tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post8630937274837521178..comments2024-03-25T19:18:14.047-04:00Comments on What's Alan Watching?: Lost, "Because You Left" & "The Lie": Uh-oh, Zoot skipped a groove again!Alan Sepinwallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03388147774725646742noreply@blogger.comBlogger148125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-70414438513356194632009-01-25T02:35:00.000-05:002009-01-25T02:35:00.000-05:00I've read all the comments, and watched the ep...I've read all the comments, and watched the episode twice, and I still don't understand the following:<BR/><BR/>1) Why do the Oceanic 6 care so much about who they left behind on the Island? Other than Sawyer, Juliet, Rose, & Bernard, they've never shown they give a damn about anyone who is left. I know this was discussed above but I don't think the answer was very satisfying.<BR/><BR/>Still...<BR/><BR/>2) Why are they lying? I know the truth sounds absolutely insane (as demonstrated by Hurley with his mom), but the island moved - there's no danger of anyone finding it. Why the need to lie? I just don't buy it...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-52906022186612664932009-01-24T22:45:00.000-05:002009-01-24T22:45:00.000-05:00Im late to watch/late to post. What's happening wi...Im late to watch/late to post.<BR/><BR/> What's happening with the other survivors from 815. Are Cindy and the children (I think last seen in "The Brig") moving too. The only thing I can think of is being on Jacob's list saves them from this. <BR/><BR/>Also Alan despite Hurley's huge heart, Frogurt might be the only person he wouldn't want to save...<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Hurley_and_Frogurt" REL="nofollow">The Adventures of Hurley and Frogurt</A>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08598807104049022985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-43561945763511061072009-01-24T10:25:00.000-05:002009-01-24T10:25:00.000-05:00Wow I hope she is a time lord.Locke=Jesus right? H...Wow I hope she is a time lord.<BR/><BR/>Locke=Jesus right? He has to die to save the island. He sacrifices himself off island and they have just under 3 days to get him back to the island for his resurrection.<BR/><BR/>The time travel stuff doesn't bother me. I think it's fairly well done. And Hurley was heartbreaking when Ben was talking to him. You could see he wanted to believe him so badly.<BR/><BR/>What does bother me is the OH NOES moments right before commercial breaks. I could see commercials coming a mile away. It's like reading The DaVinci code where every chapter ends with a cliffhanger.<BR/><BR/>And if most of this season is about the off-island people saying we have to get back and then saying no and flip flopping I'll be annoyed.<BR/><BR/>I am also happy that so much seems to hinge on Farraday and Desmond. I really like both of their characters a lot. I would also like to thank DVR and whoever invented it and the fast forward button.Wikes!https://www.blogger.com/profile/17323074695336462768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-56999691803183532242009-01-23T21:41:00.000-05:002009-01-23T21:41:00.000-05:00I think Mrs. Hawking must be a Time Lord.I think Mrs. Hawking must be a Time Lord.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-3268083234994976092009-01-23T14:51:00.000-05:002009-01-23T14:51:00.000-05:00Yes, age is a much better way of putting it, Andre...Yes, age is a much better way of putting it, Andrew, thank you.<BR/><BR/>It's hard to type about this stuff because we don't really have precise vocabulary for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-82562082706610494262009-01-23T13:51:00.000-05:002009-01-23T13:51:00.000-05:00Instead of 2003 Locke and 2005 Locke, let's think ...Instead of 2003 Locke and 2005 Locke, let's think of Locke per his age. <BR/><BR/>In 2003, Locke is 51 years old, having completed 51 years of life and is now working at Hurley's box factory. In 2004, Locke is 52 years old and decides to go to Australia and ends up crashing on the Island. The day that he goes with Ben to the Orchid station happens to be his birthday and he turns 53. <BR/><BR/>After spending 53 years on Earth, either the island or the lostaways go all Billy Pilgrim and become unstuck in time, and the 53-year old Locke is there to see Yemi's plane bring that sweet, sweet heroin to the island. At that moment in 2003, 51 year old Locke is working in a box factory, but 53 year old Locke has travelled through time back to 2003. <BR/><BR/>From Richard's perspective, Locke comes to the Others after Ben turns the frozen donkey wheel, they have a conversation, the sky goes bright, and Locke disappears (to go back to 2003).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-35502082925917261262009-01-23T13:08:00.000-05:002009-01-23T13:08:00.000-05:00Like if the flaming arrows were fired by people fr...<I>Like if the flaming arrows were fired by people from a different time, how come they killed some present-day redshirts? They just said the past can't change the future (or vice versa), but then we see past Ethan shoot present Locke, and present Locke throw a knife and kill a (presumably) past soldier. How is this not changing things? And why couldn't you kill Hitler then?</I><BR/><BR/>Farraday's point is that the interlopers from the future were always in the past and helped bring about these events. There was never a past without Ethan shooting Locke, without Socks dying by flaming arrows, et cetera. Locke was always there when the plane crashed; the Socks were always there when the archers shot. There was never a time where they weren't there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-7583519510970978272009-01-23T11:48:00.000-05:002009-01-23T11:48:00.000-05:00James said...1. The lostaways are the only ones ti...<I>James said...<BR/><BR/>1. The lostaways are the only ones time-shifting, the Island moved geographically with what Ben did but is not time-shifting itself. That explains why the camp was gone.</I><BR/><BR/>This doesn't make a lot of sense. If you know anything about the experience of time, it's DIRECTLY related to where you are (your 'geographical' location) and your speed of movement - you can't separate those things - and I hope the writers aren't trying to do that.<BR/><BR/><I>2. If you can't change the past, how did Locke get shot by Ethan? Ethan shouldn't have been able to interact with Locke...</I><BR/><BR/>People keep repeating this same question in different forms even though it's been answered already many times. Locke DIDN'T change the past; Ethan already had (and always will) shoot Locke at that moment in Ethan's own life.<BR/><BR/><I>3. Could Daniel have time-traveled to the hatch shown at the beginning of the episode in the 2-hour span that he was missing?</I><BR/><BR/>Possibly - but I'm guessing it was at another moment.<BR/><BR/><I>4. The flaming arrows came from the past right? The british soldiers were in the future.</I><BR/><BR/>It's unlikely that the Lost writers are going to imply that you can travel into the future, since the future (in traditional thinking) doesn't exist yet. My guess is that both events were in the past.<BR/><BR/><I>7. Daniel Dae Kim was in the opening credits as a starring role, not a guest role so maybe he swam into the proximity of the island enough to get caught in the geographical shift but not enough for the time shift?</I><BR/><BR/>Not sure what proximity has to do with anything - Ben was closest but he jumped in time, as well as Locke and Juliet.MadMemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13719499288325313334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-28334413235973689042009-01-23T11:12:00.000-05:002009-01-23T11:12:00.000-05:00My thoughts:1. The lostaways are the only ones ti...My thoughts:<BR/><BR/>1. The lostaways are the only ones time-shifting, the Island moved geographically with what Ben did but is not time-shifting itself. That explains why the camp was gone.<BR/><BR/>2. If you can't change the past, how did Locke get shot by Ethan? Ethan shouldn't have been able to interact with Locke...<BR/><BR/>3. Could Daniel have time-traveled to the hatch shown at the beginning of the episode in the 2-hour span that he was missing? It seems plausible that while he was there with Desmond (his constant) that he may be able to directly control his own time traveling.<BR/><BR/>4. The flaming arrows came from the past right? The british soldiers were in the future.<BR/><BR/>5. I like the idea that the whispers could be the time-shifting lostaways.<BR/><BR/>6. Maybe the original inhabitants don't time-shift because the island is their constant? Or their souls belong to the island so they're bound to it?<BR/><BR/>7. Daniel Dae Kim was in the opening credits as a starring role, not a guest role so maybe he swam into the proximity of the island enough to get caught in the geographical shift but not enough for the time shift?guinnesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757365687588309887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-44136686241052627332009-01-23T10:43:00.000-05:002009-01-23T10:43:00.000-05:00Anon: I'm so sorry. I think my comment confused yo...Anon: I'm so sorry. I think my comment confused you unnecessarily. All I meant when I said that 2003-Locke would eventually become 2005-Locke is that time moves forward, and the Locke that works in the box factory will eventually go to the island then go back in time. So, even though there is a Locke on the island when there's a Locke at the box factory, there won't ALWAYS be two Lockes. Does that make sense?<BR/><BR/>Here:<BR/>http://img66520.pictiger.com/images/17701609/z/<BR/><BR/>It seems like you later figured out what I meant when I said that Neil would promptly disappear. It wasn't because he died in the past. It was because he WENT to the past. When he went from 2005 to 2003 (or whenever), he disappeared from 2005. Say, from the perspective of the Oceanic 6, who stayed in 2005 when the island disappeared.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-67891826033670830692009-01-23T07:57:00.000-05:002009-01-23T07:57:00.000-05:00Anonymous, there is no secret; you just haven't qu...Anonymous, there is no secret; you just haven't quite grasped what we're saying yet. The two Lockes (or however many) are NEVER going to meet because we've never seen them meet. In other words, if Locke was going to meet a second Locke, for example, when he was pounding on the hatch back in season one, we would have seen them meet THEN (although there might have been a second Locke watching from the bushes we didn't see).<BR/><BR/>Let's try it this way instead; as two possible scenarios:<BR/><BR/>1) Suppose you invent a time machine 1 week from today and decide to go back exactly 1 week. Once there, you decide to hide somewhere in your house and only observe the other version of yourself (but NOT interact). So, you secretly observe your other self doing ALL the things you remember that you did, exactly as you did them, until the day that the other version steps into the time machine and goes back 1 week. Once that version has gone back in time, there is only 'you' left - the up-to-date, current version of yourself.<BR/><BR/>2) Now suppose instead that when you go back in time 1 week, you decide that you're going to introduce yourself to your past self. *Poof* - all of a sudden, out of nowhere, today, there is a second version of yourself introducing themselves to you, and telling you that he’s from 1 week in the future (and acting all cool and superior). You humor the second version of yourself (and the two of you hangout for the week) until the day when you climb into the machine and go back to meet your past self. When you meet, you act cool and superior (since, after all, you ARE the one who's doing the time traveling) - and you find yourself acting and speaking exactly as you remember the 'future' version of yourself doing - and the 'past' version is replying exactly as you remember doing at the time. You hangout until that version steps into the time machine, and then, once again, there is only 'you' left - the up-to-date, current version of yourself.<BR/><BR/>In both cases, both of your versions existed simultaneously for that week, but you existed only inside the head of the ‘current’ version – the one which was YOUR specific timeline.<BR/><BR/>BTW, if you understand relativity, you understand that time anomalies are not just confined to time-travel and science fiction - they are very REAL. The way anything experiences time is determined by where it is and how fast it's moving; so someone traveling fast will appear to age slower than someone who isn't - the twins paradox. If humans didn't understand this we would never be able to have accurate clocks in satellites, and things like GPS wouldn't work correctly (since satellite clocks are faster than earthbound clocks by 38 microseconds per day).MadMemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13719499288325313334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-17689867496271998102009-01-23T06:49:00.000-05:002009-01-23T06:49:00.000-05:00question: parallel john lockes exist. our "2003" l...<I>question: parallel john lockes exist. our "2003" locke, and our "2005" locke. HOW EXACTLY DO THESE TWO *POOF* AND BECOME THE ONE JOHN LOCKE IN 2004? (or whatever year, you know we are just messing with the years here)</I><BR/><BR/>They don't. rather than thinking of them as "2003 Locke" and "2005 Locke". So it's 2003, and current Locke works at a box factory. In 2004, current Locke finds himself on the island. In 2005, current Locke travels back in time to a point in the past. He's still current Locke, but somewhere in the world there is now a past Locke who is two years younger. And what past Locke does is fixed, no matter what, because that is what current Locke did two years ago. And if nothing else happened, there would be two Lockes existing until either (a) current Locke time travels again, and jumps back to a different time period, leaving just past Locke who will eventually arrive on the island, (b) current Locke dies somehow in 2003, leaving past Locke blissfully unaware that somewhere his decaying corpse already exists, or (c) if current Locke stays around for a couple of years, past Locke finds himself on the island, eventually time travels back to 2003, leaving just one current Locke, who is however two years older than he otherwise would be because he lived through an additional two years.<BR/><BR/>The problem if they just somehow merge into 2004 Locke is that Locke would cease to exist without dying. Current Locke would just be POOF absorbed back into his past.<BR/><BR/>It actually is very simple and logical, there is no time-travel wiki, you just need to think it through. If Locke travelled back to 1900, there would be only one Locke in existence - current Locke who happens to be in the past. So why should there be a problem if Locke happens to travel back to some time when he does exist - especially if currnet Locke never meets up with past Locke.<BR/><BR/>The key thing is the fact that time is a dimension, just like length and width and height. If I exist on one spot, and then take a step to the left, I'm actually moving in one dimension or another. Doesn't mean I suddenly cease to exist. Similarly, according to the show, Locke can now move through time, but that's just a different dimension, he's just stepping to the left but through time. This doesn't mean he suddenly becomes immortal somehow (sorry UAM) nor does it mean that he will cease to exist somehow. He'll just carry on like normal, dying if something happens to him that would kill him, but never just ceasing to exist. <BR/><BR/>Time travel in stories is complicated enough without trying to overthink it - all you'll do is confuse yourself. Just watch the show with the perspective that the Locke, Juliet, or Sawyer are current Locke, Juliet, or Sawyer. They can choose to do whatever they want. But anything they did in the past is fixed, because it's already been done.<BR/><BR/>And please, watch 12 Monkeys. It really is one of the best presentations of the "everything is fixed" view that Lost is presenting.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08196372589248892579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-8160692243930702672009-01-23T02:55:00.000-05:002009-01-23T02:55:00.000-05:00ha! yeah! i get that there are two lockes. and th...ha! yeah! <BR/><BR/>i get that there are two lockes. and then in 2004/5 timeframe these two lockes converge.<BR/><BR/>but every explanation on this thread is *poof*, they just do, now there is one locke.<BR/><BR/>wait, what? "one of them vanishes back into time???" one of them just vanishes back into time? bullshit!<BR/><BR/><BR/>my problem is, and what i have been asking for all day, is an explanation of the *poof*!!!<BR/><BR/>perhaps i have not been making myself clear. or there is a secret you don't want to divulge. or there is an answer you don't know.<BR/><BR/>i will accept any answer. yes, we know... no, we don't... we're just messing with you... all acceptable.<BR/><BR/>question: parallel john lockes exist. our "2003" locke, and our "2005" locke. HOW EXACTLY DO THESE TWO *POOF* AND BECOME THE ONE JOHN LOCKE IN 2004? (or whatever year, you know we are just messing with the years here)<BR/><BR/>and please do not answer "of course they do, we all know and understand that." <BR/><BR/>i don't know and understand that. <BR/><BR/>most of the viewers of lost don't know and understand that. <BR/><BR/>so if you happen to know and understand... would you please be so kind as to give the rest of us a clue? you would be doing this show and it ratings a HUGE favor by explaining what you know and understand. so viewers don't abandon this fine show and mess up its ratings.<BR/><BR/>again the question: how do the two lockes *poof* and become one?<BR/><BR/>anybody?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-30761330245789371392009-01-23T01:49:00.000-05:002009-01-23T01:49:00.000-05:00Fr those still confused, push the 2003-2005 Locke ...Fr those still confused, push the 2003-2005 Locke thing to the conclusion.<BR/><BR/>The 2003 Locke exists for two more years... and now it is 2005 and he's still John Locke. All this time there's a parallel JL existing as well. But, at the right moment, one of them vanishes back into time, becoming the 2003 Locke. And the other one continues on to become the 2006 John Locke.<BR/><BR/>In this way, as someone else intimated, if the record continues to skip there can be a very large number of John Lockes in existence at one time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-88295339603189934442009-01-23T01:00:00.000-05:002009-01-23T01:00:00.000-05:00Also, back to Terminator again: If the Terminator...Also, back to Terminator again: <BR/><BR/>If the Terminator was to successfully kill Sarah Connor in the first movie, then John would never have existed to send Kyle Reese back to help Sarah destroy the Terminator. If she never destroyed the machine, then Skynet itself would cease to exist because of its own interference in the past. <BR/><BR/>Basically, the whole future would collapse under the weight of the Terminator's success. <BR/><BR/>But with Skynet being a machine and possibly only calculating odds and probabilities and all that, maybe it doesn't realize that it can never win the future war, because it has to lose in order to be desperate enough to send the Terminator back in the first place. Kyle said in the first movie that the humans won the war but Skynet tried one last Hail Mary play to cheat its own destiny. Skynet could never be successful with all its time mucking about, because all those events have already happened in its own past, and in John's past too. <BR/><BR/>Of course, predestination theories don't really work for The Sarah Connor Chronicles because they have to pad out an unknown number of episodes, but I think all the time travel on that show cheapens the experience a bit. People come and go like ridin an Amtrak.<BR/><BR/>--RayUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10824273215650527834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-61896632799885517232009-01-23T00:52:00.000-05:002009-01-23T00:52:00.000-05:00Alan,Not only is 12 Monkeys a great example of clo...Alan,<BR/><BR/>Not only is 12 Monkeys a great example of closed-loop time travel, but so is The Terminator. <BR/><BR/>In that movie's future, John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time to "protect" his mother. This occurs because John knows that Kyle is his father, and the only way he can exist at all is to send Kyle back in time to *become* his father, and thus fulfill his role in destiny. <BR/><BR/>On the same token, Kyle was sent back AFTER Skynet sent the Terminator back to kill Sarah Connor, which creates the chain of events leading up to Skynet itself's creation: The arm and chip from the destroyed Terminator are eventually reverse-engineered to become the main research at Cyberdyne Systems, which eventually gives birth to Skynet the self-aware machine.<BR/><BR/>So within the context of ONLY the first movie, the time travel and all its paradoxes are completely contained within this predestination loop. The events caused by the time travelers were always SUPPOSED to happen. John teaches Kyle "No Fate" because he knows Kyle says it to Sarah who will eventually teach it to young John. And the reason he does this is because he remembers it all, as related to him by Sarah. And so on. <BR/><BR/>Again, this only applies to the FIRST Terminator movie, as the later movies and The Sarah Connor Chronicles each open up that loop a LOT more and more, in order to have room to tell their stories. <BR/><BR/>I think the Lost guys have chosen the best theory of time travel to tell their story. Faraday's explanation of time being a string, and that we could never create a new string by interfering, makes perfect sense to me, as does the 12 Monkeys time travel. If the time travel in Lost was all butterfly-effect, Back-to-the-future-style time travel, then no events would have any dramatic weight or resonance; they could simply just be done over by some other twist of time. <BR/><BR/>This is fun. I had a similar debate in December with a fellow SCC watcher, and it was a blast 'cause she believes each change in the past creates a new future, something I have ZERO interest in as a viewer.<BR/><BR/>--RayUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10824273215650527834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-42183536926692841862009-01-23T00:50:00.000-05:002009-01-23T00:50:00.000-05:00@xyz, sorry for being ignorant here, and many than...@xyz, <BR/><BR/>sorry for being ignorant here, and many thanks to you and all other posters ("others!!!") for helping me get to that "eureka!" moment. what you have forgotten is that "until you know, you don't know" thing about the human mind. i appreciate all of the help. and trust me, you are helping a lot of other people reading this understand that which you know that we don't know.<BR/><BR/>so your contention is... once you die... your existence is "set in stone" and can never be changed by time travel back from the future. death makes your future unchangeable.<BR/><BR/>ok. that works i guess. so frogert is subject to a previous termination and therefore a future sudden disappearance because he was still alive when he went back in time. ok.<BR/><BR/>(i'd like to know where these rules of time travel come from. it didn't come from lost. do you scifi/comic book folks have a wiki someplace that explains these things? help a brother out? link?)<BR/><BR/>but that still leaves the question of the parallel lockes. per alan, 12 monkeys showed (apparently) that two (or more) bruce willis' could exist in the same place at different times in their lives as different entities. and poster @christy above stated that the "parallel-ness" of their lives could/would/perhaps intersect at some point and become one again. <BR/><BR/><BR/>xyz, my man! going back to our previously made up timelines, how does 2003-locke, falling from the sky, hook up and combine with the 2005-locke, lazing on the beach in 2004 from his time travel from 2005 to 2003? there are decidedly two lockes in existence at this time. <BR/><BR/>how do parallel lockes combine? <BR/><BR/>or just give me a link to that time-travel scifi wiki with all of the rules and i will figure it out for myself.<BR/><BR/>thank you xyz. thank you all. this has been the greatest of discussions.<BR/><BR/>and my apologies to alan for having to read all of this crap. (you get the emails, right?) so nice of you to give us a forum to discuss all of this. my left eye just twitches when i don't get the concept they are pushing... and that makes it hard to watch the show.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-83380272118499082372009-01-22T23:39:00.000-05:002009-01-22T23:39:00.000-05:00and if frogert does "promptly disappear" in 2005 b...<I><BR/>and if frogert does "promptly disappear" in 2005 because he was killed in the past after his time movement, doesn't that violate the "kill hitler"/you can't change the past rule?<BR/><BR/>were candle and faraday wrong about the rules of time travel?</I><BR/><BR/>No Candle/Faraday were right. Hitler and Frogurt situation is not analogous. Hitler died in 1945 that is set in stone, if Tom Cruise was to build a time machine to go back to 1920 and kill Hitler, according to Lost's rules Cruise will fail no matter what he does. Hitler had already gone down the string of time and gotten to the end of his life before Tom Cruise decided to go back and tried to kill him and obviously he failed. But Frogurt has no future beyond 2005, as he goes down the string of time when he reaches 2005 he disappears back to 2004, now when he is in 2004, 2004 becomes his present and he is fair game to die as so far there is no future set in stone for him beyond 2005. So, to someone on the island who was unaffected by island jumping time (say Richard Alpert) it would appear that Frogurt disappeared in 2005 and never came back whereas the characters who survive potentially will join the timeline at some point. If you want a better analogy with Hitler, it would be if Tom Cruise was alive during Hitler's reign and he built the time machine in say 1935 and in 1936 he tricked Hitler to walk into his time machine and sent him back to the dinosaur age where a group of dinosaurs ate him. That way history would be different because Hitler "disappeared" in 1936 never to be seen again. This was only possible because Hitler's future ended in 1936. This was only possible because time-travel was used to manipulate the present, not the past. The situation is same with Frogurt.<BR/><BR/>Folks, let's not pull out hairs over time travel, listen to the newest official Lost podcast where Damon & Carlton hint that they will be dealing things kinda similar to those mentioned in these comments in future episodes.xyzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671231028003735277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-37686173707560033682009-01-22T22:47:00.000-05:002009-01-22T22:47:00.000-05:00"is something wrong with me if I can suspend the d...<I>"is something wrong with me if I can suspend the disbelief and go with the flow instead of analyzing the time stuff until one's head explodes?"</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>now where is the fun in that?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"Yes, there are two Lockes in that moment in 2003--2003-Locke (working at the box factory) and 2005-Locke (with his knives on the island)--but they don't go on living in parallel forever and ever. 2003-Locke will eventually become 2005-Locke, who will go back in time."</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>@christy. you are getting me close. but how does "2003-Locke will eventually become 2005-Locke" work??? 2005-locke is chillin' on the beach one day in 2004, biding his time on the island since he popped into the year 2003) when ol' 2003-locke drops from the sky off 815. and they merge somehow? how does that work? do you know?<BR/><BR/>because the show so far has been from the perspective of 2003-locke (with some fuzzy visions of 2005's island time.)<BR/><BR/>did i miss a flash of white light in the pilot ep or something? <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>and if frogert does "promptly disappear" in 2005 because he was killed in the past after his time movement, doesn't that violate the "kill hitler"/you can't change the past rule? <BR/><BR/>were candle and faraday wrong about the rules of time travel?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-78780531282004654592009-01-22T22:36:00.000-05:002009-01-22T22:36:00.000-05:00I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Chang's baby in the...I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Chang's baby in the opening turned out to be Miles.Raz Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12517718754597973013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-28598876464450835162009-01-22T22:29:00.000-05:002009-01-22T22:29:00.000-05:00No one mentioned Hurley's best line: when he asked...No one mentioned Hurley's best line: when he asked Sayid if he wanted a french fry (singular).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-78879117710591986092009-01-22T21:32:00.000-05:002009-01-22T21:32:00.000-05:00While watching this tonight and being as amazed as...While watching this tonight and being as amazed as ever by Jorge Garcia, I had what I thought was a brilliant casting idea: Garcia would be perfect to play the part of Ignatius Reilly in the film version of Confederacy of Dunces.<BR/><BR/>But I checked Google and, well, I'm not exactly the first person to make that connection: <A HREF="http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2006/04/leap-of-faith_114437419654824792.html" REL="nofollow"> Matt Seitz made that very suggestion nearly three years ago on The House Next Door</A>, and it's been repeated by a couple of bloggers since.<BR/><BR/>Still, new idea or not, I think it absolutely, positively must come to pass.That Dude Over Therehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16334710299684909080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-63964228518303148422009-01-22T21:31:00.000-05:002009-01-22T21:31:00.000-05:00is something wrong with me if I can suspend the di...is something wrong with me if I can suspend the disbelief and go with the flow instead of analyzing the time stuff until one's head explodes?Lanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15954609919482616108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-16080236564745660182009-01-22T21:28:00.000-05:002009-01-22T21:28:00.000-05:00I've read all the comments and the ones that answe...<I>I've read all the comments and the ones that answer my queries about time travel only hold up if you fixate on the perspective of the Lostees.</I><BR/><BR/>No, they don't. Your example is logically flawed. If a 2004-soldier killed 2005-Neil in 2004, then continued to live his life, then ran into Neil in 2005, Neil wouldn't be screaming on the beach. That happened in 2004. He'd be in the zodiac with Faraday. Then he would promptly disappear, because that's when he went to 2004 (or whenever--not the actual dates, obviously). The solider would remember Neil, but Neil wouldn't remember the soldier (because he hasn't gone back in time yet, and he won't get shot until he does). Neither of their timestreams would be "violated" (whatever that means) any more than the other.<BR/><BR/>I think perhaps the problem is that when you're talking about time travel, there are two things that we call "time." One is a large, cosmic idea of time, in which all history occurs in a certain order, and then you have time as each person perceives it, when they live their lives one event after another, and even if one of those events is a time-jump, they remember things in the order THEY do them, not in the order they occur in the larger concept called time.<BR/><BR/>Of course there are paradoxes in time travel, but it doesn't mean humans aren't capable of understanding the basic concepts. If it's actually so hard to get that fewer people watch...well, then it'll still have many times the viewers that most of the shows I watch have. But I suspect most people will just go along for the ride, they way they have for every other popular time travel story written throughout history.<BR/><BR/><I>so now there are two lockes.<BR/>each iteration of locke moving forward in time. one at the box company and one on the island. same for all the rest of the 815s on the island.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, there are two Lockes in that moment in 2003--2003-Locke (working at the box factory) and 2005-Locke (with his knives on the island)--but they don't go on living in parallel forever and ever. 2003-Locke will eventually become 2005-Locke, who will go back in time.<BR/><BR/><I>It's been hinted that Charlotte was born on the island. What if Faraday is her father or he somehow facilitated her departure from the island when she was a kid.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know about that, but I do think we'll find out that more people are blood related than we know of so far. And I really hope we'll find out more about Charlotte's earlier time on the island.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-45479129246900447642009-01-22T20:57:00.000-05:002009-01-22T20:57:00.000-05:00UAM, I really enjoy your Dexter posts, but the sup...UAM, I really enjoy your Dexter posts, but the superior sounding "the show's ratings will tank once everyone realizes it's terrible like I've been saying" is just irritating.<BR/><BR/>Lost is definitely not for everyone, but its large devoted fan base gets a huge kick out of it. There's plenty of reasons to love it, and reasons to hate it. You've picked yours - it's clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com