tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post8212975310027622483..comments2024-03-28T18:01:28.997-04:00Comments on What's Alan Watching?: Lost, "Meet Kevin Johnson": Ready to dieAlan Sepinwallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03388147774725646742noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-84279074355347428092008-03-28T15:11:00.000-04:002008-03-28T15:11:00.000-04:00was i the only one singing "MacGruber!" when Micha...<I>was i the only one singing "MacGruber!" when Michael activated the "bomb"???</I><BR/>YesMrglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11904825729610838862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-30243002550640561512008-03-26T03:06:00.000-04:002008-03-26T03:06:00.000-04:00was i the only one singing "MacGruber!" when Micha...was i the only one singing "MacGruber!" when Michael activated the "bomb"???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-60567621357599650782008-03-24T09:57:00.000-04:002008-03-24T09:57:00.000-04:00If Michael is the person in the coffin during Jack...If Michael is the person in the coffin during Jack's flash-forward, then why is Jack so visibly upset by this? Doesn't he contemplate suicide when he finds out? I'm sticking with Ben as the man in the coffin.Dan Jamesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15535784125139888866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-50521272604518085752008-03-23T17:43:00.000-04:002008-03-23T17:43:00.000-04:00Loved the episode. I really enjoyed having the fl...Loved the episode. I really enjoyed having the flashback all together without going back and forth. Not something I want every week, but a nice change.<BR/>I agree that you can't fault Sayid's actions, but knowing that he ends up working for Ben, I'm pretty sure he just made a big mistake.<BR/>Can't wait until the 24th.The CineManiachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05597232547026898685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-77460929918986942152008-03-22T22:56:00.000-04:002008-03-22T22:56:00.000-04:00UAM, I don't think you're wrong at all. I think it...UAM, I don't think you're wrong at all. I think it's very probable that the writers are making the vast majority of this stuff up as they go along. It may even be bad or sloppy storytelling, depending on your standards I guess.<BR/><BR/>But like Bobman I think there's quite a bit of middle ground. For me, even assuming they're just making it up, I also assume they're going to try their damnedest to find a way to put the pieces together somehow, and it's just kind of fun to speculate on exactly how they might do that. And in the meantime, it's just fun to watch.<BR/><BR/>It's funny that Brian K. Vaughn is writing for LOST these days, because when thinking about LOST and storytelling, my eye keeps drifting over to my collection of Y: The Last Man graphic novels. I'm not a huge comic book reader, but I think there probably is some overlap between comic book people and LOST people. Comic books is an area where you're releasing the beginning and middle of a story long before the ending is written, and yet there's an expectation that the project as a whole have a coherent story arc. LOST is more like that than most TV shows, I suppose because of the mystery element. But...the story is halfway over. I'm not sure how it should be different at this point to prove itself coherent. Just as "apologists" can come up with answers to your questions, likewise can you dismiss any and all of those answers as excuses of the blind faithful. (Again, for me, answering those questions can be fun and nothing more; it's not meant to be proof of a master plan). I can certainly accept that it's imperfect, and that it could end up anywhere from pretty good to pretty sucky when it's all over with. I'm just not sure what more we should be expecting of it at this point in the story. If we both read 2/3 of the way through, say, Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier, then sat down to try to discuss how we thought it was going to end...would the conversation be different?<BR/><BR/>Usually when trying to convince a religious person of their logical fallacies, it's because that person is using their religion as an excuse to do something that causes harm in the world...alienating the people they love with incessant proselytizing or killing people, for instance. The varying degrees of faith people have in the LOST story arc cause people to enjoy a television program and then chit-chat about it with their coworkers and people on the internet.<BR/><BR/>I've gone on a couple of tangents. I guess my main point is that I don't have to think it's perfect or even necessarily all that good to enjoy it. I also like American's Next Top Model and often speculate about who will get kicked off next week. LOST is certainly better than that, plus it has even better looking people on it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-25872223583509530402008-03-22T21:56:00.000-04:002008-03-22T21:56:00.000-04:00Mr UAM,Sean, while your response is reasoned and p...Mr UAM,<BR/><BR/><I>Sean, while your response is reasoned and polite, it also falls in line with what I think typical Lost apologists will answer to any challenge - namely, that since the show is completely mired in ambiguity, anything thrown out there can be "fit" into the Lost mythology as you have done here</I><BR/><BR/>Well, thanks for appreciating my politeness!<BR/><BR/>I rarely if ever post anywhere about Lost, and I find it amusing if not absurd to be seen as an "apologist" regarding something as unimportant as a TV show. But hey ho, I don't particularly mind either...<BR/><BR/>I'll admit it's the glorious ambiguity of the writing that appeals to me so much. After adding my response I realised that simply accepting that Dharma are "not innocent" because they can't be if Ben doesn't kill innocents is silly. What intrigues me is that the character Ben Linus may well think that way, and that some of the reasons as to why may yet be revealed.<BR/><BR/>I do tend towards the belief that the writers have an overall arc that they are following, whilst making up a lot of the intervening detail. However I have friends that are interested but yet to watch, and at this point I've said that they might as well wait till the end and get me to let them know if it's actually worth it or not - I'm prepared fot the possibility they're going to let a whole set of unanswered questions slide.<BR/><BR/>I am someone who loves ambiguity and paradox, who doesn't believe the world is simply and conveniently classifiable with coherent design and intention behind all. Lost seems to reflect this whilst carrying me along for a roller-coaster ride of entertainment.<BR/><BR/>Like Bobman I do enjoy pointing out where the Lost writing falls down - say the mistake they made in ignoring the change in London phone numbers between 1996 and 2004 in 'The Constant' or the paucity of legal coherence in 'Eggtown'. <BR/><BR/>I just don't think Ben's 'we're the good guys' line falls into that category - you can sit either side on whether you think (a) he believes this himself and (b) whether there's any merit to the statement, but I think to complain simply because neither point is clear is to mistake Lost for a different type of narrative.<BR/><BR/>Anyway it was your misunderstanding (as I see it) regarding the Jin/Sawyer/Sayid non-execution that inspired me to make a rare post, the rest was extrapolation from there.<BR/><BR/>(and yes, the flag was a bit cheap - although pretty entertaining nonetheless)Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14242521617084796588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-67001950986415120182008-03-22T20:49:00.000-04:002008-03-22T20:49:00.000-04:00undercover asian man,While your point is valid and...undercover asian man,<BR/><BR/>While your point is valid and well-stated, there's some middle ground. YOu seem to be along for the ride just to find inconsistencies and point them out; the "apologists" as you say will defend every action as if it were gospel. The middle ground is accepting as much as is reasonable, occasionally scoffing at some implausible or cheap storytelling, and moving on and enjoying yourself. <BR/><BR/>I think you have to see it from a writer's perspective sometimes; making network television that draws in 8-10 million (I think) viewers each week for several years takes more than "consistency". You have to bend the rules of storytelling in order to appeal to the masses on a weekly level. It annoys those who pay close attention when the show stretches and sometimes obliterates plausibility, but in the end it's still wildly entertaining. And if you can't see past the occasional deus ex machina then maybe there's a better way to spend your 42 minutes every Thursday.Bobmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01604050338240551711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-45726416396691824052008-03-22T19:49:00.000-04:002008-03-22T19:49:00.000-04:00I'm confused by the recurring debate over how pred...I'm confused by the recurring debate over how predetermined the full story was buy the writers & producers. Unless I dreamt it, I saw an interview with one of them in which they said in season 1 they had no clue what was inside the hatch. As soon as season 1 wrapped shooting, they sat down to write season 2, and they were like, "Ok, now we've got to figure this out."<BR/><BR/>Not only does it seem clear that they're only (at least so far) plotting 1 season at a time, I believe they've said as much.<BR/><BR/>Having said this, I don't mind much. Lost is among my favorite series of all time, and as much as I'd love it to have zero flaws, I appreciate the audacious ambition of the show, and I'm very much enjoying the ride.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-14404833367651106142008-03-22T17:54:00.000-04:002008-03-22T17:54:00.000-04:00undercover asian man: I liked your post a lot. I t...undercover asian man: I liked your post a lot. I think the reasoning is quite sound, informed as it is by a cogent skepticism.<BR/><BR/>At this point, I'm not sure what my main reason for watching is. The production values? What I mean is, I think I've lost any expectation that, indeed, in the end, all will be revealed and the answers will satisfy. For one thing, the show seems to _posit_ time travel and speaking to the dead, so, I mean, how inevitable (in a good way: simple, logical, deterministic, satisfying) can the overall solution to the mystery(-ies) be. You know what I mean?<BR/><BR/>Best case scenario, how pleased do you think it'd be possible for you to be with any grand, ultimate answers the show ends up providing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-76029480401597838922008-03-22T16:47:00.000-04:002008-03-22T16:47:00.000-04:00Sean: "We've good reason to believe Dharma may not...Sean: <I>"We've good reason to believe Dharma may not have been all that innocent, what with their disingenuous psych experiments and poison gas factory."</I><BR/><BR/><I>"I have a feeling we've yet to find out the full Annie story."</I><BR/><BR/><I>"Au contraire, my interpretation was that Ben had pre-arranged that the order to execute was a fake, and Tom was railing against that order as he (Tom) wanted to kill them. YMMV."</I><BR/><BR/><I>" 'threatened' "</I><BR/><BR/><I> "Presumably at this point either (a) Ben had reason to consider Locke no longer innocent or (b) that Locke had heard Jacob speak was evidence that the island would not let him die." </I><BR/><BR/>Sean, while your response is reasoned and polite, it also falls in line with what I think typical Lost apologists will answer to any challenge - namely, that since the show is completely mired in ambiguity, anything thrown out there can be "fit" into the Lost mythology as you have done here. If the Lost Producers had Ben say "In a war of this importance, there are bound to be innocent casualties," instead, you would be using all my examples as proof of Ben's feeling this way and the producers wanting Ben to be that way all along. This is what Lost does best - sets up ambiguous situations that fans can interpret any way they want.<BR/><BR/>Saying that all the Dharma people are now evil just to match up with the new "harm no innocents" rule bends belief. Even Ben's own father, while flawed, went to the Island to provide for his son, and not because he bought into the whole Dharma movement. Annie and others never showed any malice.<BR/><BR/>And now justifying Ben's actions as "Ben has a very childlike view of Guilt and Innocence" (as others have done) is again an Apologist's creation. We are to believe a character as sophisticated and with as much foresight as Ben is now a simpleton? He <B>really </B>does not believe he is responsible of Libby or AnnaLucia's death because he did not physically pull the trigger, or Goodwin's death because he did not plunge the stake, or Charlie's death because he did not pull the grenade, even though he either ordered the executions or, with his magic foresight, knew it would lead to them dying (Goodwin)? Not credible as a well written character to have Ben so inconsistent with his logic.<BR/><BR/>Two more points before continuing on my March Madness weekend: 1)I'm in the position of trying to prove a negative. Short of Lidelof or Cuse admitting that they never had an overarching story and were making large portions of it up on the fly, I doubt I can ever prove my point. Any inconsistencies I point out can always be met with some kind of winding, meandering excuse, especially when we are now dealing with "god" characters like Ben, Jacob, Charles Widmore, The Economist, who "work in mysterious ways" and "everything happens for a reason." If I point out the existence of dinosaur bones to a Fundamentalist Christian as proof that the Dinosaurs existed, he responds "Well the Devil put those bones into the ground to trick mankind into believing that," and we are back to stalemate. I feel at times I'm doing the same here.<BR/><BR/>2) While any good mystery should have twists and some ambiguity, Lost exploits this to a shameful degree. My main gripe has always been from a storyteller's perspective- how loose the plotting, characters, environment, everything are just to make shocking television at the expense of honest storytelling. Characters behave and things happen on Lost simply because it would make good television, and not because it serves the story in any believable way. The whole "NOT YET" flag on the bomb is just the latest example. <BR/><BR/>I also do not believe I am outnumbered as it seems. It's just that others of my ilk just abandon the show, while I'm too curious to let go since I feel I realize what is really going on and want to see them write their way out of it. But the Neilsen ratings seem to show many have stopped believing in Lost, and drops significantly every week (another 5% this episode). I predict that the next full season of Lost will have episodes below 10 million viewers for the first time, and there is a small chance we do not see all the remaining episodes on ABC.<BR/><BR/>I will re-watch the Tom/Jin/Sawyer/Bernard scene again though to see if your interpretation makes more sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-57198724412964165152008-03-22T15:29:00.000-04:002008-03-22T15:29:00.000-04:00No one else felt they'd been patronized? Their int...<EM>No one else felt they'd been patronized? Their intelligence seriously insulted?</EM><BR/><BR/>A little bit, yeah. But compared to last week, it wasn't so bad. And it was hardly out of character for Ben.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-58598361092953099312008-03-22T13:06:00.000-04:002008-03-22T13:06:00.000-04:00Hey everyone,I have to say I'm very surprised that...Hey everyone,<BR/>I have to say I'm very surprised that more people aren't completely livid about the "NOT YET" scene. I actually felt like I had been ripped off. No one else felt they'd been patronized? Their intelligence seriously insulted?<BR/><BR/>This is the second week in a row that we've been subjected to a gimmick. Why tease us so much? Would it not have worked if a phone popped up with Ben on the other line saying, "I can't believe you actually set it off"?<BR/><BR/>I understand the show is meant to be all twisty and what not, but that scene was like the writers thinking they could throw anything our way and we'll be fine with it. <BR/><BR/>I can't tell if I've just been spoiled growing up with "The Sopranos" or if everyone else was peeved with this too. Am I thinking too much about it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-72649803817767961662008-03-22T09:26:00.000-04:002008-03-22T09:26:00.000-04:00Didn't the producers say last year that this year ...<I>Didn't the producers say last year that this year was supposed to be about "The Ruins" the same way that, say, season two was about "The Hatch"? </I><BR/><BR/>My guess is those plans got scrapped when <B>Cane</B> got picked up and Immortal Richard moved to Miami. So this season became about the freighter.BFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264282750160516858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-57185172584327806272008-03-22T08:23:00.000-04:002008-03-22T08:23:00.000-04:00Michael had only been off the island two months. ...Michael had only been off the island two months. If he went back six months, he could end up running into himself, and Doc Brown told us this could destroy the universe. How could he go back to his mother with Walt before the plane even crashed in her timeline?<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for the silly bracket, I think who came out of the O815 part of the bracket shows just how much this show has come along, and it's a good thing. Sure, at the end of season one, Sawyer, Locke, Jack and Kate would be hands-down favorites. But in the course of 3+ seasons, other characters have developed in a much better arch than those four, and certainly become much more sympathetic to the audience. With a show like Lost, I think if the same four people were always in the forefront it would be very boring.Bobmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01604050338240551711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-23587170284117325622008-03-22T04:58:00.000-04:002008-03-22T04:58:00.000-04:00It's a bit arbitrary, though, to categorize a radi...It's a bit arbitrary, though, to categorize a radio transmission as non-physical. You know what I mean?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-15821126584778169262008-03-21T23:44:00.000-04:002008-03-21T23:44:00.000-04:00My current speculation on the timeline thing: the ...My current speculation on the timeline thing: the direction you go through the time/space anomaly determines how far into the past or future you go. <BR/><BR/>Michael's heading took him back in time to a point far enough where he could be rescued (somehow, by someone), taken to New York, spend time with his mother, spend time in the hospital healing after his car crash, meet with Tom, fly to Fiji, and sail to the Island on the boat, all in time to meet Sayid and Desmond aboard the boat. Let's say for the sake of argument that he and Walt went back six months.<BR/><BR/>When the helicopter took off from the Island, it was supposed to follow a precise heading that would get it there in real-time. Instead, it went a bit off-course and they slipped a day into the future.<BR/><BR/>Suppose there's another heading off the Island such that you go back in time only a week. There's your way for Tom to be spending time in NYC on vacation. Ben can also use that heading to spend a week off-island and come back right after he left.<BR/><BR/>It only affects physical things, though. Radio traffic is still real-time.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15001530336692435773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-76779897822582952772008-03-21T21:07:00.000-04:002008-03-21T21:07:00.000-04:00This 'not killing innocents' seems like a POST FAC...<I>This 'not killing innocents' seems like a POST FACTO, hole-filling development by the writers</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree, ever since Ben stated <BR/>'we're the good guys' in <I>Live Together, Die Alone</I> I've found this toying with convenient notions of good/bad one of the more compelling aspects of the writing. Subtle yet relevant allusions to the geopolitical status of the US in the world.<BR/><BR/><I>Ben had no problem gassing all the hippie, peace-loving Dharma people on the Island</I><BR/><BR/>We've good reason to believe Dharma may not have been all that innocent, what with their disingenuous psych experiments and poison gas factory.<BR/><BR/><I>(including presumably his young girlfriend and her family)</I><BR/><BR/>I have a feeling we've yet to find out the full Annie story.<BR/><BR/><I>Ben also ordered that Sayid, Jin, and Bernard be executed in last season's finale, and only Tom's disobedience saved them.</I><BR/><BR/>Au contraire, my interpretation was that Ben had pre-arranged that the order to execute was a fake, and Tom was railing against that order as he (Tom) wanted to kill them. YMMV.<BR/><BR/><I>He also threatened to kill Sawyer if Jack didn't operate on him.</I><BR/><BR/>'threatened' <BR/><BR/><I>And also shot Locke in the back.</I><BR/><BR/>Presumably at this point either (a) Ben had reason to consider Locke no longer innocent or (b) that Locke had heard Jacob speak was evidence that the island would not let him die.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14242521617084796588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-91213419217289226982008-03-21T20:52:00.000-04:002008-03-21T20:52:00.000-04:00Yes, Tom was not. He was the one who Sawyer shot i...Yes, Tom was not. He was the one who Sawyer shot in cold blood, sneering, "That's for takin' the kid."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-80881759637272136922008-03-21T20:31:00.000-04:002008-03-21T20:31:00.000-04:00Short memory here: Was Tom not one of the three O...Short memory here: Was Tom not one of the three Others run over by Hurley in the VW bus?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-25641816334732461972008-03-21T19:43:00.000-04:002008-03-21T19:43:00.000-04:00And Sayid came out of the O815 bracket? Not one of...<I>And Sayid came out of the O815 bracket? Not one of the "Big 4" - Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke? </I><BR/><BR/>You betcha. Sayid is my favorite character, period. Tied for second are Sawyer, Hurley and Jin. Then probably a tie between Desmond, Sun, Rose and Bernard. (Aren't you glad you know that?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-10537448836742309802008-03-21T18:57:00.000-04:002008-03-21T18:57:00.000-04:00It seems like we're being told, or led to believe,...It seems like we're being told, or led to believe, that Widmore is the bad guy, or at least, the worst guy. Because Sayid, believing the captain's assertion that Ben's the bad guy, outs Michael, but then he ends up working for Ben himself in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-10196799959341894722008-03-21T18:47:00.000-04:002008-03-21T18:47:00.000-04:00I am not convinced that Rousseau is dead.I didn't ...I am not convinced that Rousseau is dead.<BR/><BR/>I didn't hate this episode it gave some fodder for thought and although Michael is not a sympathetic character Harold P. wrung as much sympathy as I could dredge up for him.<BR/><BR/>It will be interesting to see how Sayid gets into the same Devil's bargain that Michael is in. Sayid knowing very well how you can get sucked into morally black areas with no way out; I think he (Sayid) walked into Ben's employ with his eyes open.<BR/><BR/>Ben is a master manipulator who pulls the puppet strings even as you know he is doing it. See the situation that Sawyer found himself in.<BR/><BR/>I tend to think that Whidmore and Ben are both bad. Whidmore through Greed and lust of Power; Ben through the Fervent Believing Martyr who none the less can get other people to make the actual sacrifice.<BR/><BR/>I think that Sayid and our Losties will make the Devil's bargain with Ben, not because Ben is good, but because the Losties will buy into the belief that the Island needs protecting. I think that Ben is the last person on Sayid's personal kill list.Taleenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13465468178554091355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-8680853850882899102008-03-21T18:09:00.000-04:002008-03-21T18:09:00.000-04:00True. But "Desmond" is going to win it all?!? Desm...<I>True. But "Desmond" is going to win it all?!? </I><BR/><BR/>Desmond's easily been the most popular non-original castmember (other than maybe Mr. Eko), and his most recent spotlight was considered one of the series' best episodes ever. <BR/><BR/><I>And Sayid came out of the O815 bracket? Not one of the "Big 4" - Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke?</I><BR/><BR/>In the beginning of the series, Sayid was just as important as the other four. And his spotlight episode was one of this season's other highlights. <BR/><BR/><I>And remember how much people hated Charlie when he was being creepy with Claire and double-crossing the O815 camp? Now he is a Final Four guy?</I><BR/><BR/>And Charlie also memorably sacrificed himself to save the others. <BR/><BR/>People have a short memory, especially when voting on a silly thing like this. The results of the Post contest has less to do with what's going on in the show -- where most of the audience seems much happier with it than you -- than it does with how the Post set up the brackets (putting all the original characters in their own bracket, as opposed to, say, making your "big 4" the top 4 seeds) and how little thought people put into voting on this stuff.Alan Sepinwallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03388147774725646742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-91562590106648481942008-03-21T18:02:00.000-04:002008-03-21T18:02:00.000-04:00Alan: "Considering that the Post set up its bracke...Alan: "Considering that the Post set up its brackets in a way that had all the (still living) Oceanic 815 survivors in the same region, there was no way more than one of them could have made it to the final four."<BR/><BR/>True. But "Desmond" is going to win it all?!? And Sayid came out of the O815 bracket? Not one of the "Big 4" - Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke? And remember how much people hated Charlie when he was being creepy with Claire and double-crossing the O815 camp? Now he is a Final Four guy?<BR/><BR/>I just think it points out how terribly un-thought-out some of our former heroes on the show were and continue to be. It's sad that the O815ers are the new "Tailies" in terms of relevance to the story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-87375530849206658592008-03-21T17:15:00.000-04:002008-03-21T17:15:00.000-04:00I think for Ben all the Dharma Initiative people w...I think for Ben all the Dharma Initiative people were bad just because they were jerks to him (except Annie and I believe he was concerned about her when the gassing happened). As was said by someone else, Ben's innocent and guilty justifications are very child-like.<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering the degree of what we saw was actually what Michael said. Specifically, we saw Michael watching the TV where they said the blackbox of Oceanic was unrecoverable, if he did mention that it would give Sayid and Desmond a big question to ask the captain (who said they found a blackbox from the fake Oceanic).<BR/><BR/>Overall I thought it was a good, not great episode, I kind of wish given the span of time summary nature of Michael's flashback it was interspliced with other scenes, maybe just Desmond and Sayid questioning him (even when you want someone to tell you what happened, its rare that people are just allowed to talk an entire story continuously in reply). I also would have liked to see ghost Walt appear at some point to Michael (I mean come on, even if his dad did become a murderer, I think Walt would care one way or the other if his dad was suicidal).Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305187318382810105noreply@blogger.com