LOST Discussion ***SPOILERS***

[St. Dubb]

I HIGHLY doubt the Christian we're seeing is the living body of Jack's father.

And just as a theory about Daniel, what if at one time he was at the same mental institution as Hurley?

[Benji]

Me and J were discussing it a while back, and we don't think there's anything wrong with Daniel beyond him having a short term memory (explaining his habit of telling people information as well as his unsureness), I believe if anyone we've met knew Libby before she crashed, it was him, I think that's why he's upset, but I don't believe he's spent any time at the institution himself.

[Dingle]

He was fine after the initial crash as shown in the mobisodes. So that doesn't really matter I don't think.

[PkmnTrainerJ]

Me and J were discussing it a while back, and we don't think there's anything wrong with Daniel beyond him having a short term memory (explaining his habit of telling people information as well as his unsureness), I believe if anyone we've met knew Libby before she crashed, it was him, I think that's why he's upset, but I don't believe he's spent any time at the institution himself.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Geeky J

[-A-]

I really hope they ditch this time travel nonsense as soon as possible, I absolutely detest it as a plot device and the holes are starting to appear already. Unfortunately it seems as if it's going to become quite central to the plot

[Benji]

I really hope they ditch this time travel nonsense as soon as possible, I absolutely detest it as a plot device and the holes are starting to appear already. Unfortunately it seems as if it's going to become quite central to the plot

Care to explain the holes? Personally I wasn't looking forward to time travel (although it did seem innevitable) but I LOVE the idea of "mind travel" as opposed to full on time travel, the way they've done it just feels more 'realistic'.

[Lord Nibbler]

That whole episode was fantastic.

[Dingle]

I agree. The whole "you can't change the future" and how Daniel did actually use Desmond as his Constant; although I don't see how he could be since they were only together for a certain amount of time most likely, were amazing because as much as things could EASILY go wrong, the LOST creators must have a reason for it so I'm looking forward to seeing how they use it elsewhere. I'm not up for it being dropped, just as long as it isn't a constant feature.

The scene with Penny and Desmond in her house was immense.

[Benji]

He didn't say you needed a person/item directly, just an 'item', to him, it's likely to be just the 'thought' of Desmond and his help and knowing he'd get to meet him and see where his experiments were headed. I think Desmond's contacting Penny was because he feared he'd lost her, so this was him "finding" his Constant so to speak.

[-A-]

I'll repost something I said on another forum, it's a few posts reassembled so there's some overlap:

Time travel just can't be satisfying as a system, it's never going to be consistent and it's always going to come across as a (lazy) storytelling device. There has never been a story/film/series that's used time travel in any remotely sensible way, it's inherently artificial and vague. To see a man of science like Daniel seriously addressing time travel ruined any sense I had that Lost was anchored in reality. I could accept mystical things going on on the island. I could accept spiritual people off the island talking about things that they believed in. I could accept DHARMA, scientific people, doing investigations into magnetism, genetics and time distortion, but people's minds travelling back in time? Lazy and unsatisfying.

If they're seriously proposing a storyline where the conscious minds of people can move in time, repossessing the minds of their past selves (and they might yet prove not to be) then I will see that as completely implausible and ill thought-out. The babble spewed by Daniel to try and explain what was happening jarred and made me think less of the character as a supposed scientist. The human mind, its consciousness, isn't some kind of radiation that can be feasibly transmitted through time when objects can't. For the brain of someone in the past to be able to continuously think like its future self would require Daniel's machine to rewire the brain of the past version, every neurone - which is clearly impossible given the limitations represented. Transporting minds back in time would still require substantial physical time travel at a ridiculous level of sophistication, trillions of atoms reconfigured from across time. It's even more unbelievable to me than the staple representation of time travel- a single object moving in one direction in time.

Time travel raises far too many ridiculous paradoxes and improbabilities (in a storyline sense.) For one - how were the two things that Desmond told Daniel in the past convincing to him? He seemed suspicious that it was a prank set up by a colleague, and yet Desmond persuaded him that he was from the future by knowing 1) the variables of one of his pieces of equipment and 2) the name of one of his rats. Someone listening at Daniel's door or having a peek through the window could have got that information! We, as viewers, don't question the information when future Daniel brings it up because we assume it's some woman from his past, but it's inconsequential information. If Daniel was a normal human being he would still assume that it was a prank, he's far too easily convinced.

If they pull a swerve and drop this time travel nonsense, or actually make this a cogent and sensible piece of fiction about it, then I'll be happy, but that episode was riddled with blatant storytelling devices and nonsensical babbling science. Again - if it had been simply time distortion, time passing faster in one area than another, then I could have believed it; but the idea that someone's consciousness, the personality rooted in the structure of your brain, can be scientifically induced (NOT mystically) to travel through time, I cannot accept.

How does this implausibility compare to something like the smoke monster? If it's a supposedly scientific machine producing that, then there isn't one, I need a believable explanation. If it's a spell, or a spirit, or something like that, then I can accept it, 'nuff said - ghosts and magic can't be rationally explained in the same way science can. I expect something that is represented as scientific to have a plausible explanation. If it doesn't have an explanation, then it's lazy and doesn't make sense.

Another comparison is the still unexplained representation of the plane splitting in half in mid-air. If the writers choose to explain that, then it can still make sense. If it's an oversight on the part of the special effects guys, then it's a mildly frustrating error and one that people will overanalyse on a programme like Lost. However, special effects monkeys are far less important to the programme than writers, and if writers make mistakes they mean a lot more than if images aren't strictly accurate. That's why 'people's personalities can be transported in time by a machine assembled in an Oxford lecturer's office' is more important that the image of a plane tearing in half.

'It's a television show' doesn't mean that complete insanity and implausibility can be excused. If the finale of the show was 'it was all a dream' people would be rightfully aggrieved, not just shrug and say 'it's a television show.'

[Boogey131]

I'll repost something I said on another forum, it's a few posts reassembled so there's some overlap:

Time travel just can't be satisfying as a system, it's never going to be consistent and it's always going to come across as a (lazy) storytelling device. There has never been a story/film/series that's used time travel in any remotely sensible way, it's inherently artificial and vague. To see a man of science like Daniel seriously addressing time travel ruined any sense I had that Lost was anchored in reality. I could accept mystical things going on on the island. I could accept spiritual people off the island talking about things that they believed in. I could accept DHARMA, scientific people, doing investigations into magnetism, genetics and time distortion, but people's minds travelling back in time? Lazy and unsatisfying.

If they're seriously proposing a storyline where the conscious minds of people can move in time, repossessing the minds of their past selves (and they might yet prove not to be) then I will see that as completely implausible and ill thought-out. The babble spewed by Daniel to try and explain what was happening jarred and made me think less of the character as a supposed scientist. The human mind, its consciousness, isn't some kind of radiation that can be feasibly transmitted through time when objects can't. For the brain of someone in the past to be able to continuously think like its future self would require Daniel's machine to rewire the brain of the past version, every neurone - which is clearly impossible given the limitations represented. Transporting minds back in time would still require substantial physical time travel at a ridiculous level of sophistication, trillions of atoms reconfigured from across time. It's even more unbelievable to me than the staple representation of time travel- a single object moving in one direction in time.

Time travel raises far too many ridiculous paradoxes and improbabilities (in a storyline sense.) For one - how were the two things that Desmond told Daniel in the past convincing to him? He seemed suspicious that it was a prank set up by a colleague, and yet Desmond persuaded him that he was from the future by knowing 1) the variables of one of his pieces of equipment and 2) the name of one of his rats. Someone listening at Daniel's door or having a peek through the window could have got that information! We, as viewers, don't question the information when future Daniel brings it up because we assume it's some woman from his past, but it's inconsequential information. If Daniel was a normal human being he would still assume that it was a prank, he's far too easily convinced.

If they pull a swerve and drop this time travel nonsense, or actually make this a cogent and sensible piece of fiction about it, then I'll be happy, but that episode was riddled with blatant storytelling devices and nonsensical babbling science. Again - if it had been simply time distortion, time passing faster in one area than another, then I could have believed it; but the idea that someone's consciousness, the personality rooted in the structure of your brain, can be scientifically induced (NOT mystically) to travel through time, I cannot accept.

How does this implausibility compare to something like the smoke monster? If it's a supposedly scientific machine producing that, then there isn't one, I need a believable explanation. If it's a spell, or a spirit, or something like that, then I can accept it, 'nuff said - ghosts and magic can't be rationally explained in the same way science can. I expect something that is represented as scientific to have a plausible explanation. If it doesn't have an explanation, then it's lazy and doesn't make sense.

Another comparison is the still unexplained representation of the plane splitting in half in mid-air. If the writers choose to explain that, then it can still make sense. If it's an oversight on the part of the special effects guys, then it's a mildly frustrating error and one that people will overanalyse on a programme like Lost. However, special effects monkeys are far less important to the programme than writers, and if writers make mistakes they mean a lot more than if images aren't strictly accurate. That's why 'people's personalities can be transported in time by a machine assembled in an Oxford lecturer's office' is more important that the image of a plane tearing in half.

'It's a television show' doesn't mean that complete insanity and implausibility can be excused. If the finale of the show was 'it was all a dream' people would be rightfully aggrieved, not just shrug and say 'it's a television show.'

[Lord Nibbler]

The babble spewed by Daniel to try and explain what was happening jarred and made me think less of the character as a supposed scientist. The human mind, its consciousness, isn't some kind of radiation that can be feasibly transmitted through time when objects can't. For the brain of someone in the past to be able to continuously think like its future self would require Daniel's machine to rewire the brain of the past version, every neurone - which is clearly impossible given the limitations represented. Transporting minds back in time would still require substantial physical time travel at a ridiculous level of sophistication, trillions of atoms reconfigured from across time. It's even more unbelievable to me than the staple representation of time travel- a single object moving in one direction in time.

[The Chief]

one thing i dont understand is, if desmond is good enough to be daniels constant...then why isnt daniel good enough to be desmonds?

[-A-]

I think you are over-analyising way too much and this is coming from a guy that debated on whether or not Hurley has longer hair this season for about half hour with a friend.

[Boogey131]

Why am I over-analysing with one post about a crucial storyline development and you aren't with a conversation about hair?

[-A-]

That was my point, even as somebody who analyses the show a little too unhealthily, I felt you took it too far.

[Lord Nibbler]

For one, I'll argue that nobody can know why would convince themselves that the person standing in front of them is a time traveller. Second, I still don't understand why he swung so quickly from assuming this was a prank by a colleague/student to believing. Regardless of whether he was aware whether someone else knew the rat's name, it's a tiny piece of information that could easily have been discovered by someone planning for a practical joke of that scale. I found Daniel a fascinating character before this, but seeing him convinced by such trivial information baffled me. That's the problem with plot holes caused by time travel - they have to be explained away by the characters making logical oversights, lessening the feeling that they're real people.

[-A-]

If somebody came up to me and said "I was sent here by a future version of you", and then told me something that only I knew, then I probably wouldn't believe them. If I was building a time machine and that happened, I'd consider it. Especially if the numbers that the guy gave me actually made it work.

[Boogey131]

I don't understand why this debate is taking place. I'm pointing out something that irritates me about the writing and rather than dispute the facts behind why it's bothering me, you feel the need to tell me it shouldn't because it doesn't bother you?

Edited March 5, 2008 by Boogey131

[Lord Nibbler]

That doesn't explain why he went from believing it was a prank one moment to suddenly accepting it the next. He was clearly sceptical when Desmond spoke to him, and when presented with knowledge that could easily be part of a prank, he abruptly changed tack.