L o s t 1/25/06


#1

Show’s half over. I’m not diggin’ it tonight. I’m HOPING Charlie will redeem himself and destroy the rest of the drugs–but I’m not betting on this.

Oh, and I love the Libby-Hurly thing.


#2

Not diggin’ it either. But I don’t like Charlie too much.

Random - how are they finding all these tarps?!


#3

I wondered about the tarps too!

First, I really do think Charlie was about to destroy his drugs. I wish Locke had watched longer.

Second, for the first time tonight I didn’t like Locke. I wanted Charlie to wack him back.

Third…


#4

Third, Eko’s explanation of baptism was WAY out of wack. I was quite angry at the explaination he gave. I know this isn’t a forum to discuss religion, but I my point is if you’re going to portray Eko as a priest, get the theology right. It doesn’t take much to run a line of script past a theologian.


#5

You know, I wasn’t going to say it, but I could’ve done without the baptism thing. I think this is the only thing so far that has really rubbed me the wrong way.

I really don’t know what to make of this episode, but next week’s looks good!!


#6

Blah. Tonight’s episode. Blah.


#7

Kip, I realize your views. And I’m not Catholic. But Hollywood so rarely recognizes that many Americans are people of faith. I think it’s only reasonable and GOOD that LOST writers are incorporating a more realistic element into the survivors lives.

Okay, like anything about this is realistic, but…it is realistic that on a plane load of survivors you would have a drug addict dealing with withdrawal. It’s realistic that you would have someone like Claire acting on her psychic’s recommendations (as outlandish as I found THAT episode). It’s LESS realistic that you would have 3 murderers on a plane (Kate, Sawyer, Eko). And it’s highly realistic that you would have several people of faith relying on their faith in times of crisis.

But if the writers want to use religion in their scripts, they need a consultant to get things right. I’m suprised that with all the attention to detail, they would make such a blantant error.


#8

I wholeheartedly agree.


#9

LOL, guys… somebody find something interesting about the show! Any clues to anything?

I noticed when Charlie was trying to ‘save’ Aaron from inside the piano, they focused on is ‘FATE’ bands. Later to save Aaron, he said he needed to baptized… what if they kill off Claire?!


#10

I don’t know how you’re going to redeem Charlie with this episode.

Then again, Anna Lucia has Jack’s full attention after she murdered Shannon. :wacko:


#11

Oh, I totally agree. Most shows involve people turning against or questioning their beliefs. So for one to show someone actually finding faith (assumming the baptisms are the start for Claire and Aaron) is pretty rare, as far as I know. No problem there. My whole issue was them saying that a mother cannot be with her child after death without being baptized. Eh.

I love when people find something they believe in - religious or not. So, I hope I’m not saying something offensive to anyone.


#12

Well, I didn’t see Claire’s baptism as finding faith. More like a desperate act of protecting her baby, with no clear understanding of what it’s all about.

Anyway, my point was the writers did a poor job with this topic.

The rest of the episode seemed pointless, unless the outcast thing comes into play later on.


#13

Yup. Total filler episode.

I’m starting to think that the writers really have no clue what’s going on. Like Alias, they’re just making it up as they go along, hoping things will fit together without too much confusion.

I hope there’s a point in the long run… but I don’t know… maybe they’re just seeing how long they string us along.


#14

No offense taken, here. I personally wish they would told the truth with the whole baptism explination.

It just wasn’t a good show tonight. I feel horrible for Charlie.


#15

I thought Locke was bit out of character… Too posseive of Claire.


#16

There use to be a Sci-Fi show called Babylon 5. It ran for 5 seasons. What I liked about the show was the creator had a 5-year story arc written out before the pilot was filmed. That is, he KNEW how the series would play out and end from the very start. It was the audience that was left guessing. When the series ended, it was very satisfying. Yes, we wanted more, but the full story was told.

Then you have the X-files where the creator kept dragging it out season after season with no clear way to wrap it all up. By the 9th season, all, but the most rabid fans, had lost interest. The final episodes were lousey and unsatisfying.

I HOPE LOST doesn’t make the same mistake. The writers really need to sit down and decide where they are taking us. If we are still asking the same questions in season 5, the show will lose viewers.


#17

Welcome to DC.

And I agree. Locke seemed out of character to me. But maybe he was just tired of Charlie lying to him.


#18

We were watching the special features on season 1, and Im pretty sure the writers mentioned that when they came up with the rough draft of the show, they had the story arc for about the first four years of the show. Makes me wonder how it will be after that. :whistling

I really am enjoying the religious storylines. I agree- I didnt like how they handled the concept of baptism…but its so interesting because its an area that pop-culture tries to avoid.

A friend who also watches the show noticed something about last weeks episode (not sure if this was already mentioned)-but when the leader of the Others signaled for the other guy to bring Kate out, he called the guy “Alex”—which is the son of the French lady, right?


#19

The French Lady had a Daughter. You are right about the name but not the sex.


#20

I do not know what was worse, this eppisode, or the fact we will have to wait two weeks for a new eppisode. Sweeps does not start until next Thursday night so no new lost unitl the week after. We should then see 4 new shows in February and at the end of sweeps we will have a break again.