|
Post by Lola m on Jan 25, 2006 23:29:37 GMT -5
I didn't care for this episode as much as the earlier ones; it was a bit too ambiguous even for me.
I still think that a conflict, possibly a major one, between Eko and Locke, is shaping up. Locke is a false prophet, his spiritual allegiance is to the Island. Eko is the real deal, perhaps not a prophet, but a genuine priest. Locke appeared to be alarmed, or at least annoyed, by the idea of Eko's baptizing the baby. The baptism, that Charlie inspired (spurred by his odd dreams, that may or may not be the product of heroin) puts Claire and her child under Eko's spiritual influence, perhaps a bar, in Locke's mind, to whatever bond he wants to forge with them. They're definitely comparing and contrasting Locke and Eko. And using Charlie to do it in the ep is perfect, what with his previous interactions with Locke. It was very interesting juxtaposition, wasn't it? But I keep wondering if we're gonna see the good and bad of each of them - Locke and Eko. **nods** She was only thinking of the baby, and that's what she needs to do. [/color][/quote] I know! Not Sun! not enough sayid must have more sayid must have sexy wet shirtless sayid must have noble smart heroic sayid
|
|
|
Post by RAKSHA on Jan 25, 2006 23:33:41 GMT -5
"Spiritual insurance." Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Charlie just feels he has to save the baby because he can't save himself. That's a pretty nice analogy there. Fire! And we're supposed to think Charlie did it, but I'm not sure. Hmm. How much danger is there from a fire on a tropical jungle island? I mean, isn't everything very wet? And can't they just stand in the middle of sand 'til it burns out? Oh of course he sold the piano! I mean, think of the symbolism! And damn, he's kinda right to be so angry at his brother. I mean, woah! He really did screw Charlie over to get his own life set. Give him the baby, Charlie! Charlie has officially lost it. Gone nutters. Bonkers. Wacked out. 'Course, that doesn't necessarily mean that the baby isn't in danger . . . Woah!! Locke smack down! Dang!And now everybody hates Charlie. I thought Locke pretty much "did what he had to do" given the situation. Charlie just wasn't going to "get the message" any other way. BUT - Locke is definitely up to something. If Locke wanted to prevent Charlie from using heroin again, and also prevent the heroin from tempting anyone else, all he had to do was destroy all the statues and open those little bags and let the powder blow in the wind, fall on the ground, or throw them into the sea. Locke is storing powdered destruction, and I'm wondering why, what's he keeping it for? Further leverage over Charlie? A way to turn someone into an addict? Creepy.
Looks like Locke is descending further into darkness, but in stealth mode, unlike poor obvious pariah-Charlie.
GAIL
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 25, 2006 23:57:04 GMT -5
Nicely done, Sawyer, settin' up Hurley with a sweet deal. ;D "Kate sees a horse. Pretty much everybody sees Walt wandering around the bloody island." Lying about the statues, though, aren't you. Dude! Quit with the freaky scary stare! A diapers ad?! ?! ?! With them singing "You All Everybody". "I'm not ditching anyone. He's my brother." Well, there's the source of his anger with his brother then, isn't it? Ok. Dressing with him there? Giving him signals? Telling a cute story about how they "met" before? She's flirting, Hurley! Interesting. Charlie still looking for some kind of "spiritual leader" guy, only now he's switched from Locke to Eko. And Locke's not happy about things. Hee! My closed-caption was singing 'you all every buddies". Buddies diapers. That crib scene was more surreal than most of the stuff that we see on the island.
|
|
|
Post by Squeemonster on Jan 26, 2006 1:06:22 GMT -5
I have to agree with Spring. Libby's "you stepped on my foot" thing is a lie. I think Libby is actively seducing Hurley as part of an agenda. I do, too. The look on her face when she talked about him stepping on her foot, the way she changed the subject and tried to get his mind on something else (like her body )---something's up with her. My first thought when I watched that scene was that she was planted there by the shrinks. I dunno--I kind of hope I'm very wrong. I want Hurley to get some island lovin'.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jan 26, 2006 6:12:14 GMT -5
I have to agree with Spring. Libby's "you stepped on my foot" thing is a lie. I think Libby is actively seducing Hurley as part of an agenda. Yeah, but Hurley sensed something. That was a vital moment...I agree, Rich. Somehow, Hurley is part of some larger agenda. Why him specifically, I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Jan 26, 2006 9:32:02 GMT -5
I found this episode disappointing. We really don't need more backstories, we already know how Charlie ended up where he is today.
I'm also a bit uncomfortable (and this is just me) with the apparent introduction of Christianity to the island. What is it this week, Eden, with Locke as the serpent? Eko is going to save Claire and the baby because he's a righteous and Godly man?
It all feels like clueless writer-flapping to me.
Lola, with you 100% on the lack of certain visual stimuli. A little more Jin, ditto, would be nice too.
|
|
|
Post by rich on Jan 26, 2006 10:04:42 GMT -5
I have to agree with Spring. Libby's "you stepped on my foot" thing is a lie. I think Libby is actively seducing Hurley as part of an agenda. Yeah, but Hurley sensed something. That was a vital moment...I agree, Rich. Somehow, Hurley is part of some larger agenda. Why him specifically, I wonder? After sleeping on it, I think Hurley's wariness (the part that isn't plain shyness) probably has to do his experience of how people treated him after he became rich. "Do I know you?" might really mean "Do you know me?" We've yet to see anyone try to hustle Hurley for his money. Libby's agenda (if she has one) could be based on nothing more than knowing he's the lottery winner.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 26, 2006 11:51:19 GMT -5
Yeah, but Hurley sensed something. That was a vital moment...I agree, Rich. Somehow, Hurley is part of some larger agenda. Why him specifically, I wonder? After sleeping on it, I think Hurley's wariness (the part that isn't plain shyness) probably has to do his experience of how people treated him after he became rich. "Do I know you?" might really mean "Do you know me?" We've yet to see anyone try to hustle Hurley for his money. Libby's agenda (if she has one) could be based on nothing more than knowing he's the lottery winner. Yes - I thought of this as well, Rich. I mean, that Hurley was thinking to himself: "Why is this hot chick coming on to me? Does she know I'm a millionaire or something?" leading to his question: "Do I know you from somewhere?" BUT . . . geez, they're on an island where $$ mean nothing, and they have no reason to think they are getting off soon, so . . . like I said, I wondered about this too, but if I had to bet, I'd bet on the "he'd seen her at the mental hospital."
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Jan 26, 2006 12:16:59 GMT -5
I can understand why Locke didn't force Charlie to destroy the drugs back in Season 1. He was right that Charlie had to make the decision to go clean. No one can make that decision for him. And Locke had every right to be mad at Charlie, who was not only harassing Claire (unintentionally), but had lied to both her and Locke about the destruction of the drugs. But what I don't understand is why Locke didn't destroy the drugs, once he took them from Charlie.
"Fire and Water" is probably the first episode since "Everybody Loves Hugo" that I have felt less than enthusiastic about. I can't explain why I feel this way. I just do. However, there were some interesting moments:
*Hurley and Libby - honestly, I don't see the chemistry between the two and Libby's interest in him seemed a little force; which makes me wonder why she is interested in him. And why does she seem familiar with Hurley.
*Jater, Sater and Jana - whew! Ana-Lucia's comment about Jack "hittin'" Kate was very funny. Jack's response was even funnier. I think that if Kate had overheard Ana's comment, she would not be so jealous. Then again . . . Sawyer seems amused by the whole thing.
*I find it interesting that Locke and Eko both had some impact upon both Charlie and Claire. This little foursome (get yer mind outta the gutter!) might prove to have a big impact upon the Losties down the road.
*I think that religion has always played a big part on the show since Season 1. Only it has taken a more traditional turn with Eko's arrival.
*Does Liam like Charlie? I wonder. And it was disturbing how Charlie's mother dumped responsibility of the family's fortunes on Charlie's musical talent. Giving him a Xmas present that might help the family become financially secure seemed a little . . . predatory. At least in my eyes.
*Fire and Water - does anyone else find it strange that the Fuselage survivors' baptism on the island involved fire and explosions and that the Tail Section survivors' baptism involved water?
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 26, 2006 13:33:41 GMT -5
Nicely done, Sawyer, settin' up Hurley with a sweet deal. ;D "Kate sees a horse. Pretty much everybody sees Walt wandering around the bloody island." Lying about the statues, though, aren't you. Dude! Quit with the freaky scary stare! A diapers ad?! ?! ?! With them singing "You All Everybody". "I'm not ditching anyone. He's my brother." Well, there's the source of his anger with his brother then, isn't it? Ok. Dressing with him there? Giving him signals? Telling a cute story about how they "met" before? She's flirting, Hurley! Interesting. Charlie still looking for some kind of "spiritual leader" guy, only now he's switched from Locke to Eko. And Locke's not happy about things. Hee! My closed-caption was singing 'you all every buddies". Buddies diapers. That is Just Too Perfectly Funny! And how appropriate in an ep filled with babies. **nods vigorously**
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 26, 2006 13:37:36 GMT -5
I found this episode disappointing. We really don't need more backstories, we already know how Charlie ended up where he is today. I'm also a bit uncomfortable (and this is just me) with the apparent introduction of Christianity to the island. What is it this week, Eden, with Locke as the serpent? Eko is going to save Claire and the baby because he's a righteous and Godly man? It all feels like clueless writer-flapping to me. Lola, with you 100% on the lack of certain visual stimuli. A little more Jin, ditto, would be nice too. Well, I'm betting we'll get more Jin due to the scenes we saw of next week's ep. I'm a little "meh" about the heavily Christian symbolism, but at the same time, it's pretty logical considering Charlie's background. But there's simply no excuse for Sayid not taking his shirt off and getting wet. I mean, really!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 26, 2006 13:38:22 GMT -5
Yeah, but Hurley sensed something. That was a vital moment...I agree, Rich. Somehow, Hurley is part of some larger agenda. Why him specifically, I wonder? After sleeping on it, I think Hurley's wariness (the part that isn't plain shyness) probably has to do his experience of how people treated him after he became rich. "Do I know you?" might really mean "Do you know me?" We've yet to see anyone try to hustle Hurley for his money. Libby's agenda (if she has one) could be based on nothing more than knowing he's the lottery winner. Excellent idea, Rich!
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jan 26, 2006 13:38:31 GMT -5
Whoa! Good catch (the red). I can understand wanting to save some--actually all--of the heroin. It was originally formulated in the 19th century to be a less-addicting medical painkiller than morphine. In fact, Wikipedia says: From 1898 through to 1910 it was marketed as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough medicine for children. Here's a pic of a Bayer Heroin bottle. Forgetting the law of unintended consequences for a minute, it is an excellent painkiller. And over time there will be many occasions (think of Boone) when an anaesthetic would be useful. Therefore worth saving. Unless Locke doesn't tell Jack about it, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 26, 2006 13:44:48 GMT -5
I can understand why Locke didn't force Charlie to destroy the drugs back in Season 1. He was right that Charlie had to make the decision to go clean. No one can make that decision for him. And Locke had every right to be mad at Charlie, who was not only harassing Claire (unintentionally), but had lied to both her and Locke about the destruction of the drugs. But what I don't understand is why Locke didn't destroy the drugs, once he took them from Charlie. The only explanation for keeping them would be if he's thinking of them as possible medical supplies. In which case, he should be consulting with Jack. Otherwise . . . Sawyer is definitely finding the whole thing too too funny. And I agree. ;D **nods** I was noticing the similar pairing up of characters. The subgroups and clicques are fascinating to watch as they form and re-form. Definitely a bit much to put on a child. It's one thing to encourage the musical talent and say "this could maybe take you places" etc. but "save us"? Of course, that assumes the dream!hallucination!flashback wasn't inserting that part just because it related to the message it was sending about Claire's baby. **nods** I find it very very interesting. Another way they are doing the "compare and contrast" between the two groups.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 26, 2006 13:46:49 GMT -5
Whoa! Good catch (the red). I can understand wanting to save some--actually all--of the heroin. It was originally formulated in the 19th century to be a less-addicting medical painkiller than morphine. In fact, Wikipedia says: From 1898 through to 1910 it was marketed as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough medicine for children. Here's a pic of a Bayer Heroin bottle. Forgetting the law of unintended consequences for a minute, it is an excellent painkiller. And over time there will be many occasions (think of Boone) when an anaesthetic would be useful. Therefore worth saving. Unless Locke doesn't tell Jack about it, of course. Brainshare! ;D
|
|