LOST

[Hurin]

Okay, here's a question/theory not tied to any agenda.

The island was nuked in the 70s, correct? Which created a new timeline. . . and gradually, we've seen that all the Oceanic survivors have different lives. Some very differnt. Some only subtly so. Not because they didn't crash on the island. . . but apparently because Jacob wasn't visiting them during pivotal moments in their lives and influencing their lives.

Yet, here's the inexplicable part. . . they all still ended up on that Oceanic flight even in the "non-Jacob-influenced" timeline. This time, the plane didn't go down, and the island was shown to be blown up and underwater as they flew over it. But the question remains. . .

If Jacob wasn't the force that brought them all together on that Oceanic flight in the first place (the original timeline), who was? Because that force still seems to be at play in the "no island" timeline.

or

If Jacob

was

the force that brought them all together on the first timeline's flight. . . who is responsible for bringing them all together on that "island is gone" timeline's Oceanic flight. For what purpose if not to crash on the island?

Star Trek (and other sci-fi) would say that a timeline is like a river, with currents, eddies, backwash (etc.). You might paddle your way out of the current/stream for a little while, but it will eventually grab you and pull you back into "where it's supposed to go." Hence, Locke manages to be a paraplegic in both universes, but via very different means. Yet. . . this isn't Star Trek.

If those questions have any merit, I wonder if the latter one will tie into the "consciousness transferance" theory I posited a few pages back. Like, maybe the people in both timelines needed to be in close proximity (though in different timelines/universes) for the consciousness transferrance to take place?

Heh. . . or something.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Hurin

[EXO]

Good question... but not good enough!!! lol.

Shannon didn't make it to the trip. Yes, the central characters are still tied in with each other which seem to suggest that destiny and fate are still integral in the parallel universe and blowing up the island doesn't wipe out it's effect on people outside.

Also, Desmond is on the plane when he wasn't originally.

I also told my friends a similar "consciousness transferance" theory, except I didnt call it that. My friends just scratch their asses and say "you still watch that crap?"

The thing that still gets me is that assuming that everything happened the way it did up the the island getting nuked, that would mean that Ben Linus would have never gotten off the island as he wasn't part of the group that got on the submarine before the Losties decided they were going to attack the Dharma people that were left. Remember... Charlotte and Miles's mom got off the island but Ben stayed on and eventually eradicated all that was left of the Dharma initiative. And so did Miles's dad, who turned up in Hugo's award presentation surprisingly unaged. We discussed this part earlier and left it up to "writers' error" But you know if they added 3 more season's they would have eventually made up some mysterious Island force to explain that phenomenon. But the inconsistency with Ben's survival get's me. It's not error but the writers' inability to get rid of a character they are fond off. Which doesn't say much for Sayid and the Kwons. Yeah I have gripes too... overall, with this series i think is the best ever on TV.

[Hurin]

I'm definitely a bit confused by that Ben stuff. But maybe here's a possible solution:

Perhaps the timeline where the island is not destroyed does not actually include the Oceanics shenanigans in the 70s. Maybe the Dharma initiative did it all on their own, initiated the incident, paved it over, and then Ben was still around to gas them all later. The Oceanics then crash on the island, but there's no other "tie" between this timeline/universe and the one where they affect its past.

Then the other timeline where the island is destroyed does include the Oceanic shenanigans. . . and Ben is evacuated due to the gunshot delivered by Sayid? I can't remember though, did the Others keep Ben after Kate brought him to them to be saved? The recent scene between Ben and his aged father probably contains something that causes this theory to crumble. . . I don't remember much about it.

But, I'm probably missing something. So, yeah, probably just writer's error (or writers assuming we won't notice). . .

Best,

H

[jenius]

Hurin you insist that everything was in the dialog and that everything was perfectly clear and that your argument was all based on the dialog. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. You can’t claim it’s wrong to talk about death and rebirth when the show itself has dialog talking about death and rebirth. Not only that, the show talks about death and rebirth in EXACTLY the context you said it was inappropriate. You can’t say “They can’t kill each other because the dialog makes it clear they can’t harm each other” when they frequently harm each other AND Jacob ends the physical life of MIB. You can’t stand out and cry because the dialog “makes it so obvious” and then say “well the dialog isn’t clear, that could be said about anything” when it directly refutes what you’ve been saying. Does the MIB exist in some form still? Yes, but I acknowledged that in my very first post in this conversation (butterfly).

I’m more than happy to talk about MIB’s rebirth with the understanding that it has nothing to do with our original argument over your problems with semantics. Heck, you’ve attacked my post a million times now.. you know, the post where I say “I don’t get it” and attack me for not getting it. I’m assuming you’ll give me that he was reborn as the Smoke Monster. I wouldn’t argue (and haven’t) that he was reborn as Christian or Ekko’s brother but I do feel there is significance in his now long-lived (pun?) adoption of Locke’s form. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. As I’ve pointed out, the show seems to be hinting that there’s significance in MIB’s relationship with Locke but if it all ends up being about motivating Ben I certainly wouldn’t color myself embarrassed. If it was just to motivate Ben it’s going to be really hard not to think up a million ways MIB couldn’t have killed Jacob in an easier fashion. Does being able to think up ways the story could have been resolved more logically make me a bad viewer? Heck, maybe, but that wasn’t the impression I got in college. You’re also absolutely right, as more of the show unfolds I will change my theories based on the new information provided. This entire debate right now, about MIB coming back to life, may all be rendered moot tonight as the story may change completely and I may abandon this theory for a new one. In fact, if anyone has a good memory about stuff that I’ve forgotten, I would change my theory right now based on this “new to me” information. It’s a mystery show… doing that is part of what makes it fun and what makes arguing semantics so silly. I can’t even remember what my original season 1 theory was (I think I was a “purgatory” person).

I’m very curious how the writers can possibly wrap up the alt universe line with Desmond. It doesn’t seem like it can be an all unifying ending because some of the characters aren’t there any more. It’s not like Sayid is going to run into whats-her-bucket from season 1 and finally be able to put his brother’s wife behind him. The idea that Des is going to find everyone on the plane and force an interaction sounds a little… busy. A happy ending where everyone has some memories of their life on the island also sounds… awkward. In the more immediate future, I’m curious what happened to Christian’s corpse? Did I miss that or is that still missing somewhere? Also, there was a black guy who I believe was an other, shaved head, told Locke to go on a walk about, what ever happened to him? I can’t remember him dying.

The alt universe does not appear to be the universe created by the bomb going off on the island (other than the sunken island in the beginning). Too many people we know to have been on the island when it was nuked are in the alt universe. Is it possible that the island in this universe sank by some other means? Maybe in the 80s? I got the impression from Ben’s chat with his dad that the ending of the island wasn’t some traumatic event but just something that didn’t pan out. No idea how Miles’ dad didn’t age but maybe that was just make-up failure… or maybe he learned the art of time travel while studying the island…. Nah, probably just make-up

[Hurin]

Hurin you insist that everything was in the dialog and that everything was perfectly clear and that your argument was all based on the dialog. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. You can’t claim it’s wrong to talk about death and rebirth when the show itself has dialog talking about death and rebirth. Not only that, the show talks about death and rebirth in EXACTLY the context you said it was inappropriate. You can’t say “They can’t kill each other because the dialog makes it clear they can’t harm each other” when they frequently harm each other AND Jacob ends the physical life of MIB. You can’t stand out and cry because the dialog “makes it so obvious” and then say “well the dialog isn’t clear, that could be said about anything” when it directly refutes what you’ve been saying. Does the MIB exist in some form still? Yes, but I acknowledged that in my very first post in this conversation (butterfly).

I’m more than happy to talk about MIB’s rebirth with the understanding that it has nothing to do with our original argument over your problems with semantics. Heck, you’ve attacked my post a million times now.. you know, the post where I say “I don’t get it” and attack me for not getting it. I’m assuming you’ll give me that he was reborn as the Smoke Monster. I wouldn’t argue (and haven’t) that he was reborn as Christian or Ekko’s brother but I do feel there is significance in his now long-lived (pun?) adoption of Locke’s form. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. As I’ve pointed out, the show seems to be hinting that there’s significance in MIB’s relationship with Locke but if it all ends up being about motivating Ben I certainly wouldn’t color myself embarrassed. If it was just to motivate Ben it’s going to be really hard not to think up a million ways MIB couldn’t have killed Jacob in an easier fashion. Does being able to think up ways the story could have been resolved more logically make me a bad viewer? Heck, maybe, but that wasn’t the impression I got in college. You’re also absolutely right, as more of the show unfolds I will change my theories based on the new information provided. This entire debate right now, about MIB coming back to life, may all be rendered moot tonight as the story may change completely and I may abandon this theory for a new one. In fact, if anyone has a good memory about stuff that I’ve forgotten, I would change my theory right now based on this “new to me” information. It’s a mystery show… doing that is part of what makes it fun and what makes arguing semantics so silly. I can’t even remember what my original season 1 theory was (I think I was a “purgatory” person).

Jenius, well, first, I'll note that you ignore the actual substance of what I said. Note how you say Jacob's mourning means x. . . I demonstrate that it does not necessarily mean x and that it could mean y or z. . . and your response is to come back with a bunch of unrelated nonsense and unfair generalizations.

Also, quickly, you keep dishonestly saying that your first post in this conversation acknowledged a transformation in lieu of actual death (the butterfly). This is just not true. This is not the first time you've tried to somehow make it "out of bounds" to consider the post predating mine which played some part (along with others outright saying that the MIB was dead and Smokie had taken his form) in me feeling that some clarification was necessary (to which you then took so much offense). Why are you so hell-bent on pretending that you were saying something from the beginning when you weren't and were, as a matter of fact, actually one of those folks who were sorta contributing to the confusion (though not outright saying that you thought Smokie wasn't MIB). I'd note there, too, only for my own amusement, that you were at that point "looking forward" to seeing "MIB reborn" in the next episode. Apparently, contrary to what you're claiming now, you didn't then see the MIB's transformation into smokie as that rebirth (or didn't interpret that as a transformation?) and were continuing to wait to see how the MIB would "come back" from being dead. Now, oddly, you apparently do accept that the MIB turned into Smokie and that this does indeed constitute a "rebirth", since you just wrote: "I’m assuming you’ll give me that he was reborn as the Smoke Monster."

But, back to the point. . . as usual, you are incapable of recognizing nuance and/or meaning behind carefully chosen words. You seem to just think they mean what you want them to mean. I never said that people can't talk about death and rebirth at all. I merely said that those who are claiming that the MIB died (and remained dead) and that Smokie was then able to take his form are mistaken and not paying attention to the (repeated) dialog about the cave not killing anyone and instead transforming them (into Smokie). Your personal distaste for me, together with your peripheral involvement in the discussion to that point caused you to then pick a fight and make the lame assertion that my point was merely about semantics. This has never been about semantics since the result of such a clarification results in a fundamental change (on the part of some) in the perception of the nature of the chief antagonist of the series. The dialog I cited (along with so much else!) rules out the erroneous conclusion to which some were arriving.

In other words, I was making the argument that they're being careful so that we don't think the MIB has died. You then made it about semantics by coming back and wanting to debate the meaning of those words and asserting that you can use those words according to how you understand them if you want (even though they were clearly leading to confusion). So, guess what, buddy, that's you getting hung up on semantics, not me. I was hung up on people coming to a conclusion (that the MIB was dead and that he wasn't Smokie) that was pretty effectively ruled out via the writing. You were hung up on trying to prove to me that you could say "die" or "dead" if you wanted to. . . that is being hung up on semantics. So just STFU about "semantics" already. The only one obsessed with semantics here is you.

Likewise with the part about how somehow I am saying that Jacob and MIB can't kill each other. You seem to think I'm basing that off of one line in just the last show. Nope. Sorry. Moving on. . . though, again, if they can kill each other, then this is indeed a very strange show and pretty much nothing we've been told over the last season or two seems valid. So are you seriously making that argument? And if so, do you have any reason to believe it other than your need for it to be true so that things you've said in the past (some of which you've already backed away from) will seem less silly?

Oh, finally, some dialog is clear. . . and some dialog isn't. And some dialog is more directly applicable to simple concepts than others. And some complex concepts aren't well-served by simple dialog. In other words, as usual, you want to paint a very simple (even simplistic) dichotomy about how I can't say x if I once said y. Such arguments are asinine and, as you've done so many times before, demonstrate a total lack of regard for context. It's pretty silly to say that all dialog is equally clear and that I can't therefore put more emphasis on one line over another. In other words, taking a description of something and then asserting that it fits into your theory in x way is very different than gleaning facts from directly delivered dialog. Again, everything is always painfully black and white with you. You're always trying to lock people into these binary arguments (if there's a body, then he's dead!). . . things aren't that simple. Let me spell it out for you: There's a world of difference between saying that it's unlikely that the MIB would be dead because two different characters said the cave of light would not kill him (together with the fact that the character is apparently immediately transformed and very active in the show!). . . and saying that the cave was described as containing "life, death, rebirth". . . and then going on to say that this necessarily means x, y, or z.

If you want to argue that there's a larger significance to MIB taking Locke's form, fine. Have at it. So, what's the significance? It just seems that you've finally just come to rest, exhausted, on this one bit of safe ground without any real point to make. And of course, you only stumbled upon this position while trying to find (retroactively) some basis for other things you had said that had been called into question. So, congratulations, in all that rhetorical careening about, you've finally stumbled upon the statement that "maybe" there's more to the MIB taking Locke's form than we currently know. Thanks for that!

Edited May 19, 2010 by Hurin

[Hurin]

Hmmmmm, you know what, looking back on that first post. . . okay, yeah. I'm now just convinced. You were actually more confused at the outset than you were willing to let on. Apparently, you didn't actually believe, at that point, that the MIB had been transformed into Smokie. Seeing his body, and Jacob mourning him, you did actually think he was dead. Why? Because you clearly state that you're looking forward to seeing MIB "reborn in some fashion" in the next episode. Are we to think that you were both thinking of him as "reborn as the smoke monster" (as you now put it) and yet still waiting for him to be "reborn in some other fashion" in the next episode? Why look forward to an event that has already happened (as you now admit)?

So, wow, I guess this whole thread so far really has just been you being defensive about being confused and corrected (though not by name!) by someone you don't like. Man. . . what a long way to go, watching you careen about and bounce around all of these bizarre assertions and theory. . . all because you couldn't have just read my post to yourself and said: "Ah, I see what he's getting at. They make it pretty inescapable to conclude --at least at this point-- that the MIB isn't dead and that he was immediately transformed into the smoke monster. They don't want us thinking that the Smoke Monster is just using his appearance or that there's some other entity other than the MIB behind all this." That is, after all, the conclusion you now have reached. But, looking at your initial post, it's hard to see how that could possibly have been your initial understanding. So, we got page after page of you grasping at every possible straw (while producing them from your nether regions) because you just didn't want to admit (to yourself) that someone you happen to loathe had explained to you how you were confused.

Normally, I'd consider it unseemly to assert such things and not take someone's denial at face value. But the problem is, I've seen you play coy too many times in the past. So, well, I don't trust you. And looking at your first few posts, the gradual "dawning upon you" that you were fundamentally confused from the outset (and just hiding it via attacks on me for engaging in "semantics") seems pretty inescapable. Though I'm sure you'll have something that is at once both illogical and yet deviously confusing to say in order to once again distract anyone from what seems readily apparent.

The End

[jenius]

Man, no time to read all that, but I am definitely still looking forward to that moment where Jacob realizes that MIB is now living on the island as Smokey. Yes, we did see him rip out of the tunnel as Smokey, and that could definitely be considered his rebirth, but it's the Jacob/Smokey interaction I'm waiting for. The reason the post you keep referring to is irrelevant to the argument is because the argument is about whether or not you should be arguing semantics, not whether or not I know everything about Lost. Since it was obvious even to you how silly your semantics "he's not dead!" argument was you instead are trying to make it about whether or not I am the Lost guru. I am not, never claimed to be, and come to this thread often looking for clarification on what's going on. So, your apology about trying to make that stupid semantics argument is still accepted.

I'm just going to quote my entire assertion here for kicks:

Hurin you kill me. "He's not dead! I want to argue semantics!!!" The show's a wee bit convoluted for all that. The guy has a corpse... it's okay to say he died. If you prefer to think of him as a butterfly, and his corpse is just the remnants of his cocoon, and he did not die but elevated to some other plane... that's cool too.

Re-read that. If that gets you so rankled you have to get yourself banned from an Interwebs forum then you have seriously thin skin.

Now, had you been capable of having a mature conversation, based on what you wrote recently, you probably would just have said "Yeah, I should have quoted Azrael, I was simply pointing out that Smokey and MIB are one in the same, dead or undead. Smokey is not a separate individual assuming MIB's appearance." Instead you made a number of posts that made it seem even more like you were arguing semantics... and the only person you were quoting was me instead of the people you claim you were trying to help. It's hard to make a case that you're really trying to help people and not arguing semantics when the assertion that you're arguing semantics makes you jump off the deep end and argue tangentially about just about everything else EXCEPT whether your original post was a case of arguing semantics. Clearly you just like to argue and I obviously don't mind watching you work yourself up into a frenzy.

I don't dislike you Hurin, you're just words on the Interwebs to me. I don't mind if you, or Exo, or anyone else is the one who helps clarify things.

Likewise with the part about how somehow I am saying that Jacob and MIB can't kill each other.

How about "Jacob and MIB can NO LONGER kill each other..." That's how I'd say it... seeing as Jacob turned MIB into a corpse. This would again get back to the whole semantics debate though since I would say we're essentially saying the same thing but instead you're choosing to make a fight over it.

Oh, finally, some dialog is clear. . . and some dialog isn't. And some dialog is more directly applicable to simple concepts than others. And some complex concepts aren't well-served by simple dialog. In other words, as usual, you want to paint a very simple (even simplistic) dichotomy about how I can't say x if I once said y. Such arguments are asinine and, as you've done so many times before, demonstrate a total lack of regard for context.

Pot, Kettle, "black."

Show's on! I'm guessing this whole argument is about to seem that much sillier.

Edited May 19, 2010 by jenius

[azrael]

Well...

So Desmond is Jacob's backup plan. Jack is now the protector of the island. The only reason Kate's name was crossed off was because she became a mother, and Jacob seems to have made it clear that she could still have been a candidate and MIB's plan is the blow up the island, i.e. break the bottle so that he can get out. And Richard is probably somewhere in the jungle saying "mutha F*cker! That F*ckin hurts. Damn Jacob for making me immortal.".

2.5 hours on Sunday....Think I might need to DVR/download some of that...or spend Monday morning on Hulu.

[Uxi]

Jack is a father, why would motherhood exempt Kate. Jacob said they had a choice, regardless of what was written... I'm still betting on Hurley.

[Uxi]

How about "Jacob and MIB can NO LONGER kill each other..." That's how I'd say it... seeing as Jacob turned MIB into a corpse.

Body separated from it's spirit sounds like a corpse... unless he was able to transfer his Katra and "remember." He likes to feel his feet to the ground to remind himself 'he was once human.' Who was a mistake that Jacob was hoping to fix.

Speaking of which, think we're going to see Richard again?

[jenius]

I'm bummed that Jacob's conversation with the candidates likely means we'll never get that scene where Jacob comes face-to-face with the Smokey and realizes what he's done. There's so much to do and it just doesn't seem necessary now that Jacob has said it to the candidates. I'm also bummed that it came down to a "who wants this" moment and that it was Jack that got the job. I mean yeah, it seems obvious, but that's kind of why I would to have liked it to have not been Jack. Alt universe Des is frickin' James Bond. Apparently Hurley has full on regained his memories from the island (although that's probably the wrong way of saying it since it's an alt timeline) and maybe Des has too. Hurin, it certainly looks like you were right about unLocke's being unLocke just for the sake of having anyone's appearance rather than there being some Locke significance. If he's storming through the jungles as Locke just because he likes the feel of his feet hitting the ground then there probably isn't a difference between whatever shape he takes and actions he does.

Uxi c'mon, let's just drop that whole "is saying this guy's dead okay?" argument. It was a silly criticism in the first place, made sillier by an over-reaction, made even more silly by perpetual back-and-forth. I can only hope that petulant battle helped make it crystal clear to everyone what's going on with MIB and what questions still linger.

I kinda doubt we'll see Richard again... he seems pretty pointless now. It's not like he can do the job Jacob intended for him any more and MIB doesn't need him.

Edited May 19, 2010 by jenius

[azrael]

I'm bummed that Jacob's conversation with the candidates likely means we'll never get that scene where Jacob comes face-to-face with the Smokey and realizes what he's done. There's so much to do and it just doesn't seem necessary now that Jacob has said it to the candidates. I'm also bummed that it came down to a "who wants this" moment and that it was Jack that got the job.

I don't think we need to see that conversation between MIB and Jacob. I would say Jacob realized it a long time ago. He said he made a mistake a long time ago. Seeing MIB throughout the years probably reminds him of that mistake.

[Hurin]

but I am definitely still looking forward to that moment where Jacob realizes that MIB is now living on the island as Smokey. Yes, we did see him rip out of the tunnel as Smokey, and that could definitely be considered his rebirth, but it's the Jacob/Smokey interaction I'm waiting for.

I actually meant to mention this a long time ago. But it has always seemed funny to me how you seem(ed) to think that the next episode would pick up where the last one left off (back in distant non-main character flashback land). That's generally not how Lost works. exactly how many episodes did you expect them to spend following Jacob and his "family" and the immediate aftermath of his brother's transformation? Were you also expecting the episode after Richard's flashback episode to deal with his first few weeks as Jacob's spokesman?

I had a longer post. . . but it all comes down to this. . .

I can only hope that petulant battle helped make it crystal clear to everyone what's going on with MIB and what questions still linger.

It was crystal clear to everyone but you the moment I made my post. Which, to address another one of your "points" above, is why I never quoted or addressed anyone else directly regarding this topic. But because you decided to start arguing semantics rather than acknowledge the substantive point of the post (writers say thing explicitly like that, multiple times, for a reason. . . . to "rule out" conclusions to which they don't want you to come) you ended up wasting our time for two or three pages with nonsensical arguments until, exhausted, you finally try to just agree with me without noticing the irony of doing so while just using different words that allow you to pretend that you weren't really wrong in the first place (again, semantics).

Nobody ever said you were claiming to be a Lost guru. You were just confused, and then unwilling to admit that someone you disliked had a valid point. So you engaged in semantics and ridiculous argumentativeness for three pages for no other reason than stubbornness. Only to then try to claim that we've been saying the same thing all along.

Edit: Oh, and enough of this innocent act about how I'm misreading your tone or intent. Stop pretending like the last time I poked some mild, civil fun at one of your posts in this very thread, you didn't flip the f' out and fire a full (personal) broadside. Which, by the way, I happily ignored.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Hurin

[Hurin]

I don't think he's looking to ditch his responsibility and foist it on someone else. Rather, I think Jacob realized that the MIB would eventually succeed in finding his "loophole" and achieving his explicitly stated goal of killing him (Jacob). So, he began searching for his successor in preparation for when (if?) that eventually indeed happened.

Ding ding ding!

Hehe, it's not like I was the only one thinking that. But it was pretty much word for word what Jacob said tonight.

[Hurin]

Jack is a father, why would motherhood exempt Kate.

Well, if Jacob is anything like our current family court system, motherhood is valued far above fatherhood.

[Hurin]

Jenius,

I hadn't read that spoiler tag (missed it before). I do acknowledge that I'm coming off as a bit of an ungracious ass considering the bone you just threw me.

H

[jenius]

I actually meant to mention this a long time ago. But it has always seemed funny to me how you seem(ed) to think that the next episode would pick up where the last one left off. That's generally not how Lost works. exactly how many episodes did you expect them to spend following Jacob and his "family" and the immediate aftermath of his brother's transformation? Were you also expecting the episode after Richard's flashback episode to deal with his first few weeks as Jacob's spokesman?

Wow, so brave of you to wait until AFTER the next episode to chime in with that one. I'm sure you've been meaning to type it and you were so confident you should make fun of it but it just kept slipping your mind. Honestly, you're saying you can't think of anything more strange that has happened in Lost?

So you engaged in semantics and ridiculous argumentativeness for three pages for no other reason than stubbornness. Only to then try to claim that we've been saying the same thing all along

Check it, it's humorous:

I say:

If you prefer to think of him as a butterfly, and his corpse is just the remnants of his cocoon, and he did not die but elevated to some other plane... that's cool too.

You say (later):

Has it occurred to you that, in the context of this show, the corpse is perhaps not evidence of him dying, but instead evidence of him shedding his corporal form because he no longer needed it?

Now, when you try to start that same argument AGAIN, and I point out we've been down that route AGAIN and you only slightly changed what I said the first time, you say that I'm the one being stubborn and shooting for another battle of semantics? No. I'm just not going down that path AGAIN.

[Hurin]

Jenius, for the love f'ing all that is holy. . .

I said that some people had the wrong idea. They did.

I said that we know they have the wrong idea because the writers pretty clearly put in some dialog to lead us in a certain direction. They did.

I then said what that direction was. It has turned out to be correct and nobody seriously doubts it.

Some people even posted to express gratitude for the clarification.

You even agree with it now.

Yet you f'ing fought with me about it for three f'ing pages. And continue to do so.

Just STFU about it already. Nobody gives a poo what you think constitutes semantics. Especially as you unknowingly post evidence that you were engaging in it from the get-go.

I actually tried to "make nice" a tiny bit there in my last post. But seriously. . . just STFU already.

I'll stop if you will.

Best,

H

Edited May 19, 2010 by Hurin

[jenius]

We'll just agree to disagree then. You say I agree with it now, I say I mentioned it in my very first post of this discussion. You say I was engaged in semantics the first time, I say the entire point was that it was all just a matter of semantics as to whether we should say "Jacob killed MIB and MIB was reborn as Smokey" or "Jacob was the one who triggered MIB's transformation" or however else you'd want to put it. I apologize for missing that last post. To give you something to look forward to, after the finale I'm sure I'm going to have a whole bunch of idiotic questions that I'm sure you'll be able to lambast me for.

[Hurin]

I could split a few hairs there. But for the sake of just getting us past this, I won't. Let's never discuss this again.

[Hurin]

Locke/MIB did something strange at the very end of tonight's episode. If he "bought off" Ben by (again) promising Ben the island after he leaves, it's pretty stupid of him to tell Ben that he's now going to try to destroy the island altogether. That is, if he still wants Ben's enthusiastic help. He might think Ben would continue to serve him out of fear. But wouldn't it have made more sense for Locke to just refuse to tell Ben what he intends to do in order to keep Ben motivated to help him? If he destroys the island, he destroys Ben's reward.

I wonder if Locke/MIB therefore has some ulterior motive for telling Ben he's going to destroy the island. Does he have something to gain by doing so (even if it isn't actually his intention) that is more valuable to him than Ben's enthusiastic, motivated help?

Edit: I can't imagine it's a loyalty test. Since I don't think MIB/Locke is suffering under any illusions about Ben's loyalty. He knows that Ben is only helping him for his own selfish reasons (even if that's only survival).

Edited May 19, 2010 by Hurin

[EXO]

Ben saw what happened to Richard and his self preserving habits kicked back in. I think the offer for him to take over the duties on the island wasn't a serious point of conversation between the two. But we never really got to hear Ben's opinion on the whole blowing up the island thing since that was the cliff hanger.

[Hurin]

Ben saw what happened to Richard and his self preserving habits kicked back in. I think the offer for him to take over the duties on the island wasn't a serious point of conversation between the two. But we never really got to hear Ben's opinion on the whole blowing up the island thing since that was the cliff hanger.

I actually got the impression he was trying to separate himself from as many people as possible and go out to meet Smokey because he wanted exactly what happened to happen (join up with Smokey again).

Don't get me wrong. I've been sucked in by the manipulation just as much as anyone else in that the "distance" they've put between Ben and his earlier evil shenanigans (by way of the alternate timeline) has caused me to (despite myself) become somewhat fond of the character. I was sorta disappointed, though not surprised, when he immediately sold out Widmore.

BTW, if Smokey wants the island destroyed, he must be happy with how the alternate timeline went, since the island is underwater. Which begs the question: Did he somehow manipulate that into happening? I can't recall any way in which he did so. But it's somewhat ironic (assuming that the nuclear blast is what somehow sunk the island -- which doesn't seem possible unless the island isn't really an island), that Jack is now both the one responsible for destroying/sinking the island in one timeline and yet its protector in the other.

Edit: Do we really need the spoiler tags? Presumably, whoever is reading this thread knows that we're going to be discussing plot points. Sorry to anyone I've screwed by neglecting them!

Edited May 19, 2010 by Hurin

[azrael]

Edit: Do we really need the spoiler tags? Presumably, whoever is reading this thread knows that we're going to be discussing plot points. Sorry to anyone I've screwed by neglecting them!

I'm only using them till people in Hawaii watch it. After that, it's fair game.

I see Ben's self-preservation-mode kicking in. Smokey would have found them eventually so why delay the inevitable. And since Widmore showed up, Ben got his chance to kill him. I see Ben shooting Desmond just to ruin Penny's life. Whatever Ben does or is going to do, he's gonna do it just for himself. He'll probably kill MIB if it suited his interest.

[Hurin]

I'm only using them till people in Hawaii watch it. After that, it's fair game.

I see Ben's self-preservation-mode kicking in. Smokey would have found them eventually so why delay the inevitable. And since Widmore showed up, Ben got his chance to kill him. I see Ben shooting Desmond just to ruin Penny's life. Whatever Ben does or is going to do, he's gonna do it just for himself. He'll probably kill MIB if it suited his interest.

Though, remember that Ben did hesitate and looked like he might spare Penny once he realized that Penny had a kid.

[jenius]

I interpreted Ben's desperately wanting to speak to Locke alone as a hint that he was up to no good. I think he convinced the others not to run into the woods so that he could more easily sell them out. Richard struck me as the fool, he knew that Locke had seen the outrigger from Whidmore so there couldn't be a rational conversation between the two that ended well unless Richard was going to sell out Whidmore. I even wondered if Ben was giving Miles the radio so he too could be used as a chip to offer to MIB.

Ben is a bit like James in that both do good and bad but are really just constantly watching their own behinds while trying to get a little something out of it for themselves. Ben is going to be looking to turn on MIB the first chance he gets and now that Whidmore's dead I don't see him trying to torture the dead man by continuing to make his daughter's life miserable (or even killing her or Des). I wouldn't be surprised if Jack's ultimate victory comes via yet another betrayal on Ben's behalf. The major obstacle of that theory is MIB knows exactly the type of scoundrel Ben is.

[azrael]

Though, remember that Ben did hesitate and looked like he might spare Penny once he realized that Penny had a kid.

That's the thing though...he hesitated. Who's to say he won't make the same mistake twice.

I wouldn't be surprised if Jack's ultimate victory comes via yet another betrayal on Ben's behalf. The major obstacle of that theory is MIB knows exactly the type of scoundrel Ben is.

MIB only needs Ben and Claire alive long enough to kill Jack and the remaining candidates, i.e. anybody who could be a potential threat to him leaving. After that, he doesn't need them.

[Hurin]

That's the thing though...he hesitated. Who's to say he won't make the same mistake twice.

Yeah, I don't really know what he would have done had Desmond not pummeled him either.

The thing with Ben, the thing that cracks me up, is that they constantly give you reason to think he may not be all bad. And just when you think there might be some good in him, he goes and does something completely evil yet again. Rinse, repeat.

Last night, when my wife saying how Ben seemed to be less evil, I had to remind her of the whole: "Ben! You just killed everyone on that freighter!" Ben: "So?"

That's a classic Ben moment that pretty much sums him up.

(the freighter was filled with "innocents" at the time too, not just Widmore flunkies.)

BTW, it seemed a bit silly for Widmore to be there, with only one escort. What was he looking for that he needed to be there himself?

[jenius]

BTW, it seemed a bit silly for Widmore to be there, with only one escort. What was he looking for that he needed to be there himself?

Some thoughts: At the time MIB was on the other island so maybe getting off that island seemed like an incredibly prudent thing to do. Taking more of his depleted people might have just made the flight more obvious and there's no real safety in numbers. Maybe he also thought that he'd be able to directly appeal to Desmond better or, since he had received his instructions from Jacob, that he was uniquely capable of accomplishing his mission more expeditiously if he could personally find Desmond and do whatever it is that needs to be done.

Another thought, whatever happened to the rings of ash? Did they stop MIB?

[eugimon]

Well, if Jacob is anything like our current family court system, motherhood is valued far above fatherhood.

I think it's clearly explained that his decision was a subjective one based on what happened to his own biological mother and his adoptive mother. He even tells Kate that it's still up to her.

[Hurin]

I think it's clearly explained that his decision was a subjective one based on what happened to his own biological mother and his adoptive mother. He even tells Kate that it's still up to her.

Whoah. . . not saying you're wrong. . . but sure didn't seem "clearly explained". . . I wonder if you're having fun with us. The only explanation was: "It's just a line of chalk on a wall, Kate." Which, btw, was classic.

One plot-line that seems to be wholly abandoned and seems unlikely to ever to be explained: The whole "women die if they conceive on the island." That was such a huge part of the first few seasons. Now. . . nothing.

Also, was there any direct evidence of Jacob and/or MIB interacting with the people on the island during the whole 70s era? Other than the others and their assumed link to them (though it seems like the Others under Ben were perhaps under MIB's influence as well), do Jacob and/or MIB even seem to be present at all during that timeframe?

[eugimon]

Whoah. . . not saying you're wrong. . . but sure didn't seem "clearly explained". . . I wonder if you're having fun with us. The only explanation was: "It's just a line of chalk on a wall, Kate." Which, btw, was classic.

One plot-line that seems to be wholly abandoned and seems unlikely to ever to be explained: The whole "women die if they conceive on the island." That was such a huge part of the first few seasons. Now. . . nothing.

Also, was there any direct evidence of Jacob and/or MIB interacting with the people on the island during the whole 70s era? Other than the others and their assumed link to them (though it seems like the Others under Ben were perhaps under MIB's influence as well), do Jacob and/or MIB even seem to be present at all during that timeframe?

<does best Jacob impersonation> What do you think?

[EXO]

Since most of the action in the 70s era takes place within the confines of the Dharma camp protected by the barriers, the influences of the Island were minimized down to the scientific aspect. I'm not sure if it could keep out Jacob, but it seemed that Jacob didn't really interact with them directly. Though I suspect someone told Richard to tell young Ben to return to his camp.

The ring of ash are only good if the person that influences it is still alive physically as evident with Dogen's death. Somehow, his presence held back the monster from the temple. But I would guess that the temple was under double protection because Smokey never tried moving in on the temple when Jacob was alive. There's probably no sort of ash left on the island that could hold back the monster.

I think that the fact that people can't procreate on the island is more of a population control. If people were able to have offspring then the island would be a lot less deserted than it is. Most of the islands residents are either brought there by a shipwreck/plane crash and the more permanent ones are semi-immortals. And those people really try their hardest to control not only the number of people but the type of residents it holds. It seems to me that it's a lot more forgiving to people that are no danger to reproducing, like Roussaeu and Rose and Bernard. But once Roussaeu got into the mix, she got hers. But Rose and Bernard have so far been Pacifist to the whole struggle.

Also, we still have to see Aaron's importance to the storyline. He seems to be the key to the whole offspring thing. Alex didn't really amount to any importance to that whole storyline.

I'm still not that happy with the quick deaths... so Widmore's whole storyline is to tell Unlocke about Desmond? That's crazy!

[jenius]

Didn't the procreation thing become a problem after the 70s? Wasn't Ethan conceived and birthed on the island? Is that what you meant by the island influences not being as strong in the 70s because MIB was locked out of the Dharma area?

Edited May 19, 2010 by jenius

[EXO]

Ethan was a fluke because there was an outside influence there. Juliet was an offset to the balance because she was sort of chosen. Remember, they knew everything about Juliet before she got on the island, meaning she was being watched? Maybe by Jacob in the lighthouse? But I'm thinking that she was brought there to insure that Aaron was born. Claire purpose on the island was Aaron, not herself. She's not even on the candidate list. But could Ethan have been born on the island with or without Juliet? Was the photograph of them in the 70's always there? That I can't answer. Or assume, because that's all I'm doing... lol.