|
Post by Matthew on Feb 17, 2005 9:48:32 GMT -5
Big season-ending cliffhanger? Oh my! And this island actually has cliffs!!!
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Feb 17, 2005 10:06:55 GMT -5
But then...don't you just hire some muscle to do your killing for you? Why sucker some poor schmuck who already has a world of problems into doing it? Too convoluted for my tastes. Given that Sawyer had a debt of his own to settle with Hibs--large enough that Sawyer believed killing Hibs would be an excellent form of payback--I think Hibs also wanted to get Sawyer out of the country altogether, for whatever reason. Given that we see the police hauling Sawyer in while Boone is at the station, maybe Hibs even tipped off the cops to Sawyer's presence and intentions?
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Feb 17, 2005 10:13:40 GMT -5
*Contemplates this statement with regard to the Evil Baby, the Polar Bears, the Giant Roaring Thing, Locke Walking, Michael and his twilight zone powers, Charlie, CFL, and so forth...* Huh. Too convoluted. Okay! ;D Teasing, of course: some of those things are a bit much at times for me, too. But here's a couple of good reasons.... 1. Cheap. Sawyer would do THAT guy for free. 2. Won't be buy-offable, if he things the guy is the one who ruined his life. 3. Hibbs and Sawyer had problems already, as shown by Sawyer's greeting of him: maybe it was to get him out of the country, too. 4. Not likely to turn on Hibbs if he thinks that Hibbs has done him a solid in finding the guy out for him, if Sawyer's captured by the cops, unlike a hired muscleman. Works for me about as well as a lot of other things, and better than some of the gadgets in Alias, is all. Or, as I said to my friend Dan, after we watched Batman Returns together, and he was stating that Selena Kyle could not have made her catsuit out of that single coat: "Dan, you accepted, without a quibble, intercontinental balistic missile penguins. Your suspension of disbelief is gonna balk at a couple of square feet of vinyl? " But then, I am Past Master of Fanwankery... And Hibs was probably gambling that Sawyer would off the guy with one shot, meaning Sawyer would never know he'd killed the wrong person. Which means when the whole thing is over with Hibs has created an example for his other delinquents to encourage prompt payment and not only gotten Sawyer out of a killing mood where he himself is concerned but put Sawyer in his debt as well. If it all falls apart... well, Sawyer already wanted to kill Hibs, so it's not like he made things worse by lying to the guy.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Feb 17, 2005 12:03:21 GMT -5
I agree that the animals are more than just "animals." When Sawyer faced the boar at the end, the boar didn't charge, just calmly looked at Sawyer as if to say, "Have you learned anything yet? Or, do I need to keep destroying your stuff?"Our material things, our "stuff" are much less important than we think, and animals don't need those things to survive. The boar was showing "Sawyer" that he doesn't need all that baggage he's dragging around. Exactly!! "It'll come back around." It seems like the Lost people's issues/fears keep coming back around until they change or face them. And their secrets or 'issues' are going to keep affecting the group until each one of them realize that they 'are not alone' - like Sayid told Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Feb 17, 2005 12:04:15 GMT -5
Because, Hibbs owed "Sawyer" a lot of money. So Hibbs told "Sawyer" just what he wanted to hear, so "Sawyer" would forgive the debt. Who wants to bet that Hibbs is the real Sawyer? I wouldn't bet against you, Nicki! And it would explain how Hibbs was able to con Sawyer so easily.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Feb 17, 2005 12:16:27 GMT -5
Wow - there was a lot of reaction to this. (hee, hee on the horrible puns). I agree with you Rob - these were excellent scenes. The entire episode held my interest. We had the creepy eye in the beginning and a very well done opening scene to build the suspense sequeing into the boar in the tent. I felt the previews for this show in no way conveyed how good it would be as I really wasn't looking forward to a little love triangle show. This one, with its creepy connections and revelations was very well done. The Locke golden retriever story - while a little obvious - was still so well acted that I sat there thinking - here's mr. mysterious, helping the little island mystery along and I know where this story is going the minute he starts and yet I can't turn away. He is a spellbinder. Huh. There was a bunny in "Watership Down" who would tell stories to help the group deal with the fear and newness of their situation when they ran away. There was also another bunny in another group who would tell stories that had nothing to do with pulling the bunnies into the real world. And there was a 'big bad' that those bunnies in that group chose not to see because they were 'comfortable' and taken care of. So, which bunny is Locke like? The good bunny or bad one?
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 17, 2005 12:19:39 GMT -5
And Hibs was probably gambling that Sawyer would off the guy with one shot, meaning Sawyer would never know he'd killed the wrong person. Which means when the whole thing is over with Hibs has created an example for his other delinquents to encourage prompt payment and not only gotten Sawyer out of a killing mood where he himself is concerned but put Sawyer in his debt as well. If it all falls apart... well, Sawyer already wanted to kill Hibs, so it's not like he made things worse by lying to the guy. It's a really squirrely plan though. Depends on too many unpredictable things going exactly the right way . . . it would have been easier for Hibbs to work up a plan for getting away with killing the guy himself. Or if he had the connections, to use a reliable hit man. Like Rachel, I just found the whole thing convulted and a touch too far-fetched. Hibbs wants a guy in Australia killed. So he remembers Sawyer's vendetta. Though he knows that Sawyer distrusts him to begin with, he hatches a plan to talk Sawyer into believing the guy is his longed for target - counting on Sawyer being too emotional about it to ask for any proof beyond a second hand story. So, first, Hibbs is counting on Sawyer going off half-cocked, to Australia, with zero evidence besides the second-hand (I'm telling you that so-and-so told me . . .) word of a guy he doesn't trust. Then he is counting on Sawyer doing no research or substantiation while he is there. Then he is counting on Sawyer being able to pull the trigger. I just don't buy it. A guy in Hibbs situation - I assume he must be a loanshark of some kind, or why kill his debtor except to send a message to other debtors - I don't buy he would hatch a plan like this for a "hitman" type of execution of a guy who owed him money. It's not impossible or anything, I will swallow. But it is stretching the old esphagous.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 17, 2005 12:21:39 GMT -5
Wow - there was a lot of reaction to this. (hee, hee on the horrible puns). I agree with you Rob - these were excellent scenes. The entire episode held my interest. We had the creepy eye in the beginning and a very well done opening scene to build the suspense sequeing into the boar in the tent. I felt the previews for this show in no way conveyed how good it would be as I really wasn't looking forward to a little love triangle show. This one, with its creepy connections and revelations was very well done. The Locke golden retriever story - while a little obvious - was still so well acted that I sat there thinking - here's mr. mysterious, helping the little island mystery along and I know where this story is going the minute he starts and yet I can't turn away. He is a spellbinder. My feeling exactly. The actor is doing a wonderful job with the role of Locke - and the writers are doing wonderfully as well. Spellbinder is a good word for him.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Feb 17, 2005 12:23:44 GMT -5
It's a really squirrely plan though. Depends on too many unpredictable things going exactly the right way . . . it would have been easier for Hibbs to work up a plan for getting away with killing the guy himself. Or if he had the connections, to use a reliable hit man. Like Rachel, I just found the whole thing convulted and a touch too far-fetched. Hibbs wants a guy in Australia killed. So he remembers Sawyer's vendetta. Though he knows that Sawyer distrusts him to begin with, he hatches a plan to talk Sawyer into believing the guy is his longed for target - counting on Sawyer being too emotional about it to ask for any proof beyond a second hand story. So, first, Hibbs is counting on Sawyer going off half-cocked, to Australia, with zero evidence besides the second-hand (I'm telling you that so-and-so told me . . .) word of a guy he doesn't trust. Then he is counting on Sawyer doing no research or substantiation while he is there. Then he is counting on Sawyer being able to pull the trigger. I just don't buy it. A guy in Hibbs situation - I assume he must be a loanshark of some kind, or why kill his debtor except to send a message to other debtors - I don't buy he would hatch a plan like this for a "hitman" type of execution of a guy who owed him money. It's not impossible or anything, I will swallow. But it is stretching the old esphagous. Um. Ok. That's why I like Nicki's scenario (and Sara's explanation for motive, too) that Hibbs is actually the real Sawyer. Hibbs' real motive could be to push James!Sawyer into a darker place - into being a killer, like Hibbs obviously is. I think he would get a perverse enjoyment of turning Sawyer dark where he could be further manipulated.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Feb 17, 2005 12:25:15 GMT -5
I need to go do errandy stuff, and don't have time to read all the comments first.
Random thought:
Jack's father used the Red Sox never winning the Series as a metaphor for an unchangeable fate. Jack quoted his dad, at the end of the episode.
Well, the Sox won. Think it's a message to Jack that nothing is inevitable, and fate can be changed?
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 17, 2005 12:26:39 GMT -5
Um. Ok. You are too easy. (Have you ever heard that before?) I don't know that Hibbs looks old enough to fit that scenario, though. Plus, not sure Hibbs is going to be any kind of recurring character. If I had to bet on it, I'd bet against Hibbs being the real Sawyer.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 17, 2005 12:28:36 GMT -5
I need to go do errandy stuff, and don't have time to read all the comments first. Random thought:Jack's father used the Red Sox never winning the Series as a metaphor for an unchangeable fate. Jack quoted his dad, at the end of the episode. Well, the Sox won. Think it's a message to Jack that nothing is inevitable, and fate can be changed? Yes - I think the message is that people are not victims of fate. Sure, sometimes fate deals you a blow . . . it's the oft-seen BtVS theme - you can't stop the big moments, but it's what you do afterward that counts. Fate isn't completely under your control; but neither are you completely under Fate's control.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Feb 17, 2005 12:33:24 GMT -5
You are too easy. (Have you ever heard that before?) Who's been talking? Hmmm. I don't know, I think he looks around 50 and Sawyer maybe 30. So, I think it's feasible. And I'm picturing you as a snake now, with that whole swallowing thing.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 17, 2005 12:35:30 GMT -5
*Contemplates this statement with regard to the Evil Baby, the Polar Bears, the Giant Roaring Thing, Locke Walking, Michael and his twilight zone powers, Charlie, CFL, and so forth...* Huh. Too convoluted. Okay! ;D Teasing, of course: some of those things are a bit much at times for me, too. But here's a couple of good reasons.... Don't get me started...'cause we don't get a few answers, and soon, and I'm gonna achieve a level of frustration with a television show that hasn't been seen since like Season 6 of the X-files.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Feb 17, 2005 12:35:41 GMT -5
I need to go do errandy stuff, and don't have time to read all the comments first. Random thought:Jack's father used the Red Sox never winning the Series as a metaphor for an unchangeable fate. Jack quoted his dad, at the end of the episode. Well, the Sox won. Think it's a message to Jack that nothing is inevitable, and fate can be changed? Oh, yeah! I totally agree it's the message being put out there. Of course, they were all Lost before the Sox won, right? So Jack wouldn't get the metaphor, I suppose, until he went back home.
|
|