What Big Questions have now been Answered?
Davej
Do we know what the smoke monster is?
Do we know why they took the children?
Doppelbock
> Do we know who Jacob is?
Not really, no.
>
> Do we know what the smoke monster is?
Nope.
>
> Do we know why they took the children?
>
No.
--
*** ERROR: OUT OF BEER ***
Xeneize
noticias:ae8a7c6b-2808-45f0...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Do we know who Jacob is?
>
No, but it looks like the good guy.
> Do we know what the smoke monster is?
>
Nope, but it looks like the bad guy.
> Do we know why they took the children?
My best guess is that they took children to preserve their community through
time, considering that nobody can have children in the island.
X.
Davej
> "Davej" <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do we know who Jacob is?
>
> No, but it looks like the good guy.
>
> > Do we know what the smoke monster is?
>
> Nope, but it looks like the bad guy.
Ok, and we get that from the death threat the one fellow makes to
Jacob. Of course we don't know the reason for the threat. If Jacob
caused the shipwreck (and how many other ships?) is this a sign of
"goodness?"
> > Do we know why they took the children?
>
> My best guess is that they took children to preserve their community
> through time, considering that nobody can have children in the island.
So why keep it a mystery all this time if it is so simple?
Xeneize
> On Jun 17, 7:12 pm, "Xeneize" <hgaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Davej" <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Do we know who Jacob is?
>>
>> No, but it looks like the good guy.
>>
>> > Do we know what the smoke monster is?
>>
>> Nope, but it looks like the bad guy.
>
> Ok, and we get that from the death threat the one fellow makes to
> Jacob. Of course we don't know the reason for the threat. If Jacob
> caused the shipwreck (and how many other ships?) is this a sign of
> "goodness?"
Put that way, nope. But if we take that Jacob did it, it was to prove MIB
that he was wrong, i. e. that people don't "come, fight, destroy, corrupt".
In other words, that people aren't evil. We can argue that he takes things a
bit too far to prove this point, but then we're led to think that it was
their destiny anyway.
>
>> > Do we know why they took the children?
>>
>> My best guess is that they took children to preserve their community
>> through time, considering that nobody can have children in the island.
>
> So why keep it a mystery all this time if it is so simple?
Did the authors say it was a mistery? I guess the ones that think it's a
mistery are the ones who didn't think of the simplest explanation.
X.
dgates
wrote:
I like the show, but...
The show has a habit of giving the audience a really strong scene when
we first see a new mystery, then weaker scenes when we finally see its
"solution."
Mystery:
Why do the Others take children?
Powerful scenes included Danielle talking about how they took her
daughter (while we wonder if she might just be nuts), the threats on
Claire+baby, and finally the taking of Walt.
Solution:
Because they can't reproduce.
I can't exactly remember when this was first offered as the
"solution." Somewhere around when Juliet was being recruited, and
possibly spelled out more explicitly when we see Ben ordering the
kidnapping of any pregnant women.
I'm not sure how many other solved (but not all that satisfyingly)
mysteries I can remember off the top of my head, but I'll try for a
couple.
Mystery: Why is Kate carrying around an airplane?
Solution: Something about how the childhood friend it reminds her of
had been killed.
Mystery: How the hell can there be a POLAR BEAR here??
Solution (apparently): Some people once did tests on polar bears here.
Mystery: Who knocked out Sayid just as he was about to do something or
another with a radio?
Solution: Locke.
I'd probably have to see someone's complete list of mysteries, as of
season 1 or partway through season 2, to think of other examples. I
think a few might be "Who are these weird 'Others' and what do they
want?" and "What's this hatch?"
Your Name
"Davej" <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae8a7c6b-2808-45f0...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Do we know who Jacob is?
>
> Do we know what the smoke monster is?
>
> Do we know why they took the children?
And the biggest questions of them all:
Did the writers make it up as they went along?
Have the writers 'lost' the plot (and many viewers) by resorting to time
travel?
Yes and yes. ;-)
jojo
They don't take children in particular, they take people on the list
given by Jacob. They did not want Alex - they wanted to kill her ;
they wanted Walt for his powers and sent him back after ; they wanted
Claire's baby for research, as he was born on the island ; and they
took the two children among the other people from the tail section.
There was never any mystery about the children.
AC
"Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:h1co09$ids$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Thats no big deal now, since they have admitted it.
AC
cti...@tampabay.rr.com
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:42:15 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 17, 7:12 pm, "Xeneize" <hgaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Davej" <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> My best guess is that they took children to preserve their community
> >> through time, considering that nobody can have children in the island.
>
> >So why keep it a mystery all this time if it is so simple?
>
> I like the show, but...
>
> The show has a habit of giving the audience a really strong scene when
> we first see a new mystery, then weaker scenes when we finally see its
> "solution."
>
> Mystery:
> Why do the Others take children?
> Powerful scenes included Danielle talking about how they took her
> daughter (while we wonder if she might just be nuts), the threats on
> Claire+baby, and finally the taking of Walt.
>
> Solution:
> Because they can't reproduce.
> I can't exactly remember when this was first offered as the
> "solution." Somewhere around when Juliet was being recruited, and
> possibly spelled out more explicitly when we see Ben ordering the
> kidnapping of any pregnant women.
You sure that's why they took the babies? Recall that Charles ordered
Ben to kill the baby he took... Doesn't seem like a good way of
keeping the community going, to me.
Xeneize
noticias:c33dfc1d-08ff-462b...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
We don't know if pregnant women/babies were dying at that time. My guess is
that by then they could still reproduce normally.
X.
Xeneize
noticias:ecc2e4bf-87ba-40ff...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 18, 1:11 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Do we know who Jacob is?
>>
>> Do we know what the smoke monster is?
>>
>> Do we know why they took the children?
>
> They don't take children in particular, they take people on the list
> given by Jacob. They did not want Alex - they wanted to kill her ;
That was 16 years before: probably the pregnant women disease wasn't around
by then.
> they wanted Walt for his powers and sent him back after ; they wanted
> Claire's baby for research, as he was born on the island ; and they
> took the two children among the other people from the tail section.
> There was never any mystery about the children.
You just named *all* children on board Oceanic 815.
jojo
> "jojo" <jojl...@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje de
> noticias:ecc2e4bf-87ba-40ff-913d-f39afd31c...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
I am just saying that they did not target the children in particular
and the fact that they released Walt and never tried to take Aaron
after he was born prove it beyond doubt.
jojo
> "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h1co09$ids$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Davej" <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ae8a7c6b-2808-45f0...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >> Do we know who Jacob is?
>
> >> Do we know what the smoke monster is?
>
> >> Do we know why they took the children?
>
> > And the biggest questions of them all:
>
> > Did the writers make it up as they went along?
> > Have the writers 'lost' the plot (and many viewers) by resorting to time
> > travel?
>
> > Yes and yes. ;-)
>
> Thats no big deal now, since they have admitted it.
>
> AC
No and no. They said, constantly, the contrary. Maybe they are lying
but just rewatching former seasons I can see that they knew what they
were doing (even if sometime some little details don't add up of
course).
number6
>
> No and no. They said, constantly, the contrary. Maybe they are lying
> but just rewatching former seasons I can see that they knew what they
> were doing (even if sometime some little details don't add up of
> course).
They know what they are doing ... and have had the entire overall plan
drawn out ... but they are fast on their feet to alter things somewhat
while still keeping that in place ...
2 indications ...
Ben Linus ... All that Ben has said and done had been planned all
along ... but it wasn't the Michael Emerson character ... it was some
other uncast actor who would have had that leader role ... but when
they saw how well received Emerson was ... they made that original
minor character morph into the major one they had planned all
along ...
The other was the Nikki and Paolo fiasco ... from what I could see
they were being built into Lostie traitors for the Others ... when
they saw how poorly they would be received ...< they saw this when the
first episode was made> their planned treachery was revised to be done
by some other people or accomplished in other ways ...
bottom line though ... they knew the overall scheme ... and were smart
enough to adapt quickly if they saw a benefit - Michael Emerson ... or
an unwanted distraction - Nikki and Paolo ... without changing the
overall storyline ...
thinbluemime
> On Jun 18, 11:35ï¿œam, jojo <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> No and no. They said, constantly, the contrary. Maybe they are lying
>> but just rewatching former seasons I can see that they knew what they
>> were doing (even if sometime some little details don't add up of
>> course).
>
> They know what they are doing ... and have had the entire overall plan
> drawn out ... but they are fast on their feet to alter things somewhat
> while still keeping that in place ...
> 2 indications ...
> The other was the Nikki and Paolo fiasco ... from what I could see
> they were being built into Lostie traitors for the Others ... when
> they saw how poorly they would be received ...< they saw this when the
> first episode was made> their planned treachery was revised to be done
> by some other people or accomplished in other ways ...
I know this goes against what most fans believe and what the Lost writers
have said publicly. But Nikki & Paulo were introduced and removed exactly
as the Lost creators planned. They knew N&P would be disliked, and they
knew they were going to bury them alive before they even introduced them.
N&P will be one of those pieces of evidence that in the end will prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Lost creators were NOT making it up as
they went along, that they had and have a master plan. And that master
plan is tied to the Hurley Numbers in such a creative unique way, I dread
future TV series that will use the same technique to try to duplicate the
popularity of Lost.
The writers have used one day in history to draw storylines from and have
woven like a tapestry those stories into the Lost saga. The Nikki and
Paulo story is just one of those threads in the tapestry.
The Hurley Numbers can be translated into the calender date of March 4,
1948. Nikki and Paulo have a tie to that date in the old time radio show
from the same date titled, "Don't Bury Me, I'm Not Dead", with characters
Nicky and (Pau) Lou.
The radio show is available for free. Links are somewhere in this forum.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.lost/msg/27e89d4f0171093d
cti...@tampabay.rr.com
> <ctif...@tampabay.rr.com> escribió en el mensaje de
> noticias:c33dfc1d-08ff-462b-8bb0-fadc5f7f9...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 18, 1:53 am, dgates <dga...@somedomain.com> wrote:
>
> > You sure that's why they took the babies? Recall that Charles ordered
> > Ben to kill the baby he took... Doesn't seem like a good way of
> > keeping the community going, to me.
>
> We don't know if pregnant women/babies were dying at that time. My guess is
> that by then they could still reproduce normally.
>
> X.
Then why was he so determined to hold onto the baby, unless they were
trying to show that Ben is not a bad guy at all, and that Widmore is?
number6
>
> I know this goes against what most fans believe and what the Lost writers
> have said publicly. But Nikki & Paulo were introduced and removed exactly
> as the Lost creators planned. They knew N&P would be disliked, and they
> knew they were going to bury them alive before they even introduced them.
I think the timing was when they saw the first show in rushes they
realized it ... not when we saw the first show ... and that's when
they changed course ...
But you've certainly picked up on a coincidence ... that like so much
on Lost could really be an "on purpose" ... so it is hard to argue one
way or another ...
Darren Delgado
As well as a bunch of other dates, if you pick where you want the
decimal point to go.
In addition, my cell phone number can be "translated" into the date
the dinosaurs disappeared -- all I have to do is jumble the numbers
around indiscriminately and add decimal points wherever I feel like it
-- therefore (mumble mumble) DINOSAURS!
> Nikki and Paulo have a tie to that date in the old time radio show
> from the same date titled, "Don't Bury Me, I'm Not Dead", with characters
> Nicky and (Pau) Lou.
Right, like Billie Holliday has a tie to that date because she
performed a concert -- that TOOK PLACE (not) ON THAT DATE!!!11!!!!
AHA!
David Bernier
Do you believe the so-called Valenzetti equation is really part
of the LOST saga?
http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Valenzetti_Equation
Or, more importantly, is it an important piece of the puzzle?
David Bernier
Dano
> On Jun 17, 7:12 pm, "Xeneize" <hgaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Davej" <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do we know who Jacob is?
>>
>> No, but it looks like the good guy.
>>
>>> Do we know what the smoke monster is?
>>
>> Nope, but it looks like the bad guy.
>
> Ok, and we get that from the death threat the one fellow makes to
> Jacob. Of course we don't know the reason for the threat. If Jacob
> caused the shipwreck (and how many other ships?) is this a sign of
> "goodness?"
>
Define "goodness". Not to get all existential on you.
Obviously we haven't got all the answers. Like in life itself...don't
expect to get ALL the answers. I'd be very surprised if we ever do.
>>> Do we know why they took the children?
>>
>> My best guess is that they took children to preserve their community
>> through time, considering that nobody can have children in the
>> island.
>
> So why keep it a mystery all this time if it is so simple?
Why did you ask the question? What makes you say that answer is simple? Or
even correct? We HAVE learned that at least at some time they COULD have
children on the island.
thinbluemime
wrote:
>> I know this goes against what most fans believe and what the Lost
>> writers have said publicly. But Nikki & Paulo were introduced and
>> removed exactly as the Lost creators planned. They knew N&P would be
>> disliked, and they knew they were going to bury them alive before they
>> even introduced them. N&P will be one of those pieces of evidence that
>> in the end will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Lost creators
>> were NOT making it up as they went along, that they had and have a
>> master plan. And that master plan is tied to the Hurley Numbers in such
>> a creative unique way, I dread future TV series that will use the same
>> technique to try to duplicate the popularity of Lost.
>
> Do you believe the so-called Valenzetti equation is really part
> of the LOST saga?
Though not yet Lost canon, it IS part of the Lost saga, and at the very
least shows the show runners mindset.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.lost/msg/1ffe610c141829d9
> Or, more importantly, is it an important piece of the puzzle?
The important part of the Valenzetti Equation is that it predicts that
some disaster will be the end of humanity, with nuclear fire being in the
top 10. The Dharmalites that so desperately want to save the world appear
to be the leading risk factor in destroying it, with the island's nuclear
and chemical weapons.
Remember, the island can not be seen by satellite, and it apparently has
NOT signed a nuclear non proliferation agreement.
So the weapons of mass destruction are on the island, unchecked, with no
oversight.
Andrew
No