|
Post by SpringSummers on Apr 5, 2007 19:00:19 GMT -5
Short, sweet thoughts, since I'm going to bed in precisely three minutes: 1. While I agree that Kate made some remarkably dumb decisions regarding her stepfather, the mitigating circumstances are such that I can't simply put her in the "bad person" camp. The man she murdered was an abusive sicko whose final act on Earth involved propositioning his stepdaughter. That didn't make it right, of course; plenty of people grow up in abusive households without blowing anyone up. Victimized people might wish their abusers dead, but manage not to act upon those feelings. Kate is different because she doesn't have that moral governor. On the other hand, I do believe in justifiable homocide in certain cases...and Kate's situation could easily be construed that way. Plus, the great majority of her actions aren't those of a ruthless, cold-blooded killer. In fact, most evidence indicates Kate's desire to do right by people who have done right by her. So things aren't as black and white as the Others seem to think. Is my point. Anyway, who are they to judge between "good" and "bad?" 2. All that being said, I'd still trust Kate WAAAY before I would Juliet. That little I-know-more-than-you half smirk of hers is starting to wear on my nerves. Maybe she is on the side of the Losties...for now. But as another great J.J. Abrams character famously declared, her loyalties are...flexible. She'll turn on them in a second to further her own agenda. 3. Hurley may not be the most articulate or respected member of the tribe, but he continues to be the wisest. I think Sawyer is finally starting to realize that Hugo is far deeper than he appears. It's about friggin time. Agree with the "trusting Kate" before Juliette. This may be due simply to the fact that I "know Kate better." But despite her alias and such, Kate is "who she seems to be." Juliette - I'm not so sure. Her story about being left behind makes little sense. She may be voluntarily in the "service of Evil," or she may be somehow being . . . blackmailed to be in such service, but I don't trust that she's a "white hat" so-to-speak, to the extent that they exist on the island.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Apr 5, 2007 19:05:38 GMT -5
Yeah -every answer leads to about 10 questions. I was thinking about this in the shower this morning. I think the main reason she had herself handcuffed to Kate was to assure that Kate wouldn't kill her when she told her that Jack had seen her with Sawyer. I mean - Kate had to stop herself, because how would she be able to run with Juliet attached to her - unless she pulled a T-bag. I don't think Kate has that much ruthlessness in her, plus, Juliet was counting on Kate's 'guilty feelings' stopping her. She wanted that wedge driven between Jack and Kate - to keep them apart. Why, tho? Just so that Jack would turn to her? Yes, I think that was a big part of it - not because she lurves him, but so that she'd be accepted in his camp as one of them. To take Aaron? Or for some other reason? Whether or not she's working on her own? Would Benry had handcuffed them together if she hadn't been in on the ruse? Why would he have done that? Is that 10 more questions yet? I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, mostly because Juliet didn't need to drive that wedge between them: it was already there. In fact, by telling Kate why Jack was weird with her all Juliet really does is make it easier for Kate to begin making amends with Jack: if she knows exactly why he's mad, it becomes easier to make the right steps to start mending that rift, whereas if he's distant and broods in silence then they don't talk and nothing gets resolved. Myself, I think Juliet told Kate what Jack saw for a simpler reason: she has a thing for Jack. So I think part of it was revenge: Kate hurt Jack, so Juliet hurt Kate in return. And I suspect another part of it was about proving to Kate—and herself—that's she's better than Kate for Jack; what else could that little show of "I know Jack better than you" have been for? But from the little grin Kate sported when Juliet was done, I'd say Miss Austin suddenly realized exactly what Juliet's motive was in giving her the "you broke his heart" speech to begin with. I thought Kate's little grin had to do with an inner realization of how shallow Juliettes' apparent definition of "knowing somebody" really was. She thinks she knows Jack because she knows facts about him? You can know all the "facts" in the world about somebody, and not know that person AT ALL. Or you can know very little in the way of "vital statistics" or "history" and know that person very, very WELL. Knowing somebody is about knowing what they are about - what will likely hurt or amuse them, how they will likely respond to things, being able to look at them and know what they are thinking, etc. Kate KNOWS Jack much better than Juliette, and Kate was amused, I thought, that Juliiette would think that knowing some past facts meant she "knew Jack." Kate knows Jack. And Kate knows him well enough to know that he's way too smart to be as "taken in" by Juliette as he seems to be. Kate knows that if Jack told Juliette all that stuff, he's gaming her, while letting her think the opposite is occuring. That's what I got from that smile.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Apr 5, 2007 19:15:33 GMT -5
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, mostly because Juliet didn't need to drive that wedge between them: it was already there. In fact, by telling Kate why Jack was weird with her all Juliet really does is make it easier for Kate to begin making amends with Jack: if she knows exactly why he's mad, it becomes easier to make the right steps to start mending that rift, whereas if he's distant and broods in silence then they don't talk and nothing gets resolved. \\ I agree the wedge was already there and Juliet's actions brought it out in the open, which might lend to them mending the rift - and if it they do, then is it possible that was Juliet's intent in the first place? I don't see her saying that she knows Jack more than Kate does as proof that she wants him for herself. I just don't see the passion there, for some reason. I LOVED that little Mona Lisa smile of Kate's! And you could be right about the reason for it, although that doesn't mean that Kate is right in her assumption about Juliet's motives. And what, if anything, did the Hurley's con game with Sawyer have to do with the Kate/Juliet story? I think the Hurely & Sawyer con is analogous to the underlying Jack & Juliette con. I think that like Hurley, Jack is treating Juliette like he thinks she has the potential for goodness, and is trusting her to be good, etc . . . in the hopes of "turning" her. She would be a powerful weapon, if she was "turned." I don't think Jack trusts Juliette AT ALL, right now. Not any more than Hurley trusts Sawyer. But like Hurley, he sees potential, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it out and use it. Like Hurley, he's conning the con. (And Kate knows it.)
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Apr 5, 2007 19:18:26 GMT -5
ok, my questions are simple. Not deep in thought , just simple. 1. why couldnt smokey the monster go over the fence? I mean Kate, Sayid, Roussou, and Locke did. I forget how they managed that . . . but . . . they did something . . . hmmm . . . cannot remember. Who says they won't all go live in the houses? They have to get back to the beach to let everyone know about them and such . . . and get their stuff, and touch home base . . . I can understand why the first thing they would do is go back to the beach. Now from there, I could see maybe sitting down and deciding "how can we use the community the Others abandoned?" And maybe they will.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 5, 2007 19:33:41 GMT -5
Teaser
Chick fight!
Midwest? Iowa.
Bad HatWig
Sawyer's chick crossed paths with Kate.
A "ripoff artist." You do know there's a better name for it, right?
One girl watching another girl's back. Or you're stranded here.
Backgammon again.
What happened to Locke's hand again.
Leaving with them? Leaving where? Why?
Told them Kate was a good person. But...
So know Locke knows Kate's past.
Forgiveness isn't one of their strong suits. Are they taking every transgression the Losties have committed personally?
Locke's caught the "can't answer any questions" bug.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 5, 2007 19:43:10 GMT -5
Part I
Banishment. What is this, Romeo and Juliet?
Hurley's up to something.
Locke still can't use nicknames.
Appetizing!
Gas masks? WTF?
Gas bomb. That's why. Is that really necessary?
Going by Lucy now.
Going by Saint's names? What are the other names she's gone by?
She confesses all.
A few months on the run.
Is it love? Seriously, the way this scene is framed makes it seem like they are just about to kiss.
What's her name confesses about what Sawyer did to her.
One of us deserves something good.
Waking up in the jungle. Okay... So I guess they were out of tranq darts and used a smoke bomb instead.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Apr 5, 2007 19:51:10 GMT -5
I dunno - but what purpose, has ANY of the stuff the Other have done to the Losties, served? I feel like the answer to your question is "it would continue to serve whatever purpose the Others have in their continuing and nasty pursuit of the Losties" . . . whatever that may be. It's kinda impossible to make sense out of Juliette's decisions, not knowing what her overall goals may be. Maybe Sayid is a "good one" that the Others want, or they have other plans for him, to serve their ever-mysterious purposes. I totally agree with you in that without knowing what the Others or Juliet's ultimate goals are it's impossible to make sense of them; my intent was more of a thinking out loud exercise, trying to eliminate options and avenues in hopes of getting closer to figuring out what actually is going on. Which was bound to be fruitless, given how little info we have, but it was better than doing actual work at the time. However, I will say that if Kate fell short of the Others' definition of "good" for killing her stepfather, an abusive drunk, somehow I doubt Sayid's history as a torturer is going to go over with them any better.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 5, 2007 19:54:46 GMT -5
Part II
No luck fishing.
Watch where your holding that pole, Sawyer.
So he did catch something! But he has no idea how to clean a fish.
I bet Ben is watching them right now, just to see what they'll do.
Let the HoYay begin!
You say "they" like you didn't lock me in a cage and make me break rocks all day. Go Kate!
And Juliet has no response for that.
Juliet didn't know anything about them leaving.
Welcome to the wonderful world of not knowing what the hell is going on. [You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave]
Dammit, Kate! What did you think was going to happen? Ah, it was what's her name. With HatWig.
She chose him over me. Angry at her mom.
Ben has a thing for mind games. You don't say.
And the rain comes, just like that.
Chick fight! Whoo hoo!
The monster. Juliet has never heard it before.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 5, 2007 20:01:36 GMT -5
Part III
Dislocated shoulder.
MonsterCam.
Flashes of light. It's never done that before.
Are we safe? You tell me.
Sawyer has to kiss the baby. Hee!
All about Sawyer's feelings about his own child.
It's not like I've ever done anything bad to her. No, but you've never done anything good for her either. Point Hurley.
Is this like Truth or Dare?
Aaron starts crying. Hee. Sawyer should try reading to him. That worked before.
Aaron was never wrinkly. He's a TV newborn; born 6 months old already.
4th time her shoulder's been dislocated? What has she been doing with herself.
Juliet tells Kate about Jack seeing her and Sawyer. Really, Kate should have figured that out for herself.
Is that true, that Kate broke Jack's heart? I'm not so sure about that. Is that what Juliet really believes or is she saying that to get a reaction from Kate?
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 5, 2007 20:10:27 GMT -5
Part IV
Hurley made Sawyer go hunting with Desmond.
Hearts and Minds.
What on earth was she eating for breakfast? That looks like stew or baked beans or something.
Kate wants an explanation; Mom wants an apology.
You can't help who you love. Hmm.
What you did; you did for yourself. I'm not sure what to think here.
Juliet tells Kate that The Other's know everything about them.
What do you know about him, Kate? So The Other's know more about the Losties than they do about each other.
Mosh Pit!
She's had the key all along!
There's a key pad for the fence.
And the fence repels the monster!
So Juliet has seen the monster. But she's genuinely frightened of it, I think.
Maybe I wouldn't get left behind again. That part I'd believe.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 5, 2007 20:20:39 GMT -5
Coda
Sawyer has to cook the boar. And serve everyone? Hee.
The jig is up.
Since when did anyone around here vote?
But wasn't it nice... just being nice?
That's gotta be the lamest con in the history of cons. Hee. Sawyer sees everything through the lens of a con artist.
Temporary leader? Sawyer?
Hurley doesn't see himself as a leader? I think he's done the best job yet.
Eat boar, laugh, and forget that they're totally screwed.
Hurley's as the power behind the throne.
Is this what's his name's cover of Somewhere Over The Rainbow?
Sun shoots Sawyer daggers.
Jack's still knocked out? After a whole day?
Did Kate some back to rescue Jack more for him or herself?
Why? Because.
This is a really sweet Kate and Jack scene.
Now we go back.
Kate really wants to help.
Kate owes Sawyer one ass-kicking.
So, Cassidy's paralleled with Kate's mom.
It's like they disappeared into thin air. Maybe the Others don't really exist.
Rousseau's gone too?
So the Losties are those who were left behind.
And *they* don't leave Juliet behind.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Apr 5, 2007 20:26:26 GMT -5
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, mostly because Juliet didn't need to drive that wedge between them: it was already there. In fact, by telling Kate why Jack was weird with her all Juliet really does is make it easier for Kate to begin making amends with Jack: if she knows exactly why he's mad, it becomes easier to make the right steps to start mending that rift, whereas if he's distant and broods in silence then they don't talk and nothing gets resolved. Myself, I think Juliet told Kate what Jack saw for a simpler reason: she has a thing for Jack. So I think part of it was revenge: Kate hurt Jack, so Juliet hurt Kate in return. And I suspect another part of it was about proving to Kate—and herself—that's she's better than Kate for Jack; what else could that little show of "I know Jack better than you" have been for? But from the little grin Kate sported when Juliet was done, I'd say Miss Austin suddenly realized exactly what Juliet's motive was in giving her the "you broke his heart" speech to begin with. I thought Kate's little grin had to do with an inner realization of how shallow Juliettes' apparent definition of "knowing somebody" really was. She thinks she knows Jack because she knows facts about him? You can know all the "facts" in the world about somebody, and not know that person AT ALL. Or you can know very little in the way of "vital statistics" or "history" and know that person very, very WELL. Knowing somebody is about knowing what they are about - what will likely hurt or amuse them, how they will likely respond to things, being able to look at them and know what they are thinking, etc. Kate KNOWS Jack much better than Juliette, and Kate was amused, I thought, that Juliiette would think that knowing some past facts meant she "knew Jack." Kate knows Jack. And Kate knows him well enough to know that he's way too smart to be as "taken in" by Juliette as he seems to be. Kate knows that if Jack told Juliette all that stuff, he's gaming her, while letting her think the opposite is occuring. That's what I got from that smile. I completely agree with your assessment, and actually meant to say something to that effect. Honest. But I'd been babbling for a while, and was kinda running out of steam. The entirety of my thought about the smile was a combination of what you've expressed so well and what I said about Kate coming to a realization: Juliet's "how well do you know him" ploy exposed her feelings about Jack exactly because she was using such a lame and shallow definition of knowing someone—a bit like when in poker a player will be very obvious about behaving as if they have a strong hand (throwing their chips in, projecting confidence), and yet all they really do is give away how weak their cards actually are. Kate recognized the bluff for what it was, and realized: a) Juliet doesn't know Jack nearly as well as I do if this is all she can come up with, and b) she must really have a thing for him if she's trying to bully me with her collection of facts and details. Bleh. It still looks like I'm trying to backpedal, or have my cake and eat it too; I should have just said "Excellent points, and I agree wholeheartedly." 'Cause they are, and I do.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Apr 5, 2007 20:35:55 GMT -5
I thought Kate's little grin had to do with an inner realization of how shallow Juliettes' apparent definition of "knowing somebody" really was. She thinks she knows Jack because she knows facts about him? You can know all the "facts" in the world about somebody, and not know that person AT ALL. Or you can know very little in the way of "vital statistics" or "history" and know that person very, very WELL. Knowing somebody is about knowing what they are about - what will likely hurt or amuse them, how they will likely respond to things, being able to look at them and know what they are thinking, etc. Kate KNOWS Jack much better than Juliette, and Kate was amused, I thought, that Juliiette would think that knowing some past facts meant she "knew Jack." Kate knows Jack. And Kate knows him well enough to know that he's way too smart to be as "taken in" by Juliette as he seems to be. Kate knows that if Jack told Juliette all that stuff, he's gaming her, while letting her think the opposite is occuring. That's what I got from that smile. I completely agree with your assessment, and actually meant to say something to that effect. Honest. But I'd been babbling for a while, and was kinda running out of steam. The entirety of my thought about the smile was a combination of what you've expressed so well and what I said about Kate coming to a realization: Juliet's "how well do you know him" ploy exposed her feelings about Jack exactly because she was using such a lame and shallow definition of knowing someone—a bit like when in poker a player will be very obvious about behaving as if they have a strong hand (throwing their chips in, projecting confidence), and yet all they really do is give away how weak their cards actually are. Kate recognized the bluff for what it was, and realized: a) Juliet doesn't know Jack nearly as well as I do if this is all she can come up with, and b) she must really have a thing for him if she's trying to bully me with her collection of facts and details. Bleh. It still looks like I'm trying to backpedal, or have my cake and eat it too; I should have just said "Excellent points, and I agree wholeheartedly." 'Cause they are, and I do. Yes, yes - I agree with conclusions a & b, though I add c) She realized Jack must be running a con on Juliette - lulling her, so-to-speak, into a false feeling of confidence that she "knows" Jack and that Jack trusts her, etc.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Apr 5, 2007 20:45:19 GMT -5
I dunno - but what purpose, has ANY of the stuff the Other have done to the Losties, served? I feel like the answer to your question is "it would continue to serve whatever purpose the Others have in their continuing and nasty pursuit of the Losties" . . . whatever that may be. It's kinda impossible to make sense out of Juliette's decisions, not knowing what her overall goals may be. Maybe Sayid is a "good one" that the Others want, or they have other plans for him, to serve their ever-mysterious purposes. I totally agree with you in that without knowing what the Others or Juliet's ultimate goals are it's impossible to make sense of them; my intent was more of a thinking out loud exercise, trying to eliminate options and avenues in hopes of getting closer to figuring out what actually is going on. Which was bound to be fruitless, given how little info we have, but it was better than doing actual work at the time. However, I will say that if Kate fell short of the Others' definition of "good" for killing her stepfather, an abusive drunk, somehow I doubt Sayid's history as a torturer is going to go over with them any better. Understand about the thinking outloud stuff, no problema . . . must disagree on the last point . . . First, I'm not convinced Kate fell short of the Others definition of good. Mostly, I don't know what to believe in this regard; I don't know what to believe about what the Others say. They play so many "psych" games. Second, the Others believe that they, themselves, are good, don't they? Mustn't they? And look at the things they have done. Apparently, they believe there are circumstances in which torture is OK . . so . . . anything is possible when it comes to how they define "good." Hence my belief that they may consider Sayid a "good one." What it comes down to: I don't get the Others at all, so mostly, in my head, anything is possible when it comes to their beliefs and motives.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 5, 2007 20:46:28 GMT -5
Nope, it was Smokey. The rattling came in and went to the camera-shutter speed. See, now I'm thinking it was Smokey and the Bear. Oh, come on, you know I wasn't gonna just let that one just lie there. Heee!!
|
|