Christian is Dead, Time Travel is Part of the Show
tdciago
Online:
http://spoilerslost.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-claire-dead-are-they-really-time.html
Snippets:
___________________________________
Obviously the big question after last night's episode, leading into
that finale, is "How are they going to move the island?" which is a
fantastic twist and also, "Is Claire dead?" Is that a question that
you are wanting the fans to be asking at this point?
CC: I think that we want the fans to ask, "What's happened to Claire?"
I don't think it's "Is she dead?" I think it's like "Where is she?"
and "What's going on with her?"
DL: What's fascinating with Lost is there's a scene where Claire is in
the cabin, and she is sitting next to a guy who is dead, and nobody is
saying "What's up with that?" They're all saying "Is she dead?" I
think the more operative question is, "What is dead?" That's a good
question to ask, and one you will certainly be asking over the long
hiatus.
Can you say if time travel is definitely a part of the series?
CC: Yes.
...This is a question I don't know if you can or will want to
answer...Does Richard Alpert age?
CC: Does Richard Alpert age? I think it's a good observation to say
that Richard Alpert has been observed in various time periods looking
the same, but I think that's all we want to say at this point in time.
However, you will learn a lot more about Richard Alpert as the show
goes on. He is going to become more prominent in the future of the
show.
...DL: There are some questions that are very engaging and
interesting, and then there are other questions that we have no
interest whatsoever in answering. We call it the midi-chlorian debate,
because at a certain point explaining something mystical demystifies
it. To try and have a character come and say "Here is what the numbers
mean," actually makes every usage of the numbers up to that point less
interesting.
You can actually watch Star Wars now and when Obi-Wan talks about the
Force to Luke the first time we hear him, it loses its luster because
subsequently the Force has been explained as, sort of, little
biological agents that are in your blood stream. So you go, "Oh, I
liked Obi-Wan's version a lot better," which in the case of our show
is "The numbers are bad luck, they keep popping up in Hurley's life,
they appear on the island."
CC: I heard that Obi-Wan had actually experienced the numbers. That's
actually a big secret that's now been revealed.
DL: But if you're watching the show for a detailed explanation of what
the numbers mean—and I'm not saying you won't see more of them—then
you will be disappointed by the end of season six.
thinbluemime
Not to beat a dead horse, but four comments:
1) http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.lost/msg/5e04647bd949e3f0
2) Damon Lindelof: I have a feeling that quote will be coming back to bite
me for years to come.
( http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Official_Lost_Podcast_transcript/February_13%2C_2006
)
3) bite me, abc :)
4) Keep your eyes on the numbers from here on out, remember, "The Lozt
Boyz lie...They have to"
Oh, and Happy Mother's Day, tdciago!
thinbluemime
> tdciago wrote:
>
>> And other stuff from Darlton, in an interview with Kristin from E!
>> Online:
>> http://spoilerslost.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-claire-dead-are-they-really-t
>> ime.html
>>
>> Snippets:
>>
>> ___________________________________
> <snip>
>
>> DL: But if you're watching the show for a detailed explanation of what
>> the numbers mean—and I'm not saying you won't see more of them—then
>> you will be disappointed by the end of season six.
>
> If this part is true, the show just got a lot more uninteresting to me.
> To
> have something that they continue to use as a point of interest and then
> never provide an answer to it is crap. What's next? Not going to
> explain
> what Smoky is? If they pull a Sopranos type garbage ending, they should
> never be hired, again.
Every time the Lozt Boyz attempt to put distance between themself and the
numbers, the NUMBERS for me become much more fascinating. Why?
There is a fourth level to Lost. A frikkin Geo-political level. I won't
say anymore right now.
Search this forum, read the foreign press, and pray.
If that is too much work, then do like potential air line crash victims do:
Put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye, LOL
But the 4th level implications are as intriging as the show itself, maybe
more so.
I will say this....hijacking a hijacked media is brilliant....
Kevin Reilly
>If this part is true, the show just got a lot more uninteresting to me. To
>have something that they continue to use as a point of interest and then
>never provide an answer to it is crap.
I'll be happy if they simply cement the Lost Experience "answer" -- that
the numbers are the current values from the Valenzetti Equation and
seemingly unchangeable -- into the show itself.
Sure, it's a pseudo-scientific claptrap answer that doesn't really make
sense outside of the context of the show. But, given the mythology of
the series, the idea that the universe is in some way governed by these
numbers and that as a result they keep popping up with seemingly
unnatural frequency does make some sort of twisted sense.
On the other hand if they just sweep them under the carpet with no
in-show explanation at all I, too, am going to be very disappointed.
On a different note, it's interesting to see they've now admitted that
time travel is involved in the series (which at this point is kind of
like the producers of CSI admitting that there's a bit of forensics in
their show). What I'd like to know is whether the comment back in the
early days that there was no time travel in LOST was a) an out-and-out
lie, b) a deliberate half-truth in that time travel wasn't part of the
show YET or c) the truth in that the use of time travel hadn't been
fully decided upon at that point.
I realise that a) and b), if true, would have been as much about keeping
the studio happy as about keeping the audience misled, but option c)
intrigues me. That the inclusion time travel, which seems to be rapidly
becoming a core element of the LOST arc, could have been an eleventh
hour decision is quite fascinating and a seemingly odd way to develop a
show in which the core mythologies are so important. On the other hand
it's not without precedent; Jack was originally supposed to die in the
pilot and Henry Gale was supposed to be a one- or two-episode guest
role. There are probably other examples.
If this is that case, these guys are REALLY good at integrating stuff
into the show on the fly, and I hope they can maintain that ability to
the end. Chris Carter tried something similar a decade ago with The
X-Files and the result wasn't nearly as successful as it might have
been.
--
Kev
__________________________________________________________________________
"A sixty foot tree can break wind up to 200 yards."
From a school essay
vincecolema...@gmail.com
> tdciago wrote:
> > And other stuff from Darlton, in an interview with Kristin from E!
> > Online:
> > ime.html
>
> > Snippets:
>
> > ___________________________________
>
> <snip>
>
> > DL: But if you're watching the show for a detailed explanation of what
> > the numbers mean—and I'm not saying you won't see more of them—then
> > you will be disappointed by the end of season six.
>
> have something that they continue to use as a point of interest and then
> never provide an answer to it is crap.
To be extra-clear: For me, they don't need to nail down the concept
with ultra-precision, for example, to say why the numbers are what
they are (ex., why 15, and not 25 or 18 1/2). But they do need to
explain why they pop up over and over (like on the lottery ticket and
the girls' soccer jerseys).
I like the idea that those values govern the course of humanity and
whenever something important is about to happen, they crop up as a
harbinger -- hence, dozens of appearances of the numbers in the
airport. That pseudo-scientific explanation is enough for me but if
they fall short of even doing something like that, I will be pissed.
tdciago
> On a different note, it's interesting to see they've now admitted that
> time travel is involved in the series (which at this point is kind of
> like the producers of CSI admitting that there's a bit of forensics in
> their show). What I'd like to know is whether the comment back in the
> early days that there was no time travel in LOST was a) an out-and-out
> lie, b) a deliberate half-truth in that time travel wasn't part of the
> show YET or c) the truth in that the use of time travel hadn't been
> fully decided upon at that point.
I'm pretty sure it was option b, and that will be borne out with the
Adam and Eve characters.
That particular small interview was latched onto by so many fans who
interpreted it to mean that all of the explanations would be
scientific ones, and that there would *never* be time travel on the
show. What's most interesting to me is that the sentence before
"There isn't any time travel" was "There are no spaceships." That one
has been used by people to claim that the show's plot doesn't involve
aliens. I think it's clear now that the spaceships comment is as
reliable as the supposed debunking of time travel and non-scientific
explanations.
"We're still trying to be ... firmly ensconced in the world of science
fact. I don't think we've shown anything on the show yet ... that has
no rational explanation in the real world that we all function within.
We certainly hint at psychic phenomena, happenstance and ... things
being in a place where they probably shouldn't be. But nothing is flat-
out impossible. There are no spaceships. There isn't any time
travel."
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/handheld/30246.html
tdciago
> I'm pretty sure it was option b, and that will be borne out with the
> Adam and Eve characters.
To clarify, see the Lostpedia page on Adam and Eve:
http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Adam_and_Eve
They were shown in "House of the Rising Sun," which aired on October
27, 2004. The Sci Fi Wire interview was from January 24, 2005.
In an EW.com article, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse answered the fan
question, "What is the meaning or significance of the two skeletons
that Jack and Kate found in the cave of season 1?"
CUSE: The answer to that question goes to the nature of the timeline
of the Island. We don't want to say too much about it, but there are a
couple Easter eggs embedded in "Not in Portland", one of which is an
anagram that actually sheds some light on the skeletons and hints at a
larger mythological mystery that will start to unfold later in the
season.
LINDELOF: There were certain things we knew from the very beginning.
Independent of ever knowing when the end was going to be, we knew what
it was going to be, and we wanted to start setting it up as early as
season 1, or else people would think that we were making it up as we
were going along. So the skeletons are the living—or, I guess, slowly
decomposing—proof of that. When all is said and done, people are going
to point to the skeletons and say, "That is proof that from the very
beginning, they always knew that they were going to do this."
"UGO: When was the decision to use time travel in the story made?
DAMON: It's been in the DNA of the show since the very beginning.
Obviously, one thing the flash backs and the flash forwards provide
you with is the idea of time travel. You're bouncing around in time
and events from the past are seemingly influencing the present, but
it's not a traditional time travel story until we started talking
about what the hatch was there for, and what this electromagnetic
energy that the hatch is trying to contain is and what would be the
effect of that hatch going away, otherwise known as the purple sky
event. And it was sort of those conversations which obviously happened
way back in season one when Locke and Boone found the hatch that were
the early precursors of time travel. I will say, though, that the
first significant event in the show where we were thinking in the back
of our minds that this is going to require a story telling element
that isn't traditional narrative, is the discovery of Adam and Eve in
the caves."
alooo
"Tim Weaver" <tmw9...@gmail.com> wrote
>> DL: But if you're watching the show for a detailed explanation of what
>> the numbers mean-and I'm not saying you won't see more of them-then
>> you will be disappointed by the end of season six.
>
> If this part is true, the show just got a lot more uninteresting to me.
> To
> have something that they continue to use as a point of interest and then
> never provide an answer to it is crap. What's next? Not going to explain
> what Smoky is? If they pull a Sopranos type garbage ending, they should
> never be hired, again.
They said the numbers are bad luck for Hurley. What more do you really need?
karal...@yahoo.com
explained as two people that are working with Jacob for the island and
make up two of the three heads of Smokey. They are dead, but not
really dead in the sense that we know it. They are "active".
rob...@bestweb.net
> > DL: But if you're watching the show for a detailed explanation of what
> > the numbers mean—and I'm not saying you won't see more of them—then
> > you will be disappointed by the end of season six.
>
> If this part is true, the show just got a lot more uninteresting to me. To
> have something that they continue to use as a point of interest and then
> never provide an answer to it is crap.
Oh, I'm sure they'll provide an answer, but that you'll be
disappointed by it.
Priscilla H. Ballou
<fa47eaa5-9635-4359...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
tdciago <tdc...@aol.com> wrote:
> CC: Does Richard Alpert age? I think it's a good observation to say
> that Richard Alpert has been observed in various time periods looking
> the same, but I think that's all we want to say at this point in time.
Following their discussion of time travel, as this does, leads one to an
obvious conclusion about the viable explanations for Alpert's looking
the same age whenever we see him -- contemporary or flash-back/whatever.
Priscilla
Victor Velazquez
> On a different note, it's interesting to see they've now admitted that
> time travel is involved in the series
Where did they deny this? I remember them saying that everything could be
explained by pseudo-science but that's all I got.
Victor Velazquez
> thinbluemime wrote:
>> But the 4th level implications are as intriging as the show itself,
>> maybe more so.
>>
>> I will say this....hijacking a hijacked media is brilliant....
>
Only as regards to tbm's sanity.
tdciago
> Where did they deny this? �I remember them saying that everything could be
> explained by pseudo-science but that's all I got.
As previously posted in this thread, it was in a Sci Fi Wire interview
from January of 2005. Read it carefully and you'll see that the time
travel denial is given in the present tense, and they claim that they
were *trying* to stay within the confines of scientific fact: