"Lost" Season 5 Excitement Thread- Page 3

[violet72]

Posted: 1/22/09 at 12:51pm

Here this is an explaination from Carlton and Damon about what this season holds. I think this is great. I really liked it. I love BAMF Sayid. I think this is so cool especially when it opened with Marvin Candle. Anyway I can't wait to see where this season goes


lost

[pli1018]

Posted: 1/22/09 at 1:27pm

I loved that Rose and Bernard were in much of the season premiere. I find them to be VASTLY underrated characters and I'd definitely rank them higher than some of the other, more "prominent" castaways.

Also I was VERY happy when Frogurt got shot with the fire. He was annoying in the webisode AND last night.

[trinaaron]

Posted: 1/22/09 at 4:43pm

"I'm confused - what else would you expect to travel through time other than the people? They explained that anything else on the island was either there in the time or not. As far as we've seen, the only times they jumped to a time when the survivors of the crash were there, they were no where near the camp. Had Sawyer gone back when the camp WAS there, I would guess he would have run into himself."

Here is where I am confused. We saw the island (and everything on it) vanish at the end of last season. I thought that meant everything was picked up and put somewhere else (in time, we now know), not just the people. Why is it now only the people who are skipping? Daniel said that it was possible that they could skip to the future, but would they then be floating in the ocean because the island is not there anymore. (And the idea that anything they are touching goes with them is kind of a cop out.)

Updated On: 1/22/09 at 04:43 PM

[violet72]

Posted: 1/22/09 at 4:56pm

I was also glad when Frogurt got shot

[jasonf]

Posted: 1/22/09 at 5:44pm

I understand your confusion and I have a guess at the answer. Actually, I have three possible theories for that:
1) Remember the string idea Daniel was talking about? What if the island, like the people, is merely a POINT on that string. The point travels along with the people, so when the island jumps from one time to another, the people in the radius of the island go with it. (We only have what Farraday explained to go on - we don't know that everything he speculates is correct).

2)My second guess is that the island is moving in space as well. In 2002 it might be in one location, but in 2009 it's somewhere else. That would explain it's disappearance. The question with this theory, then, is when the island disappeared, did it reappear somewhere else at that exact moment, or is linear time defined by when the island is appearing?

3)Remember last season when Farraday did the rocket experiment? What if the island is just slightly out of sync with normal time when it "settles"? That would explain why it's hard to find, and maybe why when it disappeared it slipped far enough out of time it could no more be seen.

Really, I'm just guessing here - it could be none of these or some combination of these. The fact that a TV show can make you think so much about this stuff is just incredible.

There's a lot to think about there and I REALLY hope the writers can give us a valid explanation of this one.

[trinaaron]

Posted: 1/22/09 at 6:15pm

I can accept the idea that the island was moved in space as well as time. The island physically was plopped down somewhere else, so if someone else were to come across it in present day the camp and everything else would still be there, but no survivors. Hopefully there were no boats around, but that would certainly explain how the pirate ship got onto the island. The people themselves however got shaken out of time for one reason or another.

1) Remember the string idea Daniel was talking about? What if the island, like the people, is merely a POINT on that string. The point travels along with the people, so when the island jumps from one time to another, the people in the radius of the island go with it. (We only have what Farraday explained to go on - we don't know that everything he speculates is correct).

This is what I thought they were going with, but I would assume that it would include all of the physical things in their enviroment as well, as if a bubble was created around the island and took everything with it.

[jasonf]

Posted: 1/22/09 at 7:54pm

OK, I'm going to give this another shot (writing it helps get things straight in my head).

The following things we can assume are true:

1)The island itself is either A)moving in space or B)becoming invisible in the present. Let's assume A because B is just lame.

2)The people on the island (and the physical objects they have with them) are jumping back and forth through time. I think for the sake of network standards things attached to people (ie clothes) are standard sci-fi fare we just need to accept and push past). They are still themselves when they jump (in other words they aren't "other" versions of themselves).

3)Man-made objects on the island stick to a solid timeline. If an item was built in 2004, if you go back to 2003 it is no longer there. If it was blown up in 2005, the object stayed blown up in the future.

Conclusion I can draw from this: Man-made objects on the island are stuck in a certain timeline that cannot be altered, for whatever reason. Once something was destroyed at a fixed point in time, it stays destroyed. An object that wasn't there in the past cannot be there at any point prior to its creation/arrival on the island. Somehow, and I can't quite wrap my mind around how, this explains Daniel's rocket experiment, especiallbetter!y if somehow it makes sense that the island is "unstuck" in time. The question then is WHY are the objects fixed though the island and the people can move?

I don't think I made things any better!

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 1/22/09 at 9:31pm

hmm.. I think the island is moving because it wants/has to... it wants to protect itself... the island doesn't exist on any map and is an entity unto itself... you just can't find it... so yeah it's moving through time and space... and when it moves its physical being its taking its history with it...

but seriously... can't we all just accept the fact that this show has always been a sci-fi show and now it has just completely embraced that sci-fi-ness to it? seriously... do islands travel through time in the real world?? you have to have some suspension of disbelief... it's not like any of us can REALLY know what time travel is like because no one has actually one it (or maybe they have who knows but you know what mean)... that's almost like refusing to watch Star Wars because that technology doesn't exist and isn't real.. i've been reading other message boards and these people annoy me because of this detail... it's science fiction people... enjoy the ride and don't think about it too much... but you can think about it but not to the point where you hurt yourself and start to hate it...

and hey.. at least the creators of LOST put actual time and effort into this instead of say the people at HEROES who just don't know what the hell they are doing with time travel!!!

[jasonf]

Posted: 1/23/09 at 9:02am

eatlasagna - I hope that wasn't directed at me. We've ALWAYS known the show was sci-fi - honestly, how could you not? Smoke monsters don't exist and polar bears can't be found in the tropics. Where I think you missed the point is that thinking about it is part of the fun. It's not just about enjoying the ride - the show has presented itself like a giant puzzle, and it's fun trying to fit the pieces together, trying to analyze it, and trying to figure out where the writers are going with it. None of what's been here, that I've seen, has been CRITICAL of the time travel theme (at least not from any of us who love the show). In fact, I think it adds a whole other dimension that makes it that much more interesting. Are we spinning our wheels because it's not real? Sure, but really, what's the difference between spending the time thinking about and analyzing the puzzle vs. just enjoying it, and coming on a message board to analyze and disucss musicals rather than just going to the theater and "enjoying it"?

[trinaaron]

Posted: 1/23/09 at 10:04am

And isn't that kind of the point of science fiction? Good sci-fi stories can make up their own rules, but those rules need to be understandable, and followed throughout the story. Figuring out these rules (and possibly calling out the creators if they break their own rules) is all part of the fun.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 1/23/09 at 12:12pm

my comment was directed towards more of the people on other message boards (namely the LOST message boards) who have been nitpicking about time travel... thinking about it is one thing... but then to analyze it to the point of making up your OWN rules and then when they don't match what the writers of LOST come up with is pretty stupid... like i said, the rules of time travel aren't even written so there are some things you just can't expect to think will happen... get what i mean? which is why time travel is pretty risky to put in a television series... but i think LOST i doing is well... unlike HEROES (which i already mentioned... which i think they ruined that by creating a crappy story arc)

[jasonf]

Posted: 1/23/09 at 12:29pm

OK - I understand what you're saying -- I agree with you. The point is to go with the rules created by the writers - you can't say "time travel SHOULD be this."

And you're right, Heroes has been TERRIBLE lately. There are NO rules there, which means no consistency and an impossible to follow plot. I think Lost is doing it right - setting up rules (maybe their direct references to the rules are little winks to the audience) and going from there. What'll be interesting to see is if the rules hold fast for the earlier part of the series.

I write a lot of fantasy/sci fi stuff myself, and one of the first things you learn when you start (and things I teach my students about writing fiction) is you can have ANYTHING happen in a story, but if you set up rules, you MUST follow them. I give my students the example - you can't have a hero like Batman who gets stuck in a trap by a villain, but he can get out because he can just fly away. The audience will rebel and hate you.

[jasonf]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 2:40pm

bump for tonight's episode.

Anyone catch on the Colbert report the fake check for Vioxx during the "health report" segment? The check was made out to Jeremy Bentham :)

[singingwendy]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 2:56pm

I just re-watched the second hour from last week (I'll admit..two hours was just a bit overwhelming) and the very beginning section of the first hour.

At first, I was thinking Sun was the woman in bed with Marvin Candle, but now I've changed my mind. The baby does look a lot like Sun's baby though......and I still think Sun is up to no good!

But, here's my new idea.......I think when the island jumped, it's jump was back to the same time that Candle was making the video. He mentions that the training in that station (the Arrow?) is for dealing with the uprising of the native people. I think this explains the flaming arrows (the others) and the guys with the guns (Dharma---although, they could also be part of Rousseau's team....)

Also, when Daniel arrives back on the beach, Sawyer says "where have you been? You've been gone for like 2 hours" I think Daniel was helping to build the station from the beginning.

[violet72]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 7:34pm

Good observations Wendy but I have a theory that the baby that Dr Candle got up to take care of in the beginning was Miles...I believe Miles and Charlotte and maybe Daniel were born or lived on the island before....anyway I am excited for tonights episode Jug Head

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 7:45pm

I think the "natives" are the castaways, who have gone back in time.

[pli1018]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 8:02pm

Violet, I've had the same notion ever since last season Miles said how Charlotte's been trying for ages to get back here. Plus we must be familiar with her mother- or at least her mother's maiden name. Could she be Annie? (Nothing to back this up, just throwing it out there)

[Kasie]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 8:06pm

Can't wait!

[violet72]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 10:14pm

wow...so much to process here tonight...so Charles Widmore is a native of the island and I bet the British chick that took Daniel to the bomb was Mrs Hawkings who I am betting is Daniel's mom....and Charlotte...NOOO!!! please don't be dead and did you notice that Desmond and Penny's kids name is Charlie?...interesting...I have to rewatch it again

[Taryn]

Posted: 1/28/09 at 11:29pm

Charles Widmore being on the island BLEW MY MIND.

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 1/29/09 at 1:05am

Yeah, my interest was piqued when I heard "Charlie." Maybe Desmond wanted to name him after Charlie because of his sacrifice?

Where are these soldier dudes from?

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 1/29/09 at 1:30am

oh man... AMAZING reveal about Charles Widmore... i did NOT see that coming... i sat there in complete shock.... and dude was a douchebag then too!!! haha

and how awesome that Desmond's son (which i loved they named him Charlie) was born in the Philippines... woo hooo! the second i heard the extras talking i knew exactly where they were! haha...

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/29/09 at 1:40am

I don't know why I haven't found myself as involved this season as I have in the past. I think mostly because I miss character-driven episodes (they tried with this third hour but I really miss the flashbacks/flashforwards as they were my favorite thing about LOST's narrative style).
Mrs.Hawkings is definitely Daniel's mother, I don't think there's doubt about that. I thought it was pretty interesting that Charles Widmore was in the island in the 50s, and God yes he was an idiot then. I wonder how he turned against it.
I hope Charlotte survives this episode, I really like Rebecca Madder and her relationship with Daniel is so sweet. I also want to find out her backstory.
Overall, I am really interested to see what's going on. I wonder when Smokey will come in and how it fits into the puzzle and I also wonder when the electromagnetic system that surrounds the Others' camps was created and why.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 1/29/09 at 2:48am

hmmm.... i get what you're saying ray... for me i'm involved differently in the past... i think in the first three seasons they really started building this mythology and telling us who these people are... and now that they have a definite finale they are just going full forward with the mythology now instead of just endless episodes of character development... i think the writers at this point trust the watcher that we've invested the time knowing them and their past that now we can start getting into the bulk.... get what i mean?

[jasonf]

Posted: 1/29/09 at 10:01am

I agree with eatlasagna - though I thought Des and Penny were really the heart of last night's episode.

Random thoughts:
--Ellie and Eloise Hawking are the same, and she is Daniel's mother. Too much set up for this NOT to be true.
--Did Locke set himself up to fail once again? He sent Alpert to find young Locke, Alpert gives the test, and we know Locke fails it. What repercussion will that have?
-- How is Theresa (the one in the time-travel coma) connected to everything? Is she related to Faraday also?
-- Could Charlotte be related to Faraday? Somehow something changed that's making her "disappear" - after all, none of the others are "sick"?

And my favorite trippy theory for this week:
What if Desmond and Penny's son IS the Charlie we knew? Hear me out on this: Let's say things don't go so well for Des and Penny - Penny dies and Des has to go back to the island (or Des and Penny go back to the island and become Adam and Eve) and they give Charlie up to another family to raise in the past (because they have no other choice). In the future, Charlie is on 815 and lands. Desmond knew Charlie would have to die - and it's because he wasn't even supposed to be there. Remember, Charlie's death is what signaled Penny to where the island was. If Des and Penny hadn't met back up yet, then Charlie wasn't conceived, so he literally would have died days before his conception (figuring it happened soon after Des and Pen were reunited) since he couldn't exist at the same time. Remember also, Desmond said Charlie HAD to die...

Really, the only weak strand in this that I see is that they would have had to give him up in the past somehow...