|
Post by Rachael on Mar 30, 2006 15:15:41 GMT -5
Plus I made mention of the Henry Gale/Wizard of Oz thing in my review of the episode. Um, and I think Sara may have mentioned it in her review, too, Rachael! ;D Hey, I hardly even read the episode threads, let alone the reviews. I was just lucky to find time to watch the damned episode the night it aired.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 30, 2006 15:22:57 GMT -5
In all honesty, I thought that last week’s episode, “The Whole Truth” was a little better. However, I must admit that Locke’s flashback tied in very well with his issues regarding abandonment, whether it had to do with Helen, Anthony Cooper or Henry Gale. He must have believed that his faith in Gale had been confirmed, whereas it didn’t with Helen and Cooper had failed in “coming back to him” . . . until Sayid, Ana-Lucia and Charlie returned with proof that Gale was a fake. As for the Jack/Sawyer poker game – I wish someone would explain the literary applications of their scenes. I had felt as if I was watching some macho bull crap with both men trying to impress Kate and prove who is the superior man. It seemed very adolescent. And speaking of adolescent behavior, Kate’s remark to Jack that she was glad that he had beaten Sawyer made her seemed like a very immature thirteen year-old. And we’re supposed to believe in the Jate relationship? Although Ana, Sayid and Charlie’s discovery of the happy-face balloon did not seem like much at first, it did provide an explosive finale with Sayid exposing Henry as a fake. Makes me wonder why Henry had bothered to give Ana-Lucia an accurate map, if there was a chance that he might be exposed. And why did Henry hang around to help Locke and not take the opportunity to escape? I see that Charlie has yet to explain how he had a gun in his possession. And Kate looked absolutely shocked by the revelation that Jack had lied to her about what was going on in the hatch. Knowing her, she’ll find a way to brush it aside in an effort to get back into his good graces. One last note – what was that diagram on the hatch about? And will it encourage Locke to become even more attached to the hatch? Re: the red: I think that about sums it up, pretty well. I don't think there was much else in the way of literary subtext. See, I was right there with Kate--I was so happy Jack beat Sawyer I can't even describe it. And I honestly didn't get the sense that their game had anything to do with Kate at all, although Jack certainly used Sawyer's awareness that Kate (among others) was watching them play to his advantage. For Jack, I think it was about getting the medicine from Sawyer by the only means Sawyer would respect--taking it from him fair and square. Obviously Sawyer wasn't interested in the greater good, or he wouldn't have stolen the medicine back to begin with--or "charge" people outrageously for the most basic things. And Sawyer obviously didn't respect the notion that once he left the island, anything that remained behind was up for grabs, even though he himself built his stash on that exact same principle. But no matter how much it might piss him off to lose to Jack, I have no doubt Sawyer will not only make good on their bet but also refrain from trying to steal it once more; he'd probably be more than happy to play Jack for it again, but they both know there's no way Jack will ever wager it away. So now Jack has the meds, and Sawyer at least can say he lost them "honestly" instead of worrying he lost face because someone filched them from him. Essentially, everyone wins. Plus I think it's good for Sawyer to lose at his own game at least once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 30, 2006 15:26:59 GMT -5
Um, and I think Sara may have mentioned it in her review, too, Rachael! ;D Hey, I hardly even read the episode threads, let alone the reviews. I was just lucky to find time to watch the damned episode the night it aired. Hey, you're on so seldom these days you can't blame us for seizing a chance to tease you, especially when you (unwittingly) put it up on a tee like that.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Mar 30, 2006 15:29:40 GMT -5
Re: the red: I think that about sums it up, pretty well. I don't think there was much else in the way of literary subtext. See, I was right there with Kate--I was so happy Jack beat Sawyer I can't even describe it. And I honestly didn't get the sense that their game had anything to do with Kate at all, although Jack certainly used Sawyer's awareness that Kate (among others) was watching them play to his advantage. For Jack, I think it was about getting the medicine from Sawyer by the only means Sawyer would respect--taking it from him fair and square. Obviously Sawyer wasn't interested in the greater good, or he wouldn't have stolen the medicine back to begin with--or "charge" people outrageously for the most basic things. And Sawyer obviously didn't respect the notion that once he left the island, anything that remained behind was up for grabs, even though he himself built his stash on that exact same principle. But no matter how much it might piss him off to lose to Jack, I have no doubt Sawyer will not only make good on their bet but also refrain from trying to steal it once more; he'd probably be more than happy to play Jack for it again, but they both know there's no way Jack will ever wager it away. So now Jack has the meds, and Sawyer at least can say he lost them "honestly" instead of worrying he lost face because someone filched them from him. Essentially, everyone wins. Plus I think it's good for Sawyer to lose at his own game at least once in a while. Okay, so it was about the adolescent-measurement-contest, AND all of what Sara said, too. *Finds himself easily swayed by Sara's cunning use of intelligence, logic, and reason, darn her* Ties in nicely with Rob's suggested Third Reason Sawyer lost the big hand.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Mar 30, 2006 15:33:02 GMT -5
Um, and I think Sara may have mentioned it in her review, too, Rachael! ;D Hey, I hardly even read the episode threads, let alone the reviews. I was just lucky to find time to watch the damned episode the night it aired. ;D 'Tis indeed rare to see you in this district of the board, of late! Welcome! *rolls out huge Red Carpet*
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 30, 2006 15:53:12 GMT -5
Woke up in the middle of the night here, reminded of something that bugged me deeply. One of my personal all-time pet peeves involves poker as a plot device. Not because the symbolism doesn't work; high-level poker is as much about psychology and instinct as it is luck. Therefore I understood the whole Jack vs. Sawyer dynamic. All I ask is for some semblance of realism. Now, for the most part, I was fine with it. The dialogue was believable and well-written. Jack's "reads" in the observed hand with Hurley, Kate and Sawyer were quite realistic, for example. Straights and flushes come up against one another often in Texas Hold 'Em. I've seen pocket Kings beat pocket Queens a few times, also. So far, so good. Then we get to the heads-up contest: Tropical Fruit vs. The Antibiotics (which, by the way, reads like an ear-splitting battle of crappy rock bands). Just to briefly recap, we've been shown that Sawyer has been cleaning Hurley and Kate's clock so far. Even when he lost to Jack the first time, Sawyer's hand - three Queens - was really strong. Anyone would've lost in that scenario. Sawyer has even shown a reasonable ability at dealing from the bottom of the deck. In short, Sawyer is portrayed as a pretty good player. Now, in the final showdown, Sawyer raises with nothing. Stone-cold bluff. Jack, recognizing this, re-raises all in (very nice read, Doc). And then...suddenly, common sense disappears. I hate to state the obvious, but...if the other guy goes all-in, and you have nothing? You FOLD. Any idiot would. I don't care if you've played poker for 15 years or 15 minutes...it's not even a decision. It's like...breathing. The other player their chips in, and you can't possibly beat him. Hello?? Then....THEN, Sawyer acts all annoyed that Jack went all in with a pair of 9's. Ummm...Sawyer, why in the blue hell did you call it in the first damned place?! After careful analysis, I've narrowed things down to three possible answers: 1. Sawyer has somehow labotomized himself with a papaya in the last three minutes. 2. Sawyer has decided that the rational human thing would be to allow the physician to control the medicine. Therefore he allows himself to be beaten by Jack...in front of everyone, no less. 3. The writers blew it. I'd like to think it's 2, but doesn't sound like Sawyer to me. I'd have to lean toward 3. Ok, I'm done ranting. I know it had no bearing on the actual episode, so please forgive the waste of valuable bandwidth. What about: 4. Sawyer thought Jack was bluffing and had absolutely nothing, making his pair of fours the winning hand. As I recall, Sawyer said "that's the bet of a man trying to get me to lay down my hand." And then after Jack's little "I don't think you're gonna lay it down when everyone's watching you" speech, Sawyer could have very well been thinking "Now he's trying too hard to make me think he wants me to call. Or he's trying a little reverse psychology on me, make me prove to him that I'm not that predictable by muckin the hand when he was so confident I wouldn't. Either way, it seems like he really does want me to fold." Or: 5. Despite everything that came before, Sawyer simply couldn't bring himself to believe Jack could actually beat him at a game Sawyer saw as being part of his world--that Jack could essentially out-con him. Or maybe I just enjoyed Sawyer's losing so much that I don't really care how it happened.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Mar 30, 2006 15:57:00 GMT -5
Woke up in the middle of the night here, reminded of something that bugged me deeply. One of my personal all-time pet peeves involves poker as a plot device. Not because the symbolism doesn't work; high-level poker is as much about psychology and instinct as it is luck. Therefore I understood the whole Jack vs. Sawyer dynamic. All I ask is for some semblance of realism. Now, for the most part, I was fine with it. The dialogue was believable and well-written. Jack's "reads" in the observed hand with Hurley, Kate and Sawyer were quite realistic, for example. Straights and flushes come up against one another often in Texas Hold 'Em. I've seen pocket Kings beat pocket Queens a few times, also. So far, so good. Then we get to the heads-up contest: Tropical Fruit vs. The Antibiotics (which, by the way, reads like an ear-splitting battle of crappy rock bands). Just to briefly recap, we've been shown that Sawyer has been cleaning Hurley and Kate's clock so far. Even when he lost to Jack the first time, Sawyer's hand - three Queens - was really strong. Anyone would've lost in that scenario. Sawyer has even shown a reasonable ability at dealing from the bottom of the deck. In short, Sawyer is portrayed as a pretty good player. Now, in the final showdown, Sawyer raises with nothing. Stone-cold bluff. Jack, recognizing this, re-raises all in (very nice read, Doc). And then...suddenly, common sense disappears. I hate to state the obvious, but...if the other guy goes all-in, and you have nothing? You FOLD. Any idiot would. I don't care if you've played poker for 15 years or 15 minutes...it's not even a decision. It's like...breathing. The other player their chips in, and you can't possibly beat him. Hello?? Then....THEN, Sawyer acts all annoyed that Jack went all in with a pair of 9's. Ummm...Sawyer, why in the blue hell did you call it in the first damned place?! After careful analysis, I've narrowed things down to three possible answers: 1. Sawyer has somehow labotomized himself with a papaya in the last three minutes. 2. Sawyer has decided that the rational human thing would be to allow the physician to control the medicine. Therefore he allows himself to be beaten by Jack...in front of everyone, no less. 3. The writers blew it. I'd like to think it's 2, but doesn't sound like Sawyer to me. I'd have to lean toward 3. Ok, I'm done ranting. I know it had no bearing on the actual episode, so please forgive the waste of valuable bandwidth. What about: 4. Sawyer thought Jack was bluffing and had absolutely nothing, making his pair of fours the winning hand. As I recall, Sawyer said "that's the bet of a man trying to get me to lay down my hand." And then after Jack's little "I don't think you're gonna lay it down when everyone's watching you" speech, Sawyer could have very well been thinking "Now he's trying too hard to make me think he wants me to call. Or he's trying a little reverse psychology on me, make me prove to him that I'm not that predictable by muckin the hand when he was so confident I wouldn't. Either way, it seems like he really does want me to fold." Or: 5. Despite everything that came before, Sawyer simply couldn't bring himself to believe Jack could actually beat him at a game Sawyer saw as being part of his world--that Jack could essentially out-con him. Or maybe I just enjoyed Sawyer's losing so much that I don't really care how it happened. Actually, I find (5) very plausible - Sawyer got cocky, and it backfired on him. It makes more sense than my theory that Sawyer let himself lose so he could hand over the meds without losing face. I enjoyed the whole poker sequence - poor Hurley, who has too honest a face, Kate and the ruler, the mangoes, and especially Sawyer losing.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Mar 30, 2006 16:34:47 GMT -5
I thought she killed herself, according to Sawyer's note. Oh, I missed that. Both his father and mother killed theirselves? That is so harsh. No, wait that doesn't sound right. Checking imdb: Dear Mr. Sawyer, you don't know who I am, but I know who you are and I know what you done. You had sex with my mother and then you stole my dad's money all away. So he got angry, and he killed my mother. And then he killed himself, too.So his dad killed his mom, then killed himself. ETA: as fish1941 previously stated.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Mar 30, 2006 17:03:31 GMT -5
Reposting this, because: latin translations (also courtesy of lj land). img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/kimsphotos/lost/243bfbf3.jpgAegrescit medendo - The disease worsens with the treatment. The remedy is worse than the disease Sursum corda - Lift up your hearts (to God) Credo nos in fluctu eodem esse - I think we're on the same wavelength Malum consilium quod mutari non potest - It's a bad plan that can't be changed. Cogito ergo doleo - I think therefore I am depressed Ut sit magna, tamen certe lenta ira deorum est - The wrath of the gods may be great, but it certainly is slow Hic sunt dracones - Here be dragons Nil actum credens dum quid superesset agendum - Thinking nothing done, while anything was yet to do Liberate te ex inferis - Save yourself from hell Mus uni non fidit antro - A mouse does not rely on just one hole Also, Ursus Maritimus = Polar Bear
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 30, 2006 17:53:49 GMT -5
I think the loudspeakers were saying something about the airdrop in so many minutes. Oooh, thanks for the likely wording! So, if this is true, it means that the inhabitants of the bunker are supposed to be locked in when supplies drop? So they don't see the plane or whatever else dropped the stuff, perhaps? So they can't see any identifying marks or such? **nods a lot**
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 30, 2006 17:54:32 GMT -5
It must have been a Dharma trick to confuse and demoralize our group. Good thing we're too smart for that. #rofl1#
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 30, 2006 17:58:44 GMT -5
Somebody posted a larger and clearer image of the map on the door. community.livejournal.com/lostdiscussion/39435.htmlThere's also a version from US Weekly that they got from the producers, and it's annotated. Handrawn map, so possibly work of someone here before trying to figure out the mystery? I'm thinking Desmond. Maybe. Why Latin, btw? I mean, we had hieroglyphs on the count down thingee and now latin. They're just trying to make all the island experimentees learn other languages! Also, are we assuming that Desmond and/or his hatch buddy made the notes on the map thingee?
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Mar 30, 2006 18:01:48 GMT -5
Somebody posted a larger and clearer image of the map on the door. community.livejournal.com/lostdiscussion/39435.htmlThere's also a version from US Weekly that they got from the producers, and it's annotated. Handrawn map, so possibly work of someone here before trying to figure out the mystery? I'm thinking Desmond. Maybe. Why Latin, btw? I mean, we had hieroglyphs on the count down thingee and now latin. They're just trying to make all the island experimentees learn other languages! Also, are we assuming that Desmond and/or his hatch buddy made the notes on the map thingee? And dead languages, too. Not even interesting ones.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Mar 30, 2006 18:07:34 GMT -5
Somebody posted a larger and clearer image of the map on the door. community.livejournal.com/lostdiscussion/39435.htmlThere's also a version from US Weekly that they got from the producers, and it's annotated. Handrawn map, so possibly work of someone here before trying to figure out the mystery? I'm thinking Desmond. Maybe. Why Latin, btw? I mean, we had hieroglyphs on the count down thingee and now latin. They're just trying to make all the island experimentees learn other languages! Also, are we assuming that Desmond and/or his hatch buddy made the notes on the map thingee? It looks to me like a hand drawn map, like some one who was here before, Desmond maybe, trying to figure things out. Maybe in Latin too because s/he was bored? I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Mar 30, 2006 18:07:48 GMT -5
Why Latin, btw? I mean, we had hieroglyphs on the count down thingee and now latin. They're just trying to make all the island experimentees learn other languages! Also, are we assuming that Desmond and/or his hatch buddy made the notes on the map thingee? And dead languages, too. Not even interesting ones. *makes vulgar raspberry-noise with thumbs-stuck-in-ears,-fingers-waggling gesture towards Rachael, on behalf of Giles, Wesley, Spike, Angel, Willow, Dawnie, and just for the helluvit, Daniel Jackson from SG1* ETA: *Or, for convenience, points towards his avatar, and the last word of the quote underneath*
|
|