US: 2X11 - "The Hunting Party" [**SPOILERS WITHIN**]

doh.ie

6

Long post here (I may not know any other kind), but Stevejazzx’s posts on page 2 got me kind of irate. No offence to Stevejazzx if it comes across harsh, but the original comments were a little ‘blunt’. I just felt the opposing argument should be given.

”stevejazzx&#8221 wrote:

guys the octagon of dharma pervades the back stories therfore dharma has created or manipilated them, i think its a clear clue from the writers

I don’t disagree with this, but it's only *possible* that these are clues. The metal balls in Brian’s house in Australia also seem very similar to those in the Dharma film. That said, I don’t think Dharma has had an effect on every backstory, as that might ultimately prove implausible and the writers won’t risk alienating an audience. In any case, if an octagon appears in a flashback, often this could be a coincidence. The set decorator might just happen to have a prop like that to hand. Brian’s house may be an exception because the director seemed to frame it very specifically. But I also doubt they constructed a huge set with just that purpose in mind. More likely they found a building that suited, filmed in it, and we fans picked up on the octagon later.

Much of what we see along these lines could ultimately be red herrings (created by us often to be something more than they are). The Dharma shape apparently on the plane in 1x03 is a real one. The numbers showing up everywhere (even times on clocks) are certainly intentional, but they’re often so frequent the effect is just a fun gimmick for viewers to spot.

So the idea is that there are elements in the backstories that are clues for us about Dharma’s involvement (like how in The Sixth Sense the colour red appears in frame every time a dead person is near.) Let’s say Dharma caused Hurley to win the lottery (by influencing the balls that came out in the draw); how would Dharma also stop someone else from choosing those same numbers and sharing in it? That might not be what Dharma intended. Likewise, let’s say Dharma could’ve caused Shannon’s father to be in a car accident with Jack’s future wife (to cause Jack to become a miracle worker and to have Shannon’s life take a particular path); how would Dharma ensure that either car didn’t break down on the way to wherever they were going that day? I think that Dharma’s supposed controlling of everyone’s lives might not be 100% flawless if that ultimately proves to be the case. Yes, there’s probably a lot more than coincidence at work where characters’ lives overlap, but I’m reserving judgement on the ‘Dharma did everything’ theory for now.

”stevejazzx&#8221 wrote:

btw this board is way behind in its thinking, people are msing a awful lot!

It’s a lot more advanced than many, many Lost boards. I think it’s one of the better ones, actually. Also, while most boards work on solving Lost’s underlying mysteries, this one also discusses it as a *TV show* , and one of boards.ie’s Lost threads’ saving graces for me is that we can be critical and praising in equal measure. If you go back on the other threads, I don’t think we’re missing nearly as much as you think. I usually see an awful lot of points made here that never crop up anywhere else.

”stevejazzx&#8221 wrote:

I have studied the plot quite extensively recently and believe me its not in the least predictable, in any way.

No one was surprised by what Kate did (in 2x09), nor when Jack and Sarah’s marriage failed last night, nor when Ana Lucia was revealed to be a cop. Just last week, I knew Eko knew was involved the plane and the drugs from the second he wanted to see the statue! It has many predictable elements, most often in flashbacks, simply because there are only so many places they can take characters whose lives we’re pretty familiar with now. The island goings-on are less predictable, granted, but I’d be happier if they turned out to be predictable and plausible, than the opposite which is what could just as easily happen. Electromagnetics, I can buy – this is real world science and not a stretch too far; but I hope the ultimate answer for Lost isn’t something so ‘sci-fi’ (for want of a better word) that audiences are left disappointed. For example, someone on another board last week suggested the black smoke was composed of nanites or nano-molecular technology. Yes, these also exist in the real world, but boy, would I disappointed (furious even!) if that turned out to be the solution to the monster!

”stevejazzx&#8221 wrote:

but it's silly to say that it's unpredictable when(judging by input so far) you haven't predicted the basics yet, i will posting a summary to date tonight which you can look at if you wish although i realise you might not want to and prefer to go by each episode which is cool by me but possibly don't say stuff like 'anyone could of written jacks back story' when you are not in posession of all the information as of yet.

I suspect he said ‘Anyone could have written Jack’s backstory’ because it was simply not good drama. It doesn’t matter how much they plan to develop Jack in the future, or how much information we’re going to get down the line; the simple truth is some of us thought last night’s wasn’t very good. If the writers had, say, ten episodes like that in a row (little new character information, drip-feeding of island info), it’s likely the ratings would plummet. The US TV season has about four ‘high’ points – season premieres and cliffhangers and two more when ratings are measured (‘sweeps’) – November and February. I don’t have any problem with the show keeping the big punches for those times, but the writers have to avoid slowing the in-between episodes to a pace where audiences feel nothing substantial is happening or we’re not getting enough new information.

”stevejazzx&#8221 wrote:

MyPOINT is that people should not make statemets that something is no good or that something is losing it unpredictabilty or that something could have been written by anyone ect unless they are themselves an authority on the subject.

As far as I’m concerned, most of us here (on this Lost forum and other boards here) are an authority on one subject that makes us all very qualified – we love television! So we know good TV drama from bad, we know what episodes are the strong ones and which ones clearly had the budget slashed! We know when writers are tired and ‘phoning it in’ and we can tell when a new team of scriptwriters have brought a weakening show back to life. Some of us have worked in TV or have degrees in related areas (scriptwriting, Creative Writing, English); but like I say, the key qualification to be an ‘authority’ on Lost is being a dedicated fan of TV. That means if on a thread here, 30 of 40 posters think an episode was predictable, weak or badly written, chances are it was.

doh.ie

6

kyub wrote:

All I'm saying is Jack could have even just gathered everyone up and had a little meeting just to say "Hey guys, I know some of you may have been wondering where Walt and Mike are since I know rumours may be spreading. They were taken captive by The Others and we've been told they are in no danger, but for now I'm going to ask everyone not to wander off into the jungle anymore or venture too far up the beach and to stay in groups until we can figure out if they are friend or foe."

Something along the lines of that just to make it SEEM like they cared about Mike/Walt and all of the other Losties coz it seems to me like once they get back to camp, suddenly nobody give a crap.

Good points. They do this far too often and everything newsworthy in the group seems to go around as Chinese whispers. A scene at the end with Jack talking to the assembled group saying your lines above would have been perfect, and they could have tagged on the Ana Lucia scene afterwards.

stevejazzx

8

doh.ie wrote:

I don’t disagree with this, but it's only *possible* that these are clues. The metal balls in Brian’s house in Australia also seem very similar to those in the Dharma film. That said, I don’t think Dharma has had an effect on every backstory, as that might ultimately prove implausible and the writers won’t risk alienating an audience. In any case, if an octagon appears in a flashback, often this could be a coincidence. The set decorator might just happen to have a prop like that to hand. Brian’s house may be an exception because the director seemed to frame it very specifically. But I also doubt they constructed a huge set with just that purpose in mind. More likely they found a building that suited, filmed in it, and we fans picked up on the octagon later. Much of what we see along these lines could ultimately be red herrings (created by us often to be something more than they are). The Dharma shape apparently on the plane in 1x03 is a real one. The numbers showing up everywhere (even times on clocks) are certainly intentional, but they’re often so frequent the effect is just a fun gimmick for viewers to spot.
So the idea is that there are elements in the backstories that are clues for us about Dharma’s involvement (like how in The Sixth Sense the colour red appears in frame every time a dead person is near.) Let’s say Dharma caused Hurley to win the lottery (by influencing the balls that came out in the draw); how would Dharma also stop someone else from choosing those same numbers and sharing in it? That might not be what Dharma intended. Likewise, let’s say Dharma could’ve caused Shannon’s father to be in a car accident with Jack’s future wife (to cause Jack to become a miracle worker and to have Shannon’s life take a particular path); how would Dharma ensure that either car didn’t break down on the way to wherever they were going that day? I think that Dharma’s supposed controlling of everyone’s lives might not be 100% flawless if that ultimately proves to be the case. Yes, there’s probably a lot more than coincidence at work where characters’ lives overlap, but I’m reserving judgement on the ‘Dharma did everything’ theory for now.

I mainly agree with you here, although It did occur to me that Jack looked liked he was being set up by Dharma in his back storey, it looks as though the people on the island have had a lot of their pasts erased so its easier for them to be stranded. I had an idea that possibly Jack s break from his wife was orchestrated by Dharma by the plant of the beautiful Spanish woman. If Jack is single on the island there is more chance of him having an affair (this is a reference to the repopulation theory) and again it severs a major link in home life in terms of him not having something to go back to;
but you right doh.ie these ideas of the Dharma manipulation are in the very early stages and would be immensely difficulf to pull off!

doh.ie wrote:

It’s a lot more advanced than many, many Lost boards. I think it’s one of the better ones, actually. Also, while most boards work on solving Lost’s underlying mysteries, this one also discusses it as a *TV show* , and one of boards.ie’s Lost threads’ saving graces for me is that we can be critical and praising in equal measure. If you go back on the other threads, I don’t think we’re missing nearly as much as you think. I usually see an awful lot of points made here that never crop up anywhere else.

that may be so but why have i not seen a huge debate on

polar reversal theory and the maya calendar

as these seem to be the largest considrations of the plot as a whole[/Quote]

doh.ie wrote:

No one was surprised by what Kate did (in 2x09), nor when Jack and Sarah’s marriage failed last night, nor when Ana Lucia was revealed to be a cop. Just last week, I knew Eko knew was involved the plane and the drugs from the second he wanted to see the statue! It has many predictable elements, most often in flashbacks, simply because there are only so many places they can take characters whose lives we’re pretty familiar with now. The island goings-on are less predictable, granted, but I’d be happier if they turned out to be predictable and plausible, than the opposite which is what could just as easily happen. Electromagnetics, I can buy – this is real world science and not a stretch too far; but I hope the ultimate answer for Lost isn’t something so ‘sci-fi’ (for want of a better word) that audiences are left disappointed. For example, someone on another board last week suggested the black smoke was composed of nanites or nano-molecular technology. Yes, these also exist in the real world, but boy, would I disappointed (furious even!) if that turned out to be the solution to the monster!

I agree with the fact that some of the relationship elements in lost are predictable but the original comment which I had a problem with did not specify this provision, it just said 'lost is becoming less unpredictable' and i had a problem with this because the OP didn't seem to be grasping some of the finer plot elements of the show therefore the statement was imo a little audacious.

doh.ie wrote:

I suspect he said ‘Anyone could have written Jack’s backstory’ because it was simply not good drama. It doesn’t matter how much they plan to develop Jack in the future, or how much information we’re going to get down the line; the simple truth is some of us thought last night’s wasn’t very good. If the writers had, say, ten episodes like that in a row (little new character information, drip-feeding of island info), it’s likely the ratings would plummet. The US TV season has about four ‘high’ points – season premieres and cliffhangers and two more when ratings are measured (‘sweeps’) – November and February. I don’t have any problem with the show keeping the big punches for those times, but the writers have to avoid slowing the in-between episodes to a pace where audiences feel nothing substantial is happening or we’re not getting enough new information.

Your hypothosising about the schedule of mainstream tv here, when my argument was simple 'No-one is in a place to say 'I could of written that' when the 'that' refers to something which is still pending.If jacks back story turns out to be a series of implanted memories by Dharma, current critique on this story is way out, therefore we should wait until we see the full evolution of that story before judging it, but I do accept it wasn't as interesting or indeed as well acted as some of the other back stories we've seen.

doh.ie wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, most of us here (on this Lost forum and other boards here) are an authority on one subject that makes us all very qualified – we love television! So we know good TV drama from bad, we know what episodes are the strong ones and which ones clearly had the budget slashed! We know when writers are tired and ‘phoning it in’ and we can tell when a new team of scriptwriters have brought a weakening show back to life. Some of us have worked in TV or have degrees in related areas (scriptwriting, Creative Writing, English); but like I say, the key qualification to be an ‘' authority’ on Lost is being a dedicated fan of TV. That means if on a thread here, 30 of 40 posters think an episode was predictable, weak or badly written, chances are it was.

I don't accept that everyone here is an authority on lost. I don't class myself as authority on it either btw, JFTR.
i do accept that most if not all are huge fans who enjoy bantering its merits or faults.

P.S. You say i've made you Irate in prior posts, this is odd as just yesterday i posted something congratulating on some great breakdowns for lost!

stevejazzx

8

musician wrote:

Well I assume you mean silly to say it's less unpredictable which is what I was saying. Of course I would love to hear your take on the basics but don't assume that because I don't theorise as much as you that I don't know the theories that have been expressed here and elsewhere nor that I don't entertain some ideas about it myself from time to time. I was expressing some concerns based on this episode that things might be becoming a bit lacklustre. I expect and hope to be proved wrong.



Not quite what I said. I said given the premise. i.e. Write a story on Jack with this premise - Italian bloke needs an operation, sexy daughter. Jack takes it on. Trouble at home. - I think it's not that difficult to come up with the "you can't fix everything Jack/you always need something to fix" parable and explain the breakup of the marriage as you do it. Perhaps there is significance to the Italian bloke that I don't know of (he did star in an early Star Trek Voyager episode though.) Having a certain amount of imformation (probably not all but from every episode I have watched i.e. all of them) on Jack I think we all know he likes to fix things on his own. But isn't it nice to have it explained to us all over again. The back story told us that he learnt (or not) that he couldn't fix things on his own but perhaps also that he always needs a challenge and the wife was fixed so that wasn't a challenge anymore but the events on the island tell us he didn't learn anything from this until the end perhaps when he realises he needs an army.



Thats great. Each to their own. I am interested in the ideas and theories of whats behind this show's plot but perhaps not enough to spend too much time on it. I expect the show to reveal bits and pieces as it goes and every now and again I will see some good insight or links to it here but in the end I also want to enjoy each episode for what it is if possible. And I am always willing to be patient with it if is serving a purpose. I have liked some episodes that others haven't for various reasons. We all get different things out of it.



Well again I think I know enough of whats going on to get alot out of it. Perhaps if some character says "ribbit" I won't know that it is a reference to season one episode 5's 25th minute conversation between character A and B but if someone mentions that it does here then I'll know but I won't be noting it in my Lost folder.
As I said each to their own.

cool, i pretty go along iwth most of that, well the ribbit bit is a tad obscure, but anyway.......i will post my ridiculously big theory up and you can see what you think!

stevejazzx

8

SandyVN wrote:

Just a question the record "Geronammo Jackson" anybody else seem to think they talked about this a bit to much. No1 heard of it before.. Maybe some info on it?? Only a thought.

this is the record charlie was holding and he says hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm i've never heard of this before!!!!!!
>>looks like another reference to the (quite possibly not though)

cryogenic theory, i.e this band formed while the lost crew were frozen

Ciaran500

8

Or its a reference to the real band.

http://thetailsection.com/
"You might want to keep your eyes peeled for Geronimo Jackson's audacious debut. They're a band not a lot of people have heard about. They just pressed one very obscure album in the mid to late 70s. "

Also: http://www.geronimo-jackson.com/

stevejazzx

8

Ciaran500 wrote:

Or its a reference to the real band.

http://thetailsection.com/
"You might want to keep your eyes peeled for Geronimo Jackson's audacious debut. They're a band not a lot of people have heard about. They just pressed one very obscure album in the mid to late 70s. "

Also: http://www.geronimo-jackson.com/

That cover did strike me as very sixties/seventies
so unless they've been frozen for a very long time this theory is wrong

steveland?

8

stevejazzx wrote:

it severs a major link in home life in terms of him not having something to go back to;

That raises a good point I hadn't really thought of actually...

None of the islanders have anything to go home to or they just don't want to go back to the life they were leading...

Kate on the run, Jack having no-one, Sawyer living a life conning people out of money, Hurley going back to a life where all his best friends hate him for his money, Jin and Sun have each other so have no real need to go back, Charlie with his life of drugs, etc...

Another point that I wanted to raise which is basically reiterating something doh.ie said earlier...

If someone says "I could have written that Jack flashback" (sorry... "could of" is one of my pet hates...) they mean it in a "good television" kind of way... not in a plot-enchancing context...

Given the information that needs to be shown: The Spanish woman and her father coming in, Jack being portrayed as a miracle worker, his dad trying to stop him, him needing something to fix, Sarah leaving, etc... I'm sure a lot of people could have written it in a more "peon masses" pleasing way... Lost isn't winning fans on this type of episode. It's winning fans on compulsive viewing, exposition (more-so last season), 3 Dimensional characters, etc.

Saying "I could have written that better myself" means that if they were writing Lost they could have made it more compulsive, not they could have made a completely different back story that was more interesting...

stevejaxx, you seem to be saying that people who say "I could have written it better myself" are saying that they could have come up with a better storyline, I'm saying they mean they could have made the scene much more watchable, exposed the exact same information, but made it not boring as hell which that flashback was...

I gave the episode a 9 purely for the meeting with the others and the finalé promise of training an army to fight... also some other little tidbits such as Jack without tattoos (hoping they come up with a good reason for this... not a kind of late-onset teenage rebellion kinda thing)

LoLth

stevejazzx wrote:

oh and hw long have i been following lost? since the begining, almost, watched the begining on c4 and shortly afterwards got on the net an ordered season 1 from the states, btw this board is way behind in its thinking, people are msing a awful lot!

I think my point about the nature of questions has gone waaaaay past you on this one. I'll give you a hint, I really dont care how long you have watched it

stevejazzx wrote:

I have studied the plot quite extensively recently and believe me its not in the least predictable, in any way.
Furthermore judging by what you have written in this thread you are not nearly up to speed with developments thus far and I honestly only say this to reassure you that the show is excellent and beyond expectation.

Ok, I watch entertaining show to be entertained. I study things I have to take exams in or I require for work. There is something fundamentally wrong with "studying" a tv show. Also, you seem to be taking what is written on other boards as gospel and are honestly coming across as a bit "full-of-it" especially when "it" is an opinion handed down to you from someone else (ie: these other boards). Anyone who has watched every episode up to the latest is just as "up to speed with developements" as anyone else bar the writers and the actors. Unless you are one of these, your opinions hold equal weight to anyone else on this board or not. no more, no less.

As musician (/me waves, lo Muso! ) said, Lost is losing its unpredicability. There are only so many revelations that can be made before the ending is guessed for certain, right now it is beginning to feel that unlike the 1st season where revelations were made alomost every episode, this season is trying to milk as much tension out of each revelation as possible and as a result not revealing as much or worse yet, having the revelation become much less shocking because the audience has had enough clues and time to generate their own , possibly more far fetched, theories (I'm not talking about forums etc, I'm talking about viewers). And I also agree that given the same circumstances and general reuqirements I also could have written a much better Jack flash back than the one that was shown. It got the job done, as in it told us what we needed to know but unfortunately it really only confirmed to us what we already knew and didnt have any revelation or shock value.

stevejazzx wrote:

Although I love the show, its not religous and I'm not scouring the web for stuff as the worst scenario i can imagine is having the whole thing outlined to me before I see it.

That would seem to go completely against the impression you have given so far. As I have said, unless you have information or insight from teh writers or actors then you are really jsut guessing the same as everyone else and cant claim any right to tell people that their guesses are flat wrong.

stevejazzx wrote:

you haven't predicted the basics yet

and you have? Or has someone else on one of these incredibly advanced boards? Are you 100% sure your predictions are correct? if so, how? I didnt realise that the creators of the show had revealed any concrete material as yet, except to say that the explaination was not sci-fi or too bizzarre... however they have been know to tell a porky or two in online interviews.

stevejazzx wrote:

As far developing the theory of the idea of lost goes its been months in the doing, myself and the wife have been ironing out stuff since october using a lot of our own ideas(there wasn't much on the web at that time) we were luckly to have stumbled upon one of biggest ideas quite early so have been evolving that since, now i read ultimate theory on the web by andrew smith but thats it, there are many areas where i disagree and many other original ideas which i developed with friends etc.

and again I ask , how do you KNOW that you are right? Your theory and that of andrew smith, could be completely wrong and you are misconstruing the "evidence" to suit you preferred view. I'm not saying you are wrong, and that ultimate theory certainly has merit, but until I have seen the explaination I wont say "yep, thats right. the rest of you are wrong".

ahem, anyway,

to get back on topic (and I apologise for the rant, I just dont like it when people cant play nice in the sandbox without stepping on someone else), that geronimo-jackson reference: (it definitely seems strange that charlie didnt hear of them nad it does appear to be a deliberate hint that they have charlie say that and not hurley)

Well, its' not a real band that I can see anyway but is almost definitely a mock up website like the drive-shaft website that came out jsut before the show aired originally

whois:
Domain Name: GERONIMO-JACKSON.COM
Registrar: GO DADDY SOFTWARE, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS2.RAIND0G.COM
Name Server: NS1.RAIND0G.COM
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Updated Date: 19-jan-2006
Creation Date: 19-jan-2006
Expiration Date: 19-jan-2007

Go daddy is a hosting company and raindog just brings you to a search and advertisement page. Interestingly the sites nameservers are hosted with UUNET who are an american ISP based in virginia with datacentres in washington DC. The registration date could jsut be someone (very quickly) registering a domain name for the fun of it.

UUNET Technologies, Inc
US-based provider of Internet access. UUNET was the first commercial Internet Service Provider, founded in 1987; the company now has an international network of PoPs and is a major backbone provider. It acquired PIPEX from Unipalm in 1996 and is now itself part of WorldCom Inc.


As to the lack of connections back in the "real world", this was mentioned to me the other day and it really does make sense that they are all better off where they are. Each of them has been betrayed by someone close, none seem to have strong parental figure waiting for them and in almost every case, the characters parents have actually turned out to be whopping disappointments (dont know about Hurley yet).

Just one other thing I thought of while writing this post, for those of you who have read the "ultimate theory", does it give a reason for the survivors being split into two parties? why was the tail section on the other side of the island and why have people die in the water? Definitely electromagnetics have something to do with it but I'm not 100% that the ultimate theory is in fact the actual ultimate theory.

stevejazzx

8

LoLth wrote:

I think my point about the nature of questions has gone waaaaay past you on this one. I'll give you a hint, I really dont care how long you have watched it

So you take the time to write a really long post about it?
Makes no sense, if you didn't care you wouldn't bother. You sarcastic waaaay shows your arrogance, I don't know you have never interacted with you on boards(before now) so when you asked me how long have I been watching boards i gave you an answer and now say 'I don't really care how long you've watched it' well thats great and again congratulations for the brilliant wit.

LoLth wrote:

Ok, I watch entertaining show to be entertained. I study things I have to take exams in or I require for work. There is something fundamentally wrong with "studying" a tv show. Also, you seem to be taking what is written on other boards as gospel and are honestly coming across as a bit "full-of-it" especially when "it" is an opinion handed down to you from someone else (ie: these other boards). Anyone who has watched every episode up to the latest is just as "up to speed with developements" as anyone else bar the writers and the actors. Unless you are one of these, your opinions hold equal weight to anyone else on this board or not. no more, no less.

You obviously have either a) ignored other posts where I answered these questions or b) in petty rivarly decided to raise issues again.
If I want to study 'lost' so what? Do you care, do you, you know i'm begining to think you do.
As far as you remark about that it's 'fundametally wrong to study a t.v show' is concerned, well thats such an idiotic remark it doesn't deserve an answer.
But I'll give you one anyway.
If a T.V show is interesting enough to someone for whatever reason be it it's humour, drama or other worldly complex issues or whatever why would it be fundametally wrong to study them?
Perhaps the tv you watch is so banal that this idea occured to you. Stop watching sky 1.
Your acusation that 'oh your only regurgitating idaes from other boards' is untrue. As simple as that I'm afraid. If you read my posts this should become apparent.

LoLth wrote:

As musician (/me waves, lo Muso! ) said, Lost is losing its unpredicability. There are only so many revelations that can be made before the ending is guessed for certain, right now it is beginning to feel that unlike the 1st season where revelations were made alomost every episode, this season is trying to milk as much tension out of each revelation as possible and as a result not revealing as much or worse yet, having the revelation become much less shocking because the audience has had enough clues and time to generate their own , possibly more far fetched, theories (I'm not talking about forums etc, I'm talking about viewers). And I also agree that given the same circumstances and general reuqirements I also could have written a much better Jack flash back than the one that was shown. It got the job done, as in it told us what we needed to know but unfortunately it really only confirmed to us what we already knew and didnt have any revelation or shock value.

Again the 'I could of written a better story' etc, etc,
Well then stop watching lost and write your own little ditties if this is the way you feel.

LoLth wrote:

That would seem to go completely against the impression you have given so far. As I have said, unless you have information or insight from teh writers or actors then you are really jsut guessing the same as everyone else and cant claim any right to tell people that their guesses are flat wrong.

Some of the clues i.e that of the electromagnetic field seem stronger than others, this information being currently the most likley scenario deserves more discussion than some of the other throwaway remarks that are being made in threads. thats all i was saying, lets discuss the basics.

LoLth wrote:

and you have? Or has someone else on one of these incredibly advanced boards? Are you 100% sure your predictions are correct? if so, how? I didnt realise that the creators of the show had revealed any concrete material as yet, except to say that the explaination was not sci-fi or too bizzarre... however they have been know to tell a porky or two in online interviews.

No again just working off the strongest clues i.e the revelation that

Alvar hanso is actually a mix of the two real life scientists who founded and developed electromagntism

This is getting dull having to explain and apologise for every little...right what's the next question....

LoLth wrote:

and again I ask , how do you KNOW that you are right? Your theory and that of andrew smith, could be completely wrong and you are misconstruing the "evidence" to suit you preferred view. I'm not saying you are wrong, and that ultimate theory certainly has merit, but until I have seen the explaination I wont say "yep, thats right. the rest of you are wrong".

yep your right it's all wrong, you got me, i 'm just posting to annoy people despite genuinely trying to stimulate converstion and ideas, no my real motive was getting things to this stage where there is pointless 'he said, she said' business going on..great..well done.

PS
I want to talk about lost, thats it. i hope this is clear. i have alredy apologised if I have come across too arrogant.
I really think this post 'attacking me' was pointless, I've already been through this with 'musician' and doh.ie in this thread so if your too lazy to read the whole thing perhaps you should change your name to 'sLOLTH' .

cheers

lostexpectation

6

how old is alex, i would have thought she was young but she could be the full 16 years rousseau's been on the island...

did nobody notice the smoke, after the lanterns were extinguished, it was monster (digital) smoke. very thick, how many others are there in the ring of fire, 10 + zeek? you didn't see them put a match to the lanterns/sticks it was like they were lit instantaneously maybe by zeek himself through his 6th sense.

jack was in the army too, he was asking ana as his confidente

didn't ana kill two others? the raggly girl she scrambled with and killed very easily that night and goodwin


yes locke knows a sawyer

wheres the zilla part of lostzilla?

stevejazzx

8

lostexpectation wrote:

yes locke knows a sawyer

What do you man exactly?

lostexpectation wrote:

wheres the zilla part of lostzilla?

Again i don't follow

lostexpectation

6

stevejazzx wrote:

What do you man exactly?


they called it lostzilla but there was absolutly no zilla part to it just smoke...

the one question they should have asked zeke is what do you want with walt, walt was their reason for going so it would the one bit of info they need before they left again...


the thing about the bullets, if you hear seven shots and don't find seven casings then some of them could be still in michael

stevejazzx

8

lostexpectation wrote:

they called it lostzilla but there was absolutly no zilla part to it just smoke...

Who called it lostzilla?

lostexpectation wrote:

the one question they should have asked zeke is what do you want with walt, walt was their reason for going so it would the one bit of info they need before they left again...

yes abso-bloddy-lutely , this was odd alright, i thought something along the lines of why did you take 'walt' why 'walt' alothough zeke does say hes a very special boy, it looks as though ther'ye using walt to fight the power.
i think they're good guys

Anima

7

the thing about the bullets, if you hear seven shots and don't find seven casings then some of them could be still in michael

The casings aren't the bullets, they're whats ejected after a shot if fired. They're not going to be "in" anyone. The fact that they only found 4 or whatever just shows that Micheal was shooting at someone and they were returning fire imo.

lostexpectation

6

Anima wrote:

The casings aren't the bullets, they're whats ejected after a shot if fired. They're not going to be "in" anyone. The fact that they only found 4 or whatever just shows that Micheal was shooting at someone and they were returning fire imo.

of course

ixoy

A lot of the points have already been covered. The final meeting with the Others merely infuriated me when, as others have said, they didn't bother to ask intelligent quetions. But then that seems often a case in point with the show, where they don't bother to properly analyze or theorize their conditions/events because it needs to be dragged out for the big reveals...

I'm assuming Ethan Rom is with someone else, given the Others didn't seem to know him and didn't know how long the plane had crashed (which they'd have had a fair idea of if they had sent him out in the first place).

stevejazzx wrote:

Who called it lostzilla?

I think TelevionWithoutPity coined the phrase but it appears to have been adopted in a lot of different forums, including here.

I also found Jack's back story tiresome this week. We know the nature of his somewhat dull character. And just because we don't know everything, in absolutely no way does it not allow us to criticise. Even supposing that there's some odd electromagnetic device manipulating memories and triggering false back stories - that still does not change the fact that the backstories can be dull and obvious. How does the fact of their origin change any of that?

And yes, I feel that there's certain elements that are predicatable and somewhat lazy. The fact that they're predictable is clear by the fact we predict the outcomes of the scenarios. QED. No matter what might come next, what retconning certain elements can make, it won't change the fact that the writers are occasionally sloppy in their execution of scenes or that they take an obvious route to enable stories to peter out in their particular direction - e.g. you can't have an all out conflict now, not because the characters wouldn't trigger it, but because the writers want it for the finale arc. By all means let's debate the possible plots they have going (and I'm dubious on some of those myself) but definetely let us criticize what we're presented with.

stevejazzx

8

ixoy wrote:

I also found Jack's back story tiresome this week. We know the nature of his somewhat dull character. And just because we don't know everything, in absolutely no way does it not allow us to criticise. Even supposing that there's some odd electromagnetic device manipulating memories and triggering false back stories - that still does not change the fact that the backstories can be dull and obvious. How does the fact of their origin change anything of that?
And yes, I feel that there's certain elements that are predicatable and somewhat lazy. The fact that they're predictable is clear by the fact we predict the outcomes of the scenarios. QED. No matter what might come next, what retconning certain elements can make, it won't change the fact that the writers are occasionally sloppy in their execution of scenes or that they take an obvious route to enable stories to peter out in their particular direction - e.g. you can't have an all out conflict now, not because the characters wouldn't trigger it, but because the writers want it for the finale arc. By all means let's debate the possible plots they have going (and I'm dubious on some of those myself) but definetely let us criticize what we're presented with.

I would agree in part with that but there were moments in season 1 where i was like 'oh dear, oh dear' this is getting dull and then wow the 'hatch' which they milked but then 'bang' season 2 episode 1 was absolutely amazing where it's shot from desmonds perspective.
So essentially i'm in the position now where i trust the shows writers and i've actually found that for e.g that in season 2 the dialogue has become a lot snappier, which i like, and i figure it lke this 'they've taken us this far so lets wait and see.

mewso

6

LoLth wrote:

As musician (/me waves, lo Muso! )

Fancy meeting you here

sephirosis

stevejazzx wrote:

No again just working off the strongest clues i.e the revelation that

: Alvar hanso is actually a mix of the two real life scientists who founded and developed electromagntism

This is getting dull having to explain and apologise for every little...right what's the next question....

i apologise in advance and im not trying to attack or flame you, but what with

electromagnetism being one of the four fundamental forces of nature, I don't think anyone "founded and developed" it. I'll assume you meant developed the study and practical application, but just in case anyone who's not into physics got the wrong idea from reading the post, it's not a "product" of human design.

Again apologies if that sounded condescending to you or anyone, I'm aware most people probably have a good grasp of physics. Some good points made by everyone anyway and some good ideas expressed all around. (If anyones wondering about the spoiler tags i just put them in since the relevant point was originally spoilered, it should be safe to read)

stevejazzx

8

sephirosis wrote:

i apologise in advance and im not trying to attack or flame you, but what with

electromagnetism being one of the four fundamental forces of nature, I don't think anyone "founded and developed" it. I'll assume you meant developed the study and practical application, but just in case anyone who's not into physics got the wrong idea from reading the post, it's not a "product" of human design.

Again apologies if that sounded condescending to you or anyone, I'm aware most people probably have a good grasp of physics. Some good points made by everyone anyway and some good ideas expressed all around. (If anyones wondering about the spoiler tags i just put them in since the relevant point was originally spoilered, it should be safe to read)

eh ok but it hadn't been discovered(magnetic effect on elecrical currents) until oersteds compass experiment in 1820, this would lay the basis for creating the theories of elctromagnetism...

tvnutz

6

Dear God there is a hell of a lot of discussion going on,most of which includes very very long posts (doh.ie)

So Ill just say...not a bad episode,boring flashbacks,good stuff with the Others,line at the end was interesting.

7/10

CuLT

I am sure as hell not going to read all those long-ass posts.

Jack is a total jackass. He had an opportunity to broker some sort of ceasefire or figure out wtf is going on and tossed it away because of his pride.

And lets not forget:
"Build me an army worthy of MORDOR" :v:

qz

7

Judging by the replies in this thread, I think I'm the only one that enjoyed Jack's backstory. So yeah, I enjoyed this episode. But for an event as huge as speaking to the Others, it all just seemed a bit pass-remarkable. Our revelation in 2x10 was much better executed.

8/10

Hyzepher

Since this thread has brought up discussion about possible theories etc - especially the Andrew Smith theory on other boards - I would like to share something htat I find odd.

The writers spend a lot of time, during multiple episodes enforcing character behaviour - Jack, Locke, Kate etc. In fact they tend to overdo it and give us the same message far too often - Jack's need to 'fix' stuff, Locke's 'faith' etc. Yet there are people who are trying to presend theories that are extremely complex and I would imagine very hard to explain to the average viewer when the time comes to reveal all.

Connections and coincidences that have been talked about by people to validate their theory have almost never been referenced in the actual show - apart from a vague one line dialogue, or so. I just find it hard to believe that the writers will be able to tie all the ends together to come to the conclusion that a lot of people are saying is inevitable.

In TV-land the main rule is to ensure that you never lose your audience - either by making the plot over complicated or by making it overly drawn out. Although I love Lost, I feel that the show is beginning to fail on both counts. I say beginning because it hasn't reached that point yet, but if it continues to present more unanswered questions without revealing something to its audience then it might fall victim of its own success and fizzle out

Hyzepher

madrab

7

bigjimthefirst wrote:

Yea sorry thats what I meant

hat eating time

madrab

7

SandyVN wrote:

I have to agree, alot of ppl have said "that was pointless" in this thread...

How do you know??? have you seen the rest of the episodes?

Did'nt you think the pictures in the backround of clairs apartment was pointless......yet 6 episodes later we see them on the island. Hurley drinking milk was that pointless... em,,, NO.

Unless you all know what happens in the end "pointless" is not a word you can use about this show.

background pictures & milk drinking? eh?

stevejazzx

8

Hyzepher wrote:

Since this thread has brought up discussion about possible theories etc - especially the Andrew Smith theory on other boards - I would like to share something htat I find odd.

The writers spend a lot of time, during multiple episodes enforcing character behaviour - Jack, Locke, Kate etc. In fact they tend to overdo it and give us the same message far too often - Jack's need to 'fix' stuff, Locke's 'faith' etc. Yet there are people who are trying to presend theories that are extremely complex and I would imagine very hard to explain to the average viewer when the time comes to reveal all.

Connections and coincidences that have been talked about by people to validate their theory have almost never been referenced in the actual show - apart from a vague one line dialogue, or so. I just find it hard to believe that the writers will be able to tie all the ends together to come to the conclusion that a lot of people are saying is inevitable.

In TV-land the main rule is to ensure that you never lose your audience - either by making the plot over complicated or by making it overly drawn out. Although I love Lost, I feel that the show is beginning to fail on both counts. I say beginning because it hasn't reached that point yet, but if it continues to present more unanswered questions without revealing something to its audience then it might fall victim of its own success and fizzle out

Hyzepher

yeah I've just posted the most insanely compex theory to try and explain stuff from lost and if even if just a quarter of it turns out to be true the writers have got some gigantic task ahead in tying all it together but I faith for thew time being anyway........

Jimboo_Jones

9

was exellent - roll on lost 'the boot camp years'

doh.ie

6

stevejazzx wrote:

that may be so but why have i not seen a huge debate on

polar reversal theory and the maya calendar

as these seem to be the largest considrations of the plot as a whole

Hadn't heard of the second one, but if it is the case, it might be too X-Files (which also touched on it) in its 'resolution' for my liking.

stevejazzx wrote:

If jacks back story turns out to be a series of implanted memories by Dharma, current critique on this story is way out, therefore we should wait until we see the full evolution of that story before judging it

I'll be the first to put my hands up and say, "Genius!" if some of the more mundane parts of various flaskbacks turn out to have been pointing somewhere all along. But the downside is, if the flashbacks and the island revelations disappoint consistently over several weeks, audiences will stop tuning in and the show will suffer severely. From this point the answers now need to flow relatively well. If the writers want to keep the 'big' revelation until the end, then at least introduce - and more importantly answer - new mysteries like the plane and the hatch (the plane has pretty much been resloved, aside from how it got the island, and the hatch, while not answered in full, has come a long way since its discovery.)

stevejazzx wrote:

P.S. You say i've made you Irate in prior posts, this is odd as just yesterday i posted something congratulating on some great breakdowns for lost!

So I see. (That made me feel a bit guilty, actually!) 'Irate' was probably a bit harsh, but I just felt the gist of your earlier messages in this thread was dismissive of some of the rest of us for a) criticising the writers for, at times, weak plotting, poor drama and dead-end revelations and b) not having analysed or discussed other 'overall solutions' as found on other boards. You may not have intended to come across that way, or maybe you didn't. It's just how it read to me.

Anyway, no hard feelings. The more discussion the better; hadn't even see the potential for a

Mayan

connection until now.

doh.ie

6

CuLT wrote:

I am sure as hell not going to read all those long-ass posts.

Meh!

PullMyFinger!

7

Damn, some long replies there but worth reading

A decent enough episode, the back story was predictable but I think a few of them have to be otherwise it turns into Twin Peaks meets the X Files.

Whats the

Maya Calender

?

My main point for replying is this: did anyone else see how Locke and Zeke were looking at each other or at least the strange little expressions on Locke's face before he threw down his gun? A look like they knew each other? Were in on it together? Something I cant quite put my finger on, I'll have to watch it again.

Also: the numbers used for the lock on the door, I heard "25 right 3 times" and not much after that. Significance?

All in all a 7 out of ten for me, but they really need to start putting the caps on a few lids cos its getting very tricky trying to keep all these threads in mind when watching, and most of us here are fanatic fans - what happens when the average American viewer who doesnt check net boards like these but just watches for an hour to chill out loses interest?


PS: Could whoever gave away the ending of season one of BSG be taken out and shot please, totally off topic and gave away the end of a series I intended to get into this year :rolleyes:

Peace

6

Peronally Jack has been starting to grate on me since he started arguing with Locke about his position of faith. And it seems he's being a complete prick to everyone nowadays.

stevejazzx

8

PullMyFinger! wrote:

Damn, some long replies there but worth reading

Whats the

Maya Calender

?

its in my other post in lost forum

'lost explained' although its just a thoery!

madrab

7

Peace wrote:

Peronally Jack has been starting to grate on me since he started arguing with Locke about his position of faith. And it seems he's being a complete prick to everyone nowadays.

yeah, noticed that myself, he was the primary character last season, but it seem sto be shifting away from him &his character seems to be getting more interesting as well

doh.ie

6

PullMyFinger! wrote:

PS: Could whoever gave away the ending of season one of BSG be taken out and shot please, totally off topic and gave away the end of a series I intended to get into this year :rolleyes:

Saw that on the way through the thread - steveland? if you get a chance you might go back and blacken that one out. I meant to point it out earlier. A bit of kicker for anyone who hasn't seen one of the other (few) great shows on TV yet.

steveland?

8

doh.ie wrote:

Saw that on the way through the thread - steveland? if you get a chance you might go back and blacken that one out. I meant to point it out earlier. A bit of kicker for anyone who hasn't seen one of the other (few) great shows on TV yet.

Huh? Musta been hidden in one of those gigantic posts :v:

I'll have a gander for it (damn... now I have to go read it and ruin BSG for myself if I ever choose to watch it )

Cina

madrab wrote:

yeah, noticed that myself, he was the primary character last season, but it seem sto be shifting away from him &his character seems to be getting more interesting as well

I wouldn't say he was ever the primary character, it's just that last season he was the definate leader of the group, hence he had to get the most attention, this season now that Locke is being seen as a leader aswell, and to a lesser extent Sayid. The characters are starting to branch off on their own a lot more as opposed to sticking together and such such we see less of Jack, and more of the others.

PullMyFinger!

7

Did anyone else notice that look Locke gave Zeke?

Ive looked again and let me be the first to say: Locke and Zeke are in cahoots! Although maybe for the greater good

doh.ie

6

Cina wrote:

I wouldn't say he was ever the primary character, it's just that last season he was the definate leader of the group, hence he had to get the most attention

Jack has now had 5 flashbacks (7 if you include "Pilot" and "Exodus"), one more than anyone else so far. They certainly have given him more attention, and had his flashbacks closer together, which often gives the appearance of him being more 'main' than anyone else.

qz

7

doh.ie wrote:

Jack has now had 5 flashbacks (7 if you include "Pilot" and "Exodus"), one more than anyone else so far. They certainly have given him more attention, and had his flashbacks closer together, which often gives the appearance of him being more 'main' than anyone else.

Intersting piece in the "Metro" today. Apparently Mathew Fox got a once-off payment of about 203,000 (not sure whether it was € or $), as he was the "main character in the show" or something along those lines.

herobear

all the original cast members got raises, as a congratulations for winning the golden globe, along with that all their contracts got added an extra year onto itself.
yes, mathew fox got the regular salary raise,as well as an extra bonus, as he is regarded by ABC as the main character in the show

Talisman

Ethan wasn't one of Zeke's gang - he was working with Rousseau, he took Claire and the plan was to try and trade Claire's baby for Alex. And the giveaway is that Ethan didn't know that Walt was the one that Zeke was looking for.

Talisman

sephirosis wrote:

Locke then completely turns the conversation on its head by shocking Sawyer with the question about his name. Then they hear the shots, run straight into them and encounter Mr Beard.
It's probably nothing, but why was Locke so evasive? He seemed totally unwilling to answer Sawyer's inquiry as to where they were actually going, and suddenly they run into the others. Maybe Locke is a bit more sinister after all?

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. It's in Sawyer's nature to challenge any display of authority by the other survivors - "Who put you in charge?" is a common challenge (Jack, Anna Lucia).

"I don't know, Mr. Clean, I probably would have gone around Mt. Vesuvius"
Not sure if I got the quote exactly right but it was interesting that there was an eruption of gun fire when the volcano was mentioned.

Mr. Clean - nobody has any dirt on Locke, and the exchange about the name Sawyer would suggest that Locke knows Sawyer's back story or had previously encountered the real Sawyer.

What's the significance of a name? Eko had a similar question for Claire regarding the choice of name for her baby.

Talisman

kyub wrote:

I thought this was a great episode apart from one little thing.

So... they finally bump into "The Others" and know that they have Walt and more than likely have Mike now too. "The Others" get the drop on them, and they have to get their asses back to camp. BUT. When they arrive back at camp, instead of telling everyone WTF is going on and that "The Others" have Walt AND Mike now too they all just go about their business?!?

There has only ever been one gathering to inform the masses and that was at the end of season 1. It's not in the nature of the show to have weekly updates for the other survivors, the characters do it behind the scenes.

For example in this episode: Kate tells Hurley about the search party, and suddenly Jin is packing his bags and heading for the jungle. Hurley is a blabber mouth, I forget which one of the characters said it in the first season but "If you want to keep a secret then don't tell the fat guy". Upon their return one of the characters, most likely Kate or Locke will have a conversation with Hurley/Charlie (no difference really as they live in each other's pockets) regarding what happened and then the word will spread.

doh.ie

6

Talisman wrote:

It's not in the nature of the show to have weekly updates for the other survivors, the characters do it behind the scenes.

I agree, but I think they might have made an exception in this case as it seemed quite important that the Others had been confronted, and it was confirmed that they have two of our castaways.

Talisman wrote:

Hurley is a blabber mouth, I forget which one of the characters said it in the first season but "If you want to keep a secret then don't tell the fat guy".

That'd have been Artz talking to Jack in relation to the plan to blow open the hatch with dynamite and hide everyone inside. I take the point, though I still reckon it'd make the group seem more of a community if we had a scene with Jack addressing everyone (as he did when he told them they needed to stick together in "White Rabbit"), especially when something crucially affecting them happens.

meep

an interesting tidbit on the geronimo jackson references;

if you view source on http://www.geronimo-jackson.com/, you get this meta information;

<meta name="keywords" content="geronimo jackson, locke and key records, macna carta, magna carta, not just a number, other man, on my own feet again, down in a hole, smoke and mirrors, other side of the tracks, born again">

Lots of Lost references in there. Many of what I presume are track titles could be attributed to Locke. (interesting record label too!!). Maybe some clues too (if it's some kind of official site, not just an opportunist fan site).

Peter

oleras

folks, im sure i saw something on the elderly italian mans wrist,forearm when his daughter leant over his bed to fix his sheets, about 8 mins in, i cant frame by frame it to make sure , i paused it (15" laptop screen so not that big" and it "may" be a drip folded, but my first impression was a tattoo of some sort.......

qz

7

oleras wrote:

folks, im sure i saw something on the elderly italian mans wrist,forearm when his daughter leant over his bed to fix his sheets, about 8 mins in, i cant frame by frame it to make sure , i paused it (15" laptop screen so not that big" and it "may" be a drip folded, but my first impression was a tattoo of some sort.......

Just checked, and it's his drip. No biggie. 8:47 for anyone who wants to check.

Hugh_C

5

qz wrote:

Intersting piece in the "Metro" today.

I hope you re-cycled it like a good green citizen.



Locke is where it's at, that's all I can say. I'm one of those fans who just let it wash over me for 45 minutes of escapism.



s02e11 was a bit dull for sure. 6