# Lost - "LaFleur" - OAD 3/4/2009 Spoilers



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Another great episode!!!

That was a tall statue, right near the donkey wheel area..


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

I have to ask, and I feel stupid asking because I think I should know the answer, but where have we seen that wooden cross before this episode?


----------



## charlief1975 (Apr 16, 2004)

jkeegan said:


> Another great episode!!!
> 
> That was a tall statue, right near the donkey wheel area..


I had to rewind that area. I thought we were still in the recap section and that statue caught me by surprise.

Great episode. No idea where this show is going anymore!


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

jradford said:


> I have to ask, and I feel stupid asking because I think I should know the answer, but where have we seen that wooden cross before this episode?


It's called an ankh, which may help you search.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

I don't know that we have.

I wondered while watching if they'd said what the dead husband's name was (and wondered if he rose from the dead with the hostiles later).

Loved Sawyer's mention of the Black Rock to Horace. Loved his speech to Richard too.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

dswallow said:


> It's called an ankh, which may help you search.


So we haven't actually seen it on the show before? Still worth the google search.


----------



## rufus_x_s (Jul 14, 2004)

I loved that the guys watching the monitors at the beginning were terrified of going to the mysterious "LaFleur."


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

jkeegan said:


> Loved Sawyer's mention of the Black Rock to Horace. Loved his speech to Richard too.


Black Rock was a good touch. Sawyer really can sell it can't he!!
And him going out to talk to "mister eyeliner guy". That was well played. Especially him mentioning Locke and him disappearing.

I love this show!!!

Do the three years back and the three years forward count as flashbacks? I guess not really.

And babies being born alive on the island, and small children (charlotte!).


----------



## pcguru83 (Jan 18, 2005)

I know we've seen/heard/had mention of Horace before (I think). But where?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

And there are babies being born on the Island. And little girls running around - charlotte! That was a cute little wave to Daniel. 

Just one thing - Daniel, please lose the frigging tie!!!


----------



## ireland967 (Feb 27, 2003)

I hope that wasn't all we'll ever see of the statue


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

pcguru83 said:


> I know we've seen/heard/had mention of Horace before (I think). But where?


Horace found Ben's father and mother right as his mother was dying in childbirth. e then recruited them to come to the island and join Dharma. Locke also saw Horace's ghost with a bloody nose out chopping wood to build the cabin. Locke later found the map to the cabin in the pocket of corpse Horace.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

I am so confused. I missed the first 30 minutes of last weeks and need to go to the web site to watch it. Also looks like next Wed is a repeat of this weeks.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

SNJpage1 said:


> I am so confused. I missed the first 30 minutes of last weeks and need to go to the web site to watch it. Also looks like next Wed is a repeat of this weeks.


The previews after this episode started with "In two weeks..."


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Thoughts:

1) Is the statue holding an ankh?
2) Was the dead husband already with the hostiles (either as having always been with them, or having just recently been recruited?).. He was holding an ankh, which while we haven't seen on Lost yet, feels like a strong indication that this guy is with Richard (eternal life)
3) Did Richard just con Sawyer? Clearly Richard's men were coming to take that guy (he was probably on a list). We know that's not necessarily a bad thing. In the end he asks Sawyer for the body, which is all he probably wanted in the first place..?

Sawyer is so good to immediately jump into the well to save Locke.

The girl had a Geronimo Jackson tee shirt

I love that Daniel is insisting that he won't tell Charlotte.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

I really enjoyed this episode. It was nice and quiet with some great character development of Sawyer and some nice, subtle callbacks to the main story. Good to see Horace Goodspeed again.

The statue! Too bad we only saw the back of it and don't know what era it's in.

We definitely haven't seen the ankh before, but it's an Egyptian hieroglyphic that means "eternal life" and is also known as the key of life which definitely is intriguing in this story since Richard asks for Paul's body as retribution for the death of the two Others. Paul is another biblical name.

So, why was Amy targeted for kidnapping and Paul shot dead?

It is now 1977.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

tewcewl said:


> It is now 1977.


I hope they don't miss Star Wars!

I also wonder if Sawyer ever slips up and refers to stuff that only he would (or the other time travellers) would know, like calling someone a nickname that has no relevance to anyone in 1977.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Hey! That picnic Amy was having.. That was outside the security fence! I wonder if the truce involves treating that fence as a boundary. Maybe they were sneaking out for a picnic so Amy could be recruited too.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Becoming pretty clear how ben allways seemed to know that he was safe from death, and how he seemed to know what was going to happen all the time. 

Also how the "lists" were made.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

ABC really messed up a cute opportunity to intro the Life On Mars episode...

"Stick around in the 70's with Life On Mars, coming up next on ABC..."


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

jkeegan said:


> Hey! That picnic Amy was having.. That was outside the security fence! I wonder if the truce involves treating that fence as a boundary. Maybe they were sneaking out for a picnic so Amy could be recruited too.


Apparently all you need to pass through it is wax earplugs, anyway. For that matter, it would seem you should be able to use momentum to your advantage... jump trough it; you may still suffer the effects, but it doesn't kill you and you'll recover.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

..at least on the low setting


----------



## Slider10 (Aug 5, 2003)

This was a fantastic episode and totally hooked me in. It's the first ep this season to leave me wanting more and wishing an hour wasn't so short. Can't wait for next week!


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Slider10 said:


> This was a fantastic episode and totally hooked me in. It's the first ep this season to leave me wanting more and wishing an hour wasn't so short. Can't wait for next week!


Totally agree, but next week is a skip week. So it's going to be a long two weeks.


----------



## woolybugger (Nov 12, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> Totally agree, but next week is a skip week. So it's going to be a long two weeks.


Yep. Bastages. 



I loved this episode. Sawyer was awesome. Especially with his talk to Richard.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Is there not being an episode next week a spoiler?


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

dswallow said:


> Is there not being an episode next week a spoiler?


It was mentioned during the preview, so, probably.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Ok, now this whole Charlotte thing is interesting..

At first, I thought "So, she dies, and that means she doesn't jump through time with them anymore? Huh? Being alive somehow matters? They took a Zodiac.. That implies there was some thought behind who/what moves.. wtf?

Then I listened to Daniel again..

"She's dead. There was another flash, and.. and she was.. she was just gone. Her body just.. disappeared. She moved on, and we stayed."

Ok, so was Daniel just confused about the number of flashes or something, and Charlotte actually stopped jumping when she died (she was never brought to 1977 as an adult)?

Or, is Daniel's description accurate, and she actually moved at least one more jump than they did?

..and if it's the latter, why did Daniel see any flash at all if he wasn't jumping?


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

That statue almost looked like something BC. Wonder if they went back that far?


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Actually thank you for saying there's a two week delay, because I didn't watch the preview and I'd have lost it if I waited all next Wednesday for nothing.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

She died. So she didn't jump with them...


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

vertigo235 said:


> She died. So she didn't jump with them...


yeah, but why?

If I just build a normal time machine, it shouldn't matter if what I send is a person, a brick, a rabbit, or a bucket of sand.. A Zodiac boat came with them.

Aside from the fact that it helps the story, why didn't her body keep moving to 1977 with them? Why does being alive matter?


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

jkeegan said:


> yeah, but why?
> 
> If I just build a normal time machine, it shouldn't matter if what I send is a person, a brick, a rabbit, or a bucket of sand.. A Zodiac boat came with them.
> 
> Aside from the fact that it helps the story, why didn't her body keep moving to 1977 with them? Why does being alive matter?


Her body didn't move because Daniel wasn't touching her. The rope moved because Sawyer was holding it. The boat moved because they were sitting in it. If Daniel sat on Charlotte she would have come with them.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

dswallow said:


> ABC really messed up a cute opportunity to intro the Life On Mars episode...
> 
> "Stick around in the 70's with Life On Mars, coming up next on ABC..."


Only they DID say that.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Great episode. Loved nearly every minute of it. Except I hated the end how they're trying to play up the love triangle/square among Sawyer/Kate/Juliet and Jack. I've never cared even the slightest bit about the Jack/Kate/Sawyer thing and them trying to focus on it at the end just took away all the good feelings I had about this episode.

I wonder why Juliet was able to deliver the baby. Was the problem with births on the Island due to something that happened after that, or did she do something this time that she hadn't done before?

I wonder where Sun and Sayid are? I'd expect that they also flashed back to 1977 as well, but I wonder if there's a reason why Jack/Kate/Hurley all landed in roughly the same area and Sun/Sayid apparently were somewhere totally different.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

betts4 said:


> I hope they don't miss Star Wars!
> 
> I also wonder if Sawyer ever slips up and refers to stuff that only he would (or the other time travellers) would know, like calling someone a nickname that has no relevance to anyone in 1977.


I thought Sawyer's con-mind would immediately want to get back to the real world 1977 so he could start making money off the time travel.

He had a chance to make millions, but it didn't even seem to cross his mind.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

spikedavis said:


> Her body didn't move because Daniel wasn't touching her. The rope moved because Sawyer was holding it. The boat moved because they were sitting in it. If Daniel sat on Charlotte she would have come with them.


Listen, I know what we've seen, about objects coming with them if they're holding them. What I'm doing is taking a step back now and asking why..

When Ben turned the wheel and some people moved through time, there were tons of possible explanations story-wise.. The radiation made them different so they couldn't move through time with the island, or they were real and the island isn't, etc. But now that the flashes have stopped, now that it's been a few episodes, and now that the time jumps seem at least a bit wrapped up by the writers, I think it's fair to ask. Why didn't the plane's hull move with them (from parts of the camp)? Why do things need to be touched to travel?

It implies being conscious and alive is something "special".


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

jkeegan said:


> Listen, I know what we've seen, about objects coming with them if they're holding them. What I'm doing is taking a step back now and asking why..
> 
> When Ben turned the wheel and some people moved through time, there were tons of possible explanations story-wise.. The radiation made them different so they couldn't move through time with the island, or they were real and the island isn't, etc. But now that the flashes have stopped, now that it's been a few episodes, and now that the time jumps seem at least a bit wrapped up by the writers, I think it's fair to ask. Why didn't the plane's hull move with them (from parts of the camp)? Why do things need to be touched to travel?
> 
> It implies being conscious and alive is something "special".


Not necessarily. The Others from 2004 didn't time travel with the flashes either.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

So who's the baby?!


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

jkeegan said:


> Listen, I know what we've seen, about objects coming with them if they're holding them. What I'm doing is taking a step back now and asking why..
> 
> When Ben turned the wheel and some people moved through time, there were tons of possible explanations story-wise.. The radiation made them different so they couldn't move through time with the island, or they were real and the island isn't, etc. But now that the flashes have stopped, now that it's been a few episodes, and now that the time jumps seem at least a bit wrapped up by the writers, I think it's fair to ask. Why didn't the plane's hull move with them (from parts of the camp)? *Why do things need to be touched to travel? *
> 
> It implies being conscious and alive is something "special".


If they didn't the show would be R-rated.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> So who's the baby?!


Ethan.

Total speculation.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

I was preparing to respond to a bunch of posts, when I realized...

Jeff is actually perplexed. That alone is worth staying silent for.

Greg


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

spikedavis said:


> Ethan.
> 
> Total speculation.


That was my best guess, as well. But Ethan seems kind of old - mid 30's in 2004, where as the baby would be about 27 (born in 1977)... The only character I can think of around that age, male and white is Boone. I don't think it's him, though. But I do think the identity of the baby will be significant.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

It's hard to comment on this episode as you're really left hanging here.

There was a lot going on but we're still not quite sure how everything fits together.
That's not to say I didn't enjoy it because I quite did.

Worth it just to see the back of the statue.

I also liked James working in the Black Rock into his story.

But, James didn't tell Juliet what happened why?

And does this mean that Locke and the Ajira crash victims are in 1977 or 2007?


----------



## FlugPoP (Jan 7, 2004)

That's my question .What time is John in? The Darhma station seemed abandoned.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

FlugPoP said:


> That's my question .What time is John in? The Darhma station seemed abandoned.


I'm assuming that John, Frank and Ben (and I'm assuming Sun) are in the present time. They didn't dissapear during the flash on the plane. They never time traveled. Thus-they were in the abandoned Hydra station. Everyone else is in 1977.


----------



## rgr (Feb 21, 2003)

Could it be that Charlotte's body disappeared because Daniel is wrong about time travel/causality? That his determination "not to tell her" results in her not leaving the island, and not coming back to it?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DUDE_NJX said:


> Only they DID say that.


No, they didn't. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like "Go back to the 70s," and I thought the same thing Doug did.


jkeegan said:


> It implies being conscious and alive is something "special".


Gosh, ya think? 


latrobe7 said:


> That was my best guess, as well. But Ethan seems kind of old - mid 30's in 2004, where as the baby would be about 27 (born in 1977)... The only character I can think of around that age, male and white is Boone. I don't think it's him, though. But I do think the identity of the baby will be significant.


It should be somebody with some Asian ancestry, although Reiko Aylesworth is probably white enough to get away with having a pretty white child. But I'm guessing whoever it is will have a hint of Asia in his/her features...


spikedavis said:


> I'm assuming that John, Frank and Ben (and I'm assuming Sun) are in the present time. They didn't dissapear during the flash on the plane. They never time traveled. Thus-they were in the abandoned Hydra station. Everyone else is in 1977.


The others I will buy, but Sun is one of the Oceanic Six, and it wouldn't make much sense for her and her alone (John, being dead, doesn't count; we know dead people don't jump through time) not to be caught up with the others. And while this show is awfully weird, it's making more and more sense!


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Kamakzie said:


> That statue almost looked like something BC. Wonder if they went back that far?


Richard is very very old. 

What's the timeline of Ben first coming to an island as a child. Is it around this time?

-smak-


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Great episode. Loved nearly every minute of it. Except I hated the end how they're trying to play up the love triangle/square among Sawyer/Kate/Juliet and Jack. I've never cared even the slightest bit about the Jack/Kate/Sawyer thing and them trying to focus on it at the end just took away all the good feelings I had about this episode.
> 
> I wonder why Juliet was able to deliver the baby. Was the problem with births on the Island due to something that happened after that, or did she do something this time that she hadn't done before?
> 
> I wonder where Sun and Sayid are? I'd expect that they also flashed back to 1977 as well, but I wonder if there's a reason why Jack/Kate/Hurley all landed in roughly the same area and Sun/Sayid apparently were somewhere totally different.


Was childbirth ever a problem to Dharma? Unless I am mistaken, it's only The Others that have that problem, and they may have had it going back a long way. Perhaps that's why they were trying to kidnap Amy (if, in fact, that's what they were trying to do).


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

When we first saw Daniel and he was crying, could be because he "remembered" Charlotte dying, since she died pre-2004.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Slider10 said:


> This was a fantastic episode and totally hooked me in. It's the first ep this season to leave me wanting more and wishing an hour wasn't so short. Can't wait for next week!


:up:



Peter000 said:


> Totally agree, but next week is a skip week. So it's going to be a long two weeks.


:down:



latrobe7 said:


> So who's the baby?!


Perhaps Mr. Canton or Mr. Rainier?


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

jkeegan said:


> That was a tall statue, right near the donkey wheel area..





Kamakzie said:


> That statue almost looked like something BC. Wonder if they went back that far?


I'm presuming the statue was way down by the water, and has four toes.

I think they went *very* far back in time. Besides the four toes, they've shown other ruins on the island before containing ancient columns. I've wondered if the wheel ejecting people to Tunisia has significance to the source of the ruins.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Here is a suggestion that the statue is of Anubis.

[click]


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

My favorite line is Sawyer looking out the window at Richard, then turning to Juliette and saying "uh-oh."

I don't know why people are assuming Paul was with the Others. To me it seemed simple: Paul and Amy (?) took a romantic picnic lunch outside the fence (which was stupid obviously). Either they violated the truce by doing so, or by doing something else, or else the Others who found them were just nutty, but they killed Paul and they were going to kill Amy until Sawyer and Juliette intervened. There are details missing (like why they went outside the fence, and exactly what the terms of the truce are) but I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that. The ankh was/is a pretty common symbol among the peace movement in the '70's so I'm not at all surprised to see it; I don't think it necessarily means anything. 

Loved the statue shot, but I also hope that's not all we get as far as explanations go.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

madscientist said:


> I don't know why people are assuming Paul was with the Others. To me it seemed simple: Paul and Amy (?) took a romantic picnic lunch outside the fence (which was stupid obviously). Either they violated the truce by doing so, or by doing something else, or else the


That was my thought. They went out for lunch when they weren't supposed to.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

smak said:


> What's the timeline of Ben first coming to an island as a child. Is it around this time?
> 
> -smak-


This was my first thought. Sawyer could save himself alot of trouble and just go and kill Ben now (then).


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

I've never seen Kate look so bad.


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I wonder where Sun and Sayid are? I'd expect that they also flashed back to 1977 as well, but I wonder if there's a reason why Jack/Kate/Hurley all landed in roughly the same area and Sun/Sayid apparently were somewhere totally different.


I'm guessing that Sun is the woman they said left with the pilot (Frank) in the boat on the beach where Locke ended up. Not sure why she would end up there instead of with Jack, Kate, etc.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> I've never seen Kate look so bad.


Agreed. Her close up did not do her justice.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

A couple of thoughts and questions:

Where was Daniel in the "three years later?" Did he leave the island or what is his job?

I don't think that the rest of the passengers of 316 (including Ben & John) are in the same time as the O6 (plus Sawyer, etc.) When Sawyer, Juliet, et. all found the Ayira water bottles, didn't they also find rements of their camp on the Beach (it has been a few episodes, my mind is a little fuzzy.)

Could Pam & Horace's son be Miles? He looks to be the right age.

How come there was a flash on Flight 316 but not on the island (that we know off.) The O6 were transported back to 1977 but Sawyer, Juliet, et. all we not affected. Why?


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Finally a good episode...lots of interesting things happening!


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Jin should be fluent in English by now.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

TriBruin said:


> Where was Daniel in the "three years later?" Did he leave the island or what is his job?


Don't know. I wonder where he ran off to when the others in his group were herded into the house when Alpert appeared? Maybe something to do with Charlotte? I'm sure we'll see that bit soon. Soonish.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

Maybe this has been mentioned but I'll say it anyway. Has anyone else noticed that Juliet has been calling Sawyer "James" for the last few episodes? I noticed it last week and the episode prior (not the one that featured Locke but the last one that featured the Sawyer/Juliet story). Is this week's episode an explanation as to why she's been doing that or has she always called him James rather than Sawyer?


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

TriBruin said:


> How come there was a flash on Flight 316 but not on the island (that we know off.) The O6 were transported back to 1977 but Sawyer, Juliet, et. all we not affected. Why?


Because the flash happened in 2007. Why would people in 1977 be affected?


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

goblue97 said:


> Is this week's episode an explanation as to why she's been doing that or has she always called him James rather than Sawyer?


She's always called him James. The others always took great pleasure in showing how well they knew the Oceanic survivor's lives. When they gave a list to Michael it said "James Ford", not Sawyer.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Here is a suggestion that the statue is of Anubis.
> 
> [click]


I was going to add that the statue looked like it was wearing Egyptian garb. That, the Ankh and the hieroglyphics from the original hatch lead to the same conlusion from the linked Lost Stuff article:


> Can the producers make it any clearer to us that Ancient Egypt holds a key in all of this.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Note to future travelers in strange country: When your group is passing through a potentially deadly sonic fence, do not all do so at the same time. You'll just look ridiculous. And you'll probably end up on Dharma's Funniest Security Videos. Rewind. Cue laugh track.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

madscientist said:


> d saying "uh-oh."
> 
> I don't know why people are assuming Paul was with the Others. To me it seemed simple: Paul and Amy (?) took a romantic picnic lunch outside the fence (which was stupid obviously). Either they violated the truce by doing so, or by doing something else, or else the Others who found them were just nutty, but they killed Paul and they were going to kill Amy until Sawyer and Juliette intervened. There are details missing (like why they went outside the fence, and exactly what the terms of the truce are) but I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that. The ankh was/is a pretty common symbol among the peace movement in the '70's so I'm not at all surprised to see it; I don't think it necessarily means anything.


I don't think they were going to kill Amy, I think they were going to kidnap her. Hence the hood. And of course the Ankh means something!


----------



## danplaysbass (Jul 19, 2004)

Kate did look bad...but I think she was supposed to.


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Jin should be fluent in English by now.


He does. Even the closed captioning told me so. 
Before his line it said [fluently].


----------



## headroll (Jan 20, 2003)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Jin should be fluent in English by now.


With CC on the text actually read [fluently] or some such word to describe how the words were being expressed by Jin.

-Roll

Damn .. to slow


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Note to future travelers in strange country: When your group is passing through a potentially deadly sonic fence, do not all do so at the same time. You'll just look ridiculous. And you'll probably end up on Dharma's Funniest Security Videos. Rewind. Cue laugh track.


Ok, that made me LOL.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

betts4 said:


> Black Rock was a good touch. Sawyer really can sell it can't he!!
> And him going out to talk to "mister eyeliner guy". That was well played.


The eyeliner quote was funny. I read an interview with Nestor Carbonell where he said that people have been telling him he looks like he wears eyeliner ever since he was a kid.


Rob Helmerichs said:


> It should be somebody with some Asian ancestry, although Reiko Aylesworth is probably white enough to get away with having a pretty white child. But I'm guessing whoever it is will have a hint of Asia in his/her features...


Is Reiko Aylesworth Asian? In all her time on 24, that never once occurred to me. I don't think she looks Asian at all.


----------



## crowfan (Dec 27, 2003)

According to her "Trivia" page on IMDB, "her ancestry is 1/4 Japanese, 1/4 Welsh, and 1/2 Dutch."


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

smak said:


> Richard is very very old.
> 
> What's the timeline of Ben first coming to an island as a child. Is it around this time?
> 
> -smak-


Probably, but I think Ben's timeline is a bit fuzzy because we don't know exactly when he was born, just that it was probably early 60s. One of his passports said '62. Not sure how old he was when he and his dad came to the island... 12ish?

But young Ben met long-haired Richard...and we now know Richard had short hair in 1974. Or he could have been wearing a wig.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

LifeIsABeach said:


> I'm guessing that Sun is the woman they said left with the pilot (Frank) in the boat on the beach where Locke ended up. Not sure why she would end up there instead of with Jack, Kate, etc.


Just a thought, but when Sun left the island, she was pregnant. When she returned she wasn't. So she's not quite the same now and what ever mechanism decided who went back to 77 didn't recognize her.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Is Reiko Aylesworth Asian? In all her time on 24, that never once occurred to me. I don't think she looks Asian at all.


She's half Japanese. Her first name is a Japanese name.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Regarding the statue

We don't know when it was knocked down from the full to just the foot.

when was the earliest we saw JUST the foot? 

We saw just the foot in 2004, anything earlier?

So between 1977 and 2004 it could have been knocked down to the fight or struggle or other.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

flyers088 said:


> Agreed. Her close up did not do her justice.


Someone already said this, but yes, I think the intention was that Kate ISN'T in a good place. She's haggard, tired. She gave up Aaron, went on the plane and is emotionally distraught on having come back to the island. Yeah, I would look crappy too.



TriBruin said:


> Where was Daniel in the "three years later?" Did he leave the island or what is his job?


The season premiere answered this question for you. He's around, with Dharma, but doing something that includes checking up on the Orchid.

Now, I was ruminating about this episode and I realized this episode dropped a HUGE-LOOK-AT-ME! hint about what's going on with babies being born on the island. Obviously in 1977, conception and delivery are normal, but then something changes. In previous videos, we've seen Dr. [insert your candle-related alias here] talk about a thing called "The Incident" which we know to be different than "The Purge." We saw the purge when Ben took out Dharma in the 1990s.

I'd wager money that "The Incident" is the very thing that stopped children being born and sending the Island back on the skipping record. It could be when they built the Orchid. It could be part of the upcoming war that Locke talks about.

I also found the timeline with the statue interesting. The statue was PRESENT when the well was already there and it had been backfilled, but it wasn't there when there was nothing in the ground or when the well was open. It may not be THAT ancient. I could be mistaken.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

tewcewl said:


> Someone already said this, but yes, I think the intention was that Kate ISN'T in a good place. She's haggard, tired. She gave up Aaron, went on the plane and is emotionally distraught on having come back to the island. Yeah, I would look crappy too.


And 'landed' in lake full of water during the 'crash'.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

TriBruin said:


> A couple of thoughts and questions:
> 
> Where was Daniel in the "three years later?" Did he leave the island or what is his job?


I would assume he is working on building the orchid station, like we saw him in the begining of the season.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

tewcewl said:


> I also found the timeline with the statue interesting. The statue was PRESENT when the well was already there and it had been backfilled, but it wasn't there when there was nothing in the ground or when the well was open. It may not be THAT ancient. I could be mistaken.


How do you know the well wasn't dug out again?


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Here is a suggestion that the statue is of Anubis.


I think it's going to be this guy:


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

tewcewl said:


> I also found the timeline with the statue interesting. The statue was PRESENT when the well was already there and it had been backfilled, but it wasn't there when there was nothing in the ground or when the well was open. It may not be THAT ancient. I could be mistaken.


I thought the statue was in the time before the well was built. Didn't they see the statue before the final jump?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Note to future travelers in strange country: When your group is passing through a potentially deadly sonic fence, do not all do so at the same time. You'll just look ridiculous. And you'll probably end up on Dharma's Funniest Security Videos. Rewind. Cue laugh track.


That was funny. I was also wondering why they all went thru at once. Juliet should have gotten the code from Amy and punched it in herself. Bad move guys.



Cindy1230 said:


> But young Ben met long-haired Richard...and we now know Richard had short hair in 1974. Or he could have been wearing a wig.


I am thinking it was a wig. After seeing the Others in their outfits when they captured Kate and the first time they met Locke, Jack and Sawyer, they were all in wigs and costumes.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Note to future travelers in strange country: When your group is passing through a potentially deadly sonic fence, do not all do so at the same time. You'll just look ridiculous. And you'll probably end up on Dharma's Funniest Security Videos. Rewind. Cue laugh track.


I thought the same thing.

"Ok, everyone. Let's hold hands and all cross at the exact same time. On three! 1... 2... 3..."


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

danplaysbass said:


> Kate did look bad...but I think she was supposed to.


Sawyer's inner dialogue: "Meh, I'll stay with Dr. Hottie."


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

madscientist said:


> I don't know why people are assuming Paul was with the Others. To me it seemed simple: Paul and Amy (?) took a romantic picnic lunch outside the fence (which was stupid obviously). Either they violated the truce by doing so, or by doing something else, or else the Others who found them were just nutty, but they killed Paul and they were going to kill Amy until Sawyer and Juliette intervened. There are details missing (like why they went outside the fence, and exactly what the terms of the truce are) but I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that. The ankh was/is a pretty common symbol among the peace movement in the '70's so I'm not at all surprised to see it; I don't think it necessarily means anything.


C'mon, in this very same episode we see an Egyptian statue holding an ankh, which represents eternal life, and it's an episode where Richard and his group are involved.



TriBruin said:


> How come there was a flash on Flight 316 but not on the island (that we know off.) The O6 were transported back to 1977 but Sawyer, Juliet, et. all we not affected. Why?


There were (at least) two flashes that transported Lost characters to the mid seventies.. One flash happened from ancient times (where the statue was standing), and that brought Sawyer/Juliette/Miles/Jin/Daniel to 1974. Another happened in 2008 and brought Jack/Kate/Hurley (plus maybe other 815 people?) to 1977. The rest of 316 ended up somewhere in time on the other island (most likely after 2005, like 2008), since the Hydra station was empty, and had Daniel's notes in it. The only reason there's any doubt about what time they're in is that Caesar said he heard a noise and saw a flash before Hurley/etc disappeared.



Fool Me Twice said:


> Jin should be fluent in English by now.


:up:



tewcewl said:


> I also found the timeline with the statue interesting. The statue was PRESENT when the well was already there and it had been backfilled, but it wasn't there when there was nothing in the ground or when the well was open. It may not be THAT ancient. I could be mistaken.


I think you are mistaken.. If I remember correctly, Sawyer holding the rope led Juliette to say they were before the well was built, Miles said "I'd say WAY before".. they noticed the statue, then had their final jump. Sawyer saw a filled in well and jumped into it, and was sad to realize it was filled in - that was where they ended - 1974.

It does provide a possible explanation for how Dharma found the pocket of exotic matter in the first place.. they saw a filled-in well and somehow knew that was where to look.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

vertigo235 said:


> She died. So she didn't jump with them...


Daniel said that she continued jumping, though, not that she stayed behind. Now, maybe he just wasn't thinking straight, but I'm not sure what kind of emotional state would cause him to say something like that out of the blue. Perhaps you can only change the "temporal velocity" of living beings, so since Charlotte was jumping through time when she died, Locke's fix had no effect on her.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

jkeegan said:


> Why do things need to be touched to travel?


I don't think there is any good explanation for it. We just need to accept it like accepting that people who can walk through walls can still stand on the ground and be affected by Earth's gravity.

Our bodies are really made up of a bunch of tiny living components, which are made up of even tinier non-living particles. So whatever the mechanism is that allows for teleporting living beings, it must have some way to both see the individual pieces in order to teleport each one and also map out how all the pieces are connected in order to distinguish the being from its surroundings. However that mapping occurs, items that are touched by the beings are considered to be a part of the beings, and thus are teleported with them.

Perhaps the island is also set up not to teleport things that are considered "part" of the island. When it does its mapping, it also maps out what is considered to be part of the island, and ignores everything in that group.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

So, wonder if Ben learned how to manipulate people so well by watching the master, James. He could remember him later in life and want some revenge for something, so he has James in a polar bear cage, stabs him in the chest, brings him to the top of the 2nd island, and says that while James is good at cons, they were better at it.. (ala "once I was but the learner.. now I am the master!").


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

I think I need to go back and watch "The Constant." Isn't that the episode where Daniel explains how time travel "works?"

Something about happy-go-lucky clean-shaven Sawyer just threw me off. I enjoyed the episode, it just seemed toooooooo out of character. It's also strange to me, watching the show now, of the original cast the only characters on the island are Sawyer and Jin. Again, I'm not complaining, it's just an observation.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

jkeegan said:


> I think you are mistaken.. If I remember correctly, Sawyer holding the rope led Juliette to say they were before the well was built, Miles said "I'd say WAY before".. they noticed the statue, then had their final jump. Sawyer saw a filled in well and jumped into it, and was sad to realize it was filled in - that was where they ended - 1974.
> 
> It does provide a possible explanation for how Dharma found the pocket of exotic matter in the first place.. they saw a filled-in well and somehow knew that was where to look.


Agreed, the Statue was Way Before the well. And did you notice a lot less vegatation when they saw the statue?


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

latrobe7 said:


> I think it's going to be this guy:


So when will they find the Stargate?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jkeegan said:


> It does provide a possible explanation for how Dharma found the pocket of exotic matter in the first place.. they saw a filled-in well and somehow knew that was where to look.


I'm thinking Dharma found the exotic matter by going down the well, then decided to build the Orchid and make a different, more protected and secure entrance, and then filled in the well themselves.


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

So the rope travelled because Sawyer was holding it right? I am thinking that rope like that wouldn't be around when the statue was new. 

So by holding the rope, Sawyer may have inadvertently given away the location of the donkey wheel to anyone who stumbles across the rope. 

I also thought during this show that we now know who is writing the lists. However, since they have already hit the time where they time travelled, what is the point of the lists exactly?


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

Okay.. couple of random thoughts/speculations that I don't think have been mentioned in this thread...

Going with the hunch that Daniel moved through time and Charlotte stayed where they last were .. that leaves her at the time that the statue existed. If I recall, at one point she was saying a whole bunch of stuff that didn't make any apparent sense and possibly she said something or spoke in a way that related to very ancient history? Someone who pays slightly better attention than I could probably speak better to that. But maybe she is still alive somehow but existing (at least for a period of time) in Ancient times ??????????


Now, as to the baby .. I think they name the baby after the guy who helped ensure a successful birth .. James. (The child is later sent off-island and adopted by the Fords)

Might be a bit of a stretch.... but who knows ...


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

jkeegan said:


> So, wonder if Ben learned how to manipulate people so well by watching the master, James. He could remember him later in life and want some revenge for something, so he has James in a polar bear cage, stabs him in the chest, brings him to the top of the 2nd island, and says that while James is good at cons, they were better at it.. (ala "once I was but the learner.. now I am the master!").


Given that James knows all about "Roger Workman" and Ben, I'm sure something will happen that he is somehow gone by the time Ben arrives on the island.

Sawyer would clearly try to kill Ben (look how he dealt with Mr Friendly) and we know that can't happen. Given that it would be pretty easyfor Sawyer to do so, he has to be gone...


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

MirclMax said:


> Now, as to the baby .. I think they name the baby after the guy who helped ensure a successful birth .. James. (The child is later sent off-island and adopted by the Fords)
> 
> Might be a bit of a stretch.... but who knows ...


Sawyers age doesn't fit. Plus I'm pretty sure the Others will raise that baby. I'm betting it's Karl, given that he ended up with Alex..


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Whne was the last time we saw Rose and Bernard? Wonder what's been going on with them...?


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

One last thing- when Michael needed to bring 4 of the survivors back to the Others camp (at the end of season 2) it was Sawyer, Kate, Hurley and Jack. 

I'm more convinced every week this show was very well planned from the beginning. I wonder what the Others really wanted with them then since they probably knew they couldn't die and would somehow travel back... were they trying to protect them or change what couldn't be changed?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

GDG76 said:


> Sawyers age doesn't fit. Plus I'm pretty sure the Others will raise that baby. I'm betting it's Karl, given that he ended up with Alex..


Age doesn't fit. Karl seemed to be a teenager or in his early 20s at most. If he was born in 1977, he should have been 27 in 2004.


----------



## hapdrastic (Mar 31, 2006)

jradford said:


> I have to ask, and I feel stupid asking because I think I should know the answer, but where have we seen that wooden cross before this episode?


I kept thinking the scene with the ankh seemed familiar and then I realized I was thinking about the movie Logan's Run. Maybe it was an homage.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

GDG76 said:


> Sawyers age doesn't fit. Plus I'm pretty sure the Others will raise that baby. I'm betting it's Karl, given that he ended up with Alex..


Other than the fact that the actor is older.. what about Sawyer's history makes his age not fit? (I just don't remember any specific age/date reference for him)


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Great episode. Loved nearly every minute of it. Except I hated the end how they're trying to play up the love triangle/square among Sawyer/Kate/Juliet and Jack. I've never cared even the slightest bit about the Jack/Kate/Sawyer thing and them trying to focus on it at the end just took away all the good feelings I had about this episode.


Okay, so let me get this straight.

The O6 had really only spent about 3 or 4 months on the island before they left on Penny's boat, and have spent three years (36 months) away from the castaways they had only known for three or four months in their lives.

And Walt had spent much LESS time on the island, and hardly got to know anybody besides his Dad. He played Backgammon or Go with Locke and learned how to throw a knife, but otherwise had limited interaction with Locke. But in NY it was like they knew each other for much more than their brief time together years earlier. ??

So now Sawyer has spent three years with Juliet -- having formed a close and loving relationship with her over those years -- and it can potentially be thrown out for a very brief fling he had with someone he barely knew three years ago (from his perspective ) even though they are now in 1977)??


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Traumatic experiences lead to stronger bonds. If you sit next to someone in a cube, maybe you don't bond with them that quickly. If you get stranded on an island and nearly killed 200 times by smoke monsters and scary people with guns, you probably bond quickly.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

uncdrew said:


> Sawyer's inner dialogue: "Meh, I'll stay with Dr. Hottie."


And Juliet was looking fantastic this week. She's always "done it" for me, but last night especially so.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

GDG76 said:


> So the rope travelled because Sawyer was holding it right? I am thinking that rope like that wouldn't be around when the statue was new.
> 
> So by holding the rope, Sawyer may have inadvertently given away the location of the donkey wheel to anyone who stumbles across the rope.


That's exactly what I thought too, when I saw that.



GDG76 said:


> I also thought during this show that we now know who is writing the lists. However, since they have already hit the time where they time travelled, what is the point of the lists exactly?


Okay, I apparently missed something about the lists. What was it?


----------



## aintnosin (Jun 25, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> Regarding the statue
> 
> We don't know when it was knocked down from the full to just the foot.
> 
> ...


We've only seen the statue twice. Once when Jin saw the foot as he was sailing Desmond's boat and then this week we saw the whole thing.

The statue was not present during any other jump, even back as far as the 1950's with the H-Bomb (It was way too tall to go unnoticed if it had been there).

The rest of the stature must be in the water off the island (If it had fallen inland, I'm guessing someone would have found a giant Anubis head on the ground).


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

latrobe7 said:


> Whne was the last time we saw Rose and Bernard? Wonder what's been going on with them...?


FWIW the producers have always been pretty clear that they understand how much people love Rose and Bernard,


Spoiler



and have gone out of their way to let us know that just because you don't see them, doesn't mean something bad has happened, just that they want to use the actors as best as possible when they have them available.



Diane


----------



## catcard (Mar 2, 2001)

What I don't get is why they did not take the sub that was due to leave 2 weeks later? I guess we will get the explanation at some point but it is strange that they had that easy way to leave and decided to stay for 3 years instead???


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

As I was reading messages in this thread, and someone mentioned that Juliet should have asked for the code rather than letting Amy (is that Reiko Aylsworth's name?) enter the code, it occurred to me...

That sort of keypad device didn't exist in 1974, or 1977. Perhaps in the 80s. There are analog versions of it (we have one on our computer room door here at work), but what she was entering clearly wasn't that. She entered a code, to open the box, to get the earplugs.

Greg


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

He doesn't wear eye shadow.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

In his EW column, Jeff Jensen mentioned that Ben once stated that Charlotte was born in 1979. I vaguely remember a scene last year when Ben spouted off facts about the freighter folks, but can't confirm this for certain. Assuming Jensen's correct (and the guy is pretty methodical in his coverage so it's a pretty safe assumption), anyone have any theories for how this jibes with her being a little girl in 1974?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Do we actually know the year? Juliet speculated 70s or 80s, but I don't remember any concrete information. Could be something I overlooked.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

For those of you who pointed out my timeline mistake, you're right. The whole sequence went by so fast it jumbled itself in my head.

I definitely like the idea that Sawyer gave away the location of the donkey wheel by holding on to the rope. So the whole thing works just because the O6 were skipping around in time, unwittingly influencing everything, including their future (past) when they crash.

Now, just what could be the Incident that sets off everything, including babies not being able to born? This would have to be something that even Ben's not aware of as he couldn't do anything about it.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> Do we actually know the year? Juliet speculated 70s or 80s, but I don't remember any concrete information. Could be something I overlooked.


Yes. Sawyer said it was 1974 when they first met Amy and the rest of the Dharma Initiative. Then it alternated back and forth three years, so it's 1977.


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

DreadPirateRob said:


> T
> Okay, I apparently missed something about the lists. What was it?


Just guessing on my part.

When the flight landed, people on the ground (Ben) probably already knew about it. He knew which people would be important (sawyer, jack, etc) and thus knew it was a good idea to try to get them on the right "side".

Alpert has a lot of info at his disposal. The time travellers keep running into him. He knows a lot of what is going to happen and I would imagine the lists are the product of his knowledge of the past/future.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

gchance said:


> As I was reading messages in this thread, and someone mentioned that Juliet should have asked for the code rather than letting Amy (is that Reiko Aylsworth's name?) enter the code, it occurred to me...
> 
> That sort of keypad device didn't exist in 1974, or 1977. Perhaps in the 80s. There are analog versions of it (we have one on our computer room door here at work), but what she was entering clearly wasn't that. She entered a code, to open the box, to get the earplugs.
> 
> Greg


That was me asking about the code.

So a keypad like that didn't exist, but did a sonic fence? Could the keypad be part of the techno stuff they have but no one else does. I haven't checked but did it look different then the one they showed last season attached to the fence?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

TAsunder said:


> Do we actually know the year? Juliet speculated 70s or 80s, but I don't remember any concrete information. Could be something I overlooked.


Good memory:
http://www.lost-tv.com/transcripts/Confirmed_Dead.html


> Her name is Charlotte Lewis! Charlotte Staples Lewis. Born July second, nineteen seventy-nine, Essex, England. Parents David and Jeanette. Eldest of three, all girls. She was raised in Bromsgrove. Did her undergraduate studies at Kent. Took her PhD in Cultural Anthropology at Oxford. She's here with two other team members and a pilot. Their names Daniel Faraday, Miles Straume, Frank Lapidus.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

wprager said:


> Good memory:
> http://www.lost-tv.com/transcripts/Confirmed_Dead.html


Doesn't that have some obvious lies in there? "Born in Essex," "Raised in Bromsgrove?" Don't we know she was born on the island?


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

She wasn't born in Essex, either... but why lie about her age... maybe her and her mom jumped a few years when they left the island...?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Or they simply didn't want to explain where Charlotte had been for several years, so they simply changed her age so they wouldn't have to explain the lost time. I admit, it's not that easy to do with a child.


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

GDG76 said:


> One last thing- when Michael needed to bring 4 of the survivors back to the Others camp (at the end of season 2) it was Sawyer, Kate, Hurley and Jack.


Good point, but if Sawyer is on that list, then Jin should have been too, as well as Sun and Sayid.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

getreal said:


> So now Sawyer has spent three years with Juliet -- having formed a close and loving relationship with her over those years -- and it can potentially be thrown out for a very brief fling he had with someone he barely knew three years ago (from his perspective ) even though they are now in 1977)??


These are the '70s, dude.


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

Cindy1230 said:


> Good point, but if Sawyer is on that list, then Jin should have been too, as well as Sun and Sayid.


They were on the boat. I don't think that's a coincidence either. Also, we don't know where Sun and Sayid are right now.

I just think it can't be a coincidence that the 4 people who ended this episode are the same 4 that Michael was supposed to deliver.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Or they simply didn't want to explain where Charlotte had been for several years, so they simply changed her age so they wouldn't have to explain the lost time. I admit, it's not that easy to do with a child.


Well, IIRC, Charlotte said that she left the island when she was eight or nine years old, which would be around 1979 based the age we saw her at last night in 1974 (she appeared to be three or four years old to me). That's quite a discrepancy for her family to pull off, however.

Although I'm the one who originally pointed this out (or pointed out Jeff Jensen having pointed it out), I should say that the one thing I don't think is that it's some type of oversight by the writers. I'm confident that there's an explanation that's fairly significant to the overall story.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

When did Sawyer say it was 1974? I just watched the episode for the second time and don't remember that at all.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Sawyer and Juliette were sitting in front of the sub.
She indicated she wanted to leave.
He said "You do realize it's 1974, right?"

That was in the "3 years ago" timeframe.

It's 1977 when Jack/Kate/Hugo show up. As others have said, right in time to miss Star Wars.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> When did Sawyer say it was 1974? I just watched the episode for the second time and don't remember that at all.


I don't remember for sure when it was stated or by who, but it was clearly stated at one point that the first period was either 1974, or the second period was 1977. Based on that mention, and the "three years" captions, we know that the two time periods are 1974 and 1977.

ETA: Or what biscuitboy wrote.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

jkeegan said:


> Sawyer and Juliette were sitting in front of the sub.
> She indicated she wanted to leave.
> He said "You do realize it's 1974, right?"
> 
> ...


Ah. Gotcha. Thanks!


----------



## mchasal (Jun 6, 2001)

gchance said:


> As I was reading messages in this thread, and someone mentioned that Juliet should have asked for the code rather than letting Amy (is that Reiko Aylsworth's name?) enter the code, it occurred to me...
> 
> That sort of keypad device didn't exist in 1974, or 1977. Perhaps in the 80s. There are analog versions of it (we have one on our computer room door here at work), but what she was entering clearly wasn't that. She entered a code, to open the box, to get the earplugs.
> 
> Greg


This pic of one of the Apollo cockpits shows a similar keypad:

__
https://flic.kr/p/445799999
 The Apollos ran from 1967-72.

If we accept that Dharma had access to NASA level tech, I think it's reasonable for that type of keypad to be there. Admittedly, I don't have a screencap of it.


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

Cindy1230 said:


> Probably, but I think Ben's timeline is a bit fuzzy because we don't know exactly when he was born, just that it was probably early 60s. One of his passports said '62. Not sure how old he was when he and his dad came to the island... 12ish?
> 
> But young Ben met long-haired Richard...and we now know Richard had short hair in 1974. Or he could have been wearing a wig.





betts4 said:


> I am thinking it was a wig. After seeing the Others in their outfits when they captured Kate and the first time they met Locke, Jack and Sawyer, they were all in wigs and costumes.


For some reason, i'm focused on hair. How about Horace's?
When Horace greeted Ben on the island it was shoulder length.
And in 1974 and 1977 it was a lot longer. 
And 1992 (when he died) it was shoulder length again.

Pointless, i know, but just something I noticed. 
But if they didn't goof in the LOST wig department, based on my hair analysis, I can conclude that Ben is already on the island between 1974-1977.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

GDG76 said:


> Given that James knows all about "Roger Workman" and Ben, I'm sure something will happen that he is somehow gone by the time Ben arrives on the island.
> 
> Sawyer would clearly try to kill Ben (look how he dealt with Mr Friendly) and we know that can't happen. Given that it would be pretty easyfor Sawyer to do so, he has to be gone...





GDG76 said:


> Sawyers age doesn't fit. Plus I'm pretty sure the Others will raise that baby. I'm betting it's Karl, given that he ended up with Alex..


I'm pretty sure the baby is "Goodwin," the Other that infiltrated the Tailies. Horace's last name is Goodwin. (It was in a throwaway line this episode, though almost no line these days is throwaway).

And Goodwin eventually went on to have a thing with Juliet, the woman who delivered him. Weird how things work out.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> I'm pretty sure the baby is "Goodwin," the Other that infiltrated the Tailies. Horace's last name is Goodwin. (It was in a throwaway line this episode, though almost no line these days is throwaway).
> 
> And Goodwin eventually went on to have a thing with Juliet, the woman who delivered him. Weird how things work out.


Horace's last name is Goodspeed, not Goodwin.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Cindy1230 said:


> For some reason, i'm focused on hair. How about Horace's?
> When Horace greeted Ben on the island it was shoulder length.
> And in 1974 and 1977 it was a lot longer.
> And 1992 (when he died) it was shoulder length again.
> ...


Either that, or he simply cut his hair and changed the style sometime after 1977.


Peter000 said:


> I'm pretty sure the baby is "Goodwin," the Other that infiltrated the Tailies. Horace's last name is Goodwin. (It was in a throwaway line this episode, though almost no line these days is throwaway).
> 
> And Goodwin eventually went on to have a thing with Juliet, the woman who delivered him. Weird how things work out.


Horace's last name is "Goodspeed." We've known that since the episode when we saw young Ben arrive on the Island.

ETA: Damn, too slow again.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

So it was obviously this episode and last week's that could have been shown in either order, and not last week's and the one before.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> So it was obviously this episode and last week's that could have been shown in either order, and not last week's and the one before.


That would sure make a lot more sense than "316" and "L&D of Bentham" being interchangeable.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Goodspeed, Goodwin, what's the diff. 


:blush:


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> So it was obviously this episode and last week's that could have been shown in either order, and not last week's and the one before.


Except that's totally wrong. At least in what the producers intended.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

jkeegan said:


> It's 1977 when Jack/Kate/Hugo show up. As others have said, right in time to miss Star Wars.


But they've ALREADY SEEN it!


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

Peter000 said:


> I'm pretty sure the baby is "Goodwin," the Other that infiltrated the Tailies. Horace's last name is Goodwin. (It was in a throwaway line this episode, though almost no line these days is throwaway).
> 
> And Goodwin eventually went on to have a thing with Juliet, the woman who delivered him. Weird how things work out.


Goodwin seemed much older than 27 when he infiltrated the Tail section.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

jradford said:


> Doesn't that have some obvious lies in there? "Born in Essex," "Raised in Bromsgrove?" Don't we know she was born on the island?


How do we know that Dharma didn't call the village "Essex"? 

I find it hard to believe that they would screw this up, so I'm led to believe that the little red-haired girl is *not* Charlotte. On the other hand, if she left the Island and there were "strings attached" then perhaps they had to come up with a new identity for her and her mother.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Peter000 said:


> I'm pretty sure the baby is "Goodwin," the Other that infiltrated the Tailies. Horace's last name is Goodwin. (It was in a throwaway line this episode, though almost no line these days is throwaway).
> 
> And Goodwin eventually went on to have a thing with Juliet, the woman who delivered him. Weird how things work out.


Goodwin was a fair bit older than 27. The actor who played him was 48 in 2004.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

wprager said:


> How do we know that Dharma didn't call the village "Essex"?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that they would screw this up, so I'm led to believe that the little red-haired girl is *not* Charlotte. On the other hand, if she left the Island and there were "strings attached" then perhaps they had to come up with a new identity for her and her mother.


Also we've seen that leaving the island improperly can cause time issues


----------



## brermike (Jun 1, 2006)

I've seen a few people mention the list that the Others had. There are actually two lists in question. The mysterious Jacob's list which included only "good" people. These are the ones the Others took from the tail section right after the crash. It is also reasonable to assume this is why they took Walt and came for Locke. Also, we know from eye-patch dude, that Kate and Sayid are not on Jacob's list because they are flawed. This list seems pretty important to the mythology.

The second list was the one Michael had with Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Hurley's names on them. This was just a list used so that Ben could manipulate Jack into "wanting" to perform surgery on him. Not that it was a great plan, but that is the only significance of that list (or at least presented on the show so far). This list seems pretty unimportant to the mythology.


----------



## acej80 (Jan 19, 2003)

catcard said:


> What I don't get is why they did not take the sub that was due to leave 2 weeks later? I guess we will get the explanation at some point but it is strange that they had that easy way to leave and decided to stay for 3 years instead???


Didn't Sawyer basically say something like "it's 1974, there is nothing to go back too", and he wanted to stay on the island because he was waiting for Locke to return. My assumption is that he convinced everyone to stay and the dharma people to allow them to stay.


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

I'm probably in the distinct minority here, but I like Sawyer and Juliet together. And it's realistic that everything they've gone through would bring them together. (They've been telegraphing this romance at least since they sat together watching the aftermath of the freighter explosion.)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

MacThor said:


> Horace's last name is Goodspeed, not Goodwin.


As long as we're talking about Horace, I looked him up on Lostpedia and saw this: 


> Before he came to the Island, Horace was driving with Olivia 32 miles outside of Portland when he came upon Roger Linus carrying Emily Linus on the side of the road, right after Ben had been prematurely born. He wanted to take Ben's dying mother to the hospital, but she died before he had the chance to. ("The Man Behind the Curtain")


So I clicked on the link for Olivia and it says: 


> Olivia's last name has not been revealed within the show, however, she was listed as Olivia Goodspeed on ABC's Lost website and it is unclear whether they are married or related by blood.


So, Horace was hanging out with Olivia in Oregon when Ben was born. Base on the age of the car, that was clearly sometime in the late 60s. Then, we later see that Horace and Amy (Reiko Aylesworth) are together in 1977. Then, when Ben shows up on the Island (probably after 1977), we saw plenty of Horace and Olivia together, but no Amy. Are we to assume that Olivia is Horace's sister, do we assume that Horace and Amy were on again/off again, do we assume that something happens to Amy after 1977 but before Ben shows up?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mqpickles said:


> I'm probably in the distinct minority here, but I like Sawyer and Juliet together. And it's realistic that everything they've gone through would bring them together. (They've been telegraphing this romance at least since they sat together watching the aftermath of the freighter explosion.)


I have no problem with Sawyer and Juliet together. I agree that it makes sense. My problem is that I don't care even the slightest bit about the romantic lives of any of these characters. I'm interested in the Island and the timeline and the mystery, and the romantic stuff just detracts from that. As far as I'm concerned, Sawyer is free to hook up with whoever he wants. The same goes for Jack and Kate and anyone else. I just don't want to see it, because I think it ruins the story.

And zooming in on Kate at the end of this episode, as if we're supposed to feel some kind of twinge to our heart strings because Kate and Sawyer had something special, and now he's with Juliet, but we know he still has feelings for Kate, blah, blah, blah. What a way to ruin the end of an otherwise stellar episode.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

I don't care about the romance angle between Sawyer/Juliet/Jack/Kate; but I do care that Jin and Sun & Desmond and Penny live happily ever after...

Sappy, I know...


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

I really have nothing constructive to add to what's already been said...I just wanted to add that I was really happy to see that statue at the begining of the episode.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

How did Sawyer know it was 1974 though? He might have just been throwing out a random year in the range Juliet specified.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Has anyone commented at the obvious symmetry this episode showed? The O6 had to lie in order to live safely OFF the island, while the Sawyer Group (SG) had to lie in order to live safely ON the island. The O6 lived off the island 3 years before island events caught up with them, and the SG lived three years on the island before events caught up with them. The lies and the three year pause between both groups must mean something.

If I remember correctly, Juliet said that the women go into distress in the sixth or seventh month of pregnancy, resulting in the death of the mother and the child. Claire was well past the seventh month when she reached the island,and Sun had left the island well before her sixth month. I always thought that the fatal pregnancies were a side-effect of the heightened immune systems of people on the island. If the fetus, which has different genes from the mother, is interpreted as a foreign infection, it could cause rejection, resulting in mutual death. It is rather an interestng field of study trying to figure out why the mother's immune system does not actually do this.


brermike said:


> I've seen a few people mention the list that the Others had. There are actually two lists in question. The mysterious Jacob's list which included only "good" people. These are the ones the Others took from the tail section right after the crash. It is also reasonable to assume this is why they took Walt and came for Locke. Also, we know from eye-patch dude, that Kate and Sayid are not on Jacob's list because they are flawed. This list seems pretty important to the mythology.


I think Mr. Friendly said that Jack wasn't on the list either, but Ben needed him because he had a spinal tumor, and because Jack was a spinal surgeon. this could have been the issue that made Jacob reject Ben and select Locke as leader.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> How did Sawyer know it was 1974 though? He might have just been throwing out a random year in the range Juliet specified.


I'm pretty sure he asked someone offscreen -- it would have been one of my first questions. We DON'T need to see everything to make reasonable assumptions. Like someone above asked why didn't they leave in two weeks when the sub came back? Reasonable assumption says Sawyer was able to convince everyone to stay on and wait for Locke. And two weeks gradually turned into three years.


----------



## zeppo2 (Mar 26, 2005)

Ok, wondering where all this Egyptology is going. Haven't seen anyone speculate, but Horace is clearly a homophone of Horus, the Egyptian god (son of Isis and Osiris), and I clearly recall his hieroglyphic symbol, the falcon, in an earlier episode when a map was revealed of the island. Couple with the ankh in this episode, this could either be the key to the mystery...or another red herring.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

zeppo2 said:


> Ok, wondering where all this Egyptology is going. Haven't seen anyone speculate, but Horace is clearly a homophone of Horus, the Egyptian god (son of Isis and Osiris), and I clearly recall his hieroglyphic symbol, the falcon, in an earlier episode when a map was revealed of the island. Couple with the ankh in this episode, this could either be the key to the mystery...or another red herring.


Did the ancient Egyptians tattoo eyeliner into their kings and queens? Could Alpert be some kind of ancient Egyptian king that had been exiled?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

tewcewl said:


> I'm pretty sure he asked someone offscreen -- it would have been one of my first questions. We DON'T need to see everything to make reasonable assumptions. Like someone above asked why didn't they leave in two weeks when the sub came back? Reasonable assumption says Sawyer was able to convince everyone to stay on and wait for Locke. And two weeks gradually turned into three years.


One of your first questions would be "what year is it" to the guys who barely trust or believe you and think you are lying about just getting to the island from a shipwreck?

And anyway the point is that the 1974 number is not a "fact" as much as an assumption until we see proof of this by correlating with other events or similar. As such, all the math used here to calculate ages and form timelines are not necessarily accurate.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

On the other hand, Sawyer went from "It must be the 70s or 80s" to "It's 1974"; the sudden precision tells me he has acquired new information.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

vertigo235 said:


> Becoming pretty clear how ben allways seemed to know that he was safe from death, and how he seemed to know what was going to happen all the time.
> 
> Also how the "lists" were made.


Maybe a big part of this that is still missing is where Jacob fits in. If there really is a Jacob. As for Ben, have we seen him do any time traveling except for the few months when he turned the wheel? Are you saying he's getting his info from Richard who has seen the time travelers?



Fool Me Twice said:


> Here is a suggestion that the statue is of Anubis.


How many toes does Anubis have? 



betts4 said:


> That was funny. I was also wondering why they all went thru at once. Juliet should have gotten the code from Amy and punched it in herself. Bad move guys.


They were acting like they just arrived on the island then--Juliet didn't want to seem too familiar with the fence. Didn't the Others use the earplug trick when she was there? And is that why Richard said the fence didn't stop him?



GDG76 said:


> Sawyer would clearly try to kill Ben (look how he dealt with Mr Friendly) and we know that can't happen. Given that it would be pretty easyfor Sawyer to do so, he has to be gone...


Are we sure that killing Ben as a child isn't exactly what they need to do to "save" the island?



GDG76 said:


> Alpert has a lot of info at his disposal. The time travellers keep running into him.


He always seems too surprised or clueless when they meet him. You'd think by now he would get excited to see another one and try to get info from them. Actually they've told him very little. He seems only slightly less shocked at the idea of time travel than I would be.

As far as we know, the Dharma people are completely gone after the purge, except for Ben, so we shouldn't see Goodwin or Ethan or Carl here unless they were infiltrating. Or kids were adopted since they couldn't have their own. We know Horace is gone, so how does he know about Jacob? Why is he building Jacob's cabin. Or is it a smoke monster look alike? Why would it appear as someone Locke never saw before?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> On the other hand, Sawyer went from "It must be the 70s or 80s" to "It's 1974"; the sudden precision tells me he has acquired new information.


We'll see... in any case it's not as certain as people are making it out to be. I'd like some more evidence before I say that we can start ruling out people based on their hypothetical ages if they were born in 1977.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> As long as we're talking about Horace, I looked him up on Lostpedia and saw this:
> 
> So I clicked on the link for Olivia and it says:
> 
> So, Horace was hanging out with Olivia in Oregon when Ben was born. Base on the age of the car, that was clearly sometime in the late 60s. Then, we later see that Horace and Amy (Reiko Aylesworth) are together in 1977. Then, when Ben shows up on the Island (probably after 1977), we saw plenty of Horace and Olivia together, but no Amy. Are we to assume that Olivia is Horace's sister, do we assume that Horace and Amy were on again/off again, do we assume that something happens to Amy after 1977 but before Ben shows up?


In 1977 Horace looked a lot older and messier than he did when Ben came to the Island. I was under the distinct impression that 1977 is *after* Ben came to the Island. Michael Emmerson was born in 1954; playing someone born in the late 60s is a bit of a stretch. One of his passports had 1962 as his birth year. Lostpedia says he was born in the early 60s.

All of this (to me, at least) says that we'll be seeing young Ben shortly.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

jkeegan said:


> C'mon, in this very same episode we see an Egyptian statue holding an ankh, which represents eternal life, and it's an episode where Richard and his group are involved.


Where was the Egyptian statue holding an ankh? Do you mean the back of a huge statue in the way-back time that is probably, but not definitely, Egyptian and that we have no idea what it might, or might not, be holding? Or did I miss another statue somewhere?



tewcewl said:


> I definitely like the idea that Sawyer gave away the location of the donkey wheel by holding on to the rope.


Gave it away to whom? When Sawyer was holding the rope wasn't it back in the way-back time? That rope would definitely have rotted completely away before anyone from Dharma, etc. would be around to find it. No?


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

madscientist said:


> Gave it away to whom? When Sawyer was holding the rope wasn't it back in the way-back time? That rope would definitely have rotted completely away before anyone from Dharma, etc. would be around to find it. No?


We saw two different "times" this ep where Sawyer's rope was going into the dirt - one with no well and the statue, the other with the well, but it had been filled in. The second one is in the same "when" that they were flash-forwarding and back from, 1974 (or thereabouts).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> One of your first questions would be "what year is it" to the guys who barely trust or believe you and think you are lying about just getting to the island from a shipwreck?
> 
> And anyway the point is that the 1974 number is not a "fact" as much as an assumption until we see proof of this by correlating with other events or similar. As such, all the math used here to calculate ages and form timelines are not necessarily accurate.


I guarantee they put Sawyer's line "It's 1974" into the script to inform the viewers what year it was. They didn't put it there because Sawyer was speculating and we're supposed to keep wondering. They put it there to definitively tell us what year it was. It really doesn't matter how Sawyer got the information. The fact is that the writers wrote that line for our benefit.


wprager said:


> In 1977 Horace looked a lot older and messier than he did when Ben came to the Island. I was under the distinct impression that 1977 is *after* Ben came to the Island. Michael Emmerson was born in 1954; playing someone born in the late 60s is a bit of a stretch. One of his passports had 1962 as his birth year. Lostpedia says he was born in the early 60s.
> 
> All of this (to me, at least) says that we'll be seeing young Ben shortly.


You may be right. The car that Horace was driving when he came upon Ben's father when Ben had just been born was a 1966 or 1967 Karmann Ghia, but that car was largely unchanged throughout the 60s, so although they may have used a '67 for the shot, they could have intended that it be an earlier year. If we assume Ben was born in '62 and came to the Island when he was 12, Sawyer and crew should know him (as a child) fairly well.

It will be interesting to see if we see any more of the 1974-1977 time period, or if we simply now move forward with the Sawyer Group and the O6 reunited in 1977.


----------



## aintnosin (Jun 25, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> On the other hand, Sawyer went from "It must be the 70s or 80s" to "It's 1974"; the sudden precision tells me he has acquired new information.


That was after his conversation with Richard, wasn't it? Sawyer could have asked him directly off-screen without tipping his hand to anyone at DHARMA.


----------



## divisibleby9 (Mar 6, 2009)

Could Desmond be the baby? Eloise told him that the island is not finished with him yet. Yes, he has an accent. But if he is taken off the island, he would get the accent. Have we seen his parents? Or know anything about them?


----------



## aintnosin (Jun 25, 2003)

divisibleby9 said:


> Could Desmond be the baby? Eloise told him that the island is not finished with him yet. Yes, he has an accent. But if he is taken off the island, he would get the accent. Have we seen his parents? Or know anything about them?


Again, Desmond is too old to be the baby.


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> It will be interesting to see if we see any more of the 1974-1977 time period, or if we simply now move forward with the Sawyer Group and the O6 reunited in 1977.


I think we will definitely see more of that time period to understand why Juliet didn't leave in the sub two weeks later and how Sawyer convinced Horace to become part of the DI crew.
We also need to see more of Jin in that period.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

mqpickles said:


> I'm probably in the distinct minority here, but I like Sawyer and Juliet together. And it's realistic that everything they've gone through would bring them together. (They've been telegraphing this romance at least since they sat together watching the aftermath of the freighter explosion.)


OK, maybe I'm discovering my girly mon inner self but despite being the antithethis of a soaps kinda guy, I always liked the Sawyer/Juliette/Jack/Kate dynamic. I always wanted Sawyer to end up with Kate (whom I have a major case of the hots for) since Jack was not one of my favorite characters but Sawyer and Juliette (looking kinda hot) seemed good together.

Gawd, I love LOST and will be seriously depressed when it ends.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Hmmm, Egypt & Tunisia aren't super far from each other...

-smak-


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

philw1776 said:


> ...but Sawyer and Juliette (looking kinda hot) seemed good together.


I didn't buy it one bit. It seemed kinda forced to me.


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I have no problem with Sawyer and Juliet together. I agree that it makes sense. My problem is that I don't care even the slightest bit about the romantic lives of any of these characters. I'm interested in the Island and the timeline and the mystery, and the romantic stuff just detracts from that. As far as I'm concerned, Sawyer is free to hook up with whoever he wants. The same goes for Jack and Kate and anyone else. I just don't want to see it, because I think it ruins the story.
> 
> And zooming in on Kate at the end of this episode, as if we're supposed to feel some kind of twinge to our heart strings because Kate and Sawyer had something special, and now he's with Juliet, but we know he still has feelings for Kate, blah, blah, blah. What a way to ruin the end of an otherwise stellar episode.





philw1776 said:


> OK, maybe I'm discovering my girly mon inner self but despite being the antithethis of a soaps kinda guy, I always liked the Sawyer/Juliette/Jack/Kate dynamic. I always wanted Sawyer to end up with Kate (who I have a major case of the hots for) since Jack was not one of my favorite characters but Sawyer and Juliette (looking kinda hot) seemed good together.
> 
> Gawd, I love LOST and will be seriously depressed when it ends.


Hmm. Well, I'm with Devdog in that I never liked the Jack/Kate/Sawyer triangle. But that's largely because I really didn't like Kate and Sawyer together. Maybe that's part of why I liked seeing Sawyer and Juliet together.

In fact, I liked Jim LaFleur generally. It's like Sawyer finally found his groove. He had never fit in in the real world, and never really did with the Losties either. But with the DI, he is a respectable guy.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> As long as we're talking about Horace, I looked him up on Lostpedia and saw this:
> 
> So I clicked on the link for Olivia and it says:
> 
> So, Horace was hanging out with Olivia in Oregon when Ben was born. Base on the age of the car, that was clearly sometime in the late 60s. Then, we later see that Horace and Amy (Reiko Aylesworth) are together in 1977. Then, when Ben shows up on the Island (probably after 1977), we saw plenty of Horace and Olivia together, but no Amy. Are we to assume that Olivia is Horace's sister, do we assume that Horace and Amy were on again/off again, do we assume that something happens to Amy after 1977 but before Ben shows up?


Horace is a playa'


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> And zooming in on Kate at the end of this episode, as if we're supposed to feel some kind of twinge to our heart strings because Kate and Sawyer had something special, and now he's with Juliet, but we know he still has feelings for Kate, blah, blah, blah. What a way to ruin the end of an otherwise stellar episode.


I agree with that bit about zooming in on Kate and cutting back to Sawyer messing up an otherwise great episode, although I don't mind the romantic side-storylines. I think that would be realistic when you have healthy, attractive, heterosexual people trying to survive together in a wacky world. I wouldn't believe that these people are asexual.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

How many hours till the next episode?


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

zeppo2 said:


> Ok, wondering where all this Egyptology is going. Haven't seen anyone speculate, but Horace is clearly a homophone of Horus, the Egyptian god (son of Isis and Osiris), and I clearly recall his hieroglyphic symbol, the falcon, in an earlier episode when a map was revealed of the island. Couple with the ankh in this episode, this could either be the key to the mystery...or another red herring.


And Hurley's painting of the sphinx in the last episode.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Here's something from the Jugghead episode to consider..

We now know that the name Jacob was known (at least to Richard) in the fifties. And since none of them talked to Richard before the fifties, the idea of Jacob didn't get created by a Lostie.

So it's no time travel tragedy/confusion that created the concept in of Jacob in the first place, and it's not a con started by Locke or Sawyer.

It's also not just one of the leaders of the island (Widmore/Ben/Locke).


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Jacob is the software engineer who wrote the complicated holodeck/videogame, he gives orders to the current leader who goes off and gets things done.

Each person is their own process, moving through the 4d playing field. Everything is static so it's easier to code - no feedback loops (each game run makes one 4d picture of everything that happened).

For the movement of a person through space takes into account what objects they're holding, so they can change the coordinates of that object too (move it). Time jumps were implemented as a simple hack that merely changed their time coordinate too, but still changed the coordinates of held objects.

When a person dies, their process dies, so it doesn't move anymore (through time or space).

Every videogame has a desert/Egyptian level and a snow level.

Desmond's thought jumping through time thing is a pointer (to where along the person's history data) they're perceiving.

The numbers come up because of sub-optimal random number generation.

There ya go.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

I want whatever you are drinking/smoking!!!!


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

jkeegan said:


> Jacob is the software engineer who wrote the complicated holodeck/videogame, he gives orders to the current leader who goes off and gets things done.
> 
> Each person is their own process, moving through the 4d playing field. Everything is static so it's easier to code - no feedback loops (each game run makes one 4d picture of everything that happened).
> 
> ...


I used to think something very similar to this, and that the last season would be a reset of the game, but everyone would be playing different parts (maybe Josh Holloway is now Jack, Matthew Shepard is Locke, etc.) It would explain all of the crossovers in the flashbacks: they've all played each part serveral times, and there backgrounds are kind of a mismash in their minds. Obviously, I don't think that the show is headed in this direction, but it would raise some interesting possibilites.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

jkeegan said:


> Jacob is the software engineer who wrote the complicated holodeck/videogame, he gives orders to the current leader who goes off and gets things done.
> 
> ...
> 
> There ya go.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

getreal said:


> I agree with that bit about zooming in on Kate and cutting back to Sawyer messing up an otherwise great episode, although I don't mind the romantic side-storylines. I think that would be realistic when you have healthy, attractive, heterosexual people trying to survive together in a wacky world. I wouldn't believe that these people are asexual.


I don't expect the people to be asexual. I agree that they'd have these kinds of interactions, and I wouldn't care if they hinted at them. I'm simply saying that I don't like the fact that the writers are putting these things front and center in the storyline. That's a plot contrivance simply because they believe that viewers want that kind of stuff, and I'm saying that they've crafted an extremely intricate and intriguing story and it doesn't require that extraneous stuff that less interesting stories usually use to keep viewers engaged.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> The fact is that the writers wrote that line for our benefit.


I don't think the word "fact" means what you think it means.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

3D said:


> I used to think something very similar to this, and that the last season would be a reset of the game, but everyone would be playing different parts (maybe Josh Holloway is now Jack, Matthew Shepard is Locke, etc.) It would explain all of the crossovers in the flashbacks: they've all played each part serveral times, and there backgrounds are kind of a mismash in their minds. Obviously, I don't think that the show is headed in this direction, but it would raise some interesting possibilites.


I'd want Kate or Juliet to be Sawyer at the start of the current season, then. 
"First things first. Gimme your shirt."


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> I don't think the word "fact" means what you think it means.


I think it does. I'll be happy to acknowledge I'm wrong if at some point we find out that that wasn't 1974. Until then, I'm treating it as fact.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think it does. I'll be happy to acknowledge I'm wrong if at some point we find out that that wasn't 1974. Until then, I'm treating it as fact.


So "fact" means "my theory"?

(I think your theory is exactly right. I think your definition of fact is completely wrong.)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So "fact" means "my theory"?
> 
> (I think your theory is exactly right. I think your definition of fact is completely wrong.)


No, it's a fact that's been presented to us by the writers. That's how TV writers get information to their viewers. There is no question in my mind that it's a fact. I was simply acknowledging to TAsunder that if it turns out I was wrong, I'll freely admit it.

But I'm not. It's a fact.


----------



## rufus_x_s (Jul 14, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> No, it's a fact that's been presented to us by the writers. That's how TV writers get information to their viewers. There is no question in my mind that it's a fact. I was simply acknowledging to TAsunder that if it turns out I was wrong, I'll freely admit it.
> 
> But I'm not. It's a fact.


I agree with your theory also. In this context, I'd say a fact is something that has been established or can be verified. For example, if one of the writers said, yes, that's exactly right, DevdogAZ. But this is just a supposition which seems very likely.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

rufus_x_s said:


> I agree with your theory also. In this context, I'd say a fact is something that has been established or can be verified. For example, if one of the writers said, yes, that's exactly right, DevdogAZ. But this is just a supposition which seems very likely.


It does seem likely, but there are some minor inconsistencies, and it wouldn't be a big deal to me if they later show us that is in actuality 1982 or something. And I'm not really buying some of the age math being done here either way, because there is too much temporal stuff happening on the island and off the island for us to really know how old the character that was born (probably in 1977) would be.


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

Was Horace's dynamite from the stash found on the _Black Rock_?

If the _Black Rock_ was a 'slaver,' then 
A) Dynamite wasn't patented until 1867- after US slave trade had ended
B) Dynamite over 100 years old would have been decomposed more than when the Losties found it.

So- The dynamite on the _Black Rock _would have been more likely to have come from the Dharma-era. Right?


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

acej80 said:


> Didn't Sawyer basically say something like "it's 1974, there is nothing to go back too", and he wanted to stay on the island because he was waiting for Locke to return. My assumption is that he convinced everyone to stay and the dharma people to allow them to stay.


The only thing about this episode I found forced (other than the love-quadrangle... _yawn_) was Sawyer giving up so very fast on getting off the island. Because it's the 70s? Heck, I'd take reliving the disco era over living in Dharma, and I'm not even a con-man. Because of loyalty to Locke? Where did that really come from, anyway? It felt like the writers needing him (and everyone else) to stay and not coming up with a better reason.



jkeegan said:


> The numbers come up because of sub-optimal random number generation.


That part actually makes _sense_.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

mqpickles said:


> Hmm. Well, I'm with Devdog in that I never liked the Jack/Kate/Sawyer triangle. But that's largely because I really didn't like Kate and Sawyer together. Maybe that's part of why I liked seeing Sawyer and Juliet together.
> 
> In fact, I liked Jim LaFleur generally. It's like Sawyer finally found his groove. He had never fit in in the real world, and never really did with the Losties either. But with the DI, he is a respectable guy.


+1 to this. The romantic elements of Jack/Kate/Sawyer are the least interesting aspects of the show, but I found myself being a little happy for Sawyer and Juliet. They had a nice little thing together- and, yeah, Sawyer was no longer the outcast. I'm hoping Sawyer will just take a look at Jack and say "You can have her." That would be good for a few reasons. Juliet is hotter, anyway.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Sawyer gave up on wanting to leave the island a long time ago. It wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision in this episode.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Hunter Green said:


> The only thing about this episode I found forced (other than the love-quadrangle... _yawn_) was Sawyer giving up so very fast on getting off the island.


But we haven't yet seen what happened while they were waiting for the sub. Whatever it was, it made him change his mind. And I'm sure we WILL see it sooner or later.


----------



## goMO (Dec 29, 2004)

There's something about Juliet that I just can't stand. She always has that same little smirk on her face during every situation. Don't know if its bad acting or just her character. Drives me nuts..


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

goMO said:


> There's something about Juliet that I just can't stand. She always has that same little smirk on her face during every situation. Don't know if its bad acting or just her character. Drives me nuts..


It's from knowing that sex thing all guys like. 
The thing that makes Kate wrinkle her nose!


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

goMO said:


> There's something about Juliet that I just can't stand. She always has that same little smirk on her face during every situation. Don't know if its bad acting or just her character. Drives me nuts..


I love the little smirk. It drives me nuts, too. But in a good way.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But we haven't yet seen what happened while they were waiting for the sub. Whatever it was, it made him change his mind. And I'm sure we WILL see it sooner or later.


I figured that Sawyer never had any intention of willingly leaving in two weeks, but was happy to keep Juliet around as long as he could so that he could convince her to stick around longer. I would guess that Sawyer wouldn't voluntarily leave the island in the 70's because that would essentially have slammed the door on any chance he'd have of reuniting with Kate. I think Sawyer's plan, at least originally, was to not leave the island until he could get back to the time in which he's supposed to be. Whether those thoughts changed when he hooked up with Juliet I've no idea. I'd guess not, or else he would have left in the interim three year period. Thus, IMHO, whether Kate remained the primary motivation or not, Sawyer wants to get back to wherever he biologically should be in the 2004-2007 timeframe.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

goMO said:


> There's something about Juliet that I just can't stand. She always has that same little smirk on her face during every situation. Don't know if its bad acting or just her character. Drives me nuts..


I love the smirk, if you want to call it that, and I think Elizabeth Mitchell is one of the better actors on the show.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Wouldn't Sawyer want to go to the 70s to kill the Real Sawyer?


----------



## FlugPoP (Jan 7, 2004)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I love the little smirk. It drives me nuts, too. But in a good way.


Me too, Juliet over Kate any day


----------



## FlugPoP (Jan 7, 2004)

DUDE_NJX said:


> Wouldn't Sawyer want to go to the 70s to kill the Real Sawyer?


He already did?


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

BEFORE he damages his family, though.


----------



## goMO (Dec 29, 2004)

Juliet over Kate??? I don't see it. Kate has a smokin' body while Juliet could use a few laps on the track. imo, of course!


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

jkeegan said:


> Here's something from the Jugghead episode to consider..
> 
> We now know that the name Jacob was known (at least to Richard) in the fifties. And since none of them talked to Richard before the fifties, the idea of Jacob didn't get created by a Lostie.
> 
> ...


Unless... it's entirely possible the "incident" sends someone we know in the show (Christian Shepherd, another Lostie, a Dharmite, whoever) to be unstuck in time to the point where he's in ALL times, including prior to the 50s. Not that I think that's how it will happen, but you're ruling too many things out.



DevdogAZ said:


> I don't expect the people to be asexual. I agree that they'd have these kinds of interactions, and I wouldn't care if they hinted at them. I'm simply saying that I don't like the fact that the writers are putting these things front and center in the storyline. That's a plot contrivance simply because they believe that viewers want that kind of stuff, and I'm saying that they've crafted an extremely intricate and intriguing story and it doesn't require that extraneous stuff that less interesting stories usually use to keep viewers engaged.





tivoboyjr said:


> +1 to this. The romantic elements of Jack/Kate/Sawyer are the least interesting aspects of the show, but I found myself being a little happy for Sawyer and Juliet. They had a nice little thing together- and, yeah, Sawyer was no longer the outcast. I'm hoping Sawyer will just take a look at Jack and say "You can have her." That would be good for a few reasons. Juliet is hotter, anyway.


All you folks who are disliking that end scene with Kate & Sawyer are missing something here.

Sawyer: Three years ago, he fell in love with Kate. In order to save her, he jumped out of the helicopter she was in and swam to the island. When he got to shore, he ran into Juliet, who pointed out the now-blown-up freighter to him. The helicopter was nowhere in sight. As far as Sawyer's concerned, Kate is dead. Now she shows up, alive.

Kate: Three years ago, she fell in love with two men, one of whom jumped out of a helicopter to save her life, the other she's been with off and on for three years and who's a little but crazy these days. Always wondering what happened, always wondering "what if?" Now, after three years of wondering, here he is.

You think that JUST MAYBE there might be some googly-eyes going on?

Greg


----------



## FlugPoP (Jan 7, 2004)

goMO said:


> Juliet over Kate??? I don't see it. Kate has a smokin' body while Juliet could use a few laps on the track. imo, of course!


I'll give you this, island Kate is much hotter than Kate off the island Kate.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

gchance said:


> Unless... it's entirely possible the "incident" sends someone we know in the show (Christian Shepherd, another Lostie, a Dharmite, whoever) to be unstuck in time to the point where he's in ALL times, including prior to the 50s. Not that I think that's how it will happen, but you're ruling too many things out.
> 
> All you folks who are disliking that end scene with Kate & Sawyer are missing something here.
> 
> ...


Speaking for myself, it's not that I don't get it, it's just that I don't want to go down that road again. The low point of the show was the height of the Jack/Kate/Sawyer stuff, and I just don't want to go back there. Whatever is going to happen, they need to make it quick and move on. I also think Juliet is a bigger prize than Kate so I don't want to see her get pushed aside and become the fourth wheel again.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

MAYBE if Juliet and Kate had something going on Gia-style, I could get into it...


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

goMO said:


> Juliet over Kate??? I don't see it. Kate has a smokin' body while *Juliet could use a few laps on the track*. imo, of course!


 nmo (not my opinion)


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

If Juliet needs a few laps, Kate needs a sandwich.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

5thcrewman said:


> Was Horace's dynamite from the stash found on the _Black Rock_?
> 
> If the _Black Rock_ was a 'slaver,' then
> A) Dynamite wasn't patented until 1867- after US slave trade had ended
> ...


Forgot all about the Dynamite on the Black Rock. Good catch. Maybe LeFleur hid the dynamite there to keep it from Horace?


----------



## rgr (Feb 21, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> It does seem likely, but there are some minor inconsistencies, and it wouldn't be a big deal to me if they later show us that is in actuality 1982 or something. And I'm not really buying some of the age math being done here either way, because there is too much temporal stuff happening on the island and off the island for us to really know how old the character that was born (probably in 1977) would be.


As to age math, do we even know if people age at the same rate on the island as they would off of it? Or if it's possible to stop aging if you've been on the island long enough? Richard doesn't seem to age and he doesn't seem to time hop, so is that a gift from "Jacob" or an effect of his life on the island?
And I think we know that the future can be changed, as Desmond went through several episodes of saving Charlie's life be rearranging events that would lead up to his death. Of course he still died, but the fact remains that the first "death" was prevented, as was the second, etc. The time stream changed.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

rgr said:


> And I think we know that the future can be changed, as Desmond went through several episodes of saving Charlie's life be rearranging events that would lead up to his death. Of course he still died, but the fact remains that the first "death" was prevented, as was the second, etc. The time stream changed.


No, it didn't. None of those prior deaths ever actually happened.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

DUDE_NJX said:


> If Juliet needs a few laps, Kate needs a sandwich.


I think Juliet looks fine weight wise. She's got huge boobs though, which makes her look heavier than she is. She's thin. I think her and Sawyer make a great couple, but we'll see.

I'm pretty sure Jack or Sawyer will die in the last episode doing something heroic. The survivor will probably end up with Kate.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, it didn't. None of those prior deaths ever actually happened.


Why was Desmond linked to Charlie early on? Are they even going to try and explain this?


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

Regarding aging, how do we know someone who was born on the island in say, 1974 couldn't be 50 years old? What I'm thinking (and I realize this is almost surely not the case) is that the baby born in this episode was born in 1974. What happens if in 1975 the baby somehow ends up time traveling back to 1954 and stays there? He then ages normally, and in 2004 would be 50, although he was born in 1974.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

whitson77 said:


> She's got huge boobs though


Not as big as you think. She is making great use of a push-up bra.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

BrandonRe said:


> Regarding aging, how do we know someone who was born on the island in say, 1974 couldn't be 50 years old? What I'm thinking (and I realize this is almost surely not the case) is that the baby born in this episode was born in 1974. What happens if in 1975 the baby somehow ends up time traveling back to 1954 and stays there? He then ages normally, and in 2004 would be 50, although he was born in 1974.


All very possible. In the wonderful world of time travel, your child could be older than you are.


----------



## rgr (Feb 21, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, it didn't. None of those prior deaths ever actually happened.


That's my point. Wasn't he "remembering" the future and working to prevent Charlie's death? If the future cannot be changed, then why bother? Each of those deaths must have happened in some time stream that Des was actively choosing which "fork" to take because he was avoiding a particular event. The folks from 2007 who are now back in 1974 know of events that they can affect and alter the outcome of those events.


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

tivoboyjr said:


> All very possible. In the wonderful world of time travel, your child could be older than you are.


And by extension, the baby boy we just saw born could be any of a number of people.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

BrandonRe said:


> And by extension, the baby boy we just saw born could be any of a number of people.


Hmmm or he could turn out staying a child and end up being the ruler of all of the island like this kid.....


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

rgr said:


> That's my point. Wasn't he "remembering" the future and working to prevent Charlie's death? If the future cannot be changed, then why bother? Each of those deaths must have happened in some time stream that Des was actively choosing which "fork" to take because he was avoiding a particular event.


Desmond thought he was changing the future, but maybe what he did was what was always going to happen. He was just (unwittingly) playing his role.

It's not as if Charlie died, Desmond went back in time, and his actions changed what happened. None of those deaths ever happened, except in Desmond's mind.


rgr said:


> The folks from 2007 who are now back in 1974 know of events that they can affect and alter the outcome of those events.


Not according to the show's resident expert in time travel (Daniel). They can only do what they always did. Nothing else will work. If they try to change what happened, something will come up to prevent it.

Of course, Daniel could be wrong or lying. But in story-structure terms, that would be cheating, and I really doubt these guys are cheating.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Not according to the show's resident expert in time travel (Daniel). They can only do what they always did. Nothing else will work. If they try to change what happened, something will come up to prevent it.
> 
> Of course, Daniel could be wrong or lying. But in story-structure terms, that would be cheating, and I really doubt these guys are cheating.


In story-structure terms they still have some freedom to alter the events. As long as the way they alter the events does not directly contradict what we have seen as viewers, they can get away with it thanks to their "I just remembered..." trick.


----------



## rgr (Feb 21, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Desmond thought he was changing the future, but maybe what he did was what was always going to happen. He was just (unwittingly) playing his role.
> 
> It's not as if Charlie died, Desmond went back in time, and his actions changed what happened. None of those deaths ever happened, except in Desmond's mind.


None of the deaths happened because Desmond prevented them. But if he hadn't, Charlie would have died before he did what he was supposed to in the station. It isn't as if Desmond was crazy and imagining the potential deaths. Some entity (the island, Jacob, the white haired lady?) had him remember the specific futures so that he could do what had to be done to get the result they were looking for. In my opinion, of course.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Not according to the show's resident expert in time travel (Daniel). They can only do what they always did. Nothing else will work. If they try to change what happened, something will come up to prevent it.
> 
> Of course, Daniel could be wrong or lying. But in story-structure terms, that would be cheating, and I really doubt these guys are cheating.


It wouldn't be cheating if his understanding of time-travel were incomplete. Remember, all he could accomplish in time travel before getting to the island was send consciousness back in time. The island actually sends people physically backward and forward in time. Is it cheating that Locke was dead on the plane, but then was alive on the beach? There's a lot we don't know yet, and I'm not willing to give up on the Island's ability to bend time and events to it's will (as it can life, injury, and death).


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

Alfer said:


> Hmmm or he could turn out staying a child and end up being the ruler of all of the island like this kid.....


...Johnson!


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Squeak said:


> Not as big as you think. She is making great use of a push-up bra.


Negative. She's not using a push up bra.

http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/elizabeth-mitchell/photos/149013/10

That isn't a pushup bra. She's at least a D, and she's thin. Not that it matters...but was disagreeing with the assumption that she's fat. It just isn't true.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

whitson77 said:


> Negative. She's not using a push up bra.
> 
> http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/elizabeth-mitchell/photos/149013/10
> 
> That isn't a pushup bra. She's at least a D, and she's thin. Not that it matters...but was disagreeing with the assumption that she's fat. It just isn't true.


Oh yeah. I'm guessing Elizabeth Mitchell has made a (couple of) good investments in her career that Evangeline Lily hasn't - yet.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

whitson77 said:


> Negative. She's not using a push up bra.
> 
> http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/elizabeth-mitchell/photos/149013/10
> 
> That isn't a pushup bra. She's at least a D, and she's thin. Not that it matters...but was disagreeing with the assumption that she's fat. It just isn't true.


Yeah, she's not wearing a push-up bra. And just to further investigate the issue further:





































(She's wearing a pushup in the last one, almost assuredly, so you can tell the difference.)

You're welcome.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

rgr said:


> It wouldn't be cheating if his understanding of time-travel were incomplete.


I'm not talking cheating in terms of logic, just in terms of storytelling. Daniel was presented as the guy who explains the rules of time travel to us (the viewers); for him to be wrong without cheating, there would have to be evidence in the story that he is wrong. There isn't.

And while many (most) shows are happy to cheat on storytelling, Lost is not one of them!


----------



## ILoveCats&Tivo (Feb 14, 2006)

goMO said:


> There's something about Juliet that I just can't stand. She always has that same little smirk on her face during every situation. Don't know if its bad acting or just her character. Drives me nuts..


+1 
I thought I was the only one that had that exact same observation.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

gchance said:


> All you folks who are disliking that end scene with Kate & Sawyer are missing something here.
> 
> Sawyer: Three years ago, he fell in love with Kate. In order to save her, he jumped out of the helicopter she was in and swam to the island. When he got to shore, he ran into Juliet, who pointed out the now-blown-up freighter to him. The helicopter was nowhere in sight. As far as Sawyer's concerned, Kate is dead. Now she shows up, alive.
> 
> ...


Of course we understand what's going on there. I'm simply saying that I don't care if Kate was in love with Sawyer and thought he was dead. I don't care that Sawyer was in love with Kate but moved on because he thought he'd never see her again. My point is that unless those relationships have something to do with the Island Mystery, they're totally irrelevant to the story and that can all happen in the background, IMO.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I just rewatched and noticed a couple of things. There were 2 things where Sawyer should have looked suspicious to Horace. For one, is it normal if you're on a Pacific island to travel by submarine for no good reason? You'd think someone who didn't know the situation would have said, "why a sub?" Also, the eyeliner boy line was funny, but Sawyer was looking across the yard in the dark. Obviously he'd seen Richard before.

The business about searching grid by grid for the 6 to come back 3 years later. I guess that shows why they're still there. 

Also, when Sawyer says 1974 to Juliet, they've been in 2 or 3 different houses and rooms--probably there was a calendar hanging on the wall in one of them.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

FlugPoP said:


> Me too, Juliet over Kate any day


First it was Betty or Wilma, then it was MaryAnn or Ginger. Now we've got Kate or Juliet. 

Since we're dreamin' here, I'd take Kate for a night, but settle down with Juliet.
:up:
Check out Elizabeth Mitchell in "Gia" with Angelina Jolie. Mmmmmm ...


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> In story-structure terms they still have some freedom to alter the events. As long as the way they alter the events does not directly contradict what we have seen as viewers, they can get away with it thanks to their "I just remembered..." trick.


So, fleshing out the story, adding details to a bare bones story, can only be described as a trick? Hmm. I guess I don't understand how history is altered if nothing we already know is contradicted.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

BrandonRe said:


> Regarding aging, how do we know someone who was born on the island in say, 1974 couldn't be 50 years old? What I'm thinking (and I realize this is almost surely not the case) is that the baby born in this episode was born in 1974. What happens if in 1975 the baby somehow ends up time traveling back to 1954 and stays there? He then ages normally, and in 2004 would be 50, although he was born in 1974.


This is a good point. I like it.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

> Originally Posted by goMO
> There's something about Juliet that I just can't stand. She always has that same little smirk on her face during every situation. Don't know if its bad acting or just her character. Drives me nuts..





> +1
> I thought I was the only one that had that exact same observation


+ 1 here. I have never ever liked Juliet and mainly it is because of that look she has. The smirk.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not talking cheating in terms of logic, just in terms of storytelling. Daniel was presented as the guy who explains the rules of time travel to us (the viewers); for him to be wrong without cheating, there would have to be evidence in the story that he is wrong. There isn't.
> 
> And while many (most) shows are happy to cheat on storytelling, Lost is not one of them!


Exactly. Desmond's travails with keeping Charlie alive was to show us viewers something - that it was pointless to fight with the Future. Mrs Hawkings showed Desmond that with the guy with red shoes who died under the building collapse. The universe will correct every attempt to change the future. Certain details can change, like how Charlie wound up dying, but not the fact that he was going to. That's all internal logic to the story, not cheating.

The 1974 thing is silly - it was presented to us as a fact, an expository point. We did not see Sawyer decipher something, or read tree rings, or whatever to figure it out. It's no different than the date of the US Army photo of the island showing 1954. Really? Is that true? Can you prove it? Of course not, it's a presented fact. Can't disprove it either.

Now, about that statue. No, I'm taking anything anything Jeff is, but my first thought when they showed it from behind was ... omigod, Jar Jar Binks.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I have also been thinking about why the others specifically wanted Michael to bring Hurley, Kate, Sawyer, and Jack and of course we now know the others would know those four from the past. Someone mentioned in this thread.

It was always curious to me how the others were able to compile such extensive dossiers on the losties in such a short amount of time. Once time travel was introduced I thought maybe the others have the ability to time travel which is how they were able to compile such extensive dossiers. They didn&#8217;t just need to use Google on the list of survivors from the plane crash if they could go back in time to collect information. 

However, now I don&#8217;t think those dossiers were obtained via time travel, I think they knew certain 815ers from the past and kept tabs on them over the next 30 years. Is that why they needed Ethan and Goodwin to make lists of the good people and the not good people? The good people possibly were people that had never been there before and thus could be converted to an other. The not good people maybe are people that have been there before or the others know for some reason their path can not be changed. 

Of course, if this was true it seems they should have been better prepared for when the plane was going to crash. Hmm, I think I like this train of thought but I better stop before I confuse myself again!


----------



## lpamelaa (May 3, 2004)

betts4 said:


> It was always curious to me how the others were able to compile such extensive dossiers on the losties in such a short amount of time. Once time travel was introduced I thought maybe the others have the ability to time travel which is how they were able to compile such extensive dossiers. They didnt just need to use Google on the list of survivors from the plane crash if they could go back in time to collect information.


What if they wrote the dossiers on themselves and that's how they had such detailed and personal information.


----------



## TheMerk (Feb 26, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not talking cheating in terms of logic, just in terms of storytelling. Daniel was presented as the guy who explains the rules of time travel to us (the viewers); for him to be wrong without cheating, there would have to be evidence in the story that he is wrong. There isn't.
> 
> And while many (most) shows are happy to cheat on storytelling, Lost is not one of them!


But aren't you arguing earlier in this thread that we cannot believe Sawyer when he states that it is 1974?

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

getreal said:


> Since we're dreamin' here, I'd take Kate for a night, but settle down with Juliet.
> :up:
> Check out Elizabeth Mitchell in "Gia" with Angelina Jolie. Mmmmmm ...


I don't think the image that creates is what is meant by "settling down"...

Speaking of annoying relationships, you know which I really hated? Sayid and Shanon. I'm working my way through season one right now, and boy was that hookup a stretch. Time travel and spirits may strain credulity, but that chick and that dude would just never happen. I think that's why they had to kill her off.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TheMerk said:


> But aren't you arguing earlier in this thread that we cannot believe Sawyer when he states that it is 1974?


Uh, no. Pretty sure I never said that.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> In story-structure terms they still have some freedom to alter the events. As long as the way they alter the events does not directly contradict what we have seen as viewers, they can get away with it thanks to their "I just remembered..." trick.


Going along with what you said, this means we will NEVER see little Ben killed off. We WILL see Daniel tell little Charlotte not to be with him. Basically, what happened, happened -- all the events we saw over the seasons, those things will never change.



TheMerk said:


> But aren't you arguing earlier in this thread that we cannot believe Sawyer when he states that it is 1974?
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


You're confusing Rob with TAsunder.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

tewcewl said:


> You're confusing Rob with TAsunder.


And when I agreed with TAsunder, it was with the notion that all this taking place in 1974 is not a fact, just a very well-supported and probably true interpretation.

It would be a fact if there were some kind of conclusive evidence, such as a newspaper, a current event, etc.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

One thing that bothers me about Sawyer and the rest being Dharma Initiative for three years: Sawyer knows there is stuff about the island. He knows Richard Alpert is very, very old. Richard knows that Sawyer knows. There had to be some stuff going on between our Losties and the Hostiles (Others). For Kate, Jack, Hurly, its easy to summarize three years in the real world. But for the ones left on the Island, you would think that with all the crap that happened to them in 30 days, then three years would have a lot of stuff revealed to them.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Philosofy said:


> But for the ones left on the Island, you would think that with all the crap that happened to them in 30 days, then three years would have a lot of stuff revealed to them.


And only a year and a half of the show left to explore that!

(It wouldn't completely shock me if the format now or soon switched to "present" scenes in 1977, and "flashback" scenes showing what happened between 1974 and 1977. Which would make for a nice overall structural symmetry for the show; regular flashback stuff at the beginning and end, and the flash-forward and flash-sideways stuff in the middle.)


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

ireland967 said:


> I hope that wasn't all we'll ever see of the statue





Fool Me Twice said:


> Here is a suggestion that the statue is of Anubis.
> 
> [click]


Maybe Jin will be on the face of the statue. Maybe it's not anubis. Maybe that's a fishing spear.

And maybe this is a smeek, but, Sawyer/Juliette killed two people and buried them. Did they bury or put them in a cave?


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

whitson77 said:


> I think Juliet looks fine weight wise. She's got huge boobs though, which makes her look heavier than she is. She's thin. I think her and Sawyer make a great couple, but we'll see.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Jack or Sawyer will die in the last episode doing something heroic. The survivor will probably end up with Kate.


In that case, let me volunteer my body to console Juliet. I've always been a major Kate fan but Juliet's smirk, persona and quiet smarts are very attractive to me. Loved Juliet's interaction with Sawyer e.g. when she critiqued his leadership decision to "go back to the beach" and Sawyer's retorts to her comments are a hoot. Well written characters, well acted.

Please do not fwd this post to my wife who of course is FAR better than either of them.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Also wondering how much contact Sawyer and company have had with the Others in 3 years. In current time the Others seem to be pretty much the good guys. They're the ones who are left in the future, anyway. So what will he do with the 6? Take them to Dharma? Take them to the Others? Do they know when the Purge happens? Need to be out of there by then. Can Jacob tell them how to get back to the future? I doubt if Horace can.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And when I agreed with TAsunder, it was with the notion that all this taking place in 1974 is not a fact, just a very well-supported and probably true interpretation.
> 
> It would be a fact if there were some kind of conclusive evidence, such as a newspaper, a current event, etc.


Or a definitive line of expository dialogue.


----------



## chronatog7 (Aug 26, 2004)

Alpert seems to be pretty groomed all the time (50s, 70s, etc), which the exception of the time he meet with (young) Ben.

Any thoughts on that?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

chronatog7 said:


> Alpert seems to be pretty groomed all the time (50s, 70s, etc), which the exception of the time he meet with (young) Ben.
> 
> Any thoughts on that?


He was wearing a costume.

Remember when the Others captured Kate and they were all in weird outfits - scraggy hair and tunics and such. And then Kate found the costumes in the locker at one of the dharma stations. Richard was wearing a costume when he met up with Young Ben.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I think I know the name of the island now.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Or a definitive line of expository dialogue.


Just because they were in bed together doesn't mean...


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

total speculation here, but could the new baby be ... Daniel?

Remember, he saw the little girl and 'recognized' her as Charlotte. Maybe because he grew up in that era, too?

ps: I hope this isn't a 'smeek'. I scanned all of the earlier posts and read every one that had Daniel's name in it. My huge apologies if this has been mentioned before!


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

betts4 said:


> He was wearing a costume.
> 
> Remember when the Others captured Kate and they were all in weird outfits - scraggy hair and tunics and such. And then Kate found the costumes in the locker at one of the dharma stations. Richard was wearing a costume when he met up with Young Ben.


I think the question is, if he's wiling to walk right into the Dharma camp dressed normally, why would he be wearing a costume on other occasions? Who is he trying to fool?


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Hmm.. Do we know the timeline of young Ben's foray past the sonic fence to meet Richard? Maybe it coincides with external groups coming to the island that weren't Dharma (like Danielle's boat with Jin?). Without the timeline in front of me I dunno, but it feels like no, Danielle's group was much later.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> I think I know the name of the island now.


Dramatic pause? You want a drumroll or something?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I'm not going to post it, even with spoiler tags. I was just wondering if anyone else had the same reaction I did. It hit me at the beginning of the episode; later, there was a single word that I took as confirmation. In retrospect, there have been clues all along, but I felt they dropped big hints in this episode.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> I'm not going to post it, even with spoiler tags. I was just wondering if anyone else had the same reaction I did. It hit me at the beginning of the episode; later, there was a single word that I took as confirmation. In retrospect, there have been clues all along, but I felt they dropped big hints in this episode.


I have no idea what you're talking about...


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Yeah... it even has a name? No one even knows where you're going with this.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

He might be thinking Atlantis? That's certainly something that's been suggested, anyway...


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Yes, Atlantis.

The confirming word was "Plato".


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

Removed.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

If that's what they're doing, it's pretty silly. This island is nowhere large enough to be considered "The Lost *Continent*"


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Still could be Atlantis. First, myths can grow. Second, the island was always moving. If you sail somewhere and land, then someone else sails somewhere much further away and lands in the same place, would you think the place was bigger than it was?


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

That's not a spoiler. It's a theory. One of the oldest. Feel free to speculate.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

Not to mention Atlantis would have a ton of ruins, and it had a huge harbor. The whole thing about it blowing up and sinking into the Mediterranean might be considered a problem, were Plato a good source in the first place. I've always thought Atlantis was a red herring - but it's the only real island of myth we have, so people go with it. The good news is you can't be wrong yet.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I wonder where the Others lived before they wiped out Dharma and moved into New Otherville. If they lived in tents in the jungle, it would be hard to keep that shirt nicely pressed and to shave every day. If they have a village of their own, why move into the Dharma headquarters?


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

I think it could be Atlantis - in the sense of a very ancient, lost island-based civilization. 

I suspect that the hieroglyphics that look Egyptian will be explained by people from the island ending up in ancient Egypt; not Egyptians ending up on the island...


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> I wonder where the Others lived before they wiped out Dharma and moved into New Otherville. If they lived in tents in the jungle, it would be hard to keep that shirt nicely pressed and to shave every day. If they have a village of their own, why move into the Dharma headquarters?


Don't they live in The Temple or something?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Rosincrans said:


> I think the question is, if he's wiling to walk right into the Dharma camp dressed normally, why would he be wearing a costume on other occasions? Who is he trying to fool?


He is willing to walk in there in 1977 like that. But maybe within just a few years, things change. Ben comes to the island as a teen? preteen? and how long after that does he get contacted by Richard. Maybe Richard was wearing the costume because he didn't want Ben to go back to the Dharma Initiative and tell about the nice looking man. With Lost, who knows?

Why were the Others wearing costumes when they kidnapped Kate?


----------



## Dennis Wilkinson (Sep 24, 2001)

Delta13 said:


> I've always thought Atlantis was a red herring - but it's the only real island of myth we have


Well, there's also Mu/Lemuria, and a few others in various Asian myths. Atlantis is the only one with reputed Egyptian connections (at least, it's the only one I'm aware of with connections to ancient Egypt.)


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

I didn't dare mention the Atlantis possibility because I thought that even the monocellular protozoa that live in the bottom of the Marianas Trench had already dismissed that idea two years ago. Anyway, didn't the producers emphatically say "no, it's not Atlantis" back in season one, right after dismissing "Purgatory" as an explanation? (Oh no, I hope I haven't just encouraged someone to come post "Hey, I finally figured it out, it's purgatory!" now.)


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Hunter Green said:


> I didn't dare mention the Atlantis possibility because I thought that even the monocellular protozoa that live in the bottom of the Marianas Trench had already dismissed that idea two years ago. Anyway, didn't the producers emphatically say "no, it's not Atlantis" back in season one, right after dismissing "Purgatory" as an explanation? (Oh no, I hope I haven't just encouraged someone to come post "Hey, I finally figured it out, it's purgatory!" now.)


Bahahahaha.. I'd only made it as finishing the first sentence when I planned a "Hey I just thought of something.. what if they're in purgatory!" post.  Damn, you beat me to it.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

...however, what if each of the characters in the show is actually one of many monocellular protozoa in the Marianas Trench, which it turns out are sentient (despite their extreme simplicity, since consciousness clearly must be more than just what's in your brain on the show, so why not link it to them too), yet since they lack any of the traditional senses, they've been mercifully hooked up (by Jacob) to a giant holodeck where they live as humans would IF those humans had just gone to purgatory..


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

gchance said:


> All you folks who are disliking that end scene with Kate & Sawyer are missing something here.
> 
> Sawyer: Three years ago, he fell in love with Kate. In order to save her, he jumped out of the helicopter she was in and swam to the island. When he got to shore, he ran into Juliet, who pointed out the now-blown-up freighter to him. The helicopter was nowhere in sight. As far as Sawyer's concerned, Kate is dead. Now she shows up, alive.


But didn't Sawyer know that Kate survived via Locke, whom he helped to get off the island so he could bring the O6 back?


----------



## Trent Bates (Dec 17, 2001)

jkeegan said:


> ...however, what if each of the characters in the show is actually one of many monocellular protozoa in the Marianas Trench, which it turns out are sentient <snip>


I really think you need to stop being so narrow-minded!  C'mon! Consider all of the possibilities!


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

Maybe the island and the inhabitants are just little puppets/toys being played with by some alien race...


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

OK, OK, I somehow missed all previous Atlantis speculation.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Maybe it's just a television show. And it ends in the writers' room, with a big fight between the faction that wants to stick to the original plan, and the faction who have come up with a really cool alternative. And the characters look at these bozos, say "Screw this," kill them all, and hope to just live their own lives. But since they're fictional characters, when they kill the writers, they cease to exist.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

For those interested, here's Lostpedia's entry for the Atlantis theory. 

http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Lost_Continent_(theory)

Greg


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

gchance said:


> For those interested, here's Lostpedia's entry for the Atlantis theory.
> 
> http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Lost_Continent_(theory)
> 
> Greg


Your link was broken.. (led to an empty page-creation page)

http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Lost_Continent


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

I was just there! That's where I got the link, I did a Google search, opened the page, then copy/pasted from the top of the browser. Weird.

Greg


----------



## TiVoJedi (Mar 1, 2002)

betts4 said:


> I hope they don't miss Star Wars!


Don't worry, when they get off the island they can see the Super Extra Special Edition (now in 3-D and super definition)


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

If there was ever going to be a great ending to LOST, it would be that they wind up in a lagoon with the cast of Gilligan's Island.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

TiVoJedi said:


> Don't worry, when they get off the island they can see the Super Extra Special Edition (now in 3-D and super definition)


All 7 versions on VHS, then 4 Versions on DVD, 1 HD-DVD Bootleg Set, and 14 BR-DVD sets.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I would love to walk into the writers room now. I imagine a big wall with all the notes on it that track the plots and subplots and deviations and questions and answers.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

3D said:


> But didn't Sawyer know that Kate survived via Locke, whom he helped to get off the island so he could bring the O6 back?


But how did Locke know until he left the Island? He might inferred it from what Richard and/or Christian told him, but he didn't really know, and in any case, even if Locke had told Sawyer, Sawyer likely wouldn't believe him, because Sawyer wouldn't know how Locke could possibly have that information.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Delta13 said:


> So, fleshing out the story, adding details to a bare bones story, can only be described as a trick? Hmm. I guess I don't understand how history is altered if nothing we already know is contradicted.


Fleshing out a story by showing us additional surrounding events that completely change the interpretation of what happened is a trick. For example, they could have someone shown going back in time and turning the wheel at precisely the time when we thought the hatch went boom due to not entering the numbers. It's not exactly a contradiction because we saw the sky go white and all that, but it would be a trick nonetheless.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> But how did Locke know until he left the Island? He might inferred it from what Richard and/or Christian told him, but he didn't really know, and in any case, even if Locke had told Sawyer, Sawyer likely wouldn't believe him, because Sawyer wouldn't know how Locke could possibly have that information.


Then why did Sawyer even bother helping Locke get back to the Orchid? I thought that Richard told Locke that in order to save everyone on the island, he would have to bring everyone back, and in so doing would have to die. I even have a vague recollection of Locke telling Sawyer and Juliet that he was tasked with bringing the other Losties back. Am I totally misremembering this?


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> But how did Locke know until he left the Island? He might inferred it from what Richard and/or Christian told him, but he didn't really know, and in any case, even if Locke had told Sawyer, Sawyer likely wouldn't believe him, because Sawyer wouldn't know how Locke could possibly have that information.


If Sawyer didn't believe Locke, he wouldn't have been so insistent on staying on the island and convincing Juliet to stay too. Not to mention a daily grid search for 3 years. The whole reason for that was to look for Locke and the crew.


----------



## lpamelaa (May 3, 2004)

mqpickles said:


> If Sawyer didn't believe Locke, he wouldn't have been so insistent on staying on the island and convincing Juliet to stay too. Not to mention a daily grid search for 3 years. The whole reason for that was to look for Locke and the crew.


Interesting that Sawyer is acting like a "Man of Faith" in waiting for Locke to return. If all the characters are switching roles, maybe Sawyer is the new Locke.


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

The island can't be Atlantis. There's no Stargate. Duh.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Ok, i didn't see it mentioned, so this is an unintentional smeek if it is one.

Does anyone think the reason that Kate didn't take Aaron with her back to the island, is that Claire's "ghost" came to her at her house, and screamed at Kate to not bring Aaron back to the island...

-smak-


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

mqpickles said:


> Not to mention a daily grid search for 3 years. The whole reason for that was to look for Locke and the crew.


That's a man of science.



lpamelaa said:


> Interesting that Sawyer is acting like a "Man of Faith" in waiting for Locke to return. If all the characters are switching roles, maybe Sawyer is the new Locke.


That's a man of faith.

So Sawyer is both?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

betts4 said:


> That's a man of science.
> That's a man of faith.
> 
> So Sawyer is both?


Well, Locke was always pretty methodical in his pursuit of what he had faith in...


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> But how did Locke know until he left the Island? He might inferred it from what Richard and/or Christian told him, but he didn't really know, and in any case, even if Locke had told Sawyer, Sawyer likely wouldn't believe him, because Sawyer wouldn't know how Locke could possibly have that information.


He might have inferred it from Christian, but Richard pretty much told him flat out. Granted he had no absolute proof, but Locke wouldn't be much of a man of faith if he demanded a lot of proof ...


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

So, what's the deal with having to bring everyone back to save the people on the island? The people on the island seem to have been fine since Locke turned the wheel.

If I'm Kate, I'm thinking "I came all this way, for what? He's fine."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aindik said:


> So, what's the deal with having to bring everyone back to save the people on the island? The people on the island seem to have been fine since Locke turned the wheel.
> 
> If I'm Kate, I'm thinking "I came all this way, for what? He's fine."


Maybe the story's not over yet?


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

jkeegan said:


> ...however, what if each of the characters in the show is actually one of many monocellular protozoa in the Marianas Trench, which it turns out are sentient (despite their extreme simplicity, since consciousness clearly must be more than just what's in your brain on the show, so why not link it to them too), yet since they lack any of the traditional senses, they've been mercifully hooked up (by Jacob) to a giant holodeck where they live as humans would IF those humans had just gone to purgatory..


Now just put that faulty random number generator and you're golden. Hey, let's go pitch this to Fox as a new show. We can get that guy from Prison Break to play the bigger monocellular protozoan.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

betts4 said:


> I would love to walk into the writers room now. I imagine a big wall with all the notes on it that track the plots and subplots and deviations and questions and answers.


...with a big "DO NOT ERASE" written in the top corner


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Here you go. A tour of the writers room: Edit (just in case): Video may contain spoilers, misdirections, and lies.





I'm a spoiler phobe, so not knowing what I just saw...



Spoiler



Notice Michael on the R.I.P. board. Wait... Is that Jin up at the top?

Edit: Is that the Sixth Sense Kid on the living board? Is that joke or a casting spoiler?



Aw, hell. You can't believe anything that comes from Lindelof and Cuse!


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

This doesn't seem stagey at all!


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

As a public service reminder, just wanted to remind everyone that there's no Lost tomorrow.  We gotta keep the momentum going in this thread to keep us all going until next week.

So, what did Sawyer ask Kate to do? Maybe he wanted her to track down the mother of his child to request that the kid be named after someone on the island? I think the fact that the story has shifted (at least mostly) to the 70s makes that secret even more interesting now. What's up with that?

Damn, there was one other moment from a while back that now seemed interesting in retrospect, but I can't remember what right now.

When Horace was throwing dynamite at trees near the sonic fence, well, .. ok two things.. 1) Why? Maybe they'd planted those trees together, and he was blowing 'em up in anger? and 2) Having an explosion at the base of a tree reminded me of the smoke monster blowing that tree out of the ground a few weeks ago w/Jin and Danielle's team.. Add to that the fact that they're at the sonic fence, which keeps out the smoke monster, and you have a suspicious Jeff.

When's the Jm J Bullock episode coming?

C'mon people, we got 8 days to fill!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jkeegan said:


> So, what did Sawyer ask Kate to do? Maybe he wanted her to track down the mother of his child to request that the kid be named after someone on the island? I think the fact that the story has shifted (at least mostly) to the 70s makes that secret even more interesting now. What's up with that?


Didn't someone post a couple weeks ago that what Sawyer said to Kate before he jumped from the helicopter was revealed in closed-captioning on the DVD of that episode? It was posted here, but I don't remember what it was.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Didn't someone post a couple weeks ago that what Sawyer said to Kate before he jumped from the helicopter was revealed in closed-captioning on the DVD of that episode? It was posted here, but I don't remember what it was.


How did I miss that? Maybe it was in a spoiler tag.

Here's a youtube video I found that seems to say it.. It's not clear that the text on this screen is from the dvd captions, but someone commented later on in the comments that it basically said that.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

The captions said "whispers inaudiblyIf you find her, tell her Im sorry"

Another look: 






> There is another analysis video on Youtube that suggest Sawyer says "I have a daughter in Alabama, if you find her, tell her I'm sorry", which is interesting, although Clementine is in Albuquerque New Mexico, not Alabama (Sawyer set up trust fund in New Mexico), and also the audio track didn't seem to be the best quality, which would mute out any harsh letters (and thus not heard) like "k" for example.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Sayid doing stand-up on the island <-- check out the coconut microphone ...


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Weak theory:

Maybe Alpert needed Paul's body in order to do a cleansing sacrifice after Amy and Paul desecrated sacred ground by entering a forbidden area of the island? Maybe that's why Locke had to send Boone to his death--so that the other castaways could continue to live there?

I don't like it, but I want to participate...


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

getreal said:


> Sayid doing stand-up on the island <-- check out the coconut microphone ...


Funny.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

getreal said:


> Sayid doing stand-up on the island <-- check out the coconut microphone ...


It was so bad it was a little bit funny.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I watched the pilot episode of Angel on Sunday. Sawyer was a vampire in the opening scene. Got dusted right before the theme song.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

jkeegan said:


> How did I miss that? Maybe it was in a spoiler tag.
> 
> Here's a youtube video I found that seems to say it.. It's not clear that the text on this screen is from the dvd captions, but someone commented later on in the comments that it basically said that.


Jeff, I posted it in spoiler tags, but in a different Lost thread than the normal weekly one. For some reason, the DVD has the dialog in CC - even saying that it can't be heard. Go figure. There's not enough time in the scene for Sawyer to have explained diddly-squat, so it was also obvious that he and Kate had discussed whatever it was quite a bit prior to that.

For the record, I watched all of the S4 DVDs in CC and I don't think I discovered anything else of surprising interest. But maybe I missed something and hey, no Lost this week means you got 8 days to kill!


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

aindik said:


> So, what's the deal with having to bring everyone back to save the people on the island? The people on the island seem to have been fine since Locke turned the wheel.
> 
> If I'm Kate, I'm thinking "I came all this way, for what? He's fine."


I am becoming more and more convinced that since they exist in the 70s on the island, they always had existed in the 70s on the island, and that they, as a group DO something that is critical. I believe that THEY somehow cause the incident in the swan station. If they aren't there to do what they have clearly already done, then time unravels. Faraday said that things that happened, must have happened, and therefore are destined TO happen, or something like that. You cannot go back in time to create other versiuons of the present, but you can go back to do what has already been done but couldn;t happen without you.

Um, it's more clear in my mind than it is here.



jkeegan said:


> As a public service reminder, just wanted to remind everyone that there's no Lost tomorrow.  We gotta keep the momentum going in this thread to keep us all going until next week.


They are showing LaFleur with the on-screen comments this week. maybe they will tell us something important.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

Church AV Guy said:


> They are showing LaFleur with the on-screen comments this week. maybe they will tell us something important.


I'm very grateful for that. I was this close to going out to get some St. John's Wort, due to my depressed state.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Church AV Guy said:


> I am becoming more and more convinced that since they exist in the 70s on the island, they always had existed in the 70s on the island, and that they, as a group DO something that is critical. I believe that THEY somehow cause the incident in the swan station. If they aren't there to do what they have clearly already done, then time unravels. Faraday said that things that happened, must have happened, and therefore are destined TO happen, or something like that. You cannot go back in time to create other versiuons of the present, but you can go back to do what has already been done but couldn;t happen without you.
> 
> Um, it's more clear in my mind than it is here.


Actually, it was pretty clear. At least to me. 

I agree; when you have a bunch of the show's characters living in the time period before something important happened, it's a no-brainer that they will have something to do with the something important when it happens.

And that's the really sweet thing about the way the show has been planned. The gaps are shrinking, in ways that make sense.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

The first time I saw the Missing Piece #13: "So It Begins" Mobisode, I thought Christian was referring to Vincent when he said "he has work to do", but apparently he was referring to Jack.

Or was he? .... 

But now that we're into the Season 5 swing of things, do the other mobisodes make more sense?


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> I watched the pilot episode of Angel on Sunday. Sawyer was a vampire in the opening scene. Got dusted right before the theme song.


Thanks for nothing.
Now we'll get another dozen posts from the terminally confused trying to see how that Sawyer foray fits in with the time travel.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

If I remember correctly, the last bit of the swan orientation film (which was cut out and put in the other station (Arrow? the one where we met Bernard and Ekko), which they later spliced into the original) warned about using the computer to communicate, that you'd be very tempted to because of the isolation, but not to, because that might lead to another incident.

Food for thought.. although maybe it's not even foreshadowing events we've yet to see, because the actual incident was before the "protocol" of entering the code was followed, so maybe the first incident had nothing to do with that, but future incidents might arise from circumventing their new mechanism of hiding someone away in the swan and having him enter the numbers every 108 minutes.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Church AV Guy said:


> I am becoming more and more convinced that since they exist in the 70s on the island, they always had existed in the 70s on the island, and that they, as a group DO something that is critical. I believe that THEY somehow cause the incident in the swan station. If they aren't there to do what they have clearly already done, then time unravels. Faraday said that things that happened, must have happened, and therefore are destined TO happen, or something like that. You cannot go back in time to create other versiuons of the present, but you can go back to do what has already been done but couldn;t happen without you.
> 
> Um, it's more clear in my mind than it is here.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> Actually, it was pretty clear. At least to me.


Ditto. Very clear, and I 100% agree.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Yup agreed. At first I thought the island timeshifts were mainly just a cool way to tell the backstory, but now that it seems they're going to live their lives back in the 70's, it seems that they are going to be an integral part of what has already happened.

Wasn't their theories that the island wouldn't let certain people die, and maybe that's because dying would change the past. If jack always was going to be back in 1977 and do something important, and it's impossible to change it, than he certainly couldn't kill himself on that bridge.

-smak-


----------



## jhowell (Sep 19, 2006)

Just some wild speculation here. The statue had something that looked a bit like a bowl on top. That could be a place to hold a fire and the statue may be a lighthouse, designed to help guide ancient Others to the island. Perhaps, when the island moved the statue snapped at the legs and fell over like the Colossus of Rhodes.


----------



## Alpinemaps (Jul 26, 2004)

Here's a question I need answered...why is there no new episode this week?


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

Paging DevdogAZ ... will DevdogAZ please pick up the Network Scheduling blue courtesy phone ...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Delta13 said:


> Paging DevdogAZ ... will DevdogAZ please pick up the Network Scheduling blue courtesy phone ...


Actually, I've been wondering that myself. It's sweeps right now, and I thought the whole purpose of not starting the show until January was so they could run a new episode every week. I also wondered if there was some special or awards show I didn't know about, but I looked at what the rest of networks are airing, and there doesn't appear to be anything out of the ordinary.

So basically, I have no idea.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

jhowell said:


> Just some wild speculation here. The statue had something that looked a bit like a bowl on top. That could be a place to hold a fire and the statue may be a lighthouse, designed to help guide ancient Others to the island. Perhaps, when the island moved the statue snapped at the legs and fell over like the Colossus of Rhodes.


Heck, it could be the signpost for the International House of Ancient Pancakes. The Colossus stood over a harbor - but I get what you're saying. Makes you wonder where they found enough rock to make a statue that big on a volcanic island. Aint no Easter island statue, that's for sure.



DevdogAZ said:


> Actually, I've been wondering that myself. It's sweeps right now, and I thought the whole purpose of not starting the show until January was so they could run a new episode every week. I also wondered if there was some spe ial or awards show i didn't know about, but I looked at what the rest of networks are airing, and there doesn't appear to be anything out of the ordinary.
> 
> So basically, I have no idea.


Of all the unanswerable questions surrounding this season of Lost, who would have suspected this one! I have no idea, I was hoping you'd know. Like everything else with this show I've heard lots of theories ...


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Great maps here: http://thelostmap.blogspot.com/

Like this:


Another example:


How about this pair under "Reference: Resolving 'Panoramic' View"?:


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Some people have too much time on their hands! (Though not enough time for correct spelling...)


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

ABC was going to air a new episode every week. ABC decided to run two one hour episodes the first week. They want the season to end on the date originally planned so they have to skip a week.


----------



## FlugPoP (Jan 7, 2004)

Sucks there's nothing to look forward to tonight.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

FlugPoP said:


> Sucks there's nothing to look forward to tonight.


I feel so sorry for you. 
Better luck in the future!


----------



## rgr (Feb 21, 2003)

DUDE_NJX said:


> I feel so sorry for you.
> Better luck in the future!


Or in the past, as the case may be.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

There will be another LOST-less week in April as well. Not sure on the exact date.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

heh.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

I have to wonder, if you go from under a car working on the mechanics, to delivering a baby, how much scrubbing up do you have to do? I'm thinking, a lot of soap had to have been used.


----------



## aintnosin (Jun 25, 2003)

I have one thing bothering me: Don't you think that, after three years, someone in the Dharma Initiative would have figured out that no salvage vessel had been reported missing anywhere near The Island and that "LaFleur's" story was B.S.?

And are we going to see how Sawyer went from "not Dharma material" to head of security?


----------



## acej80 (Jan 19, 2003)

aintnosin said:


> I have one thing bothering me: Don't you think that, after three years, someone in the Dharma Initiative would have figured out that no salvage vessel had been reported missing anywhere near The Island and that "LaFleur's" story was B.S.?
> 
> And are we going to see how Sawyer went from "not Dharma material" to head of security?


I think LaFleur calming Richard and keeping the peace with "The Others", changed things.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Sigh.

Sawyer was always there, and always talked to Richard then. Everything we've seen in seasons 1-5 had as its history Sawyer talking to Richard in 1974. Richard in 2004 remembered Sawyer, knew what he was capable of, and gave his file to John Locke so Sawyer could go kill his evil dad.

What happened, happened.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Doh, unless you mean it changed things with Horace, in which case I agree, Horace felt differently about Sawyer after talking to Richard than he did before. 

Sorry, knee-jerk reaction. (assuming that's what you meant)


----------



## acej80 (Jan 19, 2003)

jkeegan said:


> Doh, unless you mean it changed things with Horace, in which case I agree, Horace felt differently about Sawyer after talking to Richard than he did before.
> 
> Sorry, knee-jerk reaction. (assuming that's what you meant)


:up: Yep this is what I meant.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

jkeegan said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Sawyer was always there, and always talked to Richard then. Everything we've seen in seasons 1-5 had as its history Sawyer talking to Richard in 1974. Richard in 2004 remembered Sawyer, knew what he was capable of, and gave his file to John Locke so Sawyer could go kill his evil dad.
> 
> What happened, happened.


Ok, so Sawyer crashes on the island, then months later when the island goes wacko travels back to 1974 and starts working with Dharma.

So now what happens to 70's Dharma Sawyer? How does he crash on the island in 2004, having no idea where he is, when he was there in the 70's.

He has to crash on the island in 2004, because that's how he travels back to the 70's.

Without some more island intervention, this will be an endless loop right? Sawyer will never see 2006+.

-smak-


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

smak said:


> Ok, so Sawyer crashes on the island, then months later when the island goes wacko travels back to 1974 and starts working with Dharma.
> 
> So now what happens to 70's Dharma Sawyer? How does he crash on the island in 2004, having no idea where he is, when he was there in the 70's.
> 
> ...


On the timeline of Sawyer's life, the crash of flight 815 in 2004 comes before working for DHARMA in the 1970s.


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> On the timeline of Sawyer's life, the crash of flight 815 in 2004 comes before working for DHARMA in the 1970s.


For all we know when the Others go to the temple in 2004, there's a 60 year old Sawyer living there. Heck, if he makes it off the island without switching times, he could be Boone's dad.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

Strange that they would choose a sweeps week for a rerun.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Hey! Sawyer has glasses now!! Ones he didn't have to melt together from other glasses!!


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

jkeegan said:


> Hey! Sawyer has glasses now!! Ones he didn't have to melt together from other glasses!!


And they don't even have a Dharma logo. At least not that I could see.


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

VegasVic said:


> Strange that they would choose a sweeps week for a rerun.


About that: I thought February was sweeps month.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mqpickles said:


> About that: I thought February was sweeps month.


Not this year. The digital switch that wasn't pushed it back to March.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Yeah, for what it's worth, this is what Wikipedia says.



> Note: The February 2009 sweeps period was moved to March so that the ratings would not be affected by any problems created by the February 17th switchover of the USA's analog broadcast television signals to digital. When, in early February, the digital transition date was moved to June 12, the "February" sweeps period for 2009 remained in March.
> 
> The change in the 2009 February sweeps schedule also provided a clearer picture of ratings, because the new period did not include this years Super Bowl (in sweeps since 2004) or the Daytona 500 (in sweeps since 2007, when the finish aired in primetime), both of which events often inflate ratings during sweeps periods. It does, however, cover the first four rounds of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament for the first time.


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

Thanks, guys.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

jhowell said:


> Just some wild speculation here. The statue had something that looked a bit like a bowl on top. That could be a place to hold a fire and the statue may be a lighthouse, designed to help guide ancient Others to the island. Perhaps, when the island moved the statue snapped at the legs and fell over like the Colossus of Rhodes.


I recall that during the last flash, where Charlotte died, the guy who sees dead people Miles said something about an earthquake during the flash.

Volcanoes and earthquakes occur in the Pacific over the "Ring of Fire" when the Pacific Plate is subducted beneath the Indo-Australian Plate (plate tectonics). The result of the subduction can be earthquakes and/or volcanic eruptions.

Therefore, I would speculate that an earthquake could have caused the statue to crumble. And if there are no other remains of the statue (_i.e.,_ other than the foot), it could have something to do with the island moving and leaving behind the remnants in the water.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

Church AV Guy said:


> I have to wonder, if you go from under a car working on the mechanics, to delivering a baby, how much scrubbing up do you have to do? I'm thinking, a lot of soap had to have been used.


Soap, warm water, scrubbing, Juliet ... I'm sorry, what was the question again? 

I watched the pop up video version tonight, and I forgot my favorite line. It was a total _Airplane!_ moment - Amy asks Sawyer where they were going to, and Sawyer replies, "Our freighter wrecked on the way to Tahiti, but that's not important right now."

I also caught the S1 season finale on some local station over the weekend, and it was interesting that at the end of the episode Jack told Kate that he had to know that she had his back. Compliments this episode with Sawyer and Juliet.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

jkeegan said:


> Sigh.


You need to change your title to Time Cop or something! (Though only because Apostate of the Faraday Postulate wouldn't fit.) 

(I kid because I care... and because I agree!)


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

Fool Me Twice said:


> heh.


Thanks for the link, I enjoyed that.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Hunter Green said:


> You need to change your title to Time Cop or something! (Though only because Apostate of the Faraday Postulate wouldn't fit.)
> 
> (I kid because I care... and because I agree!)




But wouldn't Apostate of the Faraday Postulate mean that I was now disagreeing with his theory? That I'd given up the idea that things can't be changed from one event at time x to another event at time x? I haven't given up! 

(Dark secret: Personally I AM reserving a small amount joy for if they do decide to screw with us even further by showing that Faraday was wrong and some event that existed could be changed to another event at the same time, because if they were to do that they'd only do it if they had a super-f*cking-kick-ass story to justify deviating from the more elegant everything always stays the same theme.. I'd be disappointed, but I'd reserve the right to enjoy where the story went - but it'd have to be damned awesome to justify it, not half-heartedly done like later seasons of so many shows. But I do hope (and fully expect) that the story will instead stick to everything's fixed. And to be 100% clear, I'd ONLY allow myself to even slightly enjoy that if there was the clear feeling that this was their plan since the beginning..)

But if they did something like that (which again on the surface I'd think was a mistake), it wouldn't be subtle.. It'd be a huge "oh man this changed!" thing..

(as Jeff remembers the changing picture frames on the wall that Miles saw.. AAAGGGHHH!!!)


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And when I agreed with TAsunder, it was with the notion that all this taking place in 1974 is not a fact, just a very well-supported and probably true interpretation.


But so is Daniel's theory. In fact, we haven't even really seen anyone try to change the past. So far any opportunity they've had to change the past, they've not bothered trying specifically because Daniel told them it was impossible. I think it's more likely that Daniel is wrong about time travel than Sawyer is wrong about the year.

Even Daniel himself had ideas about potential exceptions to his rules about how time travel worked, so I wouldn't be surprised nor would I think it to be cheating if there were specific ways to change things. Now that he is on the island and working with Dharma equipment, he might learn things he hadn't known from just doing his lab experiments at the university.

I don't think we are supposed to consider Daniel to be the ultimate authority on how the island works, at least not until he has a chance to study it more. So anything said before then can be taken with a grain of salt without breaking any rules of storytelling.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

You know it now occurs to me that the original Orchid video (not the one Locke saw, the original one we saw) illustrated the things-don't-change thing rather nicely.

If it a different time travel theory, they'd show they were about to shift the rabbit, they would shift it, and we'd somehow have to follow the experience of the bunny for the story to work.

Here, instead, we see they are almost about to start the experiment, and we already see the results - the rabbit appears, because he will jump back to now.


----------



## FlugPoP (Jan 7, 2004)

Delta13 said:


> Soap, warm water, scrubbing, Juliet ... I'm sorry, what was the question again?
> 
> I watched the pop up video version tonight, and I forgot my favorite line. It was a total _Airplane!_ moment - Amy asks Sawyer where they were going to, and Sawyer replies, "Our freighter wrecked on the way to Tahiti, but that's not important right now."
> 
> I also caught the S1 season finale on some local station over the weekend, and it was interesting that at the end of the episode Jack told Kate that he had to know that she had his back. Compliments this episode with Sawyer and Juliet.


Good catch,when I heard that I was thinking to myself that it sounds familiar . I should have figured that one out. :up:


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Did anyone watch the pop-up version of LaFleur last night? Were there any new revelations in the graphics?


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Nothing, really.

http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Enhanced


> *Selected captions*
> 
> The following captions may provide clarifications or new information:
> 
> ...


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I just made some revelations while reading through that enhanched thing. 

The doctor's body had arrived on the island BEFORE he had died, because he traveled at the wrong bearing.

Remember the Flame could receive satelite signals from the mainland. I guess it's entirely possible that it could have allways been receiving signals FROM THE FUTURE, this would have been VERY benificial to whoever was recieving said signals wouldn't you agree?


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

smak said:


> Ok, so Sawyer crashes on the island, then months later when the island goes wacko travels back to 1974 and starts working with Dharma.
> 
> So now what happens to 70's Dharma Sawyer? How does he crash on the island in 2004, having no idea where he is, when he was there in the 70's.
> 
> ...


I'm having a problem with understanding why people are having difficulty perceiving this time traveling. You can think of everything linearly, including Sawyer's life. There's no looping involved here. Sawyer's born. Does what he does. Ends up on the Island on 2004. Then the island warps him back to 1974. He ages three years to 1977. 1977 Sawyer has no bearing on what 2004 Sawyer does because the 1977 Sawyer, for the lack of a better word, is the future Sawyer, not the 2004 Sawyer. So, no matter what Sawyer does in 1977, Sawyer will always crash in 2004 and end up back in the island in the '70s.



BitbyBlit said:


> But so is Daniel's theory. In fact, we haven't even really seen anyone try to change the past. So far any opportunity they've had to change the past, they've not bothered trying specifically because Daniel told them it was impossible. I think it's more likely that Daniel is wrong about time travel than Sawyer is wrong about the year.[snip]


Actually, the show itself corroborates Daniel's theory. This is why Michael couldn't shoot himself with the gun. Why Jack couldn't commit suicide. What happened, always happened. Because our Losties are now in the '70s, everything that had to happen, including Michael's actions, had to get them there because they were ALWAYS there in the '70s, even though they didn't know it at the time. Time is not a fickle ***** here.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

http://losttidbits.blogspot.com/2009/03/lt223-angels-and-demons.html


> *CHECKMATE *
> 
> In the LaFleur episode where Sawyer is about to pick a flower for his lady, we notice in the background a couple of people playing chess.
> 
> ...


So, either the prop guy couldn't find all the pieces, or this means something...


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Fool Me Twice said:


> http://losttidbits.blogspot.com/2009/03/lt223-angels-and-demons.html
> 
> So, either the prop guy couldn't find all the pieces, or this means something...


Yeah --- that Obama was elected as President.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

jkeegan said:


> But wouldn't Apostate of the Faraday Postulate mean that I was now disagreeing with his theory?


Oi, I was _thinking_ Apostle, I can't believe I typed Apostate!

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say I wrote Apostle, and Skynet sent someone back to change it...


----------



## Cboath (Jun 22, 2004)

DUDE_NJX said:


> MAYBE if Juliet and Kate had something going on Gia-style, I could get into it...


:up::up::up:


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

In 1977, I wonder how many of the stations have been set up? Is the Pearl there, or the Swan? What all is Dharma doing right now? Are trhey getting food drops, or is everything being transported by the sub? Can the sub transport a VW bus, or a jeep? Little things like that kind of make me wonder.

Okay, if they have a truce, how/why does Richard and company eventually allow all of the dharma stations be set up around the island? Wouldn't "the hostiles" object? Oh, by the way, the pop-up messages identified Richard as the assistant to the leader, not the leader himself. At this time, might that be Widmore, or someone we don't know?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Church AV Guy said:


> Oh, by the way, the pop-up messages identified Richard as the assistant to the leader, not the leader himself. At this time, might that be Widmore, or someone we don't know?


Jacob?


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

BitbyBlit said:


> But so is Daniel's theory. In fact, we haven't even really seen anyone try to change the past. So far any opportunity they've had to change the past, they've not bothered trying specifically because Daniel told them it was impossible. I think it's more likely that Daniel is wrong about time travel than Sawyer is wrong about the year.


But if Daniel's theory is correct, it won't matter if anyone tries to change things. If they try to change things, well, they always tried to change things. It always happened that way.

It could be said that we have seen someone try to change the past. When Locke was trying to convince 1954 Alpert that he was indeed the leader, he told him his name and when he was born... which is what resulted (as far as we know as of this moment) in Alpert going to see Locke being born 2 years later. Of course Locke wasn't specifically trying to change the past, but the point is that Locke's intervention in 1954 is what resulted in Alpert looking for him later on. Daniel's intervention is what caused them to (probably) bury the Jughead. Their intervention, their being there in 1954, didn't change things. It is what always happened.

So how would you even go about figuring out what to do to change things if you don't even know which action to take to change it?


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

jking said:


> But if Daniel's theory is correct, it won't matter if anyone tries to change things. If they try to change things, well, they always tried to change things. It always happened that way.
> 
> It could be said that we have seen someone try to change the past. When Locke was trying to convince 1954 Alpert that he was indeed the leader, he told him his name and when he was born... which is what resulted (as far as we know as of this moment) in Alpert going to see Locke being born 2 years later. Of course Locke wasn't specifically trying to change the past, but the point is that Locke's intervention in 1954 is what resulted in Alpert looking for him later on. Daniel's intervention is what caused them to (probably) bury the Jughead. *Their intervention, their being there in 1954, didn't change things. It is what always happened.*
> 
> So how would you even go about figuring out what to do to change things if you don't even know which action to take to change it?


Yep. Precisely. I also included in my post that's just a few above this that this is why certain people from post-1974 could not die--because their actions directly influenced the past and they needed to get to that place / event and set the dominoes toppling, so to speak.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

jking said:


> But if Daniel's theory is correct, it won't matter if anyone tries to change things. If they try to change things, well, they always tried to change things. It always happened that way.
> 
> It could be said that we have seen someone try to change the past. When Locke was trying to convince 1954 Alpert that he was indeed the leader, he told him his name and when he was born... which is what resulted (as far as we know as of this moment) in Alpert going to see Locke being born 2 years later. Of course Locke wasn't specifically trying to change the past, but the point is that Locke's intervention in 1954 is what resulted in Alpert looking for him later on. Daniel's intervention is what caused them to (probably) bury the Jughead. Their intervention, their being there in 1954, didn't change things. It is what always happened.
> 
> So how would you even go about figuring out what to do to change things if you don't even know which action to take to change it?


Bingo - which led to Daniel's statement that "It doesn't matter what we do - whatever happened, happened." It's destiny, brutha.

We also got the Big Foreshadow about how hard it is to change things with Daniel's crying about Charlotte. "I won't tell her ... I won't ..." shows us how hard he wants to not tell her, but you know he will anyway. It's destiny, brutha.

Two other popups of significance happened: about Daniel, Charlotte was described as "The woman he loved." That's a weird way to describe a daughter. "This is Charlotte my daughter, and the woman I love." (WHOA ) The second one was the one confirming that the Flaming Arrows scene happened during the flash to 1954. Maybe that was obvious, but nice to be sure.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Church AV Guy said:


> Oh, by the way, the pop-up messages identified Richard as the assistant to the leader, not the leader himself. At this time, might that be Widmore, or someone we don't know?


In this episode? At what point? I don't remember that one. But then, I kept forgetting to read those things and would have to rewind.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Delta13 said:


> Two other popups of significance happened: about Daniel, Charlotte was described as "The woman he loved." That's a weird way to describe a daughter


Either I'm confused or you are . She's not his daughter. And he's already said he loves her.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

Heh heh. No, I don't think you or me is confused, but there persists a theory that Charlotte is Daniel's daughter. That he's tender and caring, but not in a boyfriend-type of way.

And I forgot about the Richard popup - it did mention that he was the assistant.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

jkeegan said:


> Here, instead, we see they are almost about to start the experiment, and we already see the results - the rabbit appears, because he will jump back to now.


Technically, though, we didn't see the bunny being sent back. So we don't know if in the "second" timeline, after being disrupted by the bunny, they decided to go ahead and send the bunny, knowing what would happen.

If time was fixed, it wouldn't make sense that they would want to send the bunny simply to "preserve the timeline" because they wouldn't need to do so. On the other hand, if they believed that time was fixed, there would be no point in trying to send the bunny to a different time because they already knew they would fail. However, if they thought that time could be changed, they might have tried sending the bunny again, hoping that this time it would work.

But then the question is, what made them think that time could be changed? Did they not know what Daniel knows, or did they know something Daniel doesn't?


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

tewcewl said:


> Actually, the show itself corroborates Daniel's theory. This is why Michael couldn't shoot himself with the gun. Why Jack couldn't commit suicide. What happened, always happened.


But what prevented Michael from shooting himself? What prevented Jack from dying when he tried to commit suicide? If those events happened simply because that's what always happened, then those events happened naturally, and thus could still happen naturally even in a world where time could be changed.

On the other hand, if there was some external force such as the island that actively prevented those events because of what Michael and Jack were going to do, then time is really only fixed with respect to the external force. Thus, by altering the force, one could potentially effect changes in time.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

jking said:


> So how would you even go about figuring out what to do to change things if you don't even know which action to take to change it?


In Daniel's case, he knows that at some point he told Charlotte never to come back to the island. All he needs to do to change history is to never tell her that. Of course, perhaps he wasn't himself when he told her that, and thus he will end up fulfilling his destiny regardless of how hard he tries.

And I do think he will try very hard to find a way that time can be changed. Perhaps that's why the bunny experiments were being done in the first place. Perhaps he was behind all of that, hoping that the island would provide a means to save Charlotte.

Perhaps he will try so hard, do such drastic experiments to try to find a way to change time that something will happen to the island. Perhaps The Incident was a result of something he did.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

BitbyBlit said:


> Perhaps he will try so hard, do such drastic experiments to try to find a way to change time that something will happen to the island. Perhaps The Incident was a result of something he did.


Ooh, I like this. :up:


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

BitbyBlit said:


> But what prevented Michael from shooting himself? What prevented Jack from dying when he tried to commit suicide? If those events happened simply because that's what always happened, then those events happened naturally, and thus could still happen naturally even in a world where time could be changed.
> 
> On the other hand, if there was some external force such as the island that actively prevented those events because of what Michael and Jack were going to do, then time is really only fixed with respect to the external force. Thus, by altering the force, one could potentially effect changes in time.


The external force is Time itself. Michael couldn't shoot himself because he still had to be able to go on the freighter and have all his actions result in the way it did, having the boat explode when it did, etc because *by his actions, he helped influence the events that set the O6 in their journey back in time*. If the O6 was able to go back in time without his intervention or actions, then yes, he would have been able to shoot himself.

The same goes for Jack. He COULDN'T die in 2007 because in 1977, he was in an island on the South Pacific. If Jack had died in his suicide attempt, the time line would have been messed up and he would have never shown up in 1977.

Get what I'm saying? Do I need to clarify some more? I think this makes sense, but let me know if you need more clarification.


----------



## PKurmas (Apr 24, 2001)

BitbyBlit said:


> Technically, though, we didn't see the bunny being sent back. So we don't know if in the "second" timeline, after being disrupted by the bunny, they decided to go ahead and send the bunny, knowing what would happen.
> 
> If time was fixed, it wouldn't make sense that they would want to send the bunny simply to "preserve the timeline" because they wouldn't need to do so. On the other hand, if they believed that time was fixed, there would be no point in trying to send the bunny to a different time because they already knew they would fail. However, if they thought that time could be changed, they might have tried sending the bunny again, hoping that this time it would work.
> 
> But then the question is, what made them think that time could be changed? Did they not know what Daniel knows, or did they know something Daniel doesn't?


OK... maybe the Dharma eggheads *chose* not to perform the bunny-transporting experiment because the bunny had already been transported back in time. Would the repercussions be so significant to cause "the Incident"?


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

tewcewl said:


> The external force is Time itself. Michael couldn't shoot himself because he still had to be able to go on the freighter and have all his actions result in the way it did, having the boat explode when it did, etc because *by his actions, he helped influence the events that set the O6 in their journey back in time*. If the O6 was able to go back in time without his intervention or actions, then yes, he would have been able to shoot himself.


Why does Time care about the O6 going back in time, but not about Michael shooting himself? In other words, why would Time only care about Michael shooting himself if it affected the O6? For that matter, why does Time care about anything at all? And if Time is an entity that can make decisions about what should and should not happen, would that mean that time could be altered if you could get Time to change its mind?

The idea of time being self-correcting actually contradicts a fixed timeline because in a fixed timeline nothing can be corrected, nor does it need to be. In other words, Time would only have needed to prevent Michael from shooting himself if there was the possibility that he could have shot himself in the first place.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

PKurmas said:


> OK... maybe the Dharma eggheads *chose* not to perform the bunny-transporting experiment because the bunny had already been transported back in time. Would the repercussions be so significant to cause "the Incident"?


Perhaps. And perhaps The Incident resulted in the release of some kind of radiation that interfered with how the island worked, resulting in those exposed becoming sick when on the island. Because of this, there was an emergency evacuation of anyone affected.

Perhaps during the madness Daniel came across Charlotte, and saw that she had been exposed to the radiation. And in the haste of finding out she had been exposed he told her, "You have to go, and you should never come back." Perhaps it was only after her mother was taking her away that he realized what had happened, that in finding a means to save her he had caused her to get sick in the first place, and now he had just closed the loop in the events resulting in her death.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

BitbyBlit said:


> Why does Time care about the O6 going back in time, but not about Michael shooting himself? In other words, why would Time only care about Michael shooting himself if it affected the O6? For that matter, why does Time care about anything at all? And if Time is an entity that can make decisions about what should and should not happen, would that mean that time could be altered if you could get Time to change its mind?
> 
> The idea of time being self-correcting actually contradicts a fixed timeline because in a fixed timeline nothing can be corrected, nor does it need to be. In other words, Time would only have needed to prevent Michael from shooting himself if there was the possibility that he could have shot himself in the first place.


I think that time and events can be stretched a bit one way or the other. It's like a web of rubber bands, not steel cables. Desmond saved Charlie a few times, but like Eloise told him, the universe will always, I don't remember exactly what words she used, but it will always eventually get back on track, and somehow, the universe cares, about Michael, about the O6 returning. We have seen that there is some "play" or stretchiness in the system, but only to a point. Then the gun just doesn't fire, or some accident happens, or something, to bring it back to where it has to be.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

BitbyBlit said:


> In Daniel's case, he knows that at some point he told Charlotte never to come back to the island. All he needs to do to change history is to never tell her that. Of course, perhaps he wasn't himself when he told her that, and thus he will end up fulfilling his destiny regardless of how hard he tries.
> 
> And I do think he will try very hard to find a way that time can be changed. Perhaps that's why the bunny experiments were being done in the first place. Perhaps he was behind all of that, hoping that the island would provide a means to save Charlotte.
> 
> Perhaps he will try so hard, do such drastic experiments to try to find a way to change time that something will happen to the island. Perhaps The Incident was a result of something he did.


Thing is, do we know for sure that it was Daniel who told her never to come back? It could have been someone else, and we'll find out in due time.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

BitbyBlit said:


> Perhaps he will try so hard, do such drastic experiments to try to find a way to change time that something will happen to the island. Perhaps The Incident was a result of something he did.


I agree. I was going to get into this in my earlier post, but figured I'd written enough. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Losties end up being the cause of the incident. But again, that just proves his theory all the more. That things can't be changed.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

BitbyBlit said:


> Why does Time care about the O6 going back in time, but not about Michael shooting himself? In other words, why would Time only care about Michael shooting himself if it affected the O6? For that matter, why does Time care about anything at all? And if Time is an entity that can make decisions about what should and should not happen, would that mean that time could be altered if you could get Time to change its mind?
> 
> The idea of time being self-correcting actually contradicts a fixed timeline because in a fixed timeline nothing can be corrected, nor does it need to be. In other words, Time would only have needed to prevent Michael from shooting himself if there was the possibility that he could have shot himself in the first place.


I wasn't really speaking about Time as a self-aware entity. I was thinking of it more in a physics sense. Just like gravity is a constant, in LOST's world, time is a constant and wouldn't allow for any deviations in events that happen.

I'm a bit confused by your second paragraph. I don't think Time prevented Michael from shooting himself (self-correcting). It was physically impossible for Michael to kill himself if he hadn't yet done what was needed to do to help the O6 back to 1977 (fixed). If the freighter hadn't blown up and he was no longer a necessary part in any of the time traveling stuff, Michael could have done whatever he wanted with his life, including offing himself.


----------



## Sue C. (Dec 9, 2003)

This is a nit-pick, but the word used to describe Richard in the pop-up was actually "advisor" not "assistant."


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

tewcewl said:


> I wasn't really speaking about Time as a self-aware entity. I was thinking of it more in a physics sense. Just like gravity is a constant, in LOST's world, time is a constant and wouldn't allow for any deviations in events that happen.
> 
> I'm a bit confused by your second paragraph. I don't think Time prevented Michael from shooting himself (self-correcting). It was physically impossible for Michael to kill himself if he hadn't yet done what was needed to do to help the O6 back to 1977 (fixed). If the freighter hadn't blown up and he was no longer a necessary part in any of the time traveling stuff, Michael could have done whatever he wanted with his life, including offing himself.


I really don't think Michael not being able to kill himself is related to the time travel. At least I hope not, because that's when things start getting really silly. If what happens to the people is no longer about cause and effect, then anything that the writer wants to happen can be justified by "That's how it happened, so that's what will happen". (I'd expect that from BSG, but I trust that the Lost writers have something more well thought out) Odd as it may seem, I'm more comfortable believing an island can keep them from killing themselves, than believing it's a result of temporal mechanics.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

jking said:


> I agree. I was going to get into this in my earlier post, but figured I'd written enough. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Losties end up being the cause of the incident. But again, that just proves his theory all the more. That things can't be changed.


I agree. I think they will find out either things can't be changed or can't be changed without seriously harming people and/or the world. But given what we have seen so far, they have left open the possibility that things could be changed, and I wouldn't be upset nor would I think they were breaking continuity if they were to do so.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

tewcewl said:


> I'm a bit confused by your second paragraph. I don't think Time prevented Michael from shooting himself (self-correcting). It was physically impossible for Michael to kill himself if he hadn't yet done what was needed to do to help the O6 back to 1977 (fixed). If the freighter hadn't blown up and he was no longer a necessary part in any of the time traveling stuff, Michael could have done whatever he wanted with his life, including offing himself.


But then we're back to everything happening naturally again, in which case the gun didn't go off because it got jammed, not because of any need to preserve the timeline.


----------



## Sromkie (Aug 15, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> But then we're back to everything happening naturally again, in which case the gun didn't go off because it got jammed, not because of any need to preserve the timeline.


Right, but we now know that something (like the gun jamming) was going to happen because what Michael did on the freighter played into getting the O6 back to 1977. At the time of him trying to shoot the gun, we didn't know what would happen that stopped him from doing so, but we now know that something had to have happenedthus, Mr. Friendly telling Michael he could not kill himself was true. No matter what Michael tried to do, it had always happened that way, and it still resulted in him being alive in the time of the Freighter. It's not time correcting itself. It's time playing out how it always didpeople attempting to change what can't be changed and all.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

Rosincrans said:


> I really don't think Michael not being able to kill himself is related to the time travel. At least I hope not, because that's when things start getting really silly. If what happens to the people is no longer about cause and effect, then anything that the writer wants to happen can be justified by "That's how it happened, so that's what will happen". (I'd expect that from BSG, but I trust that the Lost writers have something more well thought out) Odd as it may seem, *I'm more comfortable believing an island can keep them from killing themselves*, than believing it's a result of temporal mechanics.


I would agree with that, based on 2 things. First, that Christian showed up to Michael right before the explosion and told him his work was done and that he could go. Making temporal mechanics responsible sort of overlooks the fact that Christian could do that at all - some other power must be involved. Second, Tom clearly had experience with the island doing things like preventing someone from dying. It wasn't like Michael just tried to shoot himself and we all concluded that the island saved him - and neither did Tom. He knew all about it.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Sromkie said:


> No matter what Michael tried to do, it had always happened that way, and it still resulted in him being alive in the time of the Freighter. It's not time correcting itself. It's time playing out how it always didpeople attempting to change what can't be changed and all.


But Michael wasn't attempting to change history; he was simply trying to kill himself. As long as nobody tried to change anything, then Mr. Friendly knowing that Michael would still be alive later on still works even in a world where events could be changed.

And we don't really know what Mr. Friendly knew about time travel. If we take his words at face value, he believed that the island would prevent Michael from shooting himself. And because that's what the island wanted, he wouldn't have tried going against it.


----------



## Sromkie (Aug 15, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> But Michael wasn't attempting to change history; he was simply trying to kill himself. As long as nobody tried to change anything, then Mr. Friendly knowing that Michael would still be alive later on still works even in a world where events could be changed.
> 
> And we don't really know what Mr. Friendly knew about time travel. If we take his words at face value, he believed that the island would prevent Michael from shooting himself. And because that's what the island wanted, he wouldn't have tried going against it.


I think the writes have done a pretty good job of letting us know that the rules state that the time-line cannot be changed. The only one who this rule doesn't apply to (that we know of) is Desmondwhich would explain why he was given the "The Universe will always correct itself speech." Sure, we could assume that all of the characters are wrong and spouting off cow manure just to throw us off, but I don't believe that the writers are purposely trying to misdierct us on the time travel. People are already confused enough about it for the writers to be adding more confusion to the mix by purposely having a character (who has studied time travel) vomiting misinformation at the audience.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

The difference with Desmond is that he knew the future without ever having been there, in the case of Charlie. His out of body time traveling was different than what the Losties are doing, so it makes sense that the rules may be different. But stuff still can't change. 

How did Tom know that Michael wasn't supposed to die yet? Just because he wanted him to do something didn't mean that that was what he "had done." Unless Tom had time traveled?

I'm confused about Daniel telling Charlotte not to return to the island as a little girl. So she didn't listen to him when he did tell her, and probably would still try to come back if he didn't tell her. So why is it such a big deal? What am I missing?


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

BitbyBlit said:


> But Michael wasn't attempting to change history; he was simply trying to kill himself.


If MLK or JFK tried to off themselves at age 23, would you still say that? 



> And we don't really know what Mr. Friendly knew about time travel. If we take his words at face value, he believed that the island would prevent Michael from shooting himself. And because that's what the island wanted, he wouldn't have tried going against it.


I don't think Tom knew bupkis about time travel. If he did, then he would have found a better place to stand than near that Dharma bus on the beach.  And not let Sawyer shoot him. Plus, he wanted to kill the 3 shooters - 1 of which was later one of the O6 and 1 of which was Jin. Sounds like that would have been a history changing moment to me. No, Tom didn't know what happened (or happens) in 1974 - 1977 with the O6, or Michael's role in making it happen. It was the island, dude.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> I'm confused about Daniel telling Charlotte not to return to the island as a little girl. So she didn't listen to him when he did tell her, and probably would still try to come back if he didn't tell her. So why is it such a big deal? What am I missing?


Because this time, it's personal. He'll likely never know if he changed history if he doesn't tell her - like you said, she could still come back to the island anyway - and if he does tell her, then he's fulfilling it and she dies. All he can try to do is find a way to not tell her. I'll bet he does, but he gets overheard telling someone else to leave and Time will win anyway.

Perhaps it's too close to what happened to the girl back home in England, the brain-fried one. Maybe it was the double shock of her dying plus learning that he interacted with Charlotte when she was a child. It's one thing to talk about time travel academically, it's another to have what you haven't done yet shoved in your face by the Universe.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

> Sure, we could assume that all of the characters are wrong and spouting off cow manure just to throw us off, but I don't believe that the writers are purposely trying to misdierct us on the time travel.


The only character who has said anything about the rules of time travel was Daniel. So "all of the characters" is just one character, a character that had barely begun studying the island at the time he said those words, and who even then believed there were exceptions to those rules. Other characters have talked about the rules of the island, and what the "island wanted", so one side, if not both, must at the very least have an incomplete picture of what is going on.

It's not about trying to throw us off; it's about the characters being as (or almost as) lost as we are about what is happening on the island.


----------



## Sromkie (Aug 15, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> The only character who has said anything about the rules of time travel was Daniel. So "all of the characters" is just one character, a character that had barely begun studying the island at the time he said those words, and who even then believed there were exceptions to those rules. Other characters have talked about the rules of the island, and what the "island wanted", so one side, if not both, must at the very least have an incomplete picture of what is going on.
> 
> It's not about trying to throw us off; it's about the characters being as (or almost as) lost as we are about what is happening on the island.


I disagree. Daniel clearly studied time travel before this point. He may not have studied the island, per say, but he's well versed enough in time travel.

Ben and Daniel's mother have also made references to time travel having rules. Daniel is just the only one who has gone into such detail.

They may have an incomplete picture, but I don't believe that they are providing us with misinformation.

"What the island wanted" is a tricky area to get into, because we don't know much about how the island works, but there's really no way for characters to know "what the island wanted" unless someone told them. I think it's less about the island as a sentient force affecting people's lives and more about the effects of the time travel that the Losties were a part of. My guess is that, at some point, many of the events that happened to them were told to someone in the past. That someone disseminated information on an as needed basis to the Others.



> I don't think Tom knew bupkis about time travel. If he did, then he would have found a better place to stand than near that Dharma bus on the beach. And not let Sawyer shoot him.


That someone is also probably how Tom knew that Michael couldn't die. He was likely told by someone who had knowledge of what was to come. It doesn't matter if Tom knew about time travel. He knew what he needed to know to accomplish his goal.

Of course, I am just theorizing here, but I don't know why people are so resistant to believe that the rules of time travel for this show are what we have been presented with.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Sromkie said:


> I disagree. Daniel clearly studied time travel before this point. He may not have studied the island, per say, but he's well versed enough in time travel.


Given that he was considered a crackpot at the university, I don't think he had gotten further than barely scratching the surface of studying time travel. Having a giant pocket of exotic matter will allow him to do experiments that were not possible at the university. We've already seen the island do seemingly impossible things such as making dead people come back to life, so Daniel being wrong about (or at least having incomplete knowledge of) a subject as obscure as time travel is not that far fetched.



Sromkie said:


> Of course, I am just theorizing here, but I don't know why people are so resistant to believe that the rules of time travel for this show are what we have been presented with.


As far as what I think is the most likely outcome, I'm actually in agreement with you. I think it will turn out that events cannot be changed, or cannot be changed without severe negative consequences. But I won't think it is a continuity error if things work out differently because I don't think anything definitive has been determined yet.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Maybe someone mentioned this before, but it just occurred to me. Why was Eloise aware of what was going on in the jewelry store with Desmond? Did she actually work in a jewelry store at that point in her life, a scientist and all? Had she time traveled there? Is she some kind of mistress of time travel? In the actual year that Desmond was there, shouldn't she have looked younger? Was she watching him for someone at that point? Maybe Widmore? And how did she know that the guy in the shoes was going to die? Was she reliving that day too?


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

It's spoiler tag time!



Spoiler



Season finale info has leaked. It'll be a 2-parter, and all I have is a title: The Incident.



Carry on. 

Greg


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

gchance said:


> It's spoiler tag time!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Two words:



Spoiler



Hell. Yeah.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

Make mine a


Spoiler



double hell yeah. And add a whoo-hoo.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

Sromkie said:


> That someone is also probably how Tom knew that Michael couldn't die. He was likely told by someone who had knowledge of what was to come. It doesn't matter if Tom knew about time travel. He knew what he needed to know to accomplish his goal.
> 
> Of course, I am just theorizing here, but I don't know why people are so resistant to believe that the rules of time travel for this show are what we have been presented with.


I have no trouble with the time travel aspect. On the contrary, you seem to disbelieve that the island has any powers. I don't think it's an either/or situation.

But the problem I have about Tom talking to Michael is this: how would Tom know to be there? Who would know that Michael wanted to kill himself? Jacob, maybe? It's still hard to get around the fact that the gun didn't go off. Oh, and the car accident on the docks that only caused minor injuries. These cannot be explained by prior knowledge.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Delta13 said:


> But the problem I have about Tom talking to Michael is this: how would Tom know to be there? Who would know that Michael wanted to kill himself? Jacob, maybe? It's still hard to get around the fact that the gun didn't go off. Oh, and the car accident on the docks that only caused minor injuries. These cannot be explained by prior knowledge.


There are a number of people in the past who know that Michael will return to (or at least near) the island. So there's any number of paths that knowledge could take to Tom...that is, Tom knows that no matter what Michael does, he will survive until he gets to the freighter.

And we also know that Ben kept pretty close tabs on what was going on with island people off the island. Tom knew to be there because Ben told him it was time to reel him in. He didn't have to know that Michael planned to kill himself, but when he saw that, he knew it wasn't gonna happen.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

By the way... and this time, no spoiler tags are necessary.

Geronimo Jackson's now available for free on iTunes:

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=307313302&id=307313295&s=143441

Enjoy.

Greg


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

BitbyBlit said:


> Given that he was considered a crackpot at the university, I don't think he had gotten further than barely scratching the surface of studying time travel.


His being considered a crackpot at the university doesn't really define how much he does or doesn't know about time travel. He could be an expert in the field and still be considered a crackpot simply because of the fact that he wastes his time studying time travel.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

jking said:


> His being considered a crackpot at the university doesn't really define how much he does or doesn't know about time travel. He could be an expert in the field and still be considered a crackpot simply because of the fact that he wastes his time studying time travel.


If he had been able to do detailed experiments to know all the details of how it worked, people would not have thought he was wasting his time studying time travel. Even getting it working at a basic level would have been groundbreaking.

He apparently was able to get it working enough to dislodge the minds of living beings in time, but that appeared to others as his experiments causing the test subjects to go insane. If he had been able to control it enough to do detailed experiments, he would have been able to save the female test subject who was still unstuck in time.

And given what we have seen happening on the island compared to what was happening in the "real world", even what little he does know about time travel might not apply in exactly the same way. I'd bet someone studying bringing dead people back to life wouldn't get very far off-island. But on the island, the story is different.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

BitbyBlit said:


> If he had been able to do detailed experiments to know all the details of how it worked, people would not have thought he was wasting his time studying time travel. Even getting it working at a basic level would have been groundbreaking.


Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that his theories, his understanding of time travel could be very good, but he was considered a crackpot for the very reasons you mention. He wasn't in a position to be able to prove any of them. I was just pointing out that just because he was considered a crackpot doesn't mean he actually is a crackpot.


----------



## jking (Mar 23, 2005)

BitbyBlit said:


> And given what we have seen happening on the island compared to what was happening in the "real world", even what little he does know about time travel might not apply in exactly the same way. I'd bet someone studying bringing dead people back to life wouldn't get very far off-island. But on the island, the story is different.


Again, I agree. The island presents special circumstances, which is undoubtedly why Dharma decided to do their experiments there in the first place. But he could well have had access to his mother's research, which probably does include experiments conducted on the island, so even though he doesn't have much first hand knowledge, his understanding of time travel could be quite good.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

Sromkie said:


> Right, but we now know that something (like the gun jamming) was going to happen because what Michael did on the freighter played into getting the O6 back to 1977. At the time of him trying to shoot the gun, we didn't know what would happen that stopped him from doing so, but we now know that something had to have happenedthus, Mr. Friendly telling Michael he could not kill himself was true. No matter what Michael tried to do, it had always happened that way, and it still resulted in him being alive in the time of the Freighter. It's not time correcting itself. It's time playing out how it always didpeople attempting to change what can't be changed and all.


:up: Just dropping by to agree with you.

One more day left!


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

jking said:


> Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that his theories, his understanding of time travel could be very good, but he was considered a crackpot for the very reasons you mention. He wasn't in a position to be able to prove any of them. I was just pointing out that just because he was considered a crackpot doesn't mean he actually is a crackpot.


Oh yeah, that's what I meant. I didn't mean to imply that his theories were wrong because he was a crackpot; he seems quite sane so far. (Although we haven't really seen much of him since Charlotte's death.) I think his understanding of how time travel works is better than most, if not all, other people who haven't studied the island, and perhaps even quite a few who have.



jking said:


> Again, I agree. The island presents special circumstances, which is undoubtedly why Dharma decided to do their experiments there in the first place. But he could well have had access to his mother's research, which probably does include experiments conducted on the island, so even though he doesn't have much first hand knowledge, his understanding of time travel could be quite good.


I wonder how much of the research his mother had was actually his own research that he did while trying to find a way to save Charlotte. Perhaps the reason he thinks time cannot be changed is because of research that his future self did trying to prove otherwise. If he doesn't know it was his future self that did the research, he might try doing the same experiments in a futile attempt to prove himself wrong. And I guess even if he did know it was his future self, doing the same experiments and getting different results would prove that events could be changed, so he might attempt it anyway.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

BitbyBlit said:


> I wonder how much of the research his mother had was actually his own research that he did while trying to find a way to save Charlotte. Perhaps the reason he thinks time cannot be changed is because of research that his future self did trying to prove otherwise. If he doesn't know it was his future self that did the research, he might try doing the same experiments in a futile attempt to prove himself wrong. And I guess even if he did know it was his future self, doing the same experiments and getting different results would prove that events could be changed, so he might attempt it anyway.


Ouch, I gotta remember to warm up first before coming back into this thread.


----------



## mostman (Jul 16, 2000)

First - on time travel. Stop complicating it! Here is the way to think of it. I jump forward in time to 2010 where I witness you eating some Cheerios. Then I return to the current day where I see you put a gun to your head. I know for a FACT that you will not succeed in killing yourself - you have Cheerios to eat a year from now. It's that easy. 

Second - whoever it was on this thread that tipped me off to the fact that the lovely Elizabeth Mitchell had some girl on girl in Gia (With Jolie!) - thank you. You have changed my life.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

I'm working my way through Season Two now, and just watched "The Other 48 Days". I'd forgotten about the knife that Ana Lucia took off the Other she killed when they raided the beach the second time. A US Army knife. She thought it was "...probably twenty years old. You don't see these anymore... Weird, huh?"

I wonder if it was 50 years old?


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

mostman said:


> Second - whoever it was on this thread that tipped me off to the fact that the lovely Elizabeth Mitchell had some girl on girl in Gia (With Jolie!) - thank you. You have changed my life.


Megadittos! Life is good!


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

mostman said:


> First - on time travel. Stop complicating it! Here is the way to think of it. I jump forward in time to 2010 where I witness you eating some Cheerios. Then I return to the current day where I see you put a gun to your head. I know for a FACT that you will not succeed in killing yourself - you have Cheerios to eat a year from now. It's that easy.


This. This is what I was trying to explain in terms of how the timeline restricts people from doing things that would prevent things in the future that they haven't yet done.

Thank you mostman, you were most helpful, indeed.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

mostman said:


> First - on time travel. Stop complicating it! Here is the way to think of it. I jump forward in time to 2010 where I witness you eating some Cheerios. Then I return to the current day where I see you put a gun to your head. I know for a FACT that you will not succeed in killing yourself - you have Cheerios to eat a year from now. It's that easy.
> 
> Second - whoever it was on this thread that tipped me off to the fact that the lovely Elizabeth Mitchell had some girl on girl in Gia (With Jolie!) - thank you. You have changed my life.


You're welcome


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

mostman said:


> First - on time travel. Stop complicating it! Here is the way to think of it. I jump forward in time to 2010 where I witness you eating some Cheerios. Then I return to the current day where I see you put a gun to your head. I know for a FACT that you will not succeed in killing yourself - you have Cheerios to eat a year from now. It's that easy.





tewcewl said:


> This. This is what I was trying to explain in terms of how the timeline restricts people from doing things that would prevent things in the future that they haven't yet done.
> 
> Thank you mostman, you were most helpful, indeed.


There's a difference between knowing what is going to happen, and some force preventing things from happening.

Nothing is preventing "me" from killing myself. If "my" gun is in working order, and I have the nerve, you would not have seen me in the future eating Cheerios. The fact that you did see me eating Cheerios, only means that for some reason it didn't happen, not that some force stopped it from happening.

Another thing to consider - Charlie and Desomond's visions. If Charlie had died by lightning, or drowning, or arrow to the throat, he never would have turned off the jamming signal that allowed Jack to contact the boat. So does that mean that the universe would have never allowed Charlie to die like Desmond pictured? He was more integral to the Losties going back in time than Michael was.


----------



## barbeedoll (Sep 26, 2005)

getreal said:


> If there was ever going to be a great ending to LOST, it would be that they wind up in a lagoon with the cast of Gilligan's Island.


Or in bed with Bob Newhart.

Barbeedoll


----------



## barbeedoll (Sep 26, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Great maps here: http://thelostmap.blogspot.com/
> 
> Like this:
> 
> ...


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

barbeedoll said:


> Fool Me Twice said:
> 
> 
> > Great maps here: http://thelostmap.blogspot.com/
> ...


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

barbeedoll said:


> Fool Me Twice said:
> 
> 
> > Great maps here: http://thelostmap.blogspot.com/
> ...


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Fool Me Twice said:


> The producers never liked the look of the cave set--thought it looked cheap and fake.


As a viewer, I concur.


----------

