Didn't like the ep? Tell us why. :biggrin:






This thread is for those that did NOT like the episode. If you liked the ep please visit the "Loved it!!!" thread. If you want to debate the episode (likes and dislikes), then please take your comments to the "Rate The Episode" thread or The "Discuss The Episode" thread. Any off topic posts will be deleted and possibly warned or given infraction points.

Okay, I'll go first.

We saw a lot of fragments. A lot of bits and pieces with a lot of dramatic tension in them. But, we didn't feel the story went forwards too much. Many plot holes and missing pieces.

We hope that the story goes forward in two weeks when the show continues.
Until then, let the speculations and theories begin.

On a positive note, the previews looked pretty good.

THIS EPISODE WAS ... AWFUL. It was like someone kept leaning on the 'forward chapter' button on the DVD remote and having crippling ADD at the same time.

The only thing I have to say to the writers is that I used to love this show... now I love HATING it... I guess you win after all.

For the entire episode I kept asking myself what the point of it all was. Why were we spending so much time with characters we didn't even know? Amy, Paul, this baby (that I kept thinking had to be someone significant but now I'm not so sure) Horace who we know but barely. And then finally in the last minute, Horace asks this question about whether you can get over someone in three years and then I went oh, you're kidding me. That entire 42 minutes was spent on setting up this single line so Sawyer would see Kate in the next scene? That's it? 42 minutes of filler for a Sawyer/Kate reunion that only a fraction of the viewing audience even cares about? No offense to skaters (I'm completely indifferent to these ships trust me) but aside from that, what was the point of this episode? I feel like I was supposed to care about "Amy and Paul" when seriously I couldn't give a toss since I didn't even know who they were. I thought they were done with the filler and every episode from here on out was supposed to explain things and move the story along.

The only thing I have to say to the writers is that I used to love this show... now I love HATING it... I guess you win after all.

Oh word. But at least hating it is half the fun.

It just felt very forced. So Juliet and Sawyer ironed their hair and mellowed out on pot for three years. Yawn...

Horace Goodspeed, a bit of a cult character around my parts, was disappointing and seemed really OOC. Why wouldn't they have the actor style his hair to match up with how he looked when he greeted Ben's arrival in "The Man Behind The Curtain?" And I guess they couldn't get Samantha Mathis to return, so they had to come up with a new character to be his wife.

It's like they tried to use a sighting of the original 4-toed statue to try and salvage some interest in this episode.

The contrast between the last five seconds and the rest of the episode was huge. I'm sorry but Jack, Hurley and Kate define what LOST means to me so much more than neutered Saywer and co.

All I have to say is: Sawyer/Juliet. Thanks for adding yet another layer to the already awful "triangle". All of the characters involved are annoying me more and more.

For the entire episode I kept asking myself what the point of it all was. Why were we spending so much time with characters we didn't even know? Amy, Paul, this baby (that I kept thinking had to be someone significant but now I'm not so sure) Horace who we know but barely. And then finally in the last minute, Horace asks this question about whether you can get over someone in three years and then I went oh, you're kidding me.

Thank you. :) I was thinking the same thing. I was like seriously, what IS the point of this episode? :schmoll:

That entire 42 minutes was spent on setting up this single line so Sawyer would see Kate in the next scene? That's it?

Yeah unfortunately. Very sad isn't it? :thmbdown:

42 minutes of filler for a Sawyer/Kate reunion that only a fraction of the viewing audience even cares about?

Yep and that scene was even more pathetic than I thought it was going to be

It just felt very forced. So Juliet and Sawyer ironed their hair and mellowed out on pot for three years. Yawn...

It's like they tried to use a sighting of the original 4-toed statue to try and salvage some interest in this episode.

I agree. This episode was a nothing but a big yawn-fest.

And if PAWs (producers and writers) want to inject some interest into the story, how about adding more dog to the story.

This show needs more dog.

So let me shout out for all the disappointed Vincent fans... WHERE'S VINCENT!

MORE VINCENT = BETTER SHOW

The contrast between the last five seconds and the rest of the episode was huge. I'm sorry but Jack, Hurley and Kate define what LOST means to me so much more than neutered Saywer and co.

I feel the same way. Give me the 06 anytime over the junk (scenes with Sawyer and Juliet) that was shown during this episode. It's nothing against Juliet either, because I really like her character. However, her scenes get tainted anytime she shares the screen with Sawyer. Meh.

Sawyer and Juliet are fine. Kate coming back into it and looking like another triangle is just blech. Let Sawyer move on, the Kate thing is overcooked. The 3 year dharma thing has me completely perplexed. Why? And if they find out new things with dharma after being their for 3 years already im really going to hit someone with a shovel.

Sawyer and Juliet are fine. Kate coming back into it and looking like another triangle is just blech. Let Sawyer move on, the Kate thing is overcooked. The 3 year dharma thing has me completely perplexed. Why? And if they find out new things with dharma after being their for 3 years already im really going to hit someone with a shovel.

Exactly. Juliet lived a few years with the Others. We have learnt nothing about the Others. Now Sawyer/Juliet/Miles etc. lived 3 years with DI. And I'm sure they will be secretive just as much or say things we already know.

As a viewer I just feel "played with". After 5 years still no real pay-off. Just endless bit and pieces with filler references overflowing from screen "hey look how clever I am to make you wonder about the questions I'm creating. Am I telling this or that or nothing?".

The episode was a let down for me. It was again a perfect example of why flashforward narrative style has totally changed Lost. Not in better way... Why do we have to see 108 days in 4 years if we were to see 3 years in just one episode. Now we have 108 days told in incredibly long time. Balance/logic/sense of continuity/meaning have all been sacrificed for extending Lost's lifetime. I don't know its like getting pieces of a puzzle linearly for four years for 20% of the puzzle and then getting the rest in 2 seasons for 80 percent of the puzzle.

I'm sure Boone/Shannon/Eko and Charlie are thinking in their graves "what was their mistake to die?" if the show's whole point was hot people hooking up and creating various angled relationship drama. I can't help but think about the past seasons and go "why did we need this?". Did all the deaths/danger and "face your past" thing mean something at all? Given where the characters are now. Libby/Ana Lucia and Michael stories are worthless than ever. I don't understand why they had to die (especially Eko) while Juliet or Sawyer lives.

My main problem with this episode was that neither the stuff happening "three years later" nor the stuff happening "three years earlier" were very interesting. And I also don't believe that in 3 years, nothing else of interest happened. Sure, more of it might be visited later on as even more flashbacks to that time, but why show us this stuff in this episode at all - it was just tedious unfortunately. I find relationship stuff to be bogus in the first place, but you can't expect me to buy into a connection between two people, built over 3 years, when you don't show any of it at all, and just cut to "yeah, so they got together". If they screw around with Jack/Sawyer/Kate/Juliet 8-way relationship BS, it's going to be so boring. From the viewers' perspective, I don't think we can even really appreciate how long Sawyer has been away from Kate, because these 3 years of Sawyer's life have just been skipped by in the story.

Alpert was great as usual, and I enjoyed seeing the statue. I also liked Sawyer's approach to situations to just say "Yeah well I'm doing what I feel like" - shooting the others, and going out to talk with Alpert, those were things I wanted to happen so I was relieved they did. But really other than those things, I couldn't enjoy it. And I really believe that if you were to have missed this episode, you could come back to the following episode and probably get the gist - "So Sawyer was with the others, doing whatever, and how did he get the job? Never mind"

How many birth emergencies have their been so far? About one per episode?

How many birth emergencies have their been so far? About one per episode?

One for every female character. It seems all women know how to do on this show is have sex (Kate), make babies (Penny) and die (Charlotte).

I hate Sawyer/Juliet.
Can you say FORCED?:migrane:
:puke:

I actually loved the episode... But at the end of it I felt a great deal of disappointment.

Why? Because of the promos for this episode... They made it seem like the reunion was going to be in this episode, it was not... Only a teaser of it, which ultimately became the final cliffhanger of the episode.

A promo is meant to say "Tune in, because there is going to be more after this in THIS episode" It is not supposed to say "Here is the end of the episode, no need to watch it, tune in 2 weeks from now for what you really want to see."

They gave away the damn ending in the promos! And they deceived us about what the episode contained at the same time.

If they had been truthful about what the episode contained I would probably be giddy right now in anticipation for Ep. 9... And now, Now I dunno... I feel conned by ABC (pardon the pun)

I actually loved the episode... But at the end of it I felt a great deal of disappointment.

Why? Because of the promos for this episode... They made it seem like the reunion was going to be in this episode, it was not... Only a teaser of it, which ultimately became the final cliffhanger of the episode.

A promo is meant to say "Tune in, because there is going to be more after this in THIS episode" It is not supposed to say "Here is the end of the episode, no need to watch it, tune in 2 weeks from now for what you really want to see."

They gave away the damn ending in the promos! And they deceived us about what the episode contained at the same time.

If they had been truthful about what the episode contained I would probably be giddy right now in anticipation for Ep. 9... And now, Now I dunno... I feel conned by ABC (pardon the pun)

Ya, I felt this way.
I loved the character development, especially for Sawyer, but the end reunion was just kind of "meh".

Typically, I post on the “Rate It” thread first, with a detailed review of the episode, but this one seemed so… off, I still don’t know what to give it. So, I’m going to start here and hope to form a final mark- I know it won’t be anything more than a 4 for the reasons below.

With the butcher-job they have done on who used to be my favorite character (Locke) over the years, I have found myself saying that I guess Sawyer might be (I’m really not sure anymore) my favorite character, now. He seems to be the only one who has at least grown as a character since killing Locke’s daddy (which seemed to change him- as it certainly would, unless you’re Dexter): instead of being selfish all the time, he started caring, helping and thinking of others first (Claire and Aaron, Hurley, jumping out of the helicopter, etc.). But, in this episode, he just seemed… off. Even the way he looked in his DHARMA jumpsuit- my wife and I kept saying he looked… weird. Other than his scenes with Miles and Richard, it was a really bad episode for his character.

Now, I must address the idiotic love square. This was my fear as soon as Sawyer swam up on shore after the freighter exploded. Why is it that these people insist on going down this awful road? The triangles aren’t bad enough, now we need a love square between Jack, Kate, Sawyer & Juliet? With Charlotte back from the dead but now only about five, will this love square morph into a pentagon with Daniel being added to the mix? If these writers feel the need to pursue this kind of crap, why don’t they jump ship (pun intended) to Desperate Housewives or whatever daytime soaps are currently on the air?

Next, I must admit, I was extremely satisfied with what appears to be closure on the four-toed statue: a 5 – 10 second shot of the back of it and then one big flash to 1974. That was really awesome, gang. Instead of doing a flash and maybe ending up in four-toed statue time for an episode or two, just show the back of it for a few seconds and move on to domesticated Sawyer bringing Juliet flowers (the only thing missing was the dreadful Neil Diamond and Barbara Streisand song, You Don’t Bring Me Flowers). This is just a travesty if this was it for big Mr. Four-Toe.

So a big, long, yawn-fest to lead up to the big, flat, reunion at the end. Oh, are Kate and Sawyer going to get back together? Are they? Are they? Here’s a better question: is Kate going to tell Sawyer that after she somehow lost Aaron (he was probably taken away from her in some big Ben master plan), she naturally just jumped in the sack with Jack just before coming back to the Island? I know if I were single, a woman like this is just what I would want. She’s every man’s dream.

Lousy episode and I see that, not surprisingly, the curse of all bad Lost episodes was writer Elizabeth Sarnoff.

Why do they let this woman loose on Lost?

A couple of other things…

Is this show ever just going to stay in one time for an entire episode? It began just after Locke disappeared in the well, then we have a “final” flash and that appears to be it for the flashes, but then the episode was just like watching a game of table tennis: three years later; three years earlier; three years later; three years earlier, etc. So, we just sit there like we’re doing another high school homework assignment- okay, so it’s 1974/1977: When was it that Ben came to the Island, again? When was the purge, again? If the woman from 24 (Amy??) had her baby in 1977, what male character have we seen that could be 27? Karl? No, he was too young. I’ll come back to that one. Let’s see, how was she even able to deliver a baby on the Island? Did something happen after 1977 to make it so that women on the Island couldn’t give birth- or, did Locke’s fixing the skipping FDW fix that, too? And on and on, like that. I like to be challenged by good writing, but when I have to keep a flowchart of years, sequence of events spanning 50+ years, characters and plot points just to get through one episode, it feels more like high school homework: in the end, does any of it really matter to get through life?

Lastly, I found myself scratching my head over the year they ended up in from the last flash. Is there any significance to years ending in 4? It was 2004 when #815 crashed on the Island, it was 1954 in Jughead and 1974 in this episode (although by the end, it must be 1977 when the big reunion happened due to the “three years later”). Any significance to this, or is it just the luck of the draw on the FDW- like a roulette wheel?

The 3 yrs earlier / 3 yrs later throughout the show was a bit odd.

And I suppose Richard’s request for Paul’s body, the truce between the others and DI, and the successful birth were this week’s eye popping - what the hell moments. And I suppose were supposed to wonder if we have already met the baby. And if this was just the second or third season, I would be wondering these things. 5th Season – not so much, I’m bored with this type of plot device.

Then the Horace / Sawyer conversation was obviously setting up the Kate / Sawyer reunion - and would have been just fine if not for the pairing of Sawyer and Juliet. Not that I mind the duo (I don’t care who winds up with who), but when Sawyer refrained from telling Juliet about the other’s return, I can’t help but wonder if this pairing is only to further the Kate/Jack/Sawyer drama.

Please, not another scene of Kate, this time upset over the attention Sawyer gives Juliet, jumps Jack in a fit of jealousy.



Why do we have to see 108 days in 4 years if we were to see 3 years in just one episode. Now we have 108 days told in incredibly long time. Balance/logic/sense of continuity/meaning have all been sacrificed for extending Lost's lifetime. I don't know its like getting pieces of a puzzle linearly for four years for 20% of the puzzle and then getting the rest in 2 seasons for 80 percent of the puzzle.


Well said.

A couple of other things…
I like to be challenged by good writing, but when I have to keep a flowchart of years, sequence of events spanning 50+ years, characters and plot points just to get through one episode,

The flowchart is funny, but you’re right, it does seem like a diagram of sorts is needed to keep track of the show.

I enjoyed it as I do all episodes...cause I love this show.

But..they could have easily handled this entire episode in 15 minutes or less, then moved on with the reunions. We could easily have "gotten the picture" as it were.

And earplugs...that's all it takes to overcome the mighty sonic fence? Earplugs? Now that was disappointing.

I seem to be in the minority (except maybe on this thread :biggrin:), but I don't like the Sawyer-Juliet pairing. To me, their behavior at the end of this ep was completely inconsistent with what we've seen from them previously (really, they had no chemistry, no relationship before the TT craziness). And why do TPTB insist that everyone have to hook up? I just don't get it. After many fans complained about the relationship mess from last season, they decide to add ANOTHER permutation? Really?! WHY!!!

And with Kate and Jack back in the picture, I can only shudder to think how this will play out for the next few eps (or seasons...double shudder). Everyone will just revert to their old childish behavior from Eggtown and The Other Woman last year (eps I was NOT fond of, btw).

Other problems with this ep: I don't care about Horace or Amy, I felt no poignancy as Amy wept over Paul -- whatever, I don't know and/or care about these people. And I'm sort of ambivalent about the dharma storyline in general. I can't exactly put my finger on why, but I was much happier when the record was skipping through time, as opposed to stuck in the freaking '70s.

There was too much jumping around in time. I started to lose track. I also don't care for them adding new characters at this point in time. It seems we already have too many loose ends with the regulars we have now. This episode seemed to suck the momentum out of what seemed to be a very good run of episodes.

The episode was a let down for me. It was again a perfect example of why flashforward narrative style has totally changed Lost. Not in better way... Why do we have to see 108 days in 4 years if we were to see 3 years in just one episode. Now we have 108 days told in incredibly long time. Balance/logic/sense of continuity/meaning have all been sacrificed for extending Lost's lifetime. I don't know its like getting pieces of a puzzle linearly for four years for 20% of the puzzle and then getting the rest in 2 seasons for 80 percent of the puzzle.


Really well put -- I feel the same way. On the one hand, this was an unfortunate consequence of having an "indefinite" show length originally, then being allowed to set a final end date. Parts of S2 and the beginning of S3 were DEFINITELY dragging along, while S4 and S5 have been on hyper-speed. But I feel last season was much better paced, as was the beginning of this season. I did not dig the pacing of TLADoJB or LaFleur, though.

I seem to be in the minority (except maybe on this thread :biggrin:), but I don't like the Sawyer-Juliet pairing. To me, their behavior at the end of this ep was completely inconsistent with what we've seen from them previously (really, they had no chemistry, no relationship before the TT craziness). And why do TPTB insist that everyone have to hook up? I just don't get it. After many fans complained about the relationship mess from last season, they decide to add ANOTHER permutation? Really?! WHY!!!

And with Kate and Jack back in the picture, I can only shudder to think how this will play out for the next few eps (or seasons...double shudder). Everyone will just revert to their old childish behavior from Eggtown and The Other Woman last year (eps I was NOT fond of, btw).

Other problems with this ep: I don't care about Horace or Amy, I felt no poignancy as Amy wept over Paul -- whatever, I don't know and/or care about these people. And I'm sort of ambivalent about the dharma storyline in general. I can't exactly put my finger on why, but I was much happier when the record was skipping through time, as opposed to stuck in the freaking '70s.

Ditto. Thanks for saving me the keystrokes.

The show has hit a new low in terms of telling the story in a "non-linear" manner. This isn't an ingenious story-telling device as some fans would have you believe, it's just a cheap gimmick that I think is doing more harm to the show than anything. Flashbacks are one thing and flashforwards are another--the ffs are terrible in their own right--but this was something even worse. How many 3 years later or 3 years earlier screens did we see? 6?

All I have to say is: Sawyer/Juliet. Thanks for adding yet another layer to the already awful "triangle". All of the characters involved are annoying me more and more.

/signed

...they could have easily handled this entire episode in 15 minutes or less, then moved on with the reunions. We could easily have "gotten the picture" as it were.

And earplugs...that's all it takes to overcome the mighty sonic fence? Earplugs? Now that was disappointing.
I’ve posted on the “opportunity cost” of the writers wasting time and time and time over the past two seasons and that’s exactly what happened in this episode- a microcosm, if you will. We saw countless boring minutes about stuff I would argue the vast majority of fans couldn’t care less about:
Poor Paul being killed. Who? You know, Paul. Who? Paul- the guy we’ve never seen before this episode. Oh, right, Paul.
Poor Amy. Who?....
Poor Horace. I already moved on from this hippy dude after the purge. He obviously didn’t deserve to die, but… been there, done that.
Sawyer and Juliet. I’m sorry, but these two had about as much chemistry as watching ice cubes melt.

So we have all that wasted time on the one hand and on the other hand we spend about 5 seconds, give or take, on the four-toed statue. I would bet heavily that the majority of fans would find big Mr. Four-Toe and the Black Rock as way more compelling stories for an episode than Sawyer “hearts” Juliet and Sawyer “hearts” Kate. I don’t mind relationship stories if they legitimately show character depth- then they would be an asset to the overall show, but this was a joke. The Kate and Sawyer thing took many episodes to develop. Here, we just skipped over three years and boom… Sawyer and Juliet are together. The only thing missing was the stupid little pop-up box stating, “In case you missed it, Sawyer and Juliet became a couple during the three years we didn’t show you.” Amateur hour.

Speaking of amateur hour, Lost Ed nailed it on the earplugs. Who needs earplugs? When Horace made the comment to Richard about the sonic fence, Richard’s reply should have been, “You spent a fortune and countless time building that thing and I have a newsflash for you, all we have to do to bypass it is stick our index fingers in our ears and run through it really fast.” Come on. Earplugs? What was that?
100%
And I'm sort of ambivalent about the dharma storyline in general. I can't exactly put my finger on why, but I was much happier when the record was skipping through time, as opposed to stuck in the freaking '70s.
This may be what you can’t put your finger on (or, at least a part of it), regarding being ambivalent on the DI, and it relates to all the time jumping: we already know that Horace and the gang are slaughtered by Ben, Richard and The Others. We already felt bad when we saw Horace sitting on the bench, dead, with blood coming out of his nose. He seemed like a nice enough guy and I think we would all agree that he didn’t deserve to be killed, especially being gassed to death. But, we already experienced that. So when you show him again in this episode, my reaction is, “Who cares? I don’t need any other info on Horace. How about telling me what definitely happened to a character that was on the show back in the Pilot, like Claire. I suspect we will just get a five second shot of her from behind in some episode, like the statue.

Speaking of amateur hour, Lost Ed nailed it on the earplugs. Who needs earplugs? When Horace made the comment to Richard about the sonic fence, Richard’s reply should have been, “You spent a fortune and countless time building that thing and I have a newsflash for you, all we have to do to bypass it is stick our index fingers in our ears and run through it really fast.” Come on. Earplugs? What was that?

I was hoping that someone would have said to Horace, "Hey, how about getting a haircut. You know Dharma has barbers now. Be a man you weirdo. Geez, you look like a girl with that mop."

Yeah, the earplugs were a joke. We all laughed at that one. And the smirk that Amy give them afterwards. All that was classic cornball sci-fi.

And besides, how exactly does putting your fingers in your ears stop a sonic blast? We're still laughing. It was so not believable. In the Lost world, it was just plain goofy.

P. S. "Hey, if I close my eyes really tight during a time travel flash, will it not effect me?"

What was up with the tarnishing of Horace Goodspeed? Since when was he ever the designated leader? Was he not just a mathematician before? Was he not just the happy-go-lucky stoner dude who chopped wood, got nosebleeds and died in the purge? So now suddenly he's a jealouse, drunk, divorcee pyro who passes out for a day and a half and takes relationship advice from Sawyer? Why not just insert Roger Linus into this role; would have been much more interesting to have young Ben around, too.

And the direction was just really bad as well. I'm so tired of the first scene being a repeat of a moment that we've already seen in a previous episode. It's just so clunky. And the establishing shot of the sonic fence made it look like a row of construction pilons. The scene where the Charlotte-like child waves "hauntingly" back to Daniel was sooo cheesy!

Why not just insert Roger Linus into this role; would have been much more interesting to have young Ben around, too.

And the direction was just really bad as well. I'm so tired of the first scene being a repeat of a moment that we've already seen in a previous episode. It's just so clunky. And the establishing shot of the sonic fence made it look like a row of construction pilons. The scene where the Charlotte-like child waves "hauntingly" back to Daniel was sooo cheesy!

I know what you mean. A lot of one shot characters showing up does not make for depth in a show, especially like Lost.

Also, if I am not mistaken, Ben and his dad showed up in 1970 according to the Lostpedia timeline [ http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline:Pre-crash ] So where was young Ben and his dad? Perhaps we'll see them in an up coming episode.

The fact that they didn't make a sneak appearance is rather odd. It would have added a little spark to an already so-so story.

Here’s another problem with the whole “If it already happened, you can’t change it” logic of Daniel: how can the writers possibly argue that Juliet going back in time to 1977 and delivering Amy’s baby doesn’t change things? The “intern” (or whoever he was) was not qualified to deliver a breeched baby, so it’s very possible / probable the baby and Amy would have died if Sawyer didn’t pull Juliet “out of retirement.” Even if she and the baby lived by someone else delivering the baby, it still doesn’t change the fact that Juliet did deliver the baby, so how does that not change the past?

Another thing that definitely changed the past was back in 1974 when Juliet and Sawyer killed the two Others that killed Paul and were about to abduct Amy (I’m assuming they were abducting her since they put the bag over her head- like Jack, Kate and Sawyer at the end of S2). If they didn’t get involved, these two Others just would have killed Paul (I still feel sick about his death- right up there with Charlie), abducted Amy, then she would probably have become some Stepford Wife type (like Cindy the flight attendant), Horace would never have gotten her pregnant and she would not have given birth to the baby. How can they possibly argue that didn’t change the past?

One of the main purposes of the episode was to show Amy having the baby- to get us all wondering who the baby is, right? But, if Sawyer and Juliet don’t come to Amy’s aide, then she never gets pregnant by Horace in the first place. This whole TT rules apply here, but not here is really tiresome. I suppose they could just show Daniel looking in his notebook again and realize that Amy and the baby are special, so the rules don’t apply to them- like Desmond.

And speaking of the baby, here’s who it can’t be:
Locke, Jack, Desmond, Sawyer (they’re all too old to pass for 27)
Others: Big Tom, Goodwin, Ethan and the guy Juliet killed on the beach allowing Kate and Sawyer to escape (they’re all too old to pass for 27)
Karl (he was too young)
Jacob (he was around in 1954 according to Jughead, so if he actually exists, he’s most likely like Richard- ageless, but was still around long before 1977)
Jin, Hurley, Mr. Eko, Miles and Cesar (not the right ethnicity)
Ben (too old and we saw his birth off-Island)
Charlie (we already saw his British mother)
Daniel (his mother is Eloise Hawking)

So who does that leave, Boone? Did we ever see his real mother? I suppose he’s a possible candidate, but since they killed him off in S1, I’m not sure he’d be worthy of being so special. I also realize that with the TT they could probably make it possible for anyone to be the baby, as well as adoptions for people like Charlie and Boone, but I suspect that it ultimately won’t matter. It will most likely turn out to be just another plot device to keep us all moving to the next episode.
100%
The Sonic Fence / Earplugs question was answered within the episode, but I imagine Darlton will make it even clearer if people didn't get it. The fence's force can be modified, as pointed out later by Goodspeed, and so obviously when Amy went to the box she turned it right down. She wasn't looking to kill these people after just saving her life, only knock them out.
We all realize the intensity can be turned up or down- we saw that with Patchy a long time ago. I think most of us on this thread just found it a bit ridiculous that earplugs can prevent the shock to the system that knocks you out. Not to mention, why the need to knock them out? Didn’t they just save her life, bury The Others and haul poor Paul’s carcass back for her? I certainly can’t speak for everyone on this thread but I thought it was yet another lame plot device.

It just felt very forced. So Juliet and Sawyer ironed their hair and mellowed out on pot for three years. (1)

Horace Goodspeed, a bit of a cult character around my parts, was disappointing and seemed really OOC. Why wouldn't they have the actor style his hair to match up with how he looked when he greeted Ben's arrival in "The Man Behind The Curtain?" And I guess they couldn't get Samantha Mathis to return, so they had to come up with a new character to be his wife. (2)

It's like they tried to use a sighting of the original 4-toed statue to try and salvage some interest in this episode. (3)

The contrast between the last five seconds and the rest of the episode was huge. I'm sorry but Jack, Hurley and Kate define what LOST means to me so much more than neutered Saywer and co. (4)

1) So THAT'S what they did to their hair!!! I have to agree that the climate would be good, no, perfect for the harvest of said culture. Oh happy happy joy joy! :hypocrit:

2) I'm hoping there's a twist and a death we haven't seen yet. Horace didn't look like he did in previous episodes, perhaps because of her death. Add the unknown drinking and perhaps...perhaps there's a story in there somewhere in the 70's...

3) That was perhaps my favorite 5 seconds of the episode. The dude had long hair! First thing I thought was that it was the other that Sawyer killed! Just for a sec...

4) Yeah, I agree. I can't wait for all of them to be reunited again.

On the up side, I liked Sawyer and Juliet shacking up. I just hope the writers write Kate's love interest for Sawyer out so she can concentrate on Jack and let that stupid tri/quad angle out of the show once and for all.

Eric

LaFleur was a fun and pleasant episode. Kinda like cotton candy, sticky sweet while viewing, didn't satisfy or nourish. Everything we learned or saw could have been covered in 5 minutes and blended into another episode.
Yeah, still rolling my eyes at that sonic fence thing. Amy as a character was a huge disappointment - poorly written and acted. Horace was pure camp; if he shows up again, there's no way I'll be able to take him seriously.
IMO, far and away the lamest episode this season..

Lucidity - a friendly reminder: read the first post, this thread is NOT for debating, it's for those who didn't love it.

OH NO You got that silly song in my head now...:mad:...:rolleyes:...:rotflmao2:

:danceman1qf:The "How Bizarre" dance...


How Bizarre
Eric...sigh

I don't know that song, but now my brain is trying to make one up. And with lyrics! How bizarre is that?

Also, I agree. The low setting of the fence was to only knock them out. Clever girl.

Still, episode was lacking in a lot of depth and went too fast between time periods.


P. S. "Vincent! Watch out for the sonic fence. Good boy!"

Here’s another problem with the whole “If it already happened, you can’t change it” logic of Daniel: how can the writers possibly argue that Juliet going back in time to 1977 and delivering Amy’s baby doesn’t change things? The “intern” (or whoever he was) was not qualified to deliver a breeched baby, so it’s very possible / probable the baby and Amy would have died if Sawyer didn’t pull Juliet “out of retirement.” Even if she and the baby lived by someone else delivering the baby, it still doesn’t change the fact that Juliet did deliver the baby, so how does that not change the past?

It doesn't change the past because there was never a past in which Juliet did not deliver the baby. It always happened exactly that way--or as Daniel says, whatever happened happened. Everything the Losties do in the past is just fulfilling everything that has already happened by the time they crash landed in 2004.

It doesn't change the past because there was never a past in which Juliet did not deliver the baby. It always happened exactly that way--or as Daniel says, whatever happened happened. Everything the Losties do in the past is just fulfilling everything that has already happened by the time they crash landed in 2004.
This is one of the many problems with TT and all of those silly rules. The whole “whatever happened, happened” logic is simply nonsensical. When Juliet delivered Amy’s baby it was 1977, right? Before Ben sent the Island moving through time, it was late 2004 / early 2005, so 1974 already happened, right? So if by some miracle one could actually be sent back through time and you ended up in 1977, my contention is things would have to be changed just by your presence there- because you weren’t there before you went through time. Before Juliet went back to 1974/1977 she already had a life off the Island- growing up with at least one sister, etc. Juliet is probably supposed to be about 35 (based on the actress being just about 39 and being born in 1970), so that would make Juliet about 7 in 1977. So, unless she was Doogie Howser, how could she be delivering a baby in 1977?

If we’re supposed to believe that these people are now in 1977 because that’s how it really all happened (“whatever happened, happened”), how did Juliet end up in Miami (I think) around 2001 with her sister, treating her for infertility due to her chemo? Also, why would Richard have to bring her to the Island? Using this logic, she was already on the Island in 1977.

This is what happens when you open this can of worms called TT. None of it makes sense, but they have further compounded the problem by making it so they supposedly can’t change the past and by extension, the future. I would have an easier time buying into it if they could alter the future by changing things in the past. Based on what took place in this episode, Juliet went back to 1977 and delivered a baby that she most certainly had never delivered before. While there is some evidence that Charlotte had been on the Island before, there is certainly no evidence that Juliet, Sawyer and the rest were. And if that’s where they are going with all of this, it will be LOL ridiculous. That would mean Jack, Hurley, Kate, Sawyer, all of them would have to have been on the Island before. That’s just too stupid to even consider, because think of the ripple effect that would cause with everyone they had a life with off the Island (family, friends, co-workers, etc.). I have my theories of where they are headed with all of this jumping around in time, but that’s for another thread. The point I’m making for this episode is the writers are once again not following their own rules of TT, like they did with Desmond, and it’s nothing more than contrived nonsense.

"Whatever happened happened" time travel actually makes perfect sense if you think about it the right way. The only uncertainty is how Desmond fits in and in what sense the "rules" don't apply to him. If he can actually change things and open alternate timelines, then we may be getting into some paradoxes, but if Dan is referring to something else, like *how* he time travels, or perhaps his memory of events (like suddenly remembering Dan's visit 3 years after leaving the island) then "WHH" theory works just fine.

The whole “whatever happened, happened” logic is simply nonsensical. When Juliet delivered Amy’s baby it was 1977, right? Before Ben sent the Island moving through time, it was late 2004 / early 2005, so 1974 already happened, right? So if by some miracle one could actually be sent back through time and you ended up in 1977, my contention is things would have to be changed just by your presence there- because you weren’t there before you went through time.Juliet WAS in 1977 "before" her early 2005 self traveled back in time. "Before" meaning at an earlier year in the grand scheme of time, but it is "after" in relation to her OWN life. In the passage of years, it was in the "past," but it was her future. So if you isolated the year 1977, you would see two Juliet's--her young self and her old self, coexisting.

The problem is our common conception of time. The trick is to realize that everything--past, present, and future--has already "happened." There is one timeline of history and it is completely fixed. It's as if you have the complete history of existence mapped out on a single timeline in front of you. Time is not tensed. There is not objective past, present, and future. Events have "spatial" location on the timeline, like mile-markers on a road, and what is "past" or in the "future" is just relative to the observer. All versions of yourself already "exist" at once, because they already fill up the timeline. When we watch the show, it would be like placing our finger on 2004 and moving it slowly along the line, and in this way time "passes" to us.

Say that we are following the trail of John Locke's life. We place our finger on the day of his birth, in 1956, and begin moving along the timeline, passing through the years. We move along until we hit Frozen Donky Wheel Day in 2005, and we see that he has dropped off the map. He is no longer there when you look further in 2005...but if you look back you will see that he shows up in 1954. And John Locke, at that age, has always been at that spot in 1954. We just weren't looking there.

What we have essentially is that time bent on itself. For the purpose of illustration, here's a way you could imagine Locke's disappearance from 2005 and reappearance in 1954 (I know there were a few time jumps previously, but just for this example we will say he went straight there). At the point where he drops off the map and suddenly appears in 1954, it seems as if the "trail" of Locke's life is disrupted. Meaning, you couldn't trace it out without lifting your finger, because you would hit 2005 and suddenly Locke is back in 1954. What "path" in time does he take to get there?

Imagine that in 2005, when Locke disappears, he "travels" (on the mapped-out timeline) INTO the page, loops around back and lands in 1954. We can't see it because we are just looking two-dimensionally. And that's how all of the events appear when we normally view them. But Locke's life DOES have a continuous path and explanation for how he got there--it just involves opening up further dimensions and expanding our conception of time.

This is much easier to explain visually, but I hope that made a little sense. ;) I am willing go more in depth if you want.

This is one of the many problems with TT and all of those silly rules. The whole “whatever happened, happened” logic is simply nonsensical.

Word to that.
"Whatever happened, happened" is TPTB shorthand for "We're making up our own time travel and paradox rules as we go".
Nothing wrong with it, I'll happily suspend disbelief if Darlton will cease and desist from using podcasts and script exposition to claim "no paradox here".

"Whatever happened happened" time travel actually makes perfect sense if you think about it the right way. The only uncertainty is how Desmond fits in and in what sense the "rules" don't apply to him. If he can actually change things and open alternate timelines, then we may be getting into some paradoxes, but if Dan is referring to something else, like *how* he time travels, or perhaps his memory of events (like suddenly remembering Dan's visit 3 years after leaving the island) then "WHH" theory works just fine.

Juliet WAS in 1977 "before" her early 2005 self traveled back in time. "Before" meaning at an earlier year in the grand scheme of time, but it is "after" in relation to her OWN life. In the passage of years, it was in the "past," but it was her future. So if you isolated the year 1977, you would see two Juliet's--her young self and her old self, coexisting.

The problem is our common conception of time. The trick is to realize that everything--past, present, and future--has already "happened." There is one timeline of history and it is completely fixed. It's as if you have the complete history of existence mapped out on a single timeline in front of you. Time is not tensed. There is not objective past, present, and future. Events have "spatial" location on the timeline, like mile-markers on a road, and what is "past" or in the "future" is just relative to the observer. All versions of yourself already "exist" at once, because they already fill up the timeline. When we watch the show, it would be like placing our finger on 2004 and moving it slowly along the line, and in this way time "passes" to us.

Say that we are following the trail of John Locke's life. We place our finger on the day of his birth, in 1956, and begin moving along the timeline, passing through the years. We move along until we hit Frozen Donky Wheel Day in 2005, and we see that he has dropped off the map. He is no longer there when you look further in 2005...but if you look back you will see that he shows up in 1954. And John Locke, at that age, has always been at that spot in 1954. We just weren't looking there.

What we have essentially is that time bent on itself. For the purpose of illustration, here's a way you could imagine Locke's disappearance from 2005 and reappearance in 1954 (I know there were a few time jumps previously, but just for this example we will say he went straight there). At the point where he drops off the map and suddenly appears in 1954, it seems as if the "trail" of Locke's life is disrupted. Meaning, you couldn't trace it out without lifting your finger, because you would hit 2005 and suddenly Locke is back in 1954. What "path" in time does he take to get there?

Imagine that in 2005, when Locke disappears, he "travels" (on the mapped-out timeline) INTO the page, loops around back and lands in 1954. We can't see it because we are just looking two-dimensionally. And that's how all of the events appear when we normally view them. But Locke's life DOES have a continuous path and explanation for how he got there--it just involves opening up further dimensions and expanding our conception of time.

This is much easier to explain visually, but I hope that made a little sense. ;) I am willing go more in depth if you want.


I understand what you means Wayne Jarvis, but let’s said the reason the O5 came back, is to bring back the LB stuck in 1977 back to their real “time line” which year would that be? 2008? the year The O5 come from and or 2005? the year the LF come from? If they all go back in 2008 the LB would go back to a “future” that NOT theirs, because they never lived 2005, 2006 and 2007, and if they all go back in 2005 the O5 will have to live those same years twice!!!

Either way there will be a paradox!

Or the LB are not in the right time line or the O5 are not in the right time line the only solution to avoid that situation would be if the LB go back to 2005 and the O5 to 2008. Oh wait wouldn’t that be a paradox too???

Of course the easier solution would be not to bring anyone back LOL, however that would NOT make the flaws in the TT rules TPTB try to sell us magically disappear! And seeing all the controversies on the boards a lot of us are just NOT Buying!

"Whatever happened happened" time travel actually makes perfect sense if you think about it the right way. The only uncertainty is how Desmond fits in and in what sense the "rules" don't apply to him. If he can actually change things and open alternate timelines, then we may be getting into some paradoxes, but if Dan is referring to something else, like *how* he time travels, or perhaps his memory of events (like suddenly remembering Dan's visit 3 years after leaving the island) then "WHH" theory works just fine.

Juliet WAS in 1977 "before" her early 2005 self traveled back in time. "Before" meaning at an earlier year in the grand scheme of time, but it is "after" in relation to her OWN life. In the passage of years, it was in the "past," but it was her future. So if you isolated the year 1977, you would see two Juliet's--her young self and her old self, coexisting.

The problem is our common conception of time. The trick is to realize that everything--past, present, and future--has already "happened." There is one timeline of history and it is completely fixed. It's as if you have the complete history of existence mapped out on a single timeline in front of you. Time is not tensed. There is not objective past, present, and future. Events have "spatial" location on the timeline, like mile-markers on a road, and what is "past" or in the "future" is just relative to the observer. All versions of yourself already "exist" at once, because they already fill up the timeline. When we watch the show, it would be like placing our finger on 2004 and moving it slowly along the line, and in this way time "passes" to us.

Say that we are following the trail of John Locke's life. We place our finger on the day of his birth, in 1956, and begin moving along the timeline, passing through the years. We move along until we hit Frozen Donky Wheel Day in 2005, and we see that he has dropped off the map. He is no longer there when you look further in 2005...but if you look back you will see that he shows up in 1954. And John Locke, at that age, has always been at that spot in 1954. We just weren't looking there.

What we have essentially is that time bent on itself. For the purpose of illustration, here's a way you could imagine Locke's disappearance from 2005 and reappearance in 1954 (I know there were a few time jumps previously, but just for this example we will say he went straight there). At the point where he drops off the map and suddenly appears in 1954, it seems as if the "trail" of Locke's life is disrupted. Meaning, you couldn't trace it out without lifting your finger, because you would hit 2005 and suddenly Locke is back in 1954. What "path" in time does he take to get there?

Imagine that in 2005, when Locke disappears, he "travels" (on the mapped-out timeline) INTO the page, loops around back and lands in 1954. We can't see it because we are just looking two-dimensionally. And that's how all of the events appear when we normally view them. But Locke's life DOES have a continuous path and explanation for how he got there--it just involves opening up further dimensions and expanding our conception of time.

This is much easier to explain visually, but I hope that made a little sense. ;) I am willing go more in depth if you want.
WJ, I applaud you for your effort and what you outlined in your post above is very similar to one of my theories as to where they are going with all of this. But, there’s a big glaring flaw in this logic that I will illustrate below.

When Sawyer popped up out of the brush a few episodes ago and saw Kate helping Claire deliver Aaron, he was actually on the beach at that specific “original Season 1” moment in time. When Locke saw the beam of light (in the same episode), he was banging on the hatch at that specific “original Season 1” moment in time. In this episode, for argument’s sake, let’s agree that Juliet was born in 1970, making her 7 in 1977. Furthermore, let’s say that she was riding her bike or something that any kid might be doing at that specific moment in time when the Juliet we saw in this episode was delivering Amy’s baby- similar to the Sawyer and Locke examples I referenced above. How does anyone explain something I’ve asked repeatedly since last season and to date have never been given a satisfactory answer: since humans are physical beings comprised of matter, how can anyone exist in two different places at any specific moment in time?

Locke even made a passing reference to this in the other episode with the examples I referenced above (with Sawyer and Locke) when he asked Sawyer, “Did you see yourself?” This kind of logic is just simply flawed from the get-go because the fact remains that all of these characters were doing something different back in 1977 and a person cannot be in two different places at any specific moment in time. It’s not like we are two-dimensional things (like a photo, or something) where there could be “copies” of ourselves. Juliet was, in fact, doing something else at that “original” specific moment in time in 1977 (just like the Sawyer and Locke examples I referenced) so until someone can explain to me how a person can be in two different places at any specific moment in time, this logic just collapses on itself like a house of cards.

And let’s remember Daniel’s “rule” (paraphrasing from what I believe was the same episode I referenced above): “Time is like a street. You can go backwards or forwards on that street, but you can’t create a new street.” I would argue that a “duplicate” of yourself in any specific moment in time is the ultimate creation of a “new street.”

An Example... there's literally 1000s to choose from. :cool:

In TSCC Derek shows John himself & Kyle playing baseball in the park so yes you can be in the same place at the same time. :)

A person in the Present / Future can go to the Past cause its already happened... As long as s/he doesn't interfere with Past events everything in the Present / Future will still happen as it rightfully should. :cool:

(But somebody in the Past cant go to the Present / Future cause it ain't happened yet)

That's my take on TT LOL :stars:

An Example... there's literally 1000s to choose from. :cool:

In TSCC Derek shows John himself & Kyle playing baseball in the park so yes you can be in the same place at the same time. :)

A person in the Present / Future can go to the Past cause its already happened... As long as s/he doesn't interfere with Past events everything in the Present / Future will still happen as it rightfully should. :cool:

(But somebody in the Past cant go to the Present / Future cause it ain't happened yet)

That's my take on TT LOL :stars:
I’m battling a nagging cold, so I’ll admit I’m not 100% here. I’m not catching the reference of the second line: "In TSCC Derek shows John himself & Kyle playing baseball in the park so yes you can be in the same place at the same time.” Regardless, the overall answer still doesn’t cut it for me, because these people aren’t going back to their pasts, they’re going back to a time in the past, but they themselves are quite different (much older, for one) as is the location (if you believe the vast majority of them were never on the Island before #815’s crash, or when they arrived at other times- like Ben and Juliet, etc.).

In this episode, Juliet is an adult when she and the others go back in time to 1974/1977. In the “original” 1977, Juliet was about 7. I would have an easier time buying into the TT if when they actually traveled back to a time in which they already existed, they were that same age- so for this example, Juliet would be 4 and then 7 “again” when they all travel back in time to 1974/1977. This would at least be consistent with the child Daniel believes to be Charlotte in this episode being around 3 or 5 in 1974 (even though a number of people have pointed out that early last season, Ben stated she was born in 1979- not sure if this was a mistake on the writer’s part or if they are factoring in TT again somehow). For arguments sake, let’s say Ben’s info was off and this indeed is young Charlotte, so now Daniel has the opportunity to tell her “again” to not come back to the Island or she will die. But, in order for this to work, for me, Daniel would have to be the same age as well- as what dying Charlotte remembered (i.e. they would both be the same age they were “originally” in 1977). Since we already saw Daniel when the “microwave time vault machine” was being built earlier this season, maybe this works- for Daniel and Charlotte. But, what about Juliet, Sawyer, Miles, etc.? Sawyer is supposed to be around the same age as Juliet- 35ish. If he went back to this time, wouldn’t this be around the time Sawyer’s father killed his mother and then himself? How do they resolve James as a kid and the Sawyer in this episode existing in two different places (Jasper, AL and the Island) at the same time?

The way the TT was portrayed in this episode (and all along for that matter) is as if you could just bounce around in time and whatever happened before, in say, 1977, never existed because now Juliet delivers Amy’s baby in 1977. So, according to the tortured logic of the writers, Juliet’s delivering Amy’s baby has now happened, so now the “whatever happened, happened” rule is still intact? Give me a break. This entire series of events was, in fact, changed (big time) just by them being there: killing the two Others, saving Amy, Horace and Amy hook up and make a baby and then Juliet delivers the baby. If they didn’t end up in 1974, Amy never would have had this baby.

Also, if Charlotte did, in fact, die before the trip back to 1974 (as opposed to being almost dead when they moved in time), is this why she is her original age from 1974? If you’re dead on the Island and the Island moves to another time, you are the age you "were" at that new / different time? If that’s the case, shouldn’t everyone else who died on the Island go back to the age they "were" in 1974: Libby, Ana Lucia, Mr. Eko, etc.? Or does this apparent rule only apply if you were on the Island in the “original” time (for this episode, 1974)?

Again, I think they really boxed themselves into a corner on the whole TT when they made up the silly rule that you couldn’t change the past and couldn’t “create a different street,” etc. I’m sure the obvious reason for this is most people would ask, “If you could go back in time, who wouldn’t try to change things- especially major historical events like saving the lives of millions by killing Hitler or preventing the assassination of JFK?” So, in an attempt to keep the show focused on the Ben vs. Widmore for control of the Island, they created the rule of not being able to change things in the past, but we see again and again they aren’t following this rule at all. No matter how many TT stories I see, they all end up in a big, fat mess and this episode was just the latest example of this.

so until someone can explain to me how a person can be in two different places at any specific moment in time, this logic just collapses on itself like a house of cards.

I was using TSCC (a TV show like Lost) as an example saying that you can, maybe I should have written it abit better. :redface:

BUT I have to be honest Marc I couldn't even begin to try and answer you previous post cause I generally don't pay that much attention to the details regarding Lost :redface: (and 99% of the general audience probably don't either.) :)

(I don't even think TPTB pay as much attention to detail as u do LOL)

Wow, I just wrote a four or five paragraph post that just timed out. Dang. :undecide: I'll try to express the same ideas more concisely.

I see where you are coming from now Marc. But this isn't a problem for time travel. Again, the issue is simply one of perspective.

The notion that our bodies are a single entity that moves along through time and undergoes changes in itself is not an entirely accurate one. This is simply the perception that we are left with because of our limited capacities for understanding--we naturally see things in 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. But the real story is a little more complex. Our bodies to not move objectively through time and pass by certain landmarks. Instead, every person is really comprised of every version of themselves--older and younger--all existent "at once" (in an atemporal sense). Were we able to perceive an extra dimension, we would be able to see the older and younger versions of ourselves. As it is though, we can't, and when we look at a body and see it age, what we are really seeing is the cross-section of an extra-dimensional object that really contains all versions of us--but we, in our limitations, can only make out one age at a single time.

In the case of Juliet, imagine that her life is mapped out on a track, beginning with her birth and ending in her death, with each year labeled. The track is the timeline of her life. And say we have a marble that we are going to set moving along the track, beginning at her birth. What you seem to be asking is how the marble can be in two places on the track at once. But when we set it moving, and it passes chronologically through the years of her life, what we are seeing is not really "Juliet" in the marble. The marble is just an observer. We conventionally talk about time as if a person can be contained in a single time, but they really can't. "Juliet" is the track, containing every age, every "version" of herself. Without time travel we could imagine the track as linear, but time travel is the confirmation that the track was really bent the entire time. So when Age 7 Juliet and Age 35 Juliet both exist in 1977, what we are really seeing is this: the track, instead of forming a straight line, has looped and come all the way back around to form an intersection. The pre-bend section of the track, in this converging moment, has reached "Age 7," and following it around, post-bend, the spot on the track is now labeled "Age 35"--and they intersect at the very same moment. So when the marble rolls over that exact spot, the observer would be able to see both Age 7 Juliet and Age 35 Juliet present at the same "spatial" location in time.

Sorry, I didn't mean to derail the "Didn't Like It' thread. I am admittedly a layman, but the subject does interest me. Though all the knowledge I have on it comes from things like this: Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA) ;)

-----

Also, just quickly:

The way the TT was portrayed in this episode (and all along for that matter) is as if you could just bounce around in time and whatever happened before, in say, 1977, never existed because now Juliet delivers Amy’s baby in 1977. So, according to the tortured logic of the writers, Juliet’s delivering Amy’s baby has now happened, so now the “whatever happened, happened” rule is still intact? Give me a break. This entire series of events was, in fact, changed (big time) just by them being there: killing the two Others, saving Amy, Horace and Amy hook up and make a baby and then Juliet delivers the baby. If they didn’t end up in 1974, Amy never would have had this baby.

I still think you are missing the point of "whatever happened, happened."

It is not the case that "whatever happened never existed" because Juliet "now" delievers Amy's baby. Juliet delivering the baby didn't "now" happen...it has always happened in 1977. Nothing was changed by Juliet being there "now" (in the episode "LaFleur"). There was no other past. When Juliet comes to the island in 2001, her 35-year-old self had already delivered Amy's baby in 1977. When Dan says that it doesn't matter WHAT they do, because "whatever happened happened," he is saying that no matter what choices the characters make in the past, every single thing they do is what, if they were in 2004 looking back to the past, had made everything the way it was. Everything they do is event fulfillment. You can't go back and kill Hitler because you know that Hitler survived until 1945. If you go back and try to kill Hitler, you know that you will fail simply by virtue of the fact that he didn't die. Any assassination attempt that you try will have been an essential component of the Hitler story before you ever decided to go back in time.

So really, everything the Losties try to change in the past to affect the future will actually be responsible for bringing about what they already KNOW to happen in the future. Hypothetical Example: If one of the Losties tries to kill Ben as a child to make it so that he never grows up to be a villain, something will go wrong and they will fail, and may in fact be that suffering this trauma is what hardens him to become that villain in the firstplace. Any future events the Losties try to prevent will actually and ironically be fulfilled.

Wow, I just wrote a four or five paragraph post that just timed out. Dang. :undecide: I'll try to express the same ideas more concisely.

I see where you are coming from now Marc. But this isn't a problem for time travel. Again, the issue is simply one of perspective.

The notion that our bodies are a single entity that moves along through time and undergoes changes in itself is not an entirely accurate one. This is simply the perception that we are left with because of our limited capacities for understanding--we naturally see things in 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. But the real story is a little more complex. Our bodies to not move objectively through time and pass by certain landmarks. Instead, every person is really comprised of every version of themselves--older and younger--all existent "at once" (in an atemporal sense). Were we able to perceive an extra dimension, we would be able to see the older and younger versions of ourselves. As it is though, we can't, and when we look at a body and see it age, what we are really seeing is the cross-section of an extra-dimensional object that really contains all versions of us--but we, in our limitations, can only make out one age at a single time.

In the case of Juliet, imagine that her life is mapped out on a track, beginning with her birth and ending in her death, with each year labeled. The track is the timeline of her life. And say we have a marble that we are going to set moving along the track, beginning at her birth. What you seem to be asking is how the marble can be in two places on the track at once. But when we set it moving, and it passes chronologically through the years of her life, what we are seeing is not really "Juliet" in the marble. The marble is just an observer. We conventionally talk about time as if a person can be contained in a single time, but they really can't. "Juliet" is the track, containing every age, every "version" of herself. Without time travel we could imagine the track as linear, but time travel is the confirmation that the track was really bent the entire time. So when Age 7 Juliet and Age 35 Juliet both exist in 1977, what we are really seeing is this: the track, instead of forming a straight line, has looped and come all the way back around to form an intersection. The pre-bend section of the track, in this converging moment, has reached "Age 7," and following it around, post-bend, the spot on the track is now labeled "Age 35"--and they intersect at the very same moment. So when the marble rolls over that exact spot, the observer would be able to see both Age 7 Juliet and Age 35 Juliet present at the same "spatial" location in time.

Sorry, I didn't mean to derail the "Didn't Like It' thread. I am admittedly a layman, but the subject does interest me. Though all the knowledge I have on it comes from things like this: Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA) ;)

-----

Also, just quickly:



I still think you are missing the point of "whatever happened, happened."

It is not the case that "whatever happened never existed" because Juliet "now" delievers Amy's baby. Juliet delivering the baby didn't "now" happen...it has always happened in 1977. Nothing was changed by Juliet being there "now" (in the episode "LaFleur"). There was no other past. When Juliet comes to the island in 2001, her 35-year-old self had already delivered Amy's baby in 1977. When Dan says that it doesn't matter WHAT they do, because "whatever happened happened," he is saying that no matter what choices the characters make in the past, every single thing they do is what, if they were in 2004 looking back to the past, had made everything the way it was. Everything they do is event fulfillment. You can't go back and kill Hitler because you know that Hitler survived until 1945. If you go back and try to kill Hitler, you know that you will fail simply by virtue of the fact that he didn't die. Any assassination attempt that you try will have been an essential component of the Hitler story before you ever decided to go back in time.

So really, everything the Losties try to change in the past to affect the future will actually be responsible for bringing about what they already KNOW to happen in the future. Hypothetical Example: If one of the Losties tries to kill Ben as a child to make it so that he never grows up to be a villain, something will go wrong and they will fail, and may in fact be that suffering this trauma is what hardens him to become that villain in the firstplace. Any future events the Losties try to prevent will actually and ironically be fulfilled.
I’m quite certain we will have to agree to disagree on this, WJ. I’m going to do my best to tie in this episode further below, but first I must address the logic component.

If we were really comprised of “every version of ourselves, all at once,” how does that not suggest our entire existence is already mapped out- and not just the existence of our brief lives on Earth but the entire existence of the universe, by extension? To be comprised of every version of ourselves, we would need to know what all of those versions are: the beginning, the middle and the end (our birth, our life and our death). So if we know what all of our versions are, then our entire existence has to be mapped out so an observer could see it. This would suggest, at the very least, that our entire life is like a script from which we can’t deviate (i.e. nothing is random). All evidence is to the contrary: just think of how randomness affects our own individual lives and the world at large.

In this episode, we are to believe that everything happened the way it did because “what happened, happened.” Based on the “WHH” logic, you could explain anything that has ever happened or will ever happen in the entire existence of the world with that logic. That’s pretty convenient. It’s also utter nonsense, IMO.

Also, if the “marble” is just an “observer” who is that observer? This suggests that Juliet’s life is like the one we are seeing on the show (i.e. we are the observers). This is all fine and dandy in theory, but in reality how does this kind of theory account for things like randomness, ripple effects of our lives and how our lives intersect with everyone else that we have ever interacted with (not just family, friends and co-workers, etc. but everyone)? Just think of all the people we have encountered throughout our lives and think of all the “tracks” and therefore “marbles” that would entail. And people can’t be “contained in a single time?” How, then, can we measure time? Why is that we know people are born at a certain time and die at a certain time?

Now, back to this episode. So, Juliet’s life is comprised of every version of herself, all at once, and she is a track that is in a loop (i.e. a circle). How exactly does a circle intersect with itself? There is a beginning and an end (like Juliet’s birth, life and eventual death) to a circle, but in order to intersect at a different point than where / when the beginning and end meet in that circle, there would have to be an entire new track. So in order for Juliet to always have delivered Amy’s baby in 1977 (“WHH”), there would have to be another path / track to get the 35-year-old Juliet to 1977 to do this, right? How can there be an entire new track if Juliet is the “original” track? This is why I refer to this kind of logic as being “tortured” logic. Just look at all of the assumptions, theories and imagination you have to swallow in order for it to work.

Lastly, if this is the path they go down for LOST, good luck getting an average viewer to understand any of it- even with the little pop-up boxes, flowcharts and countless diagrams.

Aside from the fact that I'm just really tired of all the time hopping, the much-anticipated reunion at the end was a letdown and the episode as a whole was magnificently dull.

Loved the episode as a repeat with subtitle commentary. BUT I HATED SCRUBS!!!! wtf abc? where was LoST at 8PM????????? the only redeeming scene in scrubs was Courtney Cox in silk lingerie. yum...........now where's KATE???????????????

I think you have it right in your last post MarkB. “what happened, happened.” basically means that, at least in the lost universe, their entire existence has been mapped out and can't be changed.