|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 15, 2005 19:48:55 GMT -5
Taking a lunch break and wanted to post two things while I was thinking of it. First, seeing as how my message to this effect got eaten on the main board by HWMNBN: Awesome review Lola! I really enjoyed reading it, thought you made some excellent points, and even laughed out loud a couple of times. It was so good I'll even forgive you for putting the rest of us reviewers to shame by getting it finished so quickly. And second, something occurred to me during my futile attempt at writing my Alias review last night. Since not everyone who watches Lost watches Alias, I thought you might be interested to know about a little tidbit Julia's daughter Anna picked up on. Sydney Bristow, the central character of Alias, hosted a birthday party in this week's episode--and at one point in the proceedings the music coming out of her stereo was none other than Driveshaft. Which has an interesting implication. If Sydney et al are listening to Driveshaft, that means they obviously exist as a real band in her world, making it less likely that Charlie and the other castaways are just a figment of one Lost character's imagination. Unless that character is Charlie himself... Of course, then Alias have to wonder why John Locke looks exactly like Agent Kendall... Thanks for sharing this Sara. It is fun - I don't agree it makes it less likely that the castaways are a figment of one character's imagination, because, if it is about someone's "dream" or "imaginings" . . . people do dream or imagine things that include real people, even people they don't know - I mean, someone they know only as a celebrity, someone they know only through their role in Buffy the Vampire Slayer band and music.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 15, 2005 19:51:47 GMT -5
would you look at the numbers? I might have to start a new part for this episode! ;D It is cool, isn't it? And we don't even have Vlad here. Thanks to all S'cubies and guests who have contributed. Which remindds me - madame delurker, when are we gonna hear the answer about Hurley's name?
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Jan 15, 2005 20:13:28 GMT -5
I agree that they all need to start taking a little more responsibility for their survival. Right now, a lot of them are still waiting for a rescue. How do you motivate people who think that they'll be rescued to contribute to the survival of the group in case they don't? One way is to make them fear for their lives - the big roaring thing. Another way is to make them go hungry. Hmmm. Maybe that's why Locke is no longer catching boar. Jack takes a passive role in convincing people to ban together in the caves. He gives them a choice, and of course, some choose to stay on the beach. Locke doesn't want to wait until they "have" to all move from the beach. He's striving to get a core group together. Is he preparing for some kind of 'war'? "We want him on our side." Locke is forcing people to make a decision by getting people to do what he wants them to do - and like it. Is that a mark of a good leader? In a fight for survival, do we need people to do that - no matter how they do it? I don't think Locke meant "our side," against the other passengers. I think he meant "our side" prepared to go against whatever the island will throw at them or prepared to accept what the island does to them. I could be completely, too. I think some of Locke's behavior will make sense when we finally see what the island showed him.
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Jan 15, 2005 22:16:11 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing this Sara. It is fun - I don't agree it makes it less likely that the castaways are a figment of one character's imagination, because, if it is about someone's "dream" or "imaginings" . . . people do dream or imagine things that include real people, even people they don't know - I mean, someone they know only as a celebrity, someone they know only through their role in Buffy the Vampire Slayer band and music. *snickers at Spring*
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 17, 2005 10:51:33 GMT -5
LOLA! I loved your review!! So well put to capture the feeling I had too. What a wonderful bit of writing. Thank you! Thanks so much, Spring. Coming from someone who continually amazes me with your writing and analysis, I really appreciated this feedback. Well, I have no idea if they actually meant it to mean anything, but I thought it was a fun idea. Mostly I just noticed Shannon entering Boone's room with her shoes in her hand and my brain went "huh, didn't she have shoes earlier?". I originally thought that a comparison would give me more insight into the dynamic between Shannon and Boone. I was very interested to see what it might be telling us about Locke as well. Sometimes I feel like I'm drowning in footwear. ;D I was very nervous stepping in for Vlad, so I appreciate your kudos muchly. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 17, 2005 10:55:39 GMT -5
Lola, good review! I liked the way you picked up on parallels between the flashbacks and the current action, and Locke's Michaelangelo story and his molding of Boone, and all. All the reviewers are doing a great job, and I wish I had the time and focus to comment on each one individually, but thanks, all of you! Shoes, hee! Thanks, Anne. It always comes back to the shoes. Or sometimes, the sans-shoes. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 17, 2005 11:01:12 GMT -5
Lola - Your review rocked! Nice job on filling in some of the blanks for me. I totally missed the clues that we were seeing dream!Boone and Shannon. Thanks, Karen. I actually had quite a bit of fun in noting all the instances and intercutting of flashback and dream!Boone and Shannon. I know! I'm enjoying the eps, but I'm also sitting there thinking - "People, please! Does anyone remember the about to give birth woman kidnapped by a nut running around in the jungle?!" Yep. Somehow the individual small scenes just really leapt out at me. I'm not sure if this will turn out to be the calm before the storm when they all go wonky or what, but I liked seeing it. Felt good to me. Thanks again for the comments, Karen. The cold is getting slightly better, but the voice still eludes me. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Winter on Jan 17, 2005 11:06:55 GMT -5
Wow. I really want to thank all of you for adding so much pleasure to watching a TV show...
Been thinking a lot about the names.
A friend tells me that Sayid means "directly descended from Mohammed through his daughter" and is sometimes used not only as a name but as a title for a spiritual leader.
Shepherd is closely associated with Christianity, and is also, of course, a religious "title" on Firefly.
John Locke was a 17th century English philosopher who {was an empiricist, viz., all knowledge comes to us through experience. "No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience." There is no such thing as innate ideas; there is no such thing as moral precepts; we are born with an empty mind, with a soft tablet (tabula rasa) ready to be writ upon by experimental impressions. Beginning blank, the human mind acquires knowledge through the use of the five senses and a process of reflection.}(brackets indicate a quote from a website--better, more economical summing up than I'd be able to do.
Rousseau (out there in the jungle) was an 18th century phillosopher who believed: {In his early writing, Rousseau contended that man is essentially good, a "noble savage" when in the "state of nature" (the state of all the other animals, and the condition man was in before the creation of civilization and society), and that good people are made unhappy and corrupted by their experiences in society. He viewed society as "articficial" and "corrupt" and that the furthering of society results in the continuing unhappiness of man.} (Another well-summarizing quote.)
Anyway, it's hard for me to believe that the writers aren't referencing these bits. Certainly Locke has been teaching by offering experiences, regardless of what each of us might think of his intentions or methods.
And the crash has removed everyone from their context of experience, making in a sense a tabula rasa, a blank slate for building new ways of being in the world, within oneself and in relationships.
Rousseau, out there in the boonies, refuses to participate in the new society that is building near and on the shore.
Does anyone know any more about this stuff? My knowledge tends to be wide but shallow. I've been wanting to post on this since about page ten, but needed time to chew on it and do a little research--also was enjoying the conversation so much.
Since I've begun to read so religiously, I may just have to join up officially--something I've never done on a forum before.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 17, 2005 11:07:39 GMT -5
Lola! Thanks, you Hawaiian Goddess, you! ;D I was rather fond of that phrase myself. That said, I do like looking at how the flashback and realtime stuff is cut to see if they offer commentary on each other. Sara did some a really masterful example of this with a Firefly episode, and it really opened my eyes. Awwww, that's just too nice of you! I gotta admit, I really like the hurly burly tumble of discussing the ep right away - just after it's aired. So many ideas bounced around and everyone bringing up things that I wouldn't necessarily have noticed, etc. Uh huh. ;D Lola So, is Hawaii still pretty?
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 17, 2005 11:13:12 GMT -5
Lola you give "great review." Really an awesome job. Thanks, Nicki! I was very nervous about attempting to follow Vlad, so I appreciate everyone's comments. I waffled around about that several times myself and I think you are right. I think the cop was trying to hint at it and see what Boone's reaction was. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 17, 2005 11:16:44 GMT -5
Taking a lunch break and wanted to post two things while I was thinking of it. First, seeing as how my message to this effect got eaten on the main board by HWMNBN: Awesome review Lola! I really enjoyed reading it, thought you made some excellent points, and even laughed out loud a couple of times. It was so good I'll even forgive you for putting the rest of us reviewers to shame by getting it finished so quickly. Thanks, Sara. ;D Very interesting theory. Of course, Sydney and all the Alias crew could be a figment of someone else's imagination. And then, they could be just imagining the imagining. And then . . . Eeeep! It could be like one of those mirror facing a mirror things. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 17, 2005 11:21:30 GMT -5
I don't think Locke meant "our side," against the other passengers. I think he meant "our side" prepared to go against whatever the island will throw at them or prepared to accept what the island does to them. I could be completely, too. I think some of Locke's behavior will make sense when we finally see what the island showed him. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that kind of interpretation. It somehow doesn't feel as likely to me somehow, though. I guess . . . if he meant it that way, I would have expected some different kind of wording, with more of a feel of "we all need to stick together now that we know there are other, dangerous, things and humans on the island". Because, why would he be assuming that anyone of the survivors would side with the island or the island people? Of course, that might be something he's seen or that the island has told him somehow. Lola Hmmmmm. Must think about this.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 17, 2005 11:27:54 GMT -5
Wow. I really want to thank all of you for adding so much pleasure to watching a TV show... Been thinking a lot about the names. A friend tells me that Sayid means "directly descended from Mohammed through his daughter" and is sometimes used not only as a name but as a title for a spiritual leader. Shepherd is closely associated with Christianity, and is also, of course, a religious "title" on Firefly. John Locke was a 17th century English philosopher who {was an empiricist, viz., all knowledge comes to us through experience. "No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience." There is no such thing as innate ideas; there is no such thing as moral precepts; we are born with an empty mind, with a soft tablet (tabula rasa) ready to be writ upon by experimental impressions. Beginning blank, the human mind acquires knowledge through the use of the five senses and a process of reflection.}(brackets indicate a quote from a website--better, more economical summing up than I'd be able to do. Rousseau (out there in the jungle) was an 18th century phillosopher who believed: {In his early writing, Rousseau contended that man is essentially good, a "noble savage" when in the "state of nature" (the state of all the other animals, and the condition man was in before the creation of civilization and society), and that good people are made unhappy and corrupted by their experiences in society. He viewed society as "articficial" and "corrupt" and that the furthering of society results in the continuing unhappiness of man.} (Another well-summarizing quote.) Anyway, it's hard for me to believe that the writers aren't referencing these bits. Certainly Locke has been teaching by offering experiences, regardless of what each of us might think of his intentions or methods. And the crash has removed everyone from their context of experience, making in a sense a tabula rasa, a blank slate for building new ways of being in the world, within oneself and in relationships. Rousseau, out there in the boonies, refuses to participate in the new society that is building near and on the shore. Does anyone know any more about this stuff? My knowledge tends to be wide but shallow. I've been wanting to post on this since about page ten, but needed time to chew on it and do a little research--also was enjoying the conversation so much. Since I've begun to read so religiously, I may just have to join up officially--something I've never done on a forum before. Interesting. Like various philosophies, theories and beliefs might be "debating" with each other on the island, using the resources / people available? My knowledge also tends to be of the wide and shallow variety, (sometimes awfully shallow ), so I don't really have any additional thoughts right now. But it does make me want to google names like Carlyle and Rutherford and Reys and Littleton. Hmmmm. Cool. And do please join up. We'd love to have you. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 17, 2005 11:59:59 GMT -5
Wow. I really want to thank all of you for adding so much pleasure to watching a TV show... Been thinking a lot about the names. A friend tells me that Sayid means "directly descended from Mohammed through his daughter" and is sometimes used not only as a name but as a title for a spiritual leader. Shepherd is closely associated with Christianity, and is also, of course, a religious "title" on Firefly. John Locke was a 17th century English philosopher who {was an empiricist, viz., all knowledge comes to us through experience. "No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience." There is no such thing as innate ideas; there is no such thing as moral precepts; we are born with an empty mind, with a soft tablet (tabula rasa) ready to be writ upon by experimental impressions. Beginning blank, the human mind acquires knowledge through the use of the five senses and a process of reflection.}(brackets indicate a quote from a website--better, more economical summing up than I'd be able to do. Rousseau (out there in the jungle) was an 18th century phillosopher who believed: {In his early writing, Rousseau contended that man is essentially good, a "noble savage" when in the "state of nature" (the state of all the other animals, and the condition man was in before the creation of civilization and society), and that good people are made unhappy and corrupted by their experiences in society. He viewed society as "articficial" and "corrupt" and that the furthering of society results in the continuing unhappiness of man.} (Another well-summarizing quote.) Anyway, it's hard for me to believe that the writers aren't referencing these bits. Certainly Locke has been teaching by offering experiences, regardless of what each of us might think of his intentions or methods. And the crash has removed everyone from their context of experience, making in a sense a tabula rasa, a blank slate for building new ways of being in the world, within oneself and in relationships. Rousseau, out there in the boonies, refuses to participate in the new society that is building near and on the shore. Does anyone know any more about this stuff? My knowledge tends to be wide but shallow. I've been wanting to post on this since about page ten, but needed time to chew on it and do a little research--also was enjoying the conversation so much. Since I've begun to read so religiously, I may just have to join up officially--something I've never done on a forum before. Very interesting stuff, Winter! I'm sure you're right about the names/philosophy references. I think I remember you (or someone) mentioning that before. All these clues have got to be important! You must stop back more often so that we can incorporate these references. And please become corporeal and join us - it only hurts for a minute! S3 was my first posting board, too. I feel it's my duty to warn you, tho, it's addicting. ;D But don't worry about that. (Eeek - the song "Cocaine" just started playing on my internet radio. *cue twilight zone music*)
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Jan 17, 2005 12:24:52 GMT -5
Interesting. Like various philosophies, theories and beliefs might be "debating" with each other on the island, using the resources / people available? My knowledge also tends to be of the wide and shallow variety, (sometimes awfully shallow ), so I don't really have any additional thoughts right now. But it does make me want to google names like Carlyle and Rutherford and Reys and Littleton. Hmmmm. Cool. And do please join up. We'd love to have you. Lola Yes, Winter, do please join us. You'd be a real asset. Anne, bouncing up and down at new knowledge
|
|