|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 5, 2007 20:51:49 GMT -5
Someone on another board brought up a plot point I'd forgotten about which could explain why Ben and/or Juliet would still be interested in the Losties: Aaron. While it seemed like the Others' interest in Aaron went away when they shifted their focus to Walt, you never know... And Sun's pregnant too, don't forget. I'm guessing that's probably the only thing that The Others don't know about the Losties at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 5, 2007 20:57:58 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. 2. why go back to the beach? If the others "left" then you have free freaking housing, with a barrier around it, and 1 person who knows all the ins and outs of the place. why not go get all the other losties and head right back to the compound and live a life of luxury for a freaking while. Why go back? 1. That's a good question. We've always seen the monster at or slightly above eye level, never any higher. 2. I was wondering that too. Maybe the Losties will. Once word reaches the camp. It's certainly very tempting.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 5, 2007 20:59:19 GMT -5
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.) Nice connection!
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Apr 5, 2007 21:06:41 GMT -5
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. I hadn't thought of it that way before, and can definitely see where you're coming from. Yes, the Others think of themselves and what they do as good, so circumstances most definitely matter. I'm mainly basing my opinion on what we've heard of who they do and don't consider Good people (I'm adding the capital because I get the sense the Others make a distinction between good fried chicken and Good people). Locke told Kate in this episode that he tried to convince them she was Good, but that their unforgiving nature and her past crimes made it a losing argument. We also had a conversation between two of the Others where one wondered why Ben trusted Jack, seeing as how Jack wasn't on Jacob's list—I took that to mean Jack isn't considered a Good person either. Since so far we haven't had any indication Jack murdered someone, that means something else is keeping him off the list. Goodwin told Ana-Lucia that while she wasn't on the list, he'd been arguing her potential Good-ness to his fellow Others. And nobody else from the Losties camp has been taken from the group to become part of the Others' community the way Cindy and the children were, so I have to figure none of them are on the list either. Which means the Others must have a pretty stringent definition of Good indeed if Hurley, Bernard and Rose aren't Good enough for the Others. So I have a hard time seeing where Sayid could make the list, given what we know of his past, when Rose or Bernard didn't. Oh, and there's the part where Sayid tortured Ben mere weeks ago (in Island time, of course); I'd be beyond surprised if that bit of behavior wasn't pretty strong grounds for immediate removal from the Good list, no matter what Sayid's reasons were—Ben just strikes me as someone who'd be a mite tetchy about that sort of thing. Then again, this is Lost we're talking about—so I'd never entirely rule anything out either....
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 5, 2007 21:08:16 GMT -5
Sweet litte goodbye scene between the con-girls. Ah, what's her name is pregnant. So, there's a little Sawyer running around somewhere? Yep. Ep is all about love and betrayal and what not. We saw the baby in Sawyer's last flashback episode, when he was boxing in prison. A baby girl, named something... I can't remember what.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Apr 5, 2007 21:12:24 GMT -5
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. I hadn't thought of it that way before, and can definitely see where you're coming from. Yes, the Others think of themselves and what they do as good, so circumstances most definitely matter. I'm mainly basing my opinion on what we've heard of who they do and don't consider good people. Locke told Kate in this episode that he tried to convince them she was good, but that their unforgiving nature and her past crimes made it a losing argument. We also had a conversation between two of the Others where one wondered why Ben trusted Jack, seeing as how Jack wasn't on Jacob's list—I took that to mean they don't believe Jack is a good person either. Since so far we haven't had any indication Jack murdered someone, that means something else is keeping him off the list. Goodwin told Ana-Lucia that while she wasn't on the list, he'd been arguing her potential goodness to his fellow Others. And nobody else from the Losties camp has been taken from the group to become part of the Others' community the way Cindy and the children were, so I have to figure none of them are on the list either. Which means they must have a pretty stringent definition of "good" indeed if Hurley, Bernard and Rose aren't "good" enough for the Others. So I have a hard time seeing where Sayid could make the list, given what we know of his past, when Rose or Bernard didn't. Oh, and there's the part where Sayid tortured Ben mere weeks ago (in Island time, of course); I'd be beyond surprised if that bit of behavior wasn't pretty strong grounds for immediate removal from the "good" list, no matter what Sayid's reasons were—Ben strikes me as someone who'd be a mite tetchy about that sort of thing. Then again, this is Lost we're talking about—so I'd never entirely rule anything out either.... Yes, agree completely that the likelihood of Sayid being considered a good one is quite low, for the reasons you mention. Just not really impossible, for the reasons you also mention. More likely, though, is that Sayid could figure into their plans in some way . . . that they need him alive for some reason. The Others seem to know so much about the Losties, and the vibe I get is that they seem to have some kind of "plans" for them - as a group, and as individuals.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Apr 5, 2007 21:12:43 GMT -5
Someone on another board brought up a plot point I'd forgotten about which could explain why Ben and/or Juliet would still be interested in the Losties: Aaron. While it seemed like the Others' interest in Aaron went away when they shifted their focus to Walt, you never know... And Sun's pregnant too, don't forget. I'm guessing that's probably the only thing that The Other's don't know about the Losties at this point. That absolutely is important to keep in mind, especially with Juliet being a fertility doctor. Excellent point.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Apr 5, 2007 21:13:22 GMT -5
Sweet litte goodbye scene between the con-girls. Ah, what's her name is pregnant. So, there's a little Sawyer running around somewhere? Yep. Ep is all about love and betrayal and what not. We saw the baby in Sawyer's last flashback episode, when he was boxing in prison. A baby girl, named something... I can't remember what. I'm thinking "Clemintine," though I'm not sure if I am remembering right. ETA: Didn't we find out - or at least wasn't it implied - that Sawyer knew he was the daddy of a little girl? Maybe he . . . left her some money or something?
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Apr 5, 2007 21:18:44 GMT -5
I hadn't thought of it that way before, and can definitely see where you're coming from. Yes, the Others think of themselves and what they do as good, so circumstances most definitely matter. I'm mainly basing my opinion on what we've heard of who they do and don't consider good people. Locke told Kate in this episode that he tried to convince them she was good, but that their unforgiving nature and her past crimes made it a losing argument. We also had a conversation between two of the Others where one wondered why Ben trusted Jack, seeing as how Jack wasn't on Jacob's list—I took that to mean they don't believe Jack is a good person either. Since so far we haven't had any indication Jack murdered someone, that means something else is keeping him off the list. Goodwin told Ana-Lucia that while she wasn't on the list, he'd been arguing her potential goodness to his fellow Others. And nobody else from the Losties camp has been taken from the group to become part of the Others' community the way Cindy and the children were, so I have to figure none of them are on the list either. Which means they must have a pretty stringent definition of "good" indeed if Hurley, Bernard and Rose aren't "good" enough for the Others. So I have a hard time seeing where Sayid could make the list, given what we know of his past, when Rose or Bernard didn't. Oh, and there's the part where Sayid tortured Ben mere weeks ago (in Island time, of course); I'd be beyond surprised if that bit of behavior wasn't pretty strong grounds for immediate removal from the "good" list, no matter what Sayid's reasons were—Ben strikes me as someone who'd be a mite tetchy about that sort of thing. Then again, this is Lost we're talking about—so I'd never entirely rule anything out either.... Yes, agree completely that the likelihood of Sayid being considered a good one is quite low, for the reasons you mention. Just not really impossible, for the reasons you also mention. More likely, though, is that Sayid could figure into their plans in some way . . . that they need him alive for some reason. The Others seem to know so much about the Losties, and the vibe I get is that they seem to have some kind of "plans" for them - as a group, and as individuals. Yup, that I could totally see: Sayid as a part of some larger endgame, much as Sawyer and Kate were pawns in Ben's strategy to get Jack to operate on his tumor. Hell, given what we've seen of Ben inducing Jack's cooperation could itself have been just another tactic in Ben's attempt to achieve some as-yet unknown goal.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Apr 5, 2007 21:21:46 GMT -5
We saw the baby in Sawyer's last flashback episode, when he was boxing in prison. A baby girl, named something... I can't remember what. I'm thinking "Clemintine," though I'm not sure if I am remembering right. ETA: Didn't we find out - or at least wasn't it implied - that Sawyer knew he was the daddy of a little girl? Maybe he . . . left her some money or something? Correct on all counts: Cassidy went to the prison to tell Sawyer he had a daughter named Clementine, and Sawyer subsequently had the warden put the money he'd earned for being a part of the warden's con game into a trust for her—with the condition that she never know where the money came from.
|
|
|
Post by KMInfinity on Apr 6, 2007 11:36:09 GMT -5
I'm another who is confuzzled about the Others' motivations. In fact, that's one of the reasons I dislike plot connections to the Others. I'm still hoping for that magnum opus finale that will tie everything together with great wit and dazzle, but I still prefer beach centered stories about the Losties, their interactions, and their survival efforts irrespective of the Others. Now, I'll be happy to swallow my grumpy caveats if and when the Others turn out to be a decisively integral, necessary, equally important facet of an overarching umbrella plot - in other words, that the Losties' stories simply could NOT have been told without the presence of the Others. But so far I still wish we'd seen a whole different direction with the storytelling after Season One.
This whole "good or bad" issue is a case in point. We still know so little that there just isn't enough context to really appreciate or enjoy the plotting..and I'm afraid that by the time we get around to understanding why Kate isn't "good" and Locke is...I'll have forgotten all the details and clues that made the issue relevant or interesting. Now, I appreciate the type of writing and storytelling that requires "extra effort" from the viewers, but this to me is a flaw of the writers, not of a lack in the viewers. I know too many intelligent viewers who are now former viewers, lackluster viewers, or indifferent viewers.
Maybe it's just me.
******
BTW - according to lostpedia, this is the 3rd time Pasty Cline's song "Walking After Midnight" has been used. As mentioned, it was in "What Katy Did" and "Two for the Road."
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Apr 6, 2007 17:26:08 GMT -5
I'm another who is confuzzled about the Others' motivations. In fact, that's one of the reasons I dislike plot connections to the Others. I'm still hoping for that magnum opus finale that will tie everything together with great wit and dazzle, but I still prefer beach centered stories about the Losties, their interactions, and their survival efforts irrespective of the Others. Now, I'll be happy to swallow my grumpy caveats if and when the Others turn out to be a decisively integral, necessary, equally important facet of an overarching umbrella plot - in other words, that the Losties' stories simply could NOT have been told without the presence of the Others. But so far I still wish we'd seen a whole different direction with the storytelling after Season One. This whole "good or bad" issue is a case in point. We still know so little that there just isn't enough context to really appreciate or enjoy the plotting..and I'm afraid that by the time we get around to understanding why Kate isn't "good" and Locke is...I'll have forgotten all the details and clues that made the issue relevant or interesting. Now, I appreciate the type of writing and storytelling that requires "extra effort" from the viewers, but this to me is a flaw of the writers, not of a lack in the viewers. I know too many intelligent viewers who are now former viewers, lackluster viewers, or indifferent viewers. Maybe it's just me. ****** BTW - according to lostpedia, this is the 3rd time Pasty Cline's song "Walking After Midnight" has been used. As mentioned, it was in "What Katy Did" and "Two for the Road." It's not just you, I don' t think. And while there is nothing at all wrong with still being as interested as ever in Lost, I do agree with you that, on the other hand, having a dwindling interest doesn't point to any deficiency in the viewer, either. It doesn't mean you're not as patient or appreciative of complexity or anything like that. People generally have specific things which attract them to a particular show . . . if those things no longer exist at the same level, they aren't going to be interested on the same level. For me, I was never into the "puzzles" or "mysteries." I had started to get very interested in our Losties, so when the focus shifted, so did my level of interest. I'm wondering if ABC isn't getting the message though. Recent eps have seemed more "Losties-centric," and the Others (mostly) just cleared out! Of course, though, I want Locke back, and Juliette to eventually go away somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Apr 10, 2007 10:01:38 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. I agree - Kate isn't 'bad', but she's not entirely good either. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that she doesn't have that moral governor to "not to act upon those feelings" - of wishing their abusers dead. Is that the criteria for 'good' and 'bad' that The Others are using for their list?
|
|
|
Post by dr76 on Mar 8, 2012 11:45:03 GMT -5
And this is supposed to be a good excuse for Kate murdering her father?
It's interesting. Kate murdered Wayne to deny the fact that they shared the same blood and to prove that she was nothing like him. Yet, looking over her past crimes - murder, insurance scams, the kidnapping of Aaron Littleton, bank robbery, assaulting a Federal officer, etc. - she managed to prove that she could be a lot worse than dear old Dad. Even her emotional abuse of Sawyer made her a lot similar to Wayne. I find that ironic.
|
|