Lost: Season 5 (1 Viewer)

[Josh Dial]

As an aside, I just listened to the most recent podcast (for "Follow the Leader"), and Cuse and Lindelof settled the matter of what is and what isn't canon for once and for all (for those interested, it occurs about two-thirds through). According to the showrunners, the *only* thing that is to be taken as canon is the show itself--not the alternate reality games, not the comiccon stuff, et cetera. Therefore, anything outside of the show, that for example has "explained" the numbers, is not to be taken as canon.

Also, the podcast has an interesting question posed by a fan, regarding who is good and who is evil. In response, Lindelof shouts out a few names, and Cuse says whether they are good or bad. I'll list them here, but beware, there might be a spoiler in here:


Hurley=good
Kate=good
Richard=haven't decided
Frank=good
Sayid=bad (though he backtracks a little and says it could go either way--perhaps he made an "oopsie" and revealed too much?)
Jacob=good (though they were joking in the podcast that Jacob is a 60 foot man made of flame, so this could be a joke, too).

 

[Sam Favate]

This is a lengthy piece on the finale and the show, and discusses the many backgrounds, interpretations and possibilities of what we just saw. It's the best piece I have seen yet on this.

'Lost' recap: Starting over | Lost (Season 5 -- Episode 16: The Incident, Part 1) | 1 | TV Recaps | Totally 'Lost' | EW.com

As for Ben going to the smoke monster for forgiveness, remember that Ben kept visiting the cabin for guidance, but what we saw in the finale suggests to me that the anti-Jacob resided at the cabin (hence, when the ash circle was broken, he escaped), so Ben may have been mislead all this time. It could also be the anti-Jacob that asked Locke to "help me," which we can see, Locke has done. It also means that Claire is somewhere with the anti-Jacob forces.

Oh, and interesting historical relationships: Jacob's youngest son was named Benjamin, whose mother died in childbirth. And Jacob has a descendant named Aaron.

Apologies to those who saw the Battlestar spoiler (which I hope was somewhat vague). Won't happen again.

 

[NeilO]

It seemed implied to be something that The Others had done in the past and thus something which perhaps Richard had suggested in the past. I doubt it was something that Ben came up with on his own. Also, Ben never got any insights from the cabin. It was Richard who brought him lists from Jacob.

 

[Josh Dial]

This isn't exactly true. We've only seen Ben visit the cabin twice - the first time in "The Man Behind the Curtain," where (as we learned in "The Incident") he pretended to "talk" with Jacob, and the second time in "Cabin Fever," where Ben doesn't even go inside (Locke goes in solo).

I don't think Ben visited the cabin for guidance at all. While it's certainly possible that he took more than two trips to the cabin (as he "knew the way"), the finale made it clear that he Ben never actually met Jacob, *ever.* Recall the encounter in the shadow of the statue, when Ben said he waited 35 years to meet Jacob, yet Locke (or whatever was inside Locke) was marched right to him, as "if he were Moses."

If Ben had been to the cabin before for guidance, he definately knew it wasn't coming from Jacob, thus, I maintain he had never spoken to anyone at the cabin, Jacob's enemy included.

Everything Ben said and did regarding Jacob, was an act, plain and simple.

In my opinion, everything Ben has done has been on the heels of his ability to play people, think on his feet, and gather bits and pieces of information, and pretend he knows more than he does. Does he know how to call the smoke monster and move the island? Yes. Does he *know* the why they exist in the first place? I doubt it.

This is why Ben asks for forgiveness: because he truly desires it. It's a major event for the character--all he ever wanted was to "belong" and "lead" the Others, but it's all be a complex, albeit brilliant, charade. The result has been the death of his daughter, his exile, and countless other acts.

One could even argue that Ben has been manipulated, but by his own will--he *chose* to do everything he did. In this way, he's just as tragic a character as Locke is. It seems quite sad for a character to be used by, I'm saying Jacob's enemy at this point, but to also willingly go along with it.

 

[Mike Prades]

I love the paradoxical oxymoron-ness of this sentence. Simultaneous explosions in two different times indeed...

 

[TonyD]

What 2007 explosion?

 

[Jon_Are]

The hydrogen bomb explosion that Juliette triggered (assuming she actually did set it off).

 

[Jeff Cooper]

He's referring to the OP's guess that the crate the Ajira folk were carrying around had another bomb in it, and they were going to set it off at the same place, but in 2007.

 

[Josh Dial]

Joe is referring to something he thought was going to happen, not what actually happened. He had guessed that inside the Ajira case was another bomb, and that through a clever twist of fate, *both* bombs would go off at the same time, triggering some sort of "incident" that reunited the survivors.

It would have been a neat twist

 

[Tim Gerdes]

On the other hand, we only know that Ben was to be judged because he said he was to be judged. What we actually saw was Alex, presumably the smoke monster/Man #2, tell Ben to do whatever John Locke told him to do, namely to kill Jacob.

In fact, if Man #2 has been manipulating events to produce a dead John Locke to inhabit, he's surely been manipulating Ben to an even greater degree. It was Ben who actually moved the island, brought Locke's body back to the island and was manipulated by a manifestation of his dead daughter to obey "Locke" and kill Jacob.

 

[Marc_Sulinski]

One thing that might help with spoiler tags: if you are spoiling a different show that Lost, please indicate which show you are spoiling outside the tags.

 

[Josh Dial]

See my post here for my detailed guess.

In short, the reason Jacob's Enemy, in the guise of Chrisitan (or perhaps Christian is simply on his "team," like Richard is on Jacob's), talked to Locke in the cabin was to get him to move the island. He told Locke this was the only way to "save" it, and since that was high on Locke's priority list, he would probably believe anything.

Why move the island? So that those leaving, Jack, Kate, and the rest of the O6, would find it impossible to return. Of course, we know this wasn't as impossible as it seemed.

I'm not altogether convinced Jacob's enemy's plan was fully-formed at this point, and rather he was simply playing the game as it has always been: Jacob brings people to the island (for some reason which isn't clear yet) and his enemy disagrees with the choice (also for an unknown reason).

However, when Locke's body returned to the island, Jacob's enemy adapted, and saw an opening--the loophole. You could even make the case the loophole was extremely specific: perhaps not only did he need a body to inhabit (or whatever we are calling it), that body needed to be the leader of Jacob's followers. Maybe it was the plan the entire time to get Locke off the island, kill him (perhaps he was protected by Jacob whilst on the island), and bring him back. I don't think a determination can be made either way, at this point.

I assume the final season will explain it all

 

[Tim Gerdes]

This all makes sense, if it were not also "Christian" who basically helps Locke to stop the island's time shifts and get the Oceanic 6 back to the island.

I agree that "Christian's" early actions seem to favor Man #2, but then why help Locke bring the others back? If Man #2's plan were that intricately plotted, wouldn't he realize that by sending Locke away he'd be returning some of Jacob's key pieces to the board?

I will say this, in favor of your argument. If Locke really was being manipulated by "Man #2," then it seems that everything that happened on the island, from his miraculous ability to walk, to the discovery of the hatch was engineered--not by the island but by Man #2--to eventually bring about Locke's death. "Locke's" statement to Jacob in the finale, about "everything I did to get here" seems to support this. On the other hand, that seems like a very elaborate, highly detailed plan not to have also predicted the result of Locke's death bringing the Oceanic 6 back.

And if Locke was ultimately Man # 2's puppet, why did Jacob visit Locke at the moment of his paralysis? In fact it almost seemed as if Jacob resurrected Locke. But why?

I agree, I expect we'll find out next year. 2010 can't come fast enough

 

[ScottH]

Just got around to watching the finale.

I'm surprised there wasn't more discussion of Rose & Bernard. I thought their scene was interesting, particularly their comments about how "it's always something with you people." Or, "we traveled back in time 30 years and you're still finding ways to shoot eachother."

Makes you wonder...

 

[Scott McGillivray]

I was more impressed with their sense of mortality. It was sort of like they were saying, "what are you all going crazy about? You are all GOING TO DIE EVENTUALLY! Why not just enjoy the time you have!?"

Reminded me of "Braveheart" and his speech about running away to live only to die anyway without really living.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Been a very busy week for me so my opportunity to watch this show
came yesterday on my laptop as I was on an airplane.

My first reaction was "INCREDIBLE!" I mean, in the first minute of the show
we get the biggest reveal of the series and it is done in typical LOST manner,
without any fanfare, as if by sheer coincidence. (By the way, yet another
former DEADWOOD cast member appears in that scene).

On the one hand, I sit and watch what is unfolding before me still
not certain that this was all part of the initial gameplan that was laid
out at the series start. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that
this doesn't feel like the same show. Indeed. For me, it feels as if the
simple well laid-out storytelling about the mystery of the island has
turned into a showcase for the writers to interject as many twists and
surprises into each episode that you get the feeling all of it is last-minute
inclusion. The impression I get from reading forum discussions on the
show is that even when questions are answered, it gets too easy to point
back to previous seasons and find plot holes that don't support those
answers.

On the other hand, the biggest draw I find to this show is the way the
story is told. This week's finale is a prime example of the brilliance of
LOST storytelling. You are thrown a scene, have no idea what is
happening, and suddenly you are thrown a curve ball of a surprise.
The show looks and feels so polished, like a major action film, that
you quickly forget that this is a television series.

The finale this week was no doubt satisfying and frustrating for LOST
fans. Looking forward to next year's finale season.

 

[Josh Dial]

Interesting. I've actually found that virtually every question that gets addressed or anwered can actually be *supported* by previous episodes--almost like pieces of a puzzle falling into place (finally). Other than people forgetting or misunderstanding some events (which are both quite understandable given the scope of LOST), I don't see anyone really pointing out plot holes.

In fact, if you ask me, the underlying premise of LOST (if I'm guessing correctly as to what it is), has been both hinted at and outwardly stated since the pilot episode. The whole show reads like a who's-who of literary and visual arts symbolism.

I find it really quite impressive.

 

[NeilO]

I was glad to see them. I am thinking this might be the last time that we do see them. I think that while the rest of the 1977 Oceanic cast + Miles may be sent forward in time, Rose & Bernard are just going to finish off their lives at peace in the jungle with Vincent (remember there was dialogue that they needed to be near the blast). I am content with thinking that for the present time.

 

[Richard Travale]

Was there any significance in the book that Jacob was reading as Locke fell out of the window? The book was 'Everything that rises must converge' by Flannery O'Connor. I've never read it but I'm hoping someone else here has and can shed a little light here.
I hardly think the writers would make it that obvious what Jacob was reading without it meaning something.

 

[TonyD]

A collection of 9 short stories.

* "Everything That Rises Must Converge"
* "Greenleaf"
* "A View of the Woods"
* "The Enduring Chill"
* "The Comforts of Home"
* "The Lame Shall Enter First"
* "Revelation"
* "Parker's Back"
* "Judgment Day"

also from an article at ew.com.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1550...278837,00.html

"ABOUT THE BOOK: O’Connor, Catholic and Southern, was known for her ironic redemption stories. She had a penchant for violence but felt it was in keeping with the nature of revelation — that it comes upon you unexpectedly, shockingly, horribly. In her yarns, the righteous are skewed and exposed as hypocrites, while the worst sinners end up becoming unwitting or unwilling conduits for God’s grace. As for Everything That Rises..., reader Adam Sroufe sent me this quote from critic Madsen Hardy characterizing O’Connor’s ambition: ''O'Connor...claims that it is her specific goal to offer a glimpse of God's mystery and, thus, to lead readers — whom she sees as, for the most part, spiritually lost in the modern, secular world — back toward the path of redemption.'' That could indeed be Jacobesque, provided he’s good, and certainly fits into my Quibbling theory…"