|
Post by Lola m on Oct 5, 2006 12:31:19 GMT -5
Hey, Karl could have been one of the twelve that got kidnapped when The Others raided the Tailenders. Watching over: Uh, how on earth could Goodwin make it to where the plane's tail hit in an hour? Lack of communication between the fx people and the script writers? Or did Goodwin have a subway? My sense of distance is beyond pathetic, but I do know a strong runner can cover a mile in ten minutes or less; Goodwin seemed in good shape, and would have had adrenaline on his side, so I'd say it's not out of the realm that he could have covered six miles in that hour--maybe even seven if he was already running for exercise on a regular basis. Whether the tail section crashed within six miles of their camp, however, I have no frikkin' idea. Ah, but that's not necessarily through jungle terrain. So, I do vote for either above ground or below ground trails or paths or something.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 5, 2006 12:33:05 GMT -5
And from the invaluable Sledgeweb: When Locke brought Benry a book to read last season, Benry's response was: "What, you don't have any Stephen King?" **snicker** Nice!
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 5, 2006 12:33:49 GMT -5
So, what is Jack's plan exactly? Jack, Kate, and Sawyer walked deliberately into the Other's trap. What were they thinking? "Let's beat their fists into submission with our faces?" Jack seems on the road to being compromised. Or is he just pretending? Color me confused. I keep hoping he's working an angle . . .
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Oct 5, 2006 12:57:55 GMT -5
So, what is Jack's plan exactly? Jack, Kate, and Sawyer walked deliberately into the Other's trap. What were they thinking? "Let's beat their fists into submission with our faces?" Jack seems on the road to being compromised. Or is he just pretending? Color me confused. I keep hoping he's working an angle . . . Right now I have two thoughts on this. First, that the theme of Jack's flashback was how he needed to "let it go." Which, in that case, meant both his marriage and his need to know who Sara was involved with--both were battles he was never going to win, brick walls he wouldn't stop hitting his head against. So perhaps that's the lesson he finally embraced when interacting with Juliet: that letting go isn't the same as giving up. Second, I seem to recall Jack being an excellent poker player. As such, he knows that winning isn't always about having the best cards; much of the time it boils down to the ability to read your opponent and understand how they play their cards. And often you can learn as much (if not more) by losing a hand than you would have by winning it; many players will call an opponent's bet even when they suspect they're beaten simply to confirm that suspicion, filing away the info to use when playing more important hands deeper into the game. So, our doc may not be broken just yet.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Oct 5, 2006 12:59:03 GMT -5
I keep hoping he's working an angle . . . Right now I have two thoughts on this. First, that the theme of Jack's flashback was how he needed to "let it go." Which, in that case, meant both his marriage and his need to know who Sara was involved with--both were battles he was never going to win, brick walls he wouldn't stop hitting his head against. So perhaps that's the lesson he finally embraced when interacting with Juliet: that letting go isn't the same as giving up. Second, I seem to recall Jack being an excellent poker player. As such, he knows that winning isn't always about having the best cards; much of the time it boils down to the ability to read your opponent and understand how they play their cards. And often you can learn as much (if not more) by losing a hand than you would have by winning it; many players will call an opponent's bet even when they suspect they're beaten simply to confirm that suspicion, filing away the info to use when playing more important hands deeper into the game. So, our doc may not be broken just yet. Good thoughts. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 5, 2006 14:18:59 GMT -5
So, what is Jack's plan exactly? Jack, Kate, and Sawyer walked deliberately into the Other's trap. What were they thinking? "Let's beat their fists into submission with our faces?" Jack seems on the road to being compromised. Or is he just pretending? Color me confused. I haven't noticed that any of these guys are A-1 with the planning. You want a plan, you get Sayid to look it over for you. And Locke. And I'd say not pretending, but not that far gone, either. He needed to eat, and he wanted some information they had. But I doubt very much he's close to crossing over to the other side.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Oct 5, 2006 15:04:48 GMT -5
I keep hoping he's working an angle . . . Right now I have two thoughts on this. First, that the theme of Jack's flashback was how he needed to "let it go." Which, in that case, meant both his marriage and his need to know who Sara was involved with--both were battles he was never going to win, brick walls he wouldn't stop hitting his head against. So perhaps that's the lesson he finally embraced when interacting with Juliet: that letting go isn't the same as giving up. Second, I seem to recall Jack being an excellent poker player. As such, he knows that winning isn't always about having the best cards; much of the time it boils down to the ability to read your opponent and understand how they play their cards. And often you can learn as much (if not more) by losing a hand than you would have by winning it; many players will call an opponent's bet even when they suspect they're beaten simply to confirm that suspicion, filing away the info to use when playing more important hands deeper into the game. So, our doc may not be broken just yet. Letting go isn't the same as giving up, definitely. Good way to put it - and Jack asking Juliet if Sara was happy showed him letting go of something that he really, really needed to let go of. But I am hoping that as for the rest, Jack is playing (being a poker player) with Juliet, not truly trusting her. Because that would be giving up.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Oct 5, 2006 15:11:51 GMT -5
Now this name - Juliet. Is she going to die for love? Is Jack her Romeo? She did eat of the same grilled cheese sandwich . . . that's not quite what Romeo & Juliet did . . .
Is it like the Others are the Capulets, and the Losties are the Montagues? Jack & Juliet - forbidden love? Yeee.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Oct 5, 2006 15:22:10 GMT -5
So, what the flapadoodle is the title supposed to signify?
The two different jailing conditions: aquarium and bear cages?
Juliet's resemblence to Sara?
The Others' community as opposed to the Lostaways?
Jack finally getting the hell over it, and being all noble and sacrificing his death-grip on his ex?
Or was it just randomly titled by throwing a dart at someone's Harvard Classics Collection bookshelf?
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Oct 5, 2006 15:35:01 GMT -5
So, what the flapadoodle is the title supposed to signify? The two different jailing conditions: aquarium and bear cages? Juliet's resemblence to Sara? The Others' community as opposed to the Lostaways? Jack finally getting the hell over it, and being all noble and sacrificing his death-grip on his ex? Or was it just randomly titled by throwing a dart at someone's Harvard Classics Collection bookshelf? It's surely not a random dart . . . Tale of Two Cities . . . Christlike sacrifice . . . transformation . . . oppression, excesses in response to oppression . . . . two groups, two locales, doubles . . . comparing, contrasting . . . the French Revolution - overthrowing oppressors but in the process becoming as bad as they are . . . controversy, gray areas, ends-and-means . . . Uhm . . . well, if I was analyzing the ep, I'd try to think it out, but . . . hmmm . . . we do have a "double" of a sort, (ala Sidney Carton and . . . what's his name) when it comes to Juliet and Sara . . .? PZZZT _BZZZT_ CRRRRK! My brain is overloading.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 5, 2006 16:14:10 GMT -5
So, what the flapadoodle is the title supposed to signify? The two different jailing conditions: aquarium and bear cages? Juliet's resemblence to Sara? The Others' community as opposed to the Lostaways? Jack finally getting the hell over it, and being all noble and sacrificing his death-grip on his ex? Or was it just randomly titled by throwing a dart at someone's Harvard Classics Collection bookshelf? You know, maybe it's just me, but I don't think Juliet and Sarah look anything alike, apart from being blonde. [/random] And I'm going with the opening sentence of the novel being significant. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity"...etc. etc. and so on. Why? I have no idea, except that it's about a single moment in time being characterized by seeming contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Oct 5, 2006 19:18:29 GMT -5
So, what the flapadoodle is the title supposed to signify? The two different jailing conditions: aquarium and bear cages? Juliet's resemblence to Sara? The Others' community as opposed to the Lostaways? Jack finally getting the hell over it, and being all noble and sacrificing his death-grip on his ex? Or was it just randomly titled by throwing a dart at someone's Harvard Classics Collection bookshelf? You know, maybe it's just me, but I don't think Juliet and Sarah look anything alike, apart from being blonde.[/random] And I'm going with the opening sentence of the novel being significant. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity"...etc. etc. and so on. Why? I have no idea, except that it's about a single moment in time being characterized by seeming contradiction. Me neither:
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 5, 2006 19:22:23 GMT -5
You know, maybe it's just me, but I don't think Juliet and Sarah look anything alike, apart from being blonde.[/random] And I'm going with the opening sentence of the novel being significant. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity"...etc. etc. and so on. Why? I have no idea, except that it's about a single moment in time being characterized by seeming contradiction. Me neither: Hey, "Sarah" is also "Denise" from Boston Legal....
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Oct 5, 2006 19:37:19 GMT -5
You know, maybe it's just me, but I don't think Juliet and Sarah look anything alike, apart from being blonde.[/random] And I'm going with the opening sentence of the novel being significant. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity"...etc. etc. and so on. Why? I have no idea, except that it's about a single moment in time being characterized by seeming contradiction. Me neither: Do too! They both have light-colored hair, uh, two eyes, um, one nose, ah, two cheeks, two lips, a neck.... Granted, they aren't all exactly the same size or shape, but they're in the same general location!
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Oct 5, 2006 19:53:12 GMT -5
Me neither: Do too! They both have light-colored hair, uh, two eyes, um, one nose, ah, two cheeks, two lips, a neck.... Granted, they aren't all exactly the same size or shape, but they're in the same general location! They aren't twins by any means, but they look alike to me - they look alike in these pictures, e.g. Shape of face, smile, cheekbones, hair . . . they look a like. I would believe they were sisters.
|
|