|
Post by Matthew on Feb 23, 2007 22:51:21 GMT -5
It didn't involve poodles, did it? Eh? Go here and do a page search (Ctrl-F) for the word "poodles" and you should find what she's alluding to.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Feb 23, 2007 22:54:06 GMT -5
Other thoughts:
I liked this episode for further exploring Jack's character. He is really screwed up.
The Others: parallels with Phuket. Why I have no idea. Maybe the in-group out-group stuff? I got nothing, but there were pretty strong connections. Maybe it's like "everything that's happening has happened before and will happen again" to Jack.
The never answering questions thing. This was a defining characteristic of Strawberry's Warren in Watership Down. We've discussed the significance of this book before.
Their taking whatever children they run across makes me think of that Star Trek episode where that art colony planet abducted all the children because they were barren.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Feb 23, 2007 23:07:03 GMT -5
Eh? Go here and do a page search (Ctrl-F) for the word "poodles" and you should find what she's alluding to. "Oy with the poodles already." Yeah, I'm familiar. I don't get what it has to do with Rachel.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Feb 23, 2007 23:10:25 GMT -5
Go here and do a page search (Ctrl-F) for the word "poodles" and you should find what she's alluding to. "Oy with the poodles already." Yeah, I'm familiar. I don't get what it has to do with Rachel. I think it was more to do with me going "oi" at what Jacob went through. *wallows in his cheerful lameness*
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Feb 23, 2007 23:11:54 GMT -5
So the tattoo marks Jack, sets him apart. But it also makes him part of a group, the marked. So did he want the tattoos to be set apart or to belong?
I can kind of identify with him a little in this. Probably why I like the character. Though I have a different viewpoint on medicine than he has.
Groups of outcasts, setting up their own group, from which they exclude others. Like various religious groups, Puritans for example. Like the Scoobies too. Is this the origin of The Other's?
See, now they've made The Others interesting again.
More in-group, out-group stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Feb 23, 2007 23:12:34 GMT -5
"Oy with the poodles already." Yeah, I'm familiar. I don't get what it has to do with Rachel. I think it was more to do with me going "oi" at what Jacob went through. *wallows in his cheerful lameness* Oh, OK. I was clearly thinking it meant something more profound.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Feb 23, 2007 23:25:33 GMT -5
I think it was more to do with me going "oi" at what Jacob went through. *wallows in his cheerful lameness* Oh, OK. I was clearly thinking it meant something more profound. Yeah, expecting more profundity? that was your big mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Feb 24, 2007 23:55:29 GMT -5
Teaser Captain Bunny Killer. He's been brainwashed all right. Jack's on his own. Still not answering questions, I see. Ah, like Strawberry's warren (in Watership Down). Go Jack! Tell off the Others! Tom's not happy about those accusations. Glass house, stones. But, but, The Others started it! Prisoner exchange. The Others "starting it" is, IMHO, the key element here. I mean, if they had actually talked to the Losties, instead of just playing mind games with them, they'd have more of a leg to stand on. And now, they can never expect to gain anyone's trust.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Feb 25, 2007 0:08:18 GMT -5
Teaser Captain Bunny Killer. He's been brainwashed all right. Jack's on his own. Still not answering questions, I see. Ah, like Strawberry's warren (in Watership Down). Go Jack! Tell off the Others! Tom's not happy about those accusations. Glass house, stones. But, but, The Others started it! Prisoner exchange. The Others "starting it" is, IMHO, the key element here. I mean, if they had actually talked to the Losties, instead of just playing mind games with them, they'd have more of a leg to stand on. And now, they can never expect to gain anyone's trust. But why did they start it? What happened previously they had them so untrusting of any newcomers. Why take the 'good' ones? And how did they know who was good and who wasn't. The kids I can understand, but there were adults that they took, too
|
|