“That was where I was told I could summon the monster. That’s before I realized that it was the one summoning me.”“We’re very close to the end, Hugo.” (Lost fans at home: "WAAAAAAH!!")
“Did you say there were some OTHER people to kill?”
“Maybe this is happening for a reason. Maybe you’re supposed to fix me.”
“I’ll do it. This is why I’m here. This is what I’m supposed to do.”
“I like to feel my feet on the ground. It reminds me that... I was human.”
Wow... the penultimate episode. SO close to the end... going into this episode, I’ve been doing a lot of media interviews this week and many of the interviewers are saying, “They have a LOT of ground to cover off in that finale, don’t you think??” But after this week’s episode, where many of the sideways people are coming together, where Jack has become Jacob’s official successor, where Ben has stepped up his game, where we now know what Smokey is up to... I think they’ve set the stage PERFECTLY for that finale. Wow... less than a week away and it’s all over. Thank god they made it count. I am now even more psyched for that finale than I was before. I didn’t think that was possible!!
Answers:
• Widmore works on Jacob’s side. Jacob recruited him off-island the same way he recruited Ilana.
• Jacob: “You were all flawed. I chose you because you were like me. You were all alone. You were all looking for something that you couldn’t find out there. I chose you because you needed this place as much as it needed you.”
• Kate’s name was crossed off because she was a mother.
• The cave names WERE Jacob’s, and he was the one crossing them off, even though we thought it was Smokey.
• Widmore brought Desmond to the island because he was immune to the electromagnetism. Still not clear why he needed that.
• Smokey wants to destroy the island.
Highlights:
• Manipulative, bad American accent Desmond!!!
• “We have to kill him Jack.” “I know.” Both my husband and I went, “OOOOH!!” loudly. Finally! ACTION!!
• Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, and Jack all standing on the beach looking out at the wreckage. There was something so melancholy about that scene, like you could see on all their faces the looks of what they’ve gone through over the past three years.
• Desmond beating the crap out of Ben and Ben seeing the other world. Holy CRAP, Desmond!!! I didn’t know he had it in him.
• Miles: “Well I lived in these houses 30 years before you did... otherwise known as last week.” LOL!
• Richard buried Alex. :::sniffle:::
• Miles, seeing the ancient door in Ben’s back room, “And what is that, a secreter room?”
• Ben and Widmore!! IN THE SAME ROOM!!
• The look on Desmond’s face when he ends up in the jail cell with Sayid, next to Kate.
• I was so excited when morose Sawyer referred to Locke as “Flocke,” but upon rewatch I think he said, “If Locke wanted...” and it just sounded like “Flocke.” False alarm.
• Petit Jacob!
• “Give me your walkie-talkies.” “Why?” “Because I asked.” HA!! (Actually, that would have been even better if Widmore had said, “Um... technically you DIDN’T ask. You demanded.”
• Holy Richard Alpert Smokey tackle!!! WTF was that?! Is he OK??
• Alex: “Why would someone want to hurt you? You’re like the nicest guy ever!” I LOVE how different Ben is in this world!!
• Rousseau!!! And she cleans up well! :)
• “Zoe... my name is Zoe, I’m...” SLICE!!!! YES!!!!!!!!!!!! Earlier in this episode when Richard and Ben had their guns pointed at her, I was yelling, “SHOOT. HER. WHAT are you WAITING for???” But this scene was so much better. I now find myself on Team Man in Black!!!
• Ben turning away in mock “I’m not listening” when Widmore says he doesn’t want him in the room.
• Ben shooting Widmore!!! “He doesn’t get to save his daughter.” Ben is BACK!!
• “Ben... you never cease to amaze me.”
• Jacob saying he crossed Kate off because she was a mother. I actually welled up when he said that, as if to suggest that motherhood is as important a job as protecting that island. Quite a thing to say, considering his mother. That was like the perfect Mother’s Day card from Darlton.
• “I thought that guy had a God Complex before.” Ha! Poor Sawyer, trying to make light of a difficult situation.
• I loved Jack agreeing to the job, bringing his character full circle from Christian telling Vincent, “My son has work to do” in the thirteenth mobisode. This moment had a real finality to it.
• Sayid referring to Desmond as the crazy person in the van. “I ran over a guy in a wheelchair.” “See what I mean?” LOL!
• Ana Lucia!!! She’s even more hardass in this world than the other one!!
Did You Notice?:
• OK, first of all, that previously on bit? PAINFUL. Did they really need to show me everything that broke my heart two weeks ago? Like I was going to forget it or something. Wah. Pain.
• Did anyone else notice that at breakfast they were all eating a cereal called “Super Bran”? Did anyone else laugh as hard as I did at that revelation? It’s weird, because this is the first season where I didn’t think Jack had something up his butt. :::snicker:::
• Claire’s pregnancy belly is SO fake. The season 1 belly looked real. This one does NOT.
• Jack stitching up Kate is reminiscent of Kate stitching up Jack in the pilot episode.
• Sawyer stares out at the water the way Locke and the Man in Black always did.
• That high school seriously needs 24-hour surveillance. (One nitpick: I doubt the students would be welcoming back a substitute teacher like he was some long-term prof who has shaped them for years.)
• Ben’s safe has a fridge light in it that comes on when he opens the door! ;)
• Widmore must have run that water a LONG time before taking a sip. Who exactly has been on the island to keep the plumbing working and the water clean??
• When Widmore talks about Jacob, you can hear the Jacob music playing in the background, as if to suggest Widmore is telling the truth.
• Ben’s injuries, from his facial lacerations right down to the broken left arm, are almost identical to the ones Desmond inflicted on the dock.
• When Ben looks in the mirror (mirror!) he has this weird sneer on his face and looks like some bully in a Norman Rockwell painting.
• I said in “Everybody Loves Hugo” that I wondered if the museum would end up being the place they’d all end up gathering at, and I was right!! It’s where the concert is being held. Jack and his kiddo, now Hurley, Sayid, Kate, Desmond... Miles and Charlotte, Pierre Chang (they’re going to get Sawyer’s butt there somehow... probably following Kate’s butt), and I can hope Eloise and Daniel and Penneh are among the guests. And... Jack’s wife. Watch... after all this speculation it’ll probably end up being Sarah. Ha!! Cannot WAIT!!!! Maybe the dinosaur bones will all come to life and will eat them all. And Hank Azaria will get into a battle of wits with Steve Coogan.
• Des asks Kate how she’s doing, and she mutters, “Terrific.” That was a word Charlie used in the pilot episode, and Frank Lapidus said it again when he realized the plane wasn’t going to Guam.
• Sawyer accepting responsibility for the deaths, and Jack telling him it wasn’t his fault. That was a lovely bromance scene.
• Jacob is sitting next to the fire, and those red flowers are next to him (they usually appear in a scene that’s particularly foreboding and often ends in death).
• “You’ve got one hand. You look like Napoleon.” That line would have been funny if they hadn’t already beaten home the BEN IS NAPOLEON idea in “Dr. Linus,” where he had the entire classroom lecture on how Napoleon got the island but he didn’t have any power and so it was useless, yadda yadda.
• “We insist!! Even if we have to kidnap you.” LOL sideways world role reversal!!
• OMG could you imagine Rousseau and Ben hooking up???
• Ben has always felt close to Alex, but the fact he tears up when Rousseau talks about him being a father figure suggests that maybe the emotions from the other world are shifting over into that one, even if the actual circumstances surrounding them haven’t broken through yet. He definitely looks at Rousseau differently when she’s up close, like he knows her somehow.
• “You don’t need to see this.” “I wanna see this.”
• Smokey to Widmore on Zoe: “You told her not to talk to me. That made her pointless.” Sorry to break it to you Smokey, but she was pointless LONG before you cut her throat.
• Jacob says he only has until the fire burns out, and I turned to my husband and said, “It would really suck if there was suddenly a flash rainshower right now!!” ;)
• The cuts on Locke’s face when he goes to see Jack are in the same spots as the ones he had in “The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham” when he was hit by the car.
• Locke says he was hit by a car, and “of all of the doctors in Los Angeles I ended up with you.” This is what he says to Jack in “Bentham,” but Jack, who’s strung out and high and hates Locke, freaks out and says that’s crazy talk and refuses to listen to him. In this scene you can tell Jack’s not completely on board, but he tolerates what Locke says. Then Locke keeps on talking, and when he says, “Maybe this is happening for a reason,” a line he said over and over in the other world, the line that made Jack go NUTS, Jack simply says here, “Maybe you’re mistaking coincidence for fate.” In “What Kate Did,” Locke marvels at the fact that Eko brought the missing piece of orientation film, and Eko says, “Don’t mistake coincidence for fate.” In “The Cost of Living,” Desmond remarks that a plane crashing on the top of the Pearl station was quite a coincidence, and Locke, whose faith was shaken when the hatch exploded, responds, “Don’t mistake coincidence for fate.” Jack saying it to Locke in this world doesn’t actually make Locke rise to the fight... he simply says, “Call it what you will” and they continue to have their conversation. It’s interesting that they’re not at each other’s throats in this world.
• I loved Jacob’s blunt, “No you weren’t” when Sawyer said he was just fine before Jacob bugged him.
• Jacob says he wants to give all of them the choice, because he didn’t have one. Kate says but what if none of us chooses it. He says it’ll end badly. So... it’s not really a choice, is it? SOMEONE has to do it, and all four can’t walk away.
• I ♥ Jack.
• “Now you’re like me.” This is what Mommie Dearest said to Jacob last week.
• You know what? If the only world I had to go on was the sideways world, I’d be a Skater all the way. LOVE the flirtation between them in this world!!
• Smokey refers to Desmond as Widmore’s “failsafe”... the reason Desmond is the way he is, is because he turned the failsafe key in the Swan station.
So Many Questions...
• What does that red gash on the side of Jack’s neck signify? He saw it in the mirror on the airplane in “LA X,” and now he sees it again, like it’s fresh and gaping again. It doesn’t look like he cut himself shaving... could it be some indication of the two worlds opening to each other?
• The sideways world opens on Jack’s eye... is it possible that now that he’s the new Jacob, he actually creates this world somehow? Could this entire world be something that exists in his head? Or something he gave the world as a gift?
• Holy crap, was Desmond planning on running over Locke AGAIN?! How many times does he have to mow the guy down to make him see the light? Why is it so hard to get Locke to see the other side?
• Did Miles get any message or a feeling from Alex when he stepped over her? He says to Ben, “I don’t think...” but never finishes.
• Is Desmond’s hair darker in this world?
• Any police officers out there reading this? Would men and women be in cells where they could see each other in lockup? What if one had to go to the bathroom?
• Why does little Jacob appear to Hurley? Why not just appear as his older self? Is there a reason to use the child version?
• Does Ben really want the island all to himself? Or is he also working on ulterior motives aligning himself with Smokey?
• Does anyone know what the Latin incantation is that Jacob says?
• What happens when someone drinks the water? Does Jack end up having some longterm island memory, like he’s now aware of everything that’s ever happened?
• What is Desmond going to ask Sayid and Kate to do?
• Why is Ana Lucia not ready yet? Is this just a convenient device not to involve her?
• Why are there different degrees of visions? Ben has the vision of being hit but nothing else, yet Hurley totally knows Ana Lucia.
• How is Smokey going to use Desmond to destroy the island? And... doesn’t that kind of cancel off the promise he made to Ben that if Ben helps him he’ll let him have the island??
Me tomorrow:
I’m on Facebook! I will be doing a lot of media in the coming days, and I’ll be posting the updates here on my Facebook page, so tune in!
I’m also on Twitter. I’m bad at tweeting, though. I twit infrequently. ;)
Tomorrow listen in to Marshall and Forbes on The Ocean 98.5 in Victoria, BC at 7:10 a.m. local time, 10:10 a.m. EST. Go here and click on the Listen Now button if you’re out of the listening area.
And tomorrow at noon I will once again be participating in the Globe and Mail Lost chat from noon to 1pm EST. Go here to ask questions and comment. See you there!
And finally, listen to KEX 1190 at 6:20 p.m. PST, 9:20 p.m. EST where I’ll be on the Mark & Dave show (and they’re big Lost fans so it’s always fun). Go here and click the Listen Now button:
Next week:
My brother emailed me to say, “Why did they get E.T.’s mom to do the voiceover on the commercial at the end?” HAHAHAHA!!!!! I would post the YouTube clip, but the entire site appears to be down. I’ll try posting it tomorrow.
411 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 411 Newer› Newest»Sorry everyone...that last comment to Nikki about GJB podcast posted as Anonymous due to my laziness....
When Ben took the walkie from Widmore, I thought of something. Doesn't campfire monster have an irrational hatred of technology? I thought for sure that Ben took the walkie to anger MiB.
Richard. If I recall correctly, he has no life at all in the flash-sideways
Probably because he would be hundreds of years old (without magic potion) and really, really wrinkly.
Question re: the ashes. Is it even possible to burn ashes to nothing in a camp fire?
Richard. If I recall correctly, he has no life at all in the flash-sideways
Probably because he'd be centuries old and very, very wrinkly.
Question. Can you burn ashes in a campfire to the extent that they totally disappear?
@Benny I'll give you a quote from the notes of Lost University:
Many Worlds Interpretation: with each quantum process there is a "splitting of the universe" into a universe where one outcome happens and another universe where the other outcome happens.
That describes the sideways reality to me pretty well. Then a few more things that have had me thinking for a few months.
Quantum Mechanics allows you to imagine that if you want to go back in time and experience a different past than you know, this can be done by travelling to a different universe. This can be thought of like branches of a tree.
Branches with different outcomes to the same situation never have to be connected to each other. So, let's say you go to another universe and shoot "your" grandfather and you never come to be in that universe. That's fine because you came from a different universe and those two never have to be considered to each other.
Once you travel to an alternate branch or universe, you cannot go back to the original one from which you come.
The last bit of notes were a result of the person talking about causality and paradox. These notes made me come to a number of possible character outcomes but didn't limit my conclusions to just one outcome.
@Rufus: I'm very well aware of the Many-worlds interpretation. I've read significant papers on it.
The work of Everett has been significant and was promising, but the research and writings done by David Deutsh, to me, really set back the recognition that Everett built up for MWI.
While I recognize the skills of Deutsh and a lot of his contributions, it is my opinion that research has been inappropriately diverted in this field.
But that's just my opinion on it. I liked Everett's work. Read them both yourself and make up you own mind on it.
@Benny I have to add to what you said about Richard and why he isn't a candidate. Jacob may have been alive for a long time but I think he has come to regret what he did to his brother and realize how dire the consequences could be for everyone. While the MIB was trying to find ways to get even, Jacob has been trying to make things right. No amount of examples would change what the MIB thought of people and I think that what Richard said about the people needing some input from Jacob was the start of Jacob figuring out how to fix things. There can only be one protector of the island leaving many jobs in need of someone to do them. Jacob could easily have killed Richard for trying to kill him but as Richard did help Jacob see things in a different way he gave him something to do.
Hey Fred: Are you still around tonight?
DAVIDB226Morris
Highly subjective BEST OF LOST
The Pilot (Iconic)
23rd Psalm Eko/Adewale ahh...what could have been??!!
Walkabout/The Man from Talahasee Locke/Terry O'
The Shape of Things to Come/Dead is Dead Ben/Michael Emerson...I will really miss Emerson and O'Quinn. It was like having Iago and Othello and Felix and Oscar all rolled together in one act.
Not in Portland/One of Us The enigmatic Juliet... the beautiful Elizabeth Mitchell(sexiest laugh ever)
Flashes Before Your Eyes
Brutha Des and Lady Penelope
Through the Looking Glass
#1 THE CONSTANT
Methods to get rid of Flocke
Corporeal Flocke---2000 year old dagger, fire, Jesus stick.
Smoke monster---didn't like the waterfalls much(or the Light for that matter), and doesn't fly first class between Hydra and the main "Island" so lets try the Wizard of Oz wicked witch treatment.
You know of course if they all stick (live) together, he can't kill them.
Fred, Benny, or Teebore: Are any of you still on-line tonight?
Gracie: I may be for an other hour or two.
@Benny: I have been working for a very long time on a carefully worded reply that I want to post that show's a little of my imagination with what I perceive as a lot of truth. Is it safe to assume that you over the age of 14 and I cannot corrupt you, Benny? Or Fred? Or Teebore?
I originally intended this as a reply to Fred, and I still want him to read it, but you, Fred and Teebore seem to think a lot alike, or similarly. Would you be interested in giving an opinion when I'm finished? It's long, but an easy read, and I'd like to get an opinion from someone equally open minded? I'm just about done. Maybe five more minutes.
It is NOT in any sense dirty.
JenniferS: Does Mark Pellegrino ever open his eyes all the way? I have noticed his heavy-lidded look before, but last night I kept thinking, "You're only here until the fire burns out! Stay awake!"
Ha!
Lisa(UFN): I seriously didn't think "we the audience" were going to be privy to their conversation.
Me either. We came up on Jacob and I really expected him to be saying, essentially, "... and that's the story" instead of (paraphrasing) "I'm not sure where to begin." Given how things have been going the past few episodes, you could've knocked me over with a Hurley Bird feather.
Teebore: Well, some people you can just have a chat around the campfire with; some people, you've got to let them "stare out at the ocean" for six seasons first. ;)
Ha! I guess we're some people.
Michele: One part that really affected me was when Jack was stitching up Kate - I immediately flashed back to the first time they met and her sewing him up. It just seemed to tie together nicely.
No pun intended? That scene echoed the pilot so much so that I expected some of the folks here who get annoyed with such callbacks to hate on it, although I liked the nod; I actually thought that Kate would try to lighten the moment for both of them when Jack apologized for the lack of anesthesia by saying something like, "Don't worry about me; I'll just count to five."
Benny: Think of them as phone numbers, identical but preceded with different area codes 604-555-4379 and 613-555-4379 -- the area code is the reality signature, while the number itself is the person. If you bring a 604 cell phone in the 613 area, the numbers still work correctly, one does not annihilate the other. My point is that MiB/Locke is an entirely different number than Locke(OT/ST), it would be like having 604-555-4379 and 613-555-8612.
Ha! Seriously brilliant analogy, dude!
VW: equam — A unisex Native American dwelling.
@Gracie: Haha... I am well over 14.
I love giving opinions so I certainly wouldn't mind.
Blam is here too!! Hang on both of you! Almost done. Proofreading, cut and pasting now.
I'd hoped to post some more comments, but my connection has slowed to a crawl. Must have reliable Internet Sunday and Monday... 8^)
JS: You know, I did notice the hush puppies, and that harkens back to the whole shoes-off-shoes-on thing he did last season (?) with Ben. I won’t start that discussion again, but I think it will come back on Sunday.
There's definitely something to Smokey and water, but as seen when Jack pushed him into the drink by the dock a couple of episodes back it's obviously not a Wicked Witch of the West thing.
My theory has been has that he can't travel across water — at least for long distances; he came roaring out of the Cave o' Light over the stream just fine. I think that while getting dropped in the ocean didn't kill him it did prevent him from changing form while wet, something that of course he didn't let on to the Candidates. Despite shooting through the air when in smoke form, he may even gain some kind of strength or sustenance from being attached to the Island; he may not have known the full import of his own words when he told Ben that he liked to feel his feet on the ground, and may indeed be in for a rude awakening if/when he succeeds in destroying the Island only to discover that he's sealed his own doom in doing so.
Of course it could also be a big misdirect, this attention to shoes and canoes, like a certain something with Giles towards the end of Buffy.
Benny: My computer has been unplugged since who knows when, and I just about lost the whole thing. Sorry. I do have it, but I got thrown off track there for a few minutes. It's coming.
Fred, Benny, Blam, Teebore, Anyone: Fred said: "So I think you're onto something, only there isn't enough time with one show left to imagine anything like that (fan fiction, maybe). I can't imagine Smokie and Claire driving out of LA, like the ending in Blade Runner."
Fred (and others), this is probably going to be long winded, but it's really very simple. No vampires necessary, I promise. No seduction either, sorry. This is what I surmise, nothing more, nothing less: We are (if we are?) under the assumption that Smokey is a creature unlike any man has ever known. It kills the "Host" while maintaining the ability to pass itself off as the Host both physically and mentally with knowledge that only the Host would know. (Mental Picture: Say Locke knew how to work on cars. Smokey has that knowledge too. Sadly, it has no opposing thumbs.) Also, Smokey looks like John Locke, talks like Locke, and rhymes and reasons just like Locke. It IS John Locke, except we know better.)
Meanwhile, MIB is still suffering a "fate worse than death", is in there somewhere knowing what has become of his memory and his knowledge, his soul and his desires. He resides within this creature, and his every second is a living hell, but there's nothing, absolutely nothing, he can do about it.
Smokey, as a living thing, wishes to ensure an heir to its kind in whatever manner of procreation it knows. (For the sake of this discussion, I'm just going to assume that it can reproduce, and that it knows how. Stay with me Fred.) This would, obviously, involve a female of a species it physically can mate with. It sees Claire as something to be protected because she is its "carrier". That's all she is. Nothing more. Nothing less. A vessel to carry its young. But it must take care of its carrier, and it has been taking care of her for a long time now. Silently. (?) Without menace. (?) It has watched over Claire for so long that it has developed a "feeling" FOR her that is unfamiliar to IT. Something akin to what we might call affection or even love. What remains of MIB, who once upon a time, did love his mother (although not exactly in the same way), recognizes this for what it is, and is completely, terribly, horribly, mortified. It just wants to reproduce, no questions asked.
At this time Claire, of course, would be clueless of its intent. In her eyes, whether "it" is Locke or not, is completely immaterial. What she knows from her experience, is that whatever it is, it has taken care of her, made her less lonely when she was very alone, made sure she had food, helped her with shelter, given her a shoulder to cry on, and an ear to bend. All while the other people in her camp apparently haven't even cared enough to look for her. They'd find her if they'd tried, wouldn't they? From her perspective, what else does she really need to know? On this island in particular, what else is more important than the simple comforts MIB/Christian/Locke/Flocke has given her?
When Smokey feels as though it has conquered what needs to be conquered, or finished the job (or game) at hand, it would then direct it's energies towards her. If Claire thought she knew crazy before? Well, let's just say that Claire IS as close, right now, to the dark side of the moon, as she ever wants to get. Her "friend" is about to become her "mate". Making this part viewable in prime time is actually very simple.
On Lost you could do this simply by using FLocke's knowledge that Claire and Jack are related. FLocke mentions that if anyone does leave, Claire is not going and he tells them why, perhaps without being subtle, but it is still Must See TV. Simplified.
IF Darlton wanted us to think this, as a certainty, it would take less than ten seconds all the way around for a mature audience to get their drift. If you don't have it already. Once the thought is in our minds, and the horror falls upon Claire, FLocke knows exactly how Jack is going to respond. With carelessness. Exactly what FLocke wants.
NOW, whether or not you think Darlton are actually doing this is in the eye of the beholder. Do I think so? Yes, sometimes I do think they are implying something there, and I'm supposed to pick up on that as a mature viewer.
If I would happen to be correct, it is not because they used the direct approach. Everything is very subtle, matter-of-fact, with no mention of it at all. It IS a perception, and I've had it since Claire was hanging out in the cabin alone with Christian. There was just something wrong about that whole situation for me, and knowing already that Christian had been her father in life, the whole thing just felt kind of "icky" to me. Next thing you know we have Claire's wild enthusiam for her "friend". She hasn't been alone, she's been with her friend. You know? Her friend! (Yeah, sure! Whatever you want to call it.)
For a very long time MIB/Christian/FLocke have known about the Jack/Claire relationship, but for that same among of time, this creature has put this girl under it's wing, and kept her safe. For what? Obviously not immediate gratification. So what could it get out of her in the long haul? A carrier. But what makes Claire so special that it would stick to her like it won't see another one for a very long time? Is she that "Special"? You wouldn't think so, would you? Yet, the Smokey has taken care of Claire, and it has taken care of her for a very long time. And although there has never been any mention of sex between the two, (and there never will be), I think it's open for viewers to see that as they may. I don't know how you can watch this show and not wonder why MIB/Christian/Locke kept her for all this time unless it perceived there was something in it for IT.
Sometimes I think it does see something. It's carrier. When the time is right. And the whole story line will never be mentioned, it will never touch a script, and nothing untowards will ever be said. Why? Because if you are using your imagination, which everyone who watches Lost is doing already, then they've already said enough. The rest is between you and your imagination.
I've seen it for a long time, and when I finally brought it up, Spouse admitted so did he, and Child just looked at us, and was like, "Duh!" I think it's there, and they do more by simply leaving it alone.
@Gracie: Interesting line of thought. Of course, Smokey Locke could also just want someone to hang out & party with. We don't have any indication whatsoever that Smokey can reproduce.
Also, remember that for a while, Locke took on the role of Claire's friend and protector, so maybe that knowledge, and even some of that feeling, still resides in Smokey Locke.
I want to add that I am in no way trying to besmirch the memory of this much beloved, and deserving, show. This is just something that we have always seen there (not always, but for a very long time), and noticed as "icky", but nobody else talks about it.
From Spouse I learned that when you get the "guys" together, and they're talking about Lost, well, sure, they've thought about it too. Hasn't everybody? So we kind of wondered if everybody did, even if they didn't know they did?
All of this started just because I made the comment that I wasn't sure if Smokey wasn't keeping Claire around to make Little Smoke Rings or Smokettes. And then I thought, "Why not? In for a penny, in for a pound?"
In a show that DEMANDS you use your imagination, where are you supposed to turn it off? Maybe you're never supposed to turn it off, and TPTB know exactly what effect they've had on you? Maybe.
Another idea is that Smocke saw Jack coming a mile away as Jacob's replacement (it really wasn't much of a stretch), and intends to use Claire in some way to unbalance Jack. That sounds more likely to me than love...or even sex. Much fun as it could be.
@Gracie - Her "friend" is about to become her "mate". Making this part viewable in prime time is actually very simple.
I am endlessly intrigued.
This story could be very seductive if say Smokey had possessed say, a Lady of the Night and gained all of her...knowledge. It would probably make reproducing easier as well. I wonder why he didn't take on the form of Shannon and trick Sayid into...you know, making the Monster with Two Backs? We know Smokey can appear as a woman but can he take over a woman's body, I wonder? I mean NoName could take over - actually, let's leave it.
So the MIB is beyond redemption?
So couldn't Sawyer give him a name, Hurley share some comfort food, Jack take him out to a Red Sox game (or have a good man-cry), or maybe a night out on Phukett with Bi-Ling. With his gift for mimicry maybe he could get a job on the new Hawaii 5'O. So after 2000 years with no meaningful relationships except for the contentious one with your twin brother you are going to kill all of humanity in revenge and wind up all alone. Well that seems rather childish. Can't we talk this out.
@Gracie -...sure, they've thought about it too. Hasn't everybody?
Wait, what are we talking about? Smokey and Claire having sex? If so, then yes. But I can say that about pretty much...
@Zari said..Sawyer, about Jacob: I thought that guy had a God-complex before!
I believe Sawyer was talking about Jack when he said “And I thought that guy had a God-complex before!”
@Rainier said...
First, I did like the episode, even though the answers are sure coming fast and furious! I am not a person who needs or wants everything spelled out. Still, I thought they did a great job with it.
That said, I had some issues with Jacob's statement that everyone he brought to the island was already flawed and alone. OK, true for some, to be sure. But in the ST, a number of characters seem to be OK
I don’t think that we can look at the Sideways Timeline as a reason why these characters were not flawed. In the Original Timeline, they were flawed and I believe that the influencing factor that changed the majority of the people we know and love was the Island itself. If the Island was not there, then Jacob wasn’t there to have to try to find these people. Kate was already stealing, we see that Sawyer was still writing his letter (in fact in the ST he still is bent on revenge, without the help of Jacob’s pen), Locke had many issues in life starting with the fact that he was born to a crazed teenager and a dirty conman, Jack has had daddy issues all along, etc. So while I don’t think that the majority of our characters would be AS screwed up without the Island’s/Jacob’s influence, they would still be flawed beings trying to cope with many personal demons.
vw: clately
How Claire usually arrives to a party
@Rainier: Rain, did you read it all? Sounds like you didn't read the whole post, which I knew was going to be long to say correctly.
BTW: Possibly, an Inbox tomorrow night Rain. Nothing in concrete, but it's possible.
@Gracie: Yes, I read it all. I never reply to something until I have read the whole thing.
As an aside, I first thought about Locke and Claire getting it on way back when he made her the bassinet.
Ha! I think Locke is a sexy beast.
@Gracie: That's quite an interesting thought. As you said, we're not likely to get anything remotely close and might be fan fiction. I must command you on elaborating it so well yet I must say, it doesn't hit me quite right, and that's simply my opinion.
I get the impression, from reading this, that you assume Smokey is NOT MiB but has done to same thing it has done to Locke. That it is another pre-existing entity.
So when you say this is a creature we've never seen before, my personal belief is that it's because it is unique in its own right by Jacob's and the source's hands, it is immortal and it is not governed by the standard laws of nature and biology, possibly including procreation.
Though your interpretations still fits with what we've been given on screen.
As for the 'friend'/mate aspect of it and the whole keeping company, I never actually imagined it this way myself, but I must say there's nothing that disproves this. I personally always looked at it as Claire being alone and having a literal father-figure with her, taking care of her (prevented her from going back in time to the 1970s). But knowing it was not her real dad, it was a 'friend'.
Honestly, I am impressed by your train of thought and, while I just don't see it being there, I have to say that we can't (yet) prove or disprove it. I'm sure you would do great writing a specific genre of fan fiction (which would be popular among the Joans of the world).
I may need to re-read it tomorrow, I'm quite tired right now.
But hats off to you...
Honestly, has NOBODY ever thought of this before? Nobody? Really?
You guys are fibbers!!!!
And, I see that if Joan Crawford starts thinking about it for just one second, it grows wings and takes off by itself. Does everyone see that?
Okay, now. How does anybody know for a fact that whenever you see the Smoke Monster, it is the very same Smoke Monster you saw the last time? Honestly? Well, you don't.
Think. Imagination. I have one.
@Jessica: So while I don’t think that the majority of our characters would be AS screwed up without the Island’s/Jacob’s influence, they would still be flawed beings trying to cope with many personal demons.
Everyone has demons the difference is in what they do with them. Jack seems to be OK with his daddy issues in the ST, Sawyer is at least on the right side of the law, Hurley is not crazy and seems happy...so they have demons - big deal. Their lives are nowhere near as bleak as they are in the OT
VW: trylitor - my computer kept telling me this when I was in Australia
@Joan: If so, then yes. But I can say that about pretty much...
let me finish that for you Joan:
...any smoking black phallic-looking electromagnetic creature and something else.
How does anybody know for a fact that whenever you see the Smoke AGracie - ...Monster, it is the very same Smoke Monster you saw the last time? Honestly? Well, you don't.
I hear ya, sister. To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure Jake is the same dude every time. I think MiB might have been posing as Jacob at that little Camp Fire Happy Times Talk they had. He is all weird before he starts talking. Maybe Little Jacob ghost was also MiB - stole the body (ashes) and then Boom appeared.
Rainier said: "Another idea is that Smocke saw Jack coming a mile away as Jacob's replacement (it really wasn't much of a stretch), and intends to use Claire in some way to unbalance Jack. That sounds more likely to me than love...or even sex. Much fun as it could be."
Rain, we ALL saw Jack coming from six season away. I haven't seen anything to imply that Smokey is blind. I am not, in any way, discounting your idea. Just saying, why couldn't it be both?
She has strategic value, sure, but Smokey could also "love" her, and not be familiar with how that feels or is supposed to feel. MIB knows, because he did love "Mom", but Smokey is not familiar with this kind of stuff.
@Gracie: Honestly, has NOBODY ever thought of this before? Nobody? Really?
You guys are fibbers!!!!
And, I see that if Joan Crawford starts thinking about it for just one second, it grows wings and takes off by itself. Does everyone see that?
Yeah, but that's Joan!!! Which just gives us all an indication of where your mind resides...
VW: minesto - a very brief manifesto
@Benny - Hahahaha! You have a gift!
Yeah, but that's Joan!!!
Ahem! I am going to assume these are meant as compliments, yes, ladies?
;)
@Gracie: Just saying, why couldn't it be both?
I am not saying it can't. I don't really see the story going in that direction (call it intuition), but I can't rule it out either, and it is a fun idea.
VW: exessnes - the quality of taking certain things too far.
variabull said: "So the MIB is beyond redemption?
So couldn't Sawyer give him a name, Hurley share some comfort food, Jack take him out to a Red Sox game (or have a good man-cry), or maybe a night out on Phukett with Bi-Ling. With his gift for mimicry maybe he could get a job on the new Hawaii 5'O. So after 2000 years with no meaningful relationships except for the contentious one with your twin brother you are going to kill all of humanity in revenge and wind up all alone. Well that seems rather childish. Can't we talk this out."
Smokey, today, if I am correct, would have whatever knowledge that kind of thing is born with. It would have the full contents of everything that was within MIB's brain cells. This would, in turn, also be true of John Locke's knowledge. (And I believe that it can copy knowledge: Like what it did with Eko? It photocopied the contents of his mind IMHO.) AND this continues on to anybody else who has hooked up with Smokey that we don't know about.
@Joan: Ahem! I am going to assume these are meant as compliments, yes, ladies?
Why yes, of course it's a compliment! (Whatever gets ya through the day, Joan..heh heh.)
@Joan Crawford: I'm not thinking along the lines of having sex, making love, or anything remotely like people do. It's just plain, old-fashioned mating for purposes of reproducing. And I have the very distinct impression Smokey is NOT gonna say, "Was it good for you, too?"
@Gracie: 'm not thinking along the lines of having sex, making love, or anything remotely like people do. It's just plain, old-fashioned mating for purposes of reproducing. And I have the very distinct impression Smokey is NOT gonna say, "Was it good for you, too?"
No...He's gonna say, "...cigarette?"
Rainier said: "@Gracie: Yes, I read it all. I never reply to something until I have read the whole thing."
Thanks Rain. I think once you see something, whether it's this or something else, it's, well it's kind of like you've had a stuffy nose. You see something like this, and it just opens up so many possibilies that you don't know where to start. Or stop. You look at every situation differently, and you definitely see each character differently.
Joan Crawford said: "As an aside, I first thought about Locke and Claire getting it on way back when he made her the bassinet. Ha! I think Locke is a sexy beast."
Joan: That's EXACTLY what I thought!!! When he built the bassinet? Yepper.
Hey, imagine for a minute that behind closed doors John Locke was a sexy beast? Very creative, and energetic, sexy and like a wild beast? What in the name of God would the Smoke Monster think as it sees into Locke's memories??
You have to think about it. THAT'S what I was saying, but I'm waiting for the guys (Blam, Benny, Teebore, and Fred, among others probably) to pick me apart and tell me whether this is feasible to them, or if I'm finally off my rocker completely.
@GracieAnd I have the very distinct impression Smokey is NOT gonna say, "Was it good for you, too?"
I'm under the distinct impression he won't have to ;)
@Gracie, Joan: Now, I WILL cop to thinking about John Locke having designs on sweet lil ol' Claire Back-When.
But since he's been Smokey? Nope. Never crossed my mind. Probably, like Benny said, because of the supernatural nature of Smokey. I still have a hard time seeing it.
Oh God, what have I done? Why does it appear the page is suddenly filling up fast? Did I do a very bad thing, and now the "rest of the nuts" are going to come out of the woodwork?
So much for getting ready for bed. Once in the bluest of blue moons on this blog someone will make a passing reference to something sexual. (I think it's usual Joan Crawford, actually, but Joan will tell me if I'm wrong. Although they are exceptions like the "Best Cock".)
Do you guys have any idea how horrified I was to actually put this idea on the table??
@Joan: I'm under the distinct impression he won't have to ;)
Yeah! He can easily scan her all over.
@Benny said: "As for the 'friend'/mate aspect of it and the whole keeping company, I never actually imagined it this way myself...."
Wow. Benny. Thanks. I DO try!
How can you NOT think or imagine it? Do you live in a cave? Are you sheltered in some way? I just don't get that at all? Locke, as is, is far from over the hill, and Claire is very young and well, all the things that guys say when they think "the ladies" don't know what they're talking about! Adding to that combination, MIB was young, and in good physical condition, and whatever his experiences may have been, or just his imagination, Smokey would know all of that. (I certainly wouldn't mind chasing MIB around a jungle a time or two, and I know there are others here who feel the same!) Then you have to add to the whole equation what Smokey brings to the table itself when reproducing, whatever that may be. Am I allowed to say:
ANIMAL MAGNETISM????
Or is just everybody gonna lambast me for that one??
Benny I have so much to say about just your comment, and I'm catching hell here because I was supposed to be getting ready for bed. Anybody paying attention knows I did not go to bed again last night. I'm exhausted, but now I'm so wide awake, it's not like I'm gonna be sleeping at anytime soon anyway. But I gotta reply to Benny cause I asked for his opinion.
So while you guys are laying into me for "animal magnetism" I'm typing Benny's reply.
@Gracie - Do you guys have any idea how horrified I was to actually put this idea on the table??
Aw, you don't have to be afraid! This is a very female-friendly blog. The women get a little...descriptive sometimes but the men are very respectful. Way more than we are. It's rare and wonderful :)
@Gracie: I've always thought there was something creepy/weird about Claire and the MiB. Can't say I've ever carried it to your conclusion. Just never thought about it. I think it's an interesting and valid thought and I'm not (and neither is anyone else, I don't believe) blasting you for it. But I honestly never thought about it enough to come to that conclusion.
Now that you've brought it up I can see the merits to the thought, but I honestly don't really care about it too much one way or the other. But that's just my personal feelings. But thanks for bringing the thought to the table. Now go get some sleep :)
@Nikki: I have a nitpick on one of your nitpicks. Like Lisa (UFN), I don't think it is at all weird for high school kids to react that way to "Oh, look, that substitute teacher Mr. Locke is back again."
First, it is common in many school districts to have regular substitutes that the kids come to know. Naw, they're not all attached to them like they would be to a regular teacher, but they know them.
Second, he's no longer just "Mr. Locke the substitute teacher." He has suddenly become this interesting, mysterious, "Omigod, that's Mr. Locke, this teacher I PERSONALLY KNOW, who some guy actually TRIED TO KILL WITH HIS CAR, all like INTENTIONALLY and everything!"
When you're a kid, mysterious large events coming from the world of grownups are these big, magnified, first-time-for-us-kids things. And the self-importance kids attach to being personally connected to something big is a HUGE deal to them.
It's why they scream if they see Justin Bieber in person. We get jaded as we get older, yet we still get star-struck by personal connections to things bigger than our lives. The fact that Matthew Fox and I went to the same college and I (albeit barely) actually knew him back then and he used to hang around my dorm in the large scheme of things as an adult I know is not a big deal but I wouldn't be honest if I didn't admit it still tickles me because I'm no longer in possession of this tenuous silly connection to just some guy named Matt but now it's a big deal because he's no longer just "Matt" but is now in 2010 "Omigod Matt."
(If I am really honest with myself, the very reason I mention this thin connection here is for the same vain giddy all-too-human star-struck reason those kids would naturally act that way, when they see that now-cool-Mr. Locke, who they personally know).
Similarly, sub teacher Mr. Locke is no longer just Mr. Locke to these kids, but is now "Omigod sub teacher Mr. Locke, the one who..."
Anyway, enough about that...
@Teebore, I think ... I completely agree the failure to wrap up the mysteries diminishes the show for me. I still think Lost is the greatest TV show I've ever seen, actually the most long-running, cohesive, successfully sustained work of art of any type I have ever seen anywhere of any kind. I think they will be teaching this show in Literature Humanities class in college 1,000 years from now like they teach Aristophanes now. And my loved one and I have always planned to buy the whole box set when it's all done and re-watch from beginning to end.
All of that said, the fact that the show has been meandering through a loose framework with a loose thread leaving a lot of connections unlinked together diminishes the impact of the thought of a re-watch for me. I'm still hoping on Sunday for a "Whoa! Does that mean that actually...?" moment (or ten) that makes me want to go back and re-view re-view re-view, but I am resigned to the fact that, probably not.
WV - chingl: The sound coins make in your pocket.
Oh, and @Gracie:
I instantly, totally had the same sexual tension vibe with MiB and Claire from the get-go just like you. I don't think seeing that possibility is a weird thing at all.
But ... ultimately, I don't think it is actually a sexual thing at all. I think Claire is MiB's pet.
In one of those eOnline videos the actors talked about how their "motivation" playing the scenes in last week's episode, what they were struck by and worked with, was how infantilized Jacob and MiB were as adults.
The scene they especially pointed to was when they were playing the Senet white rock-black rock game as 40-yr olds after Jacob came to spy on MiB at the humans' camp, and their dialogue in that scene. I forget the exact dialogue, but it is adults saying things little kids would, along the lines of, "Your turn. Oh, and mom totally favors you over me." "Cut it out, she does not."
The dialogue in any event and the way they interact is weird for grownups to be saying and doing. They grew up running wild with little supervision from Crazy Alterna-Mom.
So I think MiB sees Claire as a pet. She's a little dimmer than the others and not a threat like the candidates.
I'm not troubled by the questions many have been raising about, "What happened with Claire? Last week she was on the dock with MiB and this week he came back in the boat without her to kill Widmore and Zoe."
Remember in last week's episode (or was it the one before) he told Claire he was going off to finish what he'd started? It was right after he said to her clairvoyantly that some of the people on the exploded submarine were still alive (which we all debated about here).
The clear implication of his "I'm going to finish what I started" statement to Claire was he was temporarily leaving her because he had some work to do.
WV - folimp. The nature of Locke's disability when seen in retrospect after he landed on the island. Antonym to "truelimp."
@Convergence: I think Claire as Smokey Locke's pet pretty much hits it square on - that is exactly the kind of vibe I get...like she is his puppy or something.
And I will add to the above that that sort of vibe just does not allow for much in the way of sexual tension, which really seems to be lacking between them, and is the reason that I just can't quite see this happening.
Benny: I just saw that you are quite tired. Are you going to bed? If so, I will do same, and we can wrap this up tighter when our eyes are open.
Your call, Benny?
I have not read any other comments beyond this one except the one I stumbled on. Benny's reply will be my last reply tonight. The others are just going to have to wait until I can sleep and get back here.
I'll wait a while to see if I hear back from you Benny. Maybe you already went to bed??? (If he did, I know what Benny is thinking/dreaming about tonight, don't I?)
Bed's good! Let's do it tomorrow...
Deal Benny. But remember, once I go to bed, there is absolutely no way to know when I will see daylight again. I may sleep all day tomorrow. I may be up early. (HAHA!! Like that's gonna happen! Now THAT WAS pretty funny for an old broad like me!) But I'll have plenty of time for thought.
YOU TOO. THINK ABOUT IT. It's not sex. It's reproduction. Sex as we know it is about a lot of things. ONLY ONE OF THEM is reproduction. THINK!!
Sorry, that was rude!!! Goodnight Rainier, and you all everybody at the blog! If you didn't catch Geronimo Jack's Beard, the Hurley podcast, he has a special guest this week: Henry Ian Cusick. Go there. Night all. I'll be thinking about sex until I get right back here again. (There are worse things to go to sleep thinking about. Somehow I have the feeling YOU guys just KNOW that.)
@convergence: I think they will be teaching this show in Literature Humanities class in college 1,000 years from now like they teach Aristophanes now.
Don't count on it?
Here is a way of thinking about it, based on Gott's views which he applied to the Berlin Wall, predicting its fall before the beginning of the 21st century.
If we come upon some object, we are more likely to come upon it during its middle period, rather than when if began or ends. So if something is ancient (say 3,000 years old), it is likely to continue into the future for a similar period of time; if something is recent (say less than 50 years), it is likely it won't last very long into the future.
So the robustness of popular tastes surviving into the future is very slim. As most television shows fade into memory, the expectation that they will be taught in some distant future is a less than optimistic hope. The survival of Aristophanes or Shakespeare has more to do with cultural/political contexts than the worth of the work (despite what the New Critics had to say about the universal truths inherent in some works). We have to look to who championed Shakespeare both in the English context of Elizabethan political power, but also in the Nineteenth century.
Other elements that promote the survival of a work of literature is whether it can be understood--Chaucer is less available to modern speakers of English than Shakespeare (and Chaucer is less than 1,000 years old). In 1,000 years, will people, even English speakers, be able to understand what Jack is saying? (A rule of thumb in lingusitics is that a language changes sufficiently in 1,000 years to be so difficult for modern speakers as if it were a different language). Aside from special classes where Aristophanes is taught in the Attic Greek, most of us who read Aristophanes read him in modern English. In 1,000 years we would need subtitles to understand what Jack et al. are saying.
We should also consider is there a reference class for important television shows? Television is a young medium, and so far we haven't yet defined this reference class. Works such as that by Aristophanes exist because they serve as models for later playwrights who model and borrow from eariler works. Such works exemplify their particular genre, and over time writers understand the effects such genres convey in audiences--LOST would only survive if it belonged to a genre of which it is a representation, and which is a rich genre filled with multiple and variable examples. Shakespeare stands as a monument to Renaissance literature, but also because there is Renaissance literature: Marlowe, Jonson, whose writings as well as others exemplify the style of the day (even Shakespeare's own words look back to earlier writing conventions).
So who is championing LOST at this point in time, and in the near future? Does LOST have the DNA of contemporary political views in it; does its skeleton match our contemporary cultural proclivities? Can LOST tolerate being translated/subtitled in the future? To what genre does LOST belong; what other shows does it share that genre with? If we can answer these questions in the affirmative, LOST will survive for a time; and if they are answered again and again positively, LOST will survive into a more distant future.
Don't get me wrong, I think LOST has a great deal of merit. But we have to hope that people even 50 years from now will see that merit and watch LOST, over and over again, as Locke recommended to Jack.
I'm loving to sideways world in this episode, I still think Jacob might have some influence over Des in SW.
I love that Hurley has accepted the whole mad idea and is helping Des.
Really not looking 4ward to the finale as there's got to be a very good chance some more of our favourites will die ;-(
I've read the first 200 interesting notes and wanted to add some thoughts.
Young Jacob and Older Jacob bashing in his brother's face.
In Egypt, by the way, black was often seen as signifying goodness (the silt of the Nile)
EACH time Jacob punched his face in, the supposedly violent guy-in-black never lifted an arm or hand to fight back. He just took it.
When young Brother wanted to just leave the island, Jacob turned him in, to gestapo mom. When MIB wanted to leave, he again turned him in.
Did anyone note that Hurley was 'asked' by the younger Jacob, directed to be mean looking and demanding, for the ashes?
We know that Hurley would have just given them to older Jacob, whom we see only a couple of minutes later. So why did we see the younger, mean Jacob, snatch them in a threatening way from Hurley? Why was it written that way?
Does this current Jacob still retain a bit of the young more bullying Jacob?
I was surprised that Jack felt the job was temporary (asking how long he had to do this) after just being told Jacob had done it for 2000 years. But I felt he wouldn't mind having a few more special powers to deal with malevolent MIB and to know what the heck was going on with these deity-like powers.
In Jacob and MIB's beach talks, they lamented the cycle that never ends, "until it ends."
So, I don't think that there will be anyone actually replacing Jacob for the long run -- this horror of a concept (which mirrors old-time myths that explain things in the most simplistic terms) will end, I hope..
Watching Jack volunteer, even if for a temporary job, as he thought, it all seemed inevitable but also looney - what kind of life is that? Evil is not something that is on one island. They pound us (in this show) on how we all hold possibilities for light and dark and that it's how we choose between them that matters, in the end.
I don't think the island will survive but not because of MIB so much as because of everyone's actions.
I'd love it if Jack uses his new powers only to end the worst aspects of that island, not protect it!
I hope that the ending will be more positive for the characters we've come to feel a lot about, and maybe we'll be given the choice whether or not to believe a better ending is real, just as much as we choose to believe anything of the rest of an intentionally crazy show like this.
I've already seen people elsewhere who rail against any type of happier ending in an alternate universe formed by how things might have turned out if Jacob had not touched so many of them as younger people and, as done with Sawyer, helped him nurture hatred against Cooper -- or if he had not been there to distract Sayid, stopping them in the crosswalk while Nadia stood there watching them and was killed as a result.
Someone wondered how Jack could have a teenager in the Sideways universe, and it's been explained that the energy from the bomb, changing everything from the 70s on, would wipe away Jacob's earlier interference in their lives and that they'd all take different roads depending on choices they made. Including less major characters like Evan.
Getting rid of the island, with Juliet's help, in the 70s rids us of not only MIB's possible influence but Jacob's also.
I didn't see this being discussed, so here goes my thoughts:
Jacob saying "because you became a mother, Kate" , I think tells us more about Jacob than Kate. Jacob has somehow equated being a mother with not being a good candidate,i.e. Mother a.k.a. Allison Janney. It seems to me that Jacob made it impossible for women to become mothers because that diluted the candidate pool. Jacob only brought people to the Island as possible candidates, right?
@myselfixion: RE: mother
I don't think Jacob brought people to the island ONLY to be candidates. The focus on candidates came somewhat later.
As for Kate, I think it's more of testament to Jacob wanting to spare the dual role of mother and protector. He experienced first hand the results of being raised this way.
So I think it's not a question of worth but a question of weight and responsibilities. Sparing the lives of mother and child.
A couple of people mentioned the hilarious skits by Mark Pellegrino and Titus Welliver as Jacob and MIB at Totally Lost.
Here's a link to them:
http://bit.ly/jacob_smokey.
Guaranteed laughs. These guys are even more talented than is shown on LOST.
Thought this might be of interest - tweeted from Damon last week or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_capability
"Negative capability is a theory of the poet John Keats describing the capacity for accepting uncertainty and the unresolved."
@Fred: The survival of Aristophanes or Shakespeare has more to do with cultural/political contexts than the worth of the work (despite what the New Critics had to say about the universal truths inherent in some works).
Very intriguing and interesting thoughts on the legacy of literature (and I'll always appreciate a little dig at those stuffy New Critics).
The canonization of the 20th century's new forms of art (film, television, comic books, etc.) is a subject that has always fascinated me.
These mediums are, despite how they seem to us now, barely infants compared to the long history of literature. Trying to apply the same criteria to them as we do literature is almost laughable, as the body of work is so much smaller, yet at the same time, it's the only criteria we have.
I firmly believe that the 20th century mediums will endure and be valued, judged, critiqued and canonized decades, centuries, millenniums from now but it's so difficult (almost impossible) to predict how future generations will look back on the work being done now.
After all, it wasn't as though Shakespeare hit the scene to universal acclaim and instant canonization.
Nevertheless, the ongoing debate of which works of "new art" will stand the test of time is a vigorous and fun one, and I envy the students who get to engage in such debates with more and more frequency as academia begins to embrace mediums like film and television as being worthy of serious study.
@Gracie: regarding FLocke and Claire.
While I don't necessarily share your reading of their relationship at this point, I can certainly see how you came to read it in that way.
I've always read their relationship more like Convergence suggested: with Claire as FLocke's pet.
After all, while FLocke looks like a man and acts like a man, he is not, ultimately a man. His supernatural elements exempt him, in my mind, from consideration of more human characteristics, like the drive to reproduce.
Our mileages vary; no biggie.
I just figure with all the ground left to cover in the remaining 2.5 hours, FLocke's reproductive proclivities, or lack thereof, will get put aside.
@JS: Thanks for the Damon tweet; I hadn't seen that.
You know, all this backpedaling they've been doing lately is really frustrating me. Not because of what they're backpedaling towards, but because they're backpedaling at all.
I mean, it isn't like they've said from day one "all the mysteries won't be solved. It is not our intention to resolve everything" and now we're all bemoaning the lack of resolution despite being warned.
No, for five seasons they told us "we have a plan", that this would all fit together, that the mystery mattered to some extent, and would be resolved. And so the audience (or a contingent of it, at least) took them at their word and believed all the clues and whatnot would get paid off at some point.
Now they've decided not to resolve everything after all (or decided to stop pretending they ever were) and instead of just admitting they were wrong to promise us otherwise or that they were mistaken in believing they could wrap it all up in the time allotted, they're trying to make the audience accept their newly adopted perspective on the narrative (that the mystery doesn't matter after all) and tweeting links to Keatsian philosophy.
@Teebore, I've always thought that Claire and Flocke were drawn to each other because of certain memories that MIB absorbs when he takes over dead people's forms (I can't believe I typed that -- what has this show done to me).
Along with memories probably comes some feelings too. Hard not to separate memories from feelings.
1. Original John Locke's own tendency to watch over Claire
2. Her father's memories which would include some about Claire.
I thought that Jack, when he first met Smokey, looked at him with some awe, knowing that this entity probably appeared to him as his father.
Jack doesn't know that MIB also scans their memories and most recent thoughts but he might sense it. And we've seen that Smokey does absorb some of the thought processes too -- as in the now famous "Don't TELL Me what I can't do!"
Some aspects of the former live on in it that way.
@Teebore: His supernatural elements exempt him, in my mind, from consideration of more human characteristics, like the drive to reproduce.
But, while I agree we don't know what the true nature of Smokey is, the drive to procreate is not one of specific human condition, not even animal, but of life itself.
Survival is the very goal enshrined in the smallest of genes. Survival not of an 'individual', but of a specific trait. In cognitive humans, we have this idea of 'carrying the family name' (thus wanting a boy), but the principle is more akin to propagating our genetic material.
That's the drive for procreation, dominating the genetic pool. Hence the procreation aspect, whether it be sexual or asexual is really coded in genes and therefore is characteristic of humans, animals and even plants. I would also be the purpose of bacteria, viruses and any entity characterized as 'life'.
Now the question becomes: Is smokey a living thing as such? Or is he something mimicking life. Truth is, we don't know the nature of Smokey and that's why we can only speculate as to the true motivations (innate and acquired) of this entity.
Now this discussion may be completely off topic, but I think that the procreation question is legitimate given that we don't know the natural rules defining/governing Smokey.
Redeem: To get back, to recover.
Supposedly Lost is all about redemption.
Is anyone beyond redemption. Sayid? Ben? Anakin? MiB?
MIB: I like the feel of my feet on the ground. Reminds me that I was human.
MIB: You referred to me as a dead man. I am not a dead man. I know what you are feeling Kate. I know what you are going through.
Kate: And how do you know that.
MIB: Because..my mother was crazy. Long time ago, before I..looked like this...I had a mother, just like everyone. She was a very disturbed woman..And, as a result of that, I had some growing pains...Problems that I'm still trying to work my way through. Problems that could have been avoide had things been different.
Jacob: You call him "The Monster". But I'm responsible for what happened to him. I made him that way.
So is Jacob's view of humanity naive or unfounded. Did Jacob bring them to "The Island" to destroy his brother? Wouldn't the MiB then ultimately have been proven correct about humanity?
@Benny: But, while I agree we don't know what the true nature of Smokey is, the drive to procreate is not one of specific human condition, not even animal, but of life itself.
Fair point. It's not that Smokey's supernatural elements might separate him from the human drive to reproduce, it's whether his supernatural existence removes him from the consideration of life.
Is he "alive", in a natural sense?
*Shrugs* Tough to say. Though I would argue, while the question of procreation drew us to this discussion, we could easily expand it to other considerations. Is Smokey beyond life as we define it/know it? If not, than he likely shares characteristics with other lifeforms, in addition to the drive to procreate: does Smokey need to drink water? Does he need to eat (we've seen him eat, but we don't know if it was necessary or just another instance of "feeling human")? Does his "home" in the temple afford him some kind of shelter?
@Teebore: That's a very good topic to be dissected post-Lost I think.
We (presumably) know the history of Smokey in that Jacob created him by throwing MiB into the source. We know that 'mother' had told JAcob it is a fate worse than death.
So what does that mean for the nature and existence of Smokey? While I think this won't be addressed - and I don't think it needs to be - it is, in my opinion, a great topic for philosophical discussion.
Zari said: "Sawyer, about Jacob: I thought that guy had a God-complex before!"
Actually, I think Sawyer was talking about JACK, not Jacob, who had a "God-complex". Although it could work both ways. But, well...who do you guys think he meant there?
I think Sawyer was definitely referring to Jack, as Jacob was just a question mark to him before, if that. Also, Kate probably wouldn't have chided him as she did if he were aiming his comment at Jacob.
Kotowski said: "(Desmond) seems to know exactly how to make people remember the Island, and I am eagerly anticipating what happens at the museum concert. Everyone will be there (assuming Jack's son is playing piano and Jack invites Locke and Claire). The mysterious mother of Daniel will be there, as will Sawyer, Miles, Charlotte, Kate, Sayid, Hurley, Desmond, and (I think) Faraday."
And CHARLIE, right? Remember, Desmond tried to recruit him for the concert with Faraday. You don't think he'd give up on Charlie so easily, do ya?
@Benny: While I think this won't be addressed - and I don't think it needs to be - it is, in my opinion, a great topic for philosophical discussion.
Agreed, all around.
@Jessica, Donna S. & TMClancy: ...God-complex referred to Jack, not Jacob...
Yes, you’re right! Sorry! I need to pay closer attention. ;}
Word Verf: fleadmi : What my dogs did when I lay down with them.
@Blam – I agree that we do not (yet) know the true relationship between Smokey and water, and that am hoping we know definitively soon. The number of clues would imply that there is something, very important, and we just haven’t figured it out yet, but I am willing to wait a few more days before taking up the speculation again. Did I say a few more days? Crying…..
@variabull – So after 2000 years with no meaningful relationships except for the contentious one with your twin brother you are going to kill all of humanity in revenge and wind up all alone. Well that seems rather childish. Can't we talk this out?
I think Smokey should hug it out. With everyone.
@Gracie – re: FLocke as mate.
I think FLocke’s interest in Claire is 1-as a crazy mother, he is somewhat sympathetic (even though he made her that way) and 2-he can and has already used his influence on her to influence Jack. I agree that the Pet/Master relationship also makes sense. Or even parent and child (think about that smack across the face.) They are in no way equals. She follows him.
Now, I am with Joan, the original Locke is one sexy beast….
@Teebore & Benny: While the question of the ontological status of Smokie is something that may never be addressed, the question Jack as "hero" does need to be addressed.
Since the beginning of this show, the nature of heroes has been front and centre. Boone's last name is Carlyle, whose namesake wrote Heroes and Hero Worship, a topic apropos for post 9/11 drama. I had hoped LOST would delve somewhat into the difference between Carlyle and Nietzsche, considering Boone's observation of Locke as quoting Nietzsche.
If LOST does possess a Carlylian hero it has to be Jack--the man whose strong faith in his belief does not vary for any reason. (Jack's joruney to such a status is modern, the inverse dark journey beginning when he emerges from unconsciousness at the very beginning). Napoleon fits into Carlyle's list of heroes (although Cromwell is more the perfect example); this choice is telling in a show where Ben is likened to Napoleon. Is Ben an example of the modern Carlylian hero? Jacob, himself, might be considered a failed Carlylian hero as he did not directly involve himself in the affairs of people (Cromwell's actions could not be considered nudges moving, however slowly, the English state along towards Parlimentary democracy).
But then we have to consider the Nietzschian ubermensch, whom Nietzsche himself saw as Goethe. While I might have considered Eko as a possible candidate, the best one in the show is Sawyer. We may have lost sight of this distinction between Jack and Sawyer, as the dramatic focus shifted from them to Jack and Locke. In the last few Seasons, this Jack/Locke dynamic involved more the development of Jack, through Locke's actions, into a Carlylian hero. Thus one interesting thread of the narrative that began when Jack allowed Sayid to torture Sawyer was for the most part lost. (It did emerge once more when Jack and Sawyer had the short conversation in the woods before they went to blow up Jughead and the Swan).
I am hoping some of this remerges in the last hours of the final epsiode.
One other thing, I not sure if anyone has noticed, but for the longest time the island itself seemed a conscious entity in this whole mix. Now that we've been given the myth of the Source, the island has receded into the background. Everything that Locke and many others had attributed to the intentions of the island, has now been resolved to Jacob or MiB; the island is no longer an active part of the mythology. This seems a bit off, as we've been brought back to the dichotomy of black and white; whereas, before we had this notion of a third player due to the colour red. As with the Sawyer/Jack hero distinction, I feel this loss of undertsanding the island, beyond merely containing the Source, as an Active Living System (a sort of VALIS) is disappointing.
@Fred: As with the Sawyer/Jack hero distinction, I feel this loss of undertsanding the island, beyond merely containing the Source, as an Active Living System (a sort of VALIS) is disappointing.
Fascinating look at Jack-as-the-hero, something I'd like to come back to when I have the time.
For now, let me just say that I share your concern in the apparent downplaying of "the island" as a character with a role to play on the show. I'd love to see a reassertion of that appear in the final episode (perhaps made manifest by a non-Smoky Christian?).
@Teebore/Fred: RE: island as character.
Given that in recent interviews the execs have re-iterated the island-as-character principle, it would not be surprising that this element resurfaces again a little bit more.
A lot of that characters have been downplayed this season to make place for answers, mythology and plot points. So I am not too disappointed at this downplay but it would certainly be some let-down if it wasn't prominent in the finale.
@Benny:Given that in recent interviews the execs have re-iterated the island-as-character principle, it would not be surprising that this element resurfaces again a little bit more.
My fear is that although this is what they say, there might not be anything on it in the finale. I have a feeling the finale might be a Die Hard type ending, lots of explosions etc. And if anyone, like yourself, were to ask after about the island, they'd say, "hey, we dealt with that when we showed you the Source."
@Teebore:I'd love to see a reassertion of that appear in the final episode (perhaps made manifest by a non-Smoky Christian?).
Like a lot of people, you've touched on a big issue concenring Christian. Did the writers expect us to be satisifed with MiB's answer to Jack that he was the various manifestations of Christian. I am feeling, oh please let me be right, that Darlton are chaneling Luis Bunel in having delayed Christian's body from appearing. There has always been an element of the surreal in LOST, and the first thought that came to me seeing Christian standing in the water was Rene Magritte. Bunel fits so well in with his own brand of surrealism. Oh please, just one man with a bowler hat, that's all I ask.
Did the writers expect us to be satisifed with MiB's answer to Jack that he was the various manifestations of Christian.
Apparently (and, sadly) yeah, I think so.
Oh please, just one man with a bowler hat, that's all I ask.
Ha!
@Fred: I have a feeling the finale might be a Die Hard type ending, lots of explosions etc.
Apparently the finale does not have as much explosive power that previous episodes this season did, so we might be on the right track.
@Gracie et al.: Lately Gracie has been raising issues about Smokie. I present breifly my own take on Smokie.
Firstly, I was never convinced Mother was Smokie. I did believe she could summon him, as we saw in the hieroglyph from the Temple. And even Ben said he could summon Smokie, but as he noted last episode, he was being summoned by Smokie.
So I think Smokie is a sort of Golem. Although traditional Golems are formed of mud, and even Adam was considered to be one, their roles were as protectors (usually against anti-Semitic pogroms). So here we have the idea of Smokie as a security system, a guard of the light, to be called out by the chosen protector (Mother).
When Jacob threw his brother down into the cave, his soul became trapped in Smokie. Whereas before Smokie may have been obedient to the wishes of the protector who summoned it, with the addition of an individual light, Smokie became a conscious being, with an independent will. We might imagine that Smokie acted as a dual nature: on the one hand it wished to protect the island; while on the other hand it wished to act out the wishes of the soul inhabiting it.
Secondly, Smokie incorporates notions from Gnosticism, especially the idea of the monstrous demiurge (the light itself is the Demiurge or nous), and his hatred of humanity. In time, Smokie will also swallow other souls, trapping them inside of himself as a way of collecting the light (Mother said in each person is a little light, a portion of the Source). (If we want a name for Smokie, it might be Samael).
So there we have a model of what Smokie might be--a version of the Golem, controlled by whomever the protector of the island is. But because Jacob made a mess of things, this Golem/Smokie engulfed a soul and became conscious (truly, being a part of Smokie is being in Hell for Jacob's brother). As in Gnosticism, the Demiurge/Smokie wants to put out the light (the Source), and instead achieve it in itself by swallowing up souls (the emotions and knowledge of those souls sometimes emerge in the actions of MiB).
Sounds cool, but who knows.
The amazing PhD Comics by Jorge Cham did a few segments on Lost.
The comic itself is always hilarious - especially if you've gone through academia - but these ones are great if you're a Lost fan.
I put all three on my blog, check them out!
Fred,Teebore,Benny--- Christian Shephard
There was the mobisode (supposedly canonical extension of the show) in which Christian told Vincent to wake up Jack immediately after the crash of 815. Would this be explained as MiB waisting an incredibly ironic/dry sense of humor on Vincent or that it actually was Christian.
We also have Christian appearing to Michael on the freighter just before the explosion. MiB would seem to have no motive in appearing to Michael just before his death as Christian.
As for his L.A./San Sebastian appearance to Jack, that could be explained as a hallucination I guess as well as a "you've got to come back to the "Island" haunting by Christian.
I also have that Valis/Solaris vibe about "The Island" and in the back of my mind am still trying to incorporate the Green Lantern and Faster Friends comic book, Walt,Vincent,the Jacob's ladder/nexus, the spirits of the dead, the "Light" , Eloise the time cop, and the less than six degrees of separation connections (no I don't buy the cave/lighthouse explanations) into one semicoherent explanation.
@varibull: Yeah, that mobisode is one of the things (along with the discrepancies in dress/location that Benny has pointed out) that makes me think that not all Christians can be MiB.
I'm holding out hope that a non-Smokey Christian appears in the finale, but it's a slim hope, at best.
@variabull: I do have a post on my blog about the duality of Christian's appearances.
An aha moment. In the Pilot we heard the smoke monster ripping up trees. Now we know that when Ben saw the plane break up over the island he did three things: (1) send Goodwin to the Tail Section; (2) send Ethan to the Fuselage, and (3) go into his secreter room and flush the "toilet" by hand to summon the smoke monster.
@Fred: go into his secreter room and flush the "toilet" by hand to summon the smoke monster.
But why did Ben summon Smokey? Just to make some noise and keep the castaways from traveling too far inland?
@Benny and everyone discussing Annie: The only reason I latched onto Annie’s supposed significance was Damon and Carlton’s DVD commentary on that episode. I definitely remember some of the language used, like “seismic” importance, and Annie is “huge”, and “we haven’t seen the last of her.” So, if we don’t see or hear anything about Annie in the series finale, I’ll just figure that the story ended up going in a different direction, something they couldn’t have foreseen all those years ago. And really, among all of my life’s disappointments, this one is extremely minor.
Hey Benny and Others:
(I found a comment, completely typed, that was supposed to be posted last night to Rainier. And wasn't. I'll be doing that first. I was that tired.)
I'm just trying to get my eyes back open here, but in the interim, I have given this a lot of thought. Anyone who does not know what we are talking about should go back to the beginning of this to my comment at 5/19/2010 11:20:51 PM. This is a two-part comment, which is followed up by several bloggers. I haven't read all the comments since then, but:
I see where:
Teebore said: "After all, while FLocke looks like a man and acts like a man, he is not, ultimately a man. His supernatural elements exempt him, in my mind, from consideration of more human characteristics, like the drive to reproduce. Our mileages vary; no biggie. I just figure with all the ground left to cover in the remaining 2.5 hours, FLocke's reproductive proclivities, or lack thereof, will get put aside."
Benny came back with: "@Teebore: His supernatural elements exempt him, in my mind, from consideration of more human characteristics, like the drive to reproduce.
But, while I agree we don't know what the true nature of Smokey is, the drive to procreate is not one of specific human condition, not even animal, but of life itself. Survival is the very goal enshrined in the smallest of genes. Survival not of an 'individual', but of a specific trait. In cognitive humans, we have this idea of 'carrying the family name' (thus wanting a boy), but the principle is more akin to propagating our genetic material. That's the drive for procreation, dominating the genetic pool. Hence the procreation aspect, whether it be sexual or asexual is really coded in genes and therefore is characteristic of humans, animals and even plants. I would also be the purpose of bacteria, viruses and any entity characterized as 'life'.
Now the question becomes: Is smokey a living thing as such? Or is he something mimicking life. Truth is, we don't know the nature of Smokey and that's why we can only speculate as to the true motivations (innate and acquired) of this entity.
Now this discussion may be completely off topic, but I think that the procreation question is legitimate given that we don't know the natural rules defining/governing Smokey."
In that I can see that Benny is in the same chapter with me, if not quite on the same page. Teebore: WEEDS reproduce. They don't get excited about it, don't buy sex aids or condoms for it, don't think about it at all. They just do. Species survival is a very apt way of describing where I'm trying to go, and I am going to finish the post to Benny I started last night. It might take me all night, but I will finish it.
First, for those already on board, and anybody else who may wish to join in: "This is an incredible difficult subject to talk about while giving it all due respect, AND keeping it clean. This has nothing to do with "who's getting some tonight". And trying to be forthcoming takes some very careful word choices. Let's not forget where we are, and please, at all times, be respectful of Nikki. This is her place, guys. Let's keep it clean.
Benny, others: I'm working on it, and picking it right back up where I left it last night. Whatever it turns out to be, it's going to be long. And clean, to everyone's eyes, I hope. (I'm back to it as soon as I post that reply to Rainier that I can't find ever actually got posted although typed. Hmmm.)
Rainier said: "@Gracie, Joan: Now, I WILL cop to thinking about John Locke having designs on sweet lil ol' Claire Back-When.
But since he's been Smokey? Nope. Never crossed my mind. Probably, like Benny said, because of the supernatural nature of Smokey. I still have a hard time seeing it."
Benny, I have to stop Rain right here. I saw this while scrolling back to my spot and if everybody is thinking what Rain is thinking, that's just wrong.
Smokey is an "it", Folks. It's a creature. We think we know that it has some intelligence of it's own, but it's still a creature. Smokey is NOT thinking about "having designs" on ANYBODY!!! If it's thinking as we know it, Smokey is thinking about reproducing. Leaving behind others like itself. In it's own mind, that is just about all that's going on there. How much thought does a dog give to the act of reproduction? Dogs don't think, "Wait til you see what I can do with my bone?" They just do. They bone. That's it. That's that. All done. Sometimes they breathe hard for a while afterwards. It's not a Broadway production number. In. Off. Out. Done. Smokey is worse off than a dog, because, well, it just is!! I know that as well as I know my name. Smokey is all about making sure there are other Smokeys when this one, "THE Smokester" checks out. Which is why I asked how does anyone know that the Smoke Monster you're looking at right now is the same one you saw yesterday? You don't! Nobody does for sure. Except the writers, but I think they expect a little more imagination from the "over 21" crowd. Smokey, when there is opportunity, will reproduce just like a weed!! When was the last time it had opportunity? I have no idea. But now it's got it's Rings circling Claire.
Before I comment on some things (they start from yesterday morning, but hey, I’m a busy lady! With no Blog access at work anymore… *Jear*) I wanted to know if anyone was going to their local theaters tonight for the Times Talk Live thing with Darlton?? Just curious, cause I’m going and I want to be able to bounce any thoughts against someone who goes!
@Blam said...
Or, to put it another way, "Hakuna stigmata."
Holy hell! Blam you are a genius and should write you own damn show!
@Teebore said...
Personally, I'm crossing that one off the list. MiB transformed into Smokey when he entered the cave. Smokey did not exist before that moment.
Thank you! Glad to know my “am I just crazy for thinking this?” moment has been reaffirmed in the negative!
“@Blam: I'm not looking for epic or profound death scenes, necessarily, but confirmation would be appropriate if only because so many viewers are wondering if they'll be back — not mourning or cursing the producers for the characters' ignoble ends but genuinely wondering, which is just sloppy storytelling.”
@Teebore said: Agreed. Oh, so agreed.
Good I was getting tired of all this… well they don’t have time to answer everything, blah, blah blah… finding out whether or not Richard and Lapidus died is important and frankly would only take 10 seconds of our grand finale’s time to state so!
@ Erin said...Okay, anybody else wondering... Where's Claire? She was with Smokey on the dock when the sub sunk, but we haven't seen her since.
YES!!! When FLocke first stepped out of the outrigger! I was like “Uh oh… where’s Claire??” I don’t think that FLocke would kill her (he seems to have an affinity for her crazy-lady-hairness) but I also don’t know if I believe that he would just leave her somewhere so anyone else could sway her again or even worse.
I did read on LostPedia that according to Geronimo Jack’s Beard Post there was a scene with Claire and FLocke but that it was cut. This would lead me to believe that either nothing important happened other than him telling her to stay put or that they didn’t have time in this episode to properly “off her” … bad thoughts… bad thoughts!
@Hutch said...This may have already been posted by others BUT what if Jack was married to Zoe in the sideways world? Everyone is expecting it to be Juliet but the LOST writers are famous for their "WHAT" twists....
That would certainly be a “WHAT?!” moment, I think it would cause Nikki’s head to explode though!
@TiaSabita said...
! Will Kate and Juliet assist Claire's delivery in the bathroom?
That would be one awesome Oh My Freakin Guyliner moment!
@ Fred said...
But I would like some answer at least on the whole death by pregnancy bit, even if it is a throw away line by MiB saying he is the cause of it.
Which now if we think about “Across the Sea” … WHO would actually want to prevent mothers from having babies on the island? MIB! Makes perfect sense! Maybe his Holy-Smokiness emits some sort of EM wave that attacks wombs causing them to be unable to accept pregnancies? Of course the one conundrum here is Ethan… (who’s to say he was conceived on Island though?) but I will say, that there are a whole heck of a lot of questions/mysteries that need answers/solutions and no one can expect 2 ½ hours to do that, but a major force of the propulsion of the storylines throughout the series HAS been the pregnancy issues…
Season 1- Ethan kidnapping Claire to then take her baby
Season 2- Sun finds out she is pregnant, yay! Jin’s not infertile anymore! Tawaret (Goddess of Fertility) shows her four-toed foot for the first time
Season 3- Juliet’s whole storyline
Season 4- Mission get Sun out of here- Freighter blows up in her pregnant face
Season 5- We see Ethan get born, Juliet doesn’t want to help in the proceedings because of all the pain she went through with the Other-Mothers dying on her table
Season 6- Claire’s false labor & Ethan’s reappearance, Sun’s pregnancy
Obviously there is a lot more to Pregnancies in general on the show, but come on! Look at what I just came up with while hungry, tired and in serious need of caffeine! This must be addressed!
@Loretta said...
I guess I was just always amazed that--in a show where it was clear the show-runners always wanted the audience to be aware of BOTH the good and the bad in every single character, even if some characters tipped more in one direction than another—[Jack’s] character seemed to be greeted with such great amounts of vitriol.
It probably has to do with the fact that he’s THE Hero. We often expect our heroes to be good and strong which I think is why his jears upset so many.
@Zari said...
"@Jessica, Donna S. & TMClancy: ...God-complex referred to Jack, not Jacob...
Yes, you’re right! Sorry! I need to pay closer attention. ;}"
No worries Zari! Just wanted you to have the full benefit of one of Sawyer's lovely zingers! ;)
@Teebore:But why did Ben summon Smokey? Just to make some noise and keep the castaways from traveling too far inland?
That is an excellent question, and one we have to speculate on as the audience.
(1) Ben may have had standing orders from MiB that if anyone showed up on the island, Ben was to inform him. (At least it would keep them away from the Dark Territory).
(2) Ben may have thought Widmore had used the plane to get back to the island. (this idea is a little confusing, cause why then send Ethan and Goodwin out to investigate?)
(3) Ben might have done it to ensure the survivors remained collected to one side of the island (Tom's famous line in the sand).
On the whole, Ben's motivation is a bit confusing--but it sure beats just thinking Smokie just wanders about the island tearing it up (surely MiB would have seen the plane break up, since its break up was heralded by the shaking of the earth from the Swan nearly imploding).
So, Ben might have been mistaken that the command to flush the "toilet" came from Jacob (in fact it came from MiB himself). Ben might have been told it was to ensure Smokie would be about protecting the Temple in the Dark Territory from intruders (seems plausible). We have to remember, according to Widmore, that the leaders of the Others really didn't have a good sense of what Smokie was--ghost stories around the camp fire and myths. So Ben never had any real sense of Smokie, except what he might have been told: security system (by MiB himself).
Why was Ben living at the Barracks? MOst of the Others lived at the Temple, but we've seen Widmore and Eloise living in the jungle. For much of the time, Smokie probably did not kill any of the jungle-living Others. At some point, he may have, which spurred the Purge (widmore's idea; Jacob's?). The Others then would have 2 locations which were safe from this maurauding security system : the Temple and behind the sonic fence. Ben also found the scientific instruments avaialble at the Barracks useful to explore the infertility problem. He could select the Others he wanted to live at the Barracks to help him, and entice doctors, such as Juliet, to the island (I'm sure Juliet would have tried to get out of there so fast had she been living on the jungle floor and in a tent).
So their is some viewer speculation of the conditions found in the Pilot.
@Jessica:Season 2- Sun finds out she is pregnant, yay! Jin’s not infertile anymore! Tawaret (Goddess of Fertility) shows her four-toed foot for the first time
I've always thought the island is female, a mother goddess sort of entity. But Juliet setting off the bomb proves another of those clean up your own mess. Juliet's setting off the bomb caused the infertility problem, for which she comes to the island and tries to clean up her own mess.
Jin not being infertile anymore is just one aspect of the power of the island that is still intact.
But it would be nice if this were addressed in the finale. Like what is the island?
@Jessica:what if Jack was married to Zoe in the sideways world?
No, I'm holding out for Nikki Fernandez. After her demise in Expose, the director said we could always bring you back. What better way than as Jack's ex-wife.
@Jessica - I will be going to my local theatre tonight, wearing my 108 things on Flight 815 t-shirt. Feel free to direct your bounces my way.
I really do hope this ends up on the S6 DVD set.
@Gracie:
WARNING: LONG WINDED AND MAY NOT GET ANYWHERE - MAY BE IRRELEVANT TO MOST, OR IN GENERAL!
Yes, dogs are creatures, without cognitive abilities. And the simple desire of reproduction is not a cognitive act but a survival act.
But as I said, we don't know the nature of Smokey. Whether or not Smokey has cognitive abilities, the reproduction/procreation drive is still one of survival (and protection of the mate) but with different approaches.
If Smokey has cognitive abilities, then he can plan and execute in order to achieve that goal. Otherwise, it is a purely instinctual reaction given his environment.
Humans have a desire to procreate in order to raise a family. This is a cognitive characteristics that has evolved in order to instill a desire to procreate yet lacking the natural instinct to do so.
So if Smokey has cognitive abilities, the question is where do his desires lie, how was evolution process? Similar or different from humans?
This is all becoming a circular line of questioning given that we don't have a priori knowledge of Smokey's nature.
We can debate the non-cognitive drive to reproduce versus the aware desire to procreate, but since both have an a significantly different intrinsic basis which we cannot apply directly to Smokey, it becomes pointless.
So what we need to turn to first has to be debating the nature of Smokey! And we do this as such:
1] If MiB=Smokey, then we can assume human cognitive processes within the entity and take from it that he is driven to have descendants.
2] If MiB not= Smokey, then we have NO knowledge of his nature.
--A} He could be cognitive and think about procreating;
--B} He could be a creature mimicking cognitive processes through impersonations.
But when he talks to Jack about Locke and ridicules him, he does so without an anterior knowledge of Locke, therefore he must have the cognitive ability to reason and understand Locke's feelings and questions, which ultimately would render 2B irrelevant and leave us with Smokey being a cognitive being.
Where does that leave us?
Well is his cognitive ability the same as humans or different? If it is the same as human, then he is looking for a family. If, on the other hand, his ability has not evolved through the same process as humans, then it is possible that his thought process only exists to help him meet his instinctual drive to reproduce. Note that option [1] only has the human-cognition option, while option [2A] is the only one with the instinct-cognition hybrid:
1] human-cog
2A] human-cog; hybrid
This still leaves us nowhere closer to our conclusion.
If you assume that MiB is Smokey, then you must consequentially believe in the human cognition and desire for a family. Yet if you believe smokey is a different entity, then you are still left with an uncertain scenario and further questions as to the nature of Smokey.
Now, I don't know if this answers anything, if this helps figure things out for anyone, but I just got going writing and I did not want to delete it!
Lauren: I absolutely adored how Jacob told Kate: "It's just chalk on a wall. The job is yours if you want it."
That's a line that really resonated with me, too. It's probably the one I've been thinking about most this week, oddly enough. It's like the writers are telling us, "Don't take everything so seriously and dramatically. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
I'm still working on that, but this just came up and could be IMPORTANT TO EVERYONE HERE:
It has been brought to my attention that a friend of mine understands that the Lost cast is supposed to be guests on Larry King Live next week. When I went to see if I could find a schedule for Larry's guests, I found this and thought I'd share it. It's under TV Guide's Top Moments of the Week, and it's apparently a week old, but OUCH! I didn't think it was THAT bad. See for yourself:
"2. Worst Reveal: Lost finally gives up the identity of the Adam and Eve skeletons: They're the remains of the Man in Black and his mother. It's a lame answer to one of the show's longest-running mysteries, particularly because it involves two characters we practically just met. Plus: We guessed wrong. We were convinced it was happily-stuck-in-the-'70s Rose and Bernard. And we hate being wrong."
Sorry for them.
Meanwhile, I cannot locate anything about Lost actors as guests of Larry King Live next week. If YOU know of this, or if anyone gets any more information, could you please post it LOUDLY?
@Gracie: Smokey is an "it", Folks. It's a creature. We think we know that it has some intelligence of it's own, but it's still a creature. Smokey is NOT thinking about "having designs" on ANYBODY!!! If it's thinking as we know it, Smokey is thinking about reproducing. Leaving behind others like itself. In it's own mind, that is just about all that's going on there. How much thought does a dog give to the act of reproduction? Dogs don't think, "Wait til you see what I can do with my bone?" They just do. They bone. That's it. That's that. All done. Sometimes they breathe hard for a while afterwards. It's not a Broadway production number. In. Off. Out. Done. Smokey is worse off than a dog, because, well, it just is!! I know that as well as I know my name. Smokey is all about making sure there are other Smokeys when this one, "THE Smokester" checks out. Which is why I asked how does anyone know that the Smoke Monster you're looking at right now is the same one you saw yesterday? You don't! Nobody does for sure. Except the writers, but I think they expect a little more imagination from the "over 21" crowd. Smokey, when there is opportunity, will reproduce just like a weed!! When was the last time it had opportunity? I have no idea. But now it's got it's Rings circling Claire.
In the same passage, you acknowledge that Smokey is an "it" and can't "have designs" on anybody, then suggest that it needs her (Claire) in order to reproduce. This makes no sense to me. If Smokey in fact has any drive to reproduce (and I just don't see that as a story element this late in the game!) then what (aside that it inhabits Locke's body) makes you think it could do so with a human female? For all we know, Somkey can reproduce all by itself, via binary fission, or with anyone, via infection (like a virus)or by some other means (parthenogenesis?).
By bringing Claire into it, you are implying that Smokey Locke can reproduce sexually with Claire. And if that were the case, and since Smokey evidently has Locke's knowledge and memories as well as his body, well - he has designs on her.
QED.
VW: upryin - you are sticking your nose where it just don't belong!
@fred: My fear is that although this is what they say, there might not be anything on it in the finale. I have a feeling the finale might be a Die Hard type ending, lots of explosions etc. And if anyone, like yourself, were to ask after about the island, they'd say, "hey, we dealt with that when we showed you the Source."
I don't think the finale is going to be like that. I just got back from the TimesTalk Live thing, and (no spoilers here) Jorge Garcia said that he was happy with the finale. When Darlton asked him if he had any lingering questions as a fan, his response, after thinking about it a bit, was "Nope. Think I got it."
They also talked about the finale being very character- and narrative-centered. I don't think the explosions, though perhaps inevitable, are really going to play that big a role.
@JS said...
"@Jessica - I will be going to my local theatre tonight, wearing my 108 things on Flight 815 t-shirt. Feel free to direct your bounces my way.
I really do hope this ends up on the S6 DVD set."
What did you think?? I was so about ready to run out the theater at the end, but I feel sort of awesome knowing something potentially important, but I will not divulge on here, cause that would be slightly spoilerish and I am just not that kind of a girl! :)
My fiance and I were dying though, cause up until 5 minutes before it was supposed to start we were the only two people there! There still only ended up being like 15 people, but I don't think they really advertised it enough! If it weren't for Nikki, I would never have known! SO THANKS NIKKI!!!
@Rainier. What did you think about the Times Talk??
@Jessica: I loved the Times Talk! The discussion of creative process was excellent. I enjoyed the answers to some of the questions, and really enjoyed Michael Emerson and Jorge Garcia. Man, that dude is BIG. He's gotta be at least 6'4"! I never got the sense of him being quite that physically imposing on the show, somehow.
I thought it was funny when they were talking about Aaron being "special" and they basically said: "Look. The only character who ever said anything about Aaron being special was the psychic, and we later found out that he was a total fraud. We told you he was not reliable. And even when we give fans that answer, they still say NO. HE'S SPECIAL!!"
And Walt? "Come on. Malcolm David Kelly is now 39 years old!"
I also liked what they had to say about fans wanting 1) for there to be a "binder" in which everything that will ever happen on Lost must be written., and 2) for the writer's to allow the fans to have some input. Mutually contradictory...
My favorite part, though, was what they had to say about Nikki and Paolo.
You?
If anybody just jumps in right here, you will not understand what prompted this reply unless you go back to 5/19/2010 11:20:51 PM, and then read the replies that followed, and then go on with this one. It would probably be beneficial for everyone to go back and reread that, because that shows exactly what my state of mind was at the time and where I was heading. Reread and refresh your memories before coming into this one.
To Benny: There are some guys here, and yes, there are some "female usernames" (?) too, several actually, who speak about things that are so foreign to me, or so far beyond me, that when they write something, I don't know right away if I should "bother" even reading it or trying to figure it out, or just skip that one comment altogether. I've read some things that set off an alarm in my head that says, "RUN, don't walk, away from this one as fast as you can!" At times, Benny, you are indeed one of them. Any time that you come back and commend ME for something that I'VE said, while also mentioning that to your knowledge this is a new idea, I feel like my old self. Sometimes, as you know, it moves me to tears, and in that regard: "Thank you Benny". I've noticed a lot lately that you're not the only one doing this. This encourages me to keep trying WHILE I am also trying to have a coherent conversation with you fellow bloggers. I do work hard to try to keep up with the "Big Boys (and Girls!). I'm glad to see that at times, it shows. And I'd hate to think that all of you people are going to up and disappear after Sunday. So don't. Just don't.
This is a most difficult subject to talk about in this way, but I will attempt to continue to honor Nikki AND her blog by watching my wording as well as my fingers to keyboard. Language and wording are everything. If this comes back up again tomorrow (Friday, or tonight when I post this), let's all use some extra caution and try to not let her down in this area. Please. I don't think Nikki would be unhappy with our search for knowledge (or our opinions) in this area, but I'm certain that she would appreciate it if we kept it clean to the extent we are able. Take our time, and agree that the subject matter is difficult.
As I reread what I typed last night, it crossed my mind that people might think I believe that John Locke would also still live within the Smoke Monster as I believe MIB does as his "fate worse than death". Not true. This would also apply to Christian Shephard. The difference between the three of them is that when the Smoke Monster got it's hands (?) on MIB, he was still alive. Therefore he lives on within this thing. Christian and John, fortunately for them, were already dead. Smokey could still "suck" from them the knowledge that they had had, and be able to use their bodies at will, but they were as dead to Smokey as they were to everyone else. (I keep using that word "suck" for what I think Smokey does to the contents of the others minds simply because I haven't found another word that is remotely appropriate. "Suck" works although it's not precisely what I want. Smokey is "removing" from their minds any and all knowledge that they once had, like "sucking" it out of them even if they're dead.) So, IMHO, when you see Smokey, the only two "living entities" you're seeing, are Smokey and the mental remnants of MIB. Another thing: I have always thought Smokey could reproduce. I don't know why, but that's never even been a question for me. Why not? It's easier to assume that Smokey can reproduce than to ponder all the reasons why it might not be able to. Maybe just a "bad hangover" from the Alien movies. I understand that it IS smoke, but if smoke can pluck a man out of an airplane cockpit, rip him to shreds, and leave him hanging from a tree limb, well, I think I'm just going to believe that it can reproduce too. Sounds sensible to me.
Benny said: "@Gracie: That's quite an interesting thought. As you said, we're not likely to get anything remotely close and might be fan fiction. I must command you on elaborating it so well yet I must say, it doesn't hit me quite right, and that's simply my opinion. I get the impression, from reading this, that you assume Smokey is NOT MiB but has done to same thing it has done to Locke. That it is another pre-existing entity. So when you say this is a creature we've never seen before, my personal belief is that it's because it is unique in its own right by Jacob's and the source's hands, it is immortal and it is not governed by the standard laws of nature and biology, possibly including procreation. Though your interpretations still fits with what we've been given on screen. As for the 'friend'/mate aspect of it and the whole keeping company, I never actually imagined it this way myself, but I must say there's nothing that disproves this. I personally always looked at it as Claire being alone and having a literal father-figure with her, taking care of her (prevented her from going back in time to the 1970s). But knowing it was not her real dad, it was a 'friend'. Honestly, I am impressed by your train of thought and, while I just don't see it being there, I have to say that we can't (yet) prove or disprove it. I'm sure you would do great writing a specific genre of fan fiction (which would be popular among the Joans of the world). I may need to re-read it tomorrow, I'm quite tired right now. But hats off to you...
First up: Benny says it doesn't hit him quite right. I couldn't agree more, but that's because the whole arc between Locke, then FLocke and Claire, never hit me right. There has always been something a little "hinky" there. A little left of center. A look given that didn't go with the comment? A glance back to make sure Claire was protected that didn't fit at that moment? A comment that seemed to hint: "Just between you and me, Claire." Something in that story line has always been off or uncomfortable to me. As you follow my train of thought, you'll come to a point where you'll understand that my Smoke Monster understands what was at one time in Christian's mind as it relates to Claire (he's her father), yet is still using Christian to get close to Claire. Um, we have a word for that? Christian and Claire together would in fact be incest. But that's not really Christian, and we know that? OR not that we know of anyway. And the way I see this thing, it doesn't care if it is incest. As long as it can go forth and multiply, that's all it needs. But for the time we have known of this relationship, there's no other way to describe it except very, very strange. Too strange for a father-figure type of thing, and why would "it" want to be a father figure to something that it then has to offer protection to and waste time on. It doesn't care about her! I don't see a father-thing or a friend-thing, I just see weird.
Benny said: "my personal belief is that it's because it is unique in its own right by Jacob's and the source's hands,".
Benny, if by this you mean that you believe Jacob knew before hand what was going to come out of that cave after he shoved his brother into the water, all I can say is that I implore you to go back and look at the film of it. Immediately following letting go of MIB, it cuts to Jacob who is still angry. Then he shows possibly regret. Maybe remorse. Then he starts to fear. And you can see it on his face. When he hears it for the first time, that IS fear you see there. And when it finally comes rolling out of that cave, he is horrified. He falls backwards on his rear scrambling trying to get away from this thing. THAT is fear. I don't believe he ever had a clue what a "fate worse than death" meant until he saw it with his own two eyes. Yes, it is unique in it's own right, but I have no way of knowing if it's immortal. Or if it's governed by the same biological laws of nature that we are. There is no explanation for it, so I believe that it is like me to an extent. It has a life span. Eventually it will die, although it could die within a few short years, or live for a thousand years. (I'm moving out of my ballpark now. Time to head back to where I wanted to be.)
In my opinion: Smokey started out as a creature with a very intelligent mind. (Mental Picture: The Alien of the Aliens movies!) For whatever amount of time, it got by with what it had to work with on it's own. (For those who don't believe Smokey was alive until MIB was thrown into the cave, I just disagree, although I respect your opinion. I think Mom knew of Smokey IF she wasn't using Smokey somehow herself, and that she knew the result was becoming Smokey if you went inside that cave. Smokey WAS the fate worse than death. It's been living in that cave for ?how long? Some assign witchery to Mom; maybe she designed it and put it there. I don't know.) There may have been a hundred people who passed through Smokey that we never saw, and during that time, Smokey has "sucked" whatever knowledge could be acquired from each and every one of those people male or female, including possibly Mom, but for sure MIB, Christian and Locke. (I also believe it took knowledge from ANYONE it flashed on, like Eko.) Within "this knowledge" would be each of those people's individual knowledge of "sex". Smokey has no interest in whether you prefer a lampshade on your head or while wearing Mommy's underwear, so for my opinion, none of that thought line even applies. Smokey understands the need to leave behind another Smokey; to continue it's species, much like the Alien in the movie did. There is no sex. It's all reproduction for the sake of continuity of one's self. To reproduce it needs a female to be it's carrier. In it's mind, it sees all the ways Claire has done or been this.
There has been a lot of talk about how strange this relationship is between Locke and Claire. Someone said they saw it back when Locke made the cradle/bassinet. THAT is where I first saw it too. When Claire up and just left her baby in the middle of the night to just go wandering off with Christian, a man she knew to be her father, that was just beyond all weird for me. IMHO she never left with Christian. Christian appeared to her so as not to frighten her, but that was MIB all the way, who is also Smokey. And whatever has happened since that time, Claire has been under the control of Smokey. Locke is dead. He is not controlling anyone. That's his body, but it is not him. MIB is dead, and he's not controlling anyone. Same for Christian. These are all dead men, whose bodies have been manipulated for the use of The Smoke Monster. IT is the one in control, and as a result if MIB wins this game, it's not actually MIB anymore. It's Smokey. And it's keeping Claire to be the carrier of it's heirs. To mother it's young. And for her that is in no way "a good thing."
Rainier said: "Also, remember that for a while, Locke took on the role of Claire's friend and protector, so maybe that knowledge, and even some of that feeling, still resides in Smokey Locke."
I believe Rain is referring to when Locke oversaw Claire and the baby when Charlie was (?) what? Being an idiot? Hallucinating? I don't remember if we ever knew exactly what Charlie was doing. But Rain is right. I think Smokey "remembers" that from having access to John's memories. More importantly, it remembers Claire............and the baby! Claire as mother. Claire as a carrier. Claire = baby. Species Survival.
@Gracie: I agree with you completely that there is something weird in the Locke/SMocke/Claire relationship. But adding sex into the mix just makes it a whole lot weirder...and I still don't see why you think it would need Claire to reproduce.
Regarding the actual performing of sex: I see Smokey as the product of someone's design most of the time anymore, Benny. I don't know who, but when it was created, somebody put some thought into what would be coming out of that cave, if in fact, if ever did. Well, it did! Who/Whatever designed this thing I'm envisioning as Godlike. It's another creature, just like so many others that we DO share a planet with, but this one is playing in a ballpark all it's own. Imagining Smokey amongst other creatures, I see bigger, bolder, faster, more accurate, undaunted, fiercer, without equal, able to reason (not quite "think" like a man, but this creature is not stupid in any sense of the word). How about if I say that if you line up all the creatures of the Earth, big and small, and put them in some kind of "power" order, Smokey sits alone on the top shelf? Does that work for you? But, and maybe it's only failing, it's not man! (Benny, I have to say that as I'm typing this, I keep wanting to say "him" "his" or "he". That is all wrong. Smokey is an "it", and if I DO type that, it is unintentional. Smokey should always be referred to as "it". A creature; never a man.) Smokey is on the top shelf, but he remains below man in any comparison. I hope you are getting a clear picture of my thoughts so far. To me, Smokey is designed to have some type of equipment which when used can/does result in the creation of Smokey Jr. If Smokey were a Smokette, I would believe that the female version of it also has equipment for this function which when fitted together with a Smokey, works out just fine for both of them. I am not talking about an orgasm. I am talking about just the plain and simple ability to fit to each other in whatever way that works to make Baby Smokeys. THAT'S ALL. Don't muck it all up by making it anything more than simple reproduction.
And somebody said that it's too late for this to be part of the story. Probably so. MOST probably so. Like I'm 98% sure they won't bring it up (don't go there!) but I'll leave myself that 2% comfort zone just as leeway in case somebody wants to jerk Claire around in the last 2 1/2 hours, and Smokey takes a little offense to that. What the hell. The ground has already been laid for it, and all that needs to happen to bring it to the light is for Smokey to see somebody messing around, hitting Claire, abusing Claire, anything something similar, and you've got yourself a full-fledged war with Smokey. I want to be clear also, that up to this point, I don't think anything reproductively has happened between them yet. That's what I meant when I said Claire would be seeing the Dark Side of the Moon. I envision that it may eventually happen many, many times between the two of them. For Claire, consciously, it will happen once. After that, Claire may as well be either a rag doll, or a dishrag. Her life will be over when it's happened once. It may come back to her for further reproductions, but after the first time, Claire will be nothing more than an incubator. She is now completely, utterly, hopelessly insane. Whatever she may see behind those pretty blue eyes is not something warm and fuzzy that you want sleeping next to you at night, or that Jack might want David in the FS to meet. After that first time, for all intents, Claire is dead.
But for now, Smokey could still use her. Smokey could use her to disrupt Jack in several ways, and because that is his sister. Until there can no longer be any way that Smokey can use this girl against the Candidates, it will not approach her knowing that what it intends to do will mentally destroy her. In that context, I would believe it's been done before, and the Smoke Monster you see today is NOT necessarily the same one you saw a year ago, but a reproduction of Smokey that resulted from the last time Smokey got his hands (?) on some young thing. I know I can go all out imaginatively, but that's what I was told to do with this show. When I see something that strikes me as peculiar, well most people would just say, "That was strange." and forget it. I have not forgotten it. Didn't one of the boys tell the other one that everything dies? I think so, and that is true. I think that also applies to the original Smoke Monster. The one that came out of the cave after MIB went in. In order to continue its livelihood, it must reproduce. Claire is the answer. Someone else said, "Is Smokey a living thing. Or is he something mimicking life." The answer IMHO is both. Smokey is a living thing that is mimicking life that it sees around it. From the minds that it has picked up, it would know about OUR reproduction manner. I don't think it would care about ours in any way. It just needs to know how to reproduce itself, so when it's time is over, it will have continued on it's species. To me, I would think that this would be a matter of the utmost importance to ANY creature, much less Smokey. Not raising a family, or having a son, somebody to carry your name, nothing like that. Just continuing your species.
JS said: "Or even parent and child (think about that smack across the face.) They are in no way equals. She follows him."
That smack across the face to me had nothing to do with parent/child. That was about control. They are in no way equals, and it lets her know her place, and that IT is in control. She follows it, because it has earned her trust. For all the reasons I said earlier/last night she has no fear. I believe that over all the time Claire has been with this thing she has seen it turn from one entity to another. She knows what it can become and then do. She said something to someone about "It/He's going to be mad." And she was concerned because she knows exactly what that means. But it will not hurt her because it never has. At least, not yet. And it won't until it is beyond positive that she can no longer benefit it in any other way.
Do they intend to follow this path on Lost? I hardly doubt it after sleeping on it, but I am going to stay with my original 2% maybe. The ground is already set for a heated battle. If you've followed their little clues, you know the path has been laid for a relationship between these two. (Smoke Monster and Claire.) Smokey would not hesitate to toss this up in Jack's face, so Jack would know what will happen to his sister if he fails. All that would need to happen that hasn't already been done, is that FLocke would need to say, "When I've finished with you, and I'm able to leave the island and go where I want, YOUR SISTER is going to be the mother of my children." WHOA! Immediately Jack knows what that means, and so does the mature audience. Jack didn't see THAT ONE coming, but I did. If it falls within my other theory, it could be what gets Jack killed, and leaves the door open for another Replacement. If they do not follow this path on Lost, I'm cool with that. But I think they know that I know that they've left little unpleasantries lying around about Claire and FLocke. Little ugly ideas. Possibilities. As long as Locke was Locke, it was just little peculiar things. When Locke became Smokey/MIB/Christian/FLocke then it became something else. That something else leads to Smokey's ability to continue it's own species. Long explanation. Simple deduction. I'm going back to bed. Allergies are killing my eyes!! Goodnight All! (Wonder what Gracie is going to be thinking about in her sleep tonight? YUK!!)
@Jessica,
There was no advertising. After reading about it here but not on the many other LOST forums, I finally found where it was near where I live and it was DELAYED (California) and so, not even live, at that.
Knowing that I would likely be the only person to show up, I decided not to go but to read about it later. TV writers will certainly be writing about it.
How could even the NY Times not give it a bit more publicity? Anyway, the actors have been all over TV talking about the finale some, and Matthew Fox is never too shy about characterizing it. These will be on youtube too.
I get the sense from the remarks he and other actors have made, that it will be, at the least, a 'rewarding' finale.
I notice Fox likes to brag that he knew two months ago and I saw Evangeline Lily say on Kimmel that she didn't know and that Fox didn't because Darleton feeds him 'crap' :-) (laughing while whispering it). She even said that he feels he's "the God of the show" and they tell him everything. She laughed so she may have been kidding around but there was an edge there.
In real life, he has more than a bit of the all-knowing side of 'Jack' and I'm one who likes the Jack character for the most part. For one thing, Fox is a very good actor. But I've seen him be very funny too.
Here's Fox playing a 17-yr old. He looks and acts practicaly the same !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wY-fWGWrBw
@Fred: So there we have a model of what Smokie might be--a version of the Golem, controlled by whomever the protector of the island is. But because Jacob made a mess of things, this Golem/Smokie engulfed a soul and became conscious (truly, being a part of Smokie is being in Hell for Jacob's brother). As in Gnosticism, the Demiurge/Smokie wants to put out the light (the Source), and instead achieve it in itself by swallowing up souls (the emotions and knowledge of those souls sometimes emerge in the actions of MiB).
Ooooh! I like this one! Very nice piece of thinking!
Well, all this talk of reproduction and using Claire just gives me the creeps. I guess other conjecture about Christian the father and a man (Locke) who was thoughtful to her is just too boring to consider.
I still hope it's a matter of ingested memories and feelings associated with them, meaning, god forbid, friendship and of course in Christian's case, probably an absent father type of thing.
MIB has strange moments of what could be called empathy as in saying to what he thought was a squeamish Ben that he didn't have to see what was going to happen.
@Andrys - I noticed earlier that you mentioned that black was considered the "good" color in Ancient Egypt. This is very interesting - what with all the random Egypt stuff on Lost (seriously, what is that all about?) maybe it is there as a clue about the colors?
VW: Panski - The Polish version of Bacchus
Juliett will be Jacks wife in the FS,
Widmore death was weak, he went to all that trouble to bring all those people and equipment there with what seemed to be a complex plan and then he is killed without any drama, they were running out of time and that was weak
Anonymous, I don't think Nikki particularly wants spoilers here.
As for Widmore's death, life (death) is like that. And Lost is most adept using the element of surprise. For me it's a terror to be suddenly or unexpectedly in heavy danger and have to go find a secreter room :-) where you are trapped when the door is opened.
The way he was killed did surprise me though I have to agree that if the rules are hard and fast and Ben "couldn't" kill him, for all we know he doesn't actually die, but I guess Smokey would be able to tell. Still, it would be a neat shift if Ben insisted on doing the killing because he knew Charles would survive (but the visit to the grave supports his wanting to kill Charles).
So the show keeps us guessing. Probably for another year or so until newcomers see the reruns and then the cycle begins again :-)
Widmore may have been visited by Jacob (but do we believe anything out of his mouth? or can we believe he didn't just want to exploit the resources?) but it was unwise of him to continue being disdainful and dismissive of Ben at that particular point -- neither of them having been much better than cold-blooded murderers though Ben is written and acted in a far more complex way so he has his fans.
@Joan Crawford,
I actually went to Egypt in October and so I've been more curious about those aspects of the story than I'd normally be.
I really dislike simplistic white/black thinking because it's caused a lot of harm. I think the show's been irresponsible that way.
Re the Egyptians they didn't see the colors as so much opposed as different. There are many sources online but here's one from
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/egyptology/ss/EgyptColour_2.htm
" Black (Ancient Egyptian name 'kem') was the color of the life-giving silt left by the Nile inundation, which gave rise to the Ancient Egyptian name for the country: 'kemet' – the black land.
[ They actually named their
country this. ]
Black symbolized fertility, new life, and resurrection as seen through the yearly agricultural cycle.
It was also the color of Osiris ('the black one'), the resurrected god of the dead, and was considered the color of the underworld where the sun was said to regenerate every night.
Black was often used on statues and coffins to invoke the process of regeneration ascribed to the god Osiris.
{On the other hand}
White (Ancient Egyptian name 'hedj') was the color of purity, sacredness, cleanliness, and simplicity] "
Re all the Egyptian stuff, I suppose it was to give the idea of "Old as Time" and to add mystery and color to a kitchen sink of references to myths and religions.
Doesn't matter, Dalton seems to say, what happened before -- only that this has gone on since the time of the most ancient people who could write on walls, I guess. Since there is a god that's a crocodile head with a human body, you'd think it did mean something, but ...
I'm going to postulate a wierd outcome to this all. First, when has Jack's plans ever really worked out? If Jack is as good as Widmore, then we might as well kiss the farm goodbye. Second, Desmond is the failsafe, but we saw in the Swan what failsafe meant--boom! Third, so what if everyone remembers in the Alternate timeline; somehow remember ing has to accomplish something.
Let's look at the yin-yang symbol which seems to inform this show. Think of each universe as like a dream to the other. The island universe is slowly bleeding into the alternate univwerse--like the yin-yang symbol which nestle into one another, and even contain a circular dot of the other in the body. The existence of one depends on the existence of the other.
So if Jack's plans, to quote Ben, get shot through to Sunday, then we can expect doom for the island universe. That world will simply go dark. But what happens to those who remember this island universe? Will the act of remembering affect the Alternate timeline? It could be as one goes dark, the other one will also (balance will be upset).
So what is Desmond doing? Is alternate timeline Desmond trying to act against island Desmond? Perhaps not, if ignornace is bliss, as Ms Hawking seemed to imply. If both Desmonds are acting in tandem, then if island Desmond (failsafe) is the cause of blowing up the island, might that not amplify the alternate Desmond's plans? I think so, and the trick may be to try to stop Desmond in whatever he is trying to do. Like I said in an earlier post, Desmond is the human bomb, just like on Heroes.
Also if richard is alive, I'll bet Miles will find him in the jungle.
@Benny: Thanks for the link to your paper "Event Probability in Lost Time Travel" it's very well thought out and I enjoyed it.
Now to the notes I quoted. I use the information from the shows themselves as the series goes on and anything like interviews with writers and the notes from the LU which is from ABC. I use what is said and what I've seen in the show to attempt to figure out where the story is going. As we are talking fiction we have to allow for writers taking an idea and twisting it to fit the story. So, I'm not trying to prove or disprove what I saw at LU but try to figure out using all the above to guess where they may go with it. That and I know bink all about physics or math... ;)
One more thing. The Ben situation, is he now on the MIB's side as he killed Widmore? I think that may depend on why Ben killed him. Ben could have killed him because he is the cause of the death of his daughter. He could have killed him for betraying the island the MIB wants to destroy. He can also have killed him to prove to the MIB that he is an amazing psycho. Or, a combination of the above.
@Rainier: I thought it was funny when they were talking about Aaron being "special" and they basically said: "Look. The only character who ever said anything about Aaron being special was the psychic, and we later found out that he was a total fraud. We told you he was not reliable. And even when we give fans that answer, they still say NO. HE'S SPECIAL!!"
Except that in interviews before season six, Darlton specifically said they would addressing the issue of Claire's psychic. The exact quote was something along the lines "we won't explain HOW he's psychic, but we will explain WHY he told Claire what he did".
Now, to me, that suggests there's more to the psychic than just "we suggested he was psychic, but then debunked it".
This isn't a case of the fans refusing to accept an answer or making a mystery where there isn't one; this is the SHOWRUNNERS telling us "there is more to this particular story, a we plan to tell it" and then, when they don't get around to telling it, instead of admitting as much, they pretend there was NEVER more to say on the matter and WE'RE the crazy ones for thinking so.
Seriously, they've been doing it a lot lately and it's seriously bugging.
I also liked what they had to say about fans wanting 1) for there to be a "binder" in which everything that will ever happen on Lost must be written., and 2) for the writer's to allow the fans to have some input. Mutually contradictory...
Except, once again, they're missing the point. We (at least, I, and I'd like to think, some others) want a binder in which the PLOT of Lost is written. We want to be able to debate the themes of the show, the meaning, the motivations behind character actions, but at the end of the day, we also want the mystery to be solved. We want to be able to go back to the beginning and say "this happened because of this, and that led to this, and so on".
Wanting the mystery answered while leaving theme/motivation/meaning open to interpretation are NOT mutually contradictory.
Seriously, I need to stop listening to Darlton's interviews. They're just angrying up my blood lately...
@Joan Crawford: what with all the random Egypt stuff on Lost (seriously, what is that all about?)
Whatever you want it to be about!!!
Isn't doing it yourself so much better than having the writers of the show who created this story and whose job it is to tell that story actually TELL YOU THE STORY?
Sorry. That was probably too snarky. See above re: angry blood.
Teebore,
I am in COMPLETE agreement with what you say. If we had to hear Carlton say one MORE time, "We don't get an answer manual for life," I was going to throw my chair!! That is NOT what we are asking! Yes, they are definitely dodging some hard thinking and explaining, and Nikki or someone needs to publish an honest, straightforward "Questions of Lost" after the series--questions that CAN and SHOULD be answered.
My start: How was Walt special? Explain what happened with Walt's "testing." Is that "mobisode" on the Internet? How did Mother get her information about the Light? Did Smokey exist before Jacob's brother went face-down into the cave light?
So many thinking fans that I know feel the same way that you do. These questions CAN be answered, by a responsible story-teller.
@TMClancy: Is that "mobisode" on the Internet?
I believe so. Lostpedia probably has a link (I know they have a synopsis).
How did Mother get her information about the Light?
This one, I'm okay with: I have no problem assuming she gained the knowledge the same way Jacob did: from her immediate predecessor.
Who was that? That's one thing I'm okay not knowing. I don't feel like the narrative integrity of this story is dependent on that knowledge.
Did Smokey exist before Jacob's brother went face-down into the cave light?
I took Jacob's discussion around the fire in the last episode as confirmation that Smokey did not exist until Jacob chucked his brother into the cave light.
He said he created the Monster, that it was his responsibility.
I should also add that I've read their comment about the binder and fan particpation in context and it's not as aggravating as I originally thought.
They were speaking more along the lines of fans wanting to know "it's been planned from the beginning" while at the same time, wanting their reactions to things being reflected in the show (an example they gave was fans wondered why Hurley wasn't losing weight, so they responded to that by writing in his stashing of Dharma ranch sauce).
So my point that there's a difference between definitive PLOT answers and definitive theme/meaning/character answers still stands, but at least that specific comment isn't as irritating as I originally thought.
@TMClancy & Teebore:Yes, they are definitely dodging some hard thinking and explaining, and Nikki or someone needs to publish an honest, straightforward "Questions of Lost" after the series--questions that CAN and SHOULD be answered.
Think of it this way, either:
(1) the writers lost control of the show's narrative mysteries--they were experts at setting all these little mysteries up, but resolving them proved somewhat daunting;
(2) the writers had spread themselves too thin, what with the various ARGs, live talks and interviews at Comic Con and various other venues, that things got said or expectations generated in fans that were never intended by the show's writers; once these expectations and quotes were out there, it was hard to debunk them without risking undermining the quality of the show;
(3) the showrunners form the Pilot episode had a strategy of keeping the audience as much in the dark as possible, even if that meant promoting "mysteries" that never were meant to be such;
(4) the last Season was a firm commitment with the Studio, but the nature of the story demands more episodes than agreed to, undercutting a full elucidation of the many mysteries still unresolved.
I'm not going with the first, as this makes the writers sound somewhat incompetent. The second possibility doesn't seem likely, as work on the ARGs and at the talks could be spread round without causing distractions and misleading fans. I do think something like the third possibility is operating with the show, and we certainly knew about Darlton's reticence to tell fans about solutions to the msyeries (and, hey, it was part of the fun for fans to spin theories). I think possibility four is also likely.
Concerning the fourth possibility, each Season we've seen an overall arc that ends with a foreshadowing of the next Season's arc. In the sixth Season we have 2 arcs: (1) Widmore's arrival on the island (the whole what is Zoe doing, why does she need Jin, and who is the Package); (2) the mythology of the island, and the creation of Smokie and childhoods of Jacob and his borther.
Season 4, although curtailed by the writer's strike, spent the whole Season on the Kahana and its crew. If LOST had gone true to form, we could have spent the whole of Season 6 with Widmore and his group, and we would have had more integration of Dharma into the LOST island story. Certainly following this narrative logic, the story would have allowed moments of mystery resolution dispersed throughout the Season. As with previous Seasons, the final episodes of Season 6 could have begun to focus on the mythology, the origin of Smokie and Jacob. This would have made sense, it would have given relevance to the idea of Wallace's name in the lighthouse, and Jacob's claim that someone was coming to the island. Instead, it was badly handled, and viewers were forced to fill in all the gaps, something which when I ask friends they have not been able to do consistently as casual viewers.
Following a Season devoted to Widmore, there would have had to be a Season 7, which would be totally devoted to mythology. Before entering on this season 7, the audience would have had a lot of answers given concerning Dharma, perhaps the fertility problems, and many other msyeries. A season devoted to Jacob and his borther, and the mythology could have been gone into with more depth, rather than just a single episode. We might then ahve had some explanations of Tarewet and the Temple (construction, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Temple water, occupants). Instead we have been rushed through this aspect as well.
So we come back to possibilities (3) and (4). By keeping the audience in the dark as much as possible, the mysteries became the only factor driving viewer interest. When I read a good detective novel, somewhere along the way I usually figure out who the guilty person is; knowing that doesn't defeat the pleasure of reading the rest of the novel, and in fact it accentuates it as I now feel the author and I share some common view of the whole problem. Part of a reader's enjoyment in reading detective fiction is the iconographic images, the language in which it is written, the pleasure in the ambience of the backdrop. LOST's writers, in hurrying their conclusion and trying to keep the audience in the dark, have forgone much of the ambience we enjoyed in the previous Seasons' episodes. (In the years to come, when we rewatch LOST, we might find this Season to be somewhat out of place in terms of the narrative logic exhibited in Seasons previous).
Which brings me to possibility (4), that the committment to ending in Season 6 placed a restriction on resolving much of the story, and forced the writers to rely on the viewer making many of the connections. (Incidentally, this does go some way in arguing that Darlton did have a book outlining the plot of the show; had they been more flexible in forming the plot, mightn't they have rewritten the whole story line with Widmore, Zoe and Jin)? For showrunners coming after LOST, this should be a lesson in the need for end dates, but also some flexibility in handling those end dates (extending them if needed). While LOST needs to maintain a degree of mystery about how it will end, and like any good suspense fiction LOST will still present twists and unexpected turns until the last second, but the twist we saw concerning Ilana, Bram and Zoe proved disappointing. At this point in the story, audience's don't want to grown over such disappointments, as they feel they have wasted valuable story time following dead ends. As well, the hurried pace disappoints viewers who have come to expect subtlty in the story telling that is simply glossed over--compare Michael telling Hurley the solution to the whispers, with, say, the number of episodes it took to just get from the entrance of the Swan hatch to when Desmond hold Locke at gun point and Jack meets him (the confrontation between Jack and Desmond and Locke takes at least 3 episodes, allowing for three seperate points of view--now that was brilliant).
I agree with you, TMClancy, that Nikki should have a section: Unresolved Questions; but it should also include Poorly Answered Questions, as I am sure Darlton will say they did answer many of those questions audience's think they did not. Now, we may be proven all wrong in the finale, but in the episodes leading to the finale there have proven to be some problems (not just with unanswered questions/mysteries) in the narrative flow and the set up. That said, there have been some excellent epsiodes: Ab aeterno, Lighthouse are but two.
What Fred said.
I should also add that I definitely think there's a bit of Fred's #2 going on.
Not that Darlton as necessarily spread too thin, but that, while they had the grand overarching plot of the show setup, they were filling in the details as they went along.
Now, there isn't anything wrong with that, but I think what happened was that details they felt, at one point, were necessary to getting towards their ultimate resolution turned out to not be so.
So at one point, it seemed to them that Annie and the island's volcano, to use one example (and really, I don't have my undies in a bunch about Annie and the volcano, it's just a good example), were going to be pivotal points in telling their overarching story. And so they said as much in an episode commentary recorded sometime during season three.
Now, at some point after that recording was made, Darlton changed their route, such that while the destination was still the same, Annie and the Volcano were no longer on the same route as the story.
Which, again, is fine. Not every detail of the story needs to be planned from the beginning.
But what bugs me is that, knowing the route might change while the destination won't, Darlton should have either not said anything about a plot point that could potentially change in the first place, OR just admit after the fact the route changed and what they said before is no longer true.
Proposed scenario:
Q: Is Annie still important?
A: Well, we know we said at one point she would be, but our route to the end of the story has changed such that she no longer is, so now, just think of her as being a character meant to further flesh out Ben.
Instead, they're spending their publicity time trying to tell us we were wrong for making certain things more important than intended and that we're wrong for wanting to see the resolutions they promised us.
Teebore,
Yes, exactly, and thanks, to you and Fred both, for your detailed responses. You're on target with spread-too-thin, and you're Annie/volcano reply is sound. Also, I'm sure everyone knows that we still love the hell out of this show & its writers, etc., no matter these squabbles, which are also a little fun & advice with only good intentions. That said, . . .
"How did Mother get her information about the Light?
This one, I'm okay with: I have no problem assuming she gained the knowledge the same way Jacob did: from her immediate predecessor.
Who was that? That's one thing I'm okay not knowing. I don't feel like the narrative integrity of this story is dependent on that knowledge."
Well, here I still say, in reference to the excellent question last night about why the island needs a human presence--how did the first human agent on the island come by his/her information about the Light? Is the water special because of electromagnetism? Do the incantations do anything, really? Thanks for your thoughts!
BTW, my brother says the Pilot might be re-playing Saturday night, with the note sub-titles; if so, that's definitely some icing for this sweet, sweet weekend.
One of the things about LOST is plot twists. How do the writers of the show handle these twists, and are they always fair?
(1) With so many characters, it is always possible that someone character we forgot about reappears at an opportune time, a very nineteenth century device as evidenced in many a Dicken's novel. With the last episode, we have Desmond off somewhere (who let him out), Miles also off in the jungle, Frank (status unknown, but maybe on Hydra fixing the Ajira plane), our four candidates, Locke and Ben--did I forget anyone? Oh, yes, Rose and Bernard. Need a plot twist; by now the audience have completely forgotten about Rose and Bernard (as likely has Smokie), so they'll be important somehow in some plot twist.
The writers themselves seem to be aware of the mechanical nature such a device can be. When Ben tells Sun that the most dangeroous thing on the island will walk out of the jungle, and in walks Locke, this is the writers nodding to this device.
(2) The last example also highlights another narrative device, one of misdirection of what something means. Many elements on the show appear as surrealistic, only to have the camera pull away to reveal a more ordinary answer. One of Spielberg's student films involved a car pulling out of the garage. At first, the viewer has no idea where the shot is being taken from, everything looks dark and mysterious. There is an amplified sound that is undecipherable, and then, just as the viewer is totally confused, everything comes into focus as the car pulls out, and we see the camera is in a car in a garage. On LOST, when Jack finds the caves with water, there are the dolls in the little stream. This appears surrealist, but then we are shown as the camera tracks Jack's observation of his surroundings a box from which the dolls spilled. Then as Jack moves around, we are once more drawn into a surrealist setting as Jack sees his father's coffin.
Misdirection also occurs through reshooting scenes--the best is the book club scene interrupted by the crash of Flight 815. There are a number of takes of this scene, each adding a little more information and undercutting our earlier interpretations. But all of our earlier expectations were based on those scenes--classic misdirection.
So how many other ways can you think of how LOST's writers handle twists in the story?
@TM CLancy: Also, I'm sure everyone knows that we still love the hell out of this show & its writers, etc., no matter these squabbles, which are also a little fun & advice with only good intentions.
Oh, definitely. I know I must be coming off as INCREDIBLY negative 'round these parts lately, but I'm really not. I still love Lost, I'm just a bit frustrated with some things as well.
how did the first human agent on the island come by his/her information about the Light?
I try to think of the questions I want answered in terms of what is necessary to the integrity of the narrative they're telling, and not just stuff I personally want to know more about.
That said, I feel like the "origin" of the islands' guardians
is not integral to the narrative, but your mileage may vary.
Is the water special because of electromagnetism?
I assume as much, and that's one assumption I don't mind the writers allowing us to make.
Do the incantations do anything, really?
Probably, but again, whether they do or not probably isn't that important.
@Andrys - Thank you for the link. I find this stuff fascinating. I suppose it is our own interpretation of black vs. white that colored, so to speak, how we initially saw Jacob vs. MiB. Thanks for enlightening me :)
@Teebore - Isn't doing it yourself so much better than having the writers of the show who created this story and whose job it is to tell that story actually TELL YOU THE STORY?
Bwahahaha! I love it :D I'm a great admirer of righteous fury.
Fred,
I'm going to be a little petty and suggest "heavy emotion" as another way of dealing with story twists/unexpected/even illogical occurrences.
For example: As yet, I'm not a big fan of Ab Aeterno, for one reason. Before this episode, we were never told, and Nestor never acted, that Richard was carrying the despair of a lost love all his time on the island.
Yes, anyone can say, well, it was still there behind his stoic demeanor, but that's what the writing wants us to fill in! For tens of episodes, we're waiting for his history, and I'm just saying that his extreme despair was too sudden, for my believability measure.
Another example might be Mother's refusal to let Black Shirt simply leave the island, instead of braining him and destroying the others' camp. What's the harm in his leaving? That Jacob would want to follow him? That her lies would be revealed? This "solution" seemed extreme.
Same with Zoe's gruesome death. A backhand slap could have done just as well; ok, the knife showed FLocke's nastiness.
Finally, everyone knows Charlie did NOT have to die. He did not have to close that door to Desmond--they could have both gotten out--or he could have gone out through the hole the grenade created.
BUT--all these heavy emotional scenes are what we love about the show, too.
@TMClancy:I'm going to be a little petty and suggest "heavy emotion" as another way of dealing with story twists/unexpected/even illogical occurrences.
Not petty at all, and well observed. "Heavy emotion" or melodrama is what makes most novels, like Wuthering Heights and most of Dickens. On television, melodrama is what carries the plot, and creates audience identification with a character.
But as you point out, in LOST, melodrama is also used to glide over illogical occurences. (There has been a great deal of comments on the variability of characters' emotions episode to episode, much like the daylight/nightimtes switches). Because of the melodramatic manner of Charlie's death, we were all so saddened that it took a little while to wonder about the plausibility of his death. Similarly, the juxtaposition of Boone's death with Aaron's birth heightens the audience's emotions, a bitter-sweet joy/sadness.
Darlton have said the main focus of the story is on the characters, and melodrama is a sure-fire way of ensuring our emotions are tied to their fates. Twists that come out of a melodramatic context not only surprise but emotionally affect us. The story twist becomes not just a plotting device, but a narrative device.
I might add another way the writers have played with our emotions is by occassionally reminding us of past characters. Shannon's inhaler, Charlie's ring, the unbuilt church of Mr. Eko's, the graves Hurley visits. While not twists in themselves, attention to past characters reminds us their demise and the plot twist often associated with them. This is appropriate for a show which began with so many flashbacks--memory is a crucial element in the story, and its purpose in the melodramatic nature of the show plays oh so well.
Teebore - at the NYT talk, they pretty much said what you thought they should say. At one point, things seems important, but if during the journey they figured out they needed to go a different route, they did, and sacrificed detail. I agree the mistake was probably answering any questions at all definitively. The would have been crucified for that too, but at least they wouldn't have contradicted themselves.
I thought the NYT talk was great, and I like the "why does the island need human presence" question. If the island is bringing people then they island has always brought people. Maybe it's lonely. :)
Yes, the pilot is playing Saturday.
@TMClancy - I can totally buy that Richard is stoic - after 100+ years, he is not pining daily after his wife - until the one thing he believed in and based his life on is shown to be (in theory) a complete lie, which brings every thought, decision, feeling he's had since being on the island into question. Yes, I think that is a very good reason to have deeply buried feelings come to the surface and to become hysterical.
Maybe I'm in over my head here but I'll try anyway....
I think fans are "frustrated" when what we thought was happening is shown not to be what was actually happening. Or worse, we do not know everything about what is actually happening. The show is much more enjoyable for me if I ignore small mistakes (saying Annie is important - let it go), and accept the change on the bigger ones (why is Walt being special so important) as things that were no longer essential to the story. Or plot as you guys have been saying.
For Example (and they alluded to this during the Times Talk) - Why is Walt being special important? Turns out, Walt was special, and too much for the Others to handle. He was needed in order to have Michael do what he did, which enabled Ben to go back to his leadership position, which enabled him to manipulate the Losties, etc, etc. All of that was necessary for the story. If Walt wasn't particularly special, they would have taken him anyway, but there wouldn't have been as much of a reason to make a deal with Michael. He may have been like the kids from the tail section. But since we imbued his being special with even greater meaning - if he is special it must mean he has some greater purpose on the island - we were disappointed that they didn't do more with him. And the actor is now 39 year old. :)
@JS: I think fans are "frustrated" when what we thought was happening is shown not to be what was actually happening. Or worse, we do not know everything about what is actually happening.
While I do know there are fans who are reacting this way, I just want to be clear that the frustration I'm feeling stems in no way from the answers we are given being different from the ones I had theorized about.
My frustration stems from the lack of resolution to key elements of the plot, and moreover, Darlton's recent assertions that those resolutions aren't important and NEVER WERE, despite past assertions (prior to season six), both implicitly and explicitly, that the resolution of the plot mattered as much as the resolution of the character arcs.
I don't need every question answered, but I do want all the pieces of Lost's narrative to fit together. And while I certainly can fit some of those pieces together myself, Darlton is leaving far too many of them for the audience to fit together. A story has a beginning, a middle and an end, and it's not OUR job to tell that story, including the ending; it's THEIR job.
Lost has been billed from the beginning as being part character drama and part mystery. As such, it can be compared to classic mystery stories. I've used the analogy before that Lost is like a good Sherlock Holmes story.
A Holmes story has three elements that make it work:
A. Great characters
B. The opportunity for the reader to try and puzzle out whodunit
C. The resolution to the mystery in which the reader finds out if their deductions match Holmes'/the author's.
As it stands, Lost, despite having been billed as a mystery show, is heading towards a conclusion in which only two of those elements are present: great characters and the potential for figuring out whodunit. But a lack of resolution to several key plots means we're missing out on the third piece, finding out who actually did it, so to speak.
cont...
The Walt plot is one of those I've always felt was handled adequately enough. Obviously, he was intended for bigger things, but the growth of the actor curtailed those plans. So he was written out. He was special, the Others wanted him, he turned out to be too much to handle, so they let him go.
That's enough for me, and I like the way it mirrors what really happened on the set, with the actor outgrowing his role.
That said, I think fewer people would still be asking about Walt if the final resolution of his story (that he was too powerful for the Others so they let him go) had appeared on the show and not in a mobisode seen by significantly fewer people.
And despite Walt's story being wrapped up, there are still plenty of questions swirling around him that are part of the overall narrative: yes, he was special and the Others wanted him because of that. But why did the Other want him? What did being "special" mean to them? Were they checking for candidacy? Something else? Why did Walt appear, wet and speaking backwards, to Shannon? When he appeared to Locke at the end of season three, was that him or Smokey, somehow appearing as a living person? You said "he may have been like the kids from the tail section" except we still don't know why the Others were kidnapping kids.
To use one of those examples, when Walt appeared to Locke at the end of season three, I had fun speculating on why and how that occured, but in the back of my mind, I was excited to know that whatever my theories, eventually, I'd find out the real answer.
Now, I've learned I was wrong: I will not find out the real reason, and will be left only with my theories and those of others. That frustrates me.
In the grand scheme of things, these aren't important questions, and I can speculate on some of their answers (but again, it's the writers' job to answer those questions, not mine) but the lack of resolution leaves the narrative feeling incomplete.
Once upon a time, we were told all the pieces would fit together at the end, and now we are finding pieces that simply don't fit. It's like reading a mystery in which there are clues that are neither important nor red herrings. They're just...there.
And again, my frustration stems only from a lack of PLOT resolution; in no way do I begrudge leaving theme/meaning/motivation open to interpretation. If Darlton was out there trying to say "THIS IS WHAT LOST MEANS" I'd be just as frustrated as I am now when they're saying, essentially, "the resolution of plot doesn't matter to us and it shouldn't to you either".
@Fred, Teebore:
So which mysteries do you think must be addressed, specifically? There are so many...
Rainier said: "@Gracie: I agree with you completely that there is something weird in the Locke/SMocke/Claire relationship. But adding sex into the mix just makes it a whole lot weirder...and I still don't see why you think it would need Claire to reproduce.
Rain, Rain, Rain: I am NOT trying to add "sex" to the mix. "Sex" is something that can and should be enjoyed by man and woman, and may or may not include reproducing. For us, sometimes sex is just sex. We have sex just to enjoy sex, no other reason involved.
What I am talking about is ONLY reproducing. Continuing your species. Through Christian's mind and Locke's mind, IT would be able to see that Claire has already been a "carrier" among her own species, which sets her apart from the other women we've known. (There is NO OTHER mother that I can recall on this island from the plane. If Rose is/was, I don't recall that. If memory serves, the only father is/was Michael.) Not only was Claire pregnant, she carried to term, and she delivered. I see the Smoke Monster as unable to reproduce on it's own. It needs/requires a carrier; a female, if you like.
Some people here are still wondering if Aaron is important, and I don't think he is, per se. What is important is that Aaron is the result of Claire reproducing. She's been there, done that. IT can use Claire to do it again, only this time the result of the reproduction would be ITS species, not hers/Claires.
(If I'm wrong and there is another mother or father among our crash survivors, could someone please remind me who they are? Christian is not a survivor, so he doesn't count.)
@Rainier: So which mysteries do you think must be addressed, specifically? There are so many...
For me, the catch-all idea I've been using are "mysteries that are necessary to maintaining the integrity of Lost's main narrative", those things that contribute to its overarching plot.
Which is still somewhat subjective, but I try not to let subjectivity influence my frustration. For example, personally, it bugs me that we won't find out who was in the other outrigger, but the resolution of that mystery isn't important to the resolution of Lost's main story.
Basically, what I would have liked to have seen were resolutions to those things that tied back into the Jacob vs. MiB conflict and MiB's long con, which is really what the PLOT of Lost is all about.
So stuff like why Smokey leaving the island would end all existence (it's important for us to understand the stakes in play), why, if keeping Smokey on the island was so important, did Jacob bring people, who could help Smokey get off the island, to the island to prove a point to him? Was proving that point worth threatening existence? If so, why? If not, why was Jacob so cavalier?
Was Jacob's job to guard the source AND keep Smokey on the island, or just one or the other?
Did Smokey follow Jacob's rule because the power of the island compelled him to, or because he's just a good sport?
Why does the ash and sonics keep out Smokey? How did Dharma figure out about the sonics? Assuming he did, why did Jacob order the purge when he did, instead of right after the incident?
There's a whole bunch of stuff related to the Others that I feel is important, because they are so intricately tied to narrative of the show, both through their connection to Jacob and their interactions with the main characters. I won't get into all of it, but basically, I think knowing more about their society, their goals, their methods, and their relationship to Jacob (or lack thereof) and the Ben/Widmore struggle is important to understanding Lost's plot.
cont...
Some other questions that tie into Smokey's plan to kill Jacob:
Was it Smokey in the cabin? How/why did he get trapped there? Whose eye looked out of the cabin window at Hurley? If Smokey was Christian, why did he tell Locke to say hello to his son when Locke left the island? Jack isn't SMOKEY'S son, after all. How was killing the pilot of 815 part of his plan? How was killing Eko part of his plan? Why was Eloise so insistent on recreating flight 815 on flight 316 when all that really mattered was getting Locke's body and the candidates back there? Were Widmore and Eloise knowingly helping Smokey by helping the Oceanic Six get back?
There's certainly more, and that list above certainly varies in terms of significance. I can certainly make some assumptions and theories that answer some of those questions, and to a certain extent, I'm fine with that. But for the stuff that's important to the telling of Lost's main story, I feel like it's job of the writer, and not the audience, to answer those questions. I was led to believe we'd reach a point where OUR answers would be replaced by the WRITER'S answers.
Basically, up until recently, I had an expectation that when Lost was over and done with, I could go back to the beginning and see how it all fits together, just like, when you finish reading a mystery novel, you can back and reread it to see how the detective figured it all out.
I have since come to terms with the fact that such a re-reading of Lost ain't gonna be possible, and that I'm going to have to connect a lot of dots for some things and shrug my shoulders at others.
My expectations have been tempered, and that's fine (I'll enjoy the finale more as a result), but I'm still a little frustrated by the fact that the final product isn't going to be what we were promised, both implicitly and explicitly, for so long, and that in the end, the creators inability to pay off mysteries significant to Lost's central narrative will leave it as something somewhat less than a masterpiece.
Some time ago we saw that Penny in the FS is going by the name Milton. While trying to inch my way through what was known as fact about Penny, I came to the very unpopular conclusion that nothing has ever been said about where Desmond came from, and wondered aloud if Penny and Desmond could have the same mother. I caught all kinds of hell for that, but "no guts, no glory". Can anyone tell me why Penny could not be related to Desmond? I know none of us want her to be, but do we have any factual evidence which precludes this from actually happening?
@Rainier: For me the question of the island has been paramount. Is the island a sentient being, or just a place where the cave is? Throughout the seasons so much had been attributed to the island that we'd come to believe it was a third player.
A major mystery concerns the question of coincidence/fate. All the characters have led lives leading to their arrival on the island, and Locke even had endured a surgery to remove his kidney which saved his life. Is this all just coincidence or fate? If fate, who is the architect of fate? (I am not buying the Jacob planned this in such intricacy, and yet couldn't account for Ben stabbing him).
This question does not limit itself to the philosophical matter of fate/coincidence, but should also include the degrees of separation found between the characters. Many a time we've heard a Lostie ask of another, "Do I know you?" Well, do they? What is going on behind the scenes here?
While still dealing with the island, I'd like to know where Desmond went after turning the failsafe key. Was this all in his mind, or did he really leave the island for those moments? (Another related question is who or what is Ms Hawking--time police, busy body, jewellery sales lady)?
Speaking of people, some clarification on Christian's status, his whereabouts, and did he, and not MiB, appear to various of the Losties?
Another mystery is what was the role of Dharma? This I think will not be addressed, but in the various ARGs it had played a more significant role. I had hoped Dharma might provide a solution (in part) to understanding the island and its unique properties, but alas that does not seem to go beyond EM energy. (As an aside, the Purge, have we been correct that it came from Jacob or from Widmore)?
continued...
Some explanation of the creation of the sideways world would be in order, just as Daniel presented a simple explanation of time travel--I can live with simple in this regard.
I would like a better explanation than Michael gave Hurley about the whispers. Why they appear often in the rain, and why we hear phrases associated with various characters, like when Sawyer heard "it comes around." (The various ghosts we've seen appear in different guises. Is this indicative of actual differences in their emanation, or just visual effects)?
I suppose some people want to know what "secret" Locke told Walt in the Pilot. It may be nothing more than, "the island is special."
A lesser mystery is the Egyptian connection, as seen by all the hieroglyphs. (Incidental to that is the hieroglyphs appearance when the numbers are not entered in the Swan's computer). This should also include an explanation of the Tarewet statue. (In this case, I feel the ARG could have been more helpful providing fans with some useful information. This would then have filtered into blogs, like the one we are on, and those answers would have been resolved without need to present them in narrative form. However, by saying the ARGs are not canon, this opportunity is lost).
A lesser mystery is how the plane crashed (the break up in mid-air) and the miraculous survival of the passengers. We may have to accept this as a given, but its realism is zero.
I realize these might not be all the questions I have, and range from deep questions to more peripheral ones. The deep ones can be addressed with a wave of the hand, as in "you've built up a mystery where there was never one implied."
But a more topical question concerns character. Darlton have always said the show's basis is in its characters. Then why have they been inconsistent episode to episode? This last question is not of my own imagining, as many viewers have run up against inconsistencies in the way characters have interacted between episodes. (This has led some to theorize the show is about Avatars in some computer game. Or, heaven forbid, is LOST just a big dream)? If LOST is akin to a dream, what then do we make of the Flashbacks?
Finally, a combination question about mystery and charcater: Who is Vincent? (And I don't want Darlton to say, "Oh, just a dog").
@Gracie: I see the Smoke Monster as unable to reproduce on it's own. It needs/requires a carrier; a female, if you like.
OK, what I am really asking here is why you think the carrier needs to be female? Think about an example you brought up, Alien (One of my favorite movies, BTW, possibly the scariest movie ever made - and I love HR Giger's art!). Anyway, the alien needed a carrier - but in that case, it was more like the species of wasp that leaves it's eggs inside a tarantula so they'll have something to eat when they hatch. The young eventually eat their way out of its body...so why do you assume that Smokey needs a female?
As to the sex thing, it is just that if you do think Smokey needs a female, and this has something to do with Smokey inhabiting a male body, then you are, it seems, talking about sexual - as opposed to asexual - reproduction, ie., SEX. (Then there were the comments about "all the guys have thought about this, discuss it around the water cooler, whatever"... that sounds like they are thinking about sex to me. And no surprise. They're guys.) So this is not coming from me, but from where this conversation started.
Teebore,
I agree with all of your questions, and I hope Nikki notes these messages when she compiles her list (hint).
I think that the tailies kids were taken, that their names were on the list to be taken, because they were innocent. Someone from the others says this, in fact, or implies that those whose names were not on the list were not good [needing atonement and redemption on the island]. None of the kidnapped people were candidate quality.
@ JS -- thanks for your thoughts on Walt simply being used to get Michael to free Ben and to get Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley to the dock. [Hey, those are the exact 4 we have left, now...]
If the timing worked out, I always wanted it revealed that one of Walt's tests was to imagine a pallet of Dharma food dropping near the Losties' camp.
Groan! I found this on Google and went reading it only to find they didn't post all of it. They stopped at letter I. Up until it cuts off, it's really pretty good. A reminder sometimes of things you've forgotten.
Is there anyone on the blog who can find the rest of this and post it?
http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20100520/WDH0505/305200162/-Lost-A-Z-Everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-heading-into-Sunday-s-finale
Thanks!
@Teebore:I was led to believe we'd reach a point where OUR answers would be replaced by the WRITER'S answers.
Your point here is relevant to the nature of genre in television. Whenever we watch a television show, the writers announce the genre of the show through its iconographic images, dialogue, and plot. By doing so they form an implicit contract with the viewer to satisfy the viewers genre expectations.
In the first few Seasons, LOST formulated such an implicit contract with its audience. What you say, and what many other have implied, is that this genre contract has been broken (imagine a police drama where the police spend their time around the coffee machine, and never bother to catch bad guys; Barney Miller was a comedy/police show, but even there, we saw arrests made and people end up in the small jail in the precinct room).
If LOST did not have the vibes of a mystery/suspense (sci-fi) action genre (a sort of hybrid genre), then we could say, okay we won't get answers. But it did have it, and we've followed along these many years expecting such answers. Maybe in the finale the writers will fulfill their obligations to their audience and satisfy us with such answrs. Otherwise, The Adventure of the Final Problem would have Holmes and Watson merely have a picnic near the Reichenbach Falls, while Moriarty waits impatiently throughout the day.
Oh, great number of questions, I concur they should have some answer.
@TMClancy:I agree with all of your questions, and I hope Nikki notes these messages when she compiles her list
Doubt it. Nikki is probably very busy right now writing out the latest chapter of her so brilliant book to end Season 6. Either that or she is procrastinating by playing Pac Man on the Google search site.
Besides, we've managed to have such a great set of threads here: questions surrounding answers on the show; Smokie and Claire (be careful how you touch that one); still the nature of Smokie/MiB; narrative devices to facilitate plot twists; and the NYTalk. Great fun. (But if Nikki is reading this, please don't send the smoke monster after us).
@Fred: If LOST did not have the vibes of a mystery/suspense (sci-fi) action genre (a sort of hybrid genre), then we could say, okay we won't get answers. But it did have it, and we've followed along these many years expecting such answers. Maybe in the finale the writers will fulfill their obligations to their audience and satisfy us with such answrs. Otherwise, The Adventure of the Final Problem would have Holmes and Watson merely have a picnic near the Reichenbach Falls, while Moriarty waits impatiently throughout the day.
Your entire post, but especially the paragraph above, perfectly captures my outlook regarding the role of mystery, answers, plot, and resolution on Lost, and the frustrations that arise from the disconnect between what was promised and what was delivered.
Rainier said: "@Gracie: I see the Smoke Monster as unable to reproduce on it's own. It needs/requires a carrier; a female, if you like.
OK, what I am really asking here is why you think the carrier needs to be female? Think about an example you brought up, Alien (One of my favorite movies, BTW, possibly the scariest movie ever made - and I love HR Giger's art!). Anyway, the alien needed a carrier - but in that case, it was more like the species of wasp that leaves it's eggs inside a tarantula so they'll have something to eat when they hatch. The young eventually eat their way out of its body...so why do you assume that Smokey needs a female?"
NOW your question makes sense, Rainier. I'm sorry, to me it just didn't.
I guess my answer would be that I don't see Smokey as an egg layer like Alien. It reproduces, in my mind, with the act of sex, or the ability to leave it's sperm (?) somewhere to fertilize an egg and then be carried to term. You'd need that egg. This would result in a mix between Claire (man) and the Smoke Monster which would push Smokey up the ladder of intelligence a bit. But I hadn't really thought of it your way, because the actual act of sex, as in intercourse, never crossed my mind beyond what that would do to Claire. I was more along the lines of needing an egg to fertilize it's sperm. But it could go your way. Just leave it's sperm anywhere, I guess, and then it could be a guy. But if it could reproduce with a guy, couldn't it then sort of reproduce on it's own?But with Claire it sees that she's already done this, and I think it would use that to it's own benefit somehow. And it's built up it's mind with the mind of three men that we know of, so it's idea of reproduction could follow what it has learned from them. Man goes with woman. I never perceived the "guys around the water cooler" talking about sex either. I think they were talking about why MIB/Smokey has kept Claire for so long, and that led to reproduction, not the guys talking as if "We know what he's planning for her Saturday night!" kind of thing. Just reproducing, that's all. I don't know. In my mind, it just needs an egg, thus it needs a female to act as incubator. I'm not going to say that even I know why I'm stuck there.
@Teebore, Fred:
"It only ends once. Everything else is just progress."
I don't think you should get too upset about what isn't going to be answered until after the finale! Many of the questions you raised will no doubt be dealt with - and I think it will happen in such a way as to make sense of many. many things...(no inside info here; just my gut feeling.)
That said, I, too, want to know where all the fabulous Egyptian stuff came from. It looks like there was, at some point, a thriving civilization on the island. I want to know who these people were and what happened to them. And that, I fear, is not going to be answered.
But there's always the bonus material on those blu-rays...
VW: boyapp - an application for the i-Phone that gives you e-mails and pictures from a random gorgeous male, to make your girlfriends jealous.
There seems to be a great deal of argument right now on what will be answered and what won't.
Did I not post my thoughts that I hoped the writer's would follow Lost with a Lost book?
I don't mean a book that highlights everything from the show or what Nikki does, but a book that is the story and starts with a plane crash. As a novel. Written by the same people who gave us Lost. I'm asking for a book, because books always give more detail, and they could play around with some of the things that were never finalized and give us more story. NOT all the answers, just maybe an elaboration?
IMHO books are always better than what you actually see because usually what they show doesn't match your image. If they did this, they could further our image along to whatever direction they had wanted us to go. It is something I wish they would do. And, like a HURLEY TEDDY BEAR, I would buy it.
I had to go back and find this, and I guess since it was posted by Blam, my question is directed at Blam. (Although it's open to anyone.)
Blam said: "@Blam: Okay, I can explain this, and it's actually just from earlier in this admittedly long comments section. Some folks were having trouble reconciling how the appearance of Isabella's would-be spirit to Ricardo below deck on The Black Rock in "Ab Aeterno" could be a manifestation of Smokey, as it is presumed to be, when we heard and even saw Smokey billowing topside through the grate. I suggested that Smokey might be able to spin off manifestations at close range, based in part on my recollection of Alex emerging from Smokey to confront Ben last season, perhaps with tendrils still in existence connecting them invisibly. Rainyday used Clark Kent and Superman as a metaphor for Smokey in its big, swirling namesake form and the apparent ghost of Isabella.
This would go with my theory that Smokey has already reproduced. Why can't there be two different Smokeys? One is the result of Jacob throwing MIB into the cave. The other (or others) would be descendants of Smokeys? Could that NOT be? Then there is a concrete answer to how Smokey can be in two places at one time. (Again, every single thing I've said lately is nothing more or less than a theory. I'm so far behind in the actual comments, I'll probably never catch up.)
Gracie, here's the entire A-Z you asked for:
http://bit.ly/lost_az
Gracie,
A book is a great idea, and I would bet that some of those other seven writers would jump at a share of the profits, if Darlton are too tired of the subject!
In the end, it might be up to all of us to keep asking for the definitive, "authorized" story, in whatever form, to have it delivered.
I am reposting a post that was already done in case somebody missed it, and knows something I don't regarding the weekend schedule for TV and Lost:
"Gracie said...
Random Question: The way I understand the layout for the weekend (for my area anyway), Saturday night ABC is giving us a repeat in full of "The Pilot" episode which is the plane crash and the immediate events that follow. On Sunday at 7:00 they are giving us something called "The Final Journey" which is described as "Reviewing the events of the series; past and present cast members discuss their experiences". This of course is followed by the finale, and Jimmy Kimmel at his regular time.
Is anyone anywhere getting something different? Or did I miss something that I would want to look for more closely? (They are calling this the "Lost Weekend" and I want to make sure I'm covered all the way around.) I'm talking about the TV only in this question though. I'm also well aware that Nikki is doing a live chat following the show, which personally speaking is one hell of a bold move. Girl, you must have nerves of steel!" This was originally posted May 19, 2010 6:48 AM.
Does anyone know of anything I don't have here?
This reminds me of my earlier post about Sunday being, at least--please, at least!--better than the BSG ending.
Along with our strong sentiments about THIS epic coming to a satisfying end, we have this nervousness borne from experience that so VERY FEW long-term television series have been able to wrap up satisfactorily.
Even the great Twin Peaks, which Damon praised so highly in NY, falls in that category.
Only a couple of details: (1) the Saturday Pilot re-broadcast could have the notes along the bottom of the screen, and (2) Sunday at 7-9 p.m. Eastern is billed as a recap of seasons 1-6, but cast memories sounds like more fun.
Andrys Basten said: "Gracie, here's the entire A-Z you asked for:http://bit.ly/lost_az"
AB: I tried for such a long time to get that, that I am not even going to ask you how you did! It irked (I'm polite) me that I couldn't read it all!
Can you also get the one that's titled "Songs in the key of Lost"? From the same paper? It won't even let me see any of that. I'm curious what the article is all about.
Let me know, and hey! BIG THANKS TO YOU!!!! :o)
WORD VERIFICATION TO ANYONE WHO WANTS IT: QFPPERAB. GOOD LUCK!
TM Clancy said: "Gracie,
A book is a great idea, and I would bet that some of those other seven writers would jump at a share of the profits, if Darlton are too tired of the subject!
In the end, it might be up to all of us to keep asking for the definitive, "authorized" story, in whatever form, to have it delivered."
I'm afraid I'd have to agree with you although that's a shame. With a show like this, they should just do it. Hell, I remember when "The Waltons" ended and there were books all over the place to rehash what happened on the show! Even if they are tired and want to move on, the should have planned on a novel-type book to follow Lost, just because of the type of show it is! IMHO!
But I WOULD buy one in case anybody is listening!!!!!
@Gracie,
This was harder, as blank pages were the rule, at least at that not well-maintained site, but here it is, elsewhere:
http://bit.ly/songs_key_of_lost
FYI: Usually on Fridays I get something in my Inbox called ABC Primetime. If you get that, you already know what I'm talking about. But since my Inbox is FUBAR, this week I had to go looking for the Lost Connection. I went here: http://abc.go.com/watch/lost/93372
If you go there, it's like shorts. IMHO there are no spoilers, just pieces of things, and this week it's all different from the normal stuff. I'm talking about the smaller screen to the right hand side BTW. The first thing up is the winner of the ultimate fan Lost Finale advertisement, I believe. This is beautiful, and I had no idea a fan had done this.
If you can stand the commercials, just let it play out. There is cast commentary, "How Will It All End", Slap Down, and all kinds of just interesting stuff. There is only one thing I saw, and that is the sneak peak for the finale, that I would consider to be a spoiler, and I am hard pressed to even say that. I'm only saying that so you know it's there, but there's a lot of fun stuff there, so go look. You'll be glad you did.
(Nikki doesn't care for it when people post spoiler stuff here because she knows some of you don't like it here, so believe me when I say that if I thought Nikki would be offended, I wouldn't have posted this at all!)
Andrys Basten said..."@Gracie,
This was harder, as blank pages were the rule, at least at that not well-maintained site, but here it is, elsewhere:
http://bit.ly/songs_key_of_lost"
I am amazed that you are actually getting this stuff I've spent all day trying to find!!!
T H A N K Y O U ! ! ! !
When I go to the page you have there, I get a picture of Jack on the left and the ability to go to thumbnails on the right, but no music. How do I make the music go? And if I wanted to save this selection of music? How do I do that? Do you know??
Thanks again Andrys Basten!!!
I've begun to think Jacob made 2 messes. The first we've all known about now, was pushing his brother into the cave to make Smokie. But the second?
I think the second is bringing people to the island. Since we've all agreed the island has unusual EM properties, it acts like a taperecorder. We know something of its properties from The Invention of Morel, which invention records poeple's souls and plays them over and over. The island may have been a massive rock of exotic minerals, much as Issac of Uluru said about Ayer's Rock (Uluru) in Australia. But Uluru needed a psychic to chanel the power of the place. By bringing so many people over the centuries, Jacob has inadventently allowed the island to become a form of Artificial Intelligence (VALIS). This might be why we have this Solaris feel to the show's island.
One of the Room 23 truisms is "we are the cause of our own suffering." Might it be that having been exposed to so many people, and especially since they died on the island, the island itself is suffering?
Now, I had hoped to find that the island always was conscious, even before Mother. And I am still hoping for that. But ewither way, I think Jacob bringing all those people to the island was also a part of his mess.
Ultimately, Jacob could not clean up his own mess. He just managed to pass it on to the next lot of people. And I agree with Sawyer, "Why do I have to suffer for your mistakes?" Yes, Jacob is a real screw-up, no matter how well he can chant in Latin.
@Fred (and anyone else)
Since you mentioned Jacob the screwup, I still have not had any human on this planet try to answer my simple question from the last episode though I've asked it on 5+ forums.
JUST before Hurley met with Jacob, barely a few feet away?, he is accosted by Younger MEAN Jacob, who acts like a hood and said that the ashes were "MINE!" and demanded them and then snatched them out of Hurley's hand.
In a few minutes we see older Jacob with that beatific expression of his (well, more forlorn and sleepy).
Now, people are ignoring this. Why? And what does anyone think the writers and then the director were intending when they had the boy act in this way. A real local bully. I mean it was almost over-the-top. But they took time to write and present it.
Why? What are they trying to say in that scene about Jacob, who needs his ashes, he says, so he can just disappear forever ?
Were those really his ashes in the fire? Or might he use them against Smokey this Sunday?
BUT, mainly, why was that boy so mean to Hurley, accusing him, I think, of stealing them -- and now we know he is a younger manifestation of Jacob. Does it mean anything about the current state of Jacob that this boy acts like that with Hurley?
Fred said: "Might it be that having been exposed to so many people, and especially since they died on the island, the island itself is suffering?"
Fred, this is odd. I don't know all the references you have listed there in that post, but lately I've been thinking more and more of the island as a living entity. And along those lines it's crossed my mind that they have been burying their dead there, and I wondered if that was okay?
Not just okay to the character that is the island, but okay in the sense that the dead might be "leaking" into the water supply? The water is supposed to be special, and we are mucking it up by letting our dead leak into it? How can that be good? I don't think so. Not at all.
Then again I have so many theories and ideas about the last 2 1/2 hours of this show, that if I posted all of them, this would be MY blog, not Nikki's. LOL But you brought this one up, not me. Good call!
@Gracie, you're very welcome. I know how frustrating it can be.
For the first one I just searched the newspaper's site, but for the Song descriptions, all the pages were blank, just as you saw them.
So I searched the article title in Google and got sister publications that could maintain a webpage better.
@Gracie,
Sorry, I didn't read carefully enough. That " Songs in the key of 'Lost' " is just identifying and describing the songs they used for certain scenes that are memorable.
So you scroll down to see the rest of the text article section which is about the scene shown in a photo at the left and the music that was played in that scene.
@Andrys - (well, more forlorn and sleepy).
Haha! So true. I noticed and mentioned it earlier as well. I think it was MiB. I think he appeared as Mean Kid Jake and then as Older Sleepy Jake. I think the whole Camp Fire Chat was crap. Too easy - a setup. It makes no sense for Good Guy Jacob to appear as Mean Boy and demand the ashes.
To Andrys Basten regarding your last post: You will probably get ten people to reply to this, and all ten of them will have a different answer. Expect it.
IMHO I thought redneck Child-Jacob acted the way he did to make sure that a ticked-off Hurley would chase him, and then find the grown Jacob.
And I thought Jacob was looking somewhat pleasantly stoned because he knows that his time and his duty to the island is about to end, and he has to get his candidate in place with the cup and incantation thing.
I do not think we have seen the last of Jacob. I've been saying for a long time that I do not believe Jack will be the final candidate we know about. I think something is going to happen to him, where he is there, and then he is dead. And there's an "OMG moment". Nobody else has the power, the ability, or the right to pass the incantation, so Jacob will have to come back. (It may not happen exactly like this, but Jack is not the last candidate IMHO. Yes, I have an alternate candidate picked out and have since FLocke took Sawyer to the cave and we learned about the names on the ceiling. THAT candidate is still among the living too.)
This has been my opinion for a very long time, way before everyone else saw that heading to Jack might be just to throw us off. I was scorned, ridiculed, and ignored for this idea BTW. LOL (No I wasn't! Although certain people DID think I'd had too many Cocoa Puffs!)
I also saw this from you: "So you scroll down to see the rest of the text article section which is about the scene shown in a photo at the left and the music that was played in that scene."
Does that mean that there is no Soundtrack playing while you're reading? Thanks again so much!!
@Gracie,
Today's Jacob, who has appeared to Hurley a few times, could not just approach Hurley as before ??? and explain he needs his ashes?
I think it's a stretch that the mean boy would have to make Hurley follow.
@Joan Crawford
At last! Someone else wondered about the heavy-lidded Jacob (but I've thought he always looks like that). In the Totally Lost sketch he was a very animated actor, so he's being directed this way for LOST.
WELL, when anyone does anything amiss, we do tend to say that must be Smokey! But I dunno ! Maybe there's a Rule that older Jacob can't ask Hurley for his Ashes?
It could still be Smokey, hoping Jack the 'other sucker' will drink that stream thinking it'll make him more powerful but he won't have any unusual strength to depend on when in a battle with Smokey.
Jack did tell Sawyer (or did I see that in a preview?) that he didn't feel any different. But he looked a bit spaced.
On the other hand, Jacob is still around, omnipent, all-knowing and all-seeing, and I think he'd be interested in not letting his candidates be fooled by brother nature!
If it's not Smokey, what would be a reason for the writers to present that scene?
ONLY TWO MORE DAYS!!!
@Gracie - no, no songs play on that website. It's just to show the scenes and then name the songs and the artists and say a bit about their relevance and effect.
@Rainier said...
@Jessica: I loved the Times Talk! The discussion of creative process was excellent. I enjoyed the answers to some of the questions, and really enjoyed Michael Emerson and Jorge Garcia. Man, that dude is BIG. He's gotta be at least 6'4"! I never got the sense of him being quite that physically imposing on the show, somehow.
I thought it was funny when they were talking about Aaron being "special" and they basically said: "Look. The only character who ever said anything about Aaron being special was the psychic, and we later found out that he was a total fraud. We told you he was not reliable. And even when we give fans that answer, they still say NO. HE'S SPECIAL!!"
And Walt? "Come on. Malcolm David Kelly is now 39 years old!"
I also liked what they had to say about fans wanting 1) for there to be a "binder" in which everything that will ever happen on Lost must be written., and 2) for the writer's to allow the fans to have some input. Mutually contradictory...
My favorite part, though, was what they had to say about Nikki and Paolo.
You?
I absolutely loved it too! My fiance was kinda bored at the beginning because he's not the type to think about creative processes! It was hysterical though... he got up to go to get a snack and then he walks back in, a minute later Ben is there and Damon/Carlton makes a joke about the guy that just walked back into the movie theater thinking "ah shit I missed something interesting!" But you picked my highlights too! I had to laugh at myself about the Aaron thing, because it is still an issue for some people (even in a community like ours) and when you hear them state it flat-out that way, you kind of have to say "Doh! I can't believe I thought he was special all this time too!"
Ditto on the contradictory fan wishes! It is hysterical when you realize that they are completely right!
But that "print" at the end was awesome to see! Even so, when we left the theater we thought "OOhhh, we know what that means!" But then we went to my parent's house and my dad said something totally different! And then I was like, oh hot damn! Guess I am not so sure now on what it meant! Especially considering Damon's little "slip-up" in the beginning!
LOL! I just realized re-reading the above that I am making no sense at all! Do you understand what I mean though?? Gosh! What this show does to my brain...
Gracie,
I think the attempt on MIB will be made (and it's been rumored so) by someone who would be a total surprise or shock to Smokey, which would be key in any possible success (and whose last name showed up but was dismissed as a candidate).
I can think of only one but I'm not going to name the person here though I have elsewhere.
What I'd really like is for MIB to have a reason to find his conscience again and give up his life to save someone else. That would be a shocking redemption scene with a lot of pathos, but I don't think that has much chance at all.
Or, can John Locke get his legs in motion in Alt-U and bleed-through to the island and we get a John Locke vs Flocke scene! That might be even better.
He always felt his destiny was that island and he can pay MIB back for calling him a sucker.
Andrys Basten said..."Or, can John Locke get his legs in motion in Alt-U and bleed-through to the island and we get a John Locke vs Flocke scene! That might be even better."
Every time I've asked about this, I've been told various versions of "It's not going to happen."
CORRECTION!
I've asked several times what would happen if John Locke from the FS would get his legs again, and be taken back to the island, and that was pretty much all I asked, although my follow-up question would've been what you suggest. Now, I have been told it's not going to happen, although in the last answer (which I think was Fred), he had a somewhat different reply that I will have to look up now. But I've been heading here for a very, very long time, and I've been told it can't happen. I'm in no position to argue since I don't quite understand how two worlds mingle or come together, so I left it alone.
Fred if you are reading this: I am now going to go find out if it was Fred and what was said to me so I don't get yelled at. On my way.....
Something I've wanted to bring up which nobody will appreciate the irony of more than Rainier:
Now that Widmore is presumable dead, I've screamed, gloated, done a mental high-five with Ben, accepted it as reality, prepared to move along, and then I have had to wonder some things:
1. Is he really dead? Did I really see that on here that someone mentioned a flak jacket and the possibility that he's still alive?
2. He (Widmore) said that Jacob had come to see him. Do we believe that Jacob DID visit him?
3. If Jacob did visit Widmore, then did Jacob truly consider Widmore, um, the island's final chance for survival? (I don't like my choice of wording there at the end, but currently Child has the TV, and I cannot go and see what Widmore said that Jacob said exactly.)
4. If The Visit DID happen, is it also true that Widmore saw (gag) the error of his ways? (choke, puke) I just can't wrap my head around that at all!! If it turns out, after the finale, to be TRUE, I'm going to have a real hard time with that one!
5. If all of the above is true, and Widmore came back to the island a "changed man", was he there to provide Desmond as the "fail-safe" for all of mankind? Meaning he expected Desmond to be willing, but if Desmond wasn't willing, Widmore was prepared to force him to sacrifice his life for mankind?
6. (This hurts me more than you can know): Was Widmore, in the end, a "good guy"?
7. Does anyone, at this point in time, believe that Eloise, Ellie, Ms. Hawking, is factually on the good side? That would be the side defending mankind against the threat of MIB/Smokey/FLocke? I can't see anything here at all, because every time I think of her, I can't get beyond the sh*t hemorrhage she is going to have when she finds out what Desmond has been up to. LOL THAT should be good. I wanted to get a mental on her reaction to Widmore being dead, if he is, but I can't do that either for the same reason.
TO RAINIER: Do you remember the link I e-mailed you some time ago that was done by a fan and showed a consecutive time-line of the plane crash PLUS everything else the show has shown that happened at the same time? For example: The book club taking cover in Juliet's doorway, and Ben running outside? If you remember that and still have it, would you post it please?
@Fred, @Tebore, @JS, @Andrys @others
I'm not big on posting to blogs on the Internet. That's probably one reason why I regrettably found Nikki's blog so late, only this season :( despite the fact I've read all her Lost books religiously since day one.
Sometimes when I post on this blog and nobody comments on my remarks, I feel that twinge of "Well, that comment was obviously a clunker, nobody read it or cared about it." Especially if I put the time into making a long comment that I know it takes.
It's a common human feeling we all feel, I know.
Anyway, I just wanted to say I have been reading all your comments about unanswered questions and think most of them are brilliant. Just so you know, that even though only a few of you are really engaged in that discussion, there are others of us out here raptly reading and enjoing your thoughts, too, while merely lurking.
So, thank you for all the time you have been taking to post in detail. Good stuff.
PS, @ Gracie, too - although I think the erotic Flocky thread, ummm, "petered out" a while ago for me :)
As for Gracie's WV - QFPPERAB, how's this?
What all of us LOST fans said when the arc of the story never completed and the parabola of the whole thing was ... lost.
As in, "Dude! I was enjoying that whole parabola and then it just disappeared! It was like - QFPPERAB!"
I just found this (below) from my own local newspaper! Does anyone know how to find the links when those weeks have passed, and I can't find them at ABC?
(Just because I can't find them doesn't mean they're not there.)
This is OLD folks, so the current video is no longer Ben!!
"From ABC:
In celebration of the sixth and final season for “Lost,” ABC will produce music videos that will offer fans a musical look inside of specific characters from the island. Each week an individual music video will be released that will include footage from this season and can be seen at ABC.com. Videos that will be set to different recording artists will include the characters of Ben, Sawyer, Richard Alpert, Sun & Jin, Desmond, Hurley, Kate, Jack, Sayid and Locke. The first music video currently playing in the ABC Music Lounge features Ben and is set to “Ben” by Michael Jackson. “Lost” airs Tuesdays from 9:00-10:00 p.m., ET on the ABC Television Network.
You can find the "Ben" video here."
(The current video is Sawyer, and I agree, he's a "Cowboy Casanova"!)
I took that from here:
http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/heldenfiles/2010/03/lost-music-videos/
But I cannot figure out how to find the ones that already ran, like Ben.
BTW: If you haven't seen the video at ABC called "LOST: Music Montage", OMG, go see it! It's over eleven minutes long, and it's beautiful. (I'll cry for the next hour or two just for Desmond and Penny! And Hurley!!)
I also found the following by the same author, and I think it's fun looking back at where we were on 2/3/10. Just read along and enjoy. Soon enough it will be over for all of us. We will be looking for this stuff then.
"Lost" Notes
By Rich Heldenfels on February 3, 2010
I have these conversations with other "Lost" fans, trying to sort out the details and figure out what's going on. It's fun to talk about but, in the end, I don't really care how much I know or don't know. I just like watching it unfold.
So, last night, I nodded when we saw that not-Locke (whom I still think of as Esau) is the smoke monster, and that people apparently come back to life in the island because there are healing powers in the water, which has been tapped by the healing spring. And I pondered how Juliet was right, that the bomb did work - at least in some ways, because the people are on the plane. And this morning, having had a decent night's sleep and some cold medicine, I finally understood that we are at two different places in the time line — that Jack, Sawyer, Kate, Hurley, Jin, Miles and Sayid have come back to the present day, while everyone got off the plane not in a parallel world but just getting off the plane several years ago. And that, therefore, somehow, they are going to end up on the island anyway.
And then the questions pop up — for instance, why does the flight attendant at the temple know about "the first plane" if the first plane did not crash? Are the temple dwellers able to keep track of the time shifts in some way?
But then I stop, and think that I am having fun even if I don't figure everything out. And there are these wonderful flourishes, like the way not-Locke moved in and out of the light when talking to Ben, not to mention the argument he makes for people staying on the island, an argument underscored when we see that, yes, the lives the passengers would have had without the island are messed up — and it really wasn't so bad being on the island. There is no place like home, I suppose, as "Lost" argues in its twisted-"Wizard of Oz" way, but home is also where you make it. And it feels, at this moment in the show's ever-shifting universe, as if we are going to reach the end of the series with major characters choosing to call the island home."
Only on Lost could a newspaper article like this make sense!
Convergence said: "PS, @ Gracie, too - although I think the erotic Flocky thread, ummm, "petered out" a while ago for me :)
As for Gracie's WV - QFPPERAB, how's this?
What all of us LOST fans said when the arc of the story never completed and the parabola of the whole thing was ... lost.
As in, "Dude! I was enjoying that whole parabola and then it just disappeared! It was like - QFPPERAB!"
Convergence: If you said anywhere what you thought of my "erotic Flocky thread", I apparently missed it. So what did YOU think? And your WV works just fine for me. We could use that instead of swearing, but I'm not sure how many of us would remember it. LOL
For anyone interested: There is an article at this link where the writer's (who describe themselves as fans) go into the show's successes and failures. It's not very long.
While I thought this was a little odd at first since the show is not quite over, I think they are just trying to cash in on the popularity of Lost this weekend, and they are fair.
http://greenbayhub.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20100522/GPG0505/100521111&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
Somebody's been reading my posts!! LOL Make sure you read to the very last sentence to get what I mean:
"Jungle Love,” Steve Miller Band: Everyone has needs –– even plane crash survivors. Raw survival instincts coupled with all that tattered, wet clothing …… yeah, it’s no wonder Sawyer and Kate finally got busy in a polar bear cage. “Lost” had plenty of cozy romantic connections –– Claire and Charlie, Shannon and Sayid, Hurley and Libby, Sawyer and Juliet, to name a few –– but nothing really captured the mad and crazy Steve Miller kind of jungle love like that sweaty Sawyer-Kate moment (well, maybe Sawyer and Ana Lucia’s brief ‘fling.’) Which makes sense considering smooth con man James Ford spent the bulk of his island time shirtless. Maybe that’s why the Man in Black has been so cranky all these years. He just wants to mate off-island with a female Smokey. —— Thomas Rozwadowski"
LMAO I love it!!
I won't be around a lot today, but I'll check back in periodically for an answer to this question:
Unless the island's timeline (which is the original timeline) never happened at all, what possible explanation could there be for Jack having his appendix removed by Juliet when, in fact, it had already been removed when he was seven or eight?
OR it was never removed when he was a child?
ONLY one of these can be factual. (Unless somehow I've missed the heads up that we are regrowing them now??)
What does this one fact do to our theories of a bleed-through in time-lines? Anything? (I'm showing my lack of knowledge about how time lines converge and bleed-through, but I think everyone knows time travel is not one of my stronger points.) HELP?
Has Miles ever spoken to FLocke? Has FLocke ever spoken to Miles?
This is funny! From another Blogging site that I stumbled on:
"MSMenden1: LOSTIN THE MYSTERY WROTE: 1h4m ago
I've read this blog from the beginning. I've enjoyed all your comments over the years. I think you're all way smarter than me.......I've loved this show and I've loved your insight.......BUT...........
I do NOT want all your comments racing across my TV screen while I'm trying to enjoy and absorb the grande finale of 6 years of TV watching. What a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE idea!
I absolutely agree with you there, when I saw the verizon ad last nite I got mad, I'm hoping that this will be done during the 2 hour buildup before the show and they leave the final episode alone. If they do it during commercials or some other way during the finale that's ok as well, but it better not be while the actual finale is on..."
Did anyone from here comment on this? I saw that at the end Tuesday, and I just said, "You've got to be kidding me!?!?!"
They better not!!
@Gracie
I did post about your erotic theories, but briefly, merely that while I felt that sexual tension immediately just like you, ultimately I concluded Flocky was keeping Claire around as more of a pet.
I agree about viewer comments flashing on the screen during the finale - that would be sacriligious, outrageous, for the finale of a show like this. But, sigh, par for the commercial course.
I'm convinced the networks purposely annoy the audience with intrusions like interstitial ads not because they truly believe interstitials work, but to force you to buy the DVD if you want an uninterrupted viewing experience.
I wish I was smart enough to code software that would blur all interstitials into background colors loosely matching the background. So yeh, the bottom of the screen would get blurry at times, but at least it wouldn't mean having to watch Dexter taking a dump as his dog walks across the bottom of the screen or whatever those stupid during-the-program ads show while I'm trying to watch a program.
I've actully thought of taping a piece of cardboard across the bottom of my TV so I don't have to see that interstitial crap. Maybe I'll have some cardboard ready for the Lost finale to cover up Judy from Omaha's "Omigod Jack is so cute" comment from appearing while I'm trying to figure out what the heck is occurring on-screen. You know - within the actual program itself?
WV - padis: Ah, this one is perfect. Padis is the name for the advertisement padding networks add such as interstitial ads or Judy from Omaha's comments.
Convergence, thanks for your nice words about fellow commenters here. Am rushing out but wanted to say that I wish I'd found Nikki's blog and her commenters earlier> just discovered these this week< after buying her Kindle books.
So it turns out the finale gives us a redemptive/spiritual "Return of the Jedi" type ending and Ben and Hurley wind up running the "Island". They build a Hotel del Coronado type resort (half white, half black of course) and call it "Fantasy Island".
Can anybody please remind me what year they were in when the bomb went off, and Juliet died? The plane took off in 2004, but what year were Jack, Sawyer, Kate, etc. in? Please?
Thank you!
@Grace, you said on May 21, 2010 10:49 PM ...I have so many theories and ideas...that if I posted all of them, this would be MY blog, not Nikki's.
Well, with your posts on just the last two episodes – 84 and counting on #6.16, and 124 posts on #6.15 -- why would anyone think that?
And calling other posters liars because they wouldn’t agree/contribute to your “Smocke-Flocke-way-out-from-left-field-sex-theory” -- Really?!?
@Gracie: Just coming back to the blog, missed some detailed discussions that, unfortunately I won't get to reply to.
The bomb went off in 1977. The plane (I'm assuming you're referring to Ajira 316) took off in 2007/2008 (still unclear)
Post a Comment