Thursday, April 8, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Two Timestreams
Lindelof -
" It’s been in play for at least a couple of years. We knew that the ending of the time travel season was going to be an attempt to reboot. And as a result, we [knew] the audience was going to come out of the “do-over moment” thinking we were either going start over or just say it didn’t work and continue on. [We thought] wouldn’t it be great if we did both? That was the origin of the story."
Cuse - "You can just watch the flash sideways — they stand alone all by themselves."
Lindelof - " What we’re trying to do there is basically say to you, “God bless the survivors of Oceanic 815, because they’re so self-centered, they thought the only effect [of detonating the bomb] was going to be that their plane never crashes.” But they don’t stop to think, “If we do this in 1977, what else is going to affected by this?” So that their entire lives can be changed radically. "
Lindelof - "we don’t use the phrase “alternate reality,” because to call one of them an “alternate reality” is to infer that one of them isn’t real, or one of them is real and the other is the alternate to being real."
CUSE - "But the questions you’re asking are exactly the right questions. What are we to make of the fact that they’re showing us two different timelines? Are they going to resolve? Are they going to connect? Are they going to co-exist in parallel fashion? Are they going to cross? Do they intersect? Does one prove to be viable and the other one not? I think those are all the kind of speculations that are the right speculations to be having at this point in the season."
LINDELOF - "These questions will be dealt with on the show. Should you infer that the detonation of Jughead is what sunk the island? Who knows? But there’s the Foot. What do you get when you see that shot? It looks like New Otherton got built. These little clues [might help you] extrapolate when the Island may have sunk."
So
They are drawing attention to the idea that there is a sunken island in Bizarro World, but not in the other timeline. Lindelof at the end there is drawing explicit attention to the fact that the Island in Flocke's World is pretty much the same.
If I had to guess, I'd say he's hinting that the bomb going off sunk the Island, and therefore if the Island is not sunk in Flocke's World, maybe the detonation didn't happen in that world. Juliet said "it worked." This probably indicates an awareness on her part that the detonation did happen, in 1977, and Bizarro World is the aftermath of that event.
The mystery (according to Cuse) is how do the two timestreams intersect. It did not appear that the Bizarro World Locke and Shephard knew each other at the airport, so it's probably also safe to assume that Jack doesn't remember Locke dying, probably because that Locke didn't.
Apparently, "our" Sawyer and Juliet blew up Jughead in the 1977 of Bizarro World.
EW columnist proves he didn't sleep through Philosophy 101
"Once upon a time in Germany, a very smart and spiritual man tried to answer a very tricky and troubling question. In a world created by an allegedly benevolent and omnipotent God, why the heck is there suffering and evil? In the world of philosophy, this field of inquiry is called Theodicy, generally defined as an attempt to understand and justify the behavior of God. The genius German dude thought long and hard about this “problem of evil” question and came up with an answer that was unusually heady for the time. He said that despite the existence of evil, this world is actually “the best of all possible worlds,” as if our universe is the least offensive of countless alternatives, or even a pastiche comprised of pieces from the best parts of all. Wild."
"Over the next 300 years, physicists, philosophers, and science fiction writers have blown out Gottfried Leibniz’s “possible worlds” concept in many different radical, challenging directions to serve all sorts of scientific and intellectual purposes, their various nuanced permutations producing a slough of different, seemingly synonymous yet not necessarily equal terms. Parallel worlds. Many worlds. Alternate realities. Mirror realities. Modal realities. Pocket universes. Bubble universes. And my favorite, “Island universes,” because it reminds me of a TV show I’m supposedly writing about, one that has referenced perhaps the foremost philosopher in this field, David Lewis."
"Today, there are eggheads who believe that these “island universes” or whatnot are real — that they exist somewhere, as real and concrete as “our world,” inhabited by variations of ourselves. Naturally, this assertion has invited intense debate. Where are these worlds? Can we find them? If so, can we access them? Communicate with them? Visit them? Is there one “official world” and all the others of deviations? Did all these worlds pop into being at the same time, or do we continually create new worlds with every choice and non-choice? If so, do the other versions of you that exist across the multiverse of worlds create new worlds with their choices and non-choices, too? And who are these other “yous,” anyway? Are you separate, unique individuals? Do you share consciousness and/or a soul? Are you and your other yous destined to reach similar fates, played out through different events or circumstances? Are you and your other yous unique entities with unique destinies? Yes? No? Who knows? What does any of this Fringe-sounding s— have anything to do with Lost?!?!"
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Caught in the Maze?
How ya been? Can't tell you how disheartening it is to write for an audience of zero, but here we go anyway. Movie Blogs are the thing right now, but seeing as how movies are ten bucks and television is free -- what cha going to do?
Lets go retro. I'm going to do a little looking back at the beginning of the last season of the television show Lost. The show seems to be limping out to the whimper -- rather than galloping towards the bang -- and I don't see people excited about it out there in the world the way they used to be (back when it was the water cooler show).
Maybe all that's left is to look for the place where they jumped the shark. I don't think the flash sideways is that place. I think the flash sideways is the dregs of what's left after they crashed and burned through that place. The flash sideways is just the tail end of beating the dead horse. A desperate move from desperate people.
Let's look at what Heather Havrilesky (one of my favorite television commentators) wrote at the beginning of the season:
"How did a character-driven drama with metaphysical undertones and a sociopolitical allegory at its core slowly devolve into a maze of dead ends and lingering questions? And how is it that every question posed on "Lost" is answered with another question?"
and also
"So even as the questions fly about, we're just biding time, because all of the various folds that made this show intriguing – character studies, well-scripted flashbacks, unpredictable power struggles, retro eeriness that conjured up the Milgram obedience experiment – all of these things are flattened out into Good vs. Evil. In fact, everything about the current course of events feels like a retread of a really bad Indiana Jones movie ("Indy, cover your heart!")."
So, she begins by discussing what she sees as the collapse of the show. She doesn't use the word "collapse," but I'd say it's safe to use it in place of slow devolution. Havrilesky seems to be basically reading things in the same way that Nussbaum did. What was once exciting because of it's complexity and subtlety, is becoming increasingly, for Harilesky, simplistic -- a bad Indiana Jones movie (so any of the sequels then?).
Perhaps the show is collapsing because of its own modus operandi. Initially founded in subtle characterization and complex relationships between the characters, the show is turning back to two-dimensional stereo-types and genre place-holders -- especially in the flash sideways universe. Maybe now, there just too many characters, too much back story. Many critics complain the show in this final season is demonstrating an over-fondness for exposition and even repetition of previous exposition, but these are artifacts of the commercial nature of television. The show must remain accessible to the casual viewer who has not obsessively watched and re-watched each episode and poured over each little tidbit. And because it must maintain this accessibility, the show also seems to be polishing the finer details out of its formerly complex and nuanced characters. The writers could have included a great deal more detail and subtly, if not for the (possibly disastrous) decision to devote half of their remaining hours to the unexplained flash sideways mirror universe.
The U.S. is stuck in the Cold War?
"Thus began the Grand Bargain at the heart of U.S. Cold War strategy toward West Germany and Japan, the "markets-for-bases" swap. In return for giving up an independent foreign policy to their protector, the United States, the West Germans and Japanese would be granted access to American markets (and, in the case of the Germans, access to Western European markets).
"By the 1970s, it was clear that the markets-for-bases swap was a better deal for West Germany and Japan than for the U.S."
. . . .
"A version of the markets-for-bases deal was extended to China, which, it was hoped, would acquiesce in U.S. military hegemony in its own neighborhood, in return for unlimited access to American consumers."
. . . .
"Like postwar Japan and Germany, China has accepted the terms of the bargain America's elites offered, focusing on economic growth while the U.S. wasted blood and treasure on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
. . . .
" . . . for half a century, America's foreign-policy elite tolerated the targeted deindustrialization of America by Asian mercantilist states, as long as those countries did not challenge America's global military hegemony"
. . . .
Friday, February 19, 2010
Lost: a fan worries she’s lost her faith
in response to Emily Nussbaum from NYMag.com
" . . . last week’s premiere filled me with dread. What was this wild goose that I had been chasing so loyally for five seasons? Lost is almost finished, with sixteen episodes to go, and I, like any fan, was relieved when ABC set an end date: Now the writers could hammer out a true conclusion, without any more episodes analyzing Jack’s tattoos. They could do a conclusive shake-up on their highly original mix of genres. . . "
I also have my doubts.
I stumbled into this review while wandering the webway, and was immediately intrigued by the title alone, as this echoes my own anxiety towards the conclusion of the series. I am still deeply scarred by the unsatisfactoriness of the BSG conclusion, and in light of the scandalous finalé for the Sopranos (even though I was never much of a fan of that show), I'm growing more and more certain that they will be unable to satisfy me with the conclusion of Lost. I think that there are too many threads running, too many questions hanging for Lindelof and Cuse to reach an actual dénouement. Ron Moore was (is) very good at the middle part of a series, but the things that make him good at that make him bad at finishing (return to that at a latter date). Lindelof and Cuse may demonstrate a similar problem.
Anyway, that's what attracted me to the article, but I was entranced as soon as I read the first paragraph:
"I first watched Lost in a binge, on DVD, shortly after my older son was born. I’d never recommend that anyone acquire a newborn in order to properly enjoy a television show, but this turns out to be an excellent technique, at least if you want to be imprinted on a series, like a duckling on a goose. Up at 2 a.m., 4 a.m., and 6 a.m., with headphones on and the lights low, I experienced the show less as a story than as a loopy, unforgettable dream, the kind that alienates you from strangers when you try to explain the damn thing."
Deeply evocative and moody, Nussbaum conjures up a believable atmosphere with a minimum of sensory detail, the 2am, 4am, 6am repetition stitching into the narrative foreground the repetitiveness, the sleeplessness of caring for a newborn child (reinforced by the use of duckling), giving an immediate impression of the cycle of interrupted sleep, the exhausted bliss of a new parent. Headphones and low light flesh out the intimacy of her initiation into the series, emphasizing her consumption as a deeply personal experience, specifically at the threshold of sleep, one foot in the hallucinatory territory of dreams. Loopy means crazy and wild and pleasant, but it also means cyclical and reinforces the periodic repetition of her experience; it's almost like a brain-washing. She refers to the show as a dream that she had, a declaration of ownership, a profound internalization. She identifies her experience with the show as a thing that separates her from other people (strangers -- whose the strange one?). Almost a spiritual vision. And all of this in the briefest, most economic language possible. That's a good paragraph, equally intimidating and inspiring.
But more to the point, Nussbaum echoes my own apprehension towards the show. She writes that her investment in the show is based more upon the deep characterization then the flashy "structural experimentation." She writes:
"Maybe the writers themselves developed manipulative coping skills. A show can be held captive by its own success, as the audience, roaring for action, smashes at the narrative piñata. But what if what is on the inside is just some stale candy?"
Part of the show's success is based on its ability to generate a sense of amazement in the audience, a bombastic cognitive dissonance. I repeatedly encounter people whose main enjoyment of the show is the sense of pleasurable confusion it leaves them with -- for these people, resolution of the myriad mysteries of the show would be besides the point, even anti-climatic. They might even be more satisfied with a final cliffhanger, in the manner of Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes, than in any sort of traditional dénouement. Currently, we are three episodes into the final season, and the writers seem to be addicted to capping each show with a WTF moment. They almost seem convinced that answering questions instead of posing them will let the air out of their audience's enthusiasm and leave the series to dribble out indifferently. I think Nussbaum has found Lindelof and Cuse's weak spot. I think they also worry about the prize not being worth the journey.
Nussbaum sees the show undermined by its success. Whereas she originally hoped "that there was something more perverse, more adult, buried beneath, that the show had something to say about guilt, about the way society (and individuals) re-form after a crisis," she now fears that "those themes are gone for good, that the island is just a chess game played by Egyptian gods." She worries that the subtle characterization that initially brought her to the show has been traded for superheroes and stereo-types.
Her dissatisfaction with the show grows from her perception of a deviation from the original journey of the narrative arc. For example, she sees Juliet reduced, "shriveled from a fascinatingly ambiguous player into a beatific sacrificial sweetheart," a disappointing and unexpected shallowing of a admirably complex character, a weakening of a formidable female antagonist, "shriveled," wilted, disgraced even. Juliet, who was once a rare and interesting character, has been whittled down to a plot device, a motivation for Sawyer's heroics.
I have to agree with Nussbaum. I am also worried that the piñata is filled with stale candy. Maybe the flashy, colorful exterior was merely a rube goldberg machine that dissolves into nothing as soon as it stops chirring and spinning in place. Maybe all Lindelof and Cuse ever had was the ability to ask these strange questions, and create a sense of wonder at all of the confusion. They seem to rely on the audience's willingness to interpret the smallest gesture and invest every detail with significance. Perhaps when forced (by the impending terminus) to supply their own answers to the many riddles, there is no way for them to provide answers as wondrous and satisfying as our own speculation. Nussbaum has already seen them pull away from the destination she had hoped for, how many more of us will end up not where we had hoped?
.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Lost: Melancholy Doink
Jack is the tragic hero of the thing. Ironic to me because they were going to kill Michael Keaton in episode one, and this whole shebang was going to be Kate's story. It's kind of an alternate reality where we answer the question: what would have happened if Mr. Keaton hadn't died in the first episode -- remember that guy?
Instead, friends and loved ones drop like flies while Jack tries to decide if he's going to believe the ghost and kill his uncle. So many characters experience so many bad things because Jack thinks he's supposed to save somebody, while all he really had to do was nothing. Actually, from a tragic angle, I like it -- as long as Jack winds up dead at the end.
.
LOST: Jack Kills Everybody!
I was reading a new (published after the premiere) interview, and the producers brought up a point that bothered me a lot during the finale - how arrogant are the group that decided to set off the bomb? They really only thought of how things might work out for them, but not of all the other people and events that might be affected. Apparently that idea will be explored. Cindy
Well, that's Jack's thing isn't it? Nemesis tells us that Locke is the only one he respects because Locke is the only one who knew enough to want to stay on fantasy island (I guess he never met Rose and Bernard). Jack did everything he could to screw Locke. The Island turned Locke from a shlubby pathetic cripple (hate that word, but its what Locke would call himself), into a baddass, boar hunting, tarzanesque leader of men. But it don't work for Jack so he has to get everybody off the island. So Jack drags the six off the island and everybody has to deal, but then Jack changes his mind and decides we all have to go back. Problem is, Locke has to sacrifice himself to make it work, first by giving up paradise and leaving the island, then by, as Richard warns him, taking his own life -- which was a totally noble thing until Ben showed up. Jack manages to drag everybody back to the island and then decides he's still not happy. Dude, we totally gotta blow up the island. I'm with Sawyer, stfu Jack. But Jack plays on Juliet's weakness (perhaps unwittingly), she stops Sawyer from stopping Jack, she even bangs on the nuclear weapon (eight times, geeze), and blows Jack out to an alternate reality while she gets to die twice. Now Jack is probably going to decide he's not happy again and fuck something else up (god damn yuppy asshole, go buy yourself a porsche, find an empty-headed nineteen year old to blow you in it, and leave everybody else alone!).
Lets see how things work out for people after Jack "saves" them by exploding them in a mushroom cloud:
Rose -- gonna die of cancer
Bernard -- widower
Kate -- going to jail
Sawyer -- conman, unredeemed asshole
Claire -- loses her baby to adoption (I think he's supposed to be the antichrist or )
Charlie -- slap those junkie chains back on brother, no heroic redemption for you either
Boone -- still freakin after his sister, tortured by his own perversion
Sayid -- vicious thug, torturer for hire, I hear Abu Graib needs somebody
Eko -- drug dealer, warlord, hand-chopper
Jin -- jail best case -- worst case gangster
Sun -- cheatin on her husband, who my baby daddy?
Richard -- prob fish food
Juliet -- dead, and then dead again
Shannon -- confidence playing whore (Boone was lying!)
Ben -- good question
Adam -- fish good
Aldo -- fish food
Ameilia -- fish food
Greta -- fish food
Goodwin -- fish food
Matthew -- fish food
Mattingly -- fish food
Mikhail -- fish food
Tom -- fish food
Locke -- dood!
some folks died on the island, but they were noble, redemptive deaths -- which for a character in a story is about as good as it gets.
If you're doing something in your self-interest, it's difficult for me to reconcile it if you won't have any memories or awareness of what had transpired. Worse yet: if you're doing it for someone in some alternate universe that isn't even you. What would be the point? DarthCorleone
This is the best part -- Jack the Saviour doesn't even know he saved anybody, so he's just as annoyingly unsatisfied as ever, probably drinking and still ignoring the hot mom from Modern Family. Everybody else suffers while he tries to work out his shit.
LOST: Jack/Desmond
And again:
"I acknowledge it's something new either way. Hallucination just makes the most sense to me as opposed to be any sort of transmigration, be it physical or into Jack's consciousness. My theory is that LAX-Jack is experiencing some sort of mental "deja vu" about his alternate existence. The injury on his neck could have been a physical manifestation of the same phenomenon. My prediction is that he'll have more experiences like this, and this could lead to his actively taking steps that might bring the universes together. Hence, I do think hallucination has a point, if it's a direct offshoot of The Incident." Mr. Darth
One: Totally agree with the deja vu experience -- let's look at the side by side. If you havn't seen this by now, I would be surprised, but this is a video of the two plane "crash" scenes all synched up I think we are supposed to read this as Jack having some kind of twitchy feeling, even the look on his face at the beginning of the clip is telling. For us it's not weird because for us, we are jumping back through the entire show to the (possibly the first seconds) very beginning of the narrative -- total "Holy Shit" moment, but it shouldn't be holy shit for Jack, not if he doesn't remember anything -- shouldn't be special to him at all. So that look of recognition (or?) in his face is supposed to be deep and meaningful (yup, yup, agreed).
Two: The neck thing was foregrounded heavily -- we are encouraged to wonder about that too. There is some kind of physical connection between the Jacks, and thus between the universes (universi?)
But -- well, first I like your idea about the splintering consciousness, that's berry interesting. But, I said maybe Desmond is appearing in Jack's subjectivity, and I think you took what I meant -- i.e. Jack can see him but no one else can. However, this would be Desmond actually contacting Jack (for why I don't know yet); but by saying hallucination, I think you're saying that Desmond has nothing to do with this, will have no memory of it, that the Desmond that Jack sees is merely a figment of Jack's imagination, Jack's already malfunctioning brain playing tricks on him, by showing him a man he doesn't know? What for? Will Desmond be the discontinuity that leads Jack to realize that there are two realities -- the first piece of "something ain't right"? If that's where you going, I'll take that as a viable third option, or do I misinterpret your idea?
Friday, February 5, 2010
Lost v Slaughterhouse Five
Calculated. Exactly. It's to drive us mad talking about it and wondering what it means. I might ask in return: if Desmond was actually there via time-travel, why not just have LAX-Bernard and LAX-Rose admit that they saw him instead of giving us uncertainty as to whether he was ever there at all? Why imply that it might have been that only LAX-Jack had seen him? Why not just have LAX-Bernard and LAX-Rose say: "We don't know where that guy went." The very fact that they give us Jack as the only witness at least raises the possibility that he wasn't physically there and was only a figment of LAX-Jack's mind. Darth
That would be a new thing -- Desmond sort of traveling into Jack's consciousness, unless Jack is just hallucinating (which I doubt, because there's little point). So either way, it's something new -- Desmond is either appearing in Jack's subjectivity or Desmond is transmigrating between two parallel universes. Not enough clues to say which way -- wonder how many episodes before they start to lock it down.
DL: This is where, while Carlton has a much more practical background in science and engineering, I have a long and storied history in every single time travel story that's ever been written, and draw upon that to fundamentally provide our stories with what we want to do. from Cindy's research
I would have to say the whole science and engineering thing is fairly irrelevant; they are definitely past the point of worrying about what's possible and anyway -- the mention of prior stories is the more telling comment. This isn't based on science, it's based on literary tradition.
In this case, we said the way that we want to do time travel on Lost is consciousness based, as opposed to somebody gets in a DeLorean or a HG Wells-like apparatus and zaps themself back in time where they can interact with an earlier version of themself. It's more interesting if your brain basically drops into your body at different points in your life, which is more consistent with the sort of Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse 5, paradigm,
Pretty much confirms what Darth has been saying.
also seems to express a little bit of disdain for "sciency" explanations, which may become telling. . .
So if Desmond travels back in time and he remembers that a certain team beat another team in a football game, and then something different happens, we're hinting at the idea that the future has changed, when in fact he just remembered it wrong, which is kinda cool for us. . . .
Now that's interesting, isn't it? It's a common conceit amongst time travel stories (one school anyway) that any time you change the past, it creates a branch in the timestream (or continuum or whateves) and creates two parallel realities: the original reality which the meddler would call "Home" and a new one that develops from all the consequences of the change. I'd say this is why we have LAX Jack. As to how they resolve having these two parallel options -- this will be one of the larger plot arcs of the final season (I predict), and they will merge or one will fizzle out and the other will become the "true" reality.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
LOST: Which Loophole?
New Idea:
Nemesis's loophole. We think the loophole is Ben killing Jacob, but this isn't really what Nemesis wants is it? He just wants to go home -- whatever the hell that means.
Just as an aside, loophole is such a dead metaphor, that for the longest time I didn't think of the actual vehicle of the metaphor itself. If Jacob is the weaver of fate, then loophole really isn't a metaphor at all, is it -- it's kinda literal.
Nemesis taking on the shapes of animals got me to thinking (don't take much), and then somebody (CiB again?) pointed out the Dharma Shark (that would be a cool name for a geek band, huh?) that I had missed, and the idea crossed my mind that the Dharma Shark is Nemesis. Which led me to a different question. So in all of this discussion, the question that I didn't see asked is:
Now that the island is at the bottom of the ocean (in LAX Jack's reality), where are Jacob and Nemesis?
Maybe the loophole wasn't killing Jacob at all? Maybe the loophole was conning Jack into detonating the Swan. Perhaps the energy pocket was Nemesis's prison or the power source for it or something. Perhaps sinking the island set Nemesis free (at least in one alternate reality) and this was the loophole?
LOST: Desmond leaps through Space/Time
Desmond on Jack's plane?
They really did seem to be pushing the idea that he disappeared. What that means, I don't know. I always thought Desmond was going to be some kind of huge player in the resolution.
We don't really know what happened to Desmond when the energy pocket imploded. He seems to be skipping through time in his own body and everything, but perhaps this only because of the limits of a linear narrative. Maybe Desmond actually experiences all the moments of his life simultaneously.
Maybe he lives in all nows. Maybe he got blown outside the time/space continuum, and now exists independent of both time and space (time and space are the same thing, according to Einstein, and may not be isolated from each other). I never read Dark Tower, but the writers of Lost did, and they say they were influenced by it when they were working on the arc for the show (not to mention that at least one of them was in on the new Star Trek). From what I understand, the protagonist in Dark Tower has the ability to travel between parallel universes or something -- an idea that Michael Moorcock damn near beat to death in his fiction. Desmond has reminded me of those Moorcock heroes ever since the Swan went Blooey.
I don't think Desmond is done messing with LAX Jack -- he might be the messenger between the two parallel universes. Have to wait and see.
LOST: Kate's Black Horse
People keep talking about Smokey/MIB taking over bodies, but I've always thought of it as APPEARING like a dead person. CiB
Bingo -- Nemesis didn't take over Locke's body -- that body is lying on the beach. Ergo, Jacob prob didn't take over Sayid's body either (amend this to The Nesspi Theorem).
Maybe the body has to be ON the island in order for the MIB to assume the shape. CiB
Nope. There are many folks in this camp (body must be on the island). I think the popularity of this idea is because there is such an emphasis on the two cadavers. However, I think that the body is unnecessary -- most incontrovertible evidence for me is Kate's Black Horse. The Black Horse is usually in the list of Island Apparitions, and I don't think the horse corpse (couldn't resist) is not on the island. I've always found the Black Horse (is it a stallion?) the most interesting of the Apparitions because it stands out: not human, more poetic, etc. On the other hand, perhaps Nemesis has taken animal forms previously and we just don't know it. Vincent would be a really good one -- awesome surveillance potential (what's his name? Sirius Black?), and Vincent does seem to come and go at strange intervals, perhaps Vincent never survived the crash? There could be any number of animal interactions -- some people think that the medusa spiders were part of the monster.
You could explain it all away: The Black Horse was just a dream, Hurley's visitors were actual dead people, and so on, but I like the Black Horse for Nemesis -- goes with Man in Black don't it?
The other can of worms is: Does the impersonated personage have to be dead? If not, the writers could ret-con any scene or action they want to and just say it was Nemesis being tricksy.
LOST: Kate's Black Horse
People keep talking about Smokey/MIB taking over bodies, but I've always thought of it as APPEARING like a dead person. CiB
Bingo -- Nemesis didn't take over Locke's body -- that body is lying on the beach. Ergo, Jacob prob didn't take over Sayid's body either (amend this to The Nesspi Theorem).
Maybe the body has to be ON the island in order for the MIB to assume the shape. CiB
Nope. There are many folks in this camp (body must be on the island). I think the popularity of this idea is because there is such an emphasis on the two cadavers. However, I think that the body is unnecessary -- most incontrovertible evidence for me is Kate's Black Horse. The Black Horse is usually in the list of Island Apparitions, and I don't think the horse corpse (couldn't resist) is not on the island. I've always found the Black Horse (is it a stallion?) the most interesting of the Apparitions because it stands out: not human, more poetic, etc. On the other hand, perhaps Nemesis has taken animal forms previously and we just don't know it. Vincent would be a really good one -- awesome surveillance potential (what's his name? Sirius Black?), and Vincent does seem to come and go at strange intervals, perhaps Vincent never survived the crash? There could be any number of animal interactions -- some people think that the medusa spiders were part of the monster.
You could explain it all away: The Black Horse was just a dream, Hurley's visitors were actual dead people, and so on, but I like the Black Horse for Nemesis -- goes with Man in Black don't it?
The other can of worms is: Does the impersonated personage have to be dead? If not, the writers could ret-con any scene or action they want to and just say it was Nemesis being tricksy.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Lost Commentators
LOST: Sawyer and Juliet at the End of Time
OMG YOU GUYS. I was just thinking of Juliet and the statue and this: "I thought it was Sobek too, but the producers say it's Taweret (Goddess of childbirth and fertility) -- there's the Juliette, infertility story-line that still needs to be tied up." and realized that's it's entirely possible that Juliet was actually (which was my gut feeling at the time) going to tell Sawyer she was pregnant (which I thought originally in the episode where Jack, Kate, Sawyer, and Juliet run into Bernard and Rose at the cabin, and Rose sees them and goes "Oh HELL no"; when the rest of them are walking away, Juliet lags behind a smidge and Bernard says to her "Are you sure you wouldn't like some tea?" and Juliet touches her stomach before saying no thanks and heading off), and that's what "It worked" refers to, meaning her work, her reason for being on the island in the first place.
It doesn't add anything to either of the timeline stories or lend credence to any of the hypotheses about them, but it would pretty neatly tie up that end (and, of course, devastate Sawyer a little bit more, again). I just had a little "ohmygod" moment (and possibly some goosebumps. Maybe I should get another hobby) and thought I'd share it with y'all.
That's awesome. this is my favorite speculation out of this whole thread -- so sweet and wonderful. Might be right too, would dénouement a lot of stuff. If it wasn't so sad, I would be rooting for it, but pregnant then dead? that's super super dark. If it's true, they'll have to have Sawyer pluck her back out of the timestream so they can be together and raise little conman junior. That would be an Adam & Eve worth all this, wouldn't it? Jacob, son of a redeemed Sawyer?
nahh
LOST: Nemesis the Fallen Robot Angel
I'm sitting here thinking, and I just got a bad feeling. (apparently, I've got all day too)
I had forgotten about "Cerberus" and how Ben referred to the Monster as the Island's defense mechanism. So there's this big moment where Ben realizes that the Monster is not an "It," but a "Who." During his entire stay on the island (30 years or more), he's been convinced that the monster is some kind of "thing." I don't remember for sure, but I think he said he doesn't know and doesn't care what the monster is, but he seems to not think of it as a person. He doesn't act like it's intelligent. There's that whole rigamarole with Ben going down into his basement to "summon the monster." They keep it out of their compound with a sonic fence, as if it were some kind of beast. Cerberus is a dog, etc.
Then they did that thing last season where Locke would disappear and then the monster would show up (and vice versa), so all us clever folks would slowly figure out that Locke and the monster are the same entity. I don't know if they really showed us yet that Ben has worked out the whole thing in his head: If the monster is Locke, maybe the monster can be other people, and Alex was probably the monster as well. He doesn't seem freaked out enough yet.
So far, the big reveal is the confirmation of our suspicions that Locke is the monster when he says to Ben, "I'm sorry you had to see me like that." Everybody goes "Ahah! I knew it!," right? See where I'm going? It makes the most sense (which is what worries me), and gives an explanation for the various apparitions. Nemesis has been on the island since the beginning of time (or whatever) and he sometimes turns into a big flying smoke cloud filled with flashes of light that can pick people up and throw them around, read their thoughts, and make a slideshow appear inside the smoke.
But what if Nemesis/Locke is lying (about this too)? What if Locke and the monster aren't the same creature? What if Locke just wants Ben to think he's the monster (and the writers want us to think he's the monster), but he's really not? Why does Locke still have to run away before the monster appears -- why not just have him transform or whatever? (maybe because they don't have the budget, but they're already animating the smoke)
Here's the thing: I'm still bothered by the technological sounds that precede the monster's appearance. It's either some kind of machine or some kind of supernatural creature right? So, is Nemesis a space robot? or a fallen angel? Can't really be both (well, I hope not anyway). If the monster is a machine, then so is Nemesis. I don't think Nemesis is a machine. Of course, maybe the monster merely makes those noises because the writing staff thought it "sounded spooky," and they didn't work out an explanation for why the man-killing smoke amoeba ancient (?) island avenger sounds like a taxi-cab printer.
This is the kind of thing that makes me worry that the whole thing is a joke and people are overthinking it (guilty as hell), trying to assign logical explanations to stuff that won't/can't have an explanation because it's random non-sequitur (someone up there wrote Mad Lib) and the writers are just yanking our chains and have no intention of it all making sense in the end. That would suck. I dig the show, but I think I'm gonna get screwed.
.
LOST: Chekov's Droids
Cindy Honestly, I think of Jacob v. MIB and their debate about the goodness of mankind as very much a God/Devil thing (Job!)-only given the INTERMINABLE hieroglyphics on the island, I've been trying to shoehorn that mentality into an Egyptology setting. The best I've been able to come up with is Sobek for Jacob (this is based mostly off the crocodile head on the giant statue).
coveredinbees
I thought it was Sobek too, but the producers say it's Taweret (Goddess of childbirth and fertility) -- there's the Juliette, infertility story-line that still needs to be tied up.
Honestly, I don't think there's any way the writers are going to be able to sort this out in 11-12 more episodes (especially with them still piling new wood on the fire Fountain of Youth / Holy Grail / possibly resurrection
I agree with D.C. in that:
"answers . . . given explicitly for certain mysteries . . . taking the form of one character saying something along the lines of, 'Yes, I am indeed responsible for that, and here’s how I did it.'" is "how soap operas and bad movies work," but I think we need to see some Chekhovian resolutions or else a lot of this stuff is going to be a big pile of red herrings -- and nobody is gonna be happy with that.
What about Adam and Eve in Da Cave? The black and white stones? Are they gonna resolve that or pretend they never brought it up? They dumped the polar bear thing in a way that I can accept (implicitly admitting that they included polar bears in the jungle because they thought it would be a kewl WTF moment), but they have what seems like too many threads to actually play out. Oblique answers will be acceptable (to me), but a non-answer will not.
Obviously, the writers have changed their minds about some things -- i.e. -- originally, Jack was going to die immediately and Kate would be the leader (one-shot character becomes protagonist), Ben was supposed to be a minor character for an episode or two but then becomes the primary antagonist, etc., but it's not aesthetically pleasing if their final answer to the larger mysteries of the show is:
" . . .these are not the droids you're looking for . . . "
.
Haroun and the Sea of Stories
flat out stolen from Pajiba (course he just stole it from Wiki, so)
from another post:
The book the Frenchman in the temple tunnel had on him was Søren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling.
from Wiki:
"The title is a reference to a line from Philippians 2:12, "...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling."
Fear and Trembling presents a highly original and provocative interpretation of the Binding of Isaac story as told in Genesis Chapter 22, and uses the story as an occasion to discuss fundamental issues in moral philosophy and the philosophy of religion, such as the nature of God and faith, faith's relationship with ethics and morality, and the difficulty of being authentically religious."
"In Fear and Trembling Kierkegaard introduces the "Knight of Faith" and contrasts him with the "knight of infinite resignation". The latter gives up everything in return for the infinite, that which he may receive after this life, and continuously dwells with the pain of his loss. The former, however, not only relinquishes everything, but also trusts that he will receive it all back, his trust based on the "strength of the absurd".
For Kierkegaard, infinite resignation is easy, but faith is founded in the belief in the absurd. The absurd is that which is contradictory to reason itself.
[en.wikipedia.org]
The book Des was reading on the plane was Haroun and the Sea of Stories by Salman Rushdie.
From Wiki:
"Haroun and the Sea of Stories is a 1990 children's book[1] by Salman Rushdie. It was Rushdie's first novel after The Satanic Verses. It is a phantasmagorical story set in a city so old and ruinous that it has forgotten its name.[2]"
The book includes the following things:
- an ancient city so old that people forgot it existed
- a war between the rulers of that ancient city
- a main character who is represented by two sides of himself: an "anthropomorphic shadow" and a "diminished man"
- a "poisoned ocean" caused by above man's splitting of himself into two parts
- a potential mutiny of one of the warring tribes led by a man who isn't the leader
- the anthropomorphic shadow has the ability to "appear identical" to some of the people in the city
- a plan to destroy the ocean using "complicated machines powered by electromagnetic induction"
- the Big Bad is killed at the end after his ice palace melts and his giant statue falls on him
- "a landscape whose weather changes to reflect the emotions of the people currently present in it"
- the two tribes are kept apart "by a force field named Chattergy's Wall"
- "At the South Pole of Kahani is a spring known as the Source of Stories, from which (according to the premise of the plot) originated all stories ever communicated. The prevention of this spring's blockage therefore forms the climax of the novel's own story."
Posted by: shawnp at February 3, 2010 3:54 PM
LOST: Jacob is the new Obi Wan
Annnd speaking of recycled -- how come nobody's doing a shout out for Ben whining about "Why didn't he fight back?" and the whole "killing me will only make me stronger" Obi Wan thing?
The Nemisisy is gonna be awful pissed off when he finds out that Jacob has two mediums with which to communicate with his people; and now that he's dead and incorporeal, kinda "literally" untouchable.
.
LOST: Richard is the new Locke
Cindy, that's pretty much what I think about Jacob/MIB. MIB has been under Jacob's control, and has been hating it--we know he's been wanting to kill Jacob for a very long time. And he's trapped on the Island (as a sort of hell for him? maybe he was punished by a higher authority to be there and "under" Jacob), needed to get Jacob killed (but couldn't do it himself) and now needs to get into the Temple to leave.
And so I think that MIB's comment to Richard about the chains meant that, as Jacob's servant, MIB thinks that Richard was "bound" to do Jacob's bidding and wasn't free. And now that Jacob is dead, Richard is free of those "chains" (which Richard didn't seem to mind but maybe MIB just thought Richard was a puppet).
Badass Japanese Dude was in The Last Samurai. Where he also played Badass Japanese Dude. I like him.
Posted by: figgy at February 3, 2010 3:31 PM
deep and lovely
I also thought he was talking about Richard having arrived to the island in the belly of the Black Rock, but this is way better -- maybe Nemesis/MiB is starting to work his magic on Richard, now that Ben has served his purpose?
.
LOST: Merry Christmas ya olde Smoke Monster!
"Despite that nice exchange between Jack and Locke and Hurley's incessant good luck, I'm thinking that maybe the alternate future will be going straight to hell. I'm foreseeing things along these lines: a botched surgery for John Locke at Jack's hands, Sawyer swindling Hurley out of his money (don't underestimate that character arc that Sawyer underwent on the island that a lack of crash has now prevented), Kate's being killed in a hail of gunfire (or maybe Claire and unborn Aaron in the crossfire), Jin and Sun's marriage falling apart, etc.
And I'm wondering if Jack won't be experiencing more and more "deja vu." The disappearance of his father's body and the appearance of Desmond (hallucination by Jack?) indicate to me that there will be a tangible link to what could have been. Once everything has gone to hell, will a haunted Jack be the only one left to seek answers? Maybe he'll track down Ellie or Faraday? And then will the lesson ultimately be to leave things as they were, thus bringing us full circle?"
DarthCorleone
So . . . . the writers were sitting around watching It's a Wonderful Life, and said "What the Hell, I can't think of anything better"?
Jack throws a lasso round the island and drags it up from the bottom of the ocean, then goes running down the beach yelling "Hello Swan Hatch!, Hello Four Toed Statue!, Merry Christmas ya olde Smoke Monster!"
I was thinking the same thing . . .
cross posted from Pajiba.com
Lost: Is Sayid the new Jacob?
"Any thoughts on why Sayid woke up?
Could it be like Fake John Locke and it is only Sayid's body possessed?" Matt T
"I think that at some point in time they are going to have to reconcile the two timelines, Dark Tower-style, or choose between one or the other. A third option is, of course, that the two timelines remain branched (I forget which story this idea originates from), but I don't think that is what is going to happen.
My first thought about Sayid is that he is the New Jacob. But now that you remind me that Ben was healed in the temple and imbued with a spark of the island's spirit, I'm questioning my first thought. I'm not completely ruling out that Sayid could be the New Jacob, but I am now considering that he could be the Anti-Ben." stardust
1. The water is losing its mojo at the same time that Jacob has been killed.
2. Richard said he's seen a lot of strange things on the island, but no one have never come back to life -- several people said Sayid is dead, capital D dead.
3. before he dies, Sayid remunerates his incomparable litany of sins for Hurley (the show's audience surrogate) -- speaks of the dark destination waiting for him, reminding us of his heavy karmic load. . .
4. Jacob sends letter to the leader of the others saying that Sayid is very, very important and can not be allowed to expire
5. long time later, Sayid is not dead -- not revived like Ben, saved from a fatal wound, but resurrected, back from the other side -- Richard, the island's historian, would tell us that this is a unique occurrence.
6. all of this happens at roughly the same time --
possibility: Jacob's presence gives the fountain of Youth its power, and as he dies, it's strength fades, but like a star going super-nova, there is one last burst of energy that resurrects Sayid, dude with a debt, got some work left to do
Is he the new Jacob -- what does that mean?
Does he have superpowers?
Is he immortal? Well, he already died, right? immune to death?
time will tell.
and so, Once more unto the breach, dear friends?
The Nesspi Theorem:
Little Ben was healed while the water was clear - Jacob was in power.
Loophole was that only one of Jacob's people could kill Jacob. Ben.
So Jacob making sure Sayid was taken to the temple to be healed just as the water turned dark - cos the Man in Black was in Power - means that Jacob wants Sayid to kill the Fake Locke/Smokey/Man In Black/whoever he is. Cos Sayid is the NEW loophole. Plus Sayid is a killer. It's what he does. Nesspi
Yes, Nesspi, I totally think you're on to something!
I rewatched the episode tonight. During the "Previously on Lost," they showed FakeLocke telling Ben that Ben would be the one to kill Jacob. And I got to thinking, why Ben? Maybe because he'd been healed by the pool, the same pool that has now healed Sayid. So they've both been chosen, and now imbued with some sort of essence? - and perhaps given the power to kill a god? I'm just making this up as I go.MelBivDevoe
I agree with the basic premise here 100%. Sayid is going to be doing something pivotal. The doubling of Ben v Sayid is very interesting, both having been dipped (dare we say baptized?) in the sacred pool, one in (presumably) clear, and therefore good (?) water, the second in sullied or "dark" waters, and therefore bad or evil (unholy?) water.
MelBivDevoe suggests that they have been "imbued" with something. This may be where the writers are going. I dismissed this idea at first because it is such a direct quote from the HBO show Carnivàle. For those of you who didn't watch Carnivàle (not many did, I don't think it was very popular, but I loved it), there were two champions (good v evil), who each wielded an "anointed" weapon. The good champion was a supernatural healer (like Jacob, and now according to some, possibly Jack). The anointing of the weapons was a huge plot point that stretched over several episodes. Anointing the weapons and imbuing the two champions seem like two ideas cut from the same cloth (no Jacob related pun intended), which is why I figured they weren't going there, but maybe this is just different enough that, yes, they are going there.
furthermore, DarthCorleone writes:
Nesspi >> I really like that theory. Since it's an alternative to the "Sayid is now Jacob" theory that many people are backing (seeing as Ben still remained fundamentally who he is in Jacob-killer mode), it seems that it requires one of two things: 1) the Others lied that Sayid was dead, or 2) the Others were wrong that Sayid was dead. 2) doesn't seem likely, given that they're the experts on the healing pool. 1) seems possible.
1. I don't think Sayid is now Jacob. -- mostly because it's just too obvious and the LOST writers aren't know for obvious.
2. I think you're a little bit wrong Darth, you say that the others lied or were wrong about Sayid's death. I'm still backing the idea that Sayid was dead, and his is a true resurrection rather than a false resurrection, as with Locke/Nemesis. (BTW there seem to be quite a few people who think the real Locke is coming back: What lies in the shadow of the statue?) The Sanada character seemed like he knew what he was doing -- everything we've seen so far invests in the idea that he is (yes, stereotypically) a nearly omnipotently wise and powerful Shaolin warrior / samurai. The Sanada character seemed pretty sure that Sayid was big D dead. They even seemed to show Sayid's "death throes." Jack, the wizard magical surgeon also said Sayid's clock no ticky.
Don't forget there is an Egyptian resurrection god as well. I'm not sure about his relationship with Taweret, concubine of Set, but he certainly didn't get along with Set himself.
So, I agree with Nesspi that Sayid is the new champion. I'm just not sure what his job will be. I'm not even sure that Nemesis can be killed. Might suck for Sayid, but maybe he is Nemesis's new jailor, taking over for Jacob? Having already died, he has become immortal (or ageless) as Jacob once was, and now has to watch over Nemesis for all eternity (this would mean Nemesis's "loophole" actually benefits Jacob, and not Nemesis -- which would explain why the all-knowing weaver of fate let Nemesis's plot go forward -- "Why didn't he fight back"? whines Ben). This would be a fitting atonement for Sayid's many sins.