DocArzt and Friends Logo

More Lost than Ever – 6.01 and 6.02 “LA X”

By Fishbiscuit,

  Filed under: Lost Recaps
  Comments: 198

“… all the stories that had ever been told and many that were still in the process of being invented could be found here, the Ocean of the Streams of Story …” – Haroun and the Sea of Stories

It’s a running joke that LOST is the TV show that keeps its fans perpetually starved and begging for answers. Well, it’s not really a joke … because it’s true. But this is the final season – time for the answers to start creeping out from under their hiding places, time for the story to start rumbling in for a landing.

So, now that we’ve seen the big gala premiere episode, how does it feel? Does it feel like it’s all starting to come together?

Hell, no! The two hour episode wound through multiple realities and story twists, only to end on a resurrected Sayid’s question: “What happened?” Good question! One we’re not getting the answer to anytime soon. Because, seriously, just to show how eternally screwed we all are: We waited eight months to find out what happened when Juliet hit the bomb and we still don’t know for sure whether or not it went off!

We saw that Kate had landed softly in the top of a tree.

And we found out that Juliet was miraculously still alive and squeaking after hugging herself around an H-Bomb while it (maybe) exploded in her face.

But the Island under everyone’s feet was fundamentally undisturbed. Juliet, last seen perpetually falling down into the abyss, was now only a few feet under ground. And she wasn’t buried in Radzinsky’s construction site. She was crushed under the rubble of the Swan Hatch as it had been when Desmond imploded it in 2004.

The Bomb Squad had time jumped, quite conveniently, to 2007, where all their friends were waiting on the beach to synch up storylines with them. But they hadn’t managed to unmake time so that whatever happened didn’t happen. So Jack’s plan didn’t work, right?

Right. Except for the part where it totally did!

And you know what that means, right? It means they went there.

“For every story, there is an anti-story” – Haroun and the Sea of Stories

In addition to still being on Craphole Island circa 2007, Jack and Locke and all their frenemies were also getting a do over on Flight 815, heading into LAX from Sydney Airport on a beautiful sunny September 22, 2004. Having exhausted the paradoxical quandaries of time travel stories, the intrepid writers of LOST have decided to boldly go to pretty much the only place they haven’t been before: Alternate/Parallel/Coexisting Realities. Which means that for all the devotedly bewildered watchers of LOST, the questions that need to be answered … just doubled.

If you’re in this thing for the Answers, you might as well set your DVR and come back in June. But if you’re up for another epic entanglement with a many headed Question Monster, then gird your loins and get ready to do battle. The questions in this story are like Whack a Mole. Hit one down and a new one pops up. Questions like:

How did the Island sink underwater? And when? In 1977, when the bomb did/didn’t go off? Then how did everyone not drown? Are they going to have to go back and find a way to resurrect Atlantis? Or is Season Six going to be the story of how they sunk it?

Is the Dharma Shark happy that he has the whole town to himself now?

Why was Desmond on the plane? And then not on the plane? Was Jack the only one who could see Desmond, the way only Hurley could see Jacob? Since he left someone who was snoring, and since Rose was sleeping the whole time he was there, is he some kind of Dream-Desmond?

What does it mean that Sayid was resurrected from a pool of water that had turned dirty?

Is he still Sayid? Or is he some kind of cousin to the creature who now possesses John Locke’s body?

And what does that tell us about Ben’s visit to the Temple in 1977? What really happened to young Ben inside the Temple?

And if we find out later that Sayid isn’t really Sayid any more, will that mean that Ben hasn’t ever actually been Ben?

What’s up with this Cindy chick? Is she like a permanent Other, or just an opportunistic beeyotch who always finds a way to hook up with the kool kidz?

Was there any particular reason that so much of the story in the alt-world took place inside small public toilets?

Should we be upset that Hurley is wearing the biggest Red Shirt ever made?

What does it mean that he was carrying a big old symbol of eternal life in his guitar case,

… and the first thing the Shogun dude did was break it?

Doesn’t that seem like a bad sign?

Why is the Man in Locke so mad at Richard? And what is he disappointed about?

And what chains did Richard used to be in?

How did Jacob die from a stab wound, when his God-Twin is impervious to bullets?

And speaking of Jacob, how can it be that Jack never heard about him before this? Doesn’t everybody know Jacob by now?

Did the Jack who was on the plane remember the Jack who was on the Island?

And did he have a personality transplant? All of a sudden he’s the most mellow fellow on the Island. He even stood by and let them drown Sayid!

This new Zen Jack seems to share a personality in common with the pleasant, friendly Jack we saw on the plane landing at LAX. Is Jack going to be the conduit between these two worlds? And the most shocking question of all: am I going to have to start liking Jack?

Whoa! We are clearly not in Kansas anymore. But, hey, at least we’re out of DharmaTown!

I think the place to start is with some nomenclature. This is not going to be easy. Damon Lindelof has cautioned against regarding this new off island storyline as an “alternate” universe, saying that ” We don’t use the phrase “alternate reality,” because to call one of them an “alternate reality” is to infer that one of them isn’t real, or one of them is real and the other is the alternate to being real.” So in the interest of keeping this whole thing true to his creative vision, I’ve decided to call this off island world OtherLOST. I think that kind of sums it up, without in any way implying that it’s inauthentic or less real.

I’ve also read that Darlton consider this season, in contrast to last season’s “graduate course in physics”, to be instead a “graduate course in the humanities”. I really like that idea. I want to go back to the Season One glory days when discussing this story inevitably revolved around issues that were philosophical and ethical and theological, when no crazy question or wild ass story arc took precedence over learning more about these wonderful characters. And I take them at their word that’s where this is all going. But for now, trying to figure out this first Season Six episode, I find myself going back inevitably, however reluctantly, to good old fashioned Quantum Physics. My (not at all) favorite subject.

In 1935, an Austrian physicist named Erwin Schrodinger felt the need to develop a thought experiment, or gedanken, because he had a quibble with some of his buddies about their theories of quantum mechanics. He wished to question the argument that a physical system only resolved all of its possible states once a measurement, or an observation, of its actual state was made. To do this, he invented a hypothetical “diabolical mechanism”, where a hypothetical cat was in a hypothetical box. The box was rigged with a silent but deadly hypothetical device that had exactly a 50/50 chance of going off and killing the cat.


There would be no way for anyone outside the box to know if the cat had been killed or not. Therefore, until the cat was observed to be either alive or dead … he was both! Basically, until we observe a specific reality, all possible realities are equally true. And unless I’m mistaken (which is definitely one possible reality) I think that’s where we are headed this season on OtherLOST.

Jack’s plan didn’t work.

And Jack’s plan worked.

At the same time.

Juliet is dead.

And Juliet is alive, looking for someone to split the tab with her at Starbucks.

Desmond was on the plane.

And Desmond wasn’t on the plane.

Jack argued with an Oceanic lackey and his father’s body got put on the plane.


Jack argued with an Oceanic lackey and his father’s body has become lost in time and space.

We should probably all try to be like Gedanken Desmond. As he said to Jack “Nice to meet ya. Or to see you again.”

It seems to me the first place to start understanding OtherLOST is to think of it as a system, one with common elements – our characters. All the possible states they could ever have been in are equally real … until some yet-to-be-made observation causes this fantastic world of infinite possibilities to collapse into one consistent reality. For right now, we’re flickering between two LOSTs. There’s LOST and there’s OtherLOST. It might just be a passing fling, but at the moment, I’m finding OtherLOST a whole lot more seductive. It’s a puzzle, after all, and I’ve never quite figured out how you can be a LOST fan if you don’t appreciate a good puzzle.


OtherLOST intrigues me. It’s the same, but it’s not. It’s not opposite world exactly, even though Charlie switched haircuts with Jack.

Some of the differences are pretty stark. Hurley went from being cursed to being the self described luckiest man alive.

Jack has gone from being a tightwound control freak to being, like, normal. OtherLOST looks good on Jack. He’s boozing less.

It’s him that has fear of flying this time, instead of Rose.

And he has no problem graciously accepting her advice that he should “let go now.” He’s actually … dare I say it … kind of … nice.

Hey there, OtherJack. Pleased to meet ya.

Rose and Bernard aren’t much different, but they are safe and happy together on the plane. Which is different.

With all due respect to the emotional tone deafness of LOST’s fanboy recappers, the Sawyer we see on the plane is subtly, but unmistakably, a different man. He’s not glowering at anyone. He’s polite, friendly, helpful … especially to Kate.

I think he’s being entirely sincere when he advises Hurley to shut his trap about his lottery loot when he’s in public. So do you think OtherSawyer killed that shrimp guy in Australia? I’m going to guess that answer is an obvious No.

OtherBoone is sans Shannon, and he also isn’t suffering from post-incestuous stress syndrome.

Locke appears unchanged.

Still crippled, still sad. But he seems melancholy more than miserable. And he’s somehow more peacefully philosophical, more secure in himself, less bitter.

He still likes to examine diagrams and charts.

And he claims to have gone on an actual Walkabout this time. That seems unlikely, even in OtherLOST, but when he describes what he did in the outback – “We slept under the stars and made our own fires, hunted our own food.” – it kind of does sound like what they just spent the last five years doing on the Island.

Hmmm.

Most of the differences are subtle, and probably still hidden. I really enjoyed the OtherLOST scenes because they began to feel like a subtle dance, with little bubbles of mystery popping up in unexpected places. I am officially intrigued.

Sayid is still gazing at Nadia’s photo, but he has an Iranian passport now. So what does that mean? Did he defect from the Revolutionary Guard? Is he a traitor now? Is he looking at the woman he lost or the woman who’s going to pick him up at the airport?

Kate is still a murderer, and she’s on the run, which feels the same … except that in OtherLOST, she’s no longer interested in the Halliburton case.

What happened? Did she and OtherTom never bury the plane? Or did they just never dig it up?

The numbers were still lurking around, but like everything else, they were just a little bit off. Jack’s seat on Flight815 is enshrined in LOST history as Seat No. 23. But on OtherLOST, by my counting, the row he was sitting in was No. 24. Maybe that’s the Other23.

Charlie is still a junkie in OtherLOST.

This time he tried to swallow his drugs for safekeeping, rather than pour them down the toilet. Jack came to his rescue, but for some reason he bypassed the more obvious Heimlich maneuver and went for the surgical method of heroin baggie removal. Maybe there are no first aid posters in OtherLOST.

OtherCharlie was saved, but as he resentfully reminded OtherJack: “I was supposed to die.”

It seems that some things don’t change, whatever reality we find ourselves in.

Jack didn’t seem to remember how he got that sore on his neck. And we were wondering along with him, because we don’t know either. Although it did look a bit like the wound that Faraday got when he was nicked by a bullet in The Variable. Did it mean anything that Jack only saw the sore in the mirror? Maybe, it’s both there and not there. It’s a Schrodinger’s sore.

Maybe the mirror itself was the clue. Maybe this time they’ve all passed through a different kind of looking glass. But OtherLOST isn’t a place of symmetric reversals. Many things were changed, but many weren’t.

Jin is still an uptight prick, still carrying Mr. Paik’s watch and a large sum of cash to LA, where presumably he still intends to bail on his father-in-law and disappear into some California Koreatown.

Unless she’s also still a liar, OtherSun can’t speak English. So, no Jae in her past. And no dreams of her own either. Poor OtherSun. Whipped, in any dimension.

OtherFlight 815 still went off course and flew over the latitude and longitude of the now sunken Island. That didn’t change.

Christian Shephard had obviously still gone to Australia and died there. And Jack was not feeling too kindly towards him, seeing as he wanted to cannonball his body from the plane straight into an open grave within two hours of landing. So the much beloved Shephard family dynamic appears to be intact.

The causal chains that brought each of the OtherLosties onto Flight815 were all different, some a lot different, some only a little. But somehow they all ended up again in Sydney, Australia looking to get on a flight to LA. Cause and effect had conspired to get them all into exactly the same place. Well, not all of them. Most of them. I’m not sure Claire was there. Or Michael or Walt or some others. But then again, maybe they were. Since we didn’t observe them, their superpositions haven’t yet collapsed into any concrete reality. See? That’s how this is going to work. Maybe.

What changed to make the characters so different? And what stayed the same? Was it a kind of butterfly effect, where one change set off an unpredictable new chain of cause and effect? Or are we also dealing with a Many Worlds fantasy now? Is this kind of like how the location of a rainbow changes depending on the location of the person who is observing the rainbow?

Or maybe we can go back to Schrodinger’s poor kitty for a minute. Instead of the cat being both alive and dead until observed, let’s imagine that at some point the cat dies … and at that same point, it also lives! Whenever a choice is made, the world branches out into two things – the thing that happened, and the thing that could have happened, but didn’t. Only now it does. Whatever happened, happened. And whatever didn’t happen … also happened!

And this goes on and on into infinity, so that the universe is made up of infinitely decohering realities. It’s mind blowing, and it has absolutely no practical application to life as we live it, but it’s a great way to take your imagination out for a ride.

When Desmond sits down next to Jack on the plane, he is carrying a book. I hope every LOST fan knows by now that you have to rewind the DVR whenever a book shows up, because trust me, you’re expected to know these things. The book is Salman Rushdie’s Haroun and the Sea of Stories.

Haroun lost his temper and shouted: ‘What’s the point of it? What’s the use of stories that aren’t even true?

The story begins in a city “so ruinously sad it had forgotten its name”, a city that finds its name and is saved by a wonderful thing – the power of imagination, and of stories. Salman Rushdie lists as his inspirations two literary influences that we are very familiar with on LOST – Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz. But he also lists a third, The Arabian Nights, which is a book we’ve never really seen referenced on LOST before. Until now.

That is – if you want to compare this years bunch of random mooks to Arabians. Whatever we call them, we have met the Season Six Tailies/Others/FreighterFolk/Dharma-ites. It’s like the props department wanted to use up all their spare parts, so they dumped everything into the multicultural mixmaster, and came up with something that had a kind of Apocalypse Now meets the Planet of the Apes feel to it.

I don’t know how to describe these people. It was kind of like John Lennon was translating for Shang Tsung at Indiana Jones’s Temple of Doom while the Mad Max children from Tomorrowland served cookies for everyone.

WTF are these people doing there and why have we never seen them before? … Ah, it wouldn’t be a new season of LOST if we didn’t get to ask that question at least once, would it?

I’ve got to admit, I was underwhelmed by this season’s choice of Others. But they obviously went to a lot of trouble to build that wicked looking temple thingie, and there’s got to be something about all this that will mean something to us at some point. So I’ll give it a shot. This heretofore unseen gigantic palace in the middle of the Island had obviously been built above the place where we had seen the Smoke Monster drag Rousseau’s crew underground. In the bowels of the temple, Kate and Hurley find a copy of Kierkegaards “Fear and Trembling”, and you know what that means. Book Alert!

This is a book about Faith, which uses the Biblical story of Abraham obeying God by murdering his son to illustrate the many difficulties that arise when a man resolves to have Faith in that which is Absurd. Certainly as LOST fans we can identify with that. And in the great LOST tradition of bastardizing all the faiths of the world and using them as chum for the story, this Angkor Wat knockoff had within it what looked like a Jewish mikveh – a ritual bath of purification. Now where else other than LOST can you find two things like that in the same place?

Sayid figured his soul wasn’t headed to a good place, and it turns out he was right. He was taken in for his baptism and they didn’t take him out until the bubbles stopped coming up. Apparently they had to kill him in order to save him.

But why? Weren’t these guys Friends of Jacob and hadn’t Jacob ordered them to save Sayid? When they heard that Jacob was dead, they all ran out like the volunteer fire department to lay a ring of ash around their fortress, and to fire off a rocket to …

Richard?

It seems like this quasi-ancient society coexists in time with 2007 where Richard is on the beach, waiting for NotJohnLocke to come out of The Big Foot.

And even though Jacob had been living inside the Foot, the guys in the temple seemed like they were his amigos. NotJohnLocke, as we know, had just found the loophole he needed to kill his God-Twin, Jacob. After which we found out, by watching his ruthless slaughter of Ilana’s men, that the being who inhabits NotJohnLocke is also the force that we have come to know and love all these years as The Smoke Monster.

“I’m sorry you had to see me that way”

I know this was meant to be a huge revelation, but somehow I felt like we already knew that the Smoke Monster was the being who was inhabiting Locke. What we didn’t know was that the Monster doesn’t consider himself a monster at all. He may look like a coldhearted, deadeyed bastard, but all he’s trying to do is the same thing we watched Jack Shephard try to do for the first three seasons. Like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, he just wants to go home.

Where is his home? Is it off the Island? Is it inside the Temple where he used to drag his prey, but where he’s now kept out by a ring of ash? A ring of ash that apparently wasn’t needed until Jacob died and the Temple lost his protection? And didn’t we just see him in that Temple very recently, when he appeared to Ben as Alex and told him to obey NotJohnLocke, i.e. himself? Oy, the labyrinth of questions never ends.

Whoever he is, whatever he is, he’s the nemesis of Jacob. The black to his white. The Lucifer to his Michael. The Twin. The Other. And whatever else we know about this Battle of the Titans that’s going on just beyond the wall of our understanding, I think we can all see that these two are the Gods of the Island. If there was ever any doubt, consider this: They know everything. Jacob knew that a time traveling Jin had been with Rousseau’s crew as they were being dragged by the Smoke Monster into his lair. Where did Jacob come by that knowledge?

And his Bad Twin went him one better: He had been inside John Locke’s very mind the night he was murdered and had felt his fear and heard his dying thought.

These guys have omnipotence. They exist outside of time and space. But what is their endgame? What are they trying to accomplish? It feels like a war, but it also feels like a game.
And games, as we know, are sometimes won … and sometimes LOST.
A game has rules: In this one, you can’t hit a player when he’s inside a circle. Although, as in any good video game, there are plenty of backdoors and tricks.

And there are players. In last year’s finale, we saw how Jacob went about the process of choosing his playing pieces. He chose Ilana, Jack and Locke, Sawyer and Kate, Sun and Jin, Sayid and Hurley.

Is that why Sayid couldn’t die? Was he “killed” because he couldn’t be saved, because both his body and soul had been ruined? But then, because he’s one of the playing pieces Jacob has chosen, was it necessary to bring him back? Even if he is, technically, maybe, no longer Sayid at all? Was that why Sayid lived again after death, but Juliet – who was never chosen – had to stay dead?

I don’t know if you missed it in this episode but Juliet died. For quite some time. The Interminable Dying of St. Juliet, lasted – if you include the hiatus and all the excruciating commercials – about eight freaking months. And in the course of it, magically, her motivation shifted 180 degrees. Instead of hitting the bomb so she could never have to meet and lose her precious James, she now claimed to have only wanted to let him go home … which, I hate to tell you, could have been accomplished a whole lot more efficiently, if she’d just stayed on the damn submarine! Argh, I hate when LOST slips and insults us like that.

So, what was the point of it all? You know I really hate to bring this up – really, I do – but there’s an ugly comic book trope some of you may be familiar with – something called ” Women in Refrigerators.” The name comes from this iconic comic moment when the Green Lantern’s girlfriend is killed and stuffed in a refrigerator, thereby driving forward the adventures of the bereft heroic boyfriend. Because the hero’s story matters. And, just like Juliet’s, the refrigerator woman’s story does not.

The medical genius who went toe to toe with Ben Linus was reduced to the adoring helpmate of James LaFleur and then sent for a little spin through a meat grinder. The fact that so many online fans keep having multiple orgasms over this sexist storyline makes me sad.

The flipside trope to this comic book staple is known as “Dead Men Defrosting”, wherein when a male character is killed off, he frequently returns, altered in ways that make him even more intriguing and intrinsic to the tale. Exhibit A: Sayid Jarrah. Gender: male.

But hey, I’m not going to let a little misogyny get between me and my favorite storytellers. I just really felt it needed to be said. And besides, all is not yet lost. There are still a few women left alive around here.

Season Six Kate is showing some definite signs of returning to her longlost badassery. It will probably take awhile to wring all the Kate Hate out of this fandom, but I like that it looks like she’s finally getting her mojo back.

It was so great to see Kate back to Season One form. She was wild and brave and tough – at least OtherKate was. And on the Island, Kate seemed to be back on the side of Sawyer, which just always feels more natural.

The scene where she tenderly helped a wounded Sawyer reminded me instantly of the way she had nursed him in Collision when he was near death.

Sawyer decided he wouldn’t kill Jack after all, only let him live so he could suffer.
And once again, at least part of Jack’s suffering comes from having to sit off to the side, watching, as Kate’s affections turn to Sawyer.

That wasn’t the only scene that conjured up memories of how LOST used to be. The entire sprawling episode was glittering with inside references and callbacks and déjà vu of seasons past, especially Season One.
The sequence of the passengers disembarking in LA mirrored the famous plane boarding scene from Exodus and the same musical theme played to poignantly accent the reflection.
Familiar relationships from Season One reassembled effortlessly in OtherLOST. Boone and Locke will be friends in any universe of possibility.

Sayid and his feet of fury will always be of invaluable assistance to Jack.

Jack met the other characters in much the same order as he did in the Pilot. First Rose, then Charlie, then Kate. Only instead of stitching him up this time, Kate ripped him off.

LOL. I really like this OtherKate.

Sawyer had Kate’s back in the elevator, instinctively helping her to get free. But why did Sawyer help her? I don’t know, but I have a feeling this might be one of the more effervescent mystery bubbles in OtherLOST. Was it just me or was that look he gave her on the plane something other than flirtation? Was it maybe … recognition?

Jack’s attempt to revive Sayid mirrored his desperate Season One attempt to revive Charlie … except that this time he failed.

The Marshall got his noggin conked, which seems to be his interdimensional destiny.

Both times Jack landed at LAX, he didn’t have his father’s body to bury.

And Claire was back! I can’t wait to see what happens next between Aaron’s Two Mommies.

And of course, we got to see the true “ultimate relationship” of LOST begin to unfold before our eyes in OtherLOST.

John Locke, in his white shirt, and Jack Shephard, in his black suit, together form the kernel at the heart of this story. I don’t think that can possibly be denied at this point. The scene of them exchanging awkward looks as they left OtherFlight815 perfectly mirrored the moment in Exodus when they caught one another’s eyes upon boarding.

At the end of the episode, they met up unexpectedly in a place that made perfect sense – Lost Luggage Claims. Nothing in the entire episode was more striking than this encounter. The Island adversaries bonded in a scene that twinkled with many facets of irony.

Jack offered his services as a spinal surgeon to try and fix John’s disability. OtherLocke is still “irreparably broken.”

OtherJack is still The Fixer, but the framing felt more profound. It didn’t feel like the same old controlling obsession we remember from Jack.
It felt like … Redemption. “Nothing is irreversible”, he said, and somehow that sounded like a motto we’re going to need to remember as we continue on. But what will end up being reversed? Which reality needs to be fixed?

John was gentle and helpful to the distressed Jack, and reminded him of something that’s very important in this story. Jack hadn’t lost his father, only his father’s body.

It’s something we need to keep in mind as we continue this beguiling journey. It’s not the surface that matters, not the things we can see.

Here is my secret. It is very simple: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.– The Little Prince

The soul is not bound to the carcass it inhabits. As John Locke’s story has shown us, the body itself is only a vessel. OtherJohn had lost his knives, the body that carried the soul of his manhood. But in our Island tale, a knife was the instrument of NotJohnLocke’s vengeful spirit. Which will it be in the end of our story, when it finally winds down to the ending that must come?

I don’t jump to the conclusion, like many have, that NotJohnLocke is evil and Jacob is good. I don’t know if the Island is even meant to be seen as a place that is either evil or good. Despite the constant references to black and white contrasts, I’m not settled on the idea that Western style bi-polar morality is where this story is eventually headed.

One of the logical deductions of the Many Worlds Interpretation is that morality is irrelevant. Whether good or evil is done, whatever the consequences may be, whatever happens … it’s just another branching point, a different set of consequences, a new chain of cause and effect. No reality has dominance over another. No outcome is superior or more desirable. Everything just is what it is.
It’s a good Zen concept to take into the season I think. It’s time to drop our expectations and predictions and just start bobbing along for the ride. The story has gotten more complex, more inscrutable, more impossible. And that has to be by design. I’m reminded of last season’s Book Club Selection: Everything That Rises Must Converge. A title that hearkens to the theory of the Omega Point, where a universe of ever increasing diversity ultimately converges into a state of transcendent unity of consciousness.

Yeah, I know LOST isn’t going to ever be able to hit a philosophical point that sophisticated, but I do think they’re headed in that general direction. Since we started with physics, but we’ve been promised a season moored in the humanities, it might be good to remember the words of a great genius who well represented that rare combination.

Obviously, I’ve got high hopes for this season. I’m willing to look past some of the glitches and kitschy misteps, at least for now, as long as I still get the sense that the story is reaching for the stars. I’m not sure John Locke’s dying thought was all that sad: “I don’t understand.” Well, who does? Certainly noone who is currently watching LOST. But that’s ok. If we understood it all right now, what fun would that be?

I’m strapped in for the season. Looks like it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

From TVFrenzy:

  • GeigerCounter

    I actually got a definite answering your questions vibe from the premiere. A few thing became clear, a few were set up to be cleared in the near future.

    Have you ever noticed how in the past seasons characters would say they are going to do something but we would never get to see them doing it? Well the fact that we got to see the temple for the first time since it was mentioned in season 3 and the fact that we got to see what they did to Ben in there last season, these things tell me that season 6 will be all about showing and explaining.

    • TW

      Go Tiger!!!!!!!!!!

  • richie k

    Jesus f c. don’t be optimistic, why don’t you just keep slagging off the show we all love, on a site dedicated to it, go on.
    really i’m happy for you, because you clearly think this show is SUCH a MASSIVE disappointment, and you’re about to watch the rest of it, more fool you dickbuiscuit, i for one will just ignore EVERYTHING else you post, and i so wish i had’nt looked at this. bye.

    • Absz009

      Wow. Now you’re the type who gives the LOST fans a bad name. There’s always one that has to crawl out the woodwork screaming like a madman with rabies.

      By what you call “slagging off” – I call constructive criticism. Yes, as much as I hate to admit it – LOST does have its flaws – tiny flaws but still flaws nevertheless. Even LOST can’t hide from criticism unfortunately. Sorry to break to you, son.

      In the meantime, you might want to calm down. Sure, It’s a show we all love but there’s no need for bitching and name-calling because you don’t agree with a criticism. Plus Fishbiscuit’s gripes were small, nothing major like you’re insintuating.

      And you’re thinking why am I taking the time to defend someone else? Because I happened to agree with Fishbiscuit’s criticisms and I’m sure there are people, like you, who disagree but there’s no need for the flaming.

    • Twitchy

      Yeah, get off from here, Richie k! Don’t you dare insult Fishie, the BEST reviewer of Lost. The only one who connects dots instead of just listing everything that happened in the episode. She’s clever and she makes a unique use of images and recalls from books.
      She has critics to do on the show.. So what? You think it’s perfect? I think not, some things suck. What’s the point n addressing it critically?
      Hope we can take that ‘bye’ as an action.

      • Absz009

        lol 🙂

    • MoniquE

      richie k youre not fooling anyone. No way you actually read this review. I would guess it’s about a mile over your head.

    • Kevin

      Did you read the same review I did? Fish wasn’t slagging off the episode at all. She had a few criticisms about it, but I guess you feel nothing but glowing praise is acceptable.

    • Flocko

      Richie, don’t forget to breathe. That was a completely over-the-top comment. You need to relax.

  • Kevin James John

    I disagree, I felt really sorry for John Locke and it upset me to see he was nothing but a broken man and in the end he still didn’t understand.

    • Luddite

      Isn’t “I don’t understand” the last thing the Bulgy Bear said before dying in C.S. Lewis’s The Last Battle? And after the Bear died, he reappeared along with all the other good, beloved Narnian characters in the other Narnia on the other side of the stable door. Like Narnia, but more so.

  • Crystal

    Fantastic recap, Fish! You touched on all the things that both fascinated me and left me even more confused than ever. From the Other-Others to these flash-sideways, Sawyer/Kate, Jack/Locke, Juliet’s redundant and pointless death.. it’s been a doozy of a premiere.

  • Cul-de-Zack

    Loved your Rewatch recaps, and I’m already loving your season recaps. Nicely done!

    For some reason, I hadn’t noticed Kate stealing Jack’s pen. I guess that explains the odd line “I had a pen in my pocket, but it’s gone!”

  • Windy

    Great recap. Glad I wasn’t the only one tortured by the endless Carrie-like finish to Juliet.

    I was troubled by the cheesy sunken island shots, which seemed more a nod to the snowglobe theory than anything else. We have seen the island sink underwater before, when Ben moved it, and no one drowned then. But it only sunk when seen from the helicopter…

    Not clear that O815 actually flies over it–it’s not like Jack looks out the window and sees the bottom of the ocean.

    The best reason not to trust the Smokey-bad/Jacob-good equation is Ilana and Bram’s proclamations that they’re the good guys. I seem to remember Ben saying that a few hundred times, and maybe even Tom (Mr. Friendly).

    • Jack’s Sidekick

      Carrie was her favorite book, you know?

    • naultz

      we have never seen the island sink under water . the island “moved” to another time.

    • Benjamin

      Yeah, sorry Windy…the island didn’t sink when Ben turned the wheel. Just kinda made some “Kerplunk!” ripples in the ocean. Slowly stick your finger in some water then take it out. See? hahaha.

  • Jack’s Sidekick

    As for Jack sitting in seat 23 before and now 24, I thought I noticed the wing missing, since it was in his window’s view the first time around. Also when it comes to Locke not understanding, I think the idea is that he really believed he would go back to the island alive and that he had a destiny. Having been saved a few times in the past (Most notably when Ben shot him, then he saw tall Walt and came back healed) he just couldn’t have imagined being allowed to die. Also on that note, how is it that the island let Michael die until it was done with him but it let Locke? Maybe the island was done with Locke’s body I’m guessing. Or was the force that protected Michael also somehow lost through time, or maybe suffered from the flashes in some way. It seemed to me like maybe the island would weaken a bit in those three years where really Claire was all that was around from 815, all alone since Jack and company were off island and Sawyer’s crew were back in time.

  • dd

    How does FB determine Sayid has an Iranian passport?

    • Zoriah

      I was curious myself as I missed that in viewing, but here you go:

      http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Sayid%27s_passport

      Check out the screencap. The Fish is correct. Why is Sayid now a citizen of Iran?

      • WheresDesmond

        My guess is that Sayid still worked with the CIA in Australia and the passport is a dummy one that they gave him in return for his assistance. If that’s the case then it also likely has a false name.

  • thetrunkmonkey

    Geez fishbiscuit, they killed Juliet off because she was doing work on her new show V. Not because they are sexist.

    Also, I doubt LOST will meet your “high expectations”. Just enjoy it for what it is and what it will be. If it doesn’t happen how you want, then that’s ok. I’m along for the ride, no matter where it takes us!

    • Seabiscuit

      Liz auditioned for V because the writers were killing her character off, not the other way around. You don’t go looking for another job if you didn’t know you were being let go.

      • thetrunkmonkey

        So the writers are racist for killing Michael, and sexist for killing Juliet? Were the writers being sexist when they killed off Shannon? When is it sexist and when is it not sexist? If the writer is white, can he only kill off white characters without being racist? If he’s male, can he only kill off male characters? Fish’s only evidence is that Juliets death furthers Sawyers story, therefore it is sexist. I don’t think that warrants that kind of accusation. Just my two cents 🙂

        • Glue your eyelids

          Did you read the “women in refrigerators” link? Here’s another: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge It’s not sexist to have a female character die/suffer, but things become fishy when this systematically happens to give their S.O. a reason to seek revenge/advance their plot. It happens twice to Sayid with Shannon and Nadia, and now to Sawyer through Juliet’s death. Particularly blatant since, as FB has noticed, her motivations for sacrifice (when so much of her story arc was about evolving from the passive woman who was manipulated first by her creepy husband, then by Ben) are rather inconsistent. She was written off to give Sawyer’s storyline a new spin. Alas.

          • Jack’s Sidekick

            yeah and all the discrimination against polar bears. DAMMIT! WHY?

          • apackofmonkeys

            So then, you would agree that Kate’s very close childhood friend dying because of her, sending her into “tortured mode” is also sexist? What about when Sun (and us viewers) thought Jin was dead and it sparks her wish for revenge against Ben? I guess that was that sexist until we found out Jin was actually alive, then it magically became not sexist.
            What about Charlie dying affecting Desmond and Hurley? Is this some form of anti-Manchester discrimination?
            I don’t care about your link; what magically makes gender the only category that can be discriminated against if a member of that category dies to further someone else’s story?

          • JackAttack

            Ding! The Monkeys have it.

            If there’s any group that have been discriminated against, it’s gingers. First slap-happy Sawyer takes it to Charlotte, then she kicks it only to have Daniel go comatose for 3 years.

            Fishy B, I really enjoy your recaps, and this was no exception… but aside from a passing pop-culture reference to WiF, I think any further claims of sexism seem a bit of a stretch.

  • lgh

    Ummm, I think the reason Juliet seemed not that far underground was because Sawyer and friends were already at the bottom of a massive crater caused by the Swan explosion. Despite that plausible explanation, however, I will trust your powers of observation and doubt the show that provides a really interesting story created by a large workforce of talented professionals.

    • Andrew

      i wondered at first too, but i’m pretty sure you’re right. about the crater i mean.

  • Zoriah

    Hey Fish, thanks for giving us your take on the Lost premiere. I agree that there were a lot more questions raised as per usual, but I totally love your shroedinger’s cat analogy. That we will be getting to see both how it worked and how it didn’t work, and both are equally valid, just like Darlton themselves have been quoted as saying.

    I have no idea what’s going on with Sayid. I fear he has gone the way of Locke. That the Sayid we knew and loved is gone. Mind you, after what he did to Ben, I suppose this could be some weird kind of Karmic justice. On the other hand, the Lost writers do love to surprise and shock us, so the obvious assumption that something is possessing Sayid could be way off base.

    I’m so sad that Locke’s last thought was I don’t understand. It’s both tragic and fitting. Seeing Terry O’Quinn play both Smokey incarnate and OtherLocke was such a treat.

    I agree that Jack was pretty sympathetic and likeable this episode. I felt his remorse, and for once he didn’t seem to scream self-absorption but genuine concern and sorrow at how his plan had worked out for those around him. OtherJack was less reactionary and one of my fave scenes of the ep was with OtherLocke in baggage claim.

    ‘Nothing is irreversible’ does seem to be a line which stands out. Also ‘You can let go now.’

    Locke’s comforting message about how Jack’s father was not lost, only his body was poignant and seemed to whet my appetite for more metaphysical discussion.

    But where is Smokey’s home? When has Richard been in chains?

    Why did the temple and the new Others look so hokey and Temple of Doom-ish? Lennon was channeling Lennon. I’m not sold on him or Dogen yet.

    I agree that Juliet seems to have been fridged. To motivate Sawyer’s arc and drive him darker this season.

    Loved Kate, loved the Sawyer/Kate scenes. As usual they got the musical love them, the gorgeous lighting, the long wistful looks, and even Jack looking on.

    The Juliet death scene was overkill. But good for those fans of the pairing I guess. Seemed to lessen the impact of the finale, though, for me. Also her motivation got beatified. Sorry, but she changed her mind so as to never lose Sawyer to Kate. She stated that in the finale. It wasn’t to send him home. And to what? He was a soul destroyed guy coming back from having killed the wrong man in his quest to get brutal revenge on the real Sawyer. Why send him back to that? It made no fricking sense.

    I don’t understand why people think you hate scifi, or are slagging the show. It’s obvious that you love the show, but are not blind to its shortcomings, and have your own preferences in watching. There’s nothing wrong with preferring the character development and drama or philosophical themes vs the geeky mythological puzzle within a puzzle theorizing that some people enjoy.

    Lost has something for everyone. I am thrilled that the creators said this season would be a lesson in the humanities.

    Loved that you reused a Little Prince quote. I have a feeling that people who want every question they have in their minds explained will be disappointed and be missing the journey along the way.

    As the creators pointed out the only questions which matter are those the characters themselves are burning to find out. So Scott and Steve, and the Hurley Bird, and the lack of hair bushes and such are never going to be explained in my opinion.

    SW was a little ruined by over-explanation. I just hope that the writers give us enough of a great story that we can overlook not having every single mystery or ? explained thoroughly.

    Demystifying Lost would be a bad thing. JMO.

  • B.A.Y.

    Great review. Well done. Thanks, Fishbiscuit. I agree with you. It’s very strange for Juliet to say: I just wanted you to be able to go home. Makes no sense. If that was her heart’s desire, she and Sawyer could have stayed on the sub. I was so astounded by that remark that I’ve decided not to take it at face value. She was mind-traveling at the time. Who knows what she really meant?

    MIB wants to go home. It’s his heart’s desire. All this talk of going home? Coincidence? Probably. But, on this show, who knows, especially when I heard monster-like noise coming from her grave when Miles put his head down on the burial mound.

  • JJ

    LOL @ all the butthurt fanboys who can’t stand the fact that you give both praise and criticism when deserved.

    Great recap Fish.

    • thetrunkmonkey

      No issues with criticism for LOST from me, just misdirected criticism. Same goes for misdirected praise :). Just because someone disagrees with an opinion doesn’t make them “butthurt fanboys”. Most people are more complicated than that bud.

  • As always, Fishbiscuit, you’ve done a great job. Very enjoyable read. I am troubled, though, that you consider the show misogynistic in its handling of Juliet’s death. Firstly, I don’t think they changed her motivation — I think they added a new wrinkle. You were right to point out the inherent contradiction between what she said to Sawyer in “The Incident” versus what she said in “LA X,” but that doesn’t mean she did a 180. She loved Sawyer and wanted what was best for him as well as what was best for herself. That type of love is not misogynistic, but realistic. There are plenty of strong, independent women who are loving and supportive. During the Suliet period of season 5, I never felt that Juliet had lost her independence. It felt more like she had decided to give her heart to someone regardless of the consequences.

    What’s great, though, is how well thought out your argument is, and that we can have debates like this. It troubles me when people disagree and resort to name calling (i.e. “dickbiscuit” earlier). Thanks, again, for another terrific recap.

  • Benjamin

    Just a few things..

    Juliet’s death. Redundant and pointless? By this point in the game, we as LOST viewers should realize that nothing is pointless in this story. (Unless you’re names are Nikki and Paulo) We have another season to complete before we can come to the conclusion that such things are pointless or redundant. Until we know it all, we know close to nothing. Or at least that’s how I’m watching the show now..

    The temple and the others. Why is it that the question of who these people are, has come up so frequently since the premiere? We know who they are. We may not know exactly where (or when) they came from..but I thought it should’ve been pretty obvious to us all that these ‘new’ people were the same others we’ve come to know and love..and hate, since season one. We were introduced to the Temple in season three, and we know that a group of the Others (including Cindy and the kids) had gone there for protection. Doesn’t Ben say its probably the only safe place left on the island? So it would seem the temple belongs to them..they didnt just snatch it up like they did the Dharma barracks. My guess is that there are permanent ‘Temple Others’ like Mr. “I Don’t like the way english tastes on my tongue.” and John Lennon, who have been there for a very long time.

  • Eren Zaki

    I agree with you in regards to the Temple Others. I thought the same, too.

    But I think what Fishbiscuit was trying to say was why didn’t they show us these Temple Others before in either Season 4 or 5? Why did they wait until the FINAL season to show us the Temple Others? They only mentioned them but never showed them. Hell, they waited until the final season to properly show us the insides and entrance of the Temple.

    And just a side question, how come NotLocke/Smokey and Ben were able to walk into the Temple without the Temple Others knowing? It seemed like nobody was there. It seemed abandoned. That’s the feeling I got, anyway.

    Also, on a side note, it seems the Temple Others are kind of a seperate faction and work somewhat independantly from the regular Others.

    • dd

      Are people seriously debating why the Others at the Temple have not been shown until now? This blows my mind.

      • Eren Zaki

        Um, I wasn’t asking this question. I was merely stating that Fishbiscuit was asking this question in regards to Benjamin’s post.

        But I’d like to know why you think the Temple Others have not been shown until now since it “blows your mind”. I love how people say that randomly and then never elaborate or back it up. You’ve obviously got inside information. Please enlighten me with your genius, sir.
        I don’t see why they couldn’t have shown the Temple Others in Season 4 or Season 5 at the very least. It seems they wanted keep that whole aspect of the Others mysterious and secretive that’s all. But that’s no biggie for me.

        • dd

          It’s not inside information.

          You have to think about how these characters would fit into the story prior to their proper introduction. LOST didn’t have the space to usefully tell their story. Introducing them too early would also deflate the final act. It would also detract from telling the story of the survivors. It’s a balancing act. You can’t have it all without sacrifice. Is LOST about the survivors of O815 and friends or is it about the Temple clan?

          Think about how we only know as much as the survivors. Our knowledge increases in conjunction with theirs. The whole matter of narrative perspective is made inconsistent if these characters are added too early. You also want to remember that the LOSTies didn’t really have an opportunity to be introduced in any meaningful manner in the plot that has been given to us.

          Basically, the temple characters are incidental until their presence can advance the plot.

          I prefer the careful revelations over vomiting information all over an already dense plot. Think of it like premature ejaculation.

          If you get a chance, read “the Good Soldier” by Ford Maddox Ford for insight on perspective and omission of facts.

          • dd

            “You also want to remember that the LOSTies didn’t really have an opportunity to be introduced in any meaningful manner in the plot that has been given to us.”

            Oops– Losties should be replaced with “temple nerds.”

          • Absz009

            That is a good post, dd. I totally understand your point from a narrative perspective. I mean I’ve done enough screenwriting courses to know that you can’t hand feed plot details to the readers/viewers. It’s better to reveal plot details through the eyes of the characters because they are the guide after all.

            But nobody’s saying that they should’ve revealed anything about the Temple Others in regards to their purpose/mission and the Temple itself. They could have still shown them without actually revealing anything and teasing us which is what LOST is great at. I mean it’s not like the Temple Others were a secret or anything – we knew they existed, we just wasn’t shown them on screen. I think there were a few opportunities in Season 5 that they missed.

            The main two Temple Others – the Mr “I hate English” and his translator were used to great effect in the Season 6 premiere, so I think revealing them early on would have been a big mistake. But that shouldn’t have stopped them from using the other Temple Others. Just like in Season 1, we met a lackey of the Others called Ethan and didn’t meet the leader, Ben until Season 2. I dunno to me their whole introduction didn’t have any kind of build-up – they had no presence in the story, except word of mouth. Especially when you remember the last time characters (NotLocke & Ben) made a trip to the Temple – it seemed empty and abandoned.
            Just a side question: How come the Temple folk wern’t alerted to Ben & NotLocke’s presence, but alerted to the Losties in the Season 6 premiere?

            And also just to be clear, I don’t think they should’ve had a whole bunch of episodes heavily revolving around the Temple Others. A couple of scenes here and there would have been fine for me and kept the mystery and intrigue of it all intact. Like I said, I think there were a few opportunities in Season 5 that they missed.
            Then obviously Season 6 they would properly go into detail and introduce the Temple clan fully and reveal subplots. It’s no biggie – I just would’ve liked to have seen a tiny bit more of the Temple Others prior to Season 6 because it seems they work somewhat independant of Ben’s regular Others and have a bit more knowledge of what’s going on in the Island.

            But anyways, good points, dd. Actually my friend recommended me that book the other day. I will definately track it down now that you’ve mentioned it. Thanks.

          • Eren Zaki

            whoops, sorry I posted on my brother’s nickname (absz009) accidently.

    • Eren Zaki

      They definately seem to have more of a knowledge and bearing of what’s going on on the Island in regards to Jacob, Smokey and the healing power of the Island and maybe many other mysteries than the regular Others. They seem to have more of a importance and understanding.

  • dd

    What does Fb and her fans mean when they derisively mention “fanboys?”

    • Eren Zaki

      Probably the “fanboys” who claim to know everything about LOST – even more than Darlton themselves and go batsh*t crazy whenever somebody criticises LOST in the slightest. I’m sure you know which one you are, sir. Hey, you asked.

      • dd

        I know I don’t claim to know more than the writers of LOST. But I also know I don’t write about things that I don’t know anything about like FB.

        • Bezmina

          Fanboy is a generic tem for obsessives, we are all fanboys, even us ladies! However your second sentence there is classic fanboy, I salute you sir!

          • dd

            I don’t get how the second sentence is “classic fanboy.”

            My statement just comments on the weakness of FB. A few great character insights are often marred by misstating concepts or failing to understand aspects of the story.

            What I don’t understand is how FB and her lackeys are not “fanboys.” It’s said with an air of defiance as if they are some kind of minority opposition. I think it’s strange.

          • MoniquE

            dd, the second sentence is classic fanboy because it’s passive aggressive (“I don’t write about things that I don’t know anything about”) and nasty (“like FB.”)

            I don’t agree that fanboy = obsessive. We’re all obsesives. I think fanboys are the nasty types online who only like the sci fi, don’t get much of the deeper, emotional stuff, and then lash out at anyone who likes to look at Lost that way. They can’t just enjoy the parts of the show that they like, they have to constantly slag on people who like the romance aspects or look to discuss mostly the emotional aspects.

            These recaps are my fave because they appreciate the sci fi stuff without worshipping it and they also really get into all the non sci fi stuff. Like someone said they make connections and ask questions, most other recappers just make a list.

  • numbersarebad

    Richard being in chains seems to point to him being a former Black Rock slave/prisoner. Maybe the island being underwater is how the Black Rock got in the middle of the island in the first place, if it happened before.

    I am confused about the true nature of the Others. They seem to live in tents and the temple sometimes but other times they live in Dharmaville. Some wear shoes and some don’t. What seems confusing to me is they way Michael saw them and the season one and two 815ers saw them, they were dressed dirty and like hillbillies. Then in season 3 we get the impression they were really just dressing up like hillbillies to decieve the 815ers. Later we see Locke take charge of the Others and that group looks more rugged. Now we see the Others at the temple and they look like a hybrid of hippy and hillbilly…”Who are these people?”

  • toga

    Well I’m glad at least you hated to write it. I assume because of how people will judge you. Or because of how insulting it is to the writers of lost.

    Did you take issue with Faraday dying so that Jack would take over his mission?

    From the wiki:

    “To me the real difference is less male-female than main character-supporting character. In most cases, main characters, “title” characters who support their own books, are male. […] the supporting characters are the ones who suffer the more permanent and shattering tragedies. And a lot of supporting characters are female.”

    Regardless Juliet is both alive and dead like everyone else. She will almost certainly have a happy ending with Sawyer when things converge. Either way on May 23 we’re both going to be doing the same thing, but I think I’ll be the one emotionally satisfied. Just one butthurt fanboys opinion.

    • MoniquE

      I guess it’s not a coincidence that a fanBOY doesn’t see the sexism. Can’t you see that women always being the supporting characters IS sexism? I hated what they did to Juliet also and not just because she got fridged. It was also what happened before, how they ruined Juliet’s whole story and made her nothing but a wife-bot.

      She will “almost certainly have a happy ending with Sawyer?” LOL! Way to miss all the Sawyer and Kate anvils they pounded us with in this episode. All I can say is if it’s the butthurt fanboys who are the ones more “emotionally satisfied” by the end of Lost, then it’s going to be a really lame ending.

      • MoniquE

        Sorry, one other thing. “Juliet is both alive and dead like everyone else”. What? Everyone else is also dead? You should really enlighten us with your insight.

        • toga

          Did my comments recreate some childhood ptsd? Yes, I meant to say two Juliets, just like everyone else. One alive and one dead. But I have a feeling you already knew that. All that aggression..

      • Randnotell

        I don’t think Juliet’s death is really sexist, or that her story was really ruined. I see Juliet as similar to many plot elements in Lost: they’re really important at the time, play their role in the grand scheme of things, and then their story ends and the main story continues. Season 2 had a lot of these: I remember thinking that Dharma was the explanation to everything and that Mr. Eko would be just as important as Locke. Turns out I was wrong, but it doesn’t mean their stories weren’t valuable at the time and to the continuum of the show. Juliet, to me, is the same way; she had an important role to play in earlier seasons, but doesn’t any more. Just because she dies in Sawyer’s arms doesn’t make her merely important for the development of Sawyer’s character anymore than Eko was only important as a foil for Locke.

  • briguyx

    I think some of the changes in the OtherLOST (and good for you for heeding Darlton’s advice to not call it an AR) stem from Jacob not being on the scene due to the island sinking. Think about it:

    If Jacob wasn’t there to rescue Kate when she stole the lunch box, she never gets the box and never buries the airplane. Maybe she and her friend were even separated by their parents for getting in trouble together.

    If Jacob doesn’t give a young James Ford the pen, maybe he never writes the letter and goes on a lifelong quest to kill the original Sawyer.

    However, if Jacob never tells Sun and Jin to appreciate each other at their wedding, nothing really changes. Sayid and Hurley encountering Jacob hasn’t happened yet in the OtherLOST timeline. My only question is how did Locke survive without Jacob’s intervention? Still, something to think about.

    Interestingly, you’re pointing out how Sawyer wants Jack stuck on the island could parallel Jacob’s keeping MIB there.

    See you next week!

  • Bezmina

    Fishbiscuit you truly are the marmite of LOST summarisers aren’t you?
    I am on the love side – I was gutted that your summary wasnt up when I checked in on the site yesterday morning. Anyway I digress I was waiting til yours was up to add my two peenies worth.
    To the haters, first up I don’t see any of you guys doing a better job and also you do realise that ot oe, not even one summary that someone else has written will agree with what you think don’t you???

    Anyway here are the things I noticed if any one gives a monkeys…

    First up Juliet’s death to me echoes Charlotte’s demise, the whole thing about the going Dutch on the coffee, I’d bet you all a crunchie that in the Other storyline we see her and Sawyer go get some beans.
    Then Charlie being saved from a throat related death scene by Jack well we’ve seen that a few times.
    Boone’s line about if the plane went down he’d stick with Locke, a great nod but also some kind of precognition?
    Then Kate jumping into the pregnant Claire’s cab? This has to be a set up for her to be present at turniphead’s birth again doesn’t it?
    Sawyer helping Kate with a grift echoing Kate helping Cassidy.
    I’m not sure where all this is leading my thought processes but I think there is some grain of recognition in all our Other Losties, I can’t see what will bring it out though.

    The smokey MiB thing baffles me, it truly does, I knwo it’s kind of like we expected it but it makes no sense, was MiB the guy who asked Locke for help in the cabin? But if he was trapped how could he go rampaging round the place nomming up Eko et al?

    As for Sayid I can’t see that he is a manifestation of MiB at all, it doesn’t follow, if MiB is inhabiting Locke in some way he is doing so without being in Locke’s actual body. So Sayid has to be different, I can’t help remembering Alpert telling Sawyer and Kate that boy Ben would never be the same again after his templing, so the same must be true of Sayid. If what he went through at the Temple made Ben the devious man we assume it did then surely Sayid is going to be some kind of angel of vengence for Team Jacob – I know if I was a dead deity who wanted my nemisises butt kicked Sayid would definatey be my go to guy.

    Also I found myself liking both Kate and Jack again for the first time in a long time. I hope this continues!

    Thanks Fishbiscuit for taking the time to do your summaries, they always make me think abut things differently, which is surely the point?

    Finally would it have killed them to show Vincent going round the luggage carousel?

    • Bezmina

      God can’t believe I am replying to myself but I really want to talk LOST so I shall to talk to myself like crazylady Rousseau possibly did.

      Taking the Sayid thought further. Sayid is the pro Jacob loophole dude now in the same way that Ben was the anti Jacob loophole.

      Bad dude couldn’nt kill Jacob himself, presumably regular mortal couldn’t but the loophole killer has been “templed” so can kill Jacob.
      So does it follow that the Bad dude can only be killed by someone who was templed also.

      Sayid is going to literally kick arse this year.

      • Eren Zaki

        Ah, good point. I didn’t see that. That would make a lot of sense in the context of the story. I hope this turns out to be true rather than this whole evil possessed mad killer idea people are throwing around.

        LOL, I agree Sayid is gonna kick all kinds of arse this year. I’ve always said he is the Arabian Jason Bourne. Sawyer and Sayid rule!

        • Bezmina

          The more I thik about it the more I think it has to be a strong possibility, I mean we don’t know of any other characters who have definately gone through that process. I got the impression that Richard was lying about Jacob wanting Ben to be templed but we are pretty certain that Jacob wanted Sayid done.

          • Eren Zaki

            I think ol’ Alpert maybe playing for both sides and templed Ben for Smokey’s benefit but acted as Jacob’s middle-man and advisor to the leader of the Others. Maybe why Smokey is so peeved at him.

          • Jimmy Zero

            What if the Sayid who resurrects is actually otherSayid? Whammy and I’m out.

          • Absz009

            Hmm, that is interesting, Jimmy Zero. I’ll keep that one in mind.

      • MoniquE

        Oh, that’s a great thought. Only someone who is templed can find the loophole. So maybe Sayid’s death was like an opportunity for Jacob, or maybe he even planned it out. Jacob was responsible for Nadia getting hit by the car, maybe because he had already decided he needed to get Sayid whacked, and then templed.

        I was wondering since Jacob is dead, is he dead the way Man in Black used to be dead? Maybe neither one can ever die. Maybe their spirits keep waiting for the chance to be given life again. They’re like two spirits that keep going through a life & death cycle.

        I wanted to add that one of the things I like about the fish reviews is that she uses the word ‘maybe’ a lot. She doesn’t tell people what to think or act like she’s the final authority. She’s trying to figure it out like the rest of us. We’re all allowed to keep thinking for ourselves.

        • Bezmina

          I would go with planned out I think.
          I think Jacob knew Ben would take care of Nadia’s death and get Sayid to kill for him.
          I think he knew that Ben and Sayid would become enemies on a very personal basis, that’s why Jacob got Ilana to go after Sayid. The only way he could get Sayid on the plane was to have those murders to arrest him for – the arrest being a sting by a foxy double agent lady which Sayid has a proven weakness for, thus Sayid to go back in time, shoot young Ben (as Sayid believed to be his destiny) – a result of this is Ben gets templed giving MiB his loophole.
          Then Ben’s dad shoots Sayid as revenge for Sayid shooting his son. So Sayid needs templing – giving Jacob his loophole to kill the Man in Black perhaps?
          Phew.

  • MoniquE

    Wow, Fish! I can’t believe anyone could read this thing and come away thinking you don’t love Lost. WTF?

    I don’t even like to post about Lost online because you can hardly have an independent thought without the fanboys losing their sh!t because they aren’t hearing the same rote interpretations repeated over and over. I’m glad there is at least one recapper of Lost who actually THINKS for herself and uses the brains God gave her. The way you interpreted the OtherLost thing is the first time I started to see how this might be super cool. It made me so much more psyched for the season. I also don’t see how anyone thinks you don’t like sci fi. I tend to think you’re the only reviewer who actually UNDERSTANDS what they’re going for. Please keep up the good work and ignore the haters. I don’t think half of them are even able to understand what you write.

    • Bezmina

      I concur, love for LOST is totally evident in your piece.

  • The Magician

    A lot of the points you raised didn’t need to be questions. For example, the question about Flocke not dying from a bullet; it was quite clearly only a shoulder wound (which then disappeared as he transformed).

    But the fact he ran for cover from the gunfire does sort of suggest that he might not be impervious.

  • Fandango1

    I discovered your recaps over the hiatus and enjoyed them immensely, so I’m very glad I’ll be able to look forward to these through the season.

    I don’t know how anyone can come away from this recap thinking you don’t love LOST. You’ve obviously spent a lot of time and effort writing it. A lot of the issues or “criticisms” you raise simply echo things that my boyfriend and/or I sometimes shout at the screen, and we’ve been addicted to the show since the pilot. Of course, you’re more articulate about it than we usually are. He rants about the CGI and science stuff, and heaven knows I’ve ranted often enough about the weak writing for female characters on the show. And for awhile there, they were getting gut shot one after another. Yikes!

    OTOH, I didn’t have a problem with Juliet’s statement about why she hit the bomb. Her situation was different than when she made the decision to go along with Jack. Once she’d fallen, she probably thought she was going to die no matter what, so maybe she could do that one constructive thing beforehand, i.e. send Sawyer and the rest “home” to safety. The island has never been safe.

    I thought it was a mistake to drag her death scene out the way they did because it undercut the heartwrenching scenes in the finale, for me anyway. Personally, I preferred Sawyer with Kate, so I really hope Juliet was picturing somebody else when she was rambling on about having coffe.

    I really like your choice of Schrodinger’s cat as an analogy for where the show is at. I suspect that Lost and OtherLost (good choice!) will resolve into one somehow, and then we’ll know the cat’s fate.

    You made me laugh with your comments about Jack being likable because we were saying the same kind of thing all through the episode. Neither of us could stand him for the past few seasons, and we found ourselves really liking Other-Jack and at least approving and sympathizing with Island-Jack. For once, he’s actually taking responsibility for one of his crappy plans going wrong. Will wonders never cease? LOL

    My favorite scenes in the episode were the Jack/Locke scene at the airport, the Ben/FLocke-MIB scene, (TOQ is awesome when he’s malevolent) and, I cannot tell a lie, the scene with Kate taking care of Sawyer in the temple. That was such a nice scene between them, and we’ve had so few in the past couple of seasons.

    I’m intrigued by the Temple-Others, and right now I have no clue who’s protecting whom from whom. Not really. If this is about two sides, right now I have no idea who’s on which side. And Sayid is a real question mark because I’m not sure our Sayid is even in there any more. Looking forward to next week and your next recap.

  • TM Lawrence

    Great detail and erudition…
    Couple comments, though:
    1) Sun & Jin appear to not be married (“Ms. Paik” at Customs and no ring)
    2) In your analysis of the Haroun reference, it should be noted we have had references to Arabian Nights before. The b&w portrait in Locke’s locker is of Sir Richard F. Burton, explorer of Egypt, consul of Fernando Poo (see Lost/Illuminatus trilogy tie-ins), and translator of Arabian Nights.
    3) Also… though I hesitate to mention this to anyone who believes Sawyer actually merits the attention of either Juliet OR Kate…when Kate climbs out of the tree and looks past Miles, she sees two unmoving figures on the ground. She identifies Sawyer and Jack, looks back and forth between them, and goes to revive Jack, not Sawyer. She furthermore subsequently protects Jack from Sawyer’s violence. Kate has always had both Jack’s and Sawyer’s backs, as had Juliet. Kate has always facilitated the boy’s friction and Juliet has always helped execute the plan that made more sense. You are correct that Sawyer with Kate is the more natural pairing, but should allow that Jack with Juliet is also a better fit. Coffee dutch sounds like a plausible parallel future and is friendly but not really romantic.

  • Uncle Beaver

    You said: “OtherFlight 815 still went off course and flew over the latitude and longitude of the now sunken Island. That didn’t change”. Well, not necessarily. Maybe the Island moved, traveled through time, or sunk years before, and just happened to be underwater below the plane which was on a course to LA. Although, the plane did hit “turbulence” when it passed over the (underwater) Island.

    I’m glad you mentioned the Christ-Like scenes with Sayid. It seems like they’re giving him some sort of baptism in the pool, and when they bring him out of the water, there is a definite Christ-like image of Sayid.

    Great review, as usual.

  • clueless1der

    Yaaay!!! FB I’m so glad you’re back!

    “I don’t know how to describe these people. It was kind of like John Lennon was translating for Shang Tsung at Indiana Jones’s Temple of Doom while the Mad Max children from Tomorrowland served cookies for everyone.”

    Totally. My first thought was that ABC had some leftover costuming props from the Pirates Of The Caribbean films.

    Also, THANK YOU for bringing up the Kate points. It is SO NICE to see her back to her previous asskickery and not just some angle on a never-ending love triangle.

  • FIshbiscuit, female? Even though a male I guess I’m not a sexist after all because I never associated that name with the female anatomy. But your diatribe about fridgerated tropes being ‘sexist’ certainly should have clued me in. It did stir something in my head, that uneasy unbalance when you can’t make a connection.

    I just thought a Buddhist via Redfield type.

    Fishbiscuit fullfils bigoted assumptions by her own bigotry. She talks about a we-are-one-consciousness if not in the now then when it only ends once; this is of course the female condition, the idea of we-are-a-village and not individuals. All this while men continue on being individuals, living their lives as if they are singular and supreme importance, using the refrigerator for our own needs. (Got bad news for you, Fishy, Kate’s the next big fridge on Lost!)

    It is of course as the individual that we one-and-all bring with us our own bigotry and bias when surveying the world, even fictional ones like Lost. Takes a lot of discipline to not let those views leak in as we try to explain or ascribe some meaning other than a psychological and emotional one to events we observed, even fictional ones like Lost. It’s what humans do, categorize, ‘splain the world around us. We even created a method for doing so that’s supposed to be clinical, bereft of all biases, emotional, religion, political, etc.

    It is unfortunate when those biases intrude. How about Marc O and his Obama strategy of ascribing all-that-is-bad-is-Bush being overlaid as a Lost theory? The allusions to religion can’t be avoided because of the inherent mythical background, but at times when discussed the boards become enflamed with attacks on religion and its vehement defenses, all of which has nothing to do with the allegorical religious references.

    Then of course there are the humanistic disections, the whole black-vs-white, an undeniable mythic tradition, as being a ruse, or not real, gets boiled down to a there-is-no-evil-it’s-all-perspective argument. A ridiculous one almost all of the time because it is used as a religious/political tool (and make not mistake, humanism is a religion even if it lacks a God).

    Me, I’m no different or I wouldn’t be venting, would I? That whole sexist argument gets me going, especially one taking a we-are-all-one tack that is inherently dishonest. Writers writing from their own worldview, their own perspectives, their own known or unrealized biases, or beliefs or faiths?

    How dare they?

    Like Kate, by now, as the sideways flashes© reveals, we should all know she is a bad girl. Bad bad. Ben bad. And it’s not going to end well for her is my guess. Now, the writers, acquiescing to fandom (or sexism in the case of Fishy), might choose to save her, to allow her a redemption by giving herself up, but I kind of doubt. She’s toast, I think. We all thought she might be redeemed by going back to find Aaron’s mom. But think about it. Maybe Aaron was just a way to get Jack, something she thought she wanted; Jack a good guy, a doctor, always wanting to help people could make poor Kate feel like a normal person although she was all along a sociopath. She sees now right and wrong, it’s all about her and her needs. Since Aaron could not longer give her Jack, she wanted to dump the kid. Yes, she could have just dumped him on grandma, but Sawyer was back on that Island, too, and so perhaps she saw him as a way to regain her validation, realized she was a bad girl and belonged with the bad boy, Sawyer, who sacrificed himself for her.

    See, my own biases appear, an antipathy for sociopaths, for evil (can you say “Ben Bad Bad Ben?”). I know there is a lot of gray in life. You don’t get my age without learning that. Don’t mean that black and white is not real (even if it that association seems racial [look deeper into India’s vaunted religion all you Buddhists] it is more an aspect that goes to creation, darkness, light, get it?). It is.

    I have to believe that. Otherwise, I’m just another sociopath. And not a very good one, I might add.

    • MoniquE

      Dude, WTF are you talking about?

      “Since Aaron could not longer give her Jack, she wanted to dump the kid. ” Don’t look now but you’re proving just how right Fish was about the sexism in this fandom. That doesn’t even make sense, since Kate raised Aaron entirely on her own, always valued him above Jack and she ditched Jack, not the other way around. I think you just made the point that sexism in this fandom is even deeper and even dumber than Fish was saying.

      • Kate’s desire for Jack had nothing to do – nor did I make any gender reference – to do with being a FEmale. Did you not get the word SOCIOPATH?

        Learn to read. Or learn me to write more clearly.

    • Fandango1

      “Maybe Aaron was just a way to get Jack, something she thought she wanted; Jack a good guy, a doctor, always wanting to help people could make poor Kate feel like a normal person although she was all along a sociopath. She sees now right and wrong, it’s all about her and her needs. Since Aaron could not longer give her Jack, she wanted to dump the kid. Yes, she could have just dumped him on grandma, but Sawyer was back on that Island, too, and so perhaps she saw him as a way to regain her validation, realized she was a bad girl and belonged with the bad boy, Sawyer, who sacrificed himself for her.”

      I have to disagree with the above speculation as to Kate’s motives. I think Kate formed a deep attachment to Aaron and loved her as if he were her own son. Jack was nowhere in the picture until the child was about three years old. And then, when Jack got lost in booze and pills, she told him he couldn’t be around Aaron in that condition. She ended the relationship at that point, not Jack. And that was a HUGE milestone for Kate because she did for Aaron the very thing her mother never did for her. She put the child’s interests first and broke off her relationship with a man unsuitable to have around her child. I think Kate showed tremendous character growth as a result of her relationship with Aaron, up to and including her acceptance that truth was essential for the child and that meant going to try to find his real mother. That was some of the best writing done for a female character on the show to date, IMO.

      • All superficial. Perhaps the baby also leant her some compassionate consideration facing criminal charges. And again, he was a way to make her feel normal, or at least think she was. We can’t know for sure about anything in the end, but I believe Kate is being shown as one of the bad guys, using the same humanistic-perspective techniques used with Ben (all that Ben love that he was a good guy, give me a break).

  • Red

    I can’t believe how many people, including the always insightful Fishbiscuit, have incorrectly said that Flocke/Man in Black/Smoke Monster is inhabiting John Locke’s body. That isn’t what happened AT ALL. Locke’s body is still lying there on the beach, not possessed or inhabited by anything. Flocke merely took the form of John Locke (as well as his memories), just like he did in the past with Eko’s brother Yemi. He needed the body to gain Locke’s memories and probably his appearance, but he is NOT possessing his body.

    • Zoriah

      You’re right, a lot of people keep saying Smokey/MiB is inhabiting Locke, which is somewhat inaccurate. But it makes it easier to forget this when the writers had Smokey talk about exactly what was going on in Locke’s mind when he died. It had a feeling much reminiscent of the Supernatural TV series where demons possess bodies and can tell you exactly what their victims are thinking and feeling while being posessed.

      • Zoriah

        Okay I am gonna answer myself for a second, I think you touched upon something here. Smokey has scanned both Locke and Eko. Perhaps that is why he/it is able to use memories and the personalities of those it manifests as.
        Is it possible that that is why we saw Smokey scan Juliet too? Will she also ‘appear’ to try to influence Sawyer at some later date?

        • Fandango1

          Ooooh, good catch on the connection between “scanning” and being able to access a person’s memories. Eko, Locke and Juliet. I’m now convinced we will see Smokie in Juliet’s form before the island story is over. Probably messing with poor Sawyer.

    • Absz009

      indeed, i was thinking that, too. basically he is locke’s doppelganger. the locke we know is dead in his own body – nobody has possessed or inhabited him.

      • Glue your eyelids

        I agree, especially wrt Sayid supposedly being inhabited by Jacob – is it really how it works? On the other hand, MiB knows what was going on in Locke’s mind *before* he died, so I guess he coexisted with Locke’s soul in some way? It’s not really clear.

        • Eren Zaki

          I think as Benzima mentioned, Sayid will be Jacob’s loophole just as Ben was Smokey’s loophole. So Sayid might be different in Season 6 but I don’t think he will be possessed or anything like that.

          I think it’s obvious Smokey has the same ability that Miles does in that he can hear the last thoughts of the dead. So when Locke’s dead body was brought onto the Island by Jack on Ajira 316, Smokey took his form and thus and was also able to tap into his memories and thoughts.

          • Absz009

            oops sorry eren zaki is my bro’s nickname. he’s a lost fanatic like me haha 🙂

  • Chris

    OK, I don’t know if anyone addressed that in the comments since there are too many to go through but at some point you started going on about Juliet being downplayed and then women on the show in general… Seriously?

    Why can’t you and everybody else just see that Juliet was just another opportunistic b!tch just like Kate is. And I’m not saying all women are, but these two fit the bill quite nicely… Who gives a f**k about Juliet? Isn’t it enough it took her one hiatus and half premier to f**king die?

    Get over it people… Sexist my a$$…

    On a lighter note, nice review but I completely disagree that Sawyer_X is different. I’d say he’s exactly the good-old Sawyer we loved in S1 and I got the feeling that he was sizing up Hurley for a con the minute he heard about the lottery money! As for the elevator scene, that was the ultimate evidence of Sawyer being Sawyer and I can’t see how you interpret it differently. Who’s right remains to be seen of course…

    • Glue your eyelids

      “Get over it people… Sexist my a$$…”
      —–
      Sorry to break the news to you Chris, but this comment, among with those of other “gentlemen” on this thread, kind of proved the point that if there might be internalized sexism in the show, there’s certainly a good deal of it in the fandom.

    • I think apply “sexist” to the written material of Lost – or just about anything – is idiotic and a result of literary criticism learned in college, an extension of “liberal” education where everything is questioned and there is no right or wrong (except when you apply conservative principles to dissertations). I think Fishbiscuit, whose rewinds I enjoy, has applied an idiot personal bias that is not applicable.

      I never said there were no sexists out there watching the show.

      And you prove that point well.

      Good grief.

  • Smoked-Locke

    You know, I used to have a lot of respect for Fishbiscuit and her recaps, but sometime around when LaFleur aired last year, she turned into a sour cat-lady. Because she is a skate shipper. All her recaps are biased towards Sawyer and Kate being together. You talk about emotional tone deafness, yet you made no mention of how Sawyer categorically told Kate to screw off when he was going to bury Juliet. Are you being intentionally oblivious to that?

    Learn to be graceful, dear. Just because things don’t go your way on the romantic subplot on a television show, it doesn’t mean that you have to throw a hissy-fit and slag off people who enjoy the plethora of other plots on a show such as LOST. How old are you anyway? I have 8-year old nieces who can behave themselves with more dignity and self-respect than you do.

    All shipper stuff aside, you’re also kind of a creepy sociopath. Say you had 3 friends named Kate, Sawyer and Juliet. Let’s say Sawyer and Kate had a fling ( and you found them to be an extraordinarily well-matched couple)but then they broke up. Further Sawyer hooked up with Juliet and have a happy life. Now, would you want them to break up at all costs, just because you see Kate and Sawyer as a better couple? It’s kind of horrifying if you say yes. and extremely juvenile.

    Bottom line is, don’t insult your audience, leave that to reality shows.

    • Zoriah

      But’s not real life. It’s a story. And a TV show spanning some six seasons now. Sawyer and Juliet happened in a handful of eps (starting as a WTF gotcha in mid S5) the bulk of their relationship occurred mostly off screen or in a situation where Juliet was freaking out about Sawyer’s residual feelings for Kate. Enough so that she dumped him and wanted to blow up a bomb so she’d never have to lose him to Kate. Within three or four days of Kate returning to the island. LOL. Kate and Sawyer (and Kate and Jack to some extent) have had their romance developed ONSCREEN for well over five seasons, with all of their firsts, first kiss, first fight, first sex scene, first post sex scene, first ‘I’ll give my life for you’ scenes all shown on the show.

      I really don’t get why people try to trivialize what’s been shown over many years to some viewers. How hard is it to grasp? Narratively speaking, Juliet was an obstacle romance – the writers didn’t see fit to develop it, only showed it as fait accompli and its rapid disintegration once Kate returned on the scene. The character was sacrificed, all of her cool storylines were sacrificed so as to keep S/K apart longer, and her tragic loss will be used to motivate Sawyer’s dramatic actions this season.

      All JMO of course, but I really think the Fish is spot on in saying the character of Juliet was fridged, and it’s such a pity because she had so much going for her with her desperate desire to leave the island and return to her sister and nephew, her ongoing feud with Ben, her ruthless streak, her passionate crusade to end the pregnancy curse on the island and so on. All poofed away to establish her as Saint Juliet, the doomed GF of Sawyer who spent most of the 2nd part of last season fretting over losing her man to Kate. I don’t think I’m the only one who thought the best parts of Juliet were ripped to shreds to shoehorn her into the quadrangle of doom. The death of Juliet happened last season, not in the Premiere.

      As for the time issue. Ever seen the movie Brief Encounter, or dare I say it the schlocky Titanic? There are plenty of great love stories out there where characters are only together for short periods of time, but they fall in love profoundly and are transformed by their experiences.

      • Zoriah

        I’d also like to add that some of your comments were pretty insulting and offensive. Creepy sociopath? I really enjoy the Fish’s recaps and agree with a lot of her interpretation of the show, if you don’t then that’s cool bananas. But let’s not result to petty name calling and personal attacks to support your point. It makes your agenda rather transparent.

        I, as a member of the Lost audience, continue to greatly appreciate that there’s at least one Lost recapper out there who looks at the show as a whole but is more concerned with the broader philosophical themes and character and relationship arcs. There are plenty of other recappers who are all about the mythology, the numbers, Dharma, and time travel paradoxes etc. Each to their own.

        • Smoked-Locke

          Wow, so what was Juliet supposed to do once she was trapped in 1977 with Sawyer & co. ? There was no adult Ben around for her to lock horns with, Goodwin was dead, and the others would not want her back. Was she supposed to become a nun? A few people have thrown the word “Sexism” around. Yet when Juliet decides to hook up with Sawyer, her character is suddenly butchered. Double standards, much?

          You do realize if she had been able to get back to the real world with the 06, she would have told Jack/Kate to go to hell if they had asked her to return. Then there would have been no further need at all for her character in season 5. And that’s how her character could have been butchered. Maybe the show is so good that you have impossible expectations from it, I don’t know.

          I’ll agree that the character was unusually fickle in “The Incident”, but it wasn’t just her. All the quadrangle members decided the fate of the island, with their hormones leading the way.

          And whether or not the Sawyer/Juliet story turns out to be an “Obstacle plot” remains to be seen. Until it is proved/disproved, Fish should learn to be graceful about things. Not whine and complain every week like a petulant child. It’s really sad, because the parts of her recaps which are not shipper-based are always insightful.

          • MoniquE

            I think someone who just called Fish a “creepy sociopath” because they didn’t like her opinion (which she has every right to) has no grounds to be asking anyone to be graceful. Would you stop a minute and look at yourself?

            It’s obvious you are a suliet obsessive and that’s your right, but if you were not you would probably have noticed that the review had very little shipper stuff in it. What was there made perfect sense. Maybe you are the one who should stop whining. Did you ever stop to think that maybe someone who is so “insightful” about everything else is also insightful about this? Just because it’s different from your opinion doesn’t make it whining.

            I’m not sure there’s any way to get that point across to someone who came away from this awesome recap calling Fish a sociopath. Sounds like you are the one who is a little unhinged.

      • Jennifer

        Amen to all of the above.

    • Fandango1

      You say “All shipper stuff aside, you’re also kind of a creepy sociopath,” and then you proceed to make the case for that based on YOUR preferred ship. So how is that “shipper stuff aside”? And she’s a “creepy sociopath” merely because she doesn’t think that the Juliet-Sawyer pairing was some kind of love for the ages? I’m sorry, but your bias seems far more virulent that Fishbiscuit’s and your tone is far nastier.

    • ghanima

      Oh dear, perhaps you are not the one to lecture someone about being graceful. No matter how much you disagree with Fishbiscuit’s analysis, there are more appropriate ways to discuss your differences. Resorting to petty name calling and insults is hardly the way to set an example for anyone. One hopes you don’t behave this way in front of those 8 year old nieces you spoke of.

    • Man, I throw a word out there like sociopath talking about Kate and someone takes the word out of context and applies it to Fishy! How can anyone judge Fishbiscuit’s psychology based on her reviews other than the obvious revelations of certain world views she expresses!?! It’s one’s actions that reveal normal or abnormal traits.

      For the record: “A sociopath is a person who has antisocial personality disorder. The term sociopath is no longer used to describe this disorder. The sociopath is now described as someone with antisocial personality disorder.

      The main characteristic of a sociopath is a disregard for the rights of others. Sociopaths are also unable to conform to what society defines as a normal personality. Antisocial tendencies are a big part of the sociopath’s personality. This pattern usually comes into evidence around the age of 15. If it is not treated, it can develop into adulthood.

      Visible symptoms include physical aggression and the inability to hold down a steady job. The sociopath also finds it hard to sustain relationships and shows a lack of regret in his or her actions. A major personality behavior trait is the violation of the rights of others. This can appear as a disregard for the physical or sexual wellbeing of another.”

      Nothing Fishy has said would lead anyone – with half-a-brain, anyway – to call her a sociopath.

      Kate, on the other had, has shown actions consistent with my claim – but it’s still FICITON!!!

      Good grief

  • Ash

    Your LOST recaps are hands down, the best. You don’t sugarcoat it yet you clearly love the show. I appreciate seeing a feminist viewpoint about the show, and a recognition of some of its unfortunate and recurring misogyny. A lot of its female characterization is problematic and inconsistent but it is awesome to see Kate back to being a badass.

    Can’t wait to keep reading your recaps. Loved your rewatch posts, thanks for your hard work.

  • LostTvFan

    “Finally would it have killed them to show Vincent going round the luggage carousel?”

    Hands down the funiest comment posted. Where the hell is Vincent? He was on the original flight; his backstory has either taken a U-turn or doggie don’t have AU lives.

    • Bezmina

      Every episode I worry about our furry friend, when he showed up in the finale I actually jumped off the sofa and cheered!
      I really need to get me a dog of my own!

  • haiddengould

    good recap, love all the pics.

    i am so blown away with what they are doing this season with the two timelines. there seems to be endless possibilites. the way i see it, they could end it with boone and shannon being adam and eve and i’d still love it somehow. though i would like the ending have something to do with desmond.

  • Jack’s Sidekick

    Sayid may not have even died to begin with. Notice how confused Miles Looks when he’s looking down on him. He seems to be expecting to feel something from Sayid but nothing….

  • onlyendsonce

    I’m kind of sad that it seems people on here can’t have a reasonable discussion about FB’s statements about the possibility of subconcious sexism on the Lost writers’ part. It seems to be flames from typical internet creepyboys, followed by responses of “NO U!”. For the record, I disagree with the original assertion of mysoginy, although I’m glad there’s a recapper that says things I don’t agree with. Makes me have to think. Unfortuntely, it seems respectful debate is nowhere to be found, even among fans of Lost. I guess no matter where you go on the internet, blog comments are all juvenile bulls***.

    I am very disappointed in all of you!

    • Ironic?

      • onlyendsonce

        Please stop that. One word smart-ass replies are the worst kind of internet nonsense, and if that’s the kind of conversation you’re looking for, there are plenty of people who will rise to it. If you’re not actually going to talk to me, I guess I have no reason to respond to you after this. I do not feed trolls.

  • John

    It was a very well done review, Fishbiscuit. I enjoyed it a lot, made me laugh, insightful, and I showed parts of it to my wife as well. Good job.

  • WheresDesmond

    Terrific post. Thanks for your attention to detail.

    One thought I had, however: was there any proof that the OtherLOST 815 flight also occurred on September 22, 2004? What if it occurred on a different date?

    Here’s a second thought: Perhaps in the OtherLOST reality the flight didn’t go 1000 miles off-course. Perhaps the island had moved yet again and it was located along their flight path…

  • Ole C

    “Instead of hitting the bomb so she could never have to meet and lose her precious James, she now claimed to have only wanted to let him go home … which, I hate to tell you, could have been accomplished a whole lot more efficiently, if she’d just stayed on the damn submarine! Argh, I hate when LOST slips and insults us like that”

    aaaand about here I stopped reading…

    • Absz009

      It’s true though, Juliet could have accomplished the whole thing of letting Sawyer go home a lot more efficiently if she just stayed on the submarine, and not listened to Kate’s “OMG! We have to stop Jack from blowing up a bomb!” and then changes her mind, like Juliet, to help Jack. I have to admit I, like Fishbiscuit, was disappointed in this respect. I mean the Season 5 finale in general was excellent but there were a few minor flaws. But hey, what TV show or movie is perfect, right?

  • Lego

    Good recap fish. It is kind of sad to see how juvenile some people are acting about your examination of sexism. I for one agree with you. It seems to me that some people who disagree with you are not analyzing this show very deeply. Also, I would like to add that if you look at the sheer number of main characters on this story we are getting something close to a 3 to 1 ratio of men to women, it may even be more tilted towards men than that.

    One thing I would like to see discussed more is the fountain. I have yet to see anyone make a connection with this and the pretty obvious foundation of it – the fountain of youth. Seems like a pretty clear connection to me when we have people who are probably hundreds of years old running around on the island.

    • PC gone crazy; freedom of speech works both ways, writers express themselves, readers, watchers, listeners close the book, turn off the tube they don’t like.

      Good f%^&ing grief.

      • thetrunkmonkey

        Smitty you are a voice of reason. I think people will find sexism and racism in anything; when they are looking to find it. If my world-view is such that I think every male is sexist towards females, then that is I all I will see everywhere I go, logical or not. Of course sexism exists, but it irks me when it’s applied in such a haphazard way without reason or logic. To me, it does harm to those who experience true sexism by trivializing it.

        • MoniquE

          If that guy is the voice of reason, then we are all in alice’s wonderland LOL.

          It’s so funny to see how sensitive these poor boys are to any charge of sexism. Isn’t it funny how white men think they should be the ones to explain racism and sexism to the rest of us?

          I sure never saw Fish or anyone else saying that ALL men are sexist,but it’s obvious that quite a few of them are around here. Apparently it’s your right to be sexist, but no one has the right to notice it. Apparently you want everyone to be PC after all.They’re not allowed to call out sexism, because it hurts the feelings of all the sexists.

          • thetrunkmonkey

            Monique, I agree that some of the comments on this board are way harsher than they need to be. I also would say that your comments are included. Just because I don’t think that killing off Juliet in this case was a sexist move, doesn’t make me sexist, does it? Reread my above post again, I think it applies to your response quite well.

          • MoniquE

            Well, trunkmonkey, you praised this weird conservative dude as the voice of reason, and he has made about the most insultingly sexist comments of all.

          • thetrunkmonkey

            It sounds to me like you dislike him because you’ve classified him as a “weird conservative dude”, not for what he’s actually been saying. Time to move on (speaking to myself here :))!

          • By saying – or proffering – that Juliet was a tool [fridge?!?!] and birthed by sexism on the part of The Darlton (or writer minions) is an implication that all of us Dudes are sexist.

            And yeah, we ARE! So are all women! It’s in our blood, genetics, gender, social structure, whatever!

            Women crying “sexism” are only seeking power to somehow in their genetically inferior morass of cells to gain control of their lives. And it’s all delusional! You are born a WOMAN or a MAN! It’s biological to an nth degree of reality and you can deny your femininity or machismo all you want, swath it with REASON and claim you’re above it all –

            but in the end we are biological organisms that must reproduce to survive. Build all the social structures you want to deny that fact and you doom humanity.

            Fishy is ALLOWED to do what she wants in here, say what she wants AND be called out on it. I in no way personally attacked her other than to point out her biased view and DELUSIONAL aspirations to slander The Darlton as sexists, as if that is somehow a negative! The argument, really, is a political one and that’s what I have the most issues with in this forum.

            Write what you want, but don’t cry when someone disagrees. Am I crying, you see tears pouring down my cheeks, my feelings bleeding!?!

            NO! HELL NO!

            But I object and gladly enter the fray!

            And “white men!?!?”

            Jesus, you throw out RACISM based on what!?! Based on ALL the references to philosophical underpinnings in LOST!?! THE COLOR OF MY SKIN IS NOT A DETERMINATE VALUE IN MY BELIEFS! It does not make me smarter, dumber, or any more biased or innocent than ANY OTHER PERSON WITH ANY OTHER COLOR OF SKIN!

            My culture shaped me! My family, my school, my early religious exposure, my city, my state, my country. But in the end it is MY LIFE EXPERIENCE and self-education – reflection – that is who I am!

            You don’t know me any more than I know Fishy. All I complained about were Fishy’s sexism accusations – and I thought I did so with reasoned arguments.

          • MoniquE

            “Women crying “sexism” are only seeking power to somehow in their genetically inferior morass of cells to gain control of their lives. ”

            LOL, way to expose your true colors! You do realize that every time you post here you only make Fish’s case stronger, don’t you?

          • Sarcasm. Get it much?

        • MoniquE

          Nope, I’m offended by his comments across the board. Those kind of offensive opinions seem to come from his conservative bias which he’s been throwing around all over the place, but I’m not generalizing that all conservatives are as closeminded and offensive as him.

          • I am both conservative and liberal. You have no idea the jello that is my belief system.

            And I am far from closed-minded.

            Although I am an Alazon, a dunce, because like most people as soon as I open my mouth I expose how little I do know!

  • ghanima

    Hooray for fishbiscuit! I second your opinion that the Juliet dying over, and over, and over again was a bit much. They kept dropping her down the hole- like we were going to forget that happened!
    I don’t think that OtherLost really has a happy nice-guy Sawyer. He seemed a little too interested in Hurley’s lottery win, and I think his advice to Hurley was more of him trying to con him- like he did to the man he met in prison who had all that money. Of course he’s still himself, so he’s going to flirt with the ladies- but I think he helped Kate when he saw her handcuffs because he liked the idea of helping a criminal, not because he’s suddenly the nicest guy ever. At least I hope he’s not. I endured LaFleur for all of last season, I want Sawyer to get his bad back.

    • Absz009

      Haha don’t worry Sawyer will be back to his ol’ raging, bullish way. I miss his nicknames. He never seems to use them anymore. I still crack up at the “Taller Ghost Walt” line he said to Locke in Season 4.

  • naultz

    One thing I haven’t seen discussed here yet is about jack’s father not making it back to LA. I mean it’s not like his coffin is late, they(oceanic) have no idea where it is. Is his dad and coffin really just missing or is it all together gone. could it be that Christian Shepard had some encounters on the island that are previously unkown to us, that would effect his existance in the “altered” timeline? could the effect of the island sinking have some butterfly effect which would wipe out christian’s existance, making it impossible to find him? Probably not, but then why the over emphisis by the oceanic representive to say to jack that “the Coffin” is missing, but never mentions a body inside. At first this appears to just be a mix up, but in LOST, nothing is ever as it appears.

  • I’m a little confused about the sight of the hatch/swan station. After Juliet let the bomb go off, it set the Losties back to the island in 2007 (which would be under water according to the alternate timeline). How are we sure that the swan station was actually built. It seems like all of that crap they were digging away to find Juliet was the same stuff that was getting sucked down the shaft that day the incident happened in ’77. Does anyone else think that perhaps the crater was caused by Juliet making the bomb go off and not by Des turning the fail safe key. Perhaps that could explain why there were still Dharma signs in New Otherton last season when Christian spoke to Sun telling her where her husband was. Just a thought…

    • Zoriah

      In the beginning of the episode, Kate finds the Swan hatch back entrance. That’s when she realises they are back in 2004-7. You can clearly see the Swan symbol on the door.

  • DharmaDave

    While a very good recap in many respects, and while respecting your right to your opinion regarding Juliet and the possible sexism in display in the way her character arc has played out, I would like to respectfully disagree.

    Juliet was a victim in many ways, as are all of the characters on Lost. But I do not think that her death or her can be marginalized as just an excuse to make Sawyer all dark and moody again. Through Juliet’s actions, the OtherLost, which you have referenced enjoying so much, is birthed. Obviously, the OtherLost is going to have big ramifications for the end game of the show. Therefore, Juliet’s charcter arc will serve as a grand part of Lost’s mythology in the end.

    There are story threads for Juliet that I am sorry I will not get to see play out such as with her sister and with Ben, however, Juliet was seperated from her sister being on the island and seperated from Ben in time. She made a life for herself in the Dharma days. What other choice did she have? I also have no problem with her switched motivations in carring out Jack’s plan to detonate Jughead. The two justifcations that she gave were given under two largly different circumstances. She wanted to help Jack at first to erase her past with Sawyer, so as not to lose him. But after falling down the hole and being near death, she hit the bomb knowing that she would die, but hoping it would send Sawyer home. when Sawyer came down the hole and she saw him, she realized that she failed. I don’t see anything inconsistent in that.

    I also think that they showed juliet fall and detonate the bomb twice to show the two different resuls: OtherLost and them landing back in 1977. It was redundant, but for a purpose.

    I will say, what I do see as somewhat sexist is the shippers who enjoy denegrating the character of Juliet and the hardship that she endured, because they see her as mearly an obstacle in the path of a relationship they are invested in. This article suggests sexism in Lost by the writers for using Juliet as method to advance Sawyer’s storyline (which I suppose a case could be made that all secondary characters are used to advance the main characters story line), but what I see is a worse offense, are those taking pleasure in the death of a pretty much innocent woman, because she got in the way of a love story that they find more appealing. And that those same people would be perfectly happy to see that character actually beding margenlized by having the man she shared a life with for 3 years get over her, like she never mattered, for a woman he knew for 90 days and hasn’t seen in 3 yrs.

    And this is all coming from a non-shipper, who just really like the character of Juliet and respects her place in the Lost mythology.

    • thetrunkmonkey

      Very well put. Respectful and to the point.

    • Nick Stevens

      I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly.

  • cap10tripps

    1. Enjoy reading your posts
    2. Schroedinger’s cat definitely seems to be in play
    3. Great point whoever said it’s possible Sayid could’ve been “templed” as a loophole against Smokey
    4. People who accuse others of being sexist or racist based on assumptions are usually themselves sexist or racist

  • mpl

    Wonderful, FishBiscuit! Thank you!

    Don’t know why you are so down on the Juliet thing – so she got a job on another show. I’ll miss her. Were they sexist for killing Charlie for trying to save Claire?

    Also – they didn’t HAVE to kill Sayid – but they did need to keep him underwater until the sands ran out. Dogen said there were “risks.” Presumably Young Ben was able to hold his breath longer than bleeding Sayid. And don’t we all think that it’s Jacob possessing Sayid now? I’d have thought that when Jacob is ‘through’ with Sayid, he will depart and Sayid will be wholly himself – and whole – again. But since that’s way too obvious we can bet that won’t turn out to be the case.

    Did I mention that your review was Wonderful? Thank you!

    • Ah the Charlie and Claire corollary. I almost mentioned that in my post but it was already too long and bordering on redundant. Good job!

      • Zoriah

        Charlie’s death was built up and presaged for much of the season. His death remains one of the most deeply heroic because of his facing his fear of death to save Claire and Aaron (and Desmond by closing that door). So it was depicted as a brave and noble sacrifice. A massive swansong which completed his story arc which was about needing to become a worthy protector. Compare that to Shannon, Libby, Ana Lucia, Nadia, Naomi…

        Also did Charlie’s death have a big impact on Claire’s (a female character’s) storyline, and help motivate her character into a new story arc? NOPE. She cried a tiny bit in one episode and then forgot about him and did some laundry and joked with Kate about having a baby someday. Compare that to Sayid’s reactions over Shannon’s and Nadia’s deaths and how they impacted his character development.

        Take Sun and Jin. Yes we saw that Sun went on a vengeance kick and decided to take over her father’s company and kill Ben Linus and went toe to toe with Charles Widmore. I was absolutely ecstatic. FINALLY a woman with independent agency on the show. Who was becoming a major player in the larger mythology.

        Not so.

        As soon as she was told Jin was alive by Ben, she dropped all of her badass story-moving drive to become a passive one-note character who follows people around and only has one line in the show she currently bleats: “Will this get me back to my husband?” And variations thereof.

        Let’s hope that Ilana grows into a more impt character. I fear she will also be cannon fodder, though. Time will tell.

  • As long as FishBiscuit doesn’t pretend to understand tragedy her reviews are good (I will never forget her misread of Eloise shooting Daniel last season…I should probably let it go…). Equal parts thoughtful criticism and well aimed praise. Sexism though? I don’t know. Let’s not forget that women do write for this show and have a say in the writers room about many of the things that happen to our beloved characters. To call it sexist would, to me, infer that there is no female input on the show which is simply ludicrous. I understand the particular theory of female character treatment being posited by FB but I don’t think that applies here. It’s all about how you read what’s going on. Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew was once one of his most divisive plays for this reason. It is a rich source for feminist criticism BUT there are lots of textual evidence that point to the play being nothing more than farce/altering perception. So if that is the case then applying feminist criticism to Taming makes the text say what YOU want it to doesn’t it? This can be a dangerous thing. I don’t think Lost is an inherently sexist show but if one starts with the conclusion of “There’s something sexist about the way female characters are treated on Lost” then you’re going to find things to support your argument. Suddenly you start to notice things like…you know, female characters suffer really sudden extra violent deaths. Four have been shot dead (Libby, Ana Lucia, Rousseau and Libby) one died from the results of falling a looooooooong way + exploding a hydrogen bomb and one character (Naomi) was the lucky recipient of a knife in the back. But then that would ignore how PEOPLE just don’t die nicely on Lost. Daniel was killed by his own mom, Eko by an inexplicable judgment monster, Boone from falling off a cliff, Michael was blown up, Charlie drowned, Ben gassed his dad to death and Locke was strangled. Hell Sawyer shot Tom after the Others’ plan had be thwarted by Hurley and the Dharma van in MAYBE my least favorite death of the show (Tom had given up and Sawyer killed him out of revenge, not justice…but that’s a topic for another time). There over 100 hours of Lost. If you start with just about ANY controversial thesis I’m sure you can find evidence to support your claim…and someone else could find ample evidence to refute it. Some are obviously more valid and defensible than others.

    As a side note isn’t Juliet “hoping to send you [Sawyer] home” the same as “making it so we never meet”? One is just a nicer way of saying the other, right? Spoken in different moments demanding different emotional tone? I didn’t find a disconnect there but that’s me.

    • MoniquE

      I am floored by the fact that some guys on here find sexism such a nasty insult, considering women live with it every day and that doesn’t seem like a problem to them.

      How do you explain there being at least 4 men to every woman on the show. Or the fact that Lost has about 6 great male characters, with very important involvement in the major plot – Jack, Locke, Sawyer, Ben, Sayid, Hurley, even Desmond. And they have at best 1 female character who is important – Kate, who everyone mocks and hates. Saying terrible things about Kate is pretty routine I’d say, and usually gets a laugh.

      It’s a pretty obvious criticism, but I think maybe guys who love comics (for example) don’t recognize how obvioius it is, because that’s how it is in comic books all the time. It’s considered normal for women to be not that important.

      • Nick Stevens

        I am floored by your assumption (and sweeping generalization) that the guys who have a problem with accusations of sexism against the producers of Lost have no problems with there being sexism in everyday life. Y’know, speaking as a guy who detests sexism but does not see Lost as being sexist.

        Why do you have a problem with the idea that any sexism in lost is entirely coincidental?

        • MoniquE

          Did you even read what I wrote? I didn’t generalize at all, just noticed that SOME here are very unaware of how sexist they are.

          Do you think it means nothing that 50% of the world is female but only about 10% of the important characters on Lost are female? Or that almost every female character gets killed off? Or that no woman on lost has a storyline where she isn’t either a love interest or a mom or both? It’s staring you right in the face, whether or not you want to deny it. For comparison look at the women on BSG – a show that isn’t sexist. Lost is more like Star Trek – no women unless they’re in miniskirts up to their butt.

          It’s like how women have been trained to think “feminist” is a dirty word. If women would just shut up about how they’re marginalized in the culture, then everything would be great.

          • Thanks for tacitly calling me a sexist. Like Nick wrote I DETEST sexism in all forms in REAL LIFE but do not find it on Lost. I don’t see how that makes me an ignorant or bad person. But I digress…

            Oh and: “If women would just shut up about how they’re marginalized in the culture, then everything would be great.”

            COME ON! Let’s not do that. NOBODY on this board thinks that and to insinuate as such is just insulting. But I digress again…

            So wait a minute, BSG a show where the female cylons only want to screw and take over the universe is now the bastion of important female characters on television? Just because Starbuck and Laura Roslin are strong characters shouldn’t make you forget females were more or less used as erotic chess pieces in the destruction of the colonies (or ‘the plot of the show’). How were many problems solved on Battlestar? Female characters used their bodies. Boomer seducing Tyrol/Helo for different reasons, the Six seducing Baltar for defense mainframe codes etc. etc. ETC! How about Tigh’s wife having regular sex with Cavil to get Tigh out of prison? I feel like a stronger argument could be made for Battlestar being sexist (or lazy) than Lost if you wanted to. And, to prove MY POINT THAT YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED, I could probably keep going, pulling examples in isolation and viewing them from a feminist criticism lens making Battlestar Galactica seem like a very sexist show. That’s the point though. I COULD do that if I wanted to. Do I think BSG is a sexist show? Well, I didn’t before I started writing this post but I’m starting to. However, I am just viewing these things removed from their context and when you do that you can construct a convincing argument for sexism. The same can be said for Lost because, again there’s a lot of television here to sift through.

            I have an honest question for MoniquE, did you feel Lost was trending toward being a sexist show before the premiere of this season? If so, why? I do just want to have a conversation over this. As I’ve wrote, I don’t think there is anything inherently sexist happening on Lost because it all has to do with how you read what’s happening. So I’d like to know how you’re reading it.

          • MoniquE

            BSG had women who behaved badly, women who behaved sexually, etc. There’s nothing wrong with that. It wasn’t a sexist show because it let women represent all parts of being human. And it had THREE major characters who drove the plot and were vital every step of the way – Starbucks, Roslin and Six.

            If you want to have a discussion, then tell me what you make of the fact that there are almost no women on Lost (compared to the number of men), none are realy critical in the way the many great male characters are, most die off, none have any role outside of sex or motherhood, etc. Is there one woman character on Lost who isn’t primarily a mother or a lover? But there is no major male character on Lost who is defined as only lover or father. And why did Juliet’s great back story just disappear so she could become nothing but Sawyer’s lover, then die, and why did the fans only start to worship her after that happened? I remember when Juliet got slagged almost as much as Kate, but as soon as she was nothing but Mrs. LaFluer suddenly she was considered a goddess

            It’s not an insult to say the obvious. And I do think women are supposed to shut up about being culturally marginalized. Otherwise how did “feminism” get to be a dirty word?

          • Nick Stevens

            Feminism is only a dirty to sexists. No-one I know has any problem with the word at all.

            And also, like Ryan said, you’re avoiding his major point: if you look for something hard enough you can find it everywhere.

            BTW, Juliet’s back story did not disappear at all… I really do not remember the show telling us that the previous 7 (or so) years of her life became a complete lie when she became involved with Sawyer. I mean if that WERE true then it’s doubly true for Sawyer himself, no? He changes way more than she does.

          • MONIQUE!!!!! My browser wouldn’t let me comment under your post so I hope you find this here.

            On BSG: I disagree with your evaluation of the female characters. I didn’t think the Six was a strong character and she was used primarily as an erotic chess piece in my opinion. Yes she was vital to the show (without her the show doesn’t have a beginning) but I never found her particularly interesting. She either had sex, had a scheme or had sex. That’s not nearly as interesting as a President or an embattled soldier. But this is semantics because we’d be arguing over what we think constitutes a strong character.

            On: If a woman, a man, a child or an adult feels they are being legitimately marginalized how is standing up for yourself a bad thing? How did feminist become a bad word? Because women standing up for themselves in the 50s – 70s was terrifying for men who could not handle a change from women not being things that cooked dinner and made babies. Feminism would be a wonderful thing in MANY backward cultures throughout the world. How did communist become a bad word? All it means is you’re a supporter of a system of government in which wealth is distributed equally. What’s more benign than that? But communism became scarier than the Black Death to the people of McCarthy’s era. Some thing for the words Liberal, Conservative and Vikings fan.

            On your Lost comments aimed at fans: I think some separation is in order. Some of your comments are directed at fans of the show and I cannot answer those. I personally have always had a soft spot for Juliet and I’ve never been one to slag off Kate. So why do other people do that? It would be wrong of me to guess or assign motive to people I don’t know.

            On your Lost comments aimed at Juliet: You’re right. Juliet’s interesting back story disappeared when she got to Dharmaville. But so did Sawyer’s. I think that was the point. Juliet and James became different people when they were with the Dharma initiative. They were happy. Suddenly the pasts that tortured both of them (Juliet not being able to leave the Island and everything that Sawyer’s ever done) didn’t matter. I thought that was the whole point of the Dharma initiative being in season five. For years we’d heard and seen very little of how they really acted and who they really were. And, as it turned out, like Ben said, they were just hippies making silly experiments. Apart from people like Radzinsky it seemed like the Dharma folk just wanted to live in a commune. The only person who’s backstory came to the fore in the 70s was Miles when he was confronted with a chance to have a relationship with the father he never knew. Other then that everyone’s previous lives disappeared and they were able to live life pretty well until Jack and co. + Daniel came back. So for this one I don’t see anything sexist happening I just the story moving the characters into different modes of being. Sawyer being the husband type that he never thought he could be and Juliet being HAPPY in place she always wanted to leave.

            On your other Lost comments: Illana is Jacob’s body guard which i don’t think makes her a lover or mother. Is she a major character? No, but she is still alive and the rest of her team is dead so methinks she might be important going forward. Why more male characters than female characters? I don’t know. Is it sexism? I don’t know and for all intents and purposes you don’t either. Can you read it as such? Yes but it’s probably unfair. I’m very interested in what happened to Claire in the year we didn’t see year far more than I’m interested in Jin, Hugo, and Jack in the on Island timeline. Claire, Kate, Illana and Sun vs. Sawyer, Sayid, Ben, Richard, Locke, Jin, Hurley and Jack. Again, if the question is: “Is there an imbalance of female characters as opposed to male characters” than the answer has to be yes. Does that point to the producers of this show being sexist? I really don’t think so. Again, this goes back to ascribing motive to the creators of the show based on textual evidence. I don’t think you can definitively say that Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse are sexists based on what’s happened on Lost.

            Like I’ve said now three times if you want to find this show endorsing a particular point of view you can do it. Cruelty to animals, anti-democratic/imperialist, futility of faith vs. the inevitability of demonic destruction or whatever. There’s enough material here to support just about any thesis. Just like Taming of the Shrew what you get out of it depends entirely on how you read what happens.

          • Nick Stevens

            Ummm… yeah… what Ryan said, basically. I agree completely.

          • Nick Stevens

            Well, actually I still disagree with the choice of the word ‘disappear’ when referring to Juliet’s (and Sawyer’s) back story, but I think that we’re just talking semantics. I get the impression you are just saying that it becomes far less relevant, which is indeed true.

          • Yes Nick Stevens, ‘disappear’ was a poor choice of words. It’s not like she became someone with no prior experiences in 1974-77 but yes I did mean that her backstory and sawyer’s became far less relevant and they became shaped by their current idyllic surroundings.

          • MoniquE

            LOL, well, if you’re offended, then that’s a deal breaker. I don’t want to continue either. I just do find the whole thing hilarious. You base your points on untrue arguments (such as Sawyer’s story also disappearing), you make claims that expose your unconscious biases(aren’t most women lovers and mothers? So what’s the problem?) and you just choose to ignore the glaring implications of things like there being NO women on this show who matter.

            I think the funniest thing of all is that men are so thin skinned when it comes to this topic. Like I said originally, sexism is really only a problem when it hurts men’s feelings to have it pointed out. As long as women stay quiet about it, all is well.

          • DharmaDave

            MoniquE, I do not personally feel insulted by your comments, perhaps a little condescended to, but no big deal. And I would like to commend you for standing up for your position. Discussions like these can be worth while to have and for the most part I found your ideas thought-provoking even if I did not agree.

            You are correct that Lost’s cast is heavily tilted to men in the male to female ratio. If there is inherent sexism in that, I have not considered it, and you may have a point. Thinking about it, why couldn’t the long debate that Lost has had be between a Woman of Faith and a Man of Science, instead of two men? I never saw sexism there, just the creator’s vision for the character. However, you have induced me to question why couldn’t that character be envisioned as a woman, and if so, if it was Jackie vs. Locke in this debate, would it be portrayed differently, and is that inherently sexist or just an observance of the inherent differences between man and woman. Food for thought.

            What I do disagree with is that the portrayal of Juliet and the actions that she took is a good example of a “woman in a refrigerator”. I think Juliet’s character and her actions have way more relevance and poignancy than a random girlfriend being killed to advance the plot of the hero.

            You say “Yes, most women are lovers and/or mothers, but most men are lovers and/or fathers. The difference is that doesn’t define men. We see them in all their aspects. Not so with women. ”

            I just do not see that as being relevant to the handling of Juliet. They did not forget that fact that she was a genius medical researcher in the field of fertility, it was just that in 1977 in the Dharma Initative being undercover she did not have occasion to exercise her particular talents. Just as Jin saw no reason to shake people down for money as he did in his career with Mr. Paik.

            The true tragedy of Juliet’s character, is that she had to sacrifice her goal to reunite with her sister, due to the time travel, and was able to build a life for herself anew to see it torn out of her hands by circumstances beyond her control, and who has the strength to risk her own life to hopefully send the man she loves to a place where he no longer is in danger.

            Lost may not have a lot of female characters, but I felt that Juliet was a well written character and an example of a strong woman. And I hate to see her compared to a sexist confection by people who chose to ignore the noble aspects of her personality because she to them she was a wrench in the works of their preferred pairing on the show

        • Nick Stevens

          “some guys on here find sexism such a nasty insult” <- here you select men who find sexism to be an insult… you do NOT say "some of the men who find sexism to be an insult do not seem to have a problem with it", you say "some guys on here find sexism to be an insult" (you target a group) and that "[sexism] doesn't seem like a problem to them (and you tar that group with the same brush). It's all in the wording and how you read it, which was my point, really.

          Also you don't actually go on to answer my other question.. rather you just continue to point out how I'm wrong for ignoring the blatant sexism that IS there, like there can be no other explanation or truth.

          • And thanks for the thoughtful back up babe. 😉

          • Nick Stevens

            No worries.

            I’m just a bit tired of people taking a given bit of art/entertainment and engendering it with a political message that was most likely not intended at all.

          • DharmaDave

            I have a comment regarding Juliet’s back-story just disappearing. Juliet was stuck in 1977. All of her previous goals and ambitious were impossible to attain in 1977.

            Her back-story is what made her that person that she was.

            Juliet was presented through season 3 and 4 as a very morally ambiguous character. People did not know what to make of her. But after the freighter people attacked we got to see more of Juliet and understand her.

            We saw her try to make sure all of the 815ers got to the freighter before she would attempt to go herself, as she promised jack, even though she wanted off the island so much

            We saw her have Sawyer’s back many times during the time flips

            And we saw the life she and Sawyer built over 3 years, and how they handled it becoming unraveled.

            So the character of Juliet went from very ambiguous to be seen as a loyal, caring person who sacrificed a lot of her own wants and desires for the greater good. So yeah, people warmed up to her.

            I also find it so strange, that people will correlate the depiction of someone as a mother or as a lover to be sexist. Most women in the world are someone’s lover or someone’s mother, but are also a lot of other things.

            Juliet never became just Sawyer’s girlfriend to me. She was always the complicated woman who did her best in very trying situations and was loyal to the people that she loved. It seems to me that it is those who dislike her relationship with Sawyer are the ones who discount the other facets of her personality and only see her in terms of her relationship to a man. Which seems more sexist?

          • Very well spoken. I agree, I read a review of Up in the Air a month ago that stated the movie was terrible because it was imbued with derision for Middle America and I was stunned. It was character movie about the destruction of Clooney’s character’s ego/worldview! Stuff like that just bothers me and what’s more that guy gets paid to misunderstand movies for a living which bothered me even more.

          • Nick Stevens

            Thanks, Dave, for pointing out that there was quite a natural progression with Juliet.

            And Ryan? I like your music. 🙂

          • Good post DharmaDave!

            Nick Stevens I totally forgot that was the link to my name! I’m glad you like it! My friend Tim is a brilliantly musician and all that stuff is basically me trying to give him a template to show off. Thanks for listening! That makes you one of seven people I think.

          • MoniquE

            Excuse me there was no natural progression with Juliet. She was presented as this incredible medical genius who could make a male mouse pregnant. That’s a HUGE character trait. To make it seem like it’s nothing to just disappear that is like saying that Locke’s lameness was never important to understanding his characters.

            Yes, most women are lovers and/or mothers, but most men are lovers and/or fathers. The difference is that doesn’t define men. We see them in all their aspects. Not so with women.

            I think I really can’t explain this to you guys. It’s such a huge cultural bias that it’s invisible to you all, I guess. You all seem like a nice group (except for the nutty religious guy upthread) so I’m sorry if you feel personally offended. But I think it’s how white people can’t really speak about racism in the same way as the victims of racism can. Women live with sexism, their whole lives are limited by it. And it’s not in the interests of men to understand it. If you really were sincere, you’d realize that as a woman, I DO have more basis to speak about this. Instead you’re trying to lecture me about a reality that I live every day. Then you congratulate one another for being the superior ones in the discussion. It’s hilarious if you stop and look at it, how unaware you are of yourselves.

            But like I said, you all seem nice enough. Sorry to upset you by showing you the other side of the looking glass that you don’t want to see.

          • MoniquE

            Just need to add that Sawyer’s backstory did not disappear.He’s still the guy seeking vengeance. Juliet’s death pushed his story forward. His backstory continues to be relevant.

          • Monique I was all ready to write “that’s probably a good place to stop. agreeing to disagreeing is how most arguments should end and you’re probably right in saying that white men/women and black men/black women are sensitive to different forms of bias and see things differently.”

            and then: “Then you congratulate one another for being the superior ones in the discussion. It’s hilarious if you stop and look at it, how unaware you are of yourselves.”

            GAH! Look I have to go so I’ll leave it to Nick or DharmaDave to address that point because I’m sure they will. I just want to point at that I addressed everything you said and all you came back with was an insult. This isn’t some sausage fest circle jerk. If we were having a discussion about Locke’s monster form and what we think it means and you, myself and nick all came on one side of the argument and Dave was on the other the three of us would say ‘hey good point!’ to each other. That’s how message boards go. STOP FINDING SEXISM EVERYWHERE.

          • Nick Stevens

            Monique, you were doing really well there until you said this: “Then you congratulate one another for being the superior ones in the discussion. It’s hilarious if you stop and look at it, how unaware you are of yourselves.” Also this: “Sorry to upset you by showing you the other side of the looking glass that you don’t want to see.”

            That’s just great. I personally find it ridiculous that now, not only are you still ignoring the main thrust of our point, but you are also painting yourself as the ONLY qualified person to speak about sexism. If that IS how you see it, by the way, then I can ask my girlfriend to come on and continue this discussion. Of course, gauging by the way you are conducting yourself you will probably just ignore her or disbelieve her. Either way I’m done with this discussion because you have, finally, personally insulted me really rather badly. Congrats.

          • Nick Stevens

            Actually just ONE final note: I wish to make it very, very clear that I am in NO way ending my part in this discussion due to a desire to bury my head in the sand or because MoniquE’s debating skills have won me over. It really absolutely is because I am offended. Just want to clarify in case someone tries to misrepresent it.

          • Like Nick I feel I’ve made my points clear and continuing the discussion past this point will amount to nothing more than “Yes it is!” vs. “No it isn’t!” So yes, this will be my last post also.

            What DharmaDave says a few posts down is correct. You seem very intelligent Monique and the strength of your convictions is great which is certainly admirable. May I posit that perhaps it is too strong?

            That is all that Nick and I are saying basically, that if one looks hard enough for something or are sensitive enough to something you will find it. Your position made me consider things that I hadn’t before until just a few minutes ago I thought “Maybe the lost writers just aren’t very good at representing good female characters.” That’s just as possible as anything, right? I think there have been some great female characters on this show but to point out that there aren’t so many of prominent females on this show right now is a valid observation. Does that unequivocally prove that the writers are sexist? No. Does it mean anything? Maybe but maybe not.

            I have conceded, now for the second time, that it is possible that I cannot perceive beyond my cultural bias (which I’m not convinced of but I’m willing to admit it’s possible) but by bombastically hammering your point it makes me think that I should feel being white and male makes me an inferior judge of female characters on a television show. Being a white male isn’t a handicap for critical analysis. Being a bigot or sexist is a handicap no matter what your race, color or creed be. I’m not either of those things so i feel my observations are just as valid as yours (and please don’t try to tell me you know me better than I do and don’t paint me with a broad brush). You can’t charge me or any other Lost fans with seeing what they want to in regard to sexism on the show and then not even come close to acknowledging that you yourself MIGHT only be seeing what you want to. It’s very hypocritical. I’ve admitted a number of times that maybe something is happening that I just can’t see. I’d like to see you admit that maybe you’re seeing something that isn’t there. It’s possible right?

            That is all. I am done. A new episode of Lost is upon us and that is a wonderful thing. See you all on another thread!

          • And as a final note, Monique you blended, my, Nick’s and Dave’s arguments together and said “you” as though we were one person. Exposing biases, you said? When Juliet and James were in Dharmaville their pasts didn’t matter. That’s what I was saying if you gave my argument the time of day. Obviously right now Juliet’s background on the show doesn’t matter because she’s dead and James’ does because he’s alive. I don’t know if it’s more complicated than that. Does it fit in to that gross comic book trope Fish mentioned? Yes it does. Does that empirically prove the show is sexist, again, a resounding NO.

            Also I spent a very long time constructing an argument that I feel you glossed over and scarcely considered every time I tweaked it and re-posed it to you. Again, I was interested in a discussion not dismissive remarks that amounted to nothing more than: “Oh that one sentence doesn’t make sense and you can’t possibly see what I do because of your bias”. I am/was trying to be very fair about the argument for sexism being an unfortunate part of Lost’s fabric. I didn’t find anything that convinced me, if anything I think a better argument can be made for the Lost writers being collectively bad at writing for females and not being consciously sexist. I would almost buy that. Almost. But it strikes me that you are not willing to consider another side. Again, this is my actual FINAL last post on this matter. See you in another thread!

      • Jennifer

        Completely agree. The Kate hate is ridiculous and every time a Kate-centric comes up everyone moans like little spoiled children. Sun-centrics too seem to bore everyone. (Although the writers have also made Sun very boring. What did she get to do lately? Listen to Lapidus talk. Wow. That was exciting.)

        I love “Lost”, but it’s definitely behind-the-times in terms of female characters. Think of something like “Firefly” and there you’ll get a sci-fi show with some real female characters. I wish they could have taken some story-notes from Joss Whedon. Everything else is peachy, but yeah, the lack of dynamic, breathing females is a damn shame.

    • DharmaDave

      This is a repost, accidentally posted above

      have a comment regarding Juliet’s back-story just disappearing. Juliet was stuck in 1977. All of her previous goals and ambitious were impossible to attain in 1977.

      Her back-story is what made her that person that she was.

      Juliet was presented through season 3 and 4 as a very morally ambiguous character. People did not know what to make of her. But after the freighter people attacked we got to see more of Juliet and understand her.

      We saw her try to make sure all of the 815ers got to the freighter before she would attempt to go herself, as she promised jack, even though she wanted off the island so much

      We saw her have Sawyer’s back many times during the time flips

      And we saw the life she and Sawyer built over 3 years, and how they handled it becoming unraveled.

      So the character of Juliet went from very ambiguous to be seen as a loyal, caring person who sacrificed a lot of her own wants and desires for the greater good. So yeah, people warmed up to her.

      I also find it so strange, that people will correlate the depiction of someone as a mother or as a lover to be sexist. Most women in the world are someone’s lover or someone’s mother, but are also a lot of other things.

      Juliet never became just Sawyer’s girlfriend to me. She was always the complicated woman who did her best in very trying situations and was loyal to the people that she loved. It seems to me that it is those who dislike her relationship with Sawyer are the ones who discount the other facets of her personality and only see her in terms of her relationship to a man. Which seems more sexist?

      • DharmaDave

        MoniquE, I do not personally feel insulted by your comments, perhaps a little condescended to, but no big deal. And I would like to commend you for standing up for your position. Discussions like these can be worth while to have and for the most part I found your ideas thought-provoking even if I did not agree.

        You are correct that Lost’s cast is heavily tilted to men in the male to female ratio. If there is inherent sexism in that, I have not considered it, and you may have a point. Thinking about it, why couldn’t the long debate that Lost has had be between a Woman of Faith and a Man of Science, instead of two men? I never saw sexism there, just the creator’s vision for the character. However, you have induced me to question why couldn’t that character be envisioned as a woman, and if so, if it was Jackie vs. Locke in this debate, would it be portrayed differently, and is that inherently sexist or just an observance of the inherent differences between man and woman. Food for thought.

        What I do disagree with is that the portrayal of Juliet and the actions that she took is a good example of a “woman in a refrigerator”. I think Juliet’s character and her actions have way more relevance and poignancy than a random girlfriend being killed to advance the plot of the hero.

        You say “Yes, most women are lovers and/or mothers, but most men are lovers and/or fathers. The difference is that doesn’t define men. We see them in all their aspects. Not so with women. ”

        I just do not see that as being relevant to the handling of Juliet. They did not forget that fact that she was a genius medical researcher in the field of fertility, it was just that in 1977 in the Dharma Initative being undercover she did not have occasion to exercise her particular talents. Just as Jin saw no reason to shake people down for money as he did in his career with Mr. Paik.

        The true tragedy of Juliet’s character, is that she had to sacrifice her goal to reunite with her sister, due to the time travel, and was able to build a life for herself anew to see it torn out of her hands by circumstances beyond her control, and who has the strength to risk her own life to hopefully send the man she loves to a place where he no longer is in danger.

        Lost may not have a lot of female characters, but I felt that Juliet was a well written character and an example of a strong woman. And I hate to see her compared to a sexist confection by people who chose to ignore the noble aspects of her personality because she to them she was a wrench in the works of their preferred pairing on the show

        • dd

          The story has absolutely no obligation to tell the story of women. It’s a ridiculous notion to insist that it’s a trait of inherent sexism.

          There’s a lot of fantasy projection in this conversation.

          • MattheW

            They have no trouble watching Grey’s Anatomy where a woman show runner resorts to characters noted as “McDreamy” and McSteamy” or Sex in the City where the central male character is defined as “Big”

            They have no trouble with a female storyteller telling tales that empower women, or confront their difficulties.. but the white man is not allowed such a privilege. McDonalds has to feature a minority in each commercial, and Damon Lindelof has to make sure one of the women on the Island is more than just arm candy.

            I thought they had invested pretty heavily in someone known as Kate Austen and Claire, but I guess we just all see them as the pregnant chick and the top of the triangle.

  • Daniel

    “OtherFlight 815 still went off course and flew over the latitude and longitude of the now sunken Island. That didn’t change.”

    Not necessarily. Say the bomb went off, the island sunk. Now it doesn’t move anymore. What if it the flight stayed on track, and passed over the 1977 location of the island?

    I am assuming that since we have seen the island move in space/time in the past, then it probably moved between 1977 and 2004.

  • Michael

    Got to say I used to look forward to these re-caps nearly as much as the episodes themselves but it all changed about halfway through the last season where you became far more negative and preachy. Something tells me you’ve lost your faith a la john locke midway through season 2, and we all know how that ended. Yes. Ecko died. Do you really need something that tragic to happen again? Do you? DO YOU?!

  • Dharma77

    Sorry, what is a “shipper”? I’ve heard it being used a lot on the internet for Lost but still have no idea what it means!

    • Nick Stevens

      A fan of a given show for whom a certain relationship (hence ‘ship’per) is rather important. Jack & Kate, Buffy & Angel, Rachel & Ross etc. Some of those who could be defined as shippers become rather testy and vocal when their chosen relationship is passed over or ended and therefore it is sometimes seen used as a derogatory term, but the vast majority are just fans like any other who just happen to really enjoy the romantic relationships in their show of choice.

      • dd

        A good example of this is Monique flipping out when anyone suggests Sawyer and Kate may not be together, even if their romantic story died last season.

  • Cody

    Not sure if anyone else caught this, but in the airport the security lady calls Sun Ms. Paik, so i’m guessing her and Jin aren’t even married. Interesting?

    • Wow. Didn’t catch that. Very interesting…

    • Nick Stevens

      *rewatches* So she does! It could mean nothing, but still…

  • Marcus

    I think the island is under water ever since Ben put the island underwater at the end of season 4 and that there has been some alternate time line since desmond turned the key and blew up the hatch back in like season 2 i

  • bernie baggs

    My friend and I, after watching the premiere three times last week while researching the book of job and milton’s “paradise (ahem) LOST,” had a sinking feeling that our ideas of good and bad (black and white, jacob & nemesis) might be completely backwards. Fake locke says, “i’m very disappointed in all of you,” which is a very “moses-y” thing to say, and jacob has done most of the manipulating up to this point. could it be that jacob is gonna be the bad guy in the end?? it’s a bold move, and probably unlikely, but i wouldn’t put it past LOST to pull the rug out from under us like that come the finale.

  • MattheW

    Wow, I cannot believe how annoyed I am for reading this. It seems we all were going along fine until we got to this horrible and needless charge of sexism.. and then to be subjected to MoniquE’s overwhelming dose of self-righteous liberalism was just the cherry on the cake.

    It’s like any rational thought or constructive criticism that is belied upon you, MoniquE, you just completely shrug it off as inconceivable. In short, it is the most ASTOUNDING display of close-minded arrogance and supreme sense of righteousness that anyone could possibly display. Yet with the same vehemence you persecute and discriminate against others who would disagree with you or display characteristics indicative that they show a belief in politics or religion upon which you disagree. And you then sum up the basis for your disapproval that others just don’t understand, can’t understand, or won’t understand because they are so CLOSE-MINDED!

    Do you understand what a brilliant shining example of hypocrisy you are? I hope so, because I registered just to make this comment.

  • MattheW

    I mean.. COME ON.. I know I should probably stop.. but of all the things.. you thoroughly imply that white people, or white men specifically do not know what racism is like… That they don’t know what ostricization or condescending attitudes feel like. That a jewish white male does not know what it is like to be considered an inferior being. That an overweight or skinny nerd that also happens to be white cannot understand what it’s like to be looked down upon. Simply because you as a presumably black human being, or you as a woman, either or, have felt it.

    As if you are the ONLY one who knows this pain.

    Do you have any idea of how ignorant that it is? How offense that is? How sexist or racist that is? Obviously you don’t. Obviously you’re no better than the people you cast your haughty glance upon as “racist” or “sexist” beings.

    • Jennifer

      Dude, I’m sorry, but you don’t get it. You just don’t. It IS different being a woman and though I’m not African-American myself, I am under no illusion that white people – and that, in the modern U.S. does include Jewish people have privileges that other races don’t yet share.

      Yeah, I was picked on in school like crazy – a nerd, the tallest girl, I had literally no friends in the 6th grade because of these things and I’ve been kicked and called names. But I still have privilege from being white. Nobody’s trying to infer that you don’t know what being ostracized is like. We’re just trying to tell you that you don’t know what it’s like to be a woman. You don’t. You don’t know what it’s like to have to think about the possibility you might be raped every time you go out alone at night. You don’t know what it’s like to have to worry about your looks constantly and be told from every magazine cover and billboard that you don’t measure up and you’d better or no man is going to want you and no job is going to hire you.

      And you don’t know what it’s like to watch TV or films and 75% of the time have to watch things from a man’s point of view. This may seem like nothing big to you, but imagine this – imagine you were told you could only watch films or TV shows for one year with female lead characters – as in, the protagonist of the film or show. You couldn’t watch shows with male lead characters they just weren’t being made because the people making all the shows were predominantly female and so cared more about female concerns.

      Movies like “Gladiator” and “Saving Private Ryan” are scoffed out of the Oscars as “men’s pictures” in favor of “Fried Green Tomatoes” and “When Harry Met Sally” which are considered the heavy hitters to beat at Oscar time, because they are about issues that matter like relationships and love rather than being “dude flicks” about unimportant stuff like war and action.

      Do you start to understand? A little? I’m not trying to get up in your face here, just to suggest that there is another perspective on this matter.

      I love men. I love my husband. He didn’t get a lot of this stuff when we first met either. I don’t have a problem with male lead characters and “Lost” offers me some great ones to choose from. But it is always sad to me to see that either Damon and Carlton don’t know what to do with their female characters and kill them off or they are more willing to expend the females in the service of the story. R.I.P. Shannon, Libby, Ana-Lucia, Rousseau (that one, admittedly, was the actress’ choice), and now Juliet. On the flipside you have Charlie, Michael, Mr. Eko (also actor’s choice), and not really Locke because he’s still acting on the show in another, perhaps even more intriguing, guise.

      And it’s not even really Darlton that’s sad so much as the legions of male fans who can’t even stand that we have one female left on the show who does more than worry about her husband or her baby. And the reason people seem to hate her is because she “won’t choose” between two men. Indiana Jones never really chose so well either, nor did James Bond, but that’s okay, huh?

      Anyway, Monique and Fishbiscuit are not alone in their observations. The feminist movement may have stalled, but women are not yet equal and won’t be until it’s taken for granted that on a show where a bunch of people survive a plane crash a little more than half of the characters should be female (mirroring the population of earth, you know.)

      • Lego

        Really great post Jennifer. It is too bad most people have moved on from this comment thread. I think a lot of the men have been vehemently denying that sexism exists on this show would have benefited from this post.

  • MattheW

    See that’s what really gets me. You see someone who defines themselves as conservative or religious, and you instantly apply all the horrible thoughts and beliefs to them that a member of a white power organization would apply to a person that isn’t caucasian.

  • annie

    Just a random observation…
    the symbol in the guitar case looks exactly like the symbol in the full statues hand. So Excited for the rest of the season!

    • Nick Stevens

      Yeah it’s an Ankh – the Egyptian symbol of resurrection.

  • Good article although difficult to comprehend for the reason that I’m from Sweden 😉

  • I currently employ a Lexmark, I’m OK with the excellent but I am quite unhappy with how rapid it goes as a result of ink. I need a thing which could print excellent documents and not drain me dry while using cost of ink.

  • hi, excellent blog, and also a great understand! one for my bookmarks

  • Ensure that it is not in fact my exercise to publish comments, but I believed I’d say that this was excellent.

  • Smiley Face Bail Bonds can work with you to ensure that you will get the lowest possible rate for you.

  • Rosie

    [“The Bomb Squad had time jumped, quite conveniently, to 2007, where all their friends were waiting on the beach to synch up storylines with them. But they hadn’t managed to unmake time so that whatever happened didn’t happen. So Jack’s plan didn’t work, right?”]

    The plan to detonate the Jughead bomb WAS NEVER Jack’s plan. It was Daniel’s plan. Why do people keep forgetting this?