Lost: Season 6 Discussion Thread - Page 143

Are you kidding? They all died. What happened happened. I don't believe in an afterlife, but if one existed, it wouldn't negate all the pain and suffering and small moments of heroism that happen in this world. It would change our perception of it, but not in a major way.

So you're really coming down on the side of the equation that none of the rest of it mattered, and that for the last six years you've been more interested in seeing the characters get to the end of their arcs than learning what the numbers meant or any of the other zillion mysteries that propelled the story?

This whole thing about the scifi being the setting is, in my opinion, Hollywood interview horseshit. I hear it every time I do a junket for a scifi movie - 'It's really about the characters, the scifi is secondary.' So tell the story without the scifi, it'll be WAY cheaper.

And it's horseshit on a show like LOST, where characters go out of their way to do things that don't make a lot of sense in character, simply so the scifi elements that trundle along. We can go through episode after episode where characters do things, say things, go places all because the story demands it. A show that has never been afraid to hijack the characters in service of their story doesn't deserve to suddenly say 'It was all about the characters!'

The reality is that the scifi and the characters go hand in hand. It's like saying a comedy doesn't have to be funny as long as the characters really LIVE. The character arcs aren't happening DESPITE the scifi, they're supposedly happening BECAUSE of it.

It seems like no one can deny that the Island stuff ended up as sort of a wash; that it wasn't terribly compelling and that the larger mythology sort of never added up to much. That's why all of a sudden everybody who is defending this show is acting like it's a Linklater movie from the late 80s.

Of course it does! There's no tragedy anymore! Every bit of pain was an inconvenience before an eternity of happiness. That's a complete change of the perception of all that happened.

In fact, the characters who got off easiest are now the ones who died early. They get to go to heaven and be happy forever despite not really being a part of what happened on the Island.

There's a reason why most stories don't end with their hero going to Heaven.

You're kidding, right? This is a joke. In what way does what happened afterward lessen Michael's anguish or the shock of Ana Lucia and Libby's deaths? Or Hurley's sorry following Libby's death?

Is it because most of them attained a measure of peace after dying?

Was Gladiator bullshit because he ended up with his wife and son in the afterlife? Does every story have to take place in a godless universe for there to be stakes? This is an entirely different discussion, but doesn't that make LOTR bullshit?

Depending on your beliefs, either you get some kind of afterlife or you get void. Either way, earthly concerns such as anguish, love and sacrifice are immaterial. What you're preaching, Devin, is nihilism.

Once the island healed you, you stay healed. And once again, Michael couldn't kill himself because he was a candidate and that was a rule by Jacob. If anything watching the last season should have shown you that "the island" essentially does not have a will of its own, it's the characters who choose to interpret certain things as the "will of the island". If the power of the island is required for Locke to walk then it does not make any sense that he can walk in Season 5 when he is off the island. If you theory is true and island's healing power also works in the real world ( eventhough it is never state or implied) then why doesn't Locke's leg heal in Season 5? Why is it that when Sayid is injured several times in the flashforwards does he not get healed? The show has made it clear that once the island heals you, you are healed for good, otherwise Ben would have died as soon as the light went out. The island is supposed to be more like Lasik rather than contact lenses which you are arguing and which does not make sense in light of what the show told us. All of this is on a predication that smokey is a perfect copy of Locke and would have all of Locke's flaws. If he is a perfect copy than why doesn't he have Locke's personality? Why does he do things that Locke would never do. There are so many holes in this idea, stop trying to find flaws where none exist

I was reinforcing the first part of the paragraph. According to the logic that Locke's regaining his ability to walk is the most significant event in his life (as reflected in his alt-reality realization), Locke's subsequent storylines weren't significantly defining his character, because the thing that defined him most significantly took place right at the beginning of the series.

The same goes for Sayid's relationship with Shannon, a fairly inconsequential story that was resolved way back in season 2 and has scarcely been referenced since.

But I know, I know... now that I've pointed out that the "significance" theory of the afterlife can't be applied consistently, five people will come in and explain the "personal relationship" theory of the afterlife, which requires absurdities like the two-degrees-only rule that allows Penny into church/purgatory due to her relationship to Desmond and his relationship to the castaways, but does not allow their child to be there.

Cue five additional people with an even more absurd theory, and off we go...

I thought so, but it read ambiguously to me, and you don't usually write ambiguously.

It doesn't matter that the girl got raped and murdered in The Lovely Bones, the bitch got to heaven, it doesn't matter that she was raped at the age of 14 and it doesn't effect me emotionally when I read her brutal rape.

If it helps, I am right on board with the resolution to the sideways being a structural mess. I liked the juxtaposition it made for the characters, so it worked for me emotionally, but I can't attempt to justify how it works. At worst, it ruined the sidewaysverse for me, but it didn't effect the season or the show as a whole

I think GLADIATOR's ending is bad. As for LOTR - only the survivors go to the West, if I recall. It's just that world's version of Happily Ever After. Which is fine. A story ends when the storyteller wants it to end for maximum effect; you can find a happy or a sad ending to any story, depending on where you finish it up.

But the thing about LOST is that the afterlife isn't an epilogue. In LOTR they go to the Grey Havens at the end and say goodbye, and it's just a blip at the end of the book. In GLADIATOR it's the final button on the movie, the way you make a sad ending happy for dumb audiences.

With LOST it was a major aspect of the final act of the story. If the finale episode had condensed all of the lame ass purgatory stuff into the two and half hours, I would be less annoyed. But when it becomes the focus of the final season, the ending has to carry weight. It's not an epilogue anymore, it's just the ending.

But wait! LOTR's ending feels appropriate because the story is epic myth. I don't think that "And they were all good friends and went to Heaven together" is appropriate for LOST. I think a shitload of references to philosophy and religion don't actually make a show ABOUT philosophy or religion. I don't think this was a show about the afterlife.

The biggest sin of the finale, for me, is that it's not part of the show. That ending is almost a 4th wall break - it's there to bring closure to the AUDIENCE, not to the characters or the show. I actually wish it had just been a 4th wall break, because that would have been easier to stomach. It's disingenuous to end THIS show on THAT note when LOST has never been about bending over for the fans, never been about making reassurances.

Finally, I hate the ending because I hate what it means. When these people came to the Island they got a second chance. That was the whole point of the flashbacks - to show what had made them who they were, and this mysterious island was going to be the place where they would try to get better, or die. But the finale posits a THIRD CHANCE. Killing Locke was GREAT. It was a ballsy move, one that was guaranteed to upset fans, one that would leave his arc at a place that was not as satisfactory as Heaven, but which worked for his story. But then in season six he gets a THIRD chance to come to grips with his dad. What was the point of all the Island bullshit, in that case? He would ALWAYS have an eternal chance to get better in God's waiting room. There's nothing in the show that tells me that these people got a special moment in the afterlife; it seems like this is what happens to everybody.

There was a way for them to end the story where they did and have it work. They would have had to avoid shitty HIGHWAY TO HEAVEN imagery, first of all. The problem Lindelof and Cuse always had is that they never understood how to tell a story with the references they wanted to make. They just threw philosopher names in there, included references to the 8-fold path in the donkey wheel, etc etc etc, but none of it cohered or MEANT anything.

And the main problem with that is that season 6 is a different show from season 1. In almost every way, including thematically. Here's an argument I will GIVE you:

The show begins as a show about the details, the small things, mysteries and survival. As the show goes on it becomes clear that the mysteries and the details obscure the bigger more important picture. As the show goes on it becomes clear that we live the same things again and again - whether it be psychically, because of trauma, or cosmically, because of karma. The frame pulls out and by the end we come to learn that the details only confuse and obscure the truths - that we're here together, that we need to help one another and that we need to be at peace with ourselves, not with the monsters around us, to achieve the ultimate happiness.

That, on paper, is how you would argue the thematic/religious/spiritual meaning of the show. Except that isn't what the show did. Whether or not that's what they thought they were doing, Lindelof and Cuse didn't EXECUTE that within the story. The characters don't organically come to those points, the stories don't reflect that and the meanings are mentioned but never a part of the actual narrative.

LOST is a show that wasn't sunk because it was ambitious, it was sunk because it was a show whose creators couldn't pull off what they wanted to pull off. This is why people keep blabbering about the characters - as middling talented writers/creators, Lindelof and Cuse could pull characters through trope-filled arcs (bad boy with a heart of gold! Guilty doctor with the weight of the world on his shoulders!) any day of the week. They couldn't make the story make sense, though, and they couldn't land the thematics in any way except on paper.

Here's a hastily-conceived theory on why narratives that involve heavenly ascents aren't always problematic: in Gladiator, LOTR, etc., things have been wrapped up. Our heroes have fulfilled their function, there aren't mysteries left unexplored.

On Lost, this came across like distraction.

Don't pay attention to the dozens of interesting questions we've raised over the years - look over here instead! Remember Hurley? You loved Hurley! And Sawyer and Juliet? You wanted them to end up together, right? Well, they end up together in heaven! Don't worry about that bomb she detonated last season to reset time and address some of those interesting fate/free will questions we've always toyed with - completely irrelevant. Or what the true threat of the MiB is, even though we just got his story two episodes ago. See how everyone's hugging? Isn't that awesome?

ETA: And what Devin said.

That's awesome.

Does that mean at the church at the end the keyboard cat was on organ, playing everyone out?

You're sort of a dolt.

In THE LOVELY BONES going to Heaven isn't the ending. It's the metaphor. The story is about coming to terms with a bad event, not about being happy forever. Susie can't get past the terrible thing that happened to her, and she is stuck because of that. It's only when she lets go, when she really and truly is about to move on that she actually 'moves on.' It's an allegory about the way traumatized people deal with what happened, as well as about how the trauma impacts the rest of the people in their lives.

Don't you think you should either put yourself on timeout, or be less surprised when the level of discourse here drops? People take their cues from you.

Snark is not a substitute for intelligence.

Exactly. The whole point of their "awakenings" was realizing they didn't get a 2nd chance to do things right. Locke will never be with Helen. Jack will never have a son.

You could ask why they were so happy in the Church ("Hey Locke, you actually died a sucker!"), but I think the realization that I wasn't dead and rotting would be enough to perk me up at least temporarily. I'd have all eternity to think about that damned smoke monster that screwed me over.

You're not expecting a real response, are you?

Wouldn't you expect their children to have their own lives and connections? It's not like we saw all the castaway's extended families in there.

But really, barring an obvious contradiction in the show's representation that I'm not seeing, this seems like you're breaking your own rule of not creating your own text just to serve your argument.

Or more simply, does anyone really give a shit?

C'mon, you're better than that. You don't have to follow his lead.

nu-uh! This is all fan-fiction and excuses.

Dude. That is the subtext. You can put a big ol' smiley at the end but I really don't think you understand the difference.

Nope all of that is fanfiction. You are bending over backwards to make 'The Lovely Bones' work for you.

Stop trying to build up this ridiculous straw man in your head that you can knock down easily. You talk as if there is a group of fans who have secret underground meetings to collectively decide what they enjoy and what they don't. How does one even write for the "love triangle crowd"? Last I checked the same "love triangle crowd" was championing a scifi heavy episode like The Constant. I hate the love triangle in the first 4 seasons, this season is my favorite. Do I fall in the love triangle crowd? Devin hated Season 5 including the beginning of season 5 which according to you is the time when the show was trying to do intelligent stories, what does that make him? People are complex they watch the show for a cocktail of different things packaged together. This convinient straw man you are trying to build is not reality. A very small minority of fans who only watch the show for the love triangle are as pissed at the show this season then you, one look at a lost message board would tell you that. If the writers were indeed writing for the triangle lovers why wouln't they have episodes like Eggtown or I do? If the writers are writing for love triangle fans, what makes you think that these people enjoy mysticism? Why would they be more likely to enjoy a magic cave, ageless superhumans, smokemonsters all of which was chiefly featured this year, more than Dharma hatches or time travel in the previous seasons? Why would they be focusing on Ben's struggle with his instincts, Locke's and Jack's problems with their fathers, a 2000 year old rivalry? I think you dislike the season which is perfectly fine but have decided to buildup a fantasy about what the season is in your head to rationalize your hate, a fantasy which does not match up with reality.

Once again you seem to be misunderstanding what a love triangle actually is. Jack being with Kate or Juliet being with Sawyer is not a love triangle. That's people being in a relationship. A love triangle would be if Kate stood in the middle of the church looking longingly at Jack then at Sawyer unable to decide, you know the stuff that was quite prominent in Season 2 and Season 3 especially.

There was this episode of Leave It To Beaver where the Beav tried out for baseball but he was really bad, so then he pretended to be ridiculously bad because it was funny and then no one could tell exactly how bad he really was.

Good to see you post, man! It is like a tidal wave trying to keep up! So what are your thoughts on the finale?

Going back to the "fertility" issue, to clear things up, post 1977, if a baby is conceived on the island and you try to bring that same baby to term, the baby and mother die. All other combinations work. Aaron was born on the island, but was conceived off. Sun & Jin's daughter was conceived on the island, but born off.

Are some of upset that the sideways turned out to be an afterlife meeting place because you thought for sure Jughead created a parallel universe to handle the paradox?

To be fair, the writers have been saying since the beginning of the season not to call the sideways an alt-universe and they also said that maybe Jughead was not involved in this sideways world and its changes.

I know some said it was the only explanation and that it needed to happen. But did it? We saw Locke interact with Richard in the 1950's and that fit in the whole whatever happened happened. It had to happen because it was part of the legend of John Locke. So, it's resonable that Jughead at the drilling was the Incident.

So, I was thinking. "Across the Sea" broke off from the normal narrative, right? It's sole purpose is to give whatever answers the writers were going to give about Jacob, MIB, and the island. I think the writers felt these were the answers we would get, even if they fall outside the realm on the narrative of the survivors of Oceanic 815. As much as many complained about this episode, can you imagine if we didn't get even these answers?

"Across the Sea" was the Legend of Jacob. Almost a "bonus" episode. The LOST series was the Legend of Jack. It gave info that related to this particular Legend in the history of the island. And since Jack's "reign" as island protector was so brief, the series also serves as the Legend of Hurley.

I was thinking of an interesting callback to the Pilot. Hurley is the first person Jack "recruits" to help him right after the crash on the island (to watch over Claire - his then unknown step sister).

All of this discussion makes me want MMorse to do a new rewatch. The thing I've wrestled with ever since the finale is that the final 10 minutes ruined watching the show again. I always enjoyed rewatching the show all the way through in between each season, to pick up clues . . . you know, for answers. I'd like to see Morse's take on the show after the finale seemed to render so much of that drama irrelevant.

Because the show tells us that their extended families - hell, their families period - don't matter as much as the people they were stuck on an island with.

Oh my gosh, nothing matters because we all die any way.

Just wanted to chime in a bit. I'm really loving the intense discussion the finale gave us at least. My thoughts pretty much line up with everyone else's, in that it provided great emotional closure, but also pretty much fucked up the storyline, especially in regards to the alt-universe's purpose in the story from a logical standpoint. Don't regret watching the show in total though because it has given me a bunch of great characters to care about and interesting and heart-wrenching stories. On another not, the New-Agey ending reminded me of the particularly strange "heaven"-scene in JJ's Superman script, if I'm not mistaken. Not that it means anything, just a funny little pseudo-connection, I guess.

Mm-hm. Yeah, I'd say that's a problem, too. But it's particularly a problem when we're talking about parents, and we've decided that "significance" is what brought these people together. Significance is relative, but children are a big, big deal for most parents.

How does it seem that way? Penny and Desmond have a child. We saw this. Was this child's birth and existence not significant to Penny and Desmond? Yes? Then why is he not represented in the alt-universe?

I'm not making anything up here. This isn't "Hurley creates a pocket universe, using powers that seem to be even beyond the scope of what Jacob - who could grant Richard eternal life, but clearly had limits - was capable of."

I'd think that the folks who think that this ending is, in any way, coherent and fitting for this show would have some stake in the detail work.

This is not an isolated example - it's indicative of far bigger problems with this conclusion that are being excused away for some reason. You want examples? Read this thread and really think about how much this show didn't cover instead of devising new and interesting explanations to explain these problems away.

I'm not following anyone's lead. It's myopic of you to think that Devin's the only person to find problems with this finale and that the rest of us are just blindly chiming in. Just after the episode aired, I was posting some of the same criticisms that ended up in his column the morning after (for instance, the fact that this ending could be slapped on to just about any show for a cheap, emotional payoff). This is because they should be obvious criticisms to anyone who pays attention to narrative art.

I think this is why people react negatively to suggestions that the end negates the impact of previous events.

I also think this betrays a lack of understanding of the "physics" of storytelling, so to speak. It's not saying that because you go to heaven, your life was worthless, but saying that since a lot of the big events in the series were constructed to have weight precisely because of their own consequences or their own reality, dismissing those consequences or giving a do-over makes the impact lessen considerably.

Notice Lost spend entire episodes on characters realistically dying of gunshot wounds and, though at this point quoting them should be insta-ban, the creators often referred to character deaths as ways to remind the audience that the story's stakes matter. However, we aren't speaking of real people reunited in heaven, but characters. And storytelling is a process, with a logic, event here sets up event there, event there pays off what came before and some events are given a pass because the story's structure tells us they are setup, or something similar.

That's why Lost is infuriating many. Let's not kid ourselves here, Lost has had awful characterization from the very beginning, often saved by great actors doing as much as could be realistically done with their characters and for a long time, we made the choice to suspend disbelief because the implicit promise in the premise told us so. "Yeah, ok, its incredibly idiotic that this people don't ask shit, but its probably because they don't want to spoil the true nature of [whatever]" or "OK, that scene makes no sense (donkey wheel, Sayid killing mysterious people Ben tells him too, etc), but the structure of the show (flashbacks, flashforwards) tells us this will probably be explained later on and it'll make sense retroactively". Had the show not had those implicit premises, we would have given up a long time ago, but the show had them and occasionally demonstrated good use of them. Think Desmond paying off Locke's crisis of faith moment in a way that acknowledges Locke's faith in "the island" at that moment was misguided, but actually built up the moment itself, because it became setup for that small story of two men that don't come in contact with each other accidentally inspiring themselves to go on. That's the kind of thing that kept us coming for a long time. It hints that all other as yet unexplained moments will be used for great character moments that matter. Except none of the island stuff is ever explained or (and I think this is worse than not being explained), it's never used to build up any kind of resonant moment, so if we were to ever rewatch, all we can praise is the craft at putting us in a place to be interested, even though we can't anymore.

I think that's the irony here. Lost had demonstrated great craft at using the structure of "explaining" the island to create great moments, even if those explanations creater larger/overarching questions. They could've been true to their promise of "putting character first" this season, and even kept their entire view of the island as impossible to explain, and Jacob/MiB, and all that, had they used it that way. Pay off questions by creating a larger question that in the end shows us the limited agency of the characters involved and set up the idea that the island as a whole can't be explained, but do so as a way that show's its a thematic point and not a sleigh of hand because they couldn't be bothered to actually do it.

Hell, the afterlife afterparty ending could've actually meant something other than "be happy audience, smile, shed a few tears" if the characters all along had been going for answers and actually seemed to be involved in trying to find out what the fuck was going on. Imagine if characters were constantly trying to find stuff out (like Locke in those early times, or Eko) and every time they got close to understanding where the fuck they were, the picture got zoomed out for them as well. Imagine if Jack's "want to fix everything" motivation had been contrasted with an island that doesn't even make clear what it would mean to be fixed or broken is. In other words, imagine if the main complaint so far (no stakes ever clarified) had been a plot point for the characters to react to. Suddenly the ending could've built up even from Rose/Bernard's position, "you spent all your life worrying about shit that doesn't matter, when simply you could've spent time with blah blah blah". It's still sappy, but it'd be earned. It'd still be a clusterfuck (the one character that did everything for his son is the one that gets punished, several that consistently didn't give a shit about anybody that's not them get heaven forever?), but I could buy the sense that this was planned or that it had a point.

I can't help but remember that Chuck E. Cheese quote from the interview once linked to in this thread and not think the afterlife afterparty is the maximum expression of it.

I think that's a great post. Nice work.

Touching on the craft stuff - after we did ATTACK OF THE SHOW, Drew and I chatted a bit more, and I realized one scene this season epitomized the whole problem of the show for me:

Sun and Jin drown. Really well crafted, really well done scene. Very touching. Very tense. In the moment it's very good. But the second you give it ANY thought, it falls apart. Why would Jin not want to see his daughter? Why would Sun be okay with their daughter being an orphan? It's terrible once you've figured out the context.

That's the whole show, and even Drew - who defended the finale - said he doesn't know that he can ever rewatch the series because of the ending. LOST seems to be something that is worthwhile only during the ride. It can never be revisited.

I was going to throw a lame insult MikeI's way, but I think Wolcott pretty much summed it up. Well done.

EDIT: To piggyback on Devin's point, someone earlier mentioned that rather than focus on the overall story, the creators were too focused on individual seasons. I think we can agree that at times they were too focused on the commercial breaks.

The problem with the finale is that so much emphasis was put on the flash sideways and the belief that they would connect with the on island narrative and the battle with the MIB. Throughout season 6 I had the feeling that Desmond was rallying the Oceanic Crew to kick some major MIB ass, but it never happened. That is what is so disappointing. If they had manged to connect the two stories in a satisfying way, I wouldn't have had as big a problem with the finale.

This is something I've realized when I was recently asked if the show is worth checking out. I never had trouble recommending the series to anyone before, but now I feel I have to warn them that they might end up being disappointed. While I think the show has provided some great and exciting television, the fact that so much remained unanswered or murky by the end makes it hard for me to honestly recommend it without warning. I think that's something the writers may have overlooked. Some people will want to know that the show will amount to something before making the commitment to watch it.

And I think that good drama exists in the moment. I think the pain etched on Hurley's face after he finds out about Libby is real because I see the pain on his face is real and the fact that he gains a measure of happiness after he dies is really the last thing on my mind when I see it. When you read/watch Fellowship, is their loss diminished because you know Gandalf is coming back? And in that case he comes back while they're still alive.

I think the best drama comes from a payoff based on a culmination of moments.

i don't like taking it here, but from some of the "arguments" from the side that enjoyed the finale and are buying the series as a whole, i'm starting to question tastes in general. it seems so obvious to scrutinize the shittiness of the storytelling on Lost, that people on the other side of the fence are blowing my frigging mind. its gotta come down to the people that have been sucked in the whole time vs people who have had questions about all aspects of the show at various times but didn't feel like they detracted from the whole AT THE TIME. after the realization that Darlton appeared to be full of shit the whole time, it really makes these problems come back in my mind twofold. bad writing, sketchy acting, bad special effects, plot holes, occurances (that we assumed would be explained) pushing the plot and then never explained...etc etc..

That's fair. But how does that support the argument that the ending strips the preceding moments of their drama? Is it a less than satisfying ending? For me it's a less than satisfying conclusion to the sideways universe and thus to a large portion of Season 6. But the series of events that leads to, for instance, Charlie's hanging remains dramatic regardless.

When I watch the Flashsideways on rewatch... they will be cheapened for me. I still appreciate the insight they give in to the characters, but let's face it... the Flashsideways add nothing to the plot. They could be skipped over without any loss to the understanding of the Island story. They are enrichment only. Extra credit. All of which is one breath away from dead weight.

But it doesn't diminish the on-island stuff.

You're not wrong, but let's be honest, the show did a lot of very good things the first couple seasons. Yes, the cracks were always there, but we forgave them because something about the show caused us to become invested in it. The pilot was brilliant, I was sold, hook, line and sinker right there. And I assumed, wrongly, that something really interesting was going on beneath the surface, something for which my investment would ultimately pay off.

It seems like those defending the show are content to fill in the blanks of a sloppy and uneven narrative with whatever emotions and hackneyed pseudo-intellectual thoughts they bring to the table, but were never earned by the show itself.

Really though, we're banging heads against walls at this point. Devin and Wolcott have said about all that needs to be said.

I personally think that's a fair assessment. After the events of the finale, the rewatch value has gone down for me. Don't get me wrong...I still enjoyed it.

However, if someone had never seen LOST, and asked me if they should give it a shot, I would be all "Hell yeah!" Everything that came before is some fun shit. Hours and hours of "holy shit!" should not cancel out half a season, or for some, 15 mins of "whu?"

I just can't say I care much about the fine print on the Rules of Purgatory. If I were able to ask the show's creators 100 questions, I doubt it would make the list.

So when someone leads with it as one of their biggest gripes, it makes me think the show did a lot better than I would have guessed.

It isn't about the criticism, it's about the tone. Discussion wouldn't be as much fun without opposing viewpoints. The dismissive and condescending comments designed to shut down the conversation are both tedious and reflect poorly on the speaker. It would be great if those were limited to the trolls.

I'm not a scholar or anything, but shouldn't a story have something resembling a three act structure? A story has to have an arc. You need to have some sort of resolution, or final rest that makes sense in context - possibly a best sort of resolution dealing with the deepest philosophical questions and leaving the physical questions mysterious. Seriously, what's the point of setting up questions if you're not going to address them?

Based on the overriding majority in this thread, it seems like I'm a fucking retard for wasting 6 years watching this show and enjoying the finale.

OH, the butthurt.

don't worry, on page 149 we all realize how much fun we had discussing how horribly Lost ended, and then we follow Devin into a glowing port-a-potty.

lol just came in to post this gif but you beat me to it.

well played.

Here's a question for you: Throughtout the series, Smoke Monster is seen as a merciless killing machine, going for the kill as soon as possible, no questions asked. See the death of Mr Echo. So why didn't he kill Kate and Swayer in the finale, as soon as he found out Jack had replaced Jacob, and they were no longer candidates?

From the origin episode (which could be a full retcon), the idea I picked up was that all humans were regarded as chess pieces and he cleared away anything that either wasn't of use to him or was unprotected by Jacob.

I think Kate and Sawyer were a way of keeping tabs on what the other faction is up to? He mines Sawyer for info at the well before Sawyer elbows Ben and escapes. Then he notices the dog tracks (probably left there intentionally for him to follow) and forgets about going after Sawyer. And there's also the thing that he apparently can't change into smokey while anybody is looking at him (A sort of Schrodinger's Cat style thing maybe? Dual state being who collapses into one state or the other when observed), which would have been a great moment if he'd had Ben close his eyes and through Ben we hear Smokey's transformation.


Cheers

You mean Mr. Eko? Who, in his first encounter with the Smoke Monster, stared him down and lived to tell about it?

They were still candidates, despite what Sawyer said. Heck, Hurley ended up being the candidate. We can infer that they were still protected by the fact that he didn't kill them. That protection stopped at the same time he lost his powers, hence he and Jack being able to go gymkata on each other.

Lost in all the back-and-forth over minutae are simple things like how great Hurley and Ben's resolutions were. They've come so far...



And come on, even some of you haters will buy the DVDs for the Hurley n Ben spinoff, right?

http://www.sl-lost.com/2010/05/26/lo...th-hurley-ben/