The Variable
4:26 PM - Posted by Shelly - 1 comments

Well, Nathan called it. He called it all. From "oh, that's just Faraday and Miles at the door" to "Charles Widmore is his father," Nathan called all the surprises in last night's episode.

All in all, I was pleased with this episode. I am glad to have some back story on Daniel Faraday, and he has more depth as a character to me. Starting from the beginning, it seems as though there is a distinct lack of freedom in the Lost universe. I know that there is this whole fate vs. free will thing going on anyway, but to me, fate doesn’t rob you of your freedom. Destiny and fate things that will happen no matter what you do, whether you know about them or not. Telling someone that they have a purpose and then forcing them to live out that purpose is bondage, not freedom.

For example, if the guy wearing the red shoes was going to die, no matter what he or anyone else did to prevent it, it seems like acceptance and living his life the way he wanted would be acceptable to both the ideas of fate and free will.

So, it seems to me that forcing someone into their “destiny” defeats the purpose of destiny. Forcing the inevitable doesn’t make it an inevitable situation; it makes it a fact before the fact.

And that’s just the piano scene at the beginning!

My friend Lu basically said that Daniel had crappy parents and I agree. Eloise Hawking pushed Daniel into the life that she wanted him to have (or said he was supposed to have) without really having his welfare at heart. Their relationship can somewhat be compared to that of Jesus and God (bear with me a moment). Jesus had a destiny that was his purpose to fulfill. He knew that and accepted that. However, he was not told by God that he needed to live his whole life focused on dying for our sins and that he couldn’t have any friends and couldn’t have a life. Jesus was able to hang out with his friends and go to weddings and have good times. He didn’t have a cross sitting in front of his face all the time reminding him of his destiny and he didn’t have to hide his life from his Father because God would disapprove.

Daniel’s mother did not treat him the same way. As it is implied that Daniel’s destiny is imperative to the whole world, Mrs. Hawking pushed him and pushed him to that destiny at the cost of his own physical and mental health. And, uhem… I think Jesus’ destiny was a bit more imperative to the world and you don’t see God telling Jesus that he won’t be proud of him until he does exactly what God tells him to do. Anyway, Mrs. Hawking was selfish, no matter how much of the fate of the world she had in mind.

AND… let me point out another philosophy that applies: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” (or the one [tear]). Once again, there was free will and a choice in Spock’s decision to save the Enterprise. The needs of the many did outweigh Spock’s need, and it may have been his destiny to save everyone, but he still could have said no. Mrs. Hawking never seemed to give Daniel the chance to say no, nor did she instill in him at a young age his ability to do so.

But I digress…

Now, let me vent a few of my frustrations with this episode. First, I am again disappointed in the production values and continuity. It was clear in “Confirmed Dead” last season when Daniel was introduced that his hair was shorter, and wet, if not gelled back a little. While they used the same scene from “Confirmed Dead” to open the 2004 portion of his story, his hair went from short and sweaty to a little longer and wispy. Call it nit-picking on my part, but I call it lazy on production’s part. I mean Lost is better than that! And are they going to explain (on the show) why Ben said Charlotte was born in 1979, but she is clearly older than that since she’s showing up as a child in 1977?

I don’t know if I said it before, but I’ll say it now, I feel like now that the show has an end date, things are being rushed and the quality is lower than in the past.

Overall, though, it was a great episode. I would ask you to voice your thoughts, but you never do… so :p on you!!

“The Variable” bullet points:

  • Did Daniel really put Theresa Spencer in a coma? How does he remember it if his memory is messed up? Did someone else do it and blame Daniel?
  • Is Charles Widmore telling the truth when he says that he faked the plane wreckage?
  • Does Mrs. Hawking “remember” in the future that she shot and killed Daniel in 1977?
  • Are Charles Widmore and Eloise Hawking really Daniel’s biological parents or were they charge with raising him like Kate was with Aaron?
  • Why doesn’t Daniel have a British accent?



Dead is Dead
2:24 PM - Posted by Shelly - 1 comments
I didn't get to post my thoughts on "Dead is Dead" on Wednesday because of my very busy work week and the fact that our DVR didn't tape the last three minutes of Lost. We about died until we got to watch it the next day. 

Overall, I thought it was a good episode. Almost great, but just a tad shy. I thought the story was slightly weak, especially for a Ben-centric episode. And, I am getting frustrated with the ham-fisted delivery on "important"  lines, such as when Ben told young Ethan to be quiet. I understand that we as the audience need to know that the kid was Ethan, but the delivery was so obvious and unnatural. Michael Emerson has done better in delivering these type of lines in the past, and I thought he could have done better this time. 

This type of thing has been a problem all season. I have felt like either the acting or the directing has lost some quality. I wonder if, now that there is an end date, the story is actually being rushed to reach that finish line. Even if that is not the case, I do feel like the acting has become sub-par this year. 

Getting back to the story, I do appreciate that the writers are very able to answer a question/solve a mystery with very few lines. For example, when Ben took Alex from Danielle, he told her to run away should she ever hear whispers in the jungle, or else Alex would die. That explains so much of Rousseau's desire to stay away from the Others, for her lack of interaction with them and her experience with the whispers. I am very satisfied with how the writers are explaining these type of things. 

I was also very pleased with the info we got on Smokey, the smoke monster. Nathan pointed out the similarities between Ben's confrontation/judgement versus Mr. Eko's and the resulting death of Mr. Eko for not repenting. I have been upset with Smokey's judgement on Mr. Eko since it happened just because I understand and sympathize with Mr. Eko. I can understand his lack of repentance because he essentially sacrificed his entire life for his brother, Yemi, so that Yemi wouldn't have to become what Mr. Eko did. Still, I was glad and saddened to see the pain Ben felt when reviewing his life with Alex. 

When I finally got to watch the confrontation between Ben and "Alex," wow, that was just out of nowhere. Yay! Someone/something finally called Ben out, threw his selfish acts in his face and told him to straighten up, fly right, or die. End of story. That was definitely one of the best endings I have seen in a while. 

Here are my other bullet points from "Dead is Dead."
  • The door/passageway to summon Smokey was part of Ben's house. DHARMA built those houses, so what, if anything, did DHARMA know about that passageway or about Smokey?
  • Why does Ben not remember Jack, Kate, Hurley, et. al. from the DHARMA Imitative? Or is he lying?




Whatever Happened, Happened
9:54 PM - Posted by Shelly - 1 comments
I asked Nathan if he had any thoughts to share with the blog, and his response was, "Other than I was totally f-ing right and everyone else can suck it, no." So let's start there. 

Granted, we don't know for sure if Ben does die, but we do know that Richard Alpert does alter Ben in some way. Ben will "lose his innocence" and become changed. I suspect that this same type of change happened to Rousseau's people as well. It appears that Richard took Ben to the same place (the Temple?) that the French team descended after Montand lost his arm to Smokey. Using my mad geometry skills (thank you for Proofs, God) and logic, we can deduce that going into the Temple changes those who enter. It appears that next week is a Ben-centric episode and I am excited to see which pieces of the puzzle they give us in Ben's story. 

I also find it sad that Roger appeared to have a change of heart about Ben, but after being taken to Richard, there doesn't seem to be much hope of that relationship being reconciled. However, I love that Roger's character is being given more depth. 

And, I hate to admit it, but I liked this Kate-centric story. I am heartened to find that she (apparently) didn't come back to the island for Sawyer, but for Aaron. Damn me for possibly starting to like Kate!

It never ceases to amaze me how much you can tie Lost into emotional health/unhealth. Nathan and I had an interesting conversation about DHARMA Initiative Jack and his now "healthier" attitude. He doesn't seem to want to fix everything anymore to prove his worth and value. And, as the wise sage Gidget has said in the past, once an formerly unhealthy person starts acting healthy, the unhealthy around them don't like it. Kate, Juliet, etc. don't like Jack's new attitude of "I'm just going to do what I am supposed to do and I am not responsible for everyone else." I may like this new Jack. 

Finally, I love that the writers are asking/answering our time travel questions and using references to Back to the Future. As a sucker for a good time travel story, I am eating this mess up with a spoon. Thank you Hurley!!

Here are my bullet points for "Whatever Happened, Happened." If you're reading this, feel free to comment!
  • Who is really responsible for Evil Ben? Sayid for killing him? Juliet for suggesting he go to the Others? Kate and Sawyer for taking him there? Richard for accepting him and taking him to the Temple?
  • How do Charles Widmore and Eloise Hawking factor into the hierarchy of the Others? 


He's Our You
12:21 PM - Posted by Shelly - 1 comments
First, I would say that in the grander scheme of the story, this was not a throwaway episode. It seemed to set up some conflict between the Losties and the DHARMA Initiative (DI) folks. It also asked the question, "Why were they supposed to come back if it will only cause trouble?"

That being said, I found this to be a weak, if not irritating, episode. There have been few Sayid-centric episodes that have really added depth to his character and it just seems like we keep getting told "Sayid's capable of killing but has a heart of gold!" just as often as we're told "Jack's old man was an ass and therefore Jack has Daddy issues!”

I also was very disappointed in William Sanderson’s performance as Oldham. I have seen Sanderson in other roles, not the least of which was Larry of the infamous “Larry, Darryl and Darryl,” and I have considered him to be an adequate, if not good, actor. However, I felt like he was wooden and poorly spoken throughout his scene. I wasn’t convinced of anything other than the director grabbed some guy off the street and said “Read these lines!” and that’s what happened.

I decided long ago (actually, just after I saw “The Long Con”) that when these types of episodes happened, I would just trust the creators and hope for a better episode the next week. So that’s what I am going to do!

Other interesting thoughts from He’s Our You:
  • Sayid “created” evil Ben in killing him as a child. The Others took Ben’s body and was “resurrected.” But this resurrected Ben was changed. If Sayid hadn’t killed young Ben, Ben wouldn’t have grown up to be the way he was. (This is Nathan’s big theory and I like it!)
  • Interesting note: both Sayid and Mr. Eko killed someone/something for another person to spare them the trauma (possibly both were brothers?).