Love the show. I expect to be disappointed by the ending.

"they will no longer be commenting on the show once it wraps up due to years of question carpet bombing on the subject" LOL yeah good luck with that one guys

"Will we learn why women can’t have babies on the island?"… it's because all the characters are already DEAD!!! 🙂

As much as I love the show, season 6 is a bit bittersweet since I feel that the whole season is a bit rushed, a nervous dash to the finishline to somehow wrap up the story. If they haven't spent a season chasing dead ends, or had a season cut short due to the writers' strike, would they have a more meaningful end to it? I doubt it- I regard the writers of Lost as a team of improv artists rather than having a masterplan from alpha to omega.

Still, at least it would have an epilogue, which is much better than what Twin Peaks got.

They've already answered why women can't have babies on the island: the island helps people heal at a supernatural rate and strengthens the immune system. On the island, a woman's body considers a fetus as a hostile invader and attacks it. Remember: Juliet tells us this and was researching how to stop it. As to the ending, I have to disagree with Hammerin' Hank; it would seem that there is a masterplan from Alpha to Omega. It's the little things that got lost in the shuffle along the way. Look, they've always said that they knew why things "are how they are" on the island, and frankly, they'd be crazy to write all this without knowing the major arcs/plot strokes. These aren't novices; it's obvious they've done their homework on the history of writing a series with a beginning/middle/end for American television. I'm sure I don't have to educate the sharp-as-a-razor Chud readership on the 2 schools of thought on this subject that sprang from the famous Straczinski/Carter clash of theory from the late 90's. To wit; Straczinski (Babylon 5) believed that you'd have to A) Know where the series was headed as far as an ending, and B) pay off the "mysteries" as you went, not saving them up for the "end" as an audience would lose interest and begin to doubt that the story they were emotionally engaged in was actually going to reward them with a satisfactory conclusion. Chris Carter (X Files) posited that the mysteries set up in a series would sustain interest, and the payoff of them, including any narrative conclusion, would play second fiddle. I think we all saw how that theory shook out for the X Files; people lost interest as the arc became more nebulous and contradictory, resulting in a conclusion that didn't even begin to pay off on the many dangling, unresolved plot threads. It seems to me that the Lost writers core has at followed, or were at least cognizant of these theories of writing a "closed arc" show, and have stuck closer to the Babylon 5 model (as well as hired some of that shows actors it would seem). Something else of interest in the same vein; Straczinski said that the biggest problem with getting to the finish line on a series with a preconstructed beginning, middle and end, after the threat of cancellation, was retaining your actors/characters for the full cycle. What happens if a major character quite/dies/can't return? He said that he wrote contingency plans into the major character's arcs (I think he called the "trap-doors") that would course correct in case of that situation, and indeed a few major actors on that show left over contract disputes and network-mandated changes. They got to the finish line, but a little differently than what was originally intended. This seems to have happened with Lost. A number of people point out that the Libby/Hurley thread may go unresolved, and I think Lost higher-ups said something to that effect recently. I bet this is because, as was publicized, the actress who played Libby, as well as that scowling chick who played AnaL, kept getting DUIs during their filming, and were let go, or something like that (I'm a little hazy on the facts here). Even if they don't answer every question/tie up every lose plot thread, it's still a major achievement for an American television show, where this kind of storytelling is rare. Outside of a few shows (the Prisoner comes to mind) a show with a thought out beginning/middle/end is rare in American TV (Britain's been doing it for decades, but they tend to write the show as only a season or two in length, which is more the norm for British TV). And of course, I could be wrong about all of this. It's just a theory, so F off nerds.

So we get a "yes" on questions no one gives a fuck about and a "no" on questions no one gives a fuck about. Brilliant.