Lost - The Final Season (Spoilers)

[Russ Smith]

Kate, along with Jack and Hugo, ended up in 1977 Dharmaville with Jin, Sawyer, and Juliet for around half of last season. I don't think it's a stretch to think Jin knows that Kate took Aaron and left him in the real world.

There you go I forgot about Kate being there when the Oceanic 6 returned.

 

[CaptTurbo]

I'm still trying to figure out if we're sure Jacob is the good guy and MIB is the bad guy? One of the running themes in this show is that the good guys and the bad guys aren't always who you think and that there's a fine line between good and bad.

You can argue that if that was Jacob's list of candidates that he's the bad guy bringing all these people to the island for some selfish purpose?

I also wonder if the guy trying to find the island isn't just Charles Widmore again and not someone we haven't met yet?

Side question, how did Jin know where Aaron was? He wasn't on the helicopter he was on the boat that exploded so he didn't see Aaron leave. Most of the time since he's been separated from Kate and the Oceanic 6. IIRC the only chance he really had to find that out was when they were in the temple together. So if Kate told him in the temple or when they left the temple wouldn't she have also told him that she left Aaron with his grandmother? If so, why wouldn't Jin just tell Claire, they don't have Aaron, he's off the island, he's safe with your grandmother? Unless he just thinks she's so far gone the only answer she can accept is they have Aaron I'll help you get him back?

The singular reason why I have a dislike for the show is that no one ever tells anyone anything. In real life when Jin and Kate see each other at the temple youd be like "Oh my God guess what happened to me since I last saw you!" I mean its not like these people just went grocery shopping this would be mind blowing stuff.

Anyway, I cant buy into Claire being this lone survivor in the wilderness thing. She doesnt doesnt look/feel/act the part well.

 

[Chaplin]

The singular reason why I have a dislike for the show is that no one ever tells anyone anything. In real life when Jin and Kate see each other at the temple youd be like "Oh my God guess what happened to me since I last saw you!" I mean its not like these people just went grocery shopping this would be mind blowing stuff.

What do you mean? Jin and Kate were together when the bomb went off in 1977, so I'm not sure they would have much to discuss.

Anyway, I cant buy into Claire being this lone survivor in the wilderness thing. She doesnt doesnt look/feel/act the part well.

I don't think it's a stretch to believe that she has been somewhat protected by her "friend", the MIB.

 

[Chaplin]

Here's something interesting. A list of names from the lighthouse wheel and their status:

The lighthouse protractor reveals the following potential candidates that weren't previously known from the Cliffside cave:

* Pryce crossed out at number 14.
* Rousseau crossed out at number 20.
* Brennan crossed out at number 35.
* Stanhope crossed out at 48.
* Austen at number 51. Austen is not crossed out and was not shown in the scene in the cave in "The Substitute."
* Burke crossed out at number 58.
* Faraday crossed out at number 101.
* Lewis crossed out at number 104, which is different from "The Substitute" where she has number 140.
* Rutherford crossed out at number 32, which is different from "The Substitute" where she has number 31.
* Wallace crossed out at number 108.
* Friendly crossed out at number 109.
* Linus crossed out at number 117.
* Dawson crossed out at number 124.
* Littleton crossed out at number 313, which is different from "The Substitute" where she has number 212.

Most interesting is Kate, who is NOT crossed out and is NOT one of Hurley's numbers.

Oh, and I read that someone noticed that Aaron is #01.

 

[Gaddabout]

So isn't that the point of Satan, to try and sever the strings and overcome this irresistable will?

This would basically make the show a re-make of MacLeish's J.B. (nttawwt, btw)

JTS

You're gonna make me carry on, aren't you.

In Calvinism, Satan is just another tool. This is the major flaw of Calvinism, because it creates a paradox: If Satan is just another puppet of God, and God is using Satan's evil ways for his purposes, would that also make God as evil as he is good?

Reformed theologians have strained gnats to come up with a better apology for Calvinisms problem of evil without satisfying anyone but themselves.

IMO -- strictly MO -- a holistic Biblical view would show two kingdoms, the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Evil, at constant war with each other each battling for worshipers. Until the age of judgment (the return of Christ), the battle goes on for the hearts of men, and God has chosen to allow men the free will to choose which kingdom to serve. This is why evil is seemingly allowed to run rampant on earth.

I think Lost shares, at least, an epistemology with me in terms of how divine will interacts with the not-divine on this earth.

 

[TBaslim]

I figure that anyone who uses a "Citizen of the Galaxy" reference as their member name would appreciate a little philosophical meandering.

(although, I would have selected "RBaslim" myself, but that's just me. )

JTS

Very true...after all, a little philosophical meandering does the mind good.

And major bonus round points for knowing the source of 'TBaslim'.

Not sure how many folks in this day and age have a taste for 50's era sci-fi, although I suppose Heinlein's books aimed at adolescents are still in print occasionally. 'Citizen' was always my favorite as a kid...

(oh, and I haven't read it for long time, but I think Rudbeck was his 'real' last name...Thorby or Thor or something was his actual first.)

EDIT: Nevermind - I realized you meant the elder Col. Baslim. Had to wikipedia it (ah, the Internet age!).

 

[chickenhead]

The singular reason why I have a dislike for the show is that no one ever tells anyone anything. In real life when Jin and Kate see each other at the temple youd be like "Oh my God guess what happened to me since I last saw you!" I mean its not like these people just went grocery shopping this would be mind blowing stuff.

Anyway, I cant buy into Claire being this lone survivor in the wilderness thing. She doesnt doesnt look/feel/act the part well.

This is actually a really good point, and something I never really thought about before. Along similar lines as when I posted about the frequency with which the plot is moved forward by characters complying with others who say "you have to trust me" when there is a) no reason for the former to trust them, and b) no reason why the latter can't tell them where they are going and why.

Like when new Locke is leading Sawyer to the cave. Sawyer goes with him even though he doesn't trust him, even though he thinks Locke might kill him on the cliffside, and even though he might accidentally die on the cliffside. And there's no reason why new Locke can't tell him "Jacob is playing a game with your lives, and I want to show you the evidence." I know that the rationale is that the leader wants the follower to "see it for themself," but as a method it's relied upon far too often, and becomes a classic weak point in storytelling. Characters being mindless to the author's will. Not to imply that a character has a mind of its own, of course, but this kind of thing really allows the curtain to be pulled back.

I don't really know why most of my posts about this show are critical. I do really enjoy it, as well as reading people's theories and obersvations.

 

[Gaddabout]

This is actually a really good point, and something I never really thought about before. Along similar lines as when I posted about the frequency with which the plot is moved forward by characters complying with others who say "you have to trust me" when there is a) no reason for the former to trust them, and b) no reason why the latter can't tell them where they are going and why.

Like when new Locke is leading Sawyer to the cave. Sawyer goes with him even though he doesn't trust him, even though he thinks Locke might kill him on the cliffside, and even though he might accidentally die on the cliffside. And there's no reason why new Locke can't tell him "Jacob is playing a game with your lives, and I want to show you the evidence." I know that the rationale is that the leader wants the follower to "see it for themself," but as a method it's relied upon far too often, and becomes a classic weak point in storytelling. Characters being mindless to the author's will. Not to imply that a character has a mind of its own, of course, but this kind of thing really allows the curtain to be pulled back.

I don't really know why most of my posts about this show are critical. I do really enjoy it, as well as reading people's theories and obersvations.

It's a challenge for me, too, but here are some things I keep in mind to continue to suspend my disbelief:

- The writers have chosen characters who either are heroic (Jack, Kate, Sayid), pretend to be not heroic but have it in them (Sawyer, Hugo, Jin), or fancy themselves as misunderstood heroes but don't really have what it takes (Locke). This drives them to do things that most of us wouldn't do.

- Every character has secrets that skews their view of the world. None of them are really trusting of the world, so when they appear to trust people, they're really going along out of curiosity and the expectation (and faith in their ability) to take control of the situation.

- Every character seems to have serious daddy issues, and this has been used to manipulate every single character on the show.

- If all else fails, I remind myself the characters have even a more compelling reason to allow their own curiosity to trump logic. The island is inexplicable, and sometimes just wanting to know is a more powerful urge than self-preservation. I can buy that. After all, they're being held hostage by natural and unnatural forces. What else do they have to do?

 

[Russ Smith]

This is actually a really good point, and something I never really thought about before. Along similar lines as when I posted about the frequency with which the plot is moved forward by characters complying with others who say "you have to trust me" when there is a) no reason for the former to trust them, and b) no reason why the latter can't tell them where they are going and why.

Like when new Locke is leading Sawyer to the cave. Sawyer goes with him even though he doesn't trust him, even though he thinks Locke might kill him on the cliffside, and even though he might accidentally die on the cliffside. And there's no reason why new Locke can't tell him "Jacob is playing a game with your lives, and I want to show you the evidence." I know that the rationale is that the leader wants the follower to "see it for themself," but as a method it's relied upon far too often, and becomes a classic weak point in storytelling. Characters being mindless to the author's will. Not to imply that a character has a mind of its own, of course, but this kind of thing really allows the curtain to be pulled back.

I don't really know why most of my posts about this show are critical. I do really enjoy it, as well as reading people's theories and obersvations.

Yeah and of course the real reason they do that is for the viewer, they want the "reveal" to be shocking, and it won't be if Locke just tells Sawyer where they're going and why.

Michael Crichton books always have bothered me for something similar, in every book he has one character who essentially is omniscient and seems to be in the book primarily to explain things to the reader. For instance Jurassic Park it's the Chaos theory guy. Lost differs in that it appears there are a few characters, who actually know what's going on, but they go the exact opposite way in refusing to tell anybody, they have to find out for themselves.

I guess I would prefer a happy medium?

 

[jefftheshark]

This is actually a really good point, and something I never really thought about before. Along similar lines as when I posted about the frequency with which the plot is moved forward by characters complying with others who say "you have to trust me" when there is a) no reason for the former to trust them, and b) no reason why the latter can't tell them where they are going and why.

Like when new Locke is leading Sawyer to the cave. Sawyer goes with him even though he doesn't trust him, even though he thinks Locke might kill him on the cliffside, and even though he might accidentally die on the cliffside. And there's no reason why new Locke can't tell him "Jacob is playing a game with your lives, and I want to show you the evidence." I know that the rationale is that the leader wants the follower to "see it for themself," but as a method it's relied upon far too often, and becomes a classic weak point in storytelling. Characters being mindless to the author's will. Not to imply that a character has a mind of its own, of course, but this kind of thing really allows the curtain to be pulled back.

I don't really know why most of my posts about this show are critical. I do really enjoy it, as well as reading people's theories and obersvations.

If the characters gave it all away at once, the show would have been over in the first hour.

Just like this 2 minute version of the Lord Of The Rings:

LINK



JTS

 

[Evil Ash]

 

[DWKB]

So, with Claire, Sayid, Kate, and Sawyer all with Locke and Jack and Hurley with Jacob, I wonder what other significance this poster has:

You must be registered for see images

And what, if any, this one has as well (notice the switch of Miles and Claire)

You must be registered for see images

 

[Chaplin]

I think Kate is a wild card. MIB's expression when he saw her was not happiness, that's for sure.

 

[chickenhead]

"Still hot, though." I love Miles. Thank God for the helicopter that landed him an Cap'n Frank on the island.

Very curious to know what's going on with Sayid. Is the evil part of him the part that is capable of killing without mercy, as evidenced by his actions in the flash-sideways? (Not saying those guys didn't have it coming).

 

[Cheesebeef]

just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in!

that was a great episode, one where I actually enjoyed both the present and the flash whatevers.

 

[Gaddabout]

Sayid in an extended action scene. Overdue, man. Overdue.

 

[TBaslim]

So, do folks think they will 'flip' the good vs evil final countdown/rumble being setup right now? This is all very 'The Stand' so far.

Or will they keep pushing that it is somewhat gray (ie, maybe Jacob and MIB are bad, but in different ways, etc)?

 

[devilalum]

So, do folks think they will 'flip' the good vs evil final countdown/rumble being setup right now? This is all very 'The Stand' so far.

Or will they keep pushing that it is somewhat gray (ie, maybe Jacob and MIB are bad, but in different ways, etc)?

The story the temple leader guy told Sayid was telling to me. He basically sold his soul to Jacob to save his son. I don't remember any stories from the bible about Jesus doing anything like that.

 

[Gaddabout]

It's all very Greek to me. Gods playing with the lives of men to settle petty differences. Neither good nor evil. Just divine mostly indifferent to the world and the plight of men.

 

[green machine]

I think Kate is a wild card. MIB's expression when he saw her was not happiness, that's for sure.

Agreed, she looked pretty well shocked and disgusted with what happened at the temple. But, she's a survivor, so she knows her best chance is to stick with Locke's crew for now.

 

[Chaplin]

I know one thing for sure, the "Jacob side" needs to really come together. We saw it last night when they showed up at the Temple. (Lapidus, Ilana, Sun, Miles, and you gotta think Hurley and Jack) Wouldn't it be interesting if Jin ended up on the other side? I still don't think Kate will side with MIB in the end. And I am entertaining the idea that Sawyer is setting up a long con against MIB as well.

I must say though, I hope there's an alterior motive for Sayid. I've always loved his dual nature--the bad guy trying to make good on his past indiscretions. After last night's episode, he has totally embraced is bad guy side.

Interesting theory that came up: The "alternate" timeline, isn't alternate. It's what happens if you take the MIB's "deal"--the one that Dogen somewhat described. So the alt timeline could technically be the "future" of all our island people, even though that timeline occurs in the past.

Think about it: Sayid's deal is the same essentially as Dogen. The MIB makes it so that Nadia does not get hit by a car--but Sayid cannot have her because she's married to his weak brother. Hurley doesn't have bad luck. Jack is still a successful surgeon. Claire has her baby and is with him in LA.

There are a few issues though: Kate is still a fugitive and Dogen has a son in the alt timeline. ALTHOUGH Dogen's story that he told Sayid seems to have been old. Dogen's been around a long time, so how could he have a young son in the alt timeline? If the above theory has any weight, you've got to thing the son Dogen had in the alt timeline isn't his original son, but a 2nd son--and his 2nd chance.

Spoiler

There is also a rumor that we will see more Dogen and his backstory coming up, but that isn't confirmed. So we might not have seen the last of him. And he was drowned in the magic pool, but the question remains about it's power.

 

[chickenhead]

Agreed, she looked pretty well shocked and disgusted with what happened at the temple. But, she's a survivor, so she knows her best chance is to stick with Locke's crew for now.

It was a really interesting moment, and one that made you feel the kinds of choices they have to make. I'd have to rewatch, but does she know if anyone survived the massacre? If not, what's she going to do, just stay in the temple by herself? If she plans to slip away into the jungle, that moment might now actually be the safest time to do it.

 

[chickenhead]

There are a few issues though: Kate is still a fugitive and Dogen has a son in the alt timeline. ALTHOUGH Dogen's story that he told Sayid seems to have been old. Dogen's been around a long time, so how could he have a young son in the alt timeline? If the above theory has any weight, you've got to thing the son Dogen had in the alt timeline isn't his original son, but a 2nd son--and his 2nd chance.

Ack, I didn't realize that when you quote something with a spoiler the spoiler is revealed b/c it's no longer formatted. I stopped myself just in time!

Interesting point about the age of Dogen's son. Maybe it's not the same son? After all, his other son was killed in Osaka. Now he's in Los Angeles, and we don't know how he got there, when he got there, or why.

 

[Russ Smith]

Sayid is really hard to figure it could have been that after plunging the knife into MIB and seeing nothing happened, and then not being killed, he simply did the math and said I need to be on this guys good side?

Dogen had already tried to kill him and I agree he sent Sayid to kill MIB fully aware it probably wouldn't work, he just expected if it didn't, Sayid would be killed. I guess we're supposed to wonder if Sayid had stabbed him BEFORE MIB said "hello Sayid" he would have died? Dogen immediately said to Sayid you let him talk, and Sayid said only after I stabbed him, but that wasn't true he said hello Sayid first.

I'm still on the fence it's not clear that it's really black and white good vs evil I'm thinking along the lines Gad mentioned there's no clear good or evil both guys are shades of both. I think some of the characters like Kate are still not sure where they stand because they don't know who to believe either.

 

[Chaplin]

Ack, I didn't realize that when you quote something with a spoiler the spoiler is revealed b/c it's no longer formatted. I stopped myself just in time!

Interesting point about the age of Dogen's son. Maybe it's not the same son? After all, his other son was killed in Osaka. Now he's in Los Angeles, and we don't know how he got there, when he got there, or why.

Well I wasn't sure if I should spoiler it or not. This thread is pretty much a free-for-all.