# Lost - "Stranger In A Strange Land" - OAD 2/21/07 *SPOILERS*



## JWolff (Oct 30, 2002)

Here we go....


----------



## BillL (Oct 6, 2004)

What were the three questions that were answered?


----------



## yaddayaddayadda (Apr 8, 2003)

1) jack's tatoos?
2) Where the ones captured by the others went to?
?


----------



## mattpol (Jul 23, 2003)

(1) The tattoo, (2) the taken people all seem to be alive, and (3) there is an AMAZING, STUNNINGLY GORGEOUS new cast member?!


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Some answers:

What are the tatoos? "He walks amongst us but he is not one of us." (But earlier in the ep, we were led to believe they could be "Leader", "Great Man", "Lonely", "Frightened", and "Angry".

What happened to the kids? They were kidnapped to be given a life better than Kate and the others.

Is Ben still in charge? Yes.

Are there one group of Others, or two? One.

The Others only work on the small island, and they don't particularly care to even visit there. 

Where they live, they have back yards.

And Alex didn't seem pleased that Ben survived.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I'm so overwhelmed by all the answers we received tonight. I think I wet myself. 

Lost has the whole "Hype. Disappoint. Hype. Disappoint." process down to a science now.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

I'm sure there will be people that complain that not enough happened in this episode, but I thought it was a good relaxed pace, and a good episode.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Yeah, I'm a little underwhelmed, but I like the new sheriff, Isabel (Isabelle? Isobel?) ... She reminds me very much of Jane Curtain.

ETA: Just looked her up. Isabel is played by Diana Scarwid, who played the mother in Wonderfalls!


----------



## ManOfSnow (Apr 16, 2001)

We also learned that Ethan was their surgeon.


----------



## yaddayaddayadda (Apr 8, 2003)

jkeegan said:


> I'm sure there will be people that complain that not enough happened in this episode, but I thought it was a good relaxed pace, and a good episode.


Put me on that list. I'm a lost supporter, but after constant hype about "three of the island's biggest mysteries" being solved, and we get nothing of any substance.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

jkeegan said:


> I'm sure there will be people that complain that not enough happened in this episode, but I thought it was a good relaxed pace, and a good episode.


All by itself it was a pretty decent episode. But they pushed the whole "answers" concept so much; heck, even my mom mentioned it and she doesn't even watch Lost. What exactly do they expect people to feel after all that versus what they actually delivered.


----------



## mattpol (Jul 23, 2003)

dswallow said:


> All by itself it was a pretty decent episode. But they pushed the whole "answers" concept so much; heck, even my mom mentioned it and she doesn't even watch Lost. What exactly do they expect people to feel after all that versus what they actually delivered.


The other networks are your friends! Check out CSI:New York on CBS, where each week (save for the once-a-season sweeps-week "To Be Continued" twist) they will wrap the entire hour into a pretty little box with a red bow for you. Please follow America's lead and check that show out if there is some sort of closure that Lost just isn't providing. This show is not for everyone. Isn't there a poker strategy that states to bet in each round without regard to what you have already invested? Maybe it's time to fold your hand.

Sorry to the people I offended with that rant, I am just tired of all of this Lost-hating. I don't mean to attack the above poster personally, I just don't get why people who have such disdain for this show don't change the channel.

GO DEVILS!


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

dswallow said:


> All by itself it was a pretty decent episode. But they pushed the whole "answers" concept so much; heck, even my mom mentioned it and she doesn't even watch Lost. What exactly do they expect people to feel after all that versus what they actually delivered.


Of course, the "they" who hype the show are not the "they" who produce the show. It's not the creative team's fault if ABC oversells.


----------



## modnar (Oct 15, 2000)

Awesome episode! This is the kind of Lost episode I really enjoy.


----------



## bdlucas (Feb 15, 2004)

The episode didn't disappointment me a bit because I missed all the hype. Don't watch commercials, don't watch previews. Now I think I know why. 

All in all a decent episode, if a bit slow. I do wish we'd spend more time with the original gang.

I almost expected that the trial was a ruse to manipulate Jack into helping Ben. If it was the mark on Juliette's back was above and beyond the call of duty.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I don't know why I come into these threads even sporadically for all the Kool-Aid all over the floor.

So many here just seem to automatically go into defensive mode whenever anybody criticizes something about their pretty little toy show.


----------



## avery (May 29, 2006)

Well, we also learned that Jack can perform spinal surgery but can't manage to figure out how to put a kite together!


----------



## anotherme (Nov 24, 2004)

My tv is showing a repeat of last week's show.


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

Last week's show aired at 9, this week's aired at 10 (eastern).

They'll probably air this week's episode at 9 if you didn't record it, then the new one at 10.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

mattpol said:


> The other networks are your friends! Check out CSI:New York on CBS, where each week (save for the once-a-season sweeps-week "To Be Continued" twist) they will wrap the entire hour into a pretty little box with a red bow for you. Please follow America's lead and check that show out if there is some sort of closure that Lost just isn't providing. This show is not for everyone. Isn't there a poker strategy that states to bet in each round without regard to what you have already invested? Maybe it's time to fold your hand.
> 
> Sorry to the people I offended with that rant, I am just tired of all of this Lost-hating. I don't mean to attack the above poster personally, I just don't get why people who have such disdain for this show don't change the channel.
> 
> GO DEVILS!


Sorry but that's just a bunch of drivel. You want to know what's worse than people who constantly criticize show? People who say crap like, "go watch CSI if you don't like it". That is no better than saying "if you don't like it, move to another country". It's totally idiotic and amounts to saying that people shouldn't have dissenting opinions ever.

Secondly, and the part that is almost comically stupid, the people weren't complaining about all episodes of lost. In fact the post you quoted was not a general rant. The complaint is very specific. The commercials and previews specifically stated that the 3 biggest questions were going to be answered. Nothing even remotely close to that happened, which makes it a disappointment. Apparently you are so out of whack that your response to people who think it was wrong of them to commit borderline false advertising is to go watch CSI where no questions are left unanswered... yeah... ok.

Sorry if I offended you, but you should try to follow what people are saying before you make stupid statements like "Go watch CSI".

Anyway, this episode wasn't a terrible one, but it is clear that there is some unevenness to the show. In addition to the old complaint that no one ever talks to each other, now we have the one where jack doesn't ask any important questions despite having dozens of people in front of him. Also, the charlie/desmond plot line is way too significant to the point that anything not involving them seems to be intentional procrastination.

That lotus root looked really good. Mmm... man, I haven't had good lotus root in a long while.


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

Wow, Diane Scarwid is really good in this! She's creepy as hell. Oh, that voice!!


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

drew2k said:


> Yeah, I'm a little underwhelmed, but I like the new sheriff, Isabel (Isabelle? Isobel?) ... She reminds me very much of Jane Curtain.
> 
> ETA: Just looked her up. Isabel is played by Diana Scarwid, who played the mother in Wonderfalls!


You forgot her nice little stint on Prison Break. She liiiiiked T-Bag.

Greg


----------



## mtm150 (Oct 19, 2003)

I have been watching from day 1. I seriously wanted to throw my remote through my tv this episode sucked so bad. And don't call me anything nasty. I want to like Lost now, but it just sucks. 1 good episode out of 5 is not a good ratio. But, I can't stop watching now just so I can see it through till the end, which I hope will be soon cause like I said, it sucks now.


----------



## laststarfighter (Feb 27, 2006)

"Tune in on Feb 21st for answers to three of the most minor mysteries you could care less about"

You know they screwed with us again when you don't even know what three mysteries they "answered."

Jack's tatoo is like number 42 on my list of stuff I want answered.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

How can you go from an episode like last week to an episode like this? It's like 2 different shows each with different levels of quality. Lost may be the most uneven show ever made.

Seriously-this episode was completely pointless. They could have just said "Jack we're moving you" at the beginning of next week and completely nixed this episode. Nothing was moved forward. The Juliette story was negated by Ben's pardon, so everything was as it started. 

It's infuriating to think that the creators of the show are capable of making a 5 star episode like last weeks and then purposefully stretch the story out with an episode like this.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

laststarfighter said:


> "Tune in on Feb 21st for answers to three of the most minor mysteries you could care less about"
> 
> You know they screwed with us again when you don't even know what three mysteries they "answered."
> 
> Jack's tatoo is like number 42 on my list of stuff I want answered.


42? It's not even on my list. Who the hell cares about what a tattoo means? It's a tattoo!

"NEXT WEEK....learn what Charlie's Birthmark REALLY means! A LOST you won't want to miss!"


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

dswallow said:


> All by itself it was a pretty decent episode. But they pushed the whole "answers" concept so much; heck, even my mom mentioned it and she doesn't even watch Lost. What exactly do they expect people to feel after all that versus what they actually delivered.


Come on, Doug.
You know as well as anyone that the networks never, ever do misleading previews.


I learned years ago to take network previews with a large grain of salt.
My exasperation level is much lower.

I kind of liked the Jack backstory here but I agree with Kate that Sawyer was monumentally stupid in letting Carl go.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

Anyone who watches previews or pays attention to the marketing hype get exactly what they deserve: disappointment and justifiable mocking from people who are smart enough to avoid them.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Sure this episode was boring, but do you think it's easy stretching what should have been a one season story out over five seasons?


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Two questions:

When Jack insisted on getting tattooed, the non-tattoo-artist insisted that there would be consequences. Jack was later beaten up on the beach and told to leave, but I don't think that was the consequence he was forewarned of. Why was Jack's insistence on the tatoo so troubling that it would cause consequences?

Ben spared Juliette's life but ordered her to be marked. We later find out it's a 6 pointed star (an asterisk?) branded on her lower back, essentially where Jack operated on Ben. The mark is is not visible, like a scarlet letter, so it's not like it will instantly warn Others that Juliette killed one of their own or is not to be trusted. What is the purpose of Juliette being marked?


----------



## mask2343 (Jan 6, 2003)

Great episode. My advice is to not believe the previews and enjoy the best hour of television on TV. The Official Lost Podcast put to rest the idea of 3 major things being revealed. The Carlton and Damon basically made fun of the network for saying that.

Jack's Tatoo "He walks among us but is not one of us." Where have I heard that before? It has to do with being a great leader amongst men. Just like the "Leader, Great Man" meant. Not sure where the lonely and angry part comes in. But they only explained the words...what does the 5 and all the symbols mean, and where did he get them?

"You have backyards?"

What does the mark mean?

Good to see the other people from the plane. Can't wait to find out what they are doing in season 8.

I guess that's that for the Alcatraz island.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

did they fire locke and syaid and almost everyone else in the cast?? I thought when we returned from our forced break we were getting the gang back together and going back to the way things were in season 1?


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

flyers088 said:


> did they fire locke and syaid and almost everyone else in the cast?? I thought when we returned from our forced break we were getting the gang back together and going back to the way things were in season 1?


The producers determined that the 'others' were sooooooo much more interesting (yaawwwwwwwnnnnnnn) and better (cheaper) actors. Lost is lost.


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

spikedavis said:


> "NEXT WEEK....learn what Charlie's Birthmark REALLY means! A LOST you won't want to miss!"


This made me lol.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

did they mention Jack tattoo was from Party of Five?


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

Did they mention where Jack was in his flashback. I noticed the guys on the beach told him to leave the country but I'm pretty sure he was in Hawaii. Based on the little islands in the background it looked like he was on the windward side of Oahu to me.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

goblue97 said:


> Did they mention where Jack was in his flashback. I noticed the guys on the beach told him to leave the country but I'm pretty sure he was in Hawaii. Based on the little islands in the background it looked like he was on the windward side of Oahu to me.


Well he went to Australia at some point after that so I guess he did what they asked!


----------



## Honora (Oct 16, 2006)

goblue97 said:


> Did they mention where Jack was in his flashback. I noticed the guys on the beach told him to leave the country but I'm pretty sure he was in Hawaii. Based on the little islands in the background it looked like he was on the windward side of Oahu to me.


Wasn't it Thailand? I seem to remember Jack saying something like, "I don't speak Thai."


----------



## AstroDad (Jan 21, 2003)

goblue97 said:


> Did they mention where Jack was in his flashback. I noticed the guys on the beach told him to leave the country but I'm pretty sure he was in Hawaii. Based on the little islands in the background it looked like he was on the windward side of Oahu to me.


I am sure you were right that it was filmed in Hawaii, but in the flasback he was in Thailand. Phucket to be exact.


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

I think Jack got the tattoo in Thailand. I don't think it was Hawaii. That might be where they filmed it (convenience and all), but that's not where it was supposed to take place in the story.

This episode didn't do much for me. The Kate and Sawyer B-storyline was just so-so, although I did get a chuckle out of the Bobby Brady reference. Finding out the kid had no idea what the Brady Bunch was... well, that was revealing. Kate's insistence on returning to the Others Island was so unbelievable. Basically, a few minutes after she's left, she wants to turn the boat around and go back and "save" Jack.

Uh, sorry? Save him HOW? You're a woman with no weapon, and a kid that can't fend for himself. Wouldn't it be damned smart to go back to camp, grab your friends (friends with GUNS), and *then* go back to Others Island to save Jack? Her insistence on going back doesn't strike me as a character flaw on Kate's part. Kate's a criminal that spent years on the run, she knows what it means to be outnumbered. The character of Kate wouldn't just go right back. That whole scene struck me as sloppy writing.

The rest of the episode is just so meh. Not terrible, but nowhere near as great as last week's episode. Jack getting a tattoo made no sense to me. So he basically met a woman on the beach... got to know her... sees her accepting money from someone... slept with her... and then insists that she tattoo him, to the point that he has to almost physically force her to do so? Sorry, there are just too many jumps there with almost no motive to back it up. The explanation of the tattoo doesn't provide any real answers, it only raises more questions.

And I agree with Doug and a few of the others here. The network promoted this episode to be far much more than it truly was. It didn't "answer" any mysteries. It just hinted at answers. So they take the kids to have a better life? That's an answer? Sorry, not buying that as an answer. It's not conclusive, it explains nothing. In fact, I felt like last week's episode with Desmond explained more than this one did (and really, Desmond's episode didn't explain much).


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

I forgot the actresses' name, Bai Ling maybe, but she has NEVER looked that good in any of the pictures I have seen of her, clothed and otherwise. She looked amazing in this episode.

I actually liked this episode. I think the meaning of the tattoo is something along the lines of 'To be a leader, you can't be one of them'. Kind of like in the military, you can't really socialize with people you are going to send off to die. 'You walk amoung them, but you aren't one of them'. Maybe even a god like thing. As much as you want to be with them, you can't.

Thanks for the reminder about Prison Break, I knew I recognized her.


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

Oh, and one more vote for "Sheriff Isabel rocks". I cannot wait to see more of her, I'm very intrigued by the possibilities of her character.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I do generally ignore previews. But I'm also usually able to see through exaggerated hype in them. This was more or less false advertising and for me crossed a line beyond overly ambitious marketting into actual deception. It's great that you just ignore them but I feel that flat out deception is unacceptable. It's one thing to do the ER "the one episode you can't miss" each week or similar, but it was very specific and totally incorrect. It would be like a preview saying somebody dies when nobody dies even in the loose sense (i.e. no one even has to have CPR). I don't think I've ever seen a network use a promo with such blatant deception before.


----------



## eksimba (Nov 18, 2002)

He was in Phuket (Thailand). His lady friend mentioned it.


----------



## durl (Dec 1, 2005)

Jack's tattoo: When the guy on the beach raises Jack's sleeve, I didn't see the "5" or anything else above that bottom line. Was the other portion added later or did I just miss it?

WHY did Jack go bonkers and insist on getting a tattoo from the lady? So she's mysterious and won't tell Jack about her "gift." Is that a reason to force her against the wall, get in her face, and demand to be tattooed?? Bizarre.

Carl was interesting. He's drugged and forced to sit in some kind of brain-melting room, but he says the children will get a better life with the Others? The same Others that will kill him if they catch him? I guess we'll just have to wait and see how he reconciles that inconsistency.


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

If you think this was the only time Bai Ling was hot on film, then check out her episode of Entourage where she gets naked with Vinnie. Yow!

She played a Senator in Star Wars Episode III but was cut out of the movie because she did a spread in Playboy holding a lightsaber.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Which of the Losties know that "Alex" is the name of the kid Rousseau said was taken from her all those years ago? Doesn't Kate know that, from her trek with Rousseau and Claire to the others' medical station? Does Sawyer not know? Does Jack not know? Why haven't they put 2 and 2 together?


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

AstroDad said:


> I am sure you were right that it was filmed in Hawaii, but in the flasback he was in Thailand. Phucket to be exact.


I'd say the show is getting a bit sloppy then. Those islands in the background were very obvious in this episode and they are quite unmistakeable for anyone that has visited that side of Oahu. They are probably on many post cards. Maybe a bit exaggerated but it would be like claiming to be in Germany when you can clearly see the Eiffel Tower in the background. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal to me but this show has created a viewership that pays attention to every little detail now.


----------



## mitchb2 (Sep 30, 2000)

Let's just hope tonight's "ER" is an episode "you'll never, ever, EVER forget!"


----------



## catcard (Mar 2, 2001)

I thought Jack demanding the tattoo was very erotic - kinda pain and pleasure type of sensation. Very interesting episode although I don't see how his Thai vacation fits into the whole story except showing us how he got his tattoo or at least part of them. I could not really tell when this was in the timeline. Was it just before he went to Australia?

I am convinced that Jack is hooked on Juliet but I am not sure if she is being honest - but she did kill someone to help Kate and Sawyer escape with Carl. Not sure she can be trusted.

I ignore the previews and hype that is shown at the end of the show. Like others have said it is just marketing and does not really reflect what ends up being revealed in the show. 

I continue to get frustrated as they add MORE new characters but the old questions don't get answered. Every week there is more stuff unexplained and added to that growing list of mysteries. It is getting to the point where we no longer remember what we wondered about from the first season. It is like an inescapable maze..... 

I am NOT a Lost hater - just still trying to hang in there since I am definitely into stuff that makes you use your brain. It just gets hard when there is such an overload on mystery and unanswered questions.


----------



## catcard (Mar 2, 2001)

Also, I thought I saw what looked like a cruise ship in the background at the end when they were loading Ben into the boat. Or maybe it was another small island?


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

catcard said:


> Also, I thought I saw what looked like a cruise ship in the background at the end when they were loading Ben into the boat. Or maybe it was another small island?


I saw that too. I figured it was some kind of transport from Alcatraz to where ever they keep their backyards. They were on a bigger boat at the end there.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Ben: "We had a good surgeon, Ethan."
Well, Ben, if he was such an important member of your community, why would you send him on a dangerous mission?

But the episode was worth it just for the tattoo woman. What a stunner.

Did anyone else think that Isabelle reminded them of nurse Ratchet from "One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest?"


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Jack's tattoo: When the guy on the beach raises Jack's sleeve, I didn't see the "5" or anything else above that bottom line. Was the other portion added later or did I just miss it?

The "5" and stars are from the Party of Five days. I think they just glossed over those parts of the tattoo when talking about it because there is no "lost" explanation for it.


----------



## ArizonaAmy (May 26, 2005)

I have to say, my husband and I didn't understand a lot of what was going on in this episode with the Jack flashback. Her gift was 'seeing who people are'? Why would Jack force her to give him a tattoo? Why would this be controversial to others in Thailand? Why did they beat Jack up?

-Amy


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

I have to say, my husband and I didn't understand a lot of what was going on in this episode with the Jack flashback. Her gift was 'seeing who people are'? Why would Jack force her to give him a tattoo? Why would this be controversial to others in Thailand? Why did they beat Jack up?

-Amy

This will all be answered in season 7. Give it time, it is a mystery you are not supposed to understand in an hour. The writers have a plan and the tattoos are a huge part of that plan.


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

catcard said:


> I thought Jack demanding the tattoo was very erotic - kinda pain and pleasure type of sensation. Very interesting episode although I don't see how his Thai vacation fits into the whole story except showing us how he got his tattoo or at least part of them. I could not really tell when this was in the timeline. Was it just before he went to Australia?


I don't think they give any explanation on when he was in Thailand (or if they have, then I've totally forgotten).

Considering the length of his hair, and the look on his face, I personally think it took place after his divorce, and after his stalking of his ex, but months before he ever went to Australia.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Skittles said:


> Considering the length of his hair, and the look on his face, I personally think it took place after his divorce, and after his stalking of his ex, but months before he ever went to Australia.


Did we see his tattoos during any of his flashbacks?

IIRC, there was at least one flashback (in season 1?), where he *didn't* have tattoos...


----------



## danplaysbass (Jul 19, 2004)

catcard said:


> Very interesting episode although I don't see how his Thai vacation fits into the whole story except showing us how he got his tattoo or at least part of them. I could not really tell when this was in the timeline. Was it just before he went to Australia?


I agree. They spent all this time in Thailand or wherever all to explain his tattoo? I never gave that a second thought. It didn't tell us anything new about Jack. This was obviously before his dad died but was it after his wife left (I assume this is the case). They also didnt mention how long he was ther. It sounded like more than a week long vacation.

It just annoyed me. I got nothing from this episode. Damn you ABC for getting my hopes up!!


----------



## Jericho Dog (Feb 10, 2006)

JYoung said:


> I kind of liked the Jack backstory here but I agree with Kate that Sawyer was monumentally stupid in letting Carl go.


He had to, he had no choice.

Kate broke the 1st rule of Lost.
Never, EVER question anyone about what's actually happening on the island.

Sawyer had to get Carl out of there before he revealed too much!!


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

I liked the episode...I think my husband liked it more because of the eye candy featured in this episode. But I went in not expecting much. If you don't know by now that they overhype the previews, then this should be your final lesson.

When that little girl asked about Ana Lucia, I thought Jack would have snapped back saying she was murdered by their "Other" friends.

"we're suppose to watch" kind of reminds me of Stir of Echoes (I'm suppose to dig)


----------



## kubilusaurus (Sep 22, 2005)

At first Juliet's mark looked like a six pointed star, but did anyone else think it might have been a cross with an x through it? The show seems to be playing around with the existentialist themes of fate, destiny, God, free will and plans. Is Juliet no longer part of the plan?


----------



## glumlord (Oct 27, 2003)

unicorngoddess said:


> I liked the episode...I think my husband liked it more because of the eye candy featured in this episode. But I went in not expecting much. If you don't know by now that they overhype the previews, then this should be your final lesson.
> 
> When that little girl asked about Ana Lucia, I thought Jack would have snapped back saying she was murdered by their "Other" friends.
> 
> "we're suppose to watch" kind of reminds me of Stir of Echoes (I'm suppose to dig)


Yeah the "Were supposed to watched" struck me as a strange response. She seemed like it was such a normal thing, and why would anyone question it.

Either they really believe in there leadership and what they are doing there on the island or they have been brainwashed..

They definitely didn't seem evil hehe..


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

flyers088 said:


> Jack's tattoo: When the guy on the beach raises Jack's sleeve, I didn't see the "5" or anything else above that bottom line. Was the other portion added later or did I just miss it?
> 
> The "5" and stars are from the Party of Five days. I think they just glossed over those parts of the tattoo when talking about it because there is no "lost" explanation for it.


If you use the Quote button, it makes it a lot more clear as to what you're quoting and what you're saying yourself...


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

my reaction after the episode ended: "I don't get it."

+1 on the tatoo and the reaction to it... what's the deal? why was he not suppossed to be there? 

and i was thinking maybe they put a tatoo and told him it meant something cool, but it said "i'm a loser!" in chinese..  and then when she said what it meant, it seemed like an an odd thing to put on your arm... like it's marking you as an outsider... but the military/leadership reference makes sense. So Isabelle used it in one context, and jack used it in another.

When they were questioning Jack about Juliette, and he took juliette's side, I was wondering if Juliette was in on it, and when jack lied, they all knew and it was an interesting observation for them. tough situation for jack... lie, don't lie... who do i trust? reminds me of my youth when my mom already knew what i did wrong, but i wasn't sure how much she knew...  

so, cynthia and the kids... i don't get it... it was like they were at a zoo and went on to the next exhibit. all that answered was she's alive and has been living with them and the kids are alive and well. but how much did she know already? was she a plant on the plane? did they brainwash her? do they live in the village? who were those other people? I was hoping they would get into that.

so they make ethan seem like a normal surgeon... but he was super strong. i wonder if there is anything to that.

I saw the boat in the background, and then i didn't, so, i too, chalked it up to island in the background.

this episode was decent.. not the worst... pretty much the norm for lost. I like the character development, which i think drives the show more than the mystery... though people watch for the mystery. but, again, i don't get it.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

aindik said:


> Which of the Losties know that "Alex" is the name of the kid Rousseau said was taken from her all those years ago? Doesn't Kate know that, from her trek with Rousseau and Claire to the others' medical station? Does Sawyer not know? Does Jack not know? Why haven't they put 2 and 2 together?


Because I think that Sayid would be the one to put it together.


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

I think Jack was in Thailand to find himself - that's what he said when his lady friend asked him.

Then at the end she says she knows who he is and when she tells him, he wants to be branded with it. He finally "found" himself and wanted to remember it with the tatoos.

I am not sure how it plays into everything yet, but that's what I got out of Jack wanting the tatoos so badly. He was lost and then he was finally found.

Bryan


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I enjoyed this episode, but that's because I enjoy the character development, the plot evolving, and it's a fun ride. I have no idea where it is going, but "it's the journey". I don't get caught up in the previews/hype, because there's not a show on TV that doesn't mislead in that manner. I will agree ABC had some particularly egregious previews, but again, who cares? I *knew* we wouldn't get the answers to the mysteries of life (or LOST) this week. 

Some back stories actually add plot infill. Other times they simply add character depth. I would put this one in the latter category. But who knows, maybe Bai Ling shows up on the island in Season Fourteen (the season that Walt returns).

One of the best things they could do for this show is to agree to the producer's demands for a finite (and pre-announced) ending date. I think many people who get frustrated with the pace, and fear the show may drag on for decades, would feel better if they knew there was closure coming.



gchance said:


> You forgot her nice little stint on Prison Break. She liiiiiked T-Bag.
> 
> Greg


Thank you! This was driving me nuts! Couldn't figure out why I had the feeling I had just seen her in something.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

ArizonaAmy said:


> I have to say, my husband and I didn't understand a lot of what was going on in this episode with the Jack flashback. Her gift was 'seeing who people are'? Why would Jack force her to give him a tattoo? Why would this be controversial to others in Thailand? Why did they beat Jack up?
> 
> -Amy


What - am I on ignore or something?  



drew2k said:


> Two questions:
> 
> When Jack insisted on getting tattooed, the non-tattoo-artist insisted that there would be consequences. Jack was later beaten up on the beach and told to leave, but I don't think that was the consequence he was forewarned of. Why was Jack's insistence on the tatoo so troubling that it would cause consequences?
> 
> Ben spared Juliette's life but ordered her to be marked. We later find out it's a 6 pointed star (an asterisk?) branded on her lower back, essentially where Jack operated on Ben. The mark is is not visible, like a scarlet letter, so it's not like it will instantly warn Others that Juliette killed one of their own or is not to be trusted. What is the purpose of Juliette being marked?


----------



## robinreale (Jan 24, 2006)

dswallow said:


> All by itself it was a pretty decent episode. But they pushed the whole "answers" concept so much; heck, even my mom mentioned it and she doesn't even watch Lost. What exactly do they expect people to feel after all that versus what they actually delivered.


Unfortunately, it is ABC that puts out the promos and not the producers, and they explained in their podcast that they have no control over the promos. I think they were a little unhappy too with the way the episode was hyped. What can ya do


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

While I thought this was an OK episode, I agree that the weekly hype is OUT OF CONTROL. They're feeding their own backlash now.

Please, please, please let this be the last we see this season of the "Other" island and get back to characters OTHER THAN Sawyer, Jack and Kate!!!


----------



## lodica1967 (Aug 5, 2003)

danplaysbass said:


> They also didnt mention how long he was ther. It sounded like more than a week long vacation.
> 
> It just annoyed me. I got nothing from this episode. Damn you ABC for getting my hopes up!!


When the girl came into his bedroom, Jack said something about, "you've been coming to my room for a month and I know nothing personal about you"

Then the soda boy knew his name.

My guess is somewhere between 1-2 months??


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

cwoody222 said:


> Please, please, please let this be the last we see this season of the "Other" island and get back to characters OTHER THAN Sawyer, Jack and Kate!!!


Dear god, YES. I'm starting to think that Bernard and Rose have died, and that Sayid is on some other island with a volleyball named Wilson.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Bai ling is not appealing at all to me, especially in this episode. And not even in that entourage episode. Sorry, I don't see it.

it's not a huge stretch for ethan to be a surgeon, since he was the one administering stuff to cliare... (at least I think he was?).

has fake-bearded guy put on weight? forgot his name. tom?

Some of the stuff with jack was kind of interesting. But the tattoo insistence was pretty strange. Is there really anything like that in thailand? I find it unlikely. Hey, maybe it wasn't a flashback, it was him combining a vacation in thailand with what was happening now and mixing them together in his mind... 

I didn't even remember the 3 questions preview until after the episode was over. I don't even know how I saw that, because normally I skip them. It's not that I expect previews to be totally honest, but to be blatantly dishonest seems way, way beyond acceptable behavior to me. I am sure it isn't illegal since they can say that what the "biggest" questions are is subjective, but it is clearly no better than snake oil.

No other show has ever done anything close to that. The closest would be when they edit the scenes in a show in a way that makes it look like something is going to happen but it won't, e.g. they could show hurley sleeping and cut to kate saying "he's dead." This is beyond that. It's worse than a movie preview making a movie look totally different than it is, like they are doing with bridge to tarabithia. I do not think a network should be allowed to deceive at this level. At some point we have to reel this nonsense in. A preview should not be able to flat out say something that is flat out false.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

robinreale said:


> Unfortunately, it is ABC that puts out the promos and not the producers, and they explained in their podcast that they have no control over the promos. I think they were a little unhappy too with the way the episode was hyped. What can ya do


If "ya" means "writers and producers", I'd say they can stop dragging their feet and actually explain something. They went to the trouble of bringing back Cindy, the two kids, and the teddy-bear on the string, but it's tantamount to taunting the viewers when they allow only 42 seconds of screen time for us to see them. Why bother?

At this point, the powers behind Lost know fans are frustrated, they know ABC is hyping the hell out of the show providing answers, so they need to pull out their pens and DO something about it.


----------



## 420s (Feb 22, 2007)

First I'd like to say hello to everyone. I have been lurking in the Lost threads for 3 seasons now. I just now decided to register. So "Hello"  Ok, now on to this episode. It wasn't the best of the season, but it was an okay episode. There were a few things that popped up during it that no one has mentioned and I would like to hear what you all have to say. First off, did you all notice that the kids that were with Cynthia had the teddy bear? It seems like nothing, but think about it. Remember a few seasons ago when I want to say Sayid and someone were in the bushes and we saw all of the others' feet walking by? Remember the child's feet dragging the bear? Everyone was saying that it was Alex? Well, it now seems like it was the kids from the plane. Back then they were bearfoot and dirty, but they seem to have been cleaned up and "normalized" (Though the boy did look creepy). Regarding Alex, does anyone know how old she was when she was taken? I think she was young enough to not know that Ben is not really her father. It is strange though that she doesn't call him dad, she calls him Ben. Also, haven't we already seen where the Others live with backyards on the Losties Island (Book Club village)? I loved when Ben said "We did have a good surgeon. His name was Ethan". I also saw the boat in the back and was like "WTF", but then i realized that that was the boat to take them to the Losties island. There were too many of them to take the row boat and it would take too long. They rowed out to the big boat as shown at the end. Now, my thoughts on the negative comments. I don't have a problem with people not liking episodes, but for the past 2 seasons, it seems like the same people are complaining about EVERY episode. I'm pretty laid back, so I don't really care if you like it or not, I just don't understand why these people still watch. If a show disappointed me for a season and a half, I think I'd be done with it. 
Sorry about the Wall-o-Text, but it's my first post, I needed to say some things


----------



## lodica1967 (Aug 5, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> has fake-bearded guy put on weight? forgot his name. tom?
> 
> .


No, he's pregnant. They made a point of showing his fat belly so we would figure it out.


----------



## jeffo13 (Oct 21, 2005)

Maybe the other plane people were there to "watch" the trial. Sorry if someone already brought it up, but I did not see it.

I also thought the Brady Bunch reference was a stretch. I think I saw every episode as a kid and I would never have made the connection.

Jeff


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

spikedavis said:


> How can you go from an episode like last week to an episode like this? It's like 2 different shows each with different levels of quality. Lost may be the most uneven show ever made.
> 
> Seriously-this episode was completely pointless. They could have just said "Jack we're moving you" at the beginning of next week and completely nixed this episode. Nothing was moved forward. The Juliette story was negated by Ben's pardon, so everything was as it started.
> 
> It's infuriating to think that the creators of the show are capable of making a 5 star episode like last weeks and then purposefully stretch the story out with an episode like this.


 :up:



drew2k said:


> Ben spared Juliette's life but ordered her to be marked. We later find out it's a 6 pointed star (an asterisk?) branded on her lower back, essentially where Jack operated on Ben. The mark is is not visible, like a scarlet letter, so it's not like it will instantly warn Others that Juliette killed one of their own or is not to be trusted. What is the purpose of Juliette being marked?


Because it will look hot when she wears a bikini.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

jeffo13 said:


> I also thought the Brady Bunch reference was a stretch. I think I saw every episode as a kid and I would never have made the connection


It seemed more like the guy had never heard of the brady bunch. It's one thing to not know the characters (as I wouldn't) but to never have heard of the show seems to indicate that the person has had minimal pop culture exposure. You could say it's a bit of a revelation in the sense that he would appear to have been born or raised from an early age there.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

420s said:


> Regarding Alex, does anyone know how old she was when she was taken? I think she was young enough to not know that Ben is not really her father. It is strange though that she doesn't call him dad, she calls him Ben.


Alex was a week old when The Others took her.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

jeffo13 said:


> Maybe the other plane people were there to "watch" the trial. Sorry if someone already brought it up, but I did not see it.
> 
> I also thought the Brady Bunch reference was a stretch. I think I saw every episode as a kid and I would never have made the connection.
> 
> Jeff


What exactly did he say about Bobby Brady? I must not have been paying close attention at that moment, other than thinking "oh yeah, guess he's never seen that." Then again, they did have access to civilzation, with Ben knowing about the Red Sox and all, or did the elites control the others' (i.e., the rest of "the others") access to the outside world?


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> What exactly did he say about Bobby Brady? I must not have been paying close attention at that moment, other than thinking "oh yeah, guess he's never seen that."


Sawyer gives Carl the nickname of Bobby.

Carl gets a puzzled look and says 'Who?'

Sawyer looks surprised and says 'You know... Bobby Brady, from the Brady Bunch.'

Carl, still looking puzzled, says 'What's the Brady Bunch?'

I suspect it's the writers way of leaving us a clue about how Carl may have been born on the island and never exposed to pop culture. It's one thing to not get the reference just from "Bobby", but to not know about the existence of the Brady Bunch TV show in this day and age means you have to be living under a rock. Or in an artificially created environment on an island, same thing.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> What exactly did he say about Bobby Brady? I must not have been paying close attention at that moment, other than thinking "oh yeah, guess he's never seen that." Then again, they did have access to civilzation, with Ben knowing about the Red Sox and all, or did the elites control the others' (i.e., the rest of "the others") access to the outside world?


Sawyer was just tossing out his "cute" nicknames for people. Freckles was somewhere behind him and Sawyer just turned to Carl and said, "Look, Bobby ...". Carl was confused, so Sawyer responded, "Bobby Brady? Brady Bunch?" That was the forgettable exchange.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

drew2k said:


> Sawyer was just tossing out his "cute" nicknames for people. Freckles was somewhere behind him and Sawyer just turned to Carl and said, "Look, Bobby ...". Carl was confused, so Sawyer responded, "Bobby Brady? Brady Bunch?" That was the forgettable exchange.


Ok, yeah, I remember it not being something so unique as to be clear that he meant Bobby Brady. I wasn't sure whether Carl said or did something prior to that that I missed (like saying that he saw fireworks when he kissed Alex, or tell his friends that he knew Joe Namath). He's definitely had many much better pop-culture reference nicknames than that.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

jeff125va said:


> Ok, yeah, I remember it not being something so unique as to be clear that he meant Bobby Brady. I wasn't sure whether Carl said or did something prior to that that I missed (like saying that he saw fireworks when he kissed Alex, or tell his friends that he knew Joe Namath). He's definitely had many much better pop-culture reference nicknames than that.


i cracked up when he said bobby...

it's all in context... carl was crying, sawyer figured it was about a girl... it is a little dennismilleresque, but i got it right away.


----------



## durl (Dec 1, 2005)

Several people have questioned why Ben would send Ethan, their surgeon, out on a dangerous mission. But who says that there is only ONE Ethan?? (insert spooky minor chord here.)


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

bruinfan said:


> i cracked up when he said bobby...
> 
> it's all in context... carl was crying, sawyer figured it was about a girl... it is a little dennismilleresque, but i got it right away.


Yeah, Brady was still the first thing I thought, but I can't really pinpoint why. I can picture Bobby Brady in that same sulking posture, but I can't recall a specific situation that fit the context as well as some of the others that spawned Sawyer's nickname assignments.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

durl said:


> Several people have questioned why Ben would send Ethan, their surgeon, out on a dangerous mission. But who says that there is only ONE Ethan?? (insert spooky minor chord here.)


I'm not even going to comment on that possibility, but Jack goes out on all of their dangerous missions.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

gchance said:


> You forgot her nice little stint on Prison Break. She liiiiiked T-Bag.
> 
> Greg


OMG! Was that HER?!?! I had no idea!

What is funny is that seeing her in Lost last night, I recognized her immediately from Mommy Dearest.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

I think the girl's gift was somewhat psychic, in that she saw who someone really was by seeing their future. But I think tatooing them also made it a self-fullfilling prophecy. Either because of something mystical or because everyone else that knew her thought it must be true if she tatooed it.

I think it did tie into the main plot somehow, I'm just not sure how exactly. It reminded me a little of the psychic Claire knew, of Desmond's visions, and also tied in loosely with the time/timetravel theme.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Or maybe she got a good read on someone after sleeping with them for a month. I'm pretty sure I could come up with some true statements about a girl after that.


----------



## TRD_Dan (Oct 13, 2005)

kubilusaurus said:


> At first Juliet's mark looked like a six pointed star, but did anyone else think it might have been a cross with an x through it? The show seems to be playing around with the existentialist themes of fate, destiny, God, free will and plans. Is Juliet no longer part of the plan?


Okay, think back to when we saw Juliet's new scar. When Jack was "checking" it out did anyone notice something in her hand? They switched shots to the front and it looked like a piece of gauze was under her hand, maybe on the other side of that scar.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> If you use the Quote button, it makes it a lot more clear as to what you're quoting and what you're saying yourself...


I wanted to, but work was blocking it. Seems to have worked itself out now. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

420s said:


> I think she was young enough to not know that Ben is not really her father. It is strange though that she doesn't call him dad, she calls him Ben.


no one has ever come out and said he's her father, right? it's all been implied and assumed.



420s said:


> Sorry about the Wall-o-Text, but it's my first post, I needed to say some things


welcome to the boards... one piece of advice...

enter button is your friend


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

bruinfan said:


> no one has ever come out and said he's her father, right? it's all been implied and assumed.


It's been explicitly said.

He was referred to as "your father" last night and in the previous episode two weeks ago. In the ep two weeks ago, Sawyer said to her: "so, you're the boss' daughter, huh. I'd woulda never seen that coming." This was after some conversation between Alex and Juliet about whether "your father" would kill Carl for some reason I'm not now remembering.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

aindik said:


> It's been explicitly said.
> 
> He was referred to as "your father" last night and in the previous episode two weeks ago. In the ep two weeks ago, Sawyer said to her: "so, you're the boss' daughter, huh. I'd woulda never seen that coming." This was after some conversation between Alex and Juliet about whether "your father" would kill Carl for some reason I'm not now remembering.


let me rephrase...

it has never been said by the others that ben is alex's father... it's been assumed by sawyer/jack/and kate.

but alex never refers to ben as "my father", or "dad", and the juliet/alex exchange never specified ben as the person that would kill carl.

is THAT accurate?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

bruinfan said:


> let me rephrase...
> 
> it has never been said by the others that ben is alex's father... it's been assumed by sawyer/jack/and kate.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if I'm now remembering a reference by Juliet to when her father wakes up, or if I'm making it up.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

kubilusaurus said:


> At first Juliet's mark looked like a six pointed star, but did anyone else think it might have been a cross with an x through it? The show seems to be playing around with the existentialist themes of fate, destiny, God, free will and plans. Is Juliet no longer part of the plan?


Could be. My first thought was that it looked kind of similar to the icon of the hydra on the Hydra Station graphic, but I don't think that's what it was. My second thought was that it looks reminiscent of the station map. Think about how there are all the various hatches, and on the station map it shows how they all connect via tunnels through a central point, like spokes on a wheel. Or kind of like Juliet's mark.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

No, it's inaccurate. She is referred to as ben's daughter at least once in this episode.

What is unresolved is whether she knows he's not her biological father and that her bio mom is out there.


----------



## jeffo13 (Oct 21, 2005)

I understand why the Brady Bunch reference was used, I just don't think most people would make the connection between Carl and Bobby Brady without Sawyer spelling it out like he did. It seems like the writers are under pressure to have Sawyer give people nicknames and they are running out of ideas. If Sawyer would have said "Mom said don't play ball in the house, Bobby" it would have made more of an impact when Carl looked confused and then said "What is Brady Bunch".

Sorry about the nit, please feel free to discuss the many "important" secrets revealed in the show as you were.

Jeff


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

jeffo13 said:


> I just don't think most people would make the connection between Carl and Bobby Brady without Sawyer spelling it out like he did.


Personally, I thought he looked very much like Bobby Brady in the later years before Sawyer called him Bobby.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

TAsunder said:


> No, it's inaccurate. She is referred to as ben's daughter at least once in this episode.
> 
> What is unresolved is whether she knows he's not her biological father and that her bio mom is out there.


huh...

i'll have to rewatch


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

bruinfan said:


> huh...
> 
> i'll have to rewatch


Now I'm also remembering Jack referring to Ben as "your father" when speaking directly with Alex. It wasn't in an ambiguous way either. It was something like "is your father still in charge." She knew exactly who he was talking about and answered the question. So, unless she's playing Jack, she thinks Ben is her father (or, at least, that's what she's been told to believe all her life, though she might have her doubts now).


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Yeah I don't think who is alex's adopted father is one of the big mysteries on Lost. Who is her bio father, however, could be. And maybe that's ben too... although she certainly doesn't look like what you'd get if you crossed ben with rosseau.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

aindik said:


> Now I'm also remembering Jack referring to Ben as "your father" when speaking directly with Alex. It wasn't in an ambiguous way either. It was something like "is your father still in charge." She knew exactly who he was talking about and answered the question. So, unless she's playing Jack, she thinks Ben is her father (or, at least, that's what she's been told to believe all her life, though she might have her doubts now).


that's the thing...

i get the vibe she is playing jack... or at least holding something back. the fact she doesn't call him dad or my father is fishy to me... and everytime jack/kate/sawyer call ben her dad... alex gives me a wierd vibe, like she's about to say something revealing....

or maybe i'm reading it all wrong... but until Alex or an other refers to ben as her father, or alex as ben's daughter, i'll have doubts.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

bruinfan said:


> that's the thing...
> 
> i get the vibe she is playing jack... or at least holding something back. the fact she doesn't call him dad or my father is fishy to me... and everytime jack/kate/sawyer call ben her dad... alex gives me a wierd vibe, like she's about to say something revealing....
> 
> or maybe i'm reading it all wrong... but until Alex or an other refers to ben as her father, or alex as ben's daughter, i'll have doubts.


Or maybe Alex knows that Ben is not her real father.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

bruinfan said:


> that's the thing...
> 
> i get the vibe she is playing jack... or at least holding something back. the fact she doesn't call him dad or my father is fishy to me... and everytime jack/kate/sawyer call ben her dad... alex gives me a wierd vibe, like she's about to say something revealing....
> 
> or maybe i'm reading it all wrong... but until Alex or an other refers to ben as her father, or alex as ben's daughter, i'll have doubts.


I think that is Alex revealing that _she_ has doubts.


----------



## krugs84 (Nov 16, 2004)

goblue97 said:


> Did they mention where Jack was in his flashback. I noticed the guys on the beach told him to leave the country but I'm pretty sure he was in Hawaii. Based on the little islands in the background it looked like he was on the windward side of Oahu to me.


at one point he said he was in Phunteck (sp), that's in Thailand.


----------



## krugs84 (Nov 16, 2004)

Skittles said:


> This episode didn't do much for me. The Kate and Sawyer B-storyline was just so-so, although I did get a chuckle out of the Bobby Brady reference.


I liked Suzy Slingshot....


----------



## krugs84 (Nov 16, 2004)

catcard said:


> Also, I thought I saw what looked like a cruise ship in the background at the end when they were loading Ben into the boat. Or maybe it was another small island?


Yep I saw this too....


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

krugs84 said:


> catcard said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I thought I saw what looked like a cruise ship in the background at the end when they were loading Ben into the boat. Or maybe it was another small island?
> ...


You didn't think that one guy was going to row Jack and Ben all the way back, did you? And did you catch the end where Juliet was standing in front of a boat cabin and Jack sidled up to her?

It wasn't a cruise ship in the background ... it was the Other's transport boat that would be carrying Ben, Jack, Juliet and at least one other Other back to the main island and to the secret Other neighborhood.


----------



## Jericho Dog (Feb 10, 2006)

TheGreyOwl said:


> I think it did tie into the main plot somehow, I'm just not sure how exactly. It reminded me a little of the psychic Claire knew, of Desmond's visions, and also tied in loosely with the time/timetravel theme.


Just paralleling Jack being "marked" by this Thai woman and going against the tide, and Juliette doing the same thing. Bringing them closer together.
Showing us (beating us over the head) how much they are alike.

Pushing the plot forward..... ever... so... slight... ly.....


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

krugs84 said:


> at one point he said he was in Phunteck (sp), that's in Thailand.


Just for clarification...while at dinner...

Achara to Jack: "So, you're in Phuket to...find yourself."


----------



## UBUBUB (Dec 1, 2005)

Phuket was the Thai island overrun by the Tsunami on Dec. 26., 2004. In Lost time we are somewhere past the Red Sox World Series win on Oct. 27, 2004 (as Jack was shown the tape). Assuming 40 days per season, we are somewhere in December with the tsunami soon approaching. Why did they chose Phuket? Does the impending tsunami somehow tie into the story?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

UBUBUB said:


> Phuket was the Thai island overrun by the Tsunami on Dec. 26., 2004. In Lost time we are somewhere past the Red Sox World Series win on Oct. 27, 2004 (as Jack was shown the tape). Assuming 40 days per season, we are somewhere in December with the tsunami soon approaching. Why did they chose Phuket? Does the impending tsunami somehow tie into the story?


Jack having been to Phuket was discussed in an earlier season, in the episode where he beat Sawyer playing cards. I forget the context of that, though.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

aindik said:


> Jack having been to Phuket was discussed in an earlier season, in the episode where he beat Sawyer playing cards. I forget the context of that, though.


Season 2, Episode 17 - *Lockdown*:



> [Back on the island, Sawyer and Jack are playing cards.]
> 
> SAWYER: So, where'd you learn to play cards, Doc?
> 
> ...


----------



## jmkirk (Jun 30, 2003)

UBUBUB said:


> Phuket was the Thai island overrun by the Tsunami on Dec. 26., 2004. In Lost time we are somewhere past the Red Sox World Series win on Oct. 27, 2004 (as Jack was shown the tape). Assuming 40 days per season, we are somewhere in December with the tsunami soon approaching. Why did they chose Phuket? Does the impending tsunami somehow tie into the story?


Tsunami was 12/26. Based on moon phase calendar for Australia in 2004 (www.timeanddate.com/calendar/index.html?year=2004&country=29) and Carl's no moon comment that makes it 12/12/2004.


----------



## bdlucas (Feb 15, 2004)

UBUBUB said:


> Phuket was the Thai island overrun by the Tsunami on Dec. 26., 2004. In Lost time we are somewhere past the Red Sox World Series win on Oct. 27, 2004 (as Jack was shown the tape). Assuming 40 days per season, we are somewhere in December with the tsunami soon approaching. Why did they chose Phuket? Does the impending tsunami somehow tie into the story?


Oh that's interesting. Jacks tattoo is supposed to have bad consequences, and the tattoo people were pretty upset about it. You don't suppose the tusnami is supposed to be a consequence of Jack getting the tattoo...


----------



## rjay717 (Nov 18, 2005)

bruinfan said:


> or maybe i'm reading it all wrong... but until Alex or an other refers to ben as her father, or alex as ben's daughter, i'll have doubts.


From _Not in Portland_ :

ALEX: Open the door!

ALDO: Alex? What the hell are you doing?

ALEX: They must have gotten out of their cages. I caught them in the jungle. Now open up, Aldo!

ALDO: Whoa! Whoa! Just stop! Alex, you're not supposed to be here. If your dad finds out, he's going to kill me.

ALEX: My dad was the one who told me to bring them here -- to you. Look, maybe you should call him. I'm sure he's got nothing better to do.

ALDO [into a walkie-talkie]: Danny, I need Ben.

And later at the beach:

ALEX [pulling the boat toward the water]: Let's go.

JULIET: Not you, Alex. You're staying.

ALEX: Why?

JULIET: We both know your father. The only way he'll let Karl live is if you're here when he wakes up. I'm sorry, Alex.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

bdlucas said:


> Oh that's interesting. Jacks tattoo is supposed to have bad consequences, and the tattoo people were pretty upset about it. You don't suppose the tusnami is supposed to be a consequence of Jack getting the tattoo...


Could be that the tsunami was caused by a powerful magnetic field.....


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

bdlucas said:


> Oh that's interesting. Jacks tattoo is supposed to have bad consequences, and the tattoo people were pretty upset about it. You don't suppose the tusnami is supposed to be a consequence of Jack getting the tattoo...


I doubt it. I'm not sure of the timeline, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the tattoos came a couple of yeras before he ended up on the island. I'm guessing the tattoos came after his divorce was final. But we know that at some point in time he goes back home and starts working with his dad again, catches his dad doing surgery drunk, turns him in and then has to go to Austraila to claim the body. I would think there would be a good year or two in between there.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

rjay717 said:


> From _Not in Portland_ :
> 
> ALEX: Open the door!
> 
> ...


cool.... thanks


----------



## Jericho Dog (Feb 10, 2006)

rjay717 said:


> From _Not in Portland_ :
> 
> ALEX: Open the door!
> 
> ...


Hmmmmm......

I don't know, it's somewhat vague.....

Could be open to interpretation......


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

Jericho Dog said:


> Hmmmmm......
> 
> I don't know, it's somewhat vague.....
> 
> Could be open to interpretation......


It's not explicit, but it certainly isn't vague. It seems to me there are enough mysteries in this show without inventing some where there really aren't any.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Bananfish said:


> It's not explicit, but it certainly isn't vague. It seems to me there are enough mysteries in this show without inventing some where there really aren't any.


Yes, unfortunately that's not how lost fans work. We invest mysteries out of thin air. I've come to suspect that jack's hair is not really his hair and actually a sophisticated form of cancer.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> I've come to suspect that jack's hair is not really his hair and actually a sophisticated form of cancer.


Spoiler quotes please


----------



## 420s (Feb 22, 2007)

TAsunder said:


> I've come to suspect that jack's hair is not really his hair and actually a sophisticated form of cancer.


LOL  It is cancer, but we know that the island can cure cancer, so he'll be okay.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

420s said:


> LOL  It is cancer, but we know that the island can cure cancer, so he'll be okay.


I thought so too but it's weird that his hair is still there after all this time. He should be bald. The island is not curing jack. Maybe that's what his tattoo means...


----------



## 420s (Feb 22, 2007)

OMG I just though of something!  How come Rose's cancer was cured, but Ben's wasn't. Sorry if this was posted a few threads ago.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

.


drew2k said:


> Are there one group of Others, or two? One.


I'm not sure I agree that we know that for sure. Obviously this is the group that kidnapped the kids and tried to infiltrate, but we already knew that. We still don't know who eye-patch guy is, do we?

So the Other's government has trials, but who decided to kill Juliet--the "sheriff" or a jury? And then Ben has ultimate veto power. I wonder if he's the only one who has that? Did he really tell Juliet to let Kate and Sawyer escape, or did she make that up? Nobody could read his lips could they?


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

As far as "two groups of Others."

In past threads, the idea that there were 2 groups was based on the fact that we had the civilized Others led by Ben, and then a brief encounter with the people in raggedy clothes leading the two children around the island. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can we now agree that these 2 groups are all part of the same group?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Sort of. They would seem to not participate in most activities involving the area where the losties were held captive. In this sense you could say there are two sub-groups, the civilians and the more nefarious people.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

drew2k said:


> You didn't think that one guy was going to row Jack and Ben all the way back, did you? And did you catch the end where Juliet was standing in front of a boat cabin and Jack sidled up to her?
> 
> It wasn't a cruise ship in the background ... it was the Other's transport boat that would be carrying Ben, Jack, Juliet and at least one other Other back to the main island and to the secret Other neighborhood.


Not only that, but it appeared to be the same boat that attacked Sayid and Michael (and stole Walt) when they were on their raft at the end of S1.

Overall, a pretty stupid episode. They didn't really answer anything, except that Cindy and the kids are alive and living with The Others, but that wasn't really that big of a mystery.



stellie93 said:


> I'm not sure I agree that we know that for sure. Obviously this is the group that kidnapped the kids and tried to infiltrate, but we already knew that. We still don't know who eye-patch guy is, do we?


I think the whole notion of two different groups of others was started because most of the instances we saw of The Others showed that they were pretty advanced and at least had normal late 20th-century technology. On the other hand, when we saw the kids feet walking past Eko and Michael, they appeared to be barefoot and clothed in rags. This led people to speculate that there was one group of Others connected to Dharma with technology and supplies, and then another group that was perhaps natives on the island that didn't have technology and was more primitive.

This episode seems to have answered that the feet we saw belonged to this same group of Others, meaning there is no longer any basis for speculating that there are two different groups.

Edit: Or what jradford said.


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

bruinfan said:


> let me rephrase...
> 
> it has never been said by the others that ben is alex's father... it's been assumed by sawyer/jack/and kate.
> 
> ...


And in addition to what others in this thread have said, there was a specific statement by one of the others(I think the new sheriff Isabelle) in this episode which said "Alex, go check on your dad"


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

jradford said:


> As far as "two groups of Others."
> 
> In past threads, the idea that there were 2 groups was based on the fact that we had the civilized Others led by Ben, and then a brief encounter with the people in raggedy clothes leading the two children around the island. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can we now agree that these 2 groups are all part of the same group?


No, I don't agree. It's been settled since the middle of the second season when they showed the stage make-up and props in the medical hatch. Not to mention the fact that Ethan and Goodwin were the infiltrators sent by the Others that helped pick the people to kidnap, including the kids.

This show gives direct answers sometimes but people choose to ignore them.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I'm probably wrong, but I still don't think everything on the island can be explained by this group of "others." I think that sooner or later (season 10) we will find out that Ben and his pals are not the ones in control of the weirdness and another more powerful group will come forward. Just a theory.


----------



## Jericho Dog (Feb 10, 2006)

stellie93 said:


> I'm probably wrong, but I still don't think everything on the island can be explained by this group of "others." I think that sooner or later (season 10) we will find out that Ben and his pals are not the ones in control of the weirdness and another more powerful group will come forward. Just a theory.


Probably that German group.

They still haven't managed to kill Jack Bauer.

:up:


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

What the hell is going on? The first 2 seasons of this show were awesome except for a few hiccups in the middle of season two. Season 3 is going nowhere fast. 

Is there anyone else on the island other than Jack, Kate(which kate it be this week), and Sawyer?

We spend an entire hour on Jack banging some chick with a dinged up helmet so he can get some tattoos and near fatal beat down? 

Carl says that if he goes back they will kill him. No one asks why? Not that Kate and Sawyer know this but we also learn this episode that the others don't take to kindly to killing their own. Then why the hell would they kill Carl?

Jack, just tell Cindy that Anna Lucia is dead. Ugh!


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

Ok, I am Lost.

Seriously.

This whole thing is starting to turn into a big mess, which is really sad because I really liked this show. 

But kudos to some of the posts here that made me laugh out loud...


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I never Smeek, but screw this. This show doesn't deserve me reading five pages of posts any more. The first season was awesome. The second season was great. I believe success went to the heads of the Lost bigwigs and they spent the last off season doing hookers, coke, Vegas and Jack Daniels nonstop. This season blows so far. I used to watch Lost live. Couldn't wait to watch it. Now it comes on at 10 pm and I make no effort to watch it live. I TiVo it and fit it in on my Thursday schedule. Next week, I might fit it in on Saturday afternoon. Excuse my language, but [expletive deleted] The Others. [Expletive deleted] every single one of them. What a waste of plot. Gee, I learned that Jack's got a "mysterious" tattoo. Thanks.

Day Break was better than this self important, pretentious crap.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak, why don't you tell us how you really feel?


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

Isabel recited the tattoos: "He walks among us, but he is not one of us."

Jack: "That's what it says, but that's not what it means."

So, what does it mean? What the hell was Jack talking about?


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

NoThru22 said:


> No, I don't agree. It's been settled since the middle of the second season when they showed the stage make-up and props in the medical hatch. Not to mention the fact that Ethan and Goodwin were the infiltrators sent by the Others that helped pick the people to kidnap, including the kids.
> 
> This show gives direct answers sometimes but people choose to ignore them.


I agree, BUT as far as direct answers go, this wasn't the worst oversite (in my opinion) that we've seen on Lost. I think the fact that people _*refuse* _to believe that Desmond may be living present day more than once and possibly 'time traveling' is much more frustrating.

Wait... I was one of those refusing to believe that? Hmm..... Let me see what my blinders think of all this before I comment further.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

mqpickles said:


> Isabel recited the tattoos: "He walks among us, but he is not one of us."
> 
> Jack: "That's what it says, but that's not what it means."
> 
> So, what does it mean? What the hell was Jack talking about?


It means what Bai Ling said, not what Sheriff interepreted it as.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

When Jack was in the cage he said to Alex, "is your father still in charge?" [puzzled look from Alex] Jack: "Ben, your father, is he still in charge?" Alex: "Yes."

I don't think it gets much more explicit than that.

I watched this episode again last night since my wife slept through it on Weds. It still didn't make any sense to me why those guys beat up Jack. I mean, I guess it was "the consequences" of her giving him the tattoo, but why?


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

hefe said:


> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by aindik
> > Jack having been to Phuket was discussed in an earlier season, in the episode where he beat Sawyer playing cards. I forget the context of that, though.
> 
> ...


Hefe, your ability to find these old quote references never ceases to amaze me  ...i totally forgot about that exchange...


----------



## Squeege96 (May 1, 2006)

bacevedo said:


> I think Jack was in Thailand to find himself - that's what he said when his lady friend asked him.
> 
> Then at the end she says she knows who he is and when she tells him, he wants to be branded with it. He finally "found" himself and wanted to remember it with the tatoos.
> 
> Bryan


B --

I think you nailed it on the head. Jack was trying to recover from his failed marriage, and for costing his Dad his career (not 100% sure on that one though.)

Anyways, when the Thai chick said that she could tell him "who he is," (aka "Leader", "Great Man", "Lonely", "Frightened", and "Angry") he jumps at it. The tatoo serves as a constant reminder.



bacevedo said:


> I am not sure how it plays into everything yet, but that's what I got out of Jack wanting the tatoos so badly. *He was lost and then he was finally found.*


Ever since I read this line, I've been humming "I Will Follow" from U2. Thanks!


----------



## ethos42 (Jun 2, 2005)

In regards to the Tatoo and why she was not supposed to do them to Jack... I watched a discovery channel show recently about tribal tatoos. They were considered a right of passage and very important to the culture of the people. Not only the tatoo, but the method of applying the tatoo. The way she did Jack's tatoo was the same method as these tribal people. 

So as to why she would not want to do Jack's tatoo could be because it would be against tradition and an insult to her culture.

As to why she actually did it? who knows.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

ethos42 said:


> In regards to the Tatoo and why she was not supposed to do them to Jack... I watched a discovery channel show recently about tribal tatoos. They were considered a right of passage and very important to the culture of the people. Not only the tatoo, but the method of applying the tatoo. The way she did Jack's tatoo was the same method as these tribal people.
> 
> So as to why she would not want to do Jack's tatoo could be because it would be against tradition and an insult to her culture.
> 
> As to why she actually did it? who knows.


She did say something about "My People..." and Jack cut her off.

I was a littel dissapointed too. I am not going to stop watching or anything and I love the non-linear storytelling and the slow unravelling of the mysteries, but I did get sucked in by thte hype a little. I was really dissapointed that there were no real answers. I think I am going to stop watching all the previews for this show.

I do agree that maybe they will be better off knowing a true end date. I just wonder if the network is smart enough to realize it and let them do it.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

devdogaz said:


> Not only that, but it appeared to be the same boat that attacked Sayid and Michael (and stole Walt) when they were on their raft at the end of S1.


I don't think it was the same boat they had when they took Walt. That boat was smaller - and I thought that was the boat they sent Michael and Walt off in. The boat in this ep looked MUCH larger.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

jenhudson said:


> I don't think it was the same boat they had when they took Walt. That boat was smaller - and I thought that was the boat they sent Michael and Walt off in. The boat in this ep looked MUCH larger.


Even though I figured it was their large boat, it did look huge to me.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I thought the boat looked larger because it was only shown for a few seconds in a close-up. Still, even if it looked identical, I'm not sure that we ever saw any distinguishing markings on the first one, so I don't think we have any way of knowing if it's the very same boat.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

mtm150 said:


> I have been watching from day 1. I seriously wanted to throw my remote through my tv this episode sucked so bad. And don't call me anything nasty. I want to like Lost now, but it just sucks. 1 good episode out of 5 is not a good ratio. But, I can't stop watching now just so I can see it through till the end, which I hope will be soon cause like I said, it sucks now.


 :up:


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

While I still enjoy the show immensely, I can see why many are frustrated. Some of the rewards we were given for watching this show are not as evident, or plentiful (or even there!).

Having said that, I have heard thru the spoiler grapevine (and I am not revealing spoilers here) that the next few episodes are supposedly *very* good. Even the producers admit the Other storyline was not as satisfying as they hoped. But they needed to set up certain plot lines. The next few episodes are more like the first season stories. And people who have sneaked a peek say hold on, LOST is back.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Even the producers admit the Other storyline was not as satisfying as they hoped. But they needed to set up certain plot lines. The next few episodes are more like the first season stories. And people who have sneaked a peek say hold on, LOST is back.


I can see this being true, but I can also see it as more hype to make sure people stay tuned in.

People also need to realize that even if they realized mid-stream that the plotline wasn't going well, they had to write the characters out of it. Can you imagine if after the 2nd or 3rd episode of that first six, suddenly deux ex machina kicked in and everyone was *poof* back on the island?

Everyone would be whining about how bad the writing was, and they've dropped their SP's!

I hope Lost is back on track. After last week's great episode, this one was a bit lackluster, but hey. It certainly wasn't the worst Lost, and we had Bai Ling. Even if you don't find her hot, she's not ugly.  We also got to see Juliet's bare lower back.

Greg


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

So... did they actually have the others fully planned out from season 1? Because I think it's unrewarding only because the tone set in earlier seasons was totally off from what we see of the others now. Ethan was a million times more creepy and sadistic than any of the other others except the guy who wanted to avenge his dead wife. The kids in the jungle thing was off too. I'm sure they'll explain it away as a jungle field trip or something, but it doesn't mesh with the story even then. So yeah, the others isnt' as compelling because they overhyped it within the show. I guess Lost and overhyping are just natural companions.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> So... did they actually have the others fully planned out from season 1? Because I think it's unrewarding only because the tone set in earlier seasons was totally off from what we see of the others now. Ethan was a million times more creepy and sadistic than any of the other others except the guy who wanted to avenge his dead wife. The kids in the jungle thing was off too. I'm sure they'll explain it away as a jungle field trip or something, but it doesn't mesh with the story even then. So yeah, the others isnt' as compelling because they overhyped it within the show. I guess Lost and overhyping are just natural companions.


The thing that stuck with me about the "kids in the jungle" is that they were dirty and barefoot, but it didn't seem to be for show as they weren't supposed to be seen. Sayid (and whoever else was with him) was hiding and just happened to see them. Now, maybe this is part of the Others' master plan to wear dirty clothes, makeup, etc. and they knew Sayid would see them so it was all in fact a show, but that doesn't seem very likely.

And, really, what was the point of wearing the fake beards and dirty clothes, anyway? To make the Losties believe that the Others don't have some of the resources that they have? Well, after they captured Jack and crew, that was going to come out eventually, anyway.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> So... did they actually have the others fully planned out from season 1? Because I think it's unrewarding only because the tone set in earlier seasons was totally off from what we see of the others now. Ethan was a million times more creepy and sadistic than any of the other others except the guy who wanted to avenge his dead wife. The kids in the jungle thing was off too. I'm sure they'll explain it away as a jungle field trip or something, but it doesn't mesh with the story even then. So yeah, the others isnt' as compelling because they overhyped it within the show. I guess Lost and overhyping are just natural companions.


What's "totally off"? The only thing I can think of that would be different is that we've seen them. That may create a different impression psychologically, but they're still the same people who did the kidnapping, shooting, setting rafts on fire, etc.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

dswallow said:


> I don't know why I come into these threads even sporadically for all the Kool-Aid all over the floor.
> 
> So many here just seem to automatically go into defensive mode whenever anybody criticizes something about their pretty little toy show.


I think people just get tired of you coming in week after week, as one of the first posters in the thread, and say nothing more than "This episode sucked". It gets a bit old, so why don't you just either 1) stop watching or 2) give more eloquently stated and interesting critique of the episodes.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Oh I'm so torn..

Part of me really just wants to post a picture like this:

 
(Click for cry)​
and mock people saying
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!! I don't like the show! It's not what I want! I want more answers! I don't like the previews! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
(but I'll still watch the show)

But, the other part of me doesn't really feel the need to pick on people's differing opinions, and wants to encourage everyone to post whatever they feel about the show, so we all have a place to enjoy/or/despise the show together. And I certainly don't have the energy right now to get in any online fights, so I certainly should stick with the "other part of me".

Very much enjoying Lost. No fair-weather fan here - I'm loving every story line (the setups and the payoffs).

(The Sheriff character was kinda weak, and Kate wasn't acting quite like Kate, but it certainly didn't ruin the episode for me).

Long live Lost.


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> So... did they actually have the others fully planned out from season 1? Because I think it's unrewarding only because the tone set in earlier seasons was totally off from what we see of the others now. Ethan was a million times more creepy and sadistic than any of the other others except the guy who wanted to avenge his dead wife. The kids in the jungle thing was off too. I'm sure they'll explain it away as a jungle field trip or something, but it doesn't mesh with the story even then. So yeah, the others isnt' as compelling because they overhyped it within the show. I guess Lost and overhyping are just natural companions.


Ethan was also freakishly strong; being to drag Charlie and pregnant Claire at the same time, being able to hoist Charlie up by his neck in the tree, and being able to take a few bullets and still keep coming. I'm not saying I'm expecting an explanation right away, but they seem to ignore this factor entirely.


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

People can have whatever opinion they want, but I thought this was a fantastic episode and I was highly entertained by the backstory. You just have to make some assumptions in life. I didn't question what she talking about with the tattoo. It was obviously a cultural thing that was not meant for outsiders.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

While I'm in the minority, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thoroughly enjoyed this episode.

I kept waiting for the sherriff to scream "Because I! Am not! One of your faaaaaans!!!!


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

If the supposed deterioration of the show among the previous afficianados leads to the LOST Police here finally stoping whining about Smeeking then it's all to the good. I do read all the posts, but I certainly can understand someone who does not or who may fail to recall or properly cite some brilliant observation posted previously.

My take on Juliette's tat...we'll eventually see it glow in the dark.


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

philw1776 said:


> If the supposed deterioration of the show among the previous afficianados leads to the LOST Police here finally stoping whining about Smeeking then it's all to the good. I do read all the posts, but I certainly can understand someone who does not or who may fail to recall or properly cite some brilliant observation posted previously.


hah, thats funny. I was just thinking that if all the supposed deterioration means i don't have to read through 300-400 posts to catch up on Friday (i watch in Thursdays), then perhaps it's for the best. 

And yes, part of the reason for having 300-400 posts was because people would keep repeating a lot of the same stuff. Got really irritating to go to post 200 only to see someone rehash a question that was answered somewhere in posts 150 or so, then to see a third person ask the same damn question at post 340... and of course have each of those followed by redundant answers...


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> What's "totally off"? The only thing I can think of that would be different is that we've seen them. That may create a different impression psychologically, but they're still the same people who did the kidnapping, shooting, setting rafts on fire, etc.


What's off is, ethan was a very violent and psychotic man, and as mentioned seemed to have uncanny hand to hand abilities and incredible strength. They also were fairly murderous with the tail group and they left charlie to die. So far only one person has desired to kill a lostie in the "real others" storyline, and that was for vengeance.

I suppose it could all be explained as ethan going bad for some unknown reason in a future flashback, but for now the others are a lot less compelling than they were back when they were supreme bad guys.

Have you seen dark city? Spoiler analogy to dark city below



Spoiler



The early parts of lost kind of reminded me of the early parts of dark city. These creepy folks up to no good. But in dark city the more we see of them the more creepy they become. In lost, the more we see, the less creepy.



Lost got it right by building suspense up about the others and not showing them till much later. That is a great suspense/horror tactic. But once you reveal the "monster" it can't be so bland that it foils the suspense/horror. What we have now with the others is almost literally the same thing you'd see in a scooby doo episode where they pull off the monster's mask. I mean they even have the stage costumes and everything.

I'm not saying I hate the others plot line. It's interesting enough. But I do think it is a letdown from what we were led to believe would happen in season 1. Or even season 2.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Lost got it right by building suspense up about the others and not showing them till much later. That is a great suspense/horror tactic. But once you reveal the "monster" it can't be so bland that it foils the suspense/horror. What we have now with the others is almost literally the same thing you'd see in a scooby doo episode where they pull off the monster's mask. I mean they even have the stage costumes and everything.
> 
> I'm not saying I hate the others plot line. It's interesting enough. But I do think it is a letdown from what we were led to believe would happen in season 1. Or even season 2.


I agree with that, and I think that's a big part of why Lost has been a bit of a letdown for a lot of people. The more we find out about the Others, the more boring they are. Which makes people want to see more of Locke, Hurley and the gang and less of Ben and his crew.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I'm still not sure how to take what some of you are saying about The Others. I'd agree that they're less scary now that we know more about them - i.e. the "fear of the unknown" element is now gone - but if you guys are saying that they've turned out to be less evil than we originally thought, I totally disagree. Mr. Friendly was on that boat when they kidnapped Walt, shot Sawyer, and set the raft on fire leaving them to die. He looks less scary without the beard, sure, but that doesn't change what they've done. Vengeance doesn't excuse the guy whose wife was killed, unless you ignore the fact that she was killed as a result of both of them trying to prevent the escape of the prisoners they were holding.

Maybe I'm just inferring something that wasn't said, and I would agree that there's an element to the show that's no longer there.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

If you don't see a difference between the way the others were portrayed before and the way they are portrayed now, I don't know what to tell you. It's pretty obvious to me that they are gradually softening them more and more as we see more of them. You can show bad guys who did ruthless acts and make them seem like puppy dogs. Sorry, it will be disappointing almost every time.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Maybe the brainwashing thing is what transforms normal people into Ethan gone crazy. They seem to have no understanding of the cruelty of what they do. Or they justify it . Ben, who usually sounds sane, talked about Ethan like he was a great guy. Do they know what Ethan did or did he just go crazy and then die before they realized it? Cindy looks at Jack in an ANIMAL CAGE and wants to have a normal conversation. Even Juliet--a quiet doctor--pulls out a gun and kills a man instead of trying a less drastic approach. Maybe we need to go back to Danielle saying that everyone went crazy after a short time on the island. I think finding out all we have about the Others has been interesting, but I'm trusting in the writers to have a good explanation for all the inconsistencies. As for back stories--they can be overdone. I don't think there's much more to be learned about Kate, Jack, or Locke. I'm not even psyched for the "how I lost my legs" story, although I love Locke.


----------



## mitchb2 (Sep 30, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> I believe success went to the heads of the Lost bigwigs


I'm with you. I don't watch it now until a day or two later. 
I even read the spoiler threads sometimes before I've seen the show.

The writers are just playing with us now, laughing at how much crap we'll swallow.

Now I watch Heroes pseudo-live, then watch it again the next morning!


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

stellie93 said:


> Maybe the brainwashing thing is what transforms normal people into Ethan gone crazy. They seem to have no understanding of the cruelty of what they do. Or they justify it . Ben, who usually sounds sane, talked about Ethan like he was a great guy. Do they know what Ethan did or did he just go crazy and then die before they realized it? Cindy looks at Jack in an ANIMAL CAGE and wants to have a normal conversation. Even Juliet--a quiet doctor--pulls out a gun and kills a man instead of trying a less drastic approach. Maybe we need to go back to Danielle saying that everyone went crazy after a short time on the island. I think finding out all we have about the Others has been interesting, but I'm trusting in the writers to have a good explanation for all the inconsistencies. As for back stories--they can be overdone. I don't think there's much more to be learned about Kate, Jack, or Locke. I'm not even psyched for the "how I lost my legs" story, although I love Locke.


When Jack was rattling off the laundry list of what the others did, to Tom (after being incredulously asked "what kind of people do you take us for"), it included "kidnap a pregnant woman" and "leave Charlie to die hanging from a tree." Tom didn't appear to not know what Jack was talking about.

I think it's more likely they justify it. People justify doing bad things for good reasons all the time. "We're the good guys."


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

milo99 said:


> hah, thats funny. I was just thinking that if all the supposed deterioration means i don't have to read through 300-400 posts to catch up on Friday (i watch in Thursdays), then perhaps it's for the best.
> 
> And yes, part of the reason for having 300-400 posts was because people would keep repeating a lot of the same stuff. Got really irritating to go to post 200 only to see someone rehash a question that was answered somewhere in posts 150 or so, then to see a third person ask the same damn question at post 340... and of course have each of those followed by redundant answers...


Wait! You're caught in that timelike loop like Desmond!


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

NoThru22 said:
 

> Ethan was also freakishly strong; being to drag Charlie and pregnant Claire at the same time, being able to hoist Charlie up by his neck in the tree, and being able to take a few bullets and still keep coming. I'm not saying I'm expecting an explanation right away, but they seem to ignore this factor entirely.


Maybe it's me but shucks, even I could hang a Hobbit if I had to. Be glad to if it meant the real Kate was like...available.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I really hope that brainwashing is not going to be prominent in this show. That is way too 1950's for me. Especially the actual clockwork orange room they had. Ugh. Please, let that whole idea die. It would be a huge cop out to have every bad behavior explained away by brainwashing.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> I really hope that brainwashing is not going to be prominent in this show. That is way too 1950's for me. Especially the actual clockwork orange room they had. Ugh. Please, let that whole idea die. It would be a huge cop out to have every bad behavior explained away by brainwashing.


Nah. All the bad behavior will be explained by the new super-leader character, who will coincidentally have the last name Machiavelli.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NoThru22 said:


> Ethan was also freakishly strong; being to drag Charlie and pregnant Claire at the same time, being able to hoist Charlie up by his neck in the tree, and being able to take a few bullets and still keep coming. I'm not saying I'm expecting an explanation right away, but they seem to ignore this factor entirely.


The only explanation you need for Ethan's freakish strength and crazy actions is that he's related to Tom Cruise. 'Nuff said.


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

aindik said:


> When Jack was rattling off the laundry list of what the others did, to Tom (after being incredulously asked "what kind of people do you take us for"), it included "kidnap a pregnant woman" and "leave Charlie to die hanging from a tree." Tom didn't appear to not know what Jack was talking about.
> 
> I think it's more likely they justify it. People justify doing bad things for good reasons all the time. "We're the good guys."


I thought that was a really interesting moment in the show. It was like Tom had no idea someone could think they were cruel.


----------



## JasonTX (Jan 12, 2002)

420s said:


> OMG I just though of something!  How come Rose's cancer was cured, but Ben's wasn't. Sorry if this was posted a few threads ago.


I'm surprised people aren't talking more about this. Although Locke got worse when we wasn't doing what "the island" wanted (when they found the drug plane).

When Jack said that isn't what the tattoo means, I think he meant that the tattoo meant something else to him -- like he made peace with his divorce or whatever. that he resolved whatever he went to phuket for.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> If you don't see a difference between the way the others were portrayed before and the way they are portrayed now, I don't know what to tell you. It's pretty obvious to me that they are gradually softening them more and more as we see more of them. You can show bad guys who did ruthless acts and make them seem like puppy dogs. Sorry, it will be disappointing almost every time.


Are we talking about the same Others? Because the Others I'm thinking of are the ones who have kept Jack locked up, beaten up Sawyer, held Kate and Sawyer in cages, brainwashed people, running some sort of labor camp, and refused to let their prisoners go or tell them what was going on, and generally acted like megalomaniac scumdogs. Sure, they didn't kill anyone, but never once have I felt they were "puppy dogs". They still seemed slightly crazy and definitely not friendly to me.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Just saw the end a second time as my wife was watching it and there were a couple things I realized hadn't been discussed here:

1. The fact that Jack said he was going to help Juliet because Ben had promised that he would let them "go home" and he was going to make sure Ben stuck to that. Immediately after that, Juliet reveals that they're leaving the small island to go back to the main island, which Ben calls "home." Clearly Jack's understanding of the term and Juliet's intended meaning were completely different.

2. The fact that Kate and Sawyer woke up, Sawyer had his little chat with Carl and let him go, and then K/S started heading for camp and next thing we know it's night. Did Sawyer have an 8 hour talk with Carl? Did they waste all day at their camp? Did they walk for most of the day and not reach camp? I found that really odd that they had the discussion the day before about heading straight for the Losties camp that day or camping on the beach overnight, and then they don't even go there the next day. Also, it appeared that they were heading through the jungle on foot, with torches. Don't they realize that it might be helpful for them to bring that little boat back to the camp?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

devdogaz said:


> J1. The fact that Jack said he was going to help Juliet because Ben had promised that he would let them "go home" and he was going to make sure Ben stuck to that. Immediately after that, Juliet reveals that they're leaving the small island to go back to the main island, which Ben calls "home." Clearly Jack's understanding of the term and Juliet's intended meaning were completely different.


I think you're reading way too much into a throwaway line like that. Juliet said Ben would send her home in the context of seeing her sister and her sister's baby--it was obvious she was talking about "the real world" and not just whatever home they've made for themselves on the island. And of course, that's also what Jack thinks of as "home".

Unless her sister turns out to be on the island as well, I guess, but I don't think that's the case.


----------



## avery (May 29, 2006)

Lee L said:


> She did say something about "My People..." and Jack cut her off. .


"No, it's against my people."

She also commented something about Jack being an outsider and said "I'm not allowed."


----------



## mitchb2 (Sep 30, 2000)

It would be cool to think that The Others were just a big red herring, and in the end it turns out Jack is the evil villain, ala



Spoiler



Carnivale



but I don't think these writers would have the balls for anything like that.


----------



## JMikeD (Jun 10, 2002)

madscientist said:


> I think you're reading way too much into a throwaway line like that.


In a Lost thread? Impossible.


----------



## smickola (Nov 17, 2004)

madscientist said:


> I think you're reading way too much into a throwaway line like that. Juliet said Ben would send her home in the context of seeing her sister and her sister's baby--it was obvious she was talking about "the real world" and not just whatever home they've made for themselves on the island. And of course, that's also what Jack thinks of as "home".
> 
> Unless her sister turns out to be on the island as well, I guess, but I don't think that's the case.


I dunno...I got the same connotation out of that statement that the OP did...that maybe Juliet was duped into what "home" would be, and possibly Jack too.

The idea of the "leader", and "walks among them but is not one of them"...maybe this is hinting that Ben dies, and Jack becomes the new leader of the Others?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

BTW, I know it's been mentioned before, but even in the podcast, the producers were making fun of the ABC promotions department about how they teased the episode. That is clearly out of their control. They tried to come up with what the 3 question were that were answered, and couldn't figure it out.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

jkeegan said:


> Oh I'm so torn..


Perhaps we need two threads for every show: a black one for the dissenters, and a white one for the others (oops, unintentional pun).


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

smickola said:


> I dunno...I got the same connotation out of that statement that the OP did...that maybe Juliet was duped into what "home" would be, and possibly Jack too.


Oh, well, it's possible Ben was duping them; I don't have any opinion about that (but it seems petty and un-Ben-like to rely on a turn of phrase like that: he knew what they thought he meant, and thus what they were agreeing to when they made the deal).

The OP said:


devdogaz said:


> Clearly Jack's understanding of the term and Juliet's intended meaning were completely different.


and I don't agree with that.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

jeff125va said:


> What's "totally off"? The only thing I can think of that would be different is that we've seen them. That may create a different impression psychologically, but they're still the same people who did the kidnapping, shooting, setting rafts on fire, etc.


I'm sorry but I've got to agree with the previous post. In S1/2 The Others were mysterious, exhibited super-strength (Ethan) and could sneak around like the wind (Eko said it, Cindy's disappearance showed it as well).

Then in this season we find out that they have book clubs, backyards and so on. That's OK if only we find this out; however Jack, Sawyer and Kate know the ruse right now (not that they didn't know already from the fake beard and ragged cloths, but now they know the full extent). And Hurley _may have_ told the rest of the losties, but that would be a stretch for this show ;-)

What doesn't make sense to me is this: According to Ben, he found out that he had an inoperable tumour just before the crash. I am guessing they did not find out that Jack was a back surgeon immediately (unless they are in contact with the all knowing Dharma group), but they found out pretty quickly. So the plan, very early on, was to get Jack to operate on Ben's tumour. If that makes sense, what was the purpose of dressing up as The Others? That whole confrontation about "This is not your Island; this is our Island" just looks out of place to me. It's like The Others' tactics changed from S2 to S3, and given the unfolding of the events they should have changed shortly after the crash.

As for The Others becoming puppies, certainly Tom (Mr. Friendly) seems to have _lost_ a pair this season (and that's not just in regards to his comment when Kate was coming out of the shower). However, for every _puppy_ we have at least one pit bull: Ben, of course, Juliet, "Chinatown", his wife -- no, the _new_ Others are still evil, at least on the surface.

And I agree with the poster who suggested that Ethan may have been contaminated by spending too much time in the quarantined section of the Island. Then, again, Alex did tell Claire that Ethan was going to kill her and take the baby, and in those flashbacks he certainly didn't appear to be homicidal.

I think I'm confused again, but I'm just not sure.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

As to Ethan's 'strength' in his fight with Jack, first Ethan was a big well-muscled guy while Jack is an MD, probably unskilled in fighting. The super-strength involved kidnapping a freakin' Hobbit and a small preggers woman. He probably had some assistance.

I don't see the 'revealed' Others as tame. Had they had their way Sawyer for one would be dead and so would Julliette. They threatened to shoot Sawyer and Kate if they didn't do their silly rock job.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

wprager said:


> Perhaps we need two threads for every show: a black one for the dissenters, and a white one for the others (oops, unintentional pun).


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> If you don't see a difference between the way the others were portrayed before and the way they are portrayed now, I don't know what to tell you. It's pretty obvious to me that they are gradually softening them more and more as we see more of them. You can show bad guys who did ruthless acts and make them seem like puppy dogs. Sorry, it will be disappointing almost every time.


There's a difference in how they're portrayed, sure, but not in their essence as people. They're still evil, ruthless human beings. Seeing other sides to them, I agree, makes the story line less intriguing, less scary, etc. Pretty much any information we discovered about them did that, compared to when we knew almost nothing about them. But it definitely doesn't make them puppy dogs.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

philw1776 said:


> As to Ethan's 'strength' in his fight with Jack, first Ethan was a big well-muscled guy while Jack is an MD, probably unskilled in fighting.


Well-muscled?









Hehe, that's from an episode of The Inside.

I wouldn't call Ethan well-muscled, the guy's scrawny. Compare him to Sawyer, or even Jack, there really is no comparison.

Greg


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

wprager said:


> Perhaps we need two threads for every show: a black one for the dissenters, and a white one for the others (oops, unintentional pun).


 ... and referring to Jeff's picture (nice one Jeff) ...

You can't play backgammon with just the white or black pieces!


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

gchance said:


> Well-muscled?
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call Ethan well-muscled, the guy's scrawny. Compare him to Sawyer, or even Jack, there really is no comparison.
> ...


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

philw1776 said:


> As to Ethan's 'strength' in his fight with Jack, first Ethan was a big well-muscled guy while Jack is an MD, probably unskilled in fighting. The super-strength involved kidnapping a freakin' Hobbit and a small preggers woman. He probably had some assistance.
> 
> I don't see the 'revealed' Others as tame. Had they had their way Sawyer for one would be dead and so would Julliette. They threatened to shoot Sawyer and Kate if they didn't do their silly rock job.


Maybe you didn't catch this, but in addition to odd plumbing jobs apparently Ethan was their surgeon. So you have the hilarity of 2 surgeons whaling away at each other - with their primary surgical tools, their hands. If Ben had seen that on his videos, he might've wanted to kill someone himself with his bare hands! 

ONE guy wanted Sawyer dead, not the whole group of others. It was obvious early in S3 that they neutered Tom, and all he wound up being was comic relief at the end in fall.

And Julie's trial does not help the case. You might question their morality or ethics, but being scary evil by having a trial? Hardly. In fact, it civilized them to a certain degree. It makes you think that maybe they are right when they tell the Losties: "We're not who you think we are."

Now, I actually thought this episode wasn't the worst, and it wasn't the best, but it was alright. Uneven at times, but I've come to expect that from S3.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Figaro said:


> Are you kidding? Ethan was a well built dude in the first season. Jack and Sawyer were puny compared to him.


Not only well-built, but he also towered over them.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

I'm well aware that Ethan was their surgeon as Ben just said so. It's ironic that BOTH camps had their lifeline surgeons running around maxing out on risk and unavailability.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

philw1776 said:


> I'm well aware that Ethan was their surgeon as Ben just said so. It's ironic that BOTH camps had their lifeline surgeons running around maxing out on risk and unavailability.


Yeah nothing like two surgeons who love to throw punches with their bare hands.


----------



## tubsone (Apr 15, 2006)

mattpol said:


> The other networks are your friends! Check out CSI:New York on CBS, where each week (save for the once-a-season sweeps-week "To Be Continued" twist) they will wrap the entire hour into a pretty little box with a red bow for you. Please follow America's lead and check that show out if there is some sort of closure that Lost just isn't providing. This show is not for everyone. Isn't there a poker strategy that states to bet in each round without regard to what you have already invested? Maybe it's time to fold your hand.
> 
> Sorry to the people I offended with that rant, I am just tired of all of this Lost-hating. I don't mean to attack the above poster personally, I just don't get why people who have such disdain for this show don't change the channel.
> 
> GO DEVILS!


 :up: :up: :up: ....All the Haters STOP WATCHING and exit stage left!


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

tubsone said:


> :up: :up: :up: ....All the Haters STOP WATCHING and exit stage left!


Why?

:down: :down: :down:

This is not the "*Now Playing - TV Show Talk - But Only if You're Happy With Every Second You Watch*" forum. Dissenting voices are permitted as long as they don't violate the "no thread-crapping allowed" rule. (See the sticky at the top of the forum for the definition.)


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

tubsone said:


> :up: :up: :up: ....All the Haters STOP WATCHING and exit stage left!


Only if all the Kool Aide drinking fan boys exit stage right.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

flyers088 said:


> The "5" and stars are from the Party of Five days. I think they just glossed over those parts of the tattoo when talking about it because there is no "lost" explanation for it.


Isabel mentioned them, so they're not completely glossed over. I assume we'll find out some Lostcentric explanation for them at some later date (the producers must be scrambling to invent one).



bacevedo said:


> I think Jack was in Thailand to find himself - that's what he said when his lady friend asked him.


She's the one that said that; he never confirmed or denied or indeed answered.



philw1776 said:


> I'm well aware that Ethan was their surgeon as Ben just said so. It's ironic that BOTH camps had their lifeline surgeons running around maxing out on risk and unavailability.


Nice glass house, Jack. Maybe I should get you some stones.


----------



## Philly Bill (Oct 6, 2004)

drew2k said:


> They went to the trouble of bringing back Cindy, the two kids, and the teddy-bear on the string, but it's tantamount to taunting the viewers when they allow only 42 seconds of screen time for us to see them. Why bother?


Jack should have looked at the little girl and smiled and said 'Shes DEAD. One of THEM killed her.'


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Philly Bill said:


> Jack should have looked at the little girl and smiled and said 'Shes DEAD. One of THEM killed her.'


Except that it wouldn't be true. Michael killed Ana-Lucia, and he wasn't one of THEM.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Oh, and people on _Lost_ always tell the truth?


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> Except that it wouldn't be true. Michael killed Ana-Lucia, and he wasn't one of THEM.


I'm confused. Does Jack know that Michael was the mass murderer?


----------



## lpamelaa (May 3, 2004)

philw1776 said:


> I'm confused. Does Jack know that Michael was the mass murderer?


Great point. As far I as I can recall, they all think Ben(ry) killed Anna Lucia.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

No they know that michael killed them.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Sayid suspected it and warned Jack, and Jack, Kate, Hurley, and Sawyer confronted Michael during the trek to the other side of the island. He confessed to the killings. Shortly afterwards they were ambushed and captured, and Michael set sail with Walt. Since they let Hurley go back to camp, I assume everyone at camp now knows.

Now _that_ is an interesting plotline (not that I want either Michael OR Walt to reappear on the show  )... but... where did they go and what happened when they got there?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

From "Live Together, Die Alone:"



> JACK [pushing Michael up against a tree]: I know what you're doing, Michael! Now tell them the truth. Tell them!
> 
> MICHAEL: It was the only way. They gave me a list.
> 
> ...


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

hefe said:


> From "Live Together, Die Alone:"





> JACK: It's too late to go back now, Hurley. We already caught them following us once. If they don't believe that we trust Michael, they'll kill us all. I'm sorry that I didn't say anything. But you have to know that I would never bring you out here if I didn't have a plan.
> 
> SAWYER: What plan?


Sawyer was right to ask ...

What was that plan again?


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

I love it when a plan comes together ...


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

drew2k said:


> What was that plan again?


Sayid was taking the boat around with Jin and Sun and was going to surprise them; Jack was supposed to light a signal fire on the beach. Remember that everyone (including Michael) thought they were living in huts, dirty, with mainly old malnourished people there. Remember that trying to capture the boat is how Sun shot & killed the wife of the guy Juliette ultimately ended up killing, and why that guy hated Sawyer (etc.) so much.


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

madscientist said:


> Sayid was taking the boat around with Jin and Sun and was going to surprise them; Jack was supposed to light a signal fire on the beach. Remember that everyone (including Michael) thought they were living in huts, dirty, with mainly old malnourished people there. Remember that trying to capture the boat is how Sun shot & killed the wife of the guy Juliette ultimately ended up killing, and why that guy hated Sawyer (etc.) so much.


Thanks. I remembered several of the individual elements you described, but forgot about the bigger picture ...


----------



## Philly Bill (Oct 6, 2004)

devdogaz said:


> Except that it wouldn't be true. Michael killed Ana-Lucia, and he wasn't one of THEM.


THEY forced him to do it... so technically THEY did it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Philly Bill said:


> THEY forced him to do it... so technically THEY did it.


Did they tell him to kill AL or did they simply tell him to set Ben free and killing AL was the only way he could think of to make it look legit?


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

The latter..

Michael didn't have the best judgement..


----------



## MFruchey (May 25, 2006)

Pretty sure that they just told him something like, "Get these people, get Henry back, and come up with a plan as to how." Don't think Michael initially planned to kill Ana Lucia, just that she was a means to an end.


----------



## MFruchey (May 25, 2006)

Damn. beat me by a minute.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

Philly Bill said:


> THEY forced him to do it... so technically THEY did it.


I think you're right. Jack could have said something like, "Because of them Ana Lucia is dead."

They didn't do it directly, but had they not taken Walt there would have been no reason for Michael to go back and kill AL and Libby.

But remember, Ben did want Ana Lucia dead, so I wouldn't call him innocent in the whole thing. They didn't like her because she ended up killing some of their best men.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

MFruchey said:


> Pretty sure that they just told him something like, "Get these people, get Henry back, and come up with a plan as to how." Don't think Michael initially planned to kill Ana Lucia, just that she was a means to an end.


From the episode, "3 Minutes"



> MS. KLUGH: There's been a development since you came here, Michael. One of our people was captured by yours.
> 
> MICHAEL: So, go get him back.
> 
> ...


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

hefe said:


> From the episode, "3 Minutes"


Interesting that Ms. Klugh (and btw, where has she been this season?) promised to let Michael and Walt "go _free_," but Ben promised both Jack and Juliet that they could "go _home_" or that he would take them "home."

Perhaps not significant, but interesting. I do think in that one scene between Jack and Juliet discussed earlier in this thread that the writers were trying to plant some doubt as to just what Ben's "go home" promise meant.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Doesn't matter what ben meant, it only matters what the characters believed he meant. Just like if I get angry at you and say I'm going to go get my gun, come to your house, and shoot you, that would not be ok by the cops even if I explained to them that it is just a water gun.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

mqpickles said:


> Perhaps not significant, but interesting. I do think in that one scene between Jack and Juliet discussed earlier in this thread that the writers were trying to plant some doubt as to just what Ben's "go home" promise meant.


I think so, too. It seemed like what Juliet was saying was essentially "To Ben, 'home' is the other island."


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

madscientist said:


> Since they let Hurley go back to camp, I assume everyone at camp now knows.


 What show have you been watching? I assume no one knows.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

hefe said:


> From the episode, "3 Minutes"


Apparently, the Others have more than 1 boat that look exactly the same, too. Not a huge revelation, but I had kind of forgotten about Walt and Michael. The boat they were taking Henry on sure looked a lot like Michael's boat.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

jradford said:


> Apparently, the Others have more than 1 boat that look exactly the same, too. Not a huge revelation, but I had kind of forgotten about Walt and Michael. The boat they were taking Henry on sure looked a lot like Michael's boat.


I thought the boat Michael took was the boat that the Others used when they kidnapped Walt. The boat in the last ep seemed bigger.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

stellie93 said:


> What show have you been watching? I assume no one knows.


[Hurley]
Dude!
I've had a lot on my mind lately!
Ok??!!!
[/Hurley]


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

tivoboyjr said:


> I thought the boat Michael took was the boat that the Others used when they kidnapped Walt. The boat in the last ep seemed bigger.


The boats:
http://losteastereggs.blogspot.com/2007/02/boats.html


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> What show have you been watching? I assume no one knows.


LOL. If it was Locke or Jack or Sawyer I'd agree, but Hurley doesn't seem like the secret-keeping type.

Unless it has something to do with food


----------

