*** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

[ODogg]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Since I'm only speculating of course... I think it all has to do with the fact that Desmond is the anomaly in all of this time travel/timeline thing.. he potentially has the potential to be the one who alters something

Because this entire story is Desmond's POV, his own reality and his story, no one else's.

[ODogg]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

I gotta say it would have made me see him in a different light. Shoot, the one shot made me look at him different. Everybody else we've seen him shoot has been an adult. While adult Ben is definetly the ultimate villian, they made child Ben look like a decent enough kid.

I'm sure Adolf was a nice kid too but would killing him be wrong just because he's a kid???

[ODogg]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Ben's tumor was below the gun shot wound. He suffered the tumor in his L4 vertebrae which is the lower back.

Gun shot wounds do not cause cancer. Or rather, they shouldn't.

I don't believe Ben ever had cancer, just a tumor. Or am I mistaken???

[RockinDaMike]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

I'm on the same boat as everyone thinking Ben is alive. This will trigger some type of War to go after The Others possibly.

I think why people have a gripe with Sayid method of shooting little Ben was because there is an assumption that Sayid's purpose is to kill Ben. He never clearly said "my purpose is to kill Ben Linas."

His purpose he said was to bring Ben to his people. Maybe there's truth to that he didn't mean to bring him to the Other's but to Sayid's people back on Dharmaville. Maybe Jack and Juliet come out of the woodwork and become surgeons to save Ben.

Maybe a a good reason why we see them in house arrest in the preview is when they find out who Jack and everyone really is after Jack does some super surgeon work from a janitor. Imagine the look on Jack's face having to save Ben's life the 2nd time.

Maybe this will trigger Ben how he feels about the others and Dharma and maybe prevent the purge from happening.

I think Sayid's time is almost up on the show. He finally realizes who is, a killer, but is the reason why he is "Lost" in the first place. Now that he knows who he is, he will now try to fufill his purpose in someway like saving the people of Dharma. Then I think Sayid will either meet his maker or the Smoke Monster.


EDIT: Sorry YP, didn't get a chance to read your last post while I was writing this. I agree with you of course.

[Brandon13]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

"Three years, no burning buses. Y'all are back for one day..."

I love Sawyer.

[fistofrage]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Maybe, Sayid didn't want to kill him. No one has mentioned that. Perhaps he purposely incapacitated him. He doesn't want to bring him to the Others camp, thinking that bringing him there is what causes Ben to become the leader of the place. Instead, "Let me shoot him (but not kill him), he'll end up hating the Others, and now he won't become the leader."

Granted this is a TV show. But if Sayid didn't want to kill him, he wouldn't have shot him mid torso 1 handed in the dark from 20 feet away, too much of a possibility of hitting a vital organ on accident.

Yes, I'm over analyzing the whole situation. But they focused so much on his ability to be precise with his killing action and this is anything but precise. Someone like me who just wanted to injure but look like I was trying to kill him him would hav gotten close and shot him in the upper right torso and hoped I did it right. If I wanted to kill him, I would have unloaded the clip McLovin style on the cruiser, "Brace yourself fool!". Had Sayid wanted to ensure his death, he would have done what Sayid does, a couple shots at close range into the vitals, if he didn't want to kill him, a single shot at close range into a precise location. We'll just have to see.

[Coug00]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Yeah there is no way he's dead.. can't remember if it was last season or season 3, but Ben said that the purge wasn't his decision specifically...but that he made a decision that led to the purge.. perhaps tonight with freeing Sayid that is gonna ultimately turn out to be what sets the wheels in motion

Maybe, Sayid didn't want to kill him. No one has mentioned that. Perhaps he purposely incapacitated him. He doesn't want to bring him to the Others camp, thinking that bringing him there is what causes Ben to become the leader of the place. Instead, "Let me shoot him (but not kill him), he'll end up hating the Others, and now he won't become the leader."

In a podcast the producers stated there are no alternate timelines in Lost and that the characters cannot change the past. They don't want to make the same mistakes Heroes made with going back in time to change the past and therefore completely changing their future selves who just went back in time (if that made any sense). So going by that, we know young Ben is still alive, because 2007 Ben is alive. It didn't matter if Sayid wanted to kill Ben or not, he cannot change what occurred between 1977 and 2007.

Since I'm only speculating of course... I think it all has to do with the fact that Desmond is the anomaly in all of this time travel/timeline thing.. he potentially has the potential to be the one who alters something

Lindelof said the in-ability to alter time was explained by Ms. Hawking in Flashes Before Your Eyes. This is a summary I found from Lostpedia...

Ms. Hawking decides that Desmond needs persuasion and brings him outside. She buys some chestnuts from a street vendor and points out a man wearing red shoes. Desmond theorizes that she is really his subconscious but she only smiles. Desmond says he is determined to marry Penny, but Ms. Hawking is confident that that won't happen. Suddenly, scaffolding falls on the man wearing red shoes, and Desmond accuses Ms. Hawking of knowing what would happen, asking why she didn't try to stop it. She says it was his fate to die and that no one can change their fate. If she warned him about the scaffolding, he would have been hit by a taxi, and if she had warned him about the taxi, he would have fallen in the shower and broken his neck. If someone manages to forestall fate, the universe will "course correct" itself and find another way of forcing them back on their prescribed path.

I had forgotten about that conversation until reading this. I agree with you...I think Faraday is correct that for some reason Desmond is special and the only one able to change history.

[ODogg]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

I agree with you...I think Faraday is correct that for some reason Desmond is special and the only one able to change history.

That is what I said, because Lost is taking place from Desmond's POV, he is the only character that can really change anything.

[CMH]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Coug00,

That's really my point. As I've said a few times here, I think everything is on one constant timeline.

When Ben is "caught" by the Losties in Season 2, he already knows who they are because he met them in 1977. When Sayid confronts him, Ben knew him because that's the man that shot him. All of this has already happened. We, the viewers, are merely following the lives of these people and seeing it as it happens to them. But, in time, those events already occured.

So, when I say that Sayid purposely did't kill Ben, I say that Sayid thought that he could change time. Just like everyone else thinks they can. Faraday tries to when he warns Charlotte to stay away from the Island. I think that was the key conversation. She met a already older Daniel in 1974 because Daniel tries to prevent her death when he travels back to 1974 (when he sees her running on the grass).

The same goes for Sayid. He keeps Ben alive, not having the will power to kill a boy (the whole episode was about Sayid giving up the gunslinger life), thinking that his purpose is to have Ben think that the Others are indeed hostile. Shoot the kid who thinks you're an Other and he stays away. Yay, Sayid saves the world.

Yet, that's not the case at all. Sayid, in an attempt to save the world, has instead only done what he was destined to do. His actions set the wheels in motion for Ben to be reborn and eventually become the leader of the Others.

How I see it (and apparently the producers have confirmed) there is no way to change the past. Instead, the actions taken to change what you know are the actions that actually cause the effect. It's one of things where you discover that having previous knowledge of the future only forces you to act on the things that create that future.

I still think Desmond is the most important character on the show. I think his unknown past will probably be the big game changer heading into the last season (if not then one of the big game changers). What that means exactly, I don't know. Can he change the past? Hawkings says no, Farday might prove otherwise. I can't wait to find out.

[fistofrage]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Coug00,

That's really my point. As I've said a few times here, I think everything is on one constant timeline.

When Ben is "caught" by the Losties in Season 2, he already knows who they are because he met them in 1977. When Sayid confronts him, Ben knew him because that's the man that shot him. All of this has already happened. We, the viewers, are merely following the lives of these people and seeing it as it happens to them. But, in time, those events already occured.

So, when I say that Sayid purposely did't kill Ben, I say that Sayid thought that he could change time. Just like everyone else thinks they can. Faraday tries to when he warns Charlotte to stay away from the Island. I think that was the key conversation. She met a already older Daniel in 1974 because Daniel tries to prevent her death when he travels back to 1974 (when he sees her running on the grass).

The same goes for Sayid. He keeps Ben alive, not having the will power to kill a boy (the whole episode was about Sayid giving up the gunslinger life), thinking that his purpose is to have Ben think that the Others are indeed hostile. Shoot the kid who thinks you're an Other and he stays away. Yay, Sayid saves the world.

Yet, that's not the case at all. Sayid, in an attempt to save the world, has instead only done what he was destined to do. His actions set the wheels in motion for Ben to be reborn and eventually become the leader of the Others.

How I see it (and apparently the producers have confirmed) there is no way to change the past. Instead, the actions taken to change what you know are the actions that actually cause the effect. It's one of things where you discover that having previous knowledge of the future only forces you to act on the things that create that future.

I still think Desmond is the most important character on the show. I think his unknown past will probably be the big game changer heading into the last season (if not then one of the big game changers). What that means exactly, I don't know. Can he change the past? Hawkings says no, Farday might prove otherwise. I can't wait to find out.

Thats the paradox though.

The Losties have altered the Hostiles/Dharma behavior by time traveling. They visited them in the past which altered future actions.

It still created a circular reference conflict with Locke. Locke goes back in time, meets Alpert & Widmore, etc. Alpert & Widmore go out of their way to ensure he's on flight 815. He was on flight 815, no need to guide him there. Thats why I think there is something with Locke having contact with the Island Before. Meaning Alpert & Widmore knew Locke guided him to the island, he got on flight 815 and then went back in time.

Another problem I have if we are on the same timeline then in theory the Losties could ride out from 1977 until 2004 if they don't flash. They have to make back on the flight right?

Another point.....The Losties did alter history, we just don't see it. They shot and killed people in the past. These weren't people we focused on, but people died by their hand. Widmore killed his buddy as a direct result of meeting the Losties. How could that not alter history?

[Cane_Mutiny]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Another point.....The Losties did alter history, we just don't see it. They shot and killed people in the past. These weren't people we focused on, but people died by their hand. Widmore killed his buddy as a direct result of meeting the Losties. How could that not alter history?

I don't think they altered history - those deaths were destined to occur and thus have always occured. What the Losties are doing in the 70s is what has always happened in the 70's, if you follow me. It's just that before the Losties didn't remember it because their sense time is extremely warped.

[CMH]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Thats the paradox though.

The Losties have altered the Hostiles/Dharma behavior by time traveling. They visited them in the past which altered future actions.

It still created a circular reference conflict with Locke. Locke goes back in time, meets Alpert & Widmore, etc. Alpert & Widmore go out of their way to ensure he's on flight 815. He was on flight 815, no need to guide him there. Thats why I think there is something with Locke having contact with the Island Before. Meaning Alpert & Widmore knew Locke guided him to the island, he got on flight 815 and then went back in time.

Another problem I have if we are on the same timeline then in theory the Losties could ride out from 1977 until 2004 if they don't flash. They have to make back on the flight right?

Another point.....The Losties did alter history, we just don't see it. They shot and killed people in the past. These weren't people we focused on, but people died by their hand. Widmore killed his buddy as a direct result of meeting the Losties. How could that not alter history?

I completely get where you're coming from, but I guess I'm not being clear enough with my point. I don't know how to put it. It's a difficult thing to explain because we think of time travel in a certain way.

The best I can do is answer your conflict by suggesting that it was never a conflict (again, only based on my thoughts. I'm not saying this is exactly right. Just a theory.) Widmore does kill his buddy, and yes that's a result of the Losties visiting 1954. My point is that in 1954 Widmore always kills his buddy as a result of meeting the Losties.

There was no other 1954 (again, going off my theory that time is constant). I see time not as a line, but a circle. There is no beginning and end. It's just there. If you thinkwithin that theory then it may become easier to understand how someone from 2007 could travel to 1954 without even being born yet.

So, no history was changed. History took place just as it always did. Widmore didn't suddenly remember John Locke because Locked visited him in 1954. Widmore always knew of John Locke because Locke visited him in 1954.

To understand my theory, you have to look past what we see as an audience. We're only witnessing the events that these people are seeing from the beginning to the end of their lives. But, in terms of time, there is no such thing. Locke was always in 1954 talking to Charles Widmore even before John Locke (the Locke we see on the show) experienced traveling to that point in time.

Also, the Losties in 1977 don't have to get back on Flight 815 in 2003, according to my theory. They are the people from Flight 815. For them, that's already happened.

How else can I break this down? Let's see. Hurley was three in 1977. In 1977, there is a Hurley on the Island and a toddler Hurley. Todler Hurley grows up and in 2003 he gets on Flight 815. Then that Hurley travels back in time to 1977 becoming the Hurley that was on the Island in 1977. So, there is always two Hurleys, until the older Hurley dies - whatever year that might happen. Older Hurley could potentially die in 1992, for all we know. But, in 1992, there is also still a younger Hurley that will eventually get on Flight 815.

So, if older Hurley doesn't die in 1992, and instead continues to live on the Island even through the Flight 815 crash, he could, if he chose, run into his younger self in 2003.

Of course, something is going to happen, because there is no story in finding out that the Losties were always just living their lives as it was supposed to happen. So, something dramatic needs to happen and that's where I think Desmond comes in. Desmond will find a way to alter something. Unless, the producers really just want the show to be about discovering that the Losties were always just following time as it's been given. Perhaps Season 6 will be like Season 1, but from their perspective, observing themselves walking on the Island for the first time. And the huge revelation will be like "The Others" (the movie with Nicole Kidman...good movie in my opinion...I won't spoil it if you haven't seen it. But watch it or read the spoiler because it'll help this all make sense) where we discover that everything we thought was actually backwards.

And that could explain the Adam and Eve bones they find. It could be two of them, dead after all those years after 1977.


edit: And yes, I realized as I was typing how weird it sounds that I just compared this show to a movie appropriately called "The Others."

[CMH]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

I don't think they altered history - those deaths were destined to occur and thus have always occured. What the Losties are doing in the 70s is what has always happened in the 70's, if you follow me. It's just that before the Losties didn't remember it because their sense time is extremely warped.

Yea. It's like this: let's say little Ben decided to write a diary in 1977 and talk about everything that's happened to him.

In Season 1, the Losties are walking around the jungle, "la di la di da" and suddenly Jack steps on a book. "Hmm, what's this?" he says. Jack opens it and his eyes widen in surprise. In it he reads:

Dear Diary,

Today I met a man named Jack Shepard. He's a nice guy. Probably a little too smart to be a janitor, but some people are good at pretending to be intelligent.

- Ben
August 4, 1977.

Obviously, that didn't happen. But, it could have basing this on the theory a few of us seem to be riding right now.


So, the only item we know of that could be a replacement for this is the Namaste photograph. But, Ben could have taken that down on his own so that the Losties wouldn't see it. We don't know yet.

[fistofrage]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

I completely get where you're coming from, but I guess I'm not being clear enough with my point. I don't know how to put it. It's a difficult thing to explain because we think of time travel in a certain way.

The best I can do is answer your conflict by suggesting that it was never a conflict (again, only based on my thoughts. I'm not saying this is exactly right. Just a theory.) Widmore does kill his buddy, and yes that's a result of the Losties visiting 1954. My point is that in 1954 Widmore always kills his buddy as a result of meeting the Losties.

There was no other 1954 (again, going off my theory that time is constant). I see time not as a line, but a circle. There is no beginning and end. It's just there. If you thinkwithin that theory then it may become easier to understand how someone from 2007 could travel to 1954 without even being born yet.

So, no history was changed. History took place just as it always did. Widmore didn't suddenly remember John Locke because Locked visited him in 1954. Widmore always knew of John Locke because Locke visited him in 1954.

."

I would agree if there was another dimension that 1954 with the Losties in it is the only 1954 that exists.

Where you might be contradicting yourself is where you mention the 2 Hurleys example. Completely agree id we are talking about multiple dimensions. But if you are talking about there being only 1 time line or in your reference one circle we are dealing with, there can only be 1 version of the person.

It gets too complicated to explain, but the 2007 Ben is the same person as the little Ben. We're just viewing them at different points along the line or circle because the story is focusing on the Losties who are time travelers.

Lets say there were people who were jumping through time, we wouldn't even realize it if we met them because if we met them it would be fact that they exited. We wouldn't have the opportunity to view through their eyes what happened in 2007 vs. 1977, it would be through our eyes and if we met them when we were children and then met them again when we were adults, yet they were the same age. SO be it. Crazy but we'd accept it as fact because it was true.

One last thing, I'll go back to Lockes conversation with Alpert. He tells him when and where to meet him as a child. He doesn't say Richard we'll meet when I'm a child and you'll give me a test.

I find that odd because its like Locke was trying to alter Richards actions to meet him. Not recalling that he had already met him as a child. Locke was instructing him where to find him as a child. Can someone explain that? because thats the issue with I'm having with Locke when he goes back in time he's trying to guide people or be guided yet whats happened to him to the point he jumps time has already happened and can't be unwritten.

[Coug00]

Re: *** LOST: Season 5 Discussion***

Where you might be contradicting yourself is where you mention the 2 Hurleys example. Completely agree id we are talking about multiple dimensions. But if you are talking about there being only 1 time line or in your reference one circle we are dealing with, there can only be 1 version of the person.

I disagree with this. Time is the constant, not the people in time. I think of each millisecond in time on the circle as a snapshot. Just because 30 year old Hurley travels back to 1977 doesn't mean 1 year old Hurley doesn't exist. If 1 year old Hurley ceases to exist, so does 30 year old Hurley. It just means there are two Hurley's at that same snapshot in time on the circle. That's my opinion anyways.

One last thing, I'll go back to Lockes conversation with Alpert. He tells him when and where to meet him as a child. He doesn't say Richard we'll meet when I'm a child and you'll give me a test.

I find that odd because its like Locke was trying to alter Richards actions to meet him. Not recalling that he had already met him as a child. Locke was instructing him where to find him as a child. Can someone explain that? because thats the issue with I'm having with Locke when he goes back in time he's trying to guide people or be guided yet whats happened to him to the point he jumps time has already happened and can't be unwritten.

I agree with you here. I think this part of the conversation where he told Alpert when/where to visit him was more for the viewer's memory of a past episode and not necessarily for the storyline. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense. Alpert visiting Locke already happened no matter what Locke did in 1954, he should still have the memory of Alpert visiting him, so he should know his actions in '54 didn't change the course of history. So there's no point in telling Alpert that in the context that he did.