|
Post by Lola m on Mar 30, 2006 18:09:28 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. Very nice tie-in with the flashback; really helping us to see more of why Locke is the way he is now. The poker game thing was meant to be very adolescent, I think. I loved that they had the others watching them through binoculars and then Jack actually refers to the fact that they're being watched. ;D I also think the show wants us to see a complex tangle of relationships among Jack and Kate and Ana L and Sawyer and so on and so on. I'm not sure I always buy the actions and motivations, but then again, people do often do very wacky things. This is a very good question. I tend to think he was expecting that they'd find the balloon and just believe him, thereby giving him an in with the group and helping him stir up trouble. BUT, I am also wondering if he figured on being discovered all along - if this is part of his plan. Somehow the part where he extracted the promise from Locke that he'd protect him against all the others if need be seems to point to him thinking he'd need that complete protection. Whether or not Locke will keep his word, though . . . It's very suspicious that Locke is the one who keeps seeing these things. I lean toward it being something that was there already, but added to by Desmond and the guy who was there before him - perhaps as they explored the surrounding area?
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 30, 2006 18:10:40 GMT -5
Jack. tsk. tsk. Bum chica wawa! Airdrop! Henry was waiting for the Air Drop, and that's how he got caught? It's *your* hatch. Yep, Sayid dug up the grave. Sayid who objected to the dead on the airplane just being burned rather than observing each respective religious rites. No woman, but a man! The real Henry Gale!!! OMG!! Ayup. Hey, has anyone ever mentioned that Henry Gale was Dorothy's uncle's name in The Wizard of Oz? Yup! When he was first introduced.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 30, 2006 18:17:15 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. And I think part of it was Jack realising he had a skill at something that could outmatch Sawyer in a non-violent way - one that would work with Sawyer, that he'd respect (hate, but respect). Even though using it meant he had to give out some information about himself that he clearly wants not to share. I mean, he didn't say much, didn't answer Sawyer's questions for the most part. But now it's out there and Sawyer and others will likely start digging.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 30, 2006 18:19:16 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 The one I find particularly significant is "a mouse does not rely on just one hole".
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Mar 30, 2006 18:24:24 GMT -5
Well, they had achieved their goal if they meant it to be adolescent. I still disliked it. And I disliked Kate's slide into immaturity when she told Jack that she was glad that he won. She sounded like a junior high school student.
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Mar 30, 2006 18:58:54 GMT -5
I want to know where the hell Michael is, or Desmond for that matter. Have not heard from him since the first episode of the freaking year. It has been what 4 eps or now since michael vanished, and not a trace or sign of him. God this show frustrates me so much, but it really is a damn good show. I really really really want to see Michael again. I want to know what he's discovered about the Others, what he's been doing, etc. I just have this feeling he's done some excellent sleuthing around and might have important info for us all! I'm kinda worried when we find him he will have been captured by the others already, being held in his own cell and still not seen walt.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 30, 2006 19:19:10 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. I agree, it made no sense. I can fan-wank it a bit, saying that we are to believe that Sawyer - paralleling what is going on with Locke and Jack - is just so into wanting to "best" Jack, that he takes a chance he wouldn't normally take. You know how "Henry" was working on Locke, kinda psyching him out with the "maybe we should call JACK" stuff? Something like that. In other words, Sawyer KNOWS the odds are against him, he has a terrible hand, but he's too overwhelmed by the need to beat Jack that he takes a wild shot at it - because he's letting his ego and emotion take over, not his brain. I would believe my own theory better if it was played more that way - you know, Sawyer seeming very single-minded and desperate - but Sawyer just didn't seem all that far gone.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 30, 2006 19:28:44 GMT -5
But - you're suggesting that Bogus-Henry knew ahead of time that he might need a cover story, so he made the pretty grave for Real Henry? Very pre-cognitive of him, unless he planned to get himself kidnapped . . . no . . . it's not impossible, but not making a lot of sense to me, that he would make a pretty grave knowing, or thinking he might, need a cover story. Only speculating, but I think dude's plan was for Rousseau to catch him, so he can cause trouble within the ranks...or something. The man clearly had an agenda. On the other hand, why would someone so ruthless and cunning be dumb enough to leave the guy's ID to be found? Nah, it doesn't wash for me either. Of course, "Lost" is going to have so many holes by the time it's over, maybe I should just resign myself and go with it. Clearly a lot of questions won't be answered any time soon...if at all. Yes - that's what I meant by "unless he planned to get himself kidnapped." It isn't absolutely unbelievable, but I think it's kinda awkward. I wouldn't care for such a storyline; I'd like it better if we learned some "real" explanation as to why Bogus-Henry buried Real-Henry with such respect. I do agree that leaving the ID with Real-Henry was a dumb thing to do, if Bogus-Henry had a plan. He really couldn't count on them not digging the grave up. Plus, if he KNEW he'd be questioned and have to come up with a story, why not plan to say, "My name is Joe Schmoe, my friend Henry Gale and I crashed on this island in a balloon. He became ill and died, and I buried him."That story would be hard to disprove. With that story, "Joe Schmoe" wouldn't have had a thing to worry about. No - I think he was making it up as he went along. He decide to use Real-Henry's name because, for some reason, he doesn't want them to know his real name. So he just picked the first name that came to him - the name of the guy he buried (for whatever reason) near a balloon. Then, he's stuck. He can't tell a story that includes a buried Henry Gale. So he makes up the wifey story, hoping they won't dig the grave up.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 30, 2006 19:40:02 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. But then, why would he be so surprised that Jack had something as measley as a pair of nines? I like this theory!!
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Mar 30, 2006 20:33:11 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 The one I find particularly significant is "a mouse does not rely on just one hole". Definitely interesting. At least it didn't say "Quando Omni Flunkas Moritati" - "When all else fails play dead", the motto of Possum Lodge. Yes, I know it isn't correct Latin, but what do you expect from possums?
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 30, 2006 20:46:07 GMT -5
What about: 4. Sawyer thought Jack was bluffing and had absolutely nothing, making his pair of fours the winning hand. But then, why would he be so surprised that Jack had something as measley as a pair of nines?<snipped for space> I like this theory!! Because usually when someone goes all-in in that situation--ie one-on-one to decide the game--they're either going to have a strong hand, like a pair of face cards, or be completely bluffing. What they're not going to have is a smallish pair that's not even the best possible pair you can make with the community cards. Which was the case here, as I seem to recall seeing at least one face card among the ones they were looking at. Essentially, you don't expect someone to bet all the marbles on a hand when they already know there's an excellent chance they're already beaten. Or at least that's my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 30, 2006 21:07:57 GMT -5
But then, why would he be so surprised that Jack had something as measley as a pair of nines?<snipped for space> I like this theory!! Because usually when someone goes all-in in that situation--ie one-on-one to decide the game--they're either going to have a strong hand, like a pair of face cards, or be completely bluffing. What they're not going to have is a smallish pair that's not even the best possible pair you can make with the community cards. Which was the case here, as I seem to recall seeing at least one face card among the ones they were looking at. Essentially, you don't expect someone to bet all the marbles on a hand when they already know there's an excellent chance they're already beaten. Or at least that's my take on it. I concede right off the bat that I don't know enough about poker to feel sure about anything - but I don't understand this argument. You're bluffing if you act like you've got a great hand, but, in fact, you don't have a great hand. It's hard for me to buy the idea that Sawyer would be surprised by a pair of nines, but not by, say, a 3 of spades and an 7 of clubs. If you're a "bluffer" - wouldn't you be just as willing to bluff, with either hand?
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Mar 30, 2006 22:20:56 GMT -5
The real Henry Gale could have died of natural causes, "infection," or accident. Perhaps killed on impact?
Charlie must be Sayid's minion after the "have you forgotten" conversation at the end of One of Them, which would explain why he tailed along on the balloon search.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Mar 30, 2006 23:25:28 GMT -5
I concede right off the bat that I don't know enough about poker to feel sure about anything - but I don't understand this argument. You're bluffing if you act like you've got a great hand, but, in fact, you don't have a great hand. It's hard for me to buy the idea that Sawyer would be surprised by a pair of nines, but not by, say, a 3 of spades and an 7 of clubs. If you're a "bluffer" - wouldn't you be just as willing to bluff, with either hand? Sorry--I didn't explain as thoroughly as I could have. When you're playing poker, winning a given hand often has as much to do with how you bet as with what cards you have. And when one player has a majority of the chips, that player can use their advantage to force other players to give up on their hands--the richer player can make the risk bigger than the potential reward. Conversely, while the richer player can use their leverage to force the other player(s) to fold, they do have to be a little cautious--even though losing an all-in bet wouldn't put the richer player out of the game, it would double the winner's chips, thereby making for a more level playing field. So the richer player also needs to consider what the odds are, given what's in play on the board, that the other guy has the best hand. Sometimes they'll decide it is worth testing their luck with a substandard hand like a pair of nines, but normally only if they don't have to bet all that much more of their overall winnings to stay in the hand. It's also important to keep in mind that if you have some kind of hand--like a small pair--and bet big, you're not really bluffing because you do in fact have a chance to win once everyone's hole cards are revealed. Yes, you're representing a good hand when you in fact have but a very slim chance of coming out the winner, but you're still doing it knowing there are hands your cards can beat. A bluff is what you do when the only way you can possibly win the hand is to get everyone else to fold--you have no pair, no flush, no straight, nothing that could beat even a pair of twos. Finally, there's the matter of a player going all in. When that happens, 99 times out of a hundred it's because the player is either certain they have the winning hand, or they a) know that when those hole cards are revealed they're gonna lose and b) sense that the other player has a good hand but not an unbeatable one. Either way, it's about confidence--either in the unbeatableness of your hand or in the beatableness of your opponent's. And given human nature, most people are more likely to take a chance when they believe the odds are in their favor--they'd rather feel pretty certain that they're the strongest rather than simply hope someone else is weaker. Which brings us to Jack and Sawyer. As Sawyer assessed that final hand, he was thinking there were two possibilities: Jack had "the nuts," ie the best possible hand given what's in play, or knew he couldn't win the hand short of using his chip advantage to force Sawyer to risk the entire game on whatever he was holding. Sawyer's pair of fours is a losing hand most of the time, but obviously more than enough to win when your opponent has bupkus. So Sawyer bet believing Jack had nothing, and that Jack believed an all-in bet was the only way he'd win the hand. Making that bet with a pair of nines implies Jack was pretty confident his nines would actually win, despite knowing how very many hands Sawyer could have had that would be better than that pair--and despite having cards in front of him that would indeed make for a better hand if paired by one of Sawyer's hole cards. And most people simply aren't going to have that much confidence in that particular hand. Does this make any more sense, or am I still talking in circles?
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Mar 31, 2006 3:40:57 GMT -5
But then, why would he be so surprised that Jack had something as measley as a pair of nines?<snipped for space> I like this theory!! Because usually when someone goes all-in in that situation--ie one-on-one to decide the game--they're either going to have a strong hand, like a pair of face cards, or be completely bluffing. What they're not going to have is a smallish pair that's not even the best possible pair you can make with the community cards. Which was the case here, as I seem to recall seeing at least one face card among the ones they were looking at. Essentially, you don't expect someone to bet all the marbles on a hand when they already know there's an excellent chance they're already beaten. Or at least that's my take on it. I guess that's a good a reasoning as any. Sometimes players can tie themselves in knots, especially if they feel frustrated by previous losing. Jack clearly had the mental edge at that juncture, having beaten Sawyer at every turn beforehand. Perhaps that bit of "table talk" set Sawyer off. I've taken a day to think about this (yes, I really AM that pathetic), and to me the only realistic scenario involves Sawyer just plain giving up, like a defeated child grabbing his ball and running home.
|
|