke gives it to him in the 50s(he doesn't seem to recognize it and says "is that supposed to mean something to me?") At some later point he finds or acquires the "original" compass. He is now in possession of two compasses. He then gives Locke the original version in the future, and retains possession of the one Locke brought back in time with him. Not sure if the show will go that route, but it would solve the paradox of origin.
This was an extremely long tangent, but there are some important paradoxes of origin that the show needs to address I feel. That's one of them. The numbers Desmond gives to Faraday is another one. And if Faraday IS the smart young man who figures out how to find the Island, AND gets a version of the notebook to his younger self, there would be another paradox of origin created there. Though...if Faraday leaves the original notebook on the Island, and creates a new one when he gets back to the mainland in the 1960s, then the notebook would at least have a beginning and an end. Though I'm not sure if the information contained within the notebook would then be subject to the paradox. Faraday can't give his younger self all the important breakthroughs to do with time travel, BUT he can give his younger self information about Dharma without causing any paradoxes, since he wouldn't use that information till he got older and came to the Island.
Sorry again for my lengthy posts! I didn't even talk about this episode.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some reason, the examples of the ontological paradoxes you mention remind me of how David Eddings treats prophecy in his Belgariad and Mallorean books. There, they know the prophecies exist, and instead of simply looking for them to be fulfilled, it's the job of the person/people the prophecy speaks of to make sure it comes to pass. It's even their job to make sure they know what the prophecies say so that they get it right!
Okay, so the connection with what you've been talking about (all of which I followed, by the way) is maybe this: That in the case of Daniel and his notebook, for instance, perhaps knowing he has to create it at some point, he makes it a point to. Doesn't solve the problem of the paradox, but it does address motive and the introduction of the item.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a lot of speculation involved in this, because as of now we don't even know that Faraday is the man who finds the island for dharma in the first place. And we don't know that he gives a younger version of himself a notebook. But yes, if he does, then there are two possible paradoxes, one of the physical origin and end of the notebook itself, and the other of the information contained within it. Young Faraday needs to do his own research into figuring out time travel, if he gets too much info from old Faraday then there's a paradox of where that information came from. Again, all of this may be moot though.
The more interesting part to me is that Faraday may be the "smart young man" who helps Dharma find the Island.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't remember you calling anything in particular, just wondering where he was.
*goes back* I guess you're right! I think I must have had that speculative conversation off-board. Anyway, I did call that there was more significance to them not showing him in the "Three Years Later" episode beyond "they just didn't run into him that day"
If Miles is Cheng's son, and Cheng's there now, wouldn't they have bumped into each other by now?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Miles seems to be in his late 20s/early 30s right? Which would mean he was born roughly in the mid to late 70s. In 77 he'd either be a toddler or a baby or unborn. In the first episode of the season we saw Cheng with a baby before he goes down to the cave where the wheel is and where Faraday is. We don't know when in the time line this happens. Either between 74 and 77, or it hasn't happened yet in the current time line. I can't imagine the Losties staying in Dharma time all that much longer now that the O6 is back, so I would give the total Losties Dharma time as at most 74-78 and assume the scene with Faraday and Chang happens some time within all that. my guess is closer to 78, putting Mile's at currently unborn or a baby. Given that Cheng doesn't seem to really be around the main Dharma contingent normally, it might not be that big of a deal that Miles hasn't run into his baby self yet.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Given that Cheng doesn't seem to really be around the main Dharma contingent normally, it might not be that big of a deal that Miles hasn't run into his baby self yet.
They seem a little cliquey anyway, the Dharma folks. Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh wait, did you mean wouldn't Cheng have bumped into adult Miles by now? probably, but assuming Mile's IS Cheng's son, we still don't know anything about how young Mile's was when he left the Island. Both of them might have no way of recognizing the other one.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a friend who is constantly inventing (or looking online for) LOST theories, and propounding those theories to everyone who will listen - even those who don't want to listen. In the end, for every theory that's right, he'll have 99 that are wrong, but he'll conveniently forget about the 99, and feel unbearably smug about the one that turned out to be right. The worst part of it, though, is that I'm really enjoying having the plot-line revealed to me at the pace the writers want to reveal it, and having someone keep throwing theories at me runs the risk of spoiling that enjoyment.
Anyway, I've pretty much stopped reading this thread because much of it seems to have become a trading-of-theories thread, which doesn't interest me at all.
So I'm posting here to say two things:
1. I wonder if there's enough interest in this show to have two season 5 threads. One, "The LOST that is, Season 5" and the other, "The LOST that MIGHT be, Season 5" and separate the endless theories from discussion about what's actually happening on the show right now.
2. I'm really glad that Sawyer is stepping up to the plate and taking some leadership responsibility. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You make a valid point, Jeorge. Why don't you start one of those threads, and whichever one you don't can continue on here.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just re-watched the pilot on Hulu. I didn't remember that a lot of that stuff happened or was revealed that early on -- the polar bear, learning that Charlie was a junkie, that Sayid was in the Republican Guard and that Kate was a fugitive.
But this is a bad precedent. I don't want to get sucked into watching the whole thing again. I just started watching Season 1 of Buffy. On the flip side, I really don't watch much that's currently on the tube aside from Lost and an occasional episode of House or Monk. And The Closer, but that's over till next season.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Important things worth mentioning this week:
We found out that Amy and Horace's baby is Ethan. This is interesting for a few reasons. One being that we now know that Ben wasn't the only Dharma person to switch camps and become an other(were there others?). Though Ethan would have been pretty young when the purge happened, i wonder what, if any, role Ethan had in it, and how and why he lived? The baby is NOT Jacob. While that was a fun theory, i'm kind of glad it didn't turn out to be Jacob, because I much prefer my theory that Jacob is the essence of the Island manifested and I've always been against Jacob being an actual person. It seemed to fit, so I went with it, but I'm glad it turned out not to be true.
We finally met Radzinsky(the guy working at The Flame(the flame being the communications center where we first met Mikhail)). Radzinsky is working on building a model of The Swan station(AKA The Hatch), where we know he ends up working with Kelvin and creating the Blast Door Map. Some time after which he commits suicide. Does Faraday have anything to do with the plans for the Swan?
Lapidus and Sun took the boat(no big surprise), but were also the ones that knocked out Ben and caused him to end up with the rest of the "injured", which was pretty cool. We saw(or at least heard) a bit of the smoke monster, heard some whispers, and saw Christian Shepard in a cabin. So...why did the smoke monster make an appearance? And why did we hear whispers before Christian appeared? And is Christian going to help Sun and Lapidus get to the 70s or the other way around?
We hear the numbers being broadcast when the plane crashes. Why are they being broadcast? When they stopped Rousseau's transmission they didn't replace it with anything right? So where is this broadcast coming from and why?
How much does Ben know? Does adult Ben remember meeting all the Losties in 1970s Dharma time? And isn't little Ben so perfectly creepy? It's like he's gotten more Ben like as he's gotten older!
Cheng interacted with Jack on orientation day and still had both good arms. What happens to make him lose an arm and need a prosthetic? Think this happens in The Incident?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: How much does Ben know? Does adult Ben remember meeting all the Losties in 1970s Dharma time? And isn't little Ben so perfectly creepy? It's like he's gotten more Ben like as he's gotten older!
Perfectly creepy is a good way to put it, and Sayid's reaction was pretty great. And yes, I have to think that Ben remembered the Losties when he first met them. And I wondered the same thing about Ethan -- how did he survive the Dharma purge and become an Other? I'm also still waiting for the story of how Ben ended up with Rousseau's daughter.
quote:Cheng interacted with Jack on orientation day and still had both good arms. What happens to make him lose an arm and need a prosthetic?
I just can't keep up with you or Lost. When have we seen Cheng with a prosthetic? Was it evident on the orientation films?
Rewatching the pilot was interesting in light of the evolving relationships and this past episode. In the pilot Sawyer picks a fight with Sayid and accuses him of being a terrorist who had something to do with the crash. And now Sawyer/LaFleur has to save Sayid, and convey to him without saying so directly that that's what he's trying to do, while taking him prisoner and treating him as a Hostile. I thought their interaction was well done: "You need to identify yourself as a Hostile."
And more on my earlier comment on Sawyer talking about his leadership style vs. Jack's. In the pilot (or maybe it was Episode 1), Jack is in the plane looking for antibiotics to save the U.S. Marshall and is startled by Sawyer, who is just plain looting. But their conversation is enlightening in light of the recent episode: Sawyer tells Jack that he's not thinking it through, that he's going to use up all their supply of antibiotics on a guy who's essentially a dead man already. Sawyer, on the other hand, is already seeing the writing on the wall and is stockpiling rather than counting on being rescued.
Of course, at that point Jack was pretty altruistic and though he may have been reacting rather than thinking things through, he was motivated by wanting to help others. Whereas Sawyer was focused pretty exclusively on looking out for #1. That seems to have changed; he really is looking out for others now. And interestingly, Jack seems fairly willing (so far) to follow his lead, once he's been put in his place.
Obviously I'm more interested in character development than I am in all the ins and outs and theories. However, I still want to hear some feedback to a question I raised on the last page. Prior to delivering Ethan, had Juliet ever worked with a pregnant woman (other than Sun) who was not an Other? Was the difference in carrying the baby to term and surviving the birth because something about the Others/Hostiles prevents this, which does not apply to Dharma Initiative people or Losties?
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm also still waiting for the story of how Ben ended up with Rousseau's daughter.
I just assumed that the story Rousseau told was pretty much true, that the others stole her baby, and Linus adopted her as his own.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But why did Ben adopt her? He doesn't exactly strike me as the paternal type (even though he'd clearly become attached to her). I wonder if he had a wife or girlfriend at one point; I just don't see him as having a yearning to find a baby to nurture and raise on his own.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I still want to hear some feedback to a question I raised on the last page. Prior to delivering Ethan, had Juliet ever worked with a pregnant woman (other than Sun) who was not an Other? Was the difference in carrying the baby to term and surviving the birth because something about the Others/Hostiles prevents this, which does not apply to Dharma Initiative people or Losties?
As far as I know, other than Sun, Juliet has never worked with a non-other pregnant woman. But I think I attempted to address the root of your question elsewhere in this thread. As far as I can tell there wasn't a problem with pregnancies on the Island at this point in time. YES, the dharma people ship pregnant women off Island to deliver their babies, but they send them during their last two weeks of pregnancy, whereas the pregnant women die BEFORE their third trimester, with problems beginning at the beginning of the second trimester. This would indicate that there's a different reason to take 8 and half month pregnant women off an Island by means of a submarine, since whatever ales pregnant women later in the timeline would have killed Amy months before she delivered Ethan. My speculation is that this has to do with the truce that the Dharma folks have with the Natives, to not deliver any babies on Island. My speculation about the deaths involves Ben's relationship to the Island, and Jacob, and the fact that his mother died during her 7th month of pregnancy, but that's also speculation.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, nothing new to say. Yet. Just thought I'd bump it up to the top and save someone else the trouble of finding this later this evening! Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xann.: If the do a Dark Tower like ending it could suck horrible. but if they have there own that is set up and made well, it could be great. Let's hope for a non-cop-out ending.
I actually LIKED the ending that King warns you about. I had predicted and expected it from the very beginning and was pleased to see it. It was the two books leading up to it that disappointed me.
I don't see how anyone predicts that ending... but I didn't mean that Dark Tower had a bad ending, I loved the ending. It is just really easy to have an ending like that, that feels like a lazy way to finish a story.
I have also always wondered if someone stopped the book when he said so, and didn't finsih. I don't see how you could.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, we've violated the cardinal rule of time travel tonight. Yeah, I'm hooked. Gotta find out how things turn out now.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sayid should've snapped his neck! But i guess we know he couldn't have done that, because we all know Ben lives. I bet Jack has to save him. Leonide's right, it's almost unbelievable that Sayid didn't check, but I guess that would mess up the continuity.
Xann, i can email you what clued me in(or in another thread) cause i don't want to give spoilers here, but i literally predicted the ending down the sentence. Even though everyone told me there was no conceivable way i could predict that ending. it just made me more sure i was right. i wouldn't even look at people when i told them my speculation or ask for any confirmation. i would write it down or email it, so i didn't have to see the reaction on their face to my guess. I hate spoilers that much. It didn't detract from the story one bit though.
I didn't really consider it a cop out in The Dark Tower, but I would most certainly consider that a cop out in Lost. It is a gimick in a sense(and yeah, an easy way out) but it can be used well too. I think if King had led up to that ending in a satisfying manner it would've been great. as it is, i should have listened to Tom Davidson's advice. Stop reading after book 5, and then just read the last 3 pages of book 7.
If Lost ended that way I'd be really disappointed though.
posted
My bet is that the island in some way resurrects Ben - and it leads to Ben learning the Island's purpose for him.
I guess that because we've already seen a resurrection happen with Locke. In fact, it might even offer a new explanation as to why Ben killed Locke the first time. At the time, we were told Ben killed Locke because Locke talked to Jacob, and we were left to assume Ben was jealous. But what if it wasn't jealousy at all? What if Ben killed Locke hoping that Locke would be resurrected? What if all of the leaders of the Others become leader of the Others by first getting resurrected by the island? If that were true, then when Ben realized Locke can talk to Jacob, perhaps he shot Locke in order to see if the island would resurrect him, and thus test if Locke was destined to become the new leader. After all, at some point between killing Locke and turning the wheel, Ben comes to the decision that Locke is the new leader of the Others. Maybe he figures it out because what happens to Locke also happened to Ben when he was 12.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But what if it wasn't jealousy at all? What if Ben killed Locke hoping that Locke would be resurrected?
I suggested the resurrection possibility a few pages back:
quote:I think Ben planned all along to kill Locke. I don't think it was a last minute decision: the Jin/Sun thing is not enough impetus, and the Eloise thing happened too quickly -- I don't think Ben is that quick on the trigger.
My new theory is that Locke couldn't be allowed to kill himself...he needed to be murdered. Ben needed Locke dead as a substitute for Christian, but he also needed him not to have died by his own hand -- the frantic way Ben bashed in the door to stop Locke's suicide indicates that it wasn't all for show. He really couldn't afford to lose Locke that way.
Perhaps the island does resurrect, and resurrect in totality (aka Locke returning exactly as Locke, and not as some Monkey's-Paw-creepy-zombified Locke) but only depending on the manner of death?
This would be in line with the current episode, if Ben was really murdered by Sayid. Or even if Ben just thinks he died and was resurrected.
I think the current episode also explains why Ben is particularly hung-up on Sayid, but doesn't initially try to manipulate any of the other LaLosties into doing things for him. Dude tried to kill him!
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, putting together thoughts from several of you (that to be a leader of the Others, that person needs to be resurrected by the Island), Ben likely shot Locke because he knew about this little requirement, but Locke didn't die that first time (at least, we're not sure if he did or didn't). Could that be why Locke had to die and so Ben killed him before returning to the Island?
While I think Sayid shot Ben to rid the world of him (not knowing the attempt would be pointless by Sayid's standards), I'm also in the camp of folks who think Ben will be coming back around.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Along those lines, while I was tickled to get a "flaskback" to Sayid's childhood -- I'm amazed the producers/writers felt that Sayid's natural ruthlessness was something we needed to be reminded of, and the explanation of his current actions in light of his childhood ones seemed forced. And in no way did it tie in with the bounty hunter storyline. I feel like the writers are realizing they've neglected to keep up with the character development and so shoved a bunch of (much needed if rushed)backstory into this episode.
In other news, I still love Sayid.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Along those lines, while I was tickled to get a "flaskback" to Sayid's childhood -- I'm amazed the producers/writers felt that Sayid's natural ruthlessness was something we needed to be reminded of, and the explanation of his current actions in light of his childhood ones seemed forced.
I thought it was interesting that even in childhood, Sayid's "ruthlessness" was motivated by compassion for his brother. He wasn't a kid who took pleasure in killing or who thought killing a chicken was fun and games. He was a kid who was capable of doing what was necessary, and motivated to do it by a desire to protect someone he cared about. I think that's why I like Sayid's character so much. Unlike Ben, he isn't able to kill without remorse. He is able to do what he deems necessary, but he pays a great price for it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Along those lines, while I was tickled to get a "flaskback" to Sayid's childhood -- I'm amazed the producers/writers felt that Sayid's natural ruthlessness was something we needed to be reminded of, and the explanation of his current actions in light of his childhood ones seemed forced.
I thought it was interesting that even in childhood, Sayid's "ruthlessness" was motivated by compassion for his brother. He wasn't a kid who took pleasure in killing or who thought killing a chicken was fun and games. He was a kid who was capable of doing what was necessary, and motivated to do it by a desire to protect someone he cared about. I think that's why I like Sayid's character so much. Unlike Ben, he isn't able to kill without remorse. He is able to do what he deems necessary, but he pays a great price for it.
agreed. i appreciated that aspect of it too.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Actually, I thought the first kid was going to turn out to be Sayid.
Maybe getting shot by Sayid is what turned Ben into a full-blown psychopath.
My initial response to the first kid was that they'd done a particularly poor job of picking a kid to play young Sayid. As soon as the second kid showed up, I knew he was Sayid and not the first kid.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: My initial response to the first kid was that they'd done a particularly poor job of picking a kid to play young Sayid.
He he...
I agree also with what you said about his actions being out of compassion. Very good point.
Edited to delete a stray bracket.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe getting shot by Sayid is what turned Ben into a full-blown psychopath.
And not the killing of his father?
quote: thought it was interesting that even in childhood, Sayid's "ruthlessness" was motivated by compassion for his brother. He wasn't a kid who took pleasure in killing or who thought killing a chicken was fun and games. He was a kid who was capable of doing what was necessary, and motivated to do it by a desire to protect someone he cared about. I think that's why I like Sayid's character so much. Unlike Ben, he isn't able to kill without remorse. He is able to do what he deems necessary, but he pays a great price for it.
Totally agreed. My complaint wasn't about the particulars of the flashback, but about the fact that it didn't tie into the other flashbacks in a meaningful way, and then the placement within this particular episode made it seem like it illuminated his reasoning for doing so, which I don't know that it did.
posted
Does anyone else feel really unsettled about the purpose of the Oceanic six on the island?
Jack is there because he believes the Island has a purpose for them. If I were him, I'd march straight up to Richard and ask HIM what to do. Seriously, what's their plan? Hanging out with the Dharmans all day?
Also, the Dharmans seem like a buncha losers. Why do the Others take so long to wipe em out?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Also, the Dharmans seem like a buncha losers. Why do the Others take so long to wipe em out?
Heh. Actually, I was just chatting with a coworker about Lost, and the obvious fact came up that Sawyer and Co. have to have learned some things about the Dharma initiative after three years among the "Dharmans" and that we really want to know those things! As viewers, we're used to knowing what these original characters know, even if it's not a whole lot and/or just to be freaked out. Now, we've got people we've followed around for four seasons who obviously have more of an inside scoop and haven't shared yet!
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
