Lame discussions and poorly constructed theories about the hit ABC series "Lost."
Call the TLI Ham Fat Line: (206) 426-3238
Sayid is awesome.
Fine. I'll be first on here. Ha ha.
Damn you Kim! I am now leaving so as not to be spoiled.
"Hi, I'm Larry, this is my brother Daryl, and this is my other brother Daryl."
Sayid was tied to a tree in the jungle of mystery. This makes the Suzanne Pleshette ending more plausible, but for her death, but then again a hologram's the only thing we're missing at this point.Right now, 15 minutes to go, this episode has just been uncomfortable. Will there be 2 For The Road redemption at the end?Holli
HAHA! I take that back, Ilena is awesome.
And I called it that she was there because of Sayid killing the guy on the golf course. Sayid is the most prick led guy on this show, not Sawyer.Holli
WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT???FUCKING AWESOME!!!
WHAT THE FUCK!?!?
God Damn it Trevor you beat me to the Newhart joke!
I would feel bad too Sayid
That was unexpected.
I thought it was a good episode. Even before the 2 for the Road ending. Except for all the meaningful glances ... give me a frakking break.But, still ... wow.
Yeah, I nominate Phil as his brother Darryl and Radzinsky as his psychotic brother Darryl.Not sure what to make of that ending. I'm avoiding the preview. I guess we'll be able to test Daniel's what happened will happen theory.This was probably my least favorite episode of the season and I think it's because it was Sayid centric. While I was somewhat interested in the spaces in his backstory I didn't like how they filled them in. Ben says you killed everyone and that's it? Why didn't Sayid at least ask about going after Widmore himself? And Ben had a lot of time to get around after he strangled Locke apparently. There must have been at least a week between Locke's death and everything that happened before 316.Holli
Least favorite episode this season. Hands down.
I have to agree with Kyle,, Sayid is one of the characters who I'v always liked.
Newhart was a very funny show.It was strange to see Sawyer choose the DI over Sayid but then I remembered Sawyer has been with the DI for three years. That's a lot longer than he was with the survivors. What if Ben's not dead? If the future can be changed then I will kick Damon and Carlton in the nads.
I've always liked Sayid. He mostly makes logical decisions if he does create the worst ambushes in history. He's easily distracted by the ladies though. So much for redemption being the main theme of LOST. Sayid you are a killer; okay I'll kill you.Holli
Stephanie, Sawyer sided with DI because it didn't make a difference if he didn't. What happens next is going to be the key. Can you change things or not?Holli
So here's a question -- would Jack be willing to save young Ben?Holli
I thought that Sawyer gave Sayid every chance that he could without exposing himself.And in Sayid's defense, any man would have a tough time resisting Illena iin that outfit, wearing those boots.I thought this was one of the better ones this year ... maybe I'm just nostalgic for the old-fashioned flashback episodes.
I think it's a real copout if the next episode is Jack heroically saving Ben, or Ben's not quite dead. Sayid stepped over the body, you don't think he would have noticed if he was still alive.The thing is, they've now got a bit of the Heroes thing going on, especially now that they've added resurrection into the mix. There's a few characters that I don't believe will die before the end, and Ben is without a doubt one of them.
What kind of accent does Ilena have?
Tonight it was a sexy accent.
what an idiot sayid is. KEEP THE BOOTS ON.ben (hopefully for my sanity) will be fine. like the idea of Jack saving him. or maybe it's Jacob and the Island?you all didnt suspect that Sayid was going to (try to) kill Ben since ben set the DharmaBus loose? i was waiting the whole time he was on the loose and wondering if there was some way that he wouldnt try it.but i think ben will survive.
Now doesn't the killing of young Ben Linus F up the future? AH LA Back to the future 2 when Marty goes back to '85 with Bliff is rich and corrupt. An alternate time line has been created. Maybe this means that the O6ers need to carry off the purge in order to right the mistakes of the past. TOO COOL!!!!!I think the state of the Dharmaville when Sun, Frank and Christian are there is a new future created by the events happening in the 70's now. The processing center in Dharmaville looking like it was left alone since the 70's and not refurb'd by the Others when they took over.Delete
for some reason, i think the alternate futures would be annoying. but i totally dig on the time travel and the smoke munster and stuff. :)not sure why alternate timelines mess me up. but i sure hope Ben is "not dead yet."the island is a place of healing, after all.
I voting for "they can change the future"...I don't want to admit it, but it makes sense. That would explain why the DI signs were still hanging in New Otherton when Sun and Frank were there... If Ben never led the Hostiles, the purge never happened and the DI remained on the island.Maybe I'm wrong, but either way, looking at New Otherton from last week, the DI apparently hadn't been around in awhile... Sucks for them!
Oh, almost forgot to mention... I thought the episode was a tad awkward in places, but totally awesome nonetheless!
The Sayid flashback with the chicken was a little Mr. Eko like. I liked the FB's that filled in some cracks in the story arc. aka how and why he was on 316.
The chicken made me think of Eko too.What if Ben's been dead all along? What if 3 days from now (or however long it took Christian and Locke to resurrect) Ben comes back to life there in the jungle? Got to work around Jin here, but what if Alpert's people take Ben's body and then send him back to the DI as the new Ben!I'd like that.Holli
I wonder if next week Ben will notice that he can start seeing though his hand, or that he can't play the chords on his guitar.I can't exactly say that I'm surprised that they're suddenly changing the future. I think that it's been obvious (especially with hindsight!) that they've been building towards something like that, some sort of major alteration in the timeline. I really didn't think that it would happen so soon ... or that it would be Sayid killing Creepy 'Lil Ben.
I was wrong. Iliana is very very fuckable. BAM you just out-Sayided Sayid.Very very wrong to kill a kid. But hell can you blame him. His explanation of Ben to Iliana on the plane was dead on. Still want to know if Ben had anything to do with Nadias death.Was it just me or was that 'truth serum' LSD
What if Jacob intervenes and saves Ben's life a la John Locke? Hmmmm... wonder if he'd regret that decision?
If we could get a timeline without Bai Ling I'd be all for that.Holli
I'm liking my Ben is dead theory. It explains why Widmore's mercs couldn't kill him. Widmore is dead too so Ben can't kill him.Holli
best part of the episode?Oldham. the dude from Blade Runner. awesome! JF Sebastian. he makes friends.pretty sure the truth serum was sodium pentothal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_thiopental#Truth_serum).also, i didnt think an episode would start off with a scene of the first time Sayid choked the chicken. strange show.are we sure Ben's dead yet? Jin might rush him back and get him saved by Jack or anyone else. or he could be saved by Alpert. or "survive" in any number of ways. now that i've said all this, i've doomed myself and that theory.
Why does Sayid hate Ben so much? I mean, I know why he hates Ben, but they have that scene in Russia, then (presumably) they don't meet until the scene in the DR. And Sayid might have been offended that Ben thinks him a killer, but apparently he took the conversation to heart because he did go and save Hurley. Then on the plane he's telling Illana that Ben's committed every crime short of genocide. Seems like there should be a scene in there where Sayid finds out that Ben was the one who killed Nadia or something.
"i didnt think an episode would start off with a scene of the first time Sayid choked the chicken."I bet it was all in preparation for that supposedly dirty dream Aimee had about him last season...
We also had Dharma bacon tonight! Although I hear it's just Sizzlean.
Yeah, I was surprised bacon wasn't the first topic of discussion on here. Did anyone catch the name of the book young Ben gave Sayid? It was something like "An Alternate Future" or something. Kind of interesting.
I was surprised that it has been four years since little Ben had first spoken to Alpert. And I guess all that reading and thinking didn't do Sawyer a lot of good when it came to Sayid. Boom, LaFleur...in your face!
As crazy as it may be to survive a gunshot in the chest as a child remember this: At this point Ben was in the good graces of Jacob/island.
and can we now assume that a big part of the reason that Sayid, Kate, Jin, Jack, Sawyer, and Hurley were on O815 to begin with is because Ben kept tabs on them all the years after this and he wanted/needed them to come back?
Horace needs a haircut.Ben needs a surgeon.Juliet needs to stop ignoring food that could catch fire and burn down new otherton.Jack needs to back the fuck down.
Sayid had a normal flashback episode. Can we hope that the rest of the season doesn't just switch between 70's an 00's?
I would be surprised if we didn't get a flashback for each of the remaining 316ers (Sun, Kate, Hurley and Ben), I just don't know if we're gonna get them all this season... not much time left.
"If you leave this Island, everyone on it will die" Ben said in about 2005 on the Island. They leftBen DiesEvents changeThe "Others/Hostiles" don't do "The Purge""Others/Hostiles" defeated at later time (to be seen, perhaps?)Everyone on the Island died!That's how I see it?
Matrix Question.Would Ben become evil if Sayid hadn't shot him tonight?Dying and coming back to life. . .1. makes you feel indestructible (possibly God complex)2. makes you think you are special3. makes you want revengeThis may have been a Sayid centric episode, but it actually worked as a Ben centric episode as well.For a guy I used to despise I am coming to sympathies more and more with his character.I think there is little doubt that the island will help heal Ben, it's just weird because Ben didn't really show any interest in Sayid in the past. You would think that Ben would've wanted revenge.In a chicken egg conundrum, The shooting of Ben takes place in Ben's past and Sayid's future. I can see why people would think alternate timeline. But the way the show has worked, it suggests that this is just the past. The things they are doing now is what causes the future we have already seen. It really is weird that if Sayid had NOT shot Ben that Ben as he is in the future would not exist.
As I think about it more, you really have to have a depraved indifference to human life to push a flaming van into a home.This debunks my own Sayid created a monster by shooting Ben theory. My theory was that him getting shot and living created his depraved indifferent mind state, but for some reason I had overlooked the flaming van.It probably just majorly added to it.Oh yeah. . . I fell asleep and I just woke up. I usually only sleep for 3 hour.
I was thinking the same thing as PSUPETE; that the Sayid flashback reminded me of Eko's. There's only one major difference, and that of course was the little brother taking care of the big brother in Sayid's case. Eko wasn't born bad; he did what he had to do to survive, and never apologized for it.Sayid was a natural born killer, and hates himself for it.
All I could think while watching is did they film the airplane scene at the same time as the 316 episode and the Habitat for Humanity scene as the Jeremy Bentham episode. Kind of unnecessary. A lot of rehashing. But this was a pretty good episode. Not the worst of the season. Not as good as 316.
"Jack needs to back the fuck down."I think Jack has backed down about as far as he can right now.
I thought Jack was fine this episode. Blending in and helping out when told, but not going all LTDAHolli
- i liked that episode, even before the big finish. I had watched the latest Reaper right beforehand, and while watching LOST, i stepped back from it and thought about how much story was actually developing in front of me. I compared it to Big Love, Reaper, Breaking Bad, Better Off Ted... and i decided that the, even though the DHARAM Initiative stuff is a lot differnet, perhaps smaller than i imagined it, the producers/writers/etc had managed to build a relatively complex world for the characters to inhabit. Although some scenes playout in a cliche manner, the tapestry of Sayid's life is overall very rich. He's a good chracter. I like LOST.- i'm not sure i entirely understand Sayid's stuborness about playing along with Sawyer. It's not like it was a matter of principle, because he was just as much living a lie pretending he was a hostile as he would be playing house with DHARMA. The only motivation i can figure is that, before he had the choice to pretend to defect, he was visited by young Ben and he decided that being a hostile was his best chance at killing the little wizard.- i agree that we should have seen more of a falling out between Sayid & Ben. As it stands, Sayid killed everyone on the list and, even though he felt empty afterwards, he thought that he'd done it of his own free will and Ben had helped him. They needed to reveal that either Ben had Nadia killed or that the people on the list were completely unrelated to Nadia.- Definitely thought the torture scene was going to be more brutal, and i was kind of squirming in anticipation. It would be like Sawyer getting the bamboo shoots when he didn't even have the damn inhaler. Daryl Sebastian Farnum was fun casting though. Do you think the Degroots or Hanso sent him over as a specialist just to torture hostiles, or was he just a crazy member of the team who happened to be good at it?- I'm voting Ben is dead because i don't like miraculous resuscitations or fake-out non-fatal wounds. But at the same time i was pretty comfortable with the no-alternate timelines rule. I think i'm happiest with the island resurrecting him, and that putting him in a position of leadership with the hostiles. Maybe there's some stupid prophecy about their leader coming back from the dead and that's why they wanted the hostile's body from LaFleur to see if Rando McCorpse was their messiah. I kind of hate prophecies too.- In Ben's case, maybe they bury him in the pet cemetary and that's why he comes back as such an evil little weasle.- Burning Dharma Van was pretty excellent. I also really liked the inference that they were common practice before the truce.- guess the trailer was pretty misleading about the big catfight. They cut Juliet's line from "i didn't want to sound like I'm telling you to stay away" to "i'm telling you to stay away." and she wasn't as afraid of hussy kate splitting up her common-law marriage with Sawyer as much as she was afraid that the return of the losties meant it was time to get back to the mystery island grind. less quadrangle = good writing.
Is this a filler episode too?
I'm on the side of the 316ers being in a "Ben dead at 12" version of the future (I'm not necessarily saying that I support this eventuality - merely that I think that's what they're going for). You may argue that his means adult Ben shouldn't be alive but that depends on which version of time travel you like to go for. Adult Ben would be alive PURELY because, in his own timeline, he wasn't killed by Sayid at age 12, and yet has flashed into a version of the timeline in which that did actually happen. Same way that older Rousseau didn't recognise Jin during "Explode A Tree For No Reason Day" as she was from a version of time where that didn't happen (note that in The Little Prince, there's nothing that Jin does that would affect the basic events. They would still be attacked, Montand would still lose his arm, the crew would still be pulled into the vent and Rousseau would still have filled them with lead).I think coming a week after "Faraday's got some interesting ideas about what we can and can't change" means that Daniel's very simple "whatever happened happened" theory is going to prove a little more malleable than previously suggested.I find it interesting how different we are in terms of what we expect of the same series, and yet it still manages to balance us all fairly well. For example, I thought this was an outstanding episode and am very excited to see if the parallel timeline is what they are going for.Also, I do try to keep my eyes away from the credits, and yet I looked down in time to see William Sanderson, which made me happy.
I rewatched and still didn't like the episode much, but it's not because I thought it was a bad episode. I think it was well executed for what it was, but I just personally didn't enjoy filling in the blanks of the Sayid/Ben story and how they've essentially each created the other in this bleak fashion. I really didn't like the scenes with Ilana. (Yeah more new girl hate from me. For the record in real life I like most new girls I meet, but then I don't meet them at bars, for the most part.) Her accent and its fluctuations were really distracting to me. And why if she's this bounty hunter does she a) get a badge that gets her through security and b) is she not more upset that her meal ticket is missing from 316?I also felt the DI stuff didn't ring true. The misdirection about Oldham roughing Sayid up was pointless. The people who got to decide if Sayid lived or died made no sense. Radzinsky is a tool, and I don't get why Horace lets him be such a tool in the process, having him at the interrogation e.g. Who's manning the Flame all this time BTW? Don't you think the Hostiles can go steal your precious model while you're going Rambo on Sayid's ass, Stu?In sum this episode did not connect for me emotionally nor did it do much to advance the plot, so for me this ranks as my least favorite episode of the season even though Kate and Jack were decent in it.Holli
So is anyone having ham with dipping sauce for lunch?Holli
- 'use the dipping sauces, they really bring out the ham!'- 'i only know why i came back, which was because... ... ... (where is a burning volkswagen bus when you need one?)... because...'- 'we should kill him because... er.. think of the children!''anybody not postpartumly bloodthirsty want to weigh in here?'
Anyone else get reminde of Mikhail when Horace said "We're going to have to take this to the next level"? It totes reminded me of Enter 77, Sayid's last flashback episode.
No, but strangely enough I am having ham for dinner!
It's a week late, but the "no mustard" code is clearly this:BEN: It's got no mustard on it, is that okay?SAYID: No mustard, eh?BEN: Namasté to you, too!LOST
Little late to the party. So forgive me if I'm repeating anyone.Ben isn't dead. At least big Ben isn't. Either little Ben gets saved in some ridiculous fashion (Dr. Jack, Jacob, Island, etc) or somehow, someway changing the past doesn't alter the future. Simple reasoning behind this thinking: The show would never get rid of Michael Emerson this soon. The only possible way old Ben isn't still alive is if Holli's ghost theory comes to fruition.Speaking of time lines. SIGH. This is the type of theorizing that I hate and try not to get involved with. Because until we know the whole story of what's happening, us guessing that things are defined by a certain set of rules is nothing more than assumption. Until we firmly get an explanation, anything is still possible in my mind. You can't change anything, changing the past changes the future, changing the past doesn't change the future, there is only one timeline, there are multiple timelines, and on and on. Up til now people have all chosen to pick certain rule sets that they best like and go with it. Because it makes it easier to not get overly confused. But there really hasn't been all that much given by the show for us to truly think one thing over the other. All we've got so far is the Faraday's "You can't change history" line. But at this point, my money is on him being dead wrong. (and if that ends up being the case, I pray he doesn't go and save Charlotte somehow, ugh.) If he was right and nothing can be changed, what is the point of the Losties being on the island? Why should anybody care about anything? Just all take a seat and crack open some Dharma beer and watch the show play out. Anything is game to me at this point.Dammit. I'm breaking my rule. Here goes some time fuckery questioning. So say little Ben does die. And say we're going with the whole "there is only one time line" thinking. So if that's the case, does old Ben disappear? Do people in 2007 remember he ever existed? Because if there is truly only one time line, and in it he died at 10, then nobody at any of the later time periods would have ever met him. Thus all the stuff where the Losties inteacted with him never happened. Making all of this make no sense. Guess the only way the only one time line theory works is if the island doesn't allow little Ben to die, much like it didn't allow Michael to shoot himself. Still don't think we have enough yet to firmly decide the rules of time fuckery yet. Just interesting to ponder.Am I the only one who absolutely cannot stand the face of little Ben Potter? The kid always has the most dumbfounded look on his face. And it seems obvious that the director has told him to make his eyes as wide as possible so as to emulate the wide-eyed Ben. It's sad, but I really didn't mind watching him get beat by his dad.I'm with Andrew. Totally did not understand where the hell Sayid was coming from when he refused to go along with Sawyer trying to help him out. This is early in the episode, not when Sayid said he figured out his purpose. Before the torturing. It just came off as him being a bitch. "I realize you are trying to help me. But I cannot let you do that because I wish to be difficult". If there was some kind of motivation there, the writers failed in conveying it.It takes no more than 2 seconds of Kate stepping on screen for me to roll my eyes. Girl is just such a downer.Loved Hurley's line to Jack and Kate about Sawyer and Juliet. "Wasn't it kind of obvious? Who didn't see that coming". lol. A bit of a wink to the fans there. As I don't see how you couldn't have seen it coming ever since the two shared that bottle of Dharma Vodka on the beach last season. And also a nice "in your face" to Aimee and the skaters who flipped out about the supposed sudden nature of Juliwyer.Back to Hurley explaining things to Jack and Kate. Why was he talking as if he was explaining sex to a 5 year old? "They're together. You know? Like how you two used to be together". And stupid Kate still took a while to figure it out. What a dolt.I liked seeing how Ben was able to manipulate Sayid in the Dominican Republic. Worked like a charm. Tied together Sayid's motivation when he was protecting Hurley earlier on. Also, nice to get the explanation of Ilana not being a cop. Why any federal organization would send him to Guam made entirely no sense. I realize Holli's golf course theory came true (how the hell did you pick that out btw?), but I still think Ben was 100% behind it. Ilana may not have known. But it was all Ben, don't be mistaken.I think it was Steph who mentioned it earlier in the thread. But Sawyer being somewhat loyal to the DI makes total sense. We've all talked about how he's now known Juliet for 3 years compared to the 3 months he hung with Kate. But same goes for all the goofball Dharma dorks. Hell, Sawyer knows dumb ass Radzinsky better than he does Hurley, Jack, and Kate. Yes, Sawyer will still have loyalty to his 815 pals, as he has so far. But if we ever truly get a "choose a side" moment, I don't think it's going to be as simple a choice as the average viewer would think. It will be interesting to see what course of action the writers decide to take in this regard. Because as far as the story they've shown for the past 5 years, Sawyer has every reason and more to be 100% faithful to the 815ers. But the story they have now written suggests otherwise. Hopefully they are able to walk the tightrope without it coming off stupid.Speaking of Radzinsky. We have our new Frogurt. These Lost writers really love giving us annoying side characters who you just want to slap.Who exactly is Pierre Chang? Apparently not important at all. As he was not at the Dharma death vote. Is he nothing more than an actor for those orientation films? I can't remember exactly, but I thought we've seen him in a couple scenes actually speaking about important things or science or something. I could be wrong though.Is it bad that as soon as I saw Amy holding baby Ethan, I secretely wanted her to drop him?Loved Sawyer's line to Jack. "3 years and not a single flaming bus. And y'all are here for one day..."Also like Sayid's line to Ilana upon seeing Jack and company at the airport. "Can we take the next plane?"And finally, exactly what Andrew said about last week's promo. Were we all hoodwinked or what? Bitches! Teasing Rumble in the Jungle II is not funny!
so ben gets fixed by juliet and that is why he wants to find her in the future?
"I can't remember exactly, but I thought we've seen him in a couple scenes actually speaking about important things or science or something."My guess is Pierre Chang is strictly on the island for the science. The group you saw taking the vote seemed to be a governing bod of sorts.Based on Pierre telling Jack during registration that he was perturbed about being pulled out of his lab to greet recruits, he doesn't sound like he's really into the procedural aspect of the Dharma Initiative... He's strictly there there for the science.Basically, Horace handles the governmental aspects of the DI and Pierre Chang heads up the scientific projects.
- i guess Juliet could be Ben's Florence Nightengale in the Jack Shephard miracle surgery and that would explain the 'you look just like her' comments (plus you have her name), but i like to think that a bullet wound in the heart of a 12 year old kid is fatal. (i don't like to think about that, i just believe it to be true. :)
TLI are still recording tonight aren't they?
In my mind, all the stuff that is now taking place is happening for the first time. So if Juliet were to do something now to make young Ben fond of her, how can old Ben in the past have known about it? The same as how Palmer isn't down with alternate timelines, I do not like the idea of the past being dependent on the future. I'm all for there being only one time line and it being changed. But to say that the change has always taken place just hurts my tiny human brain.
Note: I haven't yet listened to the Official Lost Podcast. If they go ahead with the ALTERNATE TIMELINE, I am officially done with LOST. By going with the Alternate Future ala Heroes, the Lost writers will have officially ASSASSINATED Lost.Don't get me wrong. I am a sci fi fan and actually still watch Heroes, but I liked Lost because of its realistic take on sci fi. I don't remember exactly what season it was, but they basically switched to complete science fiction. They used to say everything on the show can be backed up scientifically. Then time travel started. I am a fan of time travel, but wtf? Why change the formula when it's working?Ok, the show still made sense and I was invested in the characters so I continued to watch.I don't care if Ben dies and the future Ben is a Terminator or some other stupid explanation. But if they go with alternate future they have broken the final rule they set and that means there are no rules. Lost would become a world of chaos where they could just make up anything even if it contradicts everything the show has presented itself to be.A world with no rules may have been cool to see in The Dark Knight, but don't mistake Darlton for the Joker.
Dude, the show went away from realistic the moment it introduced time travel, period. The type of time travel doesn't make a difference in that.
J206, the point of them being on the island is much like flashbacks. It shows what happened during Dharma time. What is happening now is what always happened. Richard would not go see Locke if Locke hadn't told Richard about himself. Mrs. Hawkins would not be so into time travel if she had not run into Dan and co and seen them disappear before her eyes. I can go on. While all of this is the definition of PARADOX, it's done. These are already paradoxes. There is no way to not make them not paradoxes. The future is motivating the past.I agree that it is possible viewers have made their own rules. The rule of no alternate timelines, etc. is something Darlton have spoke on themselves. Although they have gone back on what they've said before, *cough* paradoxes, making alternate timelines would accomplish the task of making everything we have seen prior to this season pointless.At least Heroes did it in season 1. This is why I am confident they will not be going with the alternate timeline motif. It's going into the final season of the show, maybe Darlton figure the viewers have watched this long, they'll watch the rest.
I think we have accepted the Saved By The Bell everything revolves around us (Oceanic 6) theme of the show. The current story arc just shows that the O6 were responsible for much that happened on the island prior to them crash landing. Although, technically they crash landed prior to all this happening.
"It shows what happened during Dharma time. What is happening now is what always happened."Yeah, I realize that is the case if you are subscribing to the only one time line ever line of thinking. What I was saying is I dislike it. Because the past depends on the future existing and already taking place for the past to ever to happen. I know there is a made up nerd form of logic for it (sorry, but that's what it is, seeing as how time travel does not exist in the real world), but that doesn't mean it's a good way to tell a story or that viewers should just so easy to accept it.
Let me further explain. In Back to the Future, shit happens to fuck up the past. So Marty has to go back and change things to fix it so his parents meet and he is in fact born. For whatever reason, in my book, I'm fine with that. But if the story was Marty needs to travel back in time because that what he has always done, and that he is never born without doing so, that to me that is stupid and doesn't and just dumb logic. Obviously each of us have our own little rules as to what annoys us. I'm just saying, that one is mine.
Dude, I don't disagree with you.I also hate the way they have handled time travel. I hate paradox. The problem is that when you decide to do time travel, it is very hard to avoid a paradox. Not impossible, but difficult.My point was, the paradox ship has sailed, it's over. Whether there's alternate future or not, paradoxes already exist. Like I said, we see that Richard going to see Locke was motivated by Locke. Are you arguing that Richard originally went to see Locke, but now that Richard was visited by Locke and told to see him that Richard won't go in this "alternate future"? The show has been leading us, at least me, to believe these events are what cause what we've already seen, which is why I said this part of the show is like a flashback.
Double negatives and run on sentences should be my new name.
i like predestination paradoxes. to me, they make sense.killing ben in the past? does not compute.to me at least. so, i'm hoping that Ben is saved by Jin taking him back to Dharmaville and making Jack operate on him. which would totally blow his cover. but are you gunna let a kid die? who are you? sayid?!
There's something about the way Sayid looks in the picture on this post that reminds me of this.I'm afraid Palmer's scenario is the most likely and frankly that will rank up there for me with Jack's appendix as least tense surgery episode on LOST. I'd rather have a billion alternate timelines than have to see the reason Sayid had to go back was to shoot Ben and the reason Jack had to go back was to save Ben and the reason Hurley had to go back was fix Ben his favorite sandwiches and the reason Kate had to go back -- no reason at all.Why is old Ben surprised that Jin is alive if young Ben met him and lived with him 3 years? Does this mean the past already changed? And Ben Potter can die.Holli
Re: Why is Ben surprised Jin is alive.That's like asking why Charlotte was surprised Ben knew about her when they both lived on the island together.In that it's a good question.
Palmer, are predestination paradoxes what I was talking about? And if so, how exactly does it make sense that events in the past never happen without a future time traveler going back to make them happen, when in fact the future can never be in the first place without said past events?
TLI is recording. 8 pm easternHolli
And Palmer, I ain't trying to start an argument or challenge your thinking. I just don't see it. Maybe you could explain it to me and the switch will be flipped in my head and I'll get it.
From the "I Don't Know What To Make Of This" Files:Lost alum Ian Somerhalder is joining the cast of The CW's Vampire Diaries as Damon, "a smug vampire who can go from playful to evil in a split second."Like Gossip Girl, the series is being adapted from a series of books published by Alloy Entertainment. The series centers around a woman who falls for vampire brothers who represent either ends of the moral spectrum.
Was 33697 Kyle? We shall see.
JoeSC, what's with chicks and Vampires?
like i said, they make sense to me. a lot of people find them to be bullshit.but..."how exactly does it make sense that events in the past never happen without a future time traveler going back to make them happen, when in fact the future can never be in the first place without said past events?"it makes more sense to me that the actions of a time traveler are already figured into the timeline than a time traveler being able to manipulate the timeline for fun and profit.a good example from wikipedia is this about Adolf Hitler. and i can expand on it.a classic paradox would be:katherine heigl decides to go back in time to kill hitler as a baby. she kills baby hitler. now, there's no hitler. and katherine heigl would never go back in time to kill hitler. so, katherine heigl doesn't kill hitler. which means there IS a hitler and katherine heigl DOES decide... and on and on.in the Twilight Zone episode, it instead has a Predestination Paradox. Hitler existed. so Katherine Heigl goes back in time and kills the little bastard. BUT... the nanny discovers the dead hitler baby and freaks. she switches the newborn for a baby she steals and it ends up that THAT baby is the REAL hitler.so, we can blame Katherine Heigl for Hitler. apparently.in that Twilight Zone, Katherine's actions in the past are already part of the timeline. by fulfilling them, interestingly by her own free will, she is ensuring that the past happens.which makes sense... to me.so, there is no version of that timeline where Katherine Heigl doesn't murder a baby who gets switched out with a rando baby who ends up being Hitler.personally, i think that predestination paradoxes (causal loops) are about as time-fucking as you can get without drifting into Heroes territory. ya know, where they just fuck with the future and the past willy nilly with no consequences.ah! Heroes! the only time travel that really makes any sense is Hiro going back to Japan and making that white dude a famous samurai. that's a predestination paradox. the rest of the time travel is crap!peter petrelli goes to the random plague future then prevents it? crap! how does he go there if he makes it never exist?future-peter goes back in time and shoots his brother to prevent the future he came from and continues to exist afterwards? crap! how does he come from a timeline that doesn't exist and therefore never happened?but... Hiro goes back in time and unwittingly fulfills all of the Ragin' Gaijin's deeds and causes him to be famous? perfectly fine! although really boring. but logically it makes sense to me. the timeline already had Hiro doing that. he just went back and "fulfilled his destiny."it might be easier to think of timelines as relative and absolute. relative timelines would be something like Sawyer was a con-man, Sawyer crashed on Island, Sawyer became a Sheriff for the DI. that would be the timeline relative to how Sawyer perceives it.the absolute timeline would be how it goes on a calendar. so Saywer becomes a Sheriff for the DI (in the 70s), Sawyer becomes a con-man (in the 90s), Sawyer crashed on the Island (in 2004).so, even though at the time of The Crash on JizzIsland, Sawyer had already been sheriff there, it hadn't happened relative to him yet.so... Locke being special cuz he told Richard that he was makes sense.... to me. :)does that make any sense? like i said a lot of people think it's crap. but i think it makes sense that there's no version of the absolute timeline that hasn't already been time-fucked.
oh and did i miss drama at the recording?
Are you pitching a new Katherine Heigl movie?Can I offer "Bumped Off" as a title?
Good explanation Palmer. That's basically how I've seen it.
unfortunately, no. it's a twilight zone episode i've never seen.but Ms. Heigl would be fantastic for a part in my Teenaged Vampire/Lawyer/Doctor/CrimeSceneInvestigator tv show.
Like Gossip Girl, the series is being adapted from a series of books published by Alloy Entertainment. The series centers around a woman who falls for vampire brothers who represent either ends of the moral spectrum.Joe, Sounds like you can thank Twilight (teen vampire books) and Supernatural (hunky mystical brothers) for this hideous sounding show. What really scares me is that this generation of vampire obessed tweens are going to grow up and one day be asked to do semi-important things in our society. Yikes.Palmer, You made my brain hurt.
wait... do people think that this "vampire craze" is new? remember buffy and angel? or that crappy kindred show with C. Thomas Howell?or the Anne Rice books?or Forever Knight? or Dark Shadows?but, yeah, vampires suck.metaphorically.
Yeah, it's not exactly new. But the insane new levels of fandom is a bit more than it's ever been. At least this is the first time it's hit the fanactical tween demo to this degree. And with that comes a whole new level of annoyance.
I remember a time when the vampiric mythology was just about trying to dissuade people from having sex so that they wouldn't increse the pandemic of Syphilis.Oh to be a dandy in the 19th century.
"Was 33697 Kyle? We shall see"???? What's 33697 and what do you mean we shall see???
- oh snap. we totally forgot about Desmond Hume to whom the rules do not apply!- i just watched "Knowing." There are leaps in logic which could lead to brain damage and M Night Shyamalan may want to consider a lawsuit, but it's okay for an escapist rental.- there's an open casting for an upcoming medical drama set here in Pittsburgh called "Three Rivers". I hope it's central plot is about how one University based hospital system begins to buy up all of the competing hospitals and continues to grow & gobble up real estate until it becomes the largest business in the city, posting record profits, but continues to claim non-profit status and thus completely upsets the tax-base and bankrupts the city.
Kyle...shut the fuck up.
With Angel being my latest obsession, I'm trying to figure out what the deal is with girls and vampires too, tha kid. I believe it has something to do with danger, lust, immortality and undying love. When I work it all out, I'll let you know.p, I just acquired that Kindred show for my mom. Even though Ellen from BSG is in it, I couldn't stomach it. Too dated.Yeah, females will always be into the vampire thing. There's always a ton of book series out even at times when Twilight wasn't huge.Andrew., I don't know about the situation you're talking about but here the hospitals that do well (like mine) buy smaller, struggling hospitals and then the employees (like me) have to suffer and sacrifice to keep the smaller hospitals afloat. See? It's like communism. Two hospitals in town have shut their doors over the past few years. So we have to do something about the rising cost of healthcare.
The whole Vampire thing. Hmm. Well. I found this article about the new fascination with vampires.I watched Twilight for the first time last night, and if anyone has me on Twitter... you might have seen the abundance of tweets I made about how bad it is and how Robert Pattinson has a foot for a face... but I digress.Buffy / Angel got it all right for me in a very WB sort of way. It appealed to my monster of the week need coupled with my teen desire for funny and verbose articulation.True Blood, which is back in the summer, is actually amazing. Serialised drama of a very different kind with backwards Southern accents. Very good. Can't recommend it enough.
Chandler's one of us!Wonder if he perouses the blogspot or listens to podcasts...
The vampire thing is to do with the "doomed romance" angle.
Vampires are powerful weak.I think that's why I never understood the fascination with them.A dude who turns into a bat? Why would you want to turn into a bat? They have horrible sight and are terrible at flying.Nothing against Bats. I am a die hard Batman fan, but Dracula / vampires . . .People have tried to make vampires cool by giving them the ability to fly without turning into bats and have super strength, but they're still lame. The fact that they have eternal life is even more sad.If I ran into a vampire I'd just cut off his/her head. I wouldn't even waste time sticking a stake through its heart.Lastly, in the event you fail killing the vampire and it bites you, all that happens is that you too become a vampire. Spider-man did a good job with Morbius and the hunger, etc., but even there Morbius had free will. With technology you could probably come up with a way to not even feed on humans.
Going to push this post on to 108.Holli
Kablamo!Holli/off to the new post
Post a Comment