Lost: Season 5 (1 Viewer)

[Greg*go]

*cough*

Loved the episode name, and Hurley speaking for the fans. This episode was finished months before it aired, so the writers knew exactly what the fans would be discussing, and provided an awesome commentary followed by the action that makes Ben who he is.

So far, Faraday's "Whatever happened, happened" theory is still holding true.

 

[Josh Dial]

The "he won't remember any of this" (in reference to Ben) was a major cheat, and I don't often call this show out on cheating. When Hurley brought up the notion of why Ben wouldn't have remembered everyone when Sayid went in to torture him could have simply been explained with "oh, Ben plays things close to the chest," but instead they whipped out a memory loss?

 

[TravisR]

You don't know what's going to happen to him though. He could be brain washed into thinking that he's a 'true' Other (which might explain why he's said he was born on the island) or he might have years of memory wiped out or they might just cheat and say that he forgot a day or two.

 

[EricW]

pretty sure he remembers his father when he kills him.

 

[Steve Y]

After Richard's speech about Ben's memory, I thought of the episode where members of Rousseau's team were "changed" (ostensibly) by the black smoke, and beacme ruthless and protective (?) of the temple. Whatever an "other" is, it's likely the same process.

I'm keeping an open mind about Ben "forgetting all about this" - very likely Richard was referring to the shooting itself. I agree that it seemed to be an easy way out of having Ben remember Sayid - considering that Miles and Hurley were discussing the paradox earlier in the episode - but until we understand exactly what Richard was talking about, we can't really call it "cheating". I understand how it could be perceived that way.

There's still a lot we don't understand about the temple, and the black smoke, and the kidnapped children... or what being an "other" means about one's relationship to time, or memory, or both. Maybe it's simpler than that.

I'm one of the few people (in the known universe) who enjoyed the six-episode arc at the beginning of Season 3, so it's been gratifying to see those episodes referenced and made more relevant by the last few episodes.

The speech between Miles and Hurley was great, and I'm glad they're giving all the characters something to do. Still, I cringed a bit at Hurley's questions, which mangled (to great comic effect) very simple time travel concepts, but the conversation might also confuse thousands of people fans haven't quite grasped Faraday's concept of determinism yet. (The pre-Desmond notion, anyway).

Next week looks all kinds of awesome.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

The Ben we know being the result of actions, or inactions, of the main cast is a nice, knife twist. The Miles and Hurley time travel discussion was great and the Ben paradox was quickly answered.

Ambivalent on character behaviours especially Jack - as a doctor he has an oath to uphold and Kate - to swing from hating Ben to wanting to save his life because of residual guilt/feeling about Aaron do not ring true.

Love the hook scene between Ben and Locke. First time Ben was speechless.

 

[Mikah Cerucco]

I have to give those of you who can say things like that props. I've yet to meet a simple time travel concept. If there's a method that only sends consciousness and not corporeal form, that's the one I'd get. Then you can't change anything that happened, just watch it unfold.That's the "simple" concept to me. Kyle Reese being sent back by John Connor to impregnate Sarah Connor, who is the mother of John Connor? I get exactly one level into recursion and give up. Because who was John's father that first time through the time line when Kyle Reese hadn't been sent back? I enjoy it much more when I don't think about such things, whether it's in movies, TSCC TV show, "Lost", or anything else.

For those of you who think the the concepts are simple, bravo. I sure hope you'll drop in occasionally and explain it to the rest of us. For that reason, I really enjoyed the Hurley/Miles discussion, but alas... when all was said and done, they basically ended not with a clariication, but with, "Yeah, we don't really get it either." The scene didn't end with either Hurley OR Miles winning that discussion from what I could see. Rather, what I saw was Miles made some points, and Hurley made a point. And in the end, we still don't know what the "rules" are. Determinism is a working definition at best.

Jack went Drago on Ben. If he dies, he dies.

Sayid's going to have a pretty interesting existence since he doesn't belong to the Others or Dharma.

The show somewhat redeems Ben by attributing his homicidal tunnel vision to his conversion process.

Lost has to be the most complex to follow show on TV, and it continues to generally reward its audience for their attention and patience, especially since the end date was set.

 

[TravisR]

Hurley's point is answered though when Richard says that Ben will forget what's happened to him. As of now anyway, the rules are that whatever happened, happened (as the episode is titled). The past is the past. If Jack and company did something in 1977, it was always that way. There is no Back To The Future-style alternate 1977 where Jack and company did not come to the island.

 

[NeilO]

I would have thought that with just the trauma of being shot, his mind might have wiped out some of it anyway. Going into the temple, though, would make it appear that more of his memory of the situation will be wiped out.

As far as the conversation between Miles and Hurley, I have seen most of Hurley's questions being posed on one Lost forum or another by someone.

 

[Mikah Cerucco]

I don't buy it, which isn't meant to be an antagonistic statement as much as it is an opening that allows me to explain why I don't get it in the hopes that you can explain to me why you do.

Who shot Ben the first time through 1977? It can't be Sayid as he hadn't been to the island yet in the original 1977. But eventually, he does it. The past changes. You can't get there from here.

From what I could see in the episode, they tried to explain it by saying that time isn't a straight line. I'm saying the explanation, as much effort as they spent on it (and I appreciated it), failed to explain. It did, however, give voice to the people like me who don't "get" it that at least we're not alone.

Ultimately, the time travel aspects are things I just ignore and move on. It doesn't prevent me from enjoying the show. I'm cool with that. I just really feel clueless as to how it makes sense to others. I'm not normally the dullest crayon in the box.

 

[BrettB]

Who were the two people that RA & an other mentioned at the end?

Good ep. but man, dangerously close to soap opera overlaod.

 

[Josh Dial]

Charles (Whidmore) and Ellie (Eloise Hawking).

For the record, Mikah's question "Who shot Ben the first time through 1977?" is quite valid, if the show's attempt to employ non-paradox time travel. As you move back through the regressions of time, you eventually come to the absolute original chain of events--this is generally referred to as the "n" timeline. Every subsequent timeline generated is referred to as "n+1, n+2, etc."

In "n," there is no Sayid shooting Ben, because it's the absolute beginning of the timeline. The Sayid from "n" will eventually travel back in time, to "n+1," and shoot the "n+1" young Ben, who grows up to be be tortured by n+1 Sayid. N+1 Sayid goes back in time and shoots n+2 Ben, and so on. However, as stated above, there is an "n" timeline, which, in 1977 had no visitors from the future.

There are, however, two "solutions," to this paradox:

- the show is using an obscure "time is infinite" theory, in which there is isn't an "n" timeline at all, and rather what has happened, has happened, infinitely backwards and forwards in time. There is no "ultimate original timeline." Of course, this raises similar questions to "what created God," and "what started the Big Bang?"

- the show is using the "exactly one timeline" model, in which there are no "n+x" timelines, merely "n." It's a subtle difference between the other solution, but the results are the same: an infinite loop which has no start or end point. Simply put, Sayid has always shot Ben in 1977. Of course, this again raises the question of why the infinite loop started, and the answer is that it wasn't started, per se, rather it has always been going on.

Some people, like myself, are fine with these issues and paradoxes. However, for the show-runners to state, like they did in a recent podcast, that they are avoiding paradox time travel, is false.

 

[Mike Williams]

Sayid was the one who originally shot Ben in 1977. He was the only one who ever shot him, because it was done in the past -- Ben's past.

 

[Josh Dial]

That only works if the show is working on a "time is infinite" premise, which, I guess it's possible for them to be doing.

Pick a timeline, any timeline. Who shot Ben in that timeline? Sayid. Okay, now look at shooter-Sayid's timeline (the one he came from). Who shot Ben there? A different Sayid. Okay, now look at *that* Sayid's timeline (the one *he* came from). Who shot Ben there? A different different Sayid.

The paradox is this: can you do this above scenerio infinitely? If so, that would entail an infinite universe, where reality has always been. In metaphysical terms, this would entail God/the Big Bang/your choice as being eternal and without cause. That is, nothing created God/nothing existed before the Big Bang. Reality is infinite.

No matter how you cut it, there is a paradox, which is what the show-runners said they were avoiding. Though, I guess it's not a paradox if you simply believe reality is infinite, which is fine by me.

 

[Matt^Brown]

I can't figure out the time but I do look forward to seeing Sayid after 10 years of running around on the island as a loner.

 

[Josh Dial]

The overall point I am trying to make is that the show's usage of timetravel is quite valid. The "what happened, happened" notion is interally logical for the show, and makes sense so far. However, I just felt the need to point out that there *is* a paradox, namely that reality is infinite. If Sayid always shoots Ben, then he *always* has shot him, and therefore there is no beginning point to reality/history of existence.

I'm fine with that.

 

[mattCR]

I must be one of the few who just takes the show as it is. Repeat to yourself: It's Just a Show, I should really just relax!

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed!

 

[TravisR]

Miles said that "time isn't a straight line for us anymore". In other words, they've moved through time but time is still a straight line.

If any of the characters had gone to the island as a child, they'd have seen their adult self when they went there. There's no version of time where they could go there and not see themselves as an adult.

 

[Steve Y]

I'll admit, you even lost me with this n+1 / infinite reality theory. While it sounds grounded in modern physics (which I find endlessly fascinating), it sounds more complicated than the explanation given by the show. The time-travelers are like fleas jumping around on an immovable record (so far).

When they first crashed on the island, in Season 1, evidence of their older selves probably already existed in the Dharma Camp (we just never saw it). I'll hazard a guess to say that some of the time-travelers might have already been on the island (thirty years older? sequestered somewhere?) when the original Flight 815 crashed on the island in Season 1. The idea that the survivors are manipulating themselves in the early seasons is a bit of a mind-wank.

Remember, according to the rules of the show, two versions of the same person can exist in the same time - remember Locke seeing the shaft of light from the hatch!

I was thinking about something else, too. Whatever affected Rousseau's group (the black smoke? or something else?) has also affected Claire, and will soon save / affect Ben Linus. We assumed that whatever made Ben "the way he is was due to his father's treatment of him. Richard called it a "loss of innocence", but I think that's only a general description of its after-effects.

What actually happens when you become an "other" is probably much more specific, and it makes you care about nothing but the protection of the island and the temple, at all costs. It would even drive you ruthlessly to murder. This effect likely costs you some of your humanity as well, because there's no way the "old" Claire would have ever abandoned her child, regardless of how much wisdom she "inhales".

Kind of creepy, really.